The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Mass Refutation Debate #1

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,455 times Debate No: 21242
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)




= Opening Statements =
Hey guys! Thanks for taking the time to read this. Allow me to explain what this is all about;

= Rules/Clarifications =
+ My opponent will present five arguments a round, for three consecutive rounds. I will have the burden to refute their arguments.

+ This debate is not traditional in the sense of extension or further refutation of arguments, but instead one of single refutation and argument building. What I mean is that if my opponent makes an argument in round one, they do not have the liberty to defend or extend the argument in a later round. In the same way, I do not have the liberty to further refute the argument after my round to refute it has passed. Instead, my opponent's aim should be to make as solid an argument as possible in the round that the argument is written, and my own will be to make as best a refutation as I can in my round which follows.

+ New arguments should be made every round, and they should be as diverse as possible. My opponent should not make all their arguments revolve around a single subject area, but should include many subjects.

+ Any argument style is permitted, but whatever style is used should be consistent and should follow the traditional Claim/Warrant/Impact format.

+ Whomever accepts this debate will begin in round one, and will not use their final round for any kind of argumentation or voting issue platform.

= Closing Statements =
I hope to have a clean, fun debate in which both mine and my opponent's minds are stretched. Good luck to anyone who would decide to accept this round, and if there are any questions please feel free to ask them in the comments section prior to acceptance!


Thank you, buckIPDA, and the viewers for making this interesting debate possible. Here are my first five logical arguments:

P1: Every color that is blue is not yellow.
P2: Blue is a color that is blue.
C: Therefore, blue is not yellow.

P1: All human beings are mortal.
P2: Socrates was a human being.
C: Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

P1: A week consists of seven days.
P2: A day consists of twenty-four hours.
C: Therefore, a week consists of 168 hours.

P1: If God is capable of everything, then God is incapable of being incapable of anything.
P2: If God is incapable of being incapable of anything, then God is incapable of something.
P3: If God is incapable of something, then God is not capable of everything.
C: Therefore, God is not capable of everything.

P1: If premise one is true, then premise two is also true.
P2: Premise one is true.
C: Therefore, both of the premises in this argument are true.

I look forward to your response.

Debate Round No. 1


= Opening statements =
I would like to profusely thank my opponent for accepting this debate! Again, I hope we can have a lot of fun here.

= Refutations =
a. Color isn't a concrete concept, it's a perception unique to each individual. What I interpret as blue may be what another person interprets as yellow. Therefore it is entirely possible that every color that is blue for you, is yellow for me.
a. When my opponent states that "Blue is a color that is blue." he indicates that there are other colors which are blue as well. Where this not the case, then my opponent would not have written "is a", he would have simply said "is".
b. The word "a" indicates that blue being blue is a single option out of many. Extending across my refutations on P1, we can see clearly that yellow may be blue.
a. Blue could very possible be yellow based on how two people see a specific color. Furthermore because my opponent's C is an absolute statement, the fact that there is any possibility of blue being yellow at all refutes the argument.
b. To the blind color doesn't exist at all. Meaning that this argument doesn't really mean anything.

a. Based on the philosophy of [1] Quantum Suicide everyone has the possibility of being immortal
b. You never warrant that all humans are mortal in the first place. Just because there hasn't been an immortal human yet, does not mean there will never be one.
c. I've never died, therefore so far as I know I am immortal.
a. You cannot prove that Socrates was a human being as you never personally knew Socrates.
b. You do not have Socrates' DNA which would be necessary to warrant this argument. Otherwise for all we know Socrates could have been an alien.
a. My opponent fails to prove that Socrates was human.
b. Quantum Suicide refutes my opponent's argument entirely

a. A week, while commonly accepted as being seven days long, is not universally accepted as being seven days long.
b. A School-week or Work-week can be anywhere from Less than one day long to six days long, and can lasts anywhere between less than one hour to more than seventeen hours long (depending on the school attended and classes taken).
c. A metric week is ten days long[2]
a. A day is actually only a little over twenty-three hours and fifty six minutes long[3]
a. Even under the commonly accepted seven day week, a week is only 167 hours and 50 minutes long
b. There is no set standard for how long a school or work week is.
c. A metric week is 239 hours and 20 minutes long

