The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points

If Logical-Master answers all of his opponent's questions, he probably won't contradict himself

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 6/16/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,737 times Debate No: 8664
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (9)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

Rules:
1. PRO must answer all of CON's questions.
2. If PRO contradicts himself, then PRO loses. Otherwise, PRO wins.
3. CON is only allowed to ask a maximum of ten questions in each round other than round 4.
4. Violation of the rules will result in an automatic loss in terms of the individual who violated any one of them.

I reserve the right to dispute the contender's rendering of the topic should I feel it doesn't meet the ideas of what the debate is intended for. .
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

In what attribute does personal identity reside (e.g., what attribute should we point to for a person now and a person sometime in the future to know it is the same person?)

Is the entire world one shade?

What does a moderate ideology consist of?

Is your name an true representation of your nature?

Is your profile an true representation of your nature?

Should people be honest about themselves?

Is an entire manga series considered one book?

Is the Bible the word of God?

Is God at least as knowledgable as humans, and perfectly honest?
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

NOTE: In this round, I shall be making use of the tags provided in the following thread:
http://www.debate.org...

[b][color=red] Question #1: In what attribute does personal identity reside (e.g., what attribute should we point to for a person now and a person sometime in the future to know it is the same person?)[/color][/b]

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "attribute" or "person" and am pretty sure that this is intentional, but nevertheless: I say that one's personal identity resides in their mind; how one thinks [i]and[/i] feels is my answer. Of course, there is no attribute that we should point to for a person now and a person sometime in the future as people change over time; one's personal identity is not static.

[b][color=blue]Question #2: Is the entire world one shade?[/color][/b]

Once again, a question which is intentionally vague. This is going to be tougher than I thought.

My answer to the question is no [and if needed, I'll provide a definition ;) ]

[b][color=orange]Question #3: What does a moderate ideology[/color][/b]

To me personally, I see it as merely favoring the mindset of multiple ideologies (not necessarily specific). Although there are those who see it as a mixture of liberalism and conservatism.

[b][color=green]Question #4: Is your name an true representation of your nature?[/color][/b]

No. My name merely represents a portion of my nature. In order to "truly" represent my nature, I would have to say that the entirety of my nature must be represented.

[b][color=yellow]Question #5: Is your profile an true representation of your nature?[/color][/b]

See above.

[b][color=purple]Question #6: Should people be honest about themselves?[/color][/b]

Yes. Strangely enough though, even when they are aware of this, they often aren't. ;)

[b][color=pink]Question #7: Is an entire manga series considered one book?[/color][/b]

That depends. If it is all grouped together in the form of a book (much like the Bible is), then yes.

[b][color=red]Question #8: Is the Bible the word of God?[/color][/b]

In a figurative sense? Yes. Literally? No.

[b][color=blue]Question #9: Is God at least as knowledgeable as humans, and perfectly honest?[/color][/b]

Lol. I can see your strategy from a mile away. Nevertheless, I've got a few strategies of my own. To answer your question: Yes.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Meh, I'll use em too, LM has linky.

[quote]

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "attribute" or "person" and am pretty sure that this is intentional, but nevertheless: I say that one's personal identity resides in their mind; how one thinks and feels is my answer. Of course, there is no attribute that we should point to for a person now and a person sometime in the future as people change over time; one's personal identity is not static.[/quote]
Attribute is any trait of a thing. Person is a rational animal. Identity refers to the commonality between LM yesterday and LM today that makes both LM in the same sense.
Which thoughts or feelings make it so that LM today and LM yesterday are both LM, in the same sense, regardless of their differences?

[quote]Once again, a question which is intentionally vague. This is going to be tougher than I thought.

My answer to the question is no[/quote]
So the world is not, as you claim at an unspecified time, in your profile, [b]an[/b] exuberant shade of gray, which, whether it is a true representation of your nature or no, is still composed of your statements. An, I will note, is a [b]singular[/b] article. You have contradicted yourself at this point. Let's see if you'll do so anywhere else.

In the event of him updating his profile to fix the error, it shall be preserved for the purpose of spectators here:
http://img10.imageshack.us...

