Insulting someone by calling them a liar is materially different from other insults
Debate Rounds (3)
This topic originated from long, tedious discussions between PRO/CON. I adamantly stick to PRO on this position, whereas CON is not fully convinced. This debate aims to further convince CON of PRO's case.
Insulting someone by calling them a liar is materially different from other insults.
a person who tells lies.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a
falsehood.Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.
an insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront.
I will add that a "lie" for the purposes of this debate would be an assertion the truth value of which cannot be determined. It cannot be automatically taken for granted that whatever a liar states is categorically false, as by assuming such, truth value can be determined. Example:
1+1 =/= 2
Without this additional stipulation, if a liar stated the above, then we would know that 1+1=2. By adding the stipulation, all we know is that 1+1 =/= 2 cannot be taken at face value, that it could be true or it could be false.
The rules on this debate will be somewhat unique in order to prove the point:
1) For the purposes of this debate (and only for the purposes of this debate), CON is a liar. I have the highest regards for CON's personal integrity...this particular rule in the debate is a strict hypothetical.
2) CON will begin Round #1 by stating exactly "Begin your case." This is because CON will be incapable of accepting this debate by stating "I accept," as CON is a liar.
3) This debate will be judged on the strict basis of Tabula Rasa, meaning that what is stated in the debate (including round #1) will be taken as prima facie true...unless of course one side is deemed a liar. Refer to rule #1.
I hope this proves to be an interesting thought experiment.
This will be a NO SCORING debate. I ask that anyone who reads this debate not assign points to either side, although as always you are more than welcome to participate in discussion, further debate, and to leave an opinion as to who you thought was the victor.
This is not a trial, and thus the weight of the verdict is not important. What is important is to determine which case is more convincing.
3 rounds, 4,000 characters per round.
Begin your case.
lol, I thank CON for playing along, and I do hope this proves to be constructive.
Before I begin, because of the rules stated in round #1, I immediately move to dismiss any and all arguments, assertions, and conclusions that CON will proffer in this debate. This is because, as stated in round #1, CON is a liar, and so the truth value of any statement CON makes cannot be determined. There is no one to say otherwise, and as was specific in round #1, this debate is to be judged on the basis of Tabula Rasa, meaning that whatever is said in the debate is to be taken as prima facie true...except for anything CON says.
In fact, if I were CON, I'd just forfeit the subsequent rounds; it is pointless for CON to spend any significant time forwarding an argument that cannot be taken as true. If CON does continue to argue, I will simply reassert this statement. Note that my statement simply restates #1 assumptions, and so is indisputable for the purposes of this debate.
Now that that pleasant business is over...
Insults come in all flavors, from trivial, unrealistic statements like poopiehead to more serious charges like "you talk like a five-year-old". Many are simply expressions of frustration, spoken at the heat of the moment to convey the feelings of the one lobbing insults. Sometimes, they are calculated statements meant to incite...this easily fits the definition of trolling. All of them are attacks against the other party...any and all insults are ad hominem attacks by definition. They do not forward any arguments, and are wholly unconstructive to debating.
Calling someone a liar is archetypal of the underlined. As anyone can see, the way this debate was set up, it's not a really a debate. It's simply me proffering a long-winded monologue, because CON is deemed a liar for the purposes of this debate, and thus any arguments CON may proffer cannot be validated. This is definitional, and in this debate, undebatable. Also note how by calling CON a liar, I've yet to forward any arguments that substantiate BoP for my position. Indeed, I've yet to actually forward a case at this point.
So what is my case?
Calling someone a liar is materially different from other insults, because other insults not questioning the validity of the other party's statements would allow for the other party to defend him/herself in whatever argumentative manner that person saw fit. Given the concept of Tabula Rasa which is more or less standard on this website given the unpredictability of the audience's background, it's not possible to argue against such a charge, because the other party's statements cannot be verified - for example, CON is incapable of defending herself if the charge of being a liar is taken at face value, which it is in this debate.
