The Instigator
Intrepid
Pro (for)
Tied
9 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Tied
9 Points

My Opponent Will Contradict Himself

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,333 times Debate No: 52986
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

Intrepid

Pro


Rules


1. First Round is for acceptance.


2. I will ask my opponent five questions a round.


3. My opponent must answer every question with a “yes” or a “no”


4. Capitalization does not change word meaning. For example, a “Mango” is no different from a “mango.” This way my opponent cannot say I did not answer “Yes,” I answered “yes.”


5. Don’t be stupid and try to loophole everything. Obvious or cunning loopholes are allowed but nothing desperate or dumb. Whether or not a loophole is desperate or dumb will be argued between the debaters and left up to the voters.

6. My opponent must answer each question truthfully.


Breaking any of these rules will result in a full forfeit and 7 points going to the other debater.


Contradiction - "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another"



Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Intrepid

Pro

Thank you for accepting.


1. Is your username on Debate.org Rational_Thinker9119?

2. Do you have two arms?

3. Do you have two legs?

4. Are you a human being?

5. Do you like apples?

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"1. Is your username on Debate.org Rational_Thinker9119?"

Yes


"2. Do you have two arms?"

Yes


"3. Do you have two legs?"

Yes


"4. Are you a human being?"


Yes

"5. Do you like apples?"


No

Debate Round No. 2
Intrepid

Pro

1. Is your username on Debate.org Rational_Thinker9119?

2. Did you just answer the above question with a yes or a no?

3. Are you going to answer a question in this round with a no?

4. Did you just answer the above question with a no or a yes?

5. Did you just answer the question I just asked above with a no or a yes?

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"1. Is your username on Debate.org Rational_Thinker9119?"

Yes

"2. Did you just answer the above question with a yes or a no?"

Yes


"3. Are you going to answer a question in this round with a no?"

Yes

"4.Did you just answer the above question with a no or a yes?"

Yes

"5. Did you just answer the question I just asked above with a no or a yes?"

Yes

---

"6. Do you think you will contradict yourself in this debate?"

No

---

You see, there is no rule against asking myself questions. So, because I asked myself a question, and answered "no" to it, I didn't contradict myself. I told the truth in question 3, as there is a question in this round that I answered "no' to (my own question).

That is clearly an obvious and cunning loophole (it is not desperate or dumb, but really clever to ask myself questions!), which my opponent said was allowed. I have not contradicted myself at all...


Debate Round No. 3
Intrepid

Pro

Ahaha very clever CON. I applaud you. However, this debate is not over yet.

I summon my finishing move!

1. Will you not answer this question with a yes?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good game.

You see, if my opponent answers “yes,” then that means he will answer the question with a “no,” however since he answered “yes” he cannot answer “no” so he commits a contradiction and therefore loses the debate.

If he answers “no,” that means he will answer “yes,” however since he answered “no” he cannot answer “yes” and therefore commits a contradiction.

To piece it together, he is basically saying:

Yes, I will not answer this question with a yes. (Contradiction because he claims he will not answer with a yes but he answers with a yes.)

No, I will not, not answer this question with a yes. (Answering “no” creates a double negative which could be rephrased to “No, I will answer this question with a yes.” Since he answered “no” after claiming he would answer “yes” he commits a contradiction.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Do you like mangos?

3. Was this debate mildly entertaining?

4. Can you ride a unicycle?

5. Do you dislike me because of this stupid debate?

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate. It seems as if he concedes that I had a valid loophole for his second set of 5 questions. His first set wasn't intended to set me up (it was just filler); I didn't contradict myself there. That means that if I can provide a valid loophole with regards to Pro's last set of 5 questions, I will win the debate as I never contradicted myself in this game.

Responding To Pro's Questions

Question 1

"1. Will you not answer this question with a yes?"

No

---

I'll reform the question so it is less confusing:

"1. Will you answer this question with a no?"

Now, I answered "no" to the question above. That equates to me saying:

"No, I will answer this question with a no"

This is only contradictory if by "this question" we mean the question "will you answer this question with a no" and not some future question. However, logically, we must be talking about some unknown future question with regards to me answering "will you answer this question with a no?", because as I answer "no, I will answer this question with a no", it is in terms of a future question as I talking about a question I WILL be answering. However, as I answered "no", it was true that:

"I am answering this question" (if we are discussing Question 1)

It was false that:

"I will answer this question" (if we are discussing Question 1)

Therefore, when my opponent says "this question", the only logical conclusion is that it refers to some future question, as I necessarily have to answer the question in a way which speaks about a question that WILL be answered! Since my opponent's interpretation of "this question" leads to the contradictions he mentioned, and the one I just mentioned, then the only logical interpretation is that "this question" must be that we are speaking about some future question.


"2. Do you like mangos?"


No


"3. Was this debate mildly entertaining?"


Yes

"4. Can you ride a unicycle?"


No

"5. Do you dislike me because of this stupid debate?"

