The Instigator
AlternativeDavid
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
JasperFrancisShickadance
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Resolved: It is impossible to prove anything

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 6 votes the winner is...
JasperFrancisShickadance
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,177 times Debate No: 62271
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (6)

 

AlternativeDavid

Pro

I will be taking the side that states it is impossible to prove anything.

Rules:
Arguments and rebuttals are allowed in every single round.

In this debate, Con will try to show that it is in fact possible to prove something. Con may use any method that they choose to argue their point.

Con will present their arguments first as they will be attempting to disprove my claim that "it is impossible to prove anything."
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

If you try to prove that it is impossible to prove anything, I win. If I try to prove that you can't prove anything, my opponent will try to argue that he can't prove that he can't prove anything, but he can't prove that because nothing is provable therefore I win. If my opponent doesn't try to prove anything, he doesn't prove that it's impossible to prove anything, so I win.

ARGUMENTS

I can prove to you that this site exists. You cannot object that in any way as long as you follow the definition. If you need any more proof you must give me something that I can't prove as long as it doesn't have anything to do with the supernatural and scientific "facts," partly because that is a completely different discussion that does not belong here.

Really, there is nothing you can do because, if you disprove me, you are proving something: thus your resolution is wrong and I win.
http://www.google.com...

Your turn.
Debate Round No. 1
AlternativeDavid

Pro

There's nothing I can do? I can ask for evidence that this site exists. I believe that Con has contended that this site exists, and therefore they must prove it exists. I believe that I have nothing to rebut here because Con has merely provided a claim and nothing else. Does the site exist? I don't know, I believe that I cannot know. I believe that I can question the existence of this site, and I do not have to prove that it does not exist, as that is impossible.

Is it Con's turn? Possibly.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

I do not have the ability to make these words bold or italic without there being no spaces between paragraphs, so I shall do it like this.

I can prove all these things...

- Your existence: I can prove to you that you are here through the statement by Rene Descartes, "I think, therefore I am." You are thinking in order to write any argument in any round of this debate. [1] Existence is key to this because it branches onto other things I can prove. You yourself have proven that you are on this site by creating this debate and responding to my first argument. Even if you are a robot, you--whoever you are--still exist because you wrote the previous words.

- You are reading these words: Your existence proves that you are reading these words.

-This site: Since you are reading these words, there is such a thing as DDO.

Do I need to say more? Oh yes...

- There is proof it is your turn to say something in this debate. Forfeiting would be the only way to disprove this statement, and you almost never win a debate by forfeiting! [2] Round 3 is coming up and my opponent must say something otherwise they forfeit, but if they do say something than they have proven it was their turn to argue.

Your turn!

Sources
[1] http://quotes.yourdictionary.com...

[2] Quitters never win, and no, forfeiters don't either. http://forum.ea.com...
Debate Round No. 2
AlternativeDavid

Pro

"I can prove to you that you are here through the statement by Rene Descartes"

How can one prove the the author of these words was named Rene Descartes? Also, Con cannot know that I think. Con can simply believe that I think.

"You are thinking"

How can prove oen prove a statement such as this? If I am merely a figment of their imagination, then I am not thinking, Con is.

"You yourself have proven that you are on this site by creating this debate and responding to my first argument"

How can one claim that I created this debate, when for all Con can know, I may not be the creator of this debate? I could be any of seven billion people, it's more likely that I am not the creator.

"You are reading these words"

Maybe I am approaching this blindly and have perfectly guessed everything that Con has said. Con cannot truly know if I am reading these words, for I may be a scribe of the reader. If I am not reading, but writing, then this claim is incorrect.

"Your existence proves"

As I have already shown the fallacy in Con's "proof" of existence, this statement probably holds no water.

"There is proof it is your turn to say something in this debate."

If I can avoid using the tenth word of Con's claim, then it is probably false.

"if they do say something than they have proven it was their turn to argue"

Will I have proven it was my turn, or will I have stolen 9spaceking's turn to give an argument? If it was his turn, and I merely interjected and stole his round, then it may not have been my turn to argue.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

<< This is my signature profile photo. If you scroll over it, you read JasperFrancisShickadance. You can do so in any other rounds that Con or Pro wrote already, and you will see that all the rounds--including the one at the top of this page that says 'Instigator.' All through this debate, my opponent's name and profile picture has remained the same, so even if different people are writing the words you have been reading currently, the writers are under (the SAME NAME which happens to be AlternativeDavid). Even if AlternativeDavid is a figment of my imagination, I created AlternativeDavid, and AlternativeDavid created this debate. The proof is in my words and you can see it as you read this debate and scroll over the profile pictures and read the names. Because there is nothing to refute this, I have proven it. See this debate for further information on this sort of topic:
http://www.debate.org...

My opponent said this. "How can one prove the the author of these words was named Rene Descartes? Also, Con cannot know that I think. Con can simply believe that I think." You need proof my opponent said it? Look to the previous round. Now it's proven.
For a rebuttal of what AD said, read here: http://www.freerepublic.com... No matter whether Rene Descartes even exists or said it or not, the statement still applies to us. (The statement also applies to whoever wrote the saying because they were thinking when they wrote it therefore they existed.) Furthermore, Pro is wrong when saying he is a figment of my imagination, because when people start to vote we will have proof there are other people reading this debate and these people are obviously not a part of my imagination and can see a distinct difference between us two and our profiles, etc. etc. The list of proof goes on. I have proved that I can disprove you and I also have proven that we are different profiles.