1. [4]Semantic: (semantically) with regard to meaning; "semantically empty messages"

a. God is omnipotent, but not necessarily capable of doing everything. God can only do those things which fall under his perfect nature, meaning anything imperfect or would constitute something God couldn't do. Your very basis is faulty.
b. Because the very basis of this argument is faulted no other part can be considered.
a. Once again, God is omnipotent, and all-powerful. That does not mean however that God can do everything.
b. Even if the first basis offered by my opponent is accepted, this isn't a legitimate argument. It's only snappy wordplay, making it nothing more than semantic[4] rhetoric.
a. God is Omnipotent, but cannot necessarily do everything.
b. My opponent's link is semantic.

2. [5] Begging the question: "Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true."

a. When my opponent uses the word "if" he sets himself up for the possibility of premise one being falsifiable.
b. Because premise one is falsifiable, premise b is either equally set up for falsification, or exponentially so.
a. There is no warrant to believe that premise 1 is true
b. This argument begs the question of either premise being true. Meaning that both P1 and P2 depend on each other to be proven true before either one can be proven true.
a. The term "if" makes the argument inherently falsifiable.
b. The lack of warrant in P2 throws the argument the window.
c. The fact that my opponent P1 and P2 begs the question makes them circular. This would be exactly the same thing as saying that "Santa is real because a child's parent's told them so" , and they know that Santa is real because "Santa told the child's parents that he was real."

= Closing Statements =
These where all wonderful arguments, and I loved refuting them! I eagerly await your next sex of arguments.


Very fun debate, though I do wish I had the chance to defend myself from those refutations. Ah well, I digress; here is my next batch. Good luck.

P1: Men who think about having sex with other men on a daily basis are probably homosexual.
P2: My opponent does not think about having sex with other men on a daily basis.
C: Therefore, my opponent is probably not homosexual.

P1: It is possible for paper to be flammable.
P2: Origami cranes are made of paper.
C: Therefore, it is possible for an origami crane to be flammable.

P1: buckIPDA is Pro in this debate.
P2: DakotaKrafick is Con in this debate.
C: Therefore, buckIPDA and DakotaKrafick are debating each other.

P1: Yahweh only performs morally good acts.
P2: Yahweh murdered people.
C: Therefore, murdering people is a morally good act.

P1: The definite description "that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier" is understood.
P2: "that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier" refers to that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier.
P3: The concept of whatever sandwich a definite description refers to has existence-in-the-understanding.
P4: It is conceivable that a sandwich is tastier than anything that lacks a tasty-making property that it conceivably has.
P5: Existence-in-reality is a tasty-making property.
P6: Any sandwich the concept of which has existence-in-the-understanding conceivably has existence-in-reality.
P7: It is not conceivable that a sandwich is tastier than that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier.
C: Therefore, that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier exists-in-reality.

Debate Round No. 2


= Opening Statements =
Thanks to my opponent for the new arguments!
Also, as a note for to the readers, I apologize for my misspelled word in the prior round. In the last sentence I accidentally spelled the word "set" as the word "sex". However I assure the word is meant to be "set".

= Refutations =
a. Men who think about having sex with other men every everyday can and be bisexual, pan-sexual, or homosexual. Men who think about having sex with other men aren't necessarily homosexual
a. Not that this claim isn't true, however my opponent does not warrant this claim.
a. Despite the fact that I do not self-identify as a homosexual because I believe it to be an immoral lifestyle, I am in fact sexually attracted to other men.
b. I am not sexually to women
c. Because I am sexually attracted to other men, I am a homosexual despite the fact that I choose not to act on my urges.