No


In Conclusion With Regards To Question 1

My opponent's interpretation of "this question" leads to contradictions (the ones he mentioned, and the one I mentioned regarding answering a question that I will answer). However, that is not me contradicting myself, that is my opponent's interpretation of the "this question" part of Q1 which is leading to the contradictions. I interpreted "this question" in a way which doesn't lead to a contradiction, and it is necessarily the only valid way to interpret "this question". Basically, by "this question", we must be talking about some future question, as I necessarily have to answer the question in terms of a question that WILL be asked. Since this future question has not been specified, I couldn't have contradicted myself with regards to it. I also didn't contradict myself by answering "no" to my opponent's question, as the only reasonable way to interpret the terms "this question" within the question, pertain to some hypothetical future question.

I did not contradict myself once in the debate, because when I answered "no" to Q1 in his last round, I answered "no" pertaining to my interpretation of Q1, which clearly avoids the contradiction mentioned by Pro. My loophole here is clever, because I show that there is only one reasonable way to interpret his question, and that it instantly takes me out of contradicting myself, and the loophole shows that it is my opponent's interpretation of his question which leads to contradictions, not my answer.

I didn't contradict myself. Therefore, I respectfully ask the voters to vote Con as I negated the resolution fairly.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Intrepid 3 years ago
Intrepid
Yep it was fun
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Good debate!
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Romanni, I know what he meant by "this", the point was that interpretation leads to a contradiction. Therefore, the way I interpreted "this" is the only logical way to interpret it. The fact that it wasn't what he meant is irrelevant.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Him finding my loophole desperate is a valid RFD however. It is left to the voter's discretion after all..
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
MassiveDump assumes that this future question I am referring to with regards to Question 1 was wasn't Question 3: "was this debate mildly entertaining?".....I answered "yes"to that. Therefore, there is NO basis for claiming that there was a question left unanswered.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
(correction)

*"No, I will NOT answer this question with a no"

I said "No, I will answer this question with a no" by accident. Don't want to confuse folks.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Definitely. Thanks for the debate.
Posted by Intrepid 3 years ago
Intrepid
That was fun lol
Posted by Intrepid 3 years ago
Intrepid
Lol, very nice move CON :P
Posted by Intrepid 3 years ago
Intrepid
No he can use loopholes, just not stupid ones.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
IntrepidRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con Cleverly got past round 3 with a legit method; But as for round 4, here is my problem. I totally qualify that as rule breaking loophole. By saying that you interpreted something differently than what it was perceived, you can easily claim that for any contradiction and make it impossible to lose. You can make a clear contradiction of any statement while saying that you don't perceive it as a contradiction, or that you perceive your answer not to be contradictory. You can then apply any argument to it, to make it seem as if it wasn't actually a contradiction. But my problem mainly is that you did perceive the question in the way Pro intended it, because you went on to explain it from pro's POV. You understood the question as it was meant, and willingly chose to contradict yourself and manipulate the meaning of the question to support your position, which in my opinion qualifies as a rule breaking loophole. Fun read, good job guys. Good luck with the rest of the voting.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
IntrepidRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RT explained how he didn't contradict himself by saying "This is only contradictory if by "this question" we mean the question "will you answer this question with a no" and not some future question. However, logically, we must be talking about some unknown future question with regards to me answering "will you answer this question with a no?", because as I answer "no, I will answer this question with a no", it is in terms of a future question as I talking about a question I WILL be answering. However, as I answered "no", it was true that: "I am answering this question" (if we are discussing Question 1) It was false that: "I will answer this question" (if we are discussing Question 1)"
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
IntrepidRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, it's a bit of a head scratcher, since the rest of the debate is effectively pointless beyond the final round, given that Con did not contradict himself in either R2 or R3. So I'm left to judge the answer to a single question and decide whether that answer is contradictory. I'm not sure whether I buy Con's argumentation on the temporal nature of the question and therefore its capacity to be answered without contradiction, but as this happens in the final round, Pro gives himself no opportunity to make the appropriate response. As such, I have to buy that Pro's interpretation of the question is inaccurate, and therefore allows a non-contradictory answer, even if the question itself may be contradictory in the process. Hence, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
IntrepidRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "No I will NOT answer this question with a no". That in itself is contradictory. Con can claim that Pro was talking about a future question since he said "WILL you answer...", but Pro's use of the word "this" makes it clear that he was talking about that specific question. Very nice try by Con, but Pro's takes the win.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
IntrepidRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: First off, Round 2 should have been used to try and corner Con to allow for more hits. The arbitrary yes/no question asking was a waste of time, and could have been used as another chance to get Con to contradict himself. Con's round 3 loophole was very clever, and he definitely didn't contradict himself in that round, but his justification for not contradicting himself in Round 4 came off as desperate. By altering the tense and saying "I WILL not answer this question with a no," that implies that his answer to the question will come in the future in "yes or no" form, which it never did, and that breaks rule 3. Even if it didn't, desperate was never defined, so I judged the loophole based on whether it made me go "Ah!" or "Eh..." and Round 4 made me go "Eh..." so the final ballot is warranted for Pro.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
IntrepidRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: In order to win this debate, PRO had to get CON to contradict himself... I think? I'm not really sure. If PRO's winning require's CON's self contradiction, then because CON did not contradict himself (at least to the extent that i'm aware), CON wins. This was certainly an interesting debate to judge... lol