The Instigator
branden333
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points

The following sentence is True. The preceding sentence is False.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 14 votes the winner is...
Cody_Franklin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,920 times Debate No: 9930
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (14)

 

branden333

Con

To win this debate my opponent must tell whether each of these sentences are either true or false. I believe there is no way to tell whether either of these sentences are true or false when in combination with one another.

(A) When these sentences are combined, they are formed together to make a paradox. A paradox is an assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises (1).
(B) These sentences will also just go in a loop and you can never come to a end to find a answer.

(1) http://www.answers.com...
Cody_Franklin

Pro

My opponent is trying to set Pro up with an impossible burden, when saying that "my opponent must tell whether each of these sentences are either true or false...", yet later stating that "These sentences will also just go in a loop and you can never come to a[n] end to find a[n] answer." My opponent intentionally set up a debate that is impossible for the Pro to win under my opponent's parameters; therefore, I suggest that we leapfrog over the false "true/false" dichotomy, and look to the fact that, because my opponent defines the resolution as inherently paradoxical when the two statements are put together, the resolution as a whole is neither true nor false, since the paradoxical "loop" simply continues ad infinitum.

So, not only have I given a satisfactory answer to my opponent's question, but I've also proven that my opponent intentionally set up a framework that was so abusive as to be impossible for Pro to win under ordinary circumstances.

Teach my opponent a lesson in fairness, and vote Pro. :)
Debate Round No. 1
branden333

Con

My opponent is trying to set Pro up with an impossible burden."
"My opponent intentionally set up a debate that is impossible for the Pro to win under my opponent's parameters."

It is not so that I have TRIED to set up an impossible burden, but that I HAVE set one up according to my opponent. When my opponent states,"I suggest that we leapfrog over the false 'true/false' dichotomy" he is trying to change the parameters within the debate after the debate has started. He could have messaged me and asked me to change the parameters before he accepted the debate, but he chose not to. Going back to the quote by my opponent, "My opponent intentionally set up a debate that is impossible for the Pro to win under my opponent's parameters," he knew coming into this debate as pro that it would be an automatic loss for him.

In retrospect it seems I have set up an impossible burden, but nevertheless my opponent still accepted this debate with this knowledge. Instead my opponent decided to argue for something that was wholly irrelevant to the resolution (in hopes of teaching me something of fairness). This, of course, is a red herring (not exactly a very "fair" argument in debate) - there are other avenues for that sort of thing.

Sorry that this debate has an impossible burden, nevertheless my opponent accepted.
Cody_Franklin

Pro

My opponent admits that, while the burden was indeed impossible, I am responsible for my own loss by taking this challenge. However, recall from last round that I was simply arguing against the narrow parameters set by my opponent, something which I am entirely within my rights as the contender to do; since I've proven that the aforementioned parameters were abusive towards Pro, it's only logical that such standards be changed. Clearly, I'm not going to message him beforehand and inform him of the logical fallacies in his arguments (in this case, the false dichotomy).

In short, accepting the debate is not the same as accepting the framework.

Next, my opponent again affirms that he's set up an impossible burden; notice that, by affirming this, he implicitly affirms that there's no room for debate if we accept Con's logic.

Finally, he asserts that my argumentation is irrelevant to the resolution; not only is this unwarranted, but it is completely untrue. Look to my argument in Round 1:

"because my opponent defines the resolution as inherently paradoxical when the two statements are put together, the resolution as a whole is neither true nor false, since the paradoxical "loop" simply continues ad infinitum."

Clearly, when asking an either/or question, the answer of "neither" should be perfectly acceptable, and thus I fail to see how this argument is "irrelevant" in any sense of the word.

However, even if you all find my argument to be unacceptable, it could still be argued that, because this resolution, by my opponent's definition, is self-contradictory, it could be argued to be "false" because contradictions cannot logically exist in reality. Either way, you'll be voting Pro.

In conclusion, because my opponent admits that he has set up an impossible burden, and has failed to actually address my argument, you know how to vote.
Debate Round No. 2
branden333

Con

First I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate.

"In conclusion, because my opponent admits that he has set up an impossible burden, and has failed to actually address my argument, you know how to vote."

I did say that I set up an impossible burden, yet my opponent knew this coming into the debate. By saying in round one, "My opponent intentionally set up a debate that is impossible for the Pro to win" yet claims neither is his answer. Notice here that the word impossible means not capable of occurring or being accomplished or dealt with (1) yet he gives his an answer.