3. [6]Possible: "something that can be done"
a. Not all paper is flammable. Pacon, an art supply company, sells a type of paper called "Flameless" [7] which is flame retardant.
a. Not all oragami is made of paper. Despite the name literally meaning "the art of folding paper" Origami has branched out since it's creation to include multiple mediums[8]
a. Because not all paper is flammable it is not possible for a "Flameless" paper origami to be flammable.

a. I am not buckIPDA, that is only my username. My actual name is Dakota.
b. My username isn't debating. I am. therefore buckIPDA isn't a participant in this debate.
a. DakotaKraffick may be your real name, but there is not any proof to know that it is beyond your telling us so.
b. Even if your first name is Dakota, and your Surname is Kraffick, your name isn't DakotaKraffick because there is no space between Dakota and Kraffick in your username.
a. Because I am actually debating this round and not my username, buckIPDA is not a participant in this round.
b. Because no opponent in any other debate you've had has the name buckIPDA as of the time you posted your prior arguments (2/19/2012)[9], you are not debating buckIDA.

[10]4. Morality: "ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong"
[11]5. Murder: "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being"
a. Morality is a personal inward concept unique to each individual. The purpose of morality is meant to be one's guiding principle to help them distinguish right from wrong.
b. Because Yahweh defines what what is right and what is wrong, he does not need a sense of morality. He defines morality.
a. Yahweh is not a human being, therefore when he kills humans it is not murder.
b. Murder implies "unlawful" or unjust. Because Yahweh is the judge of the universe (Psalm 7:11 "God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses his wrath every day."), he defines justice. Therefore when he kills it is just.
a. Because Yahweh is not a person, he cannot murder.
b. Because there is no warrant to show murder is morally good, you cannot accept this argument.

a. No it's not. It took me several times reading through before I understood what this sentence was saying.
a. No it's not. The direct object is simply "that sandwich" the descriptive modifier "which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier" is not a reference point.
a. Extend across P1 sub point a.There is no understanding thus there is no existence
a. Tastiness is a relative concept.
b. Because tastiness is a relative concept, it is not conceivable that there would be one sandwich which had a property which made it tastier than all other sandwiches.
a. No it isn't. Where this the case, then anything that existed would be tasty. To this effect I ask all readers to taste your computer/cell phone/other electronic device which you are using to read this debate, and show that it isn't tasty.
a. When my opponent uses the word "any" he refers to every and all sandwiches which can be perceived. I therefore propose an ice-cube and lava sandwich on white-bread.
b. An ice-cube and lava sandwich couldn't be maintained long enough for anyone to know whether or not they like it.
c. I dislike white bread, so I would not enjoy this sandwich. Also lava kind of burns.
d. Because I would no enjoy this sandwich my opponent's theory is flawed.
a. Yes it is. Again, where I to assume that the sandwich my opponent speaks of is the ice cube and lava sandwich, then I wouldn't like it because I dislike white-bread. And the lava thing.
a. This conclusion isn't even linear in regards to the first seven prongs to my opponent's argument.
b. Extend across the Lava and Ice-Cube sandwich on white bread argument.

= Closing statements =
I thank my opponent, and I eagerly await their next set of arguments.


My final batch of logical arguments:

P1: There cannot be two different answers to a math problem which only requires addition to solve.
P2: One plus one is a math problem which only requires addition to solve.
P3: One plus one equals two.
C: Therefore, one plus one cannot equal anything other than two.

(Note: There are, of course, math problems that have more than one answer, but none that ONLY require addition to solve. Also, disguising alternative answers for "two" as "the square root of four" does not count, as its simplest form is still "two".)

P1: At the end of a standard Go match, whichever player has more points than the other wins.
P2: Hashimoto Utaro had five more points than Iwamoto Kaoru at the end of their famous Atomic Bomb Go Game.
C: Therefore, Hashimoto won the Atomic Bomb Go Game.

