The Instigator
ishallannoyyo
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
2Pac
Con (against)
Losing
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 4 votes the winner is...
ishallannoyyo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 793 times Debate No: 26513
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

ishallannoyyo

Pro

This is a "I will not contradict myself debate." This will function the exact same as Mongeese's debate a while back. I have taken the liberty of copy-pasting the rules (no, this isn't plagarism) into this debate and the definition of contradiciton:

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org.........


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. PLEASE KEEP THE QUESTIONS APPROPRIATE FOR A SCHOOL SETTING

Thanks in advance to my worthy opponent!

2Pac

Con

Thank you very much for instigating this debate, I look forward to debating with my worthy opponent. First, before all else, I would like to address that my opponent, in his attempt to give the definition of contradiction, simply cited an entire site which is an invalid citation. Because of this, I will define contradiction:

[1]Contradiction: A proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something.

Question #1) Are the responses to my questions correct?

Question #2) Do you concur with the Hammurabi Code?

Question #3) Do you coincide with Christianity?

Question #4) Do you coincide with Buddhism beliefs and or Islam?

Question #5) Are you depressed?

Question #6) Do you consume alcoholic beverages?

Question #7) What is your age?

Question #8) Are each of your answers correct?

Question #9) Do you eternally tell the truth?

Question #10) Do you have 2 or more aliases?


Thanks in response to this debate. I wish my opponent the best of his luck.

Citations:

[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...




Debate Round No. 1
ishallannoyyo

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I accept the definition of contradiction, I failed to realize that Mongeese just posted Wikipedia, not a Wikipedia page with a definition. HOWEVER, MY OPPONENT HAS ALREADY BROKEN RULE 1: CON IS TO ASK 10 YES/NO QUESTIONS. QUESTION 7: WHAT IS YOUR AGE? IS NOT A YES/NO QUESTION, THUS CON AUTOMATICALLY LOSES BY RULE 11. However, in the spirit of debate we will continue to debate this topic, but voters should know that CON ESSENTIALLY HAS CONCEDED.

ANSWERS

Question #1) Are the responses to my questions correct?

Yes

Question #2) Do you concur with the Hammurabi Code?

I cannot fully answer this question as I concur with parts and disagree with others. Thus, my opponent will be allowed to post an extra question in the next round

Question #3) Do you coincide with Christianity?

See above question. My opponent can post twelve questions next round.

Question #4) Do you coincide with Buddhism beliefs and or Islam?

See above question. My opponent can post thirteen questions next round.


Question #5) Are you depressed?
Currently, No.

Question #6) Do you consume alcoholic beverages?
No.

Question #7) What is your age?
This is a violation of Rule 1. This counts as an automatic concession, but I am willing to continue to debate for fun, though voters will count this as a concession. My opponent may post fourteen questions next round.

Question #8) Are each of your answers correct?

Yes.

Question #9) Do you eternally tell the truth?

No.

Question #10) Do you have 2 or more aliases?

No.

2Pac

Con

I realized that I have broken the rule as shown by my opponent but for the sake of this debate, I will continue.

Contradictions

On question # 10, my opponent claims that he/she does not have 2 or more aliases. However, this is false as because my opponent is also known as Pro and the Instigator of this debate as shown by the tags beside his username within this debate. The definition of alias is [1]"an assumed or additional name." Therefore because my opponent answered with a fallacy, he hereby contradicts himself and this counts as a concession by my opponent until he is able to refute.


Following the contradiction, in rule 11, it does indeed state that if CON fails to abide by any rule then CON automatically loses. However within Rule 6, if PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, then PRO loses. Because the definition of automatic does not negate either rule over the other, it is unknown as to which side won the debate. Thus there lies a flaw within the rule because PRO's rule both support his position yet negate it at the same time, resulting in another contradiction. Per the rules of this debate, if PRO is found even once to have contradicted himself then there must be a vote decreed to CON.

Thanks in response.


Citations:
[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...



Debate Round No. 2
ishallannoyyo

Pro

I thank my opponent for his comments, though it appears my opponent is trying to worm his way out of a loss. My opponent is said Because the definition of automatic does not negate either rule over the other, it is unknown as to which side won that debate. First of all my opponent HAS BROKEN THE SAME RULE TWICE. It is round 2, my opponent should have posted 10 yes/no questions yet has failed to do so. Thus, it is an automatic loss. Second, my opponent broke the rule first. Had I just stopped the debate there, I would’ve won. Thirdly, my opponent has said I realized that I have broken the rule as shown by my opponent but for the sake of this debate, I will continue. This sounds like a concession, yet it seems my opponent is trying to worm his way out of a concession by pointing out that if I contradict myself, my opponent wins and thus they cancel out.


Anyways, my opponent has broken the same rule twice in a row and thus automatically loses, yet I will refute the “contradiction” my opponent thinks he has found. I ask voters to take into consideration rule-breaking when they vote.



My opponent claims that I have contradicted myself. I said that I don’t have 2 or more aliases, yet he claims “Pro” and “the Instigator” are “assumed or additional names.” Through the definition of alias, we see that it is targeted towards a person, and it is targeted towards me. My opponent is suggesting that I have assumed the additional name of Pro and the Instigator. This is false for two main reasons, first through Merriam-Webster we see that a “name” is “a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a person or a thing.” In this case, clearly a person. Yet, clearly “Pro” and the “Instigator” are not distinctively designated to ME, they are designated to the left/right side and people. The left side will always be the Instigator, I will not always be Pro, thus these cannot be designated to me. They do not make me distinctive, as the definition of distinctively. Secondly, I have not assumed the title of the Instigator or the title of Pro. A definition of assume is “usurp”. The definition of usurp is “to take the place of by or as if by force.” And I have clearly not done that, thus I have not assumed the addition name of Pro or the Instigator.



I have shown why I have not contradicted myself, and my opponent has broken the rules TWICE. Thus, it is a clear and easy vote PRO.



Sources:



  1. www.merriam-webster.com


2Pac

Con

2Pac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ishallannoyyo

Pro

Extend arguments.
2Pac

Con

2Pac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ishallannoyyo

Pro

Extend arguments. This is a clear and easy win for PRO.
2Pac

Con

2Pac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 2Pac 4 years ago
2Pac
I sense that you are angry at me. Is it because I'm denying my concession? It is after all my job as the opponent to try to defend my position any way necessary, so I'm just obligating by my duty as your opponent. I would request a more considerate behavior for I find your response somewhat provoking. Thanks in response.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
No, I'm not forfeiting. I will point out your blatant rule violations, request the win, refute your argument, the just say "Extend arguments" and know that people will vote for me as you broke the rule twice.
Posted by 2Pac 4 years ago
2Pac
Which means you forfeit? I would like to debate this topic to the end without any forfeits.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
You broke the same rule twice. I'm will no longer debate this topic with you after I refute your "alias" contradiction.
Posted by 2Pac 4 years ago
2Pac
You could take it either way; I just stick to my swords. It's my objective and interest to win this debate and to strike at any open spot I can.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
2Pac, are you trying to worm your way out of a concession??
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
It's ok emo, you did pretty good until I got that semantic word-play in ;)
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
I really wanna take this but he beat me bad in the last one.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TigerTime 4 years ago
TigerTime
ishallannoyyo2PacTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
ishallannoyyo2PacTied
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: Full forfeit by Con.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
ishallannoyyo2PacTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
ishallannoyyo2PacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: FF.