The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
GreatDebateMate
Con (against)
Winning
13 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,448 times Debate No: 12489
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

mongeese

Pro

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.
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 CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses.
6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses.
7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.
8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.
9. 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.
10. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.
11. 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...
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.

Good luck.
GreatDebateMate

Con

Q1: Do objective moral standards exist?
Q2: Is Atheism, like religion, a faith because you can't prove the non-existence of god?
Q3: Are judgments about works of art are purely subjective?
Q4: Are "alternative" medicines as valuable as conventional medicine?
Q5: Is Capitalism the best system, or least bad, because it leads to high consumer satisfaction?
Q6: Is the right to life so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives?
Q7: Is it morally wrong to let a child suffer needlessly when it could easily be prevented?
Q8: Do individuals have sole rights over their own bodies?
Q9: Is organic food better because it is natural?
Q10: Is it always wrong to take another person's life?
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

Thank you, GreatDebateMate, for accepting this debate. Remember, before posting your second round, you must challenge me to a similar debate, as per Rule 12.

"Q1: Do objective moral standards exist?"
Yes.

"Q2: Is Atheism, like religion, a faith because you can't prove the non-existence of god?"
No.

"Q3: Are judgments about works of art are purely subjective?"
Sometimes.

"Q4: Are 'alternative' medicines as valuable as conventional medicine?
That would depend on the economics of these two groups of medicines, including effectiveness, cost to produce, and side-effects, of which I don't know.

"Q5: Is Capitalism the best system, or least bad, because it leads to high consumer satisfaction?"
In my opinion, that is one of many reasons that capitalism is the best economic system.

"Q6: Is the right to life so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives?"
No.

"Q7: Is it morally wrong to let a child suffer needlessly when it could easily be prevented?"
Depends on how easily it is preventable, and what state the child will be in after saving it.

"Q8: Do individuals have sole rights over their own bodies?"
As long as nobody else is in their body, yes.

"Q9: Is organic food better because it is natural?"
I don't really compare organic food to artificial food, so I really don't know which would be better.

"Q10: Is it always wrong to take another person's life?"
No.
GreatDebateMate

Con

Q1: Does aborting a first trimester fetus carry the same moral weight as ending the life of a teenage girl?

Q2: Does a person continue to exist in non-physical form after they die?

Q3: Is a military draft ever permissible?

Q4: Should the rich be allowed to buy body organs from poor people if they are willing to sell?

Q5: Does an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God exist?

Q6: Should voluntary euthanasia remain illegal?

Q7: If you were faced with a choice where you had to choose between saving a burning building full of 500 people or a burning building with only one person in it, would you save the one with 500 people in it?

Q8: Suppose you are being sent to a far off planet. There is a considerable chance you will die on the spacecraft ride. However, there is a new teleportation device that works with 100% accuracy. The catch is that it works like a fax machine: it scans your atoms, destroys your body here on earth, and then assembles it with new atoms at your destination. Would you be willing to use this teleporation device?

Q9: Suppose you made it to the planet. However, you've contracted a virus and had to get an artificial leg. Now the virus is spreading to your brain. It isn't lethal--a few neurons will be disrupted, you'll have a slight change in personality and a few memories will be lost. But you won't be in a wheelchair or anything like that. However, the same scientists who made your artificial leg can build you an artificial brain: it would be a silicon copy of your current brain. This procedure does have some risks associated with it. Would you take this brain?

Q10: If a person is dangerously drunk and still wants to drink, should the bartender give him/her another drink?
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

"Q1: Does aborting a first trimester fetus carry the same moral weight as ending the life of a teenage girl?"
No.

"Q2: Does a person continue to exist in non-physical form after they die?"
I don't know; such information is not avaliable to me.

"Q3: Is a military draft ever permissible?"
No.

"Q4: Should the rich be allowed to buy body organs from poor people if they are willing to sell?"
Yes.

"Q5: Does an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God exist?"
I don't know; such information is not avaliable to me.

"Q6: Should voluntary euthanasia remain illegal?"
No.

"Q7: If you were faced with a choice where you had to choose between saving a burning building full of 500 people or a burning building with only one person in it, would you save the one with 500 people in it?"
Yes.

"Q8: Suppose you are being sent to a far off planet. There is a considerable chance you will die on the spacecraft ride. However, there is a new teleportation device that works with 100% accuracy. The catch is that it works like a fax machine: it scans your atoms, destroys your body here on earth, and then assembles it with new atoms at your destination. Would you be willing to use this teleporation device?"
That would depend on the "considerable chance." If the considerable chance is high enough, yes.

"Q9: Suppose you made it to the planet. However, you've contracted a virus and had to get an artificial leg. Now the virus is spreading to your brain. It isn't lethal--a few neurons will be disrupted, you'll have a slight change in personality and a few memories will be lost. But you won't be in a wheelchair or anything like that. However, the same scientists who made your artificial leg can build you an artificial brain: it would be a silicon copy of your current brain. This procedure does have some risks associated with it. Would you take this brain?"
That would depend on the "risks associated with [the procedure]."