(Note: By the "end" of a standard Go match, I mean the natural conclusion when yose has finished, dame has been completely filled, and both players have alternately passed. Therefore, this excludes certain endings of a match such as resignation or exhausting of time. Also, by "standard" Go match, I mean the traditional and professional Japanese rules of Go outside of rengo. Furthermore, in order to clarify the second premise where Hashimoto won by an even five points, it should be noted that this game did not include komi.)

P1: Only statements that have adequate valid evidence supporting them should be rationally believed to be true.
P2: "The universe exists" is a statement that has adequate valid evidence supporting it.
C: Therefore, "The universe exists" is a statement that should be rationally believed to be true.

(Note: I define "universe" in this case as "every observable thing in existence". If you believe "every observable thing in existence" does not exist or that there is not adequate valid evidence to support its existence, then I don't know what you're talking about.)

P1: It is possible for a coin to land on heads when flipped.
P2: It is possible for a coin to land on tails when flipped.
C: Therefore, it is possible for a coin to land on either heads or tails when flipped.

(Note: These statements say "possible" not "necessary". Also, the conclusion does not rule out other possibilities, such as the coin landing on its edge or being destroyed in the flipping process; it merely states that it is possible for it to land on heads and it is possible for it to land on tails.)

P1: If my opponent overall has stronger refutations than I do logical arguments, the viewers should vote for him to win the debate.
P2: My opponent overall has stronger refutations than I do logical arguments.
C: Therefore, the viewers should vote for him to win the debate.

(Note: If my opponent does not refute this argument, it would not mean the viewers should take it as literally true. All it would mean is that one of my logical arguments remain unchallenged. Conversely, if my opponent perfectly refutes this argument, then he would therefore have one strong refutation, but in the process be damaging the reputation of his previous refutations.)

Over to you, buckIPDA.
Debate Round No. 3


= Opening statements =
This has been a fantastic, and very much so fun debate. I thank my opponent profusely for all of his arguments throughout the course of this round, and I sincerely thank all of the voters who have read this debate.

That said

= Refutations =
a. There absolutely can. One cat, plus one fish can either equal one cat and one fish, or it could end in one cat. The error here lies in my opponent interpreting basic addition solely in theory.
a. I can concede to this part of the argument.
a. One apple, plus one orange, equals one apple and one orange. Not two apples, and not two oranges.
b. Similarly, following my opponent's interpretation of basic math, 1X + 1Y = 1X + 1Y. This is still basic math, as solvency requires no advanced math to solve. However these two ones do not result in an answer of two when added together.

a. Not true. According to the principle of "Komi"[12] if black ended the game with one point more than his or her opponent then they would still lose by 4 and 1/2 points.
b. A standard Go match includes the rule of Komi. Whenever komi is not included, it is a modified match, not a standard round.
a. Based on a completely formalist interpretation of this argument, for all we know Hashimoto was black in this famous game.
b. Because not all people are well versed in Go history (myself included) this argument really should have some kind of evidence to back it up. Without a thorough understanding of this concept it's not possible for me to refute.
a. Despite my opponent's clarifying "note" offered at the end of the round, komi must be included in interpretation of who won or lost because my opponent places an emphasis on a "standard round".
b. Based on the rule of Komi, Hashimoto could have very well lost for all we know.

a. I will certainly concede to this first premise.
b. I would like to extend this concept across the five new arguments my opponent presents. Because he presents no evidence to validate his claims we cannot believe them to be true.
a. My opponent doesn't present us with any evidence. For all we know we are all just characters in a movie, t.v. show, or videogame. Who's to say any of us exist at all.
a. Again, my opponent offers no evidence to validate this argument. Our own belief that we exist is not enough to prove that we, nor the universe exists.

