The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Resolved: Everything is Debatable

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,737 times Debate No: 70476
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)




This should be impossible to accept, if anyone somehow does you forfeit the round.

I dont know, let's see where this one goes. BOP is shared.

comment if you want to play

DEFINITIONS: they're debatable
Debate Round No. 1


The round today will discuss wether there exists anything that is not debatable. This is not to say that there is no ultimate truth, but to say that the truth can never be 100% known or proven and thus will always be questioned in its validity, meaning it is will be debated. The very fact that the resolution is an all inclusive statement that does not contradict itself, proves that all things are debatable. In other words, the statement that everything is debatable, is debatable (as we are doing now) and thus everything must be as well. To win this debate pro must simply show that there is some question or statement that is literally impossible to debate. I thank Zaradi for his participation in what I know will be a very interesting and thought provoking debate, and I pass the pen to him, thank you.


As I figured, pro simply relies on semantics and saying that because we're debating this statement, then everything must be debatable. I'll respond to this more in detail in a bit, but I'll start with my arguments first.

First, since no definitions were offered, I'll offer my own.

Everything: "every thing there is : all that exists" (1)

Prefer this definition because

a) it's closest to modern usage in a normal conversation, thus most likely to be applicable to the meaning of the resolution
b) closest to most definitions of the word, meaning that it's textually the most accurate definition

This means that my opponent has a literally impossible burden: he must prove that there isn't anything in existence that is objectively true. All I need to do is provide one instance of something not being debatable in order for you to negate the resolution. Thus, my arguments will simply consist of things that are objectively true.

Truth Number One: One plus one equals two.

This one is simple to explain. If I take one object and I add it with another object, I now possess two objects. This demonstrates the simple math that if you add one and one together, it's impossible to come up with anything other than two. I can extend this into an infinite number of other simple math problems, but I'll keep it at this one to be simple enough.

Truth Number Two: Website

The website we are currently using is known as This isn't a debatable thing as it's merely the assigned domain name of the overall website we are currently using. Being known as other things ("DDO", "The Nerdy Website", etc.) doesn't change it's official identity as

Truth Number Three: Username

It's simply true that the username associated with my identity on is Zaradi. No other user on this website has my username as username are unique: there can't be two people with the same username. And as no one else shares my account, this username is my identity on this website.

Truth Number Four: Grounds

It's objectively true that TheJuniorVarsityNovice is advocating for the Pro position in this debate and that I am advocating for the Con position in this debate. Our sides have been locked in at the beginning of the debate, meaning that we are pressed into defending our positions. And don't let him say "Well I can always just advocate for the other side which would make me either Pro or Con". That doesn't make him either side, it just makes him a crappy debater for not being able to construct a cohesive argument.

Truth Number Five: Burden of Proof

It's objectively true that the Burden of Proof for this debate is to be split between the two of us. As per his specific Round One clarifications, it was that the definitions are things that are debatable and the burden of proof is not, meaning that accepting the debate means that I accept that the Burden of Proof is split and not something else. Since I have not contested it, it becomes objectively true for this debate.

Truth Number Six: Rounds

It's objectively true that there are four rounds attributed to this debate. That isn't to say that we're spending four rounds discussing the topic, as the first round was an acceptance round, but rather that in total, there are four times where we are required to imput something into the text box for our speaking rounds, meaning four rounds.

I can provide more truths upon request, but I have a feeling that the bulk of the debate isn't actually going to be taking place here so I won't bother to continue for now. Let's go and address his argument.

Pro's Argument:

First, his argument is assuming the conclusion is valid before we even begin, making it circular. His argument is that because we're debating whether everything is debatable or not, thus everything is debatable. Why? Because his conclusion needs to be true in order for his premise, us debating about whether everything is debatable or not, in order for it to be able to support the conclusion.

Second, he doesn't actually provide any kind of warrant for his argument. He says that because we're debating if everything is debatable or not that everything must be debatable without actually giving any kind of reasoning for why this is true. He says that it's because the resolution is an all inclusive statement that it's true but that doesn't actually prove anything, nor does he explain why this proves it.