"Q10: If a person is dangerously drunk and still wants to drink, should the bartender give him/her another drink?"
No.
GreatDebateMate

Con

Pretty good so far. So without further hesitation...
1. Is late term abortion (say 6 months old or later) the same as murder?

2. Is wanting something a justification for getting it?

3. You are a mayor of a small town of 600 people. A zombie outbreak has occurred. You have a plan that will for sure save 200 people. However, your chief of police presents a risker plan that has a 33% chance at saving everyone and a 66% chance at killing everyone. Do you stick with your plan?

4. Should laws that treat killing pregnant women as two murders be repealed?

5. A train is barreling down a railroad track, heading for a group of 50 people. You have no way to save those people, other than pulling a lever that will send the train down a different track. At the end of this track is one person, who will surely die. Do you pull the lever?

6. Do you think life begins at conception?

7. A train is barreling down a railroad track, heading for a group of people. You have no way to save those people, except for tossing a very obese man in front of the train and stopping it. This man will surely die. Do you throw the man in front of the train?

8. You're town is safe from the zombies. Now a deadly virus has broken out. Your best plan has a 33% chance that no one will die and a 66% chance that 600 people will die. However, your chief of police says that if you do his plan now, he can keep casualties to 400 people dead. Do you stick with your plan?

9. Suppose you have been living on this alien planet for a few years and it is starting to take its toll on your health. Medical science is extremely advanced on this space colony; so much to the point where you can be frozen in suspended animation until a cure is found for whatever is endangering your health. However, scientists have recently made a remarkable discovery--it turns out there is something like the 'soul' that exists. It's almost like a parasitic ghost that lives in your body. Once you die, it travels to a new host organism. It doesn't carry any of your memories and only mildly influences behavior and personality. The catch is that the soul dies at frozen temperatures. Given this information, would you still be willing to be frozen?

10. Suppose there are two burning buildings: In one there is a 34 year old woman; In the other there are 500 six month old fetuses being grown outside the womb. Would you save the one with the 34 year old woman?
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

"1. Is late term abortion (say 6 months old or later) the same as murder?"
Often. A medical abortion would be the exception.

"2. Is wanting something a justification for getting it?"
Not by itself, no.

"3. You are a mayor of a small town of 600 people. A zombie outbreak has occurred. You have a plan that will for sure save 200 people. However, your chief of police presents a risker plan that has a 33% chance at saving everyone and a 66% chance at killing everyone. Do you stick with your plan?"
If this is all of the information I can possibly get, then no.
Otherwise, it depends on whatever more information I can get.

"4. Should laws that treat killing pregnant women as two murders be repealed?"
No.

"5. A train is barreling down a railroad track, heading for a group of 50 people. You have no way to save those people, other than pulling a lever that will send the train down a different track. At the end of this track is one person, who will surely die. Do you pull the lever?"
If this is all of the information I can possibly get, then yes.
Otherwise, it depends on whatever more information I can get.

"6. Do you think life begins at conception?"
Yes.

"7. A train is barreling down a railroad track, heading for a group of people. You have no way to save those people, except for tossing a very obese man in front of the train and stopping it. This man will surely die. Do you throw the man in front of the train?"
If this is all of the information I can possibly get, then yes.
Otherwise, it depends on whatever more information I can get.

"8. You're town is safe from the zombies. Now a deadly virus has broken out. Your best plan has a 33% chance that no one will die and a 66% chance that 600 people will die. However, your chief of police says that if you do his plan now, he can keep casualties to 400 people dead. Do you stick with your plan?"
If this is all of the information I can possibly get, then yes.
Otherwise, it depends on whatever more information I can get.

"9. Suppose you have been living on this alien planet for a few years and it is starting to take its toll on your health. Medical science is extremely advanced on this space colony; so much to the point where you can be frozen in suspended animation until a cure is found for whatever is endangering your health. However, scientists have recently made a remarkable discovery--it turns out there is something like the 'soul' that exists. It's almost like a parasitic ghost that lives in your body. Once you die, it travels to a new host organism. It doesn't carry any of your memories and only mildly influences behavior and personality. The catch is that the soul dies at frozen temperatures. Given this information, would you still be willing to be frozen?"
If this is all of the information I can possibly get, then no.
Otherwise, it depends on whatever more information I can get.

"10. Suppose there are two burning buildings: In one there is a 34 year old woman; In the other there are 500 six month old fetuses being grown outside the womb. Would you save the one with the 34 year old woman?"
If saving the first building requires me not to save the second building, then no.
Otherwise, yes.
GreatDebateMate

Con

Well done. Here are what I see as some tension spots in the answers. I'll leave it up to the people rating the debate how close they come to being contradictory, if at all:

1-Justification for capitalism:
"'Q5: Is Capitalism the best system, or least bad, because it leads to high consumer satisfaction?'
In my opinion, that is one of many reasons that capitalism is the best economic system."
AND
"'Q10: If a person is dangerously drunk and still wants to drink, should the bartender give him/her another drink?'
No."
AND
"'2. Is wanting something a justification for getting it?"
Not by itself, no.'

