The Instigator
iTzDanneh
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

I will not contradict myself

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 690 times Debate No: 20284
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

iTzDanneh

Pro

Rules:
1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions per round.
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 IN THE SAME ROUND 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.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I agree to the terms of the debate.

1 - Have you ever mugged or been mugging, or plan on doing so?
2 - Have you ever brooded on a problem?
3 - Would you place friends above money?
4 - Have you ever woke up knowing you had an exam, and crammed for some last minute revision?
5 - Have you ever done an exam, feeling dread that you've done badly?
6 - Have you ever felt like you're going to do badly on an exam, and got upset or depressed because of it?
7 - Have you ever had a shot?
8 - Will you sing for a billion dollars?
9 - Do you enjoy the music of Charlie Sheen?
10 - Did you sing when that video was playing?
;
Debate Round No. 1
iTzDanneh

Pro

1 - Have you ever mugged or been mugging, or plan on doing so?
Yes
2 - Have you ever brooded on a problem?
Yes
3 - Would you place friends above money?
No
4 - Have you ever woke up knowing you had an exam, and crammed for some last minute revision?
No
5 - Have you ever done an exam, feeling dread that you've done badly?
Yes
6 - Have you ever felt like you're going to do badly on an exam, and got upset or depressed because of it?
Yes
7 - Have you ever had a shot?
At anything, Yes
8 - Will you sing for a billion dollars?
Yes
9 - Do you enjoy the music of Charlie Sheen?
No
10 - Did you sing when that video was playing?
I didnt watch the video.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

11. Do you play tennis?
12. Have you ever served?
13. Would you like to serve?
14. Are you familiar with knowing how to serve?
15. Do you want to dance?
16. Can you contradict yourself?
17. Will you contradict yourself?
18. Have you contradicted yourself?
19. Will you defend any truthful claims of contradiction?
20. Do you drink alcoholic beverages?
Debate Round No. 2
iTzDanneh

Pro

11. Do you play tennis?
Regularly, No. Have i ever, Yes.
12. Have you ever served?
In tennis, Yes.
13. Would you like to serve?
At this moment, No. Otherwise I have already served.
14. Are you familiar with knowing how to serve?
Yes.
15. Do you want to dance?
At this moment, Yes.
16. Can you contradict yourself?
Is it possible, Yes.
17. Will you contradict yourself?
In this debate, I hope not to.
18. Have you contradicted yourself?
Not to my knowlege.
19. Will you defend any truthful claims of contradiction?
I do not undersstand the question, Could you please rephraise.
20. Do you drink alcoholic beverages?
Yes
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Regarding question 19, the meaning was along the lines of will you concede any claims of contradiction even if you have knowingly contradicted yourself?

I also call contradictions:

Rule number 2 states that " ...PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct" He has broken that rule regarding the following

Referring to answer to question 7, my opponent did not answer with "Yes", "No", or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. Neither is his answer synonymous with the word "Yes".

Also, he does this in answer 12. The answer "At this moment, No. Otherwise I have already served." Means the same thing as "No" but he does not use the phrase: he justifies no, which would fall into the category of an explanation. This is not either of the three agreed upon legistation.

He also breaks rule number 2 in answer 19, as he admits that there is a correct answer to this question, but simply fails to grasp its meaning. He does not provide "Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct" either, and I fail to see any implication of an answer, or possibility of an answer via this answer.

Therefore, I conclude that my opponent has failed to follow the rules of the debate, and as per rule number ten, I propose that my opponent has lost the debate.