Third, his argument seems to contradict the definition I provide for my arugment. This is where you look to the two reasons I provide for why you're preferring my textbook definition of everything over his concept of everything.

Fourth, this isn't actually an offensive argument. He uses his justification of "we're debating whether everything is debatable" and impacts it by saying "To win this debate pro must simply show that there is some question or statement that is literally impossible to debate.". Assuming he meant con by that, since Pro's BOP is to show that everything is debatable, he's using it as a measure to try and shift the proving grounds onto me, which is a defensive argument. This means that, as per his round one clarifications that the burden of proof is split, he doesn't actually have any offense to fulfill his side of the BoP, meaning that I'm winning by default since I'm upholding mine in six different areas.

Fifth, his argument is abusive as hell. If I accept that his argument is true, then the resolution becomes a truism by his case. This leaves me no ground in order to substantively respond to the resolution. This is harmful for debate as an activity because a) it becomes unfair for me since he has 100% of the arguing ground and I have 0%, meaning that the debate can never be judged fairly. The point of debate is to determine who is the better debater, which becomes impossible if one side is skewed unfairly, and b) it harms the educational value of debate because I can't actually substantively discuss the resolution, meaning that we can't really learn anything in regards to the resolution. And education is important because it's the only thing that gives debate out-of-round value. Vote him down for running this kind of argument to disentivise this kind of debate from happening.


I'm proving six different examples as to how everything isn't debatable by showing six different things that aren't debatable. All I need to do is show that one of them is true in order to win the debate. It's on Pro to respond to all six of them and be winning on all six of them. But even then I'm responding to his argument in five different ways, two of them offensive arguments, giving me a total of eight different ways for me to win the resolution, and I'm also showing how his argument isn't even fulfilling his burden of proof. As of right now, there isn't a way for him to win the debate unless he makes a new argument.


(1) -;
Debate Round No. 2


TheJuniorVarsityNovice forfeited this round.


Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


TheJuniorVarsityNovice forfeited this round.


Well that was easy...
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 3 years ago
@wouren, a debate is defined as a formal discussion where opposing opinions are put forward.

Opinion =/= fact.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 3 years ago
Lol, I'm not throwing in the towel at all, just busy. Sorry guys been a bit of a busy bee lately...
Posted by wouren 3 years ago
WAIT! DON'T THROW IN THE TOWEL!!! Even if something is true, it is still, in theory, debatable? Isn't it true that even if something is true, you can argue against it? Remember, debate is different than proof. It is not set in stone. Since both sides can't be right (unless they are arguing about a paradox or something) someone has to be wrong. I can convince people that the sky is purple through debate, even though it isn't! Even if you think truth CAN halt the power of debate, consider this: the only thing that can't would require the 'absolute truth' logic to anyway are the existential sensations such as 'I am aware of my memories,' or 'I am a being that can perceive' but those are too hard to interpret and make a convincing argument for without significant amount of counterargument ('how do I know that you are just saying that?' 'how do know you are not a robot?'). The issue with existentialism is that although it can give an individual axioms of existence, those axioms cannot be proved by other people outside that individual's mind.
Posted by Bennett91 3 years ago
I'll debate this.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 3 years ago
since we are debating, I would say that it is debatable lol, I means basically a truism
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
I would accept this.
Posted by 18Karl 3 years ago
Is this statement debatable? Is the statement that this statement is debatable debatable? Is the statement this statement is debatable debatable debatable? Ad infinitum. Godel's Theorem says that soon we should come to a point where we have to accept an axiom as true. We have no proof for it, but neither do we have proof against it.
Posted by Surrealism 3 years ago
I would be willing to debate this.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Okay I think I know what I can spew out, if you still want, I'd be willing to accept this now.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
SNP - I'm having the same problem, lol.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
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 rekt m8 lern 2 deb8 360 noscope xXxZaradixXx rekt m8 GET THE CAMARA Illuminati confirmed