The Instigator
jm_notguilty
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
cameronl35
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

I will not contradict myself

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
jm_notguilty
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,089 times Debate No: 18803
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

jm_notguilty

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.
cameronl35

Con

Do you agree with the premise that states 1+1=2?

Are you really 14?

Do you believe in a god?

Is there a such thing as a universal moral?

Are you racist? Racist -a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Are you a democrat?

Are you for gay marriage?

Do I deserve to live?

Should people of a middle-eastern descent be killed?

Will you abide by every rule in this debate?

Do you worship a bible?

Do you support slavery?

Will you win this debate?
Debate Round No. 1
jm_notguilty

Pro

Do you agree with the premise that states 1+1=2?

- Yes.

Are you really 14?

- No.

Do you believe in a god?

- No.

Is there a such thing as a universal moral?

- Yes.

Are you racist? Racist -a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

- No.

Are you a democrat?

- Yes.

Are you for gay marriage?

- Yes.

Do I deserve to live?

- Yes.

Should people of a middle-eastern descent be killed?

- No.

Will you abide by every rule in this debate?

- Yes.

- - - -

Unfortunately, the next questions are against the regulations of this debate, and my opponent has failed to abide by rule #1 that states:

"1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions."

My opponent has asked me thirteen questions in the previous round, and not ten, therefore, this is a violation of rule #1 which affects rule #11.

Ergo, I'm sorry to say this, but my opponent has already lost due to this technicality. And even though I did contradict myself, it doesn't matter since rule #11 specifically states an 'automatical loss' for CON.

Therefore, Voters, vote PRO.


cameronl35

Con

My opponent states that I have not abided by rule number one, however there are several problems with this. In our last contradiction debate he broke a rule that was extremely unfair and he did not lose the debate. To say that I didn't abide by such a non-important rule is narrow-minded and picky. Moving on, the rule says I will ask ten, never saying that it can be only ten. So thus I did ask ten questions satisfying the rule. This does not violate the rule.

Contradiction 1: Rule 2 CLEARLY states that, "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." Pro did not answer all of my questions thus he did not abide by the rule! If my opponent brings up the argument that I stated before that rules shouldn't determine a victory because in the last round he broke a rule, then that still stands. However I asked "Will you abide by every rule in this debate?" and he responded "Yes." Since the rules clearly states that he will answer every question that I ask, and he did not, he has already lost and contradicted himself. Contradiction

Contradiction 2: I ask my opponent, "Are you racist?", and my opponent responded, "No." However, in the ninth question I asked "Should people of a middle-eastern descent be killed?", and he responded, "No." A descent is defined as "attack, invasion" by Merriam Websters. However if my opponent is not racist, then he must believe that people of a middle-eastern attack should be killed, or "to cause to be stopped". Contradiction

Contradiction 3: I asked, "Do I deserve to live", and my opponent responded with "Yes". However, he also said that he does not believe in a god, or that god does not exist. Live is defined as to attain eternal life. I can't attain eternal life without a god surely! Contradiction.

Furthermore, let's move on to the questions.

Do you practice social equality?

Do you believe in a universal moral?


Do you believe abortion is morally justifiable?



Does justice require the recognition of animal rights?

Do you?

Is anything true?

Are we debating?

Do you believe in a powerful ruler?

Do you require the recognition of animal rights?

Have I repeated myself in this debate?






Debate Round No. 2
jm_notguilty

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response. I'll begin this round with some quotes from my opponent to which I will respond to.

---

My opponent states that I have not abided by rule number one, however there are several problems with this. In our last contradiction debate he broke a rule that was extremely unfair and he did not lose the debate.

What? My opponent gave no evidence to support this statement and I'd like to remind him that outside debates are irrelevant to this, and this does not give my opponent the right to be immune to a rule stated in this debate.

Moving on, the rule says I will ask ten, never saying that it can be only ten. So thus I did ask ten questions satisfying the rule. This does not violate the rule.

All rules stated in the first round are very important, since it can violate rule #11, which can mean an automatical loss to CON.

Now, my opponent's defense is such a ludicrous, desperate and futile attempt to find a loophole on rule #1, rule #1 states that CON will ask PRO ten questions, the rule is clear as it can be, my opponent is playing with semantics here, he didn't ask ten questions, he asked thirteen, ergo, my opponent did not satisfy said rule but violated it, it's crystal clear.