2nd question this round: What is an ideology?

[quote]

That depends. If it is all grouped together in the form of a book (much like the Bible is), then yes.
[/quote]
Third question this round: If not then no?

[quote]
In a figurative sense? Yes. Literally? No.
[/quote]
Fourth question this round.
Which figurative sense might that be?

Fifth question this round: What means are available for knowing you can see something a mile away when you are not a mile away?

Sixth question: How does music die?

Seventh question: Can a generality die while specific instances live on?

Eighth question: What is your ideology in particular terms?

9th question: What do you mean by "Any position CAN be advocated no matter how absurd or wrong?"
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

[color=red][b] Which thoughts or feelings make it so that LM today and LM yesterday are both LM, in the same sense, regardless of their differences? [/b][/color]

This question does not compute. LM today cannot be LM yesterday if they are different. Thus, my answer is that there are none (in terms of what it [i]seems[/i] we are talking about).

[b][color=blue] So the world is not, as you claim at an unspecified time, in your profile, an exuberant shade of gray, which, whether it is a true representation of your nature or no, is still composed of your statements. An, I will note, is a singular article. You have contradicted yourself at this point. Let's see if you'll do so anywhere else. [/color][/b]

It's all about context. Fortunately, I said I would provide a definition if shade if need be in the following round. Indeed, I could answer yes and no to the question without contradicting myself. Clearly, when reading that quote in my profile, I am referring to the limitations of the human perspective of reality. It is because of this that people such as myself are able to argue in favor of so many diverse positions (at least that is what I think).

When I answered my opponent's question, I understood "shade" as being the entire planet with the same degree of light absence quite literally. I personally do not think this.

Thus, there really is [b]no[/b] contradiction here. :D

[color=orange][b] 2nd question this round: What is an ideology? [/b][/color]

Since my opponent was referring to the political sense of the term, I shall answer his question from a political perspective. Simply put (and I got this wording from wikipedia): [i]In social studies, a Political Ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used. Some parties follow a certain ideology very closely, while others may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically embracing any one of them.[/i]

[color=pink][b] Third question this round: If not then no? [/b][/color]

Based on how I see a book? No. If my opponent wishes to know how I personally define a book, he should probably ask me during his next round. :P

[b][color=red] Which figurative sense might that be? [/color][/b]

I wasn't aware that there was more than one figurative sense. Still, regardless of whether there is more or less, my answer regards the only figurative sense that I know of . . . and that is that figurative translates to one or more literary devices being used to illustrate a point. If my opponent is aware of other "figurative senses", I would like to know what they are so that I may better answer his question. As of now, he has merely put me in a state of confusion.

[b] Fifth question this round: What means are available for knowing you can see something a mile away when you are not a mile away? [/b]

There are no means to see something a mile away when you are not a mile away when speaking in a literal perspective. With that said, let us keep in mind that when I made a particular comment in the previous round, I was speaking figuratively. The point was that I was aware of how my opponent would be using his questions in attempt to get me to contradict myself.

[b]Sixth question: How does music die?[/b]

I see music as having died to me in the sense that I moved past what I've seen as the [b]need[/b] to listen to it. That said, I can at appreciate some forms of music. :D

[b][color=green] Seventh question: Can a generality die while specific instances live on? [/color][/b]

Absolutely. Most unfortunate however that I don't personally feel a need to listen to [b]anything[/b] which I consider music. :D

[b][color=green] What is your ideology in particular terms? [/color][/b]

My answer: Some degree of conservatism, some degree of liberalism, some degree of anarchism, some degree of socialism, some degree of progressivism (sic) and some degree of communism (still thinking that my opponent is referring to the word from a political perspective)

[b][color=blue] What do you mean by "Any position CAN be advocated no matter how absurd or wrong?" [/color] [/b]

I mean it is possible for one to argue in favor of any idea (this even applies to ideas which people make consider as absurd or false).
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

First question for the round: The one who will answer the question is a different person, I.e., not the LM that created this debate?

[quote]It's all about context. Fortunately, I said I would provide a definition if shade if need be in the following round. Indeed, I could answer yes and no to the question without contradicting myself. Clearly, when reading that quote in my profile, I am referring to the limitations of the human perspective of reality.[/quote]
Second question, you then hold that the entirety of humanity is only capable of perceiving (seeing in perspective) one shade?

[quote]Based on how I see a book? No.[/quote]
I think it sufficiently clear what you mean by "grouped together in the form of a book," from your example of the Bible. Third question, are the Naruto manga, The Prince of Tennis Manga, the "Yugio" or I presume Yu-gi-oh manga, each separately grouped together, such that each series is grouped in the form of a book?

[quote]I wasn't aware that there was more than one figurative sense. Still, regardless of whether there is more or less, my answer regards the only figurative sense that I know of . . . and that is that figurative translates to one or more literary devices being used to illustrate a point. If my opponent is aware of other "figurative senses", I would like to know what they are so that I may better answer his question. As of now, he has merely put me in a state of confusion[/quote]
In regards to what is being figured, i.e., what overching point/points is/are illustrated with what devices. That is the relevant sense.

[quote]My answer: Some degree of conservatism, some degree of liberalism, some degree of anarchism, some degree of socialism, some degree of progressivism (sic) and some degree of communism (still thinking that my opponent is referring to the word from a political perspective)[/quote]
You would be correct, but particular terms refers to a systematic statement of what those degrees are, and since we're talking an ideology, not a loose set of issues, what overarching principles it is derived from. Count that as fourth question this round if you please.

Fifth question: Should someone assert something without providing evidence when if they know it to be true it is of a nature that the evidence can be acquired by them with very little effort?

Sixth question: Is the following statement true?:

In any finite set x with n terms defined for all time, any person fitting the criterion of set x is one of the best n x-set-members of all time.

Seventh question: Is the answer to the above something so obvious you could figure it out if I addressed you at any given time in the past 3 years with it?

Eighth question: Do you ignore things obvious to you when you go about your daily life, or act on them as befits a logical Master?

Ninth question: Should people give themselves names that they don't live up to?
Debate Round No. 3
Logical-Master

Pro

Alright. I'm gonna have to go all out if I wanna win this debate. Here goes!

[b][color=red]First question for the round: The one who will answer the question is a different person, I.e., not the LM that created this debate?[/color][/b]

Like I said:In terms of what it [i]seems[/i] we are talking about. We are talking about the matter of personal identity and I've claimed that it is constantly being replaced. Thus, to answer my opponent's question in that light, no as this vessel's personal identity is not the one it had at the previous instance in time. In fact, looking at it from that light, having a different personal identity each time "time itself" moves forward would render it impossible for there to be a contradiction as it would be the different personal identity which simply possesses an idea or experience different from the previous personal identity.

Now, ignoring that light (as in we are considering the vessel known as Logical-Master), there is no different person (or rather vessel). Logical-Master (the vessel) is present right now and was present at the beginning of the debate.

[b][blue]
Second question, you then hold that the entirety of humanity is only capable of perceiving (seeing in perspective) one shade?[/blue][/b]

Since my opponent is referring to shade (in the context used in my profile), I will answer based on that context. My answer is no: Humanity if capable of perceiving many shades. I am capable (as in, it is possible) of perceiving other shades as well. It's just that I perceive the world as gray at this particular point in time based on prior experiences. :D

[b][green]
I think it sufficiently clear what you mean by "grouped together in the form of a book," from your example of the Bible.[/green][/b]

No, I'm afraid it's not that clear at all. My opponent should have asked a followup question. Without one, we are left with multiple possibilities in regards to what I could have meant by my example of the Bible.

As for the third question, my answer is yes, depending on what my opponent means by "separately"

[b]
In regards to what is being figured, i.e., what overching point/points is/are illustrated with what devices. That is the relevant sense.[/b]

[color=orange]
You would be correct, but particular terms refers to a systematic statement of what those degrees are, and since we're talking an ideology, not a loose set of issues, what overarching principles it is derived from. Count that as fourth question this round if you please.[/color]

Ah, I'm not sure what overarching principles it is derived from.

[color=green]Should someone assert something without providing evidence when if they know it to be true it is of a nature that the evidence can be acquired by them with very little effort?
[/color]

Sure, if that is what makes them content.

[color=yellow][b]
In any finite set x with n terms defined for all time, any person fitting the criterion of set x is one of the best n x-set-members of all time.[/b][/yellow]Hmm. To be honest, I'd be lying if I said the answer to this question was true or false. Truth be told: I don't know the answer as I'm not quite sure what the statement is suggesting.

[color=blue][b]Seventh question: Is the answer to the above something so obvious you could figure it out if I addressed you at any given time in the past 3 years with it?[/b][/color]No. It's not obvious (to me). Although if my opponent had addressed at a CERTAIN point in time during the last 3 years and we had discussed this statement (so that I actually may be sure on what he is talking about), then probably.

[color=purple][b]
Eighth question: Do you ignore things obvious to you when you go about your daily life, or act on them as befits a logical Master?[/b][[/color]

Both (more or less).

[color=red][b]
Ninth question: Should people give themselves names that they don't live up to?[/b][/color]
I don't see the problem with it.

In any case, just so I won't get "raped" by any comments which I've made in the past, I'm gonna pull out my trap card and remind YOU ALL (the audience) of the fact that there are many forms of communication that exist past speech and text. We must keep in mind that statements which are made in the past also include non verbal communication in that they are statements made to befit that point in time. As has already been insisted, time moves forward, thus it is unreasonable to hold one to a statement which may have been made long in the past. It should be clarified on whether or not one still abides by what they claimed in the past before proceeding further. My opponent's case fails from that front and anything which he tries to dig up from the past shall not help him because of this.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

[quote]Like I said:In terms of what it seems we are talking about. We are talking about the matter of personal identity and I've claimed that it is constantly being replaced. Thus, to answer my opponent's question in that light, no as this vessel's personal identity is not the one it had at the previous instance in time. In fact, looking at it from that light, having a different personal identity each time "time itself" moves forward would render it impossible for there to be a contradiction as it would be the different personal identity which simply possesses an idea or experience different from the previous personal identity.[/quote]
So, you're saying the vessel (body?) is not the person.

[quote]Now, ignoring that light (as in we are considering the vessel known as Logical-Master), there is no different person (or rather vessel)."[/quote]
So, you're saying the vessel (body?) is the person, as saying "or rather vessel" implies the two are the same existent, one is just a more apt description.

I think the contradiction in that is clear.

The vessel is the person Logical Master.
The vessel is not the person Logical Master.

Even if one holds my interpretation of the rhetorical device "Or rather" is unfair, which I don't think it is (indeed, I think it quite IMPROBABLE), discarding that (the only assailable premise, that he said the vessel is the person logical master, he was eminently clearer when he said it was not), would lead to the notion that the person who was Logical Master, who promised to answer all my questions and declared he would lose this debate if he failed to do so, ceased answering them the moment he finished making that statement, as the identity of the person within the vessel is "being replaced constantly," i.e., each round I've been talking to a different person.

So take it either way, as a contradiction or violation of rule 1.

[quote]My answer is no: Humanity if capable of perceiving many shades. I am capable (as in, it is possible) of perceiving other shades as well. It's just that I perceive the world as gray at this particular point in time based on prior experiences.[/quote] OIC, Logical Master is deriving a statement about the world being but one shade based on that being a shade he "perceives", when he already admits that other "perceptions" are available to (presumably). This second statement contradicts the minor premise of his argument from the world being that shade (2 in the following:

1. I perceive the world to be an exuberant shade of gray.
2. My perception about the world's shade is accurate.
3. The world is an exuberant shade of gray.)

I'm not sure what he means by "perception" in this instance, it doesn't seem to go too well with the usual instance, but it doesn't matter, it appears to be consistent throughout and that is plenty.

[quote]As for the third question, my answer is yes, depending on what my opponent means by "separately"[/quote]
E.g. for each listed manga series, not all the manga series in sum (Yu-gi-oh and Naruto not "one book," but Yu-gi-oh one book and Naruto one book). Though you appear to have avoided contradiction in this particular instance, I do wonder where these books are.