a. Not all coins have a heads side.
b. Because the side labeled "tails" is relative to the side labeled "heads" not all coins have a tails side.
a. The Japanese Yen coin does not have a heads side [13]
a. Because a yen coin does not have either a heads, nor a tails side, it is not possible for a yen coin to land on heads nor tails.
b. When my opponent makes this argument they make a huge assumption that all coins have a heads and a tails side. This is detrimental because through this assumption my opponent severely limits the scope of this argument. The impact is that while the term coin would include coins with a heads and a tails side, it does not rule out coins without a heads or tails side. Meaning that since coin without a heads or tails side (the Japanese Yen) cannot land on heads or tails, this argument is fundamentally flawed.

a. Absolutely, this is fundamentally the way debates work.
a. I thank my opponent for saying this, but that decision is up to the voters to decide.
b. Since this is a statement of opinion it cannot be accepted.
a. Again, I thank my opponent for saying this, but that decision is one that must be left up to the voters;

Under-view: (In response to my opponent's final note)
a. Framework must not be abusive. At the point that framework serves not to clarify a debate, but to make it easier for the framer to win, it must be rejected.
b. My opponent's final argument isn't really an argument, as the impact to the argument lies in my opponent's final note. Not the argument. At this realization, we must instead interpret this argument as framework.

= Final thoughts =
a. I doubt this will be a problem, but I feel it should be clarified anyway. Because I will not have a chance to respond to anything my opponent says in the final round, it cannot be counted as a voting issue.
b. Thanks to my opponent for the fantastic debate! I hope to have more in the future. Thanks to the voters for reading as well. I hope you all enjoyed this debate as much as I did.
c. This framework is abusive, as my opponent attempts to establish two contradictory claims.


As this is the very last round, I won't be posting another five arguments unfortunately. Thank you, buckIPDA, for this very entertaining debate and the viewers for taking the time to read it.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
Okay, sounds good. I shall wait patiently (and by "wait patiently" I mean "stay busy with the other six debates I'm in" lol) :)
Posted by buckIPDA 4 years ago
Interesting. I like that idea :-D.
Okay, I accept. The only thing is it will have to wait until after I've finished the next debate I plan on doing.
I'll message you when I'm ready.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
Great. I say we debate all three at the same time (in separate debates). Best two out of three wins. Sounds crazy, but it might be fun lol :)
Posted by buckIPDA 4 years ago
I don't like debating the existence of God. It's not something that can be proven either way.
Furthermore, I take my faith on just that. Faith.

I wouldn't mind debating the Death Penalty, Euthanasia or Flag Burning though.
Posted by 000ike 4 years ago
Buddamoose is a serial VBer who votes for anyone who used math as an argument, however insubstantial to the crux of the debate.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
Seeing as how you and I apparently disagree on nearly everything (looking at your list of "big issues"), we could debate almost anything lol If you happen to be a theist, though, debates about religion and/or the existence of God are my favorite (I'm an atheist).
Posted by buckIPDA 4 years ago
Honestly I was just impressed in general at this debate.
I definitely want to have another, more traditional, debate with you soon.

I have a debate in the works of being planned out with another debater, and I'm determined to start that debate before doing anymore. However after I've had the opportunity to begin that round, I would love to start another round with you.

Any subjects you have in mind?
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
Yes, I agree. While LlamaMan's intentions may have been in the right place, if he felt the debate was a tie, he should have consequently voted a tie (not in such a way as to change the previously-awarded points into a tie).

That said, win, lose, or tie, I didn't much care for the official result of this particular debate. It was fun either way :)
Posted by buckIPDA 4 years ago
@DakotaKrafick I had fun with this was well. I am frustrated however that Llamaman decided to votebomb the debate. That was just plain frustrating.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
I hate these short voting periods. I can't believe I missed voting on this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 4 years ago
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: So tough to choose, Pro and Con both did a great job, but I'll award a slight edge to Pro for the refutation of 1 1=2. I thought that was pretty dang slick.
Vote Placed by LlamaMan 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that this debate is a tie... so I will make it a tie
Vote Placed by MikeyMike 4 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: After counting how many arguments were logically refuted and how many remained unrefuted, Pro wins.