==================================================================================

21. Do you believe that 'there's time and a place'?
22. Will you admit defeat?
23. Do you base your judgements on the real world?
24. Are you a 'rationalist' person?
25. Will you do another one of these debates?
26. Do you even read?
27. Can you spot rhetorical questions, and know what rhetorical questions are?
28. Do you answer rhetorical questions?
29. What are the days of the week?
30. Do you know the Capital of Mexico?



http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
iTzDanneh

Pro

Rule number 2 states that " ...PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct"

The answers in question are:

7 - Have you ever had a shot?
At anything, Yes

12. Have you ever served?
In tennis, Yes.

I simply sated "at anything" and "in tennis" for clarification. You see, a straight yes wouldnt be completely correct because the question didnt directly state what it was referring to. In question 12 you could have been referring to volleyball, or food, So i was forced to clarify because your question was so broad. The same happened in question 7 because you could have been referring just to the debate. The rule states i have the right to explain if the answer wouldnt be completely true.

19. Will you defend any truthful claims of contradiction?

I do not undersstand the question, Could you please rephraise.

In this question i was forced to ask for clarification because the question was worded strange. Precedent set in almost every previous debate of this kind allows for this.[1][2] If I wernt allowed to ask for clarification to questions I didnt understand, the sanctity of this debate would be destroyed. The Con could ask completely contorted questions with, for example, quadruple negatives making it near inpossible to understand the true question.

==================================================================================
Question 19:
If you mean that I will concede when I have truly contradicted myself, Then Yes.

21. Do you believe that 'there's time and a place'?
Yes
22. Will you admit defeat?
If I am truly defeated, Yes
23. Do you base your judgements on the real world?
Yes
24. Are you a 'rationalist' person?
Yes
25. Will you do another one of these debates?
Yes
26. Do you even read?
Yes
27. Can you spot rhetorical questions, and know what rhetorical questions are?
Yes
28. Do you answer rhetorical questions?
No
29. What are the days of the week?
This is not a Yes or no question as mandated by the first rule, Please ask a different question in Yes/No form or forfiet.
30. Do you know the Capital of Mexico?
Yes


[1] http://www.debate.org...

[2] http://www.debate.org...


Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Rule breaking/Unfinished proof:

"I simply sated[sic]...the rules states[sic] i have the right to explain if the answer wouldnt[sic] be completely true."

I contest this point. The rules specifically state "Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.", not Yes, No, or an explanation as to why one answer would be completely correct. There is a requirement that states you must say why both answers are incorrect. My opponent stated why one was incorrect. Implications or not, he must state both.

" Precedent set in almost every previous debate of this kind allows for this."
I require a rule citation, or this is an ambiguous case which favours the party which agreed to the rules, not they who formed them.

" If I wernt[sic] allowed to ask for clarification to questions I didnt[sic] understand, the sanctity of this debate would be destroyed."

You could simply say "as neither yes nor no would be a correct answer due to the fact that I do not understand the question, I shall withdraw judgement, as I do not know if either answer is true or not" or "I do not know" could be added as a correct response to the ruleset, or "I do not know, therefore both may be correct, therefore both may be incorrect, therefore neither answer would be correct". Or any answer, really. However, if there is no rule citation still, I reject the argument from "sanctity of debate" or "precedent set" unless defended through rules given in this debate.

Therefore, I extend all previous challenges.

Contradictions

"
Do you base your judgements on the real world?
Yes"
This shows my opponent is an empiricist, placing judgement in the real and tested but not the thought process: This is called the empiricist thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience.

"Are you a 'rationalist' person?
Yes"
This shows my opponent is a rationalist, placing judgement a priori, or in the thought process but not the tested. This is called the rationalist thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.

These are basic requirements of the two positions (http://plato.stanford.edu...) (of which a dictionary alone is a poor source; the equivalent of learning about any issue purely via dictionary)

The two positions are contradictory. Therefore, my opponent is being contradictory. Therefore I claim he has lost as per rule rule 10 on this ground.


Also, my opponent answered that he does not answer rhetorical questions (A28) and said he can read (A26). Q26 was a rhetorical queston. He answered it. There are examples of where this is an obvious rhetorical question( http://www.swtor.com...) meaning my opponent has contradicted himself, and I claim he has lost on rule 10 on this ground.