[quote]Ah, I'm not sure what overarching principles it is derived from.[/quote]
I must recommend in the future my opponent look into that question. It helps quite a bit in figuring out what parts of it make any sense. That is, assuming he doesn't up and vanish in a poof of identity crisis tomorrow, or next second, or whatever, and be replaced.

[quote]Hmm. To be honest, I'd be lying if I said the answer to this question was true or false. Truth be told: I don't know the answer as I'm not quite sure what the statement is suggesting.[/quote]
I am quite glad to see "Logical-Master" admit he either doesn't know that a given person of a group numbering 2 is one of the best two members of that group, since "best" is ordinal and no matter how you order 2 members of a group of 2 both will still be in the top 2, and so on and so forth for members of groups of 3 being one of the best 3--

or that he doesn't know what variables are.

Incidentally, whatever Master level in logic is supposed to be, I think it quite probable that he just contradicted the evaluation he declared when he pronounced himself a "Master" of logic. Whether he thinks it obbligatory to be honest in naming oneself or not (apparently he doesn't), a dishonest statement is still a statement :).

[quote]As has already been insisted, time moves forward, thus it is unreasonable to hold one to a statement which may have been made long in the past.[/quote]
Maybe in normal context-- but for a debate about the resolution "Logical Master will not contradict himSELF?"

Well, we discussed that bit at the beginning of the round. :).

Nonetheless, going into any more of LM's past would bore me, so I'll let it hang at the contradictions, probably and definite, that I've described above.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Nah, the rules (which clarify the resolutions meaning) are phrased as PRO must answer all of CON's questions. There have been no forfeits and you've seen PRO actively answer each question in each round. It makes no difference if a different "personal identity" is answering every time time moves forward. As long as the PRO position is answering questions, it's fine. Think of it like a game of football where the First string quarterback gets injured and they call in the second string quarterback. Two different people, yet the same position."
The second rule contradicts that interpretation of the first rule. Pro the "position" does not have a self, yet the positing of the second rule assumes such a self (a male one no less) exists. The rules of football specifically outline how substitutions may be performed, no such substitutions were authorized in this debate.

"For you see, I call myself Logical-Master. Grammatically speaking, that means that I am master (of who knows what) who happens to be logical."
It also could mean you are a master at being logical, and I find this more likely (probable) considering how it would be an integration of related elements more consistent with the behavior I usually see out of you (it would make some sort of sense, as your actions tend to do).
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
RFD:

Conduct: CON, since PRO's last round was sloppy.
Spelling Grammar: CON. Again, sloppy last round.
Convincing arguments: PRO, as I am not convinced for a moment that I contradicted myself based on CON's arguments.
Reliable sources: CON cited PRO's profile, so I guess that counts for something.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
EDIT:

"I am quite glad to see "Logical-Master" admit he either doesn't know that a given person of a group numbering 2 is one of the best two members of that group, since "best" is ordinal and no matter how you order 2 members of a group of 2 both will still be in the top 2, and so on and so forth for members of groups of 3 being one of the best 3--"

Had you phrased it like that, I think I would have been able to offer an answer that doesn't consist of "I don't know." :D

"
Incidentally, whatever Master level in logic is supposed to be, I think it quite probable that he just contradicted the evaluation he declared when he pronounced himself a "Master" of logic. Whether he thinks it obbligatory to be honest in naming oneself or not (apparently he doesn't), a dishonest statement is still a statement :)."

Ha ha. A good deduction, but one which is easily escaped. For you see, I call myself Logical-Master. Grammatically speaking, that means that I am master (of who knows what) who happens to be logical. Now if my name were "logic master", it would be a different story. :D

Since you assertion doesn't indicate that I lack logic skills completely (as in, I have none), this does not follow.

"Maybe in normal context-- but for a debate about the resolution "Logical Master will not contradict himSELF?""

