The Instigator
cameronl35
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

I will not contradict myself

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
jm_notguilty
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 743 times Debate No: 18750
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

cameronl35

Pro

Rules:
1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.
2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.
3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.
4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.
5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.
6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.
7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.
8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.
9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked.
http://www.merriam-webster.com......
10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.
11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.
12. Before posting his or her Round 2 argument, CON must challenge PRO to a debate that is an exact copy of this debate, except that Rule 12 must be absent.

Let the debate begin!
jm_notguilty

Con

Challenge accepted, let’s begin.

  1. Are you a homosexual?
  2. Is killing never morally acceptable?
  3. Do you really live in California?
  4. Do you enjoy looking at attractive women and their lady parts?
  5. Do you enjoy looking at boobs?
  6. Have you ever picked flowers freely?
  7. Do you consider the Bible or the Koran an authoritative document?
  8. Do you believe that judging people on their intelligence just by observing them is wrong?
  9. Are you a law-abiding person?
  10. Do you enjoy being happy?

Done for now, good luck.

Debate Round No. 1
cameronl35

Pro

Are you a homosexual?
No.
Is killing never morally acceptable?
No.
Do you really live in California?
Yes.
Do you enjoy looking at attractive women and their lady parts?
Yes.
Do you enjoy looking at boobs?
According to Merriam Webster, boobs is defined as a stupid awkward person. Therefore, no I do not enjoy looking at boobs.
Have you ever picked flowers freely?
Yes.
Do you consider the Bible or the Koran an authoritative document?
Yes.
Do you believe that judging people on their intelligence just by observing them is wrong?
Yes.
Are you a law-abiding person?
Yes. According to Merriam Webster's to abide is to accept without objection
Do you enjoy being happy?
Yes.
jm_notguilty

Con


Thanks for the response.




  1. Thanks for answering my first question in round one question. Now, moving on, have you ever been gay?

  2. Did you respond to my very first statement?

  3. Are there any false statements in the Bible or Koran?

  4. Do you like to sexually objectify women?

  5. Are you sexist?

  6. Do you believe that homosexuals should be killed?

  7. Is it acceptable to beat your wife?

  8. Are you in favour of the death penalty?

  9. Do you object to dumb policies (or laws, rules & regulations)?

  10. Do you enjoy looking at women’s breasts?


Debate Round No. 2
cameronl35

Pro

1. According to Merriam Webster's, gay is defined as happily excited. Therefore yes, I have been gay in that definition.

2. Your first statement of this round was "Thanks for the response." Therefore, no I didn't respond to your statement.

3. I believe there are false statements in the Bible or Koran, yes. Let me also say that I never said that I abide by the Bible or Koran, I just believe it is authoritative. Doesn't have to pertain to me.

4. Objectify as defined by Merriam Webster's is to give expression to (as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others). Therefore, yes I do.

5. Sexist is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex. Therefore, no I am not sexist.

6. No, I do not believe that homosexuals should be killed.


7. To beat is defined as to strike repeatedly. Accepted is defined as capable or worthy of being accepted. So I do not believe that it is worthy to accept beating your wife.

8. Yes, I am in favor of the death penalty.

9. Yes I do object to dumb policies (or laws, rules and regulations). To object (verb) is defined as to feel distaste for something. Therefore of course I feel distaste for something dumb! This is only logical.

10. A breast is defined as either of the pair of mammary glands extending from the front of the chest in pubescent and adult human females and some other mammals. However there is something completely wrong about this question. It speaks in the plural form. I have no idea how many women and which women he is talking about. It does not say "any" women. Therefore in the case of all women, no. But in the case of any woman, yes. This question is invalid and should be dropped.

Since will have no rebuttal to my opponent's claims for he has not said any yet, I would like to solidify my answers in this debate.

His second question in the first round is: "Is killing never morally acceptable?" However he does not specify if killing HUMANS is morally acceptable. Therefore I must assume there are certain situations in which killing can be acceptable. One is the lack of intention. If I walk on the street, and accidentally step on an ant, this is acceptable for I had no intention and even no idea I was about to kill one. Another example is self-defense. If I am being killed for no apparent reason, it is only moral to protect my own life and this response is completely solidified.

If a woman is attractive, then of course I enjoy looking at her. Again this is completely logical. Even if I was a homosexual, this doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy looking at a woman who is attractive. Again lady parts do not refer to all the parts, just more than one, so the answer is solidified.

In response to the flowers question, I have picked flowers freely in my own backyard. No apparent problem here.

Ah, now what I believe the opponent will attack me on. "Do you consider the Bible or the Koran an authoritative document?" I think he was trying to ask is this authoritative over me, but this a totally different question. All I have to say to justify this is that I believe it is authoritative over many other people, therefore it is authoritative. Any atheist or theist who denies this is completely illogical. Answer SOLIDIFIED.

Moving on to the judging people on intelligence question. To judge is defined as to form an opinion. So if you are forming an opinion JUST by observing them, it is wrong because you can be inaccurate. Just is defined as very recently. You can not quickly observe someone and get a certain answer on whether someone is intelligent or not. Therefore it is generally wrong and my answer still stands.