Let's say CON brought in outside sources. Those sources could be verified for truth value, but not any statements, arguments, or conclusions CON would draw from them. Even if CON were to paraphrase or quote her sources, it would be the sources that are held valid, and not any statements CON would make referencing them. Why? Because CON is a liar, and truth value cannot be determined from her statements. Again, this is a round #1 assertion. CON simply cannot argue a position, because CON is a liar.
What about other people vouching for CON? Any and all comments made outside of this debate hold no relevance to the matters within this debate. Therefore, other people vouching for CON also becomes impossible within the confines of this venue.
Lying is a serious insult. It is different from other insults just like how AIDS is different from other diseases. It robs the ability of the inflicted from defending him/herself, and makes it exceptionally easy for even the weakest of arguments/diseases to prevail against the inflicted. AIDS is easily seen by many as the world's most deadliest disease; similarly, the charge of lying is the most serious of insults on this website, and should not be bantered about irresponsibly.
Please think about the following questions.
Can a question be a lie?
Can an instruction be a lie?
How much, in debating, do we rely on our assessment of participants' characters when judging debates? Would we accept their bare assertions or would we need logic and evidence to convince us?
What difference does knowing I'm a liar make when you're reading this? Are you reading it more critically and carefully, for example? Is that a good or a bad thing?
Look at Pro's definition of a lie: an assertion the truth value of which cannot be determined. It cannot be automatically taken for granted that whatever a liar states is categorically false...
How is that different from any other unsupported statement that might be offered in a debate?
Wouldn't you always keep in mind the possibility that a debater might be, if not lying, exaggerating, misrepresenting or simply mistaken about the truth? Do you even believe in "truth" as such?
How is your reading relationship with me altered by the knowledge that I'm a liar? If it's not altered very much, consider what the word "liar" is. Is it anything more than an expression of disapproval and hostility?
If it is not, please conclude that it is an insult of the most ordinary kind.
As I stated before:
I immediately move to dismiss any and all arguments, assertions, and conclusions that CON proffers in this debate. This is because, as stated in round #1, CON is a liar, and so the truth value of any statement CON makes cannot be determined. There is no one to say otherwise, and as was specific in round #1, this debate is to be judged on the basis of Tabula Rasa, meaning that whatever is said in the debate is to be taken as prima facie true...except for anything CON says.
Since CON has no valid arguments, CON has not offered a valid rebuttal against my round #2 case. Extend all of my arguments. I've made it clear that even the simplest of assertions such as 1+1=2 cannot be determined to be true if uttered by a liar. They can only be determined to be true if uttered by someone else.
It is also implied in the rules listed in round #1 that a liar is not someone that lies only once. It is someone for whom the truth value of any assertion, argument, and conclusion cannot be determined.
Perjury is a serious offense. Perjury applies to someone who has lied only once under oath. A liar by definition would commit perjury by uttering any assertion, argument, or conclusion under oath. In order for a liar to avoid committing perjury, a liar would have to be completely silent. Even attempts to "plead the fifth" would be taken as lies. If any question is asked to the liar, the liar will either have to commit perjury, or be held in contempt of the court by not answering. The liar cannot win.
I will now answer some questions brought to my attention.
"Can a question be a lie?"
"Can an instruction be a lie?"
We could get quite philosophical here, that anyone using language or semantics is making arguments and conclusions...after all, the statement "Write down 1+1=2" assumes the English language and mathematics as givens, and concludes that "Write down 1+1=2" has a certain, comprehensible meaning. If we want to get at this philosophical level, then even questions and instructions uttered by a liar cannot be validated for truth value, and so CON would be left with no means to communicate.
What about this debate then? Did CON actually accept this debate? Does CON even exist for the purposes of this debate? Does this debate even exist? I would say yes to all of these questions, after all, I am evidently debating CON - just that CON is a liar, and thus cannot make valid arguments. CON did accept this debate by pressing the "accept" button, regardless of CON following the rules in round #1.
"Wouldn't you always keep in mind the possibility that a debater might be - if not lying outright - then exaggerating, misrepresenting or simply mistaken about the truth?"
