The Instigator
JackDChicken
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
64bithuman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

[Someone] cannot be a true [Something]

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 296 times Debate No: 79934
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

JackDChicken

Pro

[Someone] cannot be a true [something]

What do I mean by this?
When I say that [someone] cannot be a true [something], it is because I believe that an individual would never be able to call him-/herself, or anyone for that matter, a true [something]. This will tie very closely with the no true Scotsman fallacy[1].

My opponent will be con/against this, and will therefore try to use arguments to prove that my statement is wrong.

Rules


    • Don't troll

    • Do not assort to insults

    • Be mature



Rounds
1st Round: Con gives their arguments
2nd - 4th Round: Rebuttals
5th Round: Final words


Definitions


True In accordance with fact or reality[2]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
64bithuman

Con

Thanks Pro,



The definition of true given by Pro is this: ‘In accordance with fact or reality’. So to find a ‘true carpenter’ we need only find out what a carpenter is in accordance with reality. A carpenter, by definition, is a person who repairs/works with wooden structures. When a carpenter says, ‘that man isn’t a true carpenter’, we need only look at whether or not he’s right. Does this person repair/work with wooden structures?


If the answer is yes: Then the man is wrong, he is a true carpenter by definition.


If the answer is no: Then the man is right, he isn’t a true carpenter by definition. He might be almost a carpenter, but he’s not quite a full carpenter. He might need a new definition, a new title, like ‘plumber’ or ‘electrician’ or something that fits what he does better.


Unless we start to ask stupid semantical questions like, “But what really is an electrician?” that’s the answer to this supposed fallacy.

Debate Round No. 1
JackDChicken

Pro

JackDChicken forfeited this round.
64bithuman

Con

64bithuman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
JackDChicken

Pro

JackDChicken forfeited this round.
64bithuman

Con

I apologize for the forfeit, but it doesn't seem to matter, as my opponent seems to have dropped out.
Debate Round No. 3
JackDChicken

Pro

JackDChicken forfeited this round.
64bithuman

Con

64bithuman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
JackDChicken

Pro

JackDChicken forfeited this round.
64bithuman

Con

64bithuman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
Yep, it's okay now.
Posted by JackDChicken 1 year ago
JackDChicken
I've changed the font. How is it now?
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
I think this may be a bug but your whole argument is written in Greek on my screen.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
Your argument is in some weird kind of symbol language.
No votes have been placed for this debate.