The first answer says that preference satisfaction is one of the reasons capitalism is the best system. The latter two suggest otherwise--that getting what you want is not relevant to moral considerations. In more sophisticated terms, this is asking if pareto-improvements (a transaction where both parties have a gain in preference satisfaction without a cost to anyone else) are equivalent to moral improvements. There are several ways to go about arguing for capitalism, but saying "it gives us more of what we want" doesn't seem to be one of them.

2-Philosophy of mind

All of the space travel/alien planet questions.

You didn't give a precise answer on the artificial brain, so it's hard to say one way or another if these are contradictory. If you had gone with the teleporter on the first one and refused the artificial brain on the second one, you would have had a problem. In the first, taking the teleporter would be supporting a functionalist view of the self while accepting the damage of the virus and refusing the artificial brain would be supporting a physical view of the self.

3-Abortion

You said you think life begins at conception. Yet you also don't think first trimester abortions are murder. And you think that double murder for pregnant women should still be the law. This isn't a flat out contradiction, but would take a lot of explaining.

4-Mayor decisions

The two questions I asked about being the Mayor and what chances you would be willing to take to save your citizens are the same question, just worded differently. In the first, you're plan is the safe 200 people alive. In the second, you plan to risk those lives for a 33% chance at everyone surviving. Both plans have the same expected utility (200 x 1(or 100%)=200 and 600 x 1/3(or about 33%)=200) so there is no compelling reason why someone would switch answers.

So good job and I look forward to reading your thoughts on the subjects.
Debate Round No. 4
mongeese

Pro

My opponent has pointed out contradictions. I get this round to defend myself. My opponent gets a final chance to point out any flaws in my defense, and I get a final chance to counter those.

1. Justification for capitalism

I agree that consumer satisfaction makes capitalism great. However, that alone is not enough. Capitalism also requires that in order to get something, you must do something else in return, as part of a trade. As I answered, wanting something is not in itself a justification for getting it, but wanting something and doing something that the person who already has it is willing to give it up for, is.

Yes, it is good that capitalism "gives us more of what we want," except that it doesn't "give" us anything; we earn it.

2. Philosophy of mind

I answered completely agnostically to the first two of those questions. I didn't take functionalist views or physical views into consideration much; I decided that there was a chance for each of those to be true. Therefore, my decision would have to be based on the chances, risks, and so forth. There is no contradiction, just the speculation that one may perhaps exist.

3. Abortion

"Yet you also don't think first trimester abortions are murder."
Uncited and untrue. The entire attempt to put together a contradiciton falls apart.

4. Mayor decisions

In the first question, my plan would involve saving 200 people, with no chance of saving everybody. I decided not to go with my plan.

In the second question, my plan would involve a chance to save everybody, but a higher chance of not saving anybody. I decided to go with my plan.

In both cases, I decided to go with the risky plan. My reasoning was that 600 alive people would be much happier than 200 alive people mourning the loss of 400 others.

In conclusion, I have not contradicted myself. Good luck, GreatDebateMate.
GreatDebateMate

Con

1. "Yes, it is good that capitalism "gives us more of what we want," except that it doesn't "give" us anything; we earn it."

But the drunk man "earned" his drink and he wants it, yet you still think it would be irresponsible for the bartender to give him another drink. So adding the caveat of "earning" doesn't seem to remedy the situation.

2. Abortion
"'Yet you also don't think first trimester abortions are murder.'
Uncited and untrue. The entire attempt to put together a contradiciton falls apart."

Citation: "'Q1: Does aborting a first trimester fetus carry the same moral weight as ending the life of a teenage girl?'
No."
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Even when I re-post it, people seem to be forgetting Rule #9.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
CON dropped too many arguments in the last round, and the two he maintained were weak.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
"9. 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."

People seem to be forgetting this rule.
Posted by Paris 6 years ago
Paris
Mongeese should we try this? Or GreatDebateMe?
Posted by Paris 6 years ago
Paris
Capitalism and abortion contradictions--I want to try one of these!
Posted by Alex 6 years ago
Alex
Freeman, it would also be good for YOU to be open minded :) Christian/conservative beliefs do not necessarily mean close-mindedness, granted there are a lot of them, but not all.
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
"Late-term abortion is a definite no-no."

It's good to be open minded, even if you feel strongly about certain things.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
No, Freeman, you haven't. And if you ever do, it would only be with first-term abortion. Late-term abortion is a definite no-no.
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
"Q8: Do individuals have sole rights over their own bodies?"
As long as nobody else is in their body, yes.

I haven't won you over? :(
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
It is one through three, yes.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
mongeeseGreatDebateMateTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
mongeeseGreatDebateMateTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by ArtTheWino 6 years ago
ArtTheWino
mongeeseGreatDebateMateTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 6 years ago
Shestakov
mongeeseGreatDebateMateTied
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 
Vote Placed by Paris 6 years ago
Paris
mongeeseGreatDebateMateTied
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