Pro says: "How can one claim that I created this debate, when for all Con can know, I may not be the creator of this debate? I could be any of seven billion people, it's more likely that I am not the creator."
Whoever my opponent is in real life doesn't matter because, in this debate, he is under the name of AlternativeDavid. The creator of this debate is none other than AlternativeDavid, because if I am wrong than this debate itself most likely doesn't even exist.

My opponent tries to rebut me saying "You are reading these words." He said, "Maybe I am approaching this blindly and have perfectly guessed everything that Con has said. Con cannot truly know if I am reading these words, for I may be a scribe of the reader. If I am not reading, but writing, then this claim is incorrect." Writing and reading are inseperable. See this site: http://www.nwp.org...

"As I have already shown the fallacy in Con's "proof" of existence, this statement probably holds no water."
If you, pro, have shown the fallacy in my proof for existence, have you proven the so-called fallacy or not? If you have proven it than this debate is over. If you have not, than your words have no validity so we should ignore what you say.

AD: "Will I have proven it was my turn, or will I have stolen 9spaceking's turn to give an argument? If it was his turn, and I merely interjected and stole his round, then it may not have been my turn to argue."
Readers, let me ask you if when you read the next round, the profile pictures match all the others of Pro's in the previous rounds, and if when you scroll over the pics you are able to read "AlternativeDavid"? But certainly, if you read 9spaceking instead, than Pro has proven something and his resolution is finished. Yet if my opponent is wrong in saying 9spaceking or anybody else is actually the debater, then it has been proven how AlternativeDavid and I are the only people debating this. That it is my opponent's turn to argue is also proven.
Debate Round No. 3
AlternativeDavid

Pro

I concede that Con has proven that I am incorrect. Vote Con.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

This has been a fun debate. I was intrigued at the beginning and I wasn't sure how it would work or how I could possibly win, but it came through and my words flowed onto the screen naturally as it was a natural argument for me.

Wow, I have never had this happen before! Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Gaming_Debater 3 years ago
Gaming_Debater
Oddest catch-22 ever.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 3 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Thank you! You are a good sir. A re-debate is (a perfect word for it) and I would love to participate.
Posted by republicofdhar 3 years ago
republicofdhar
Well then, when I've finished a couple of my other debates, I might invite you to a re-debate (is that even a word?!) on this topic. :) Your rap battles are awesome, though. I've never had the privilege of meeting people who can write raps that way.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 3 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Rap battles are supposed to be fun, funny, and clever. That's what mine are (I hope).
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 3 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Misinterpreted THIS debate? No, sir, in all seriousness I am looking forward to the next round.
Posted by republicofdhar 3 years ago
republicofdhar
hahaha looking at your debates, I'm getting the feeling that I misinterpreted the debate. This is meant to be funny right? Like your rap debate? (oops...)
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 3 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Oll Korrect republic of dhar.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 3 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Greetings, your Highness JonBonBon! Your hair is looking gorgeous today. I shall seek to improve my argument against this fellow DDOer and I whole heartedly agree that thy trolls are sniping this debate. I will keep in mind how idealism is key. Farewell.
Posted by republicofdhar 3 years ago
republicofdhar
@ JasperFrancisShickadance I meant if either of the two of you are interested in a more in-depth discussion, we could have a separate debate. :) Perhaps not right now though hahah, I'm currently in the middle of like 4 debates, and I don't think I could handle another for the next couple of days.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Lol David, you're the one that got sniped. You don't get up and claim that you don't believe you know this site exists, because the method people are going to use to vote on this debate (this site) do all the proving needed. If you're not even going to argue idealism, don't start a debate like this. Cuz you're going to get sniped.

In this case you've been sniped by one of my Knights of the Troll Table.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 1Credo 3 years ago
1Credo
AlternativeDavidJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Concession
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 3 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
AlternativeDavidJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't actually address a lot of Con's statements but instead sources other statements. Perhaps, addressing Con's statements that are directed at Pro's resolution of the impossibility of proving anything, Pro may slip & prove Con's argument valid. It seems Con was on the right road of argumentation because Pro conceded, proving he can't prove it is impossible to prove anything. Conduct for Pro for admitting his fallacy. MRS for Con since they further validated her argument.
Vote Placed by RichardCypher 3 years ago
RichardCypher
AlternativeDavidJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: If you try to prove that it is impossible to prove anything, I win. What left is to be said?
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
AlternativeDavidJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both practiced proper conduct throughout this debate. S&G - Tie. Neither made any major spelling or grammatical errors. Arguments - Con. Pro conceded graciously. Thus I award arguments to Con. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize sources throughout this debate whereas Con utilized them to provide further validation and evidence of her arguments. This was a solid win for Con.
Vote Placed by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
AlternativeDavidJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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: con
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
AlternativeDavidJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture