The Instigator
studentathletechristian8
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
MTGandP
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

"If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late," is a logical expression.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 8 votes the winner is...
MTGandP
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 32,807 times Debate No: 9117
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (44)
Votes (8)

 

studentathletechristian8

Con

I stand in firm negation to the resolution.

I would like to begin by defining several key terms:

you're- contraction of you are

early- before the usual or expected time

on time- at the appointed time

late- after the usual or expected time

logical- capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion

In this debate, the phrase, "If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late," refers to the expression commonly used in an attempt to influence a person to get to a certain location at a reasonable time. However, keep in mind that this debate is solely on whether or not this expression is logical or illogical.

I believe that the expression, "If you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late," is illogical. My contention is as follows:

a) According to the first half of the expression, if you're early, you're on time. This means that to be early is to be on time. In other words, early=on time.

b) According to the second half of the expression, if you're on time, you're late. This means that to be on time is to be late. In other words, on time=late.

c) Since 'early' and 'on time' are being compared as the same, then that means the word 'early' can be replaced with the phrase, 'on time', and vice versa. Likewise, the same method shall be used for 'on time' and 'late.'

d) The second half of the expression states "if you're on time, you're late." Since I can replace 'on time' with 'early', the end of the expression will read: "if you're early, you're late." This is simply illogical, because one cannot both be early and late at the same time. It is a paradox and is logically invalid. It does not make sense to be both early and late in reference to arriving at a location.

I await my opponent's response.

Source for definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
MTGandP

Pro

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate.

BURDEN OF PROOF
Despite how it may appear, I do not have to prove that this statement is always logical: I only have to prove that it is CAPABLE of being logical. If I show one instance in which it is logical, the vote goes to me. However, I will be proving it for not just one case but for most cases.

My opponent is trying to make an unfair semantical argument. The definitions of terms are unnecessary and restricting: "early", "on time" and "late" carry metaphorical meaning that are not adequately represented by definitions.

CONTENTION
For the sake of convenience, I will use the pronoun "you".

You are attending some event. This event almost undoubtedly requires some sort of preparation. And when you get to the event, you will have to spend some time getting settled. It is important for the timeliness of the event that you are prepared and settled by the time the event starts: if you are not, then you'll miss part of the event. So to be settled by the time the event starts, you must be early, hence "if you're early, you're on time"; and if you are on time, you will be late by the time you've gotten settled, hence "if you're on time, you're late."

For example, you are attending a movie. If you are exactly on time and the movie begins as you walk in, you will have to find your seat in the dark while the movie is playing. So even though you were on time, in fact you were late.

My opponent's equivocation proof oversimplifies the terms, and should not be accepted. Resolution affirmed.
Debate Round No. 1
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

I am arguing against the simple logic though. This was not set for scenarios. I made it clear in my first round argument we are just looking at the logic of the expression, not a specific scenario.

My opponent has tried to create a scenario when clearly the debate was regarding the logic of the expression, not its specific application to the event.

My argument proving the expression illogical still stands. The resolution regards if it is a logical expression, it was never needed to be applied to a situation.

My opponent has avoided the direct point and my argument. Resolution negated.
MTGandP

Pro

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited. Seeing as how the rounds are only five minutes long, I'm not surprised.

I am going to reinforce my contention with some sources. This site on how to be punctual (http://www.wikihow.com...). One major gist of it is the idea that you should try to be early in order to be on time.

Another reason why being on time is really being late: what if you run into heavy traffic? What if something comes up at the last minute? There are many possible things that can slow you down just long enough to turn just-barely-on-time into late.

Resolution once again affirmed.
Debate Round No. 2
studentathletechristian8

Con

Burden of Proof:

My opponent has not provided a logical burden of proof. The resolution clearly refers to the logic of the expression, so it was not about being applied to a scenario. All I have to do is simple regard the expression as illogical and I have negated the resolution.

My opponent did not counteract my argument strictly referring to the expression in itself, which was what the debate was about after all.

"However, keep in mind that this debate is solely on whether or not this expression is logical or illogical."
I posted this in round one. My opponent has not argued the expression itself, which is what the debate was regarding. The scenarios were off-topic to the resolution.

My opponent has set an incorrect Burden of Proof. All I have to do is negate the expression, and I have. My opponent has only applied scenarios which were not warranted by the restrictions in round one. I urge a Con vote.
MTGandP

Pro

I apologize -- due to unusual timing, I thought that my opponent had forfeited.

It is impossible to look at the logic of the scenario without understanding the metaphorical meaning of the expression. My opponent has ignored this meaning. The expression IS logical: it can be used in an orderly cogent fashion. My opponent only says it is illogical because he is misrepresenting the meaning of the phrase. My contention was about whether the statement was applicable for usage in certain situations, a.k.a. "logical". It is a logical statement is many contexts.

Conclusion
My opponent has argued semantics and misrepresented the meaning of "logical". I have shown that the expression "if you're early, you're on time; if you're on time, you're late" is logical in that it makes sense given deeper definitions and it can be utilized in an orderly cogent fashion. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Agreed before and after.

Good points from MTG.
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
C, S & G: Tie
A: Pro - While I initially sided with Con, his take on the phrase did not consider realistic interpretation. Pro handled this with ease.
S: Pro - As I do not reward definitions, Pro's source stands alone.

Good one, guys.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
Studentathletechristian, did you give yourself 7 points? I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do that.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Pro - Con spent far too much time and far too many characters dealing with useless semantics and burden debating, and it kind of killed the debate for me.
S/G: Tied - There were no visible errors that I noticed while skimming over again; and, I give a bit of credit anyway, due to the short nature of the debate.
Arguments: Pro - I completely buy that Con didn't really address the metaphorical meaning behind things; in fact, Con's semantic arguments essentially did the exact opposite.
Sources: Tied - I exclude the definitions, obviously, and thus, none were used.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
One amazing thing about this debate is that not one person has pulled a 7-pointer.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
If you're early, then you're on time.
If you're on time, then you're late.
You're early. Therefore, you're on time and late.

A implies B.
B implies C.
A, therefore B and C.

Sentencial logic 101.
Posted by iamadragon 8 years ago
iamadragon
You used a party or something as an example for why the phrase would be a logical expression. I was saying that if you had used the short time period given to make an argument as an example, that would have been funny. Not really important, though.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
I knew you would crush me in this, but I just went for it. Whatev. Where do you plan on going to college?
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
I can totally take it. The only reason I accepted this debate is because you complimented me. (Oh, the power of flattery . . . ) But I was just wondering what it was you were complimenting me on.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Well yes, obviously. There are people on this website who do not implemnt logic and reason to their arguments, so I was trying to compliment you, but I guess you won't take it...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
studentathletechristian8MTGandPTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
studentathletechristian8MTGandPTied
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 ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
studentathletechristian8MTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
studentathletechristian8MTGandPTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
studentathletechristian8MTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Vote Placed by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
studentathletechristian8MTGandPTied
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 untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
studentathletechristian8MTGandPTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
studentathletechristian8MTGandPTied
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