The Instigator
nephilim
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Aric
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The constant paradox

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,132 times Debate No: 8781
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

nephilim

Pro

Opposing the question-answer logistics. The posibility of defining truth without progressive denial or approval. A theory than truth consists of negation and position: How would you define truth without these prerequisites. Twisted mind games. I've been thinking of this for a while and found some consistment in the paradox as is logic and contradictionary at the same time. Could it be that the mended stature of yes and no is the very root to truth? Would it be that a paradox is closer to its definition? First of all paradoxes aren't easy to come up with. Farther more difficult the constant paradox. As paradoxes are relative to its root. How would you provide a natural progression in explanation of yes and no with a paradox? The usual two instances of a paradox appear under the same essential claim that they are equal in reference to eachother. Think of this for a while. Could the essence of time refer to a paradox that never ends? Truth is constantly evolving. Would it be reason to define truth as an absolute? Is the paradox the closest one comes to an explanation of relativity? If both yes and no is true only the paradox is the essentially defining a probability. Would a probability or a question be closer to truth as within an answer? I hereby challenge yous all to find the constant paradox which I haven't yet.
Aric

Con

I'm going to go for the epic win here and try to sort through all this meaningless garbage.

I can find the constant paradox which you seek.

The constant paradox, is your writing.

So suck on that.
Debate Round No. 1
nephilim

Pro

I don't deny the possibility of opposition justifiably as true as position. However a neutral point of view would not be to mock the very root of truth. Argueably the question seems to be weather truth offends you or not? Truth is considered relative to the observer which is an absolute. That leaves me with a question weather truth can be opposed or not?

As for my writing: Wouldn't you think of your argument as a paradox? You are against yet you consider me to have achieved my challenge.

Truth is I don't renounce any points of view without first haven given it thought and consideration. As a peer this should normally lead to a neutral standing on the envoy of definition which must be absolute. However you are denying me the privilege of definition. Do you consider truth in content to be whether one person is right or the other? Truth is in the search for it.

Seriously enough quite an underestimate and short complaint yet interesting in its defiance of any human attempt to weigh truth in opposition to its understanding core. Accordingly you find my writing untrue. Do you deny me the ability to observe with your statement defining the question for a constant paradox is the answer? That's brilliant my friend.
However more interesting in context: Is a paradox a question with an answer to itself and vice versa?

How could I without question or answer define truth?

I truly appreciate your giving me the authority to make definition. However there is no paradox in judging one argument against the other. Or is there? A closer look on the proposed stated issue here. If we both agree my writing is a constant paradox how could we explain this to be true? The logical outcome of your statement would be ruined by the constant paradox due its essential nature to oppose itself? In more certain words the constant paradox is not found untill the end of time in its beginning to be both true and false. Which obviously aren't properties my writing, or your, possess.

This in fact is a definition of unexplainable concern. The constant paradox is that making a definition of it actually absolves it's existence. How would you refrain to this challenge?
Aric

Con

Oh wow.

I sincerely apologize. I'm quite embarrassed now.

I don't think the truth can be opposed. I mean, it can be, however, I define the truth as absolute. However, our current definitions of the truth can be dated with new discoveries, and I don't ever think we could find an absolute truth that would stick with us as the truth for eternity. Which leads me to believe, that the pursuit of the truth is foolish and a waste of time. It is better to just accept the current truths than to argue them and pursue an absolute truth which cannot be opposed.

A paradox isn't a question with an answer. A paradox is an unanswerable question. However, one could argue that it is answerable, but that would be a pursuit for an absolute truth which cannot be challenged, which in my opinion, as I have said, is a foolish waste of time. It is much better to accept that a paradox is a paradox, and it will never be answered, and that is the undeniable truth, whether it is deniable or not. Just like it's much better to accept that the chair I am sitting on exists. While you could argue that it doesn't, it is much more beneficial to society to just accept the chair as a truth.

Without question or answer, I don't think life would be possible. Or at least, free will. Question and answer with our selves is what we need to thrive. We need to be able to ask ourselves, am I hungry, and questions of that caliber. However, if other beings can ask questions, then you can define truth. But I believe in your scenario, no one can have questions or answers, therefore, there is no truth.

If you could excuse me, I still do not understand the concept of the constant paradox, so I will refrain from making commentary.

Thank you for this enlightening debate.
Debate Round No. 2
nephilim

Pro

nephilim forfeited this round.
Aric

Con

Um.

All "arguments" extended.
Debate Round No. 3
nephilim

Pro

nephilim forfeited this round.
Aric

Con

I've got nothing to say.
Debate Round No. 4
nephilim

Pro

nephilim forfeited this round.
Aric

Con

Yup.

Vote for whoever sounded less stoned.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
Are you an atheist Amphibian? No soul? By reality do you think life?

theLwerd: Truth is an absolute so you can not question or answer it.

feverish: Of course this paradox prevents me from definition therefor I can not believe in it.

wjmelements: Your paradox would be there is no debate in a paradox.

sherlockmethod: I have tried to clarify my position briefly in round two.
Posted by Amphibian 7 years ago
Amphibian
Truth exists separately from reality and is only an invention of the human mind. Therefore there can be no constant paradox outside of the human mind. Good luck with yours nephlim. I suggest you ponder this while listening to some Pink Floyd.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I applaud you in resisting the War on Drugs...

but did you have to ingest ALL controlled substances?
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
What are you talking about, dude?

The challenge is figuring out what you want to question/debate.

Truth is an absolute...? Obv? I don't get it. Please rephrase.
Posted by Aric 7 years ago
Aric
Nephilim,
Get back to me when the drugs wear off.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Hi Nephilim.
Your argument seems to state that you do not believe in the "constant paradox" (whatever that is) yet you are Pro. A mistake on your part or have I misunderstood?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I don't understand what is being debated.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
I'm sorry, I simply did not understand the argument. I am familiar with all the terms, but I was unable to nail down Pro's position. I suggest a rewrite on the argument or some clarification in the comments. I must decline this one.
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
Perhaps not but there is a challenge.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
No proposition, incomprehensible argument.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Crust89 7 years ago
Crust89
nephilimAricTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
nephilimAricTied
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 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
nephilimAricTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
nephilimAricTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
nephilimAricTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
nephilimAricTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
nephilimAricTied
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