Opening statements define the resolution or else you yourself would be debating on probability rather than arguing while adhering to the rules made in the first round.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
"I am quite glad to see "Logical-Master" admit he either doesn't know that a given person of a group numbering 2 is one of the best two members of that group, since "best" is ordinal and no matter how you order 2 members of a group of 2 both will still be in the top 2, and so on and so forth for members of groups of 3 being one of the best 3--"

Had you phrased it like that, I think I would have been able to offer an answer that doesn't consist of "I don't know." :D

Since you assertion doesn't indicate that I lack logic skills completely (as in, I have none), this does not follow.

"
Incidentally, whatever Master level in logic is supposed to be, I think it quite probable that he just contradicted the evaluation he declared when he pronounced himself a "Master" of logic. Whether he thinks it obbligatory to be honest in naming oneself or not (apparently he doesn't), a dishonest statement is still a statement :)."

Ha ha. A good deduction, but one which is easily escaped. For you see, I call myself Logical-Master. Grammatically speaking, that means that I am master (of who knows what) who happens to be logical. Now if my name were "logic master", it would be a different story. :D

"
Maybe in normal context-- but for a debate about the resolution "Logical Master will not contradict himSELF?""

Opening statements define the resolution or else you yourself would be debating on probability rather than arguing while adhering to the rules made in the first round.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
I think I'll vote LM for the pretty colors.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Since I've never seen you not mind a comment section debate (I request voters ignore any of what is said here in my coments). . .

"So, you're saying the vessel (body?) is not the person."

I made sure to use the term "light" (i.e. seeing 'it" from a different light). In other words, both of my answers are context dependent, hence allowing me to answer two different ways without contradicting myself. In essence, I claimed that if you consider personal identity to be the person, the answer is no. If you consider the vessel to be the person, the answer is yes.

"who promised to answer all my questions and declared he would lose this debate if he failed to do so, ceased answering them the moment he finished making that statement, as the identity of the person within the vessel is "being replaced constantly," i.e., each round I've been talking to a different person."

Nah, the rules (which clarify the resolutions meaning) are phrased as PRO must answer all of CON's questions. There have been no forfeits and you've seen PRO actively answer each question in each round. It makes no difference if a different "personal identity" is answering every time time moves forward. As long as the PRO position is answering questions, it's fine. Think of it like a game of football where the First string quarterback gets injured and they call in the second string quarterback. Two different people, yet the same position.

"
1. I perceive the world to be an exuberant shade of gray.
2. My perception about the world's shade is accurate.
3. The world is an exuberant shade of gray.)"

I'd say one is well capable of perceiving a faulty (at least in terms of what we constitute as faulty) world view, if that's what you're getting at. After all, there is nothing to stop someone from perceiving that 2+2=5. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
In any case, thanks for the debate. Later. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
When I said "I'm not sure", I meant I'm not too sure why I have this political ideology entirely. Me valuing the security of humanity as being a thriving species seems probable.

In any case, the "comments made in the past" business really scares me. I wasn't prepared for that during this debate and it shouldn't be too hard to find a single isolated comment which I may have made in the past and use it to your advantage in this debate (hence why I made that last argument below). I'm pretty sure I haven't actually contradicted myself internally during this debate, but anything which I may have possible said outside this debate is a different story.

All that added to the fact that I'm pretty tired (hence the the screwed up tags in this round) and my chances of victory are pretty low. My only chance is if that last argument is successful
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Well, it says "Himself," not "What he's said in the debate." I figured that means one has to do something in the round to contradict oneself, but the other half of the contradiction can be anywhere as long as it's from the self.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Whoa. Didn't think we were including profiles. I thought the contradiction would entirely exist in the round. Fortunately, I haven't actually contradicted myself even still.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Logical-MasterRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by pbplk58 7 years ago
pbplk58
Logical-MasterRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Logical-MasterRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Logical-MasterRagnar_RahlTied
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 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 Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
Logical-MasterRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasterRagnar_RahlTied
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 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 Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Logical-MasterRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Logical-MasterRagnar_RahlTied
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 spinnerclotho 7 years ago
spinnerclotho
Logical-MasterRagnar_RahlTied
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