---

Moving on to my opponent's arguments that I contradicted myself (Definition abuse, reminds me of me XD), again, it doesn't matter if I did contradict myself or if I refute them or not. But, just for the fun of it:

Contradiction 1 Rebuttal:

There is no concrete contradiction here, ladies and gentlemen, I did answer my opponent's questions, which was the first ten since they were the only relevant questions I'm obliged to answer, also, I actually answered the next three illegal questions by stating that it is against the rules. You cannot vote for CON for using this tactic to contradict me and at the same time violating the rules.

Contradiction 2 Rebuttal:

I kind of laughed at this, no offense, but this seriously doesn't make any sense, it's not even a contradiction, he says I contradicted myself on not being racist because I didn't believe middle-eastern attack should be killed? I'm confused, my opponent has not made a connection between racism and this phrase, so they are invalid. Rule #9 states that I (PRO) can use Merriam Webster's to define the words relating to a contradiction, and since CON's definition was baseless and he didn't actually have the authority to define it, I will now define 'descent' as a 'derivation from an ancestor'. Where's the contradiction there?

Contradiction 3 Rebuttal:

This is not a contradiction. My opponent never defined to which god he was referring to, or what type of god, and there was no evidence introduced on the connection between a god and having eternal life. This contradiction is invalid.


Like what I did previously, I will exercise my right based on rule #9, and define 'live' as 'to be alive and define 'god' (which was not capitalized) as a 'powerful ruler'.


NOTE: All definitions are based on Merriam Webster's

---

Again, I'd like to remind the voters that I've already won this debate due to a technicality where my opponent violated a rule (which results to an automatic loss), his reasons that I contradicted myself, though irrelevant and pointless, has already been disproved. His reason that I cheated on a previous debate is ridiculous and frivolous. Also, there's no point on answering all of CON's next questions, so, please extend these arguments.

Ergo, I again urge the voters, to vote PRO.
cameronl35

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

I would first like to say that I will not stoop to the level of my opponent as to try and negatively stigmatise him just to win a debate. It seems as if my opponent is somewhat angry, perhaps because he realized he contradicted himself? Who knows, but I find calling arguments "desperate and frivolous" and "laughing" at arguments just a little unprofessional. With all these aside, let's move on and I will explain why I have already won this sad debate.

I am not going to bring up last debate into this one, so I will not discuss this further just for the sake of making this debate more clear.

Why I did not break Rule #1, and why my opponent has broken the rules multiple times.
Not surprisingly, my opponent has continued to be nit-picky and narrow minded. He has stooped so far down as to not even answering my questions anymore! I find this poor ettiquete. Again Rule #1 clearly states:

1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.

Now did I ask ten questions? Yes I did, I just happened to exceed the amount stated in the rule by only THREE questions. Keep in mind my opponent has stopped debating over THREE questions. If this isn't self-explanatory enough, I will explain why I have not violated any rules
1. The rule never states that you MUST answer three questions, or that you can't EXCEED three questions.
2. If my opponent really wants to be that picky, then he might as well say that you can only ask ten over the course of all three rounds! Literally that's what it seems to imply for it never says ten for each round, it just says from rounds 1-3 I will ask ten.
3. I asked ten questions. You can go on and on saying that I asked more but for the last time it was never a requirement to only ask ten. I sufficiently asked ten questions regardless if three were extraneous or not.

Now that you have realized that I have broken no apparent rule, I will explain why my opponent has completely broken a rule. In question ten I stated "Will you abide by every in this debate?". My opponent responded "yes". However again I will state again that the rule #2 says:

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.

Again, regardless if the last three questions of the first round were illegal or not, for I will let the readers decide, there will still questions. The rules said he must answer ALL questions. Illegal questions fall under the category of "questions", no? Even if the readers and my opponents STILL disagree, my opponent didn't even answer to my ten questions in round 2! How was it illegal for me to ask ten questions in round 2?

So, has my opponent answered all of my questions? The answer is an obvious no. He said earlier that he will abide by every rule. If he has not abided by this rule that states he must answer all questions, then he has contradicted himself for he said he will abide by all rules.