Yes. IMHO one should always keep that in mind. The key though is that if someone is not a liar, then their statements CAN be validated. Verification simply is not possible if the intent to tell the truth simply is not there, which of course is the definition of a liar. We would be unable to determine if the liar is actually utilizing basic assumptions such as the English language as givens. Liars simply cannot communicate anything valid, or truthful.
This is how I understand the word "liar" to mean in civilized discourse. This is why the charge of lying is so taboo in most cultures. Joe Wilson apologized and was publicly rebuked by Congress not because he made an outburst, but because his outburst consisted of only two words: "YOU LIE!"
I will answer further questions in the comments section. As it is, this "debate" is over. Again, CON has made no valid arguments in this debate, and will not be able to make any valid arguments in this debate. I could say that "Insulting someone by calling them a liar is materially different from other insults" is true simply because I say so, which is the weakest of arguments, but because CON cannot argue against it, I would meet BoP with such a statement and win this debate.
Everything I say in this round is a suggestion for the reader's consideration. For simplicity, I will present these suggestions as statements.
"I immediately move to dismiss any and all arguments, assertions, and conclusions that CON will proffer...If CON does continue to argue, I will simply reassert this statement." (my emphasis)
Pro has declared that he will move to dismiss my arguments, whatever I say, so we know how Pro will respond. In fact, he has already responded. Therefore the usual concerns about right of reply are irrelevant, and I may (and will) present new arguments in this final round.
Pro said that "even questions and instructions uttered by a liar cannot be validated for truth value, and so CON would be left with no means to communicate."
Ironically, Pro was responding to the questions I posed in this debate. He repeated them, and then tried to answer them, thereby proving that they do have value and I do have means to communicate.
His behavior directly contradicts his words.
Further, Pro said "If CON does continue to argue, I will simply reassert this statement." This has been contradicted by his behavior in round 2.
Therefore, despite Pro's round 1 protestations, we cannot assume that everything he says is true. His statements cannot be taken at face value. He has made both true and false statements in this debate so far.
With great reluctance, I must ask readers to compare Pro's inconsistencies with his definitions in round 1. In particular:
"a "lie" for the purposes of this debate would be an assertion the truth value of which cannot be determined."
Liar: a person who tells lies
If you do conclude that Pro has lied (and is therefore a liar, according to the structure he proposed in round 1), then all his arguments, instructions and questions must be dismissed, including those in round 1.
Such a rejection of arguments is more devastating for Pro than for me because he has the Burden of Proof. If his arguments don't hold up, then it makes no difference whether mine do or not. He has failed to uphold his burden.
Although, I suppose, if even his round 1 instructions are to be dismissed, then that whole artificial "con is a liar" scaffolding has gone, and both sides to this debate should be judged in the normal way, on merit.
"Liar" is an archetypal insult
Most of debating is triggering knowledge and associations that readers already possess. For example, in a debate about abortion, Pro could use terms such as "freedom", "my body", "religious fanatics". Con could use terms like "protect the innocent", "baby", "murder".
It doesn't matter who utters these words. They still have an effect on the reader, and they will trigger associations related to abortion. Actual arguments work the same way. They will be effective if that knowledge and those lines of argument already exist within the minds of readers.
Occasionally, a debater will present new information. She has to work harder to make this new information convincing. She will use sources and logic, she will make analogies with common ideas. The reader will not take this new information on trust. He will check it against his own understanding and he will check the logic and the sources given. If it isn't consistent with the knowledge he already possesses, he will reject it.
Thus, in the most courteous and objective way possible, readers assume that all debaters are liars, and that their arguments need to be supported. Therefore, characterizing someone as a "liar" does not add or detract in any meaningful way from the function of debating.
Of course, I don't like being called a liar. Even artificially, such as in the current debate, it makes me feel uncomfortable. That is because of the hostility and disrespect inherent in the insult. I would feel equally, or more, uncomfortable if I had to accept that I was a "slut" or a "bitch" for the duration of a debate.
As Pro has already conceded, calling someone a liar is an archetypal insult.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Valar_Morghulis 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided excellent reasoning and deep understanding of the topic. Pro also used sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.