The Instigator
frankienstien
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BobTurner
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Ignorant people winning debates based on false facts

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 3 votes the winner is...
BobTurner
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 722 times Debate No: 49144
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

frankienstien

Pro

I came across this site and it seemed like a fun site to be on. However facts don't equate a winner. That is an insane logic that sets people up for failure. false facts are everywhere these days, and this site promotes it with it's structure.
BobTurner

Con

I accept. Show me an example of an "ignorant person" winning a debate based on "false facts." Obviously you have the burden of proof to show me that, and to connect that causally with the site's structure -- and demonstrate how DDO "promotes it" by way of its structure.

That's quite a BOP. Have fun.
Debate Round No. 1
frankienstien

Pro

frankienstien forfeited this round.
BobTurner

Con

Pro has the burden of proof and hasn't provided me with an example.
Debate Round No. 2
frankienstien

Pro

People are baiting words. Black is a color. look it up! What type of color is it, Achromatic! Black is a color and I'm losing how?
BobTurner

Con

Let me see if I can make sense of that....So, you're saying that two people -- including yourself -- are debating whether black is a color, and because you're losing, it must be a result of "ignorant people winning debates based on false facts." Do you have any proof of this? Any excerpts from the debate? You have not even linked me to the debate. May I remind you that you, sir, have the burden of proof. Simply losing a debate does not mean that your opponent was ignorant, or wrong, or using "false facts." It simply means that his or her case was better to yours in the eyes of the voters.
Debate Round No. 3
frankienstien

Pro

frankienstien forfeited this round.
BobTurner

Con

All arguments dropped. Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by mattcat83 3 years ago
mattcat83
I agree with xXCryptoXx - while the phrase 'false facts' isn't logically contradictory such as 'false truths' or 'true falsities,' it is metaphysically impossible for facts to be false. Facts just are the kinds of things that can be false if what facts correspond to are true propositions. Much like the infelicity of the phrase 'false knowledge,' the term 'knowledge' is what is called a "success-term:" its usage is only proper in cases of success. Nevertheless, it's doesn't follow merely by the meaning the term 'fact' that it be true. The impossibility of false facts is metaphysical, not logical, in that adding false facts into ones ontology (of what is real) doesn't entail a contradiction under the laws of classical predicate logic. However, false facts (a.k.a. "negative facts") make for non-classical metaphysical difficulties, especially regarding non-existent (Meinongian) objects. Perhaps the voters should've considered whether there are things that don't exist and whether the facts that answer to them are false, but this surely shouldn't be the default position and one to turn to if all other rival positions fail. In other words, the burden of proof is on the Meinongian to establish that it is metaphysically possible for some facts to be false and in the absence of such a defense, we should hold the (classical) view that this is not the case.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Are you referring to me?
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
False fact isn't a fact, because if it was a fact it wouldn't be false :P
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 3 years ago
Speakerfrthedead
I sort of agree with you. But you can always change the rules when you make your own debate you know. You could say that the winner is the one who is more persuasive instead of one who has more evidence. Or even say that the one who uses more logic is the winner. That way, the person who accepts your debate must be one who complies to your rules. Most of the debates here are not like that of course and yeah evidence people provide can be false. But if you notice anything like this then you can mention it in the RFD when you vote on that debate. (RFD- reason for decision/vote)
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
For example....? I'm confused about what this debate is about.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Kreakin 3 years ago
Kreakin
frankienstienBobTurnerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
frankienstienBobTurnerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Not sure why this debate exists. However, Pro failed completely in their BOP while Con actually attempted to engage the debate. Argument points to Con. Conduct points to Con as Pro forfeited. BTW Pro, black is not a color its the absence of color.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
frankienstienBobTurnerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con since Pro forfeited two rounds. S & G also went to Con based on the poor grammar skills of the Pro.