I also claim that Q29 was a Yes/No question. The fact that it does not follow similar form of yes/no questions doesn't change much. However, since he said "please", I'll change the question to : 29. Do you respond to questions?
====================================================================================

31. Have you drank before?
32. Are you literate?
33. Can you spell all words that you know? Meaning, of the words that you know, can you spell them?
34. Have you ever revised before an exam?
35. Doth thou protest?
36. Doth thou protest too much?
37. Are you familiar with the works of Shakespeare?
38. What devil was't that thus hath cozen'd you at hoodman-blind?
39. Doth thou continue Once more unto the breach, dear friend, once more?
40. Would you say that I am showing off?
Debate Round No. 4
iTzDanneh

Pro

I contest this point. The rules specifically state "Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.", not Yes, No, or an explanation as to why one answer would be completely correct.

The argument is that i provided why "yes" wouldnt be completely correct but not "no". I'm sorry I did not explain this to you. I felt it was implied because I didnt answer no in the first place. If I had a shot at anything then the answer would be yes, but if you were talking about a specific activity then i would have answered no. Because your questions were so broad neither answer was completely correct. I simply clarified to be able to accurately answer the question. Lets look to an example by using his new question 29.

29. Do you respond to questions?
Not all of the time. (See, yes would be incorrect because there have been times when I havnt, And No would be incorrect because their have been times when i have. By asking such a broad question you imply an absolute, which leaves me to clarify because niether answer would be completely correct.

In his argument for question 19 hes saying no rule implies he is violating the sanctity of debate, But you'll find that if you look to logic i am right. If I wasnt able to ask for clarification there would be no point to even asking normal questions. I didnt understand and am able to ask for clarification. Their doesnt need to be a rule, it is simple logic.

Now on to ACTUAL claims of contradictions

He states that i cant place my judgments in the real world and rationality. Infact every judgment i make weighs tested results and rationality. I am allowed to pick rationality some of the time and the real world some of the time without be contradictory. His questions rely on him asking absolutes, but being so broad they are not absolute questions.


my opponent answered that he does not answer rhetorical questions (A28) and said he can read (A26). Q26 was a rhetorical queston.
How is a question with a mandatory answer a rhetorical question? The purpose of rhetorical questions is to prove a point furthermore they are not supposed to be answered. He did not ask the question to directly prove a point about me knowing how to read, and there was no way of knowing he was being sarcastic. As mandated by rule 1 and 2 questions are meant to be answered so their would be no way of him being able to ask a rhetorical question within the debate.

I also claim that Q29 was a Yes/No question.
29. What are the days of the week?
This is in no way a yes/no question. I do not understand your logic. The correct answer is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday/. Neither a yes or no would be correct because the answer is an absolute and provides no room for opinion. You are not asking me if I know the days of the week, You are asking me what they are.


Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Contesting point 1 : Ambiguity of rules

I failed to see the implication of the rules, nor do I see any rules stating strictly what i should do. Nor do I see any rules saying precedence is important. Nor do I see any rule saying that ambiguity is favourable to the rulesetter.

Regarding A29: your response is correct. "Not all of the time. (See, yes would be incorrect because there have been times when I havnt, And No would be incorrect because their have been times when i have... niether answer would be completely correct."

This explains why both answers yes or no are unfulfilled, therefore an explanation was needed why neither were valid. The explanation was necessary, lacking in many points, therefore I claim you have failed to abide by the rules of the debate on these grounds.

Contradictions

Q26 was rhetorical, therefore neither yes nor no was a valid answer. However, the question is still theoretically answerable. Therefore question was valid, yet the answer was invalid. Point stands.

Counterclaim:

All this is a moot point, as I was met with a response saying " Please ask a different question in Yes/No form or forfiet."


Conclusion:

I thank my opponent for the debate, and look forwards to debating him again.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheAntidoter 4 years ago
TheAntidoter
Almost sad that nobody voted on this. I would, But I do not have a cell phone.
Posted by iTzDanneh 4 years ago
iTzDanneh
You dont ask questions in round 4, Thats why i didn't answer.
No votes have been placed for this debate.