Lastly, law-abiding is defined as abiding by or obedient to the law. I do abide by laws (never specifies what laws) and I am obedient to them. If he is referring to federal laws, I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but I abide by them and do not break them. For my opponent to say I break them would be illogical and completely false. Thus this answer stands.

So due to the fact that I have solidified every response and not contradicting myself yet, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot. I would also like to point out that you are not allowed to point out new contradictions in "round 5", but since this is a 3 round debate, the last round. Therefore, I believe I have won this debate and urge an affirmative ballot.











jm_notguilty

Con

I thank my opponent for his last response and his defense.

Here are the contradictions my opponent missed and failed to defend: (Please take note of abbreviation, for ex: R0Q0 = Round Zero, Question Zero)

C1: The Law-abiding Contradiction

In R1Q9, I asked my opponent if he’s a law-abiding citizen, to which he answered ‘yes’, and he defined ‘law-abiding’ as abiding or obedient to the law, and to specify things more, he even defined 'abide' as to accept without objection. But, in R2Q9, I asked him if he objects to dumb laws, to which he answered ‘yes’. If he really is law-abiding, if he really accepts the law without objection, then he shouldn’t object to dumb laws. Contradiction.

C2: The ‘Authoritative’ Contradiction

In R1Q7, I asked my opponent if he considers the Bible or the Koran authoritative documents, to which he said ‘yes’, my opponent never defined ‘authoritative’, which is a mistake. ‘Authoritative’ is defined (by the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary) as clearly accurate or knowledgeable, so technically, I questioned my opponent on the Bible or the Koran’s accuracy. Now, for my R2Q3 question, I asked if there are false statements in the Bible or Koran, to which he says ‘yes’, so he contradicted himself on agreeing that a Religious document is accurate but also agrees that there are false statements in it, which is a contradiction on the accuracy of said item, so bottom line, an authoritative document cannot be considered accurate if it’s got false statements in it. Contradiction.

C3: The Sexism Contradiction

In R1Q4 concerning my opponent’s answer if he enjoys looking at women’s lady parts, and in connection of R2Q10, concerning my opponent’s answer if he enjoys looking at women’s breasts, any person would know that I’m talking about women in general, but my opponent did say ‘yes’ to both, so that supports his R2Q4 statement in which he ‘objectifies’ women. And in R2Q4, I asked if my opponent is sexist, to which he says no, but sexual objectification may be considered sexist {http://en.wikipedia.org...}. And by my opponent’s definition of ‘objectify’, meaning to give expression to (as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others, he forgot to put the adverb ‘sexually’, and make it experienced from others sexually. This can be synonymous to treating someone as a sex object, which is blatant sexual objectification sexism.

C4: Death Penalty Contradiction

In R2Q6, I asked if he believes that homosexuals should be killed, to which he answers ‘no’, and in R2Q8 I asked if he’s in favour of capital punishment to which he answered ‘yes’. Now, I did not specify if homosexuals should be killed by what or on what reason, and my opponent really didn’t clarify his stand on these issues, so I sense a contradiction.

I couldn’t find a definition of the death penalty in the online Merriam Webster’s, so I’ll use a different source. The death Penalty is defined as the sentence of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense. {http://en.wikipedia.org...}. Homosexuality is considered a capital offense and punishable by death in Saudi Arabia {http://en.wikipedia.org...}.

Now, this means that if he really is in favour of the death penalty, then he must accept and believe that gay people should be killed (via DP) because it is considered as a serious offense. Contradiction

---


Now, it’s sad that this is only a 3-round debate instead of the 5-rounder as said in the rules, and my opponent can’t reply these accusations, so since 1 contradiction is enough to negate the resolution, I urge the voters to vote CON.

Thank you, cameronl35 for making this debate, and thank you, readers, for reading and voting.

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
I know, I'll try to get to that asap
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
There's still that contradiction debate where you ask and I answer, goodluck! XD
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
I know, I wanted it to be 3, and I originally just had the rules as "same as other contradict debates" and copy and pasted one without paying attention to the round number. I apologize :(
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
I didn't realize that there are only 3 rounds once I posted R1 (Since the rules stated 5 rounds), obviously this was a mistake by the instigator, nothing unjust here. rd feelings ^^.
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
Obviously it was completely unfair for my opponent to call out so many contradictions in the last round, for I would have no response to them. I believe this is unjust..
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
For rule 12, I have to debate you on another Contradiction debate, please accept. :)
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
Does that help? :)
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Which "other contradict debates"? I've seen a plurality of formats so it might pay to provide an example.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
cameronl35jm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro automatically wins because Con used Wiki for a definition but Pro's rules states only Merriam-Webster so Con's whole rebuttal is dismissed and Pro automatically wins.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
cameronl35jm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice work by JM.
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
cameronl35jm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The Law-abiding contradiction stands.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
cameronl35jm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The DP one was questionable, but good job on the rest.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
cameronl35jm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Cleaver
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
cameronl35jm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Clever on the part of CON for the homosexual/death penalty contradiction. As well, there were other clear contradictions as well.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
cameronl35jm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Contradictions are apparent in Pro's responses on both being a law-abiding citizen and on whether or not homosexuals should be killed.