My opponent has gotten smart apparently for he has decided to define all the words after I supplied a definition. I think this is unfair, however the rules clearly allow him to so he has successfully contorted my contentions thus now making me drop them.

Conclusion:

I will provide a brief summary of this debate and why exactly you should vote for me. My opponent has ruined this whole entire debate by claiming that I have broken a rule and has conceded to debate. In most debates, a concession is a win for the opposing side. My opponent has stopped debating over three questions, rather immature if you ask me. It has been very hard for me to point out contradictions since he hasn't answered more than half of my questions! However, one contradiction still stands even though he only answered one set of questions. He said he would abide by every rule, and it's obvious that he did not. So, who are you going to vote for? The debater that conceded debating and has based the whole thing off a "technicality" violation? I think you should read through the entire debate yourself and realize how absurd my opponent's claims have been. Thanks for reading and I urge a CON vote.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
jm_notguilty

Pro

The reason why there are rules, is for us to follow it, you are not immune to the rules and you playing with semantics is not accepyable, once you break a rule, you automatically lose. Unfortunately, I didn't ruin this debate, you did.

I really have no intention on debating a person who violates a rule further, if you want a rematch, you can comment on my profile in a few weeks.

Voters, please extend my previous arguments, I have clarified my position there already.
cameronl35

Con

However I just clarified how I did not break the rules and you actually did, thus you ruined the debate. If you have no intention of debating me further, then by all means I will summarize the debate in the next round and you can choose to do whatever. Since my opponent doesn't want to debate further all my arguments stand. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
jm_notguilty

Pro

Extend my previous arguments.

Again, the rules are crystal clear, my opponent has violated them at start, and therefore affectng rule #11 thus resulting to an automatic loss for him.

Cameronl35, I'm sorry it has got way out of track, I hope we've learned a lesson on following the rules.

Vote PRO.

cameronl35

Con

I would like to first say thanks to my opponent. I know it has not turned out to be what either one of us prefer, but we must comparse the debate and see who really came out on top. I still have all respect for you however I believe I have won this debate.

Conclusion:

This debate has came down one thing, who has broken the rules? My opponent claims I exceeded the limit by three however it all depends on your own literal interpretation. The rule states:

1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.

Does this rule ever state that we can not ask more, or maybe less? The answer is an obvious no. We also know so little of what this rule is trying to convey. It could be saying that throughout the three rounds you can only ask ten questions for it never specifies EACH round. We do not know the complete context of what the rule is trying to say thus completely conceding to debate is presumptious. From my intrepration exceeding ten questions does not break a rule since there is no rule that says you can't. The rule only says that you "will ask ten questions", so as long as I ask ten questions I have not broken any rule! I will let the judges decide on this point.

What was the point of this debate? The point was to determine if PRO was going to contradict himself, no? However my opponent stated himself that he will abide by every rule and he did not. The rule states:

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.

Again, has my opponent answered all of the questions that I have proposed? No. Even if the last three questions of the first round were illegal he didn't even bother to answer one out of my ten questions in the next round which by his definition were perfectly legal. Even if the three questions were illegal, he must answer all of CON's questions! It should be apparent that he has not abided by this rule and has not only triggered an automatic loss for himself, but contracted himself. Thus, I believe that he has contradicted himself causing him to lose the debate.

Voting Issues:

I don't normally do this, however this debate was pretty abstract. The voters my believe that I have never pointed out a crystal clear contradiction however I believe the rule-abiding one still stands. The voters also must realize tah he did not answer 13/23 questions that I proposed. His reasoning for not answering these questions is because they were "illegal", but as I have proven this is a false assumption because anyone can interpret this differently. He can not be so certain as to completely stop debating. As I have stated before, in most debates a concession is a win for the opposing side. Thus, due to the fact that my opponent has contradicted himself, broken a rule, and stopped debating over a "techinicality" issue, I urge a CON vote. Thank you readers and I apologize if it didn't turn out to be what you expected.

Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
jm_notguiltycameronl35Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Rules are rules.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
jm_notguiltycameronl35Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con violated the rules. Con tried to find a loophole in the rules, but failed. The rules clearly state that a rule break shall result in an automatic loss. Therefore, Pro won.