In round 2 my opponent goes to state that, "However, even if you all find my argument to be unacceptable, it could still be argued that, because this resolution, by my opponent's definition, is self-contradictory, it could be argued to be "false" because contradictions cannot logically exist in reality." I would like to point out the meaning of contradictions, (Any of a pair of propositions, that cannot both be true or both be false) (2). Giving a answer to an impossible question seems to be contradictory, yet my opponent does not seem to think that contradictions can exist in reality. So by giving an answer to an impossible question he does infact contradict himself proving contradictions do in fact exist and proving himself wrong. Also showing false cannot be an answer.

He also says, "In short, accepting the debate is not the same as accepting the framework." If a math teacher asks you to solve 500 divided by 10 and must be done in long division and you solve it and get the same answer but you completed in short division, the teacher would mark it as wrong. Just because my opponent doesn't like the framework doesn't mean he can change it and aspect to be right. You would need to use the framework given.

Next, my opponent still has not given a true or false answer as the parameters state. He merely says what he thinks the framework should be and trys to come up with he own arguments for something that was irrelevant to the resolution. Thus losing the debate that he already knew he lost coming into because he stated himself this was an impossible debate for pro to win.

(1) http://www.google.com...
(2) http://www.google.com...
Cody_Franklin

Pro

I would also like to thank the instigator for proposing such an unintentionally controversial topic. :)

Now then, on to the good stuff.

1.The Impossible Burden, and the Change of Framework

a. While Con argues that the burden is indeed impossible, I accepted that burden upon entering into the debate. However, his math example is hardly analogous to today's situation. As I've argued, it's completely within my right as the contender to contest the parameters set by my opponent; furthermore, my contention of the aforementioned framework is entirely justified, as my opponent himself admits the impossibility of the burden imposed on Pro; clearly the "given" framework, in its impossibility, is unfair to Pro, and warrants change.

b. Under Pro's proposed framework, an answer of "neither" is perfectly acceptable, since, due to the nature of the infinitely paradoxical resolution, one can hardly argue these statements to be definitively "true" or "false". On that point, I'd like to remind the voters that Con completely drops my explanation of his false dichotomy (or either-or fallacy, as some would call it) – this further justifies my answer of "neither", considering that the answer to my opponent's request is no longer limited to "true" or "false".

c. Also notice that, while my opponent attacks my answer of "neither" in response to his question, Con's Round 1 argument is stated as thus: "I believe there is no way to tell whether either of these sentences are true or false when in combination with one another." When taken to its most basic form, my opponent is saying that the resolution is neither true nor false; just because I've turned this exact argument on him does not mean that it is suddenly unacceptable.

2.The Meaning of "Contradiction"

a. Con provides a definition of contradictory, and says that, because I try to answer an impossible question, contradictions must therefore exist in reality, as I contradict myself. There's an important point of clarification, however. By changing the framework, we change the circumstances under which I am answering the question, meaning that, under this new logic, there is now a fair chance to answer. I am clearly not contradicting myself.

b. Con actually asserts that contradictions can exist in reality. Obviously, nothing is further from the truth. One could not say, for example, "Global warming exists, and global warming does not exist", nor could one say "This statement is true, and this statement is false". Clearly, the condition of such assertions, being self-contradictory, necessitates their nonexistence as truth in reality, and so statements like that of the resolution could be considered false, in a way, due to their self-contradictory nature.

In closing, you can vote on three things today.

1.Con admits that the framework of the debate was inherently impossible for Pro to debate under, which justifies Pro's changing of the parameters to make the debate fair to both sides, especially considering that Con himself made the "neither" argument in Round 1.

2.Con fails to address the explanation of the false dichotomy inherent in his position.

3.Even excluding all other arguments, Pro clearly proves the nonexistence of contradictions in reality, thereby proving that the resolution, due to its self-contradictory nature, is false, since contradictions can never exist as objective truths.

Many thanks to Con for a most intriguing debate, and I wish him the best of luck when the votes roll in.
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
1. I thought we were arguing semantics, so "you know what I mean" doesn't help. All of what you say is taken literally.

No, we're not arguing semantics. That's not actually debating the issue. My opponent himself even references the term "question" in his arguments. When I say "you know what I mean", I'm serious - you're trying to play the technicality card, since it wasn't a direct yes/no question, with a question mark and all, but I wasn't letting you do that.

2. You could have found your own example of contradicting statements.

Sure. I could have. I also could have forfeited, used swear words, or typed gibberish; however, our little sub-argument provided a perfect example, so there was hardly any use in making up my own; simply because it wasn't absolutely original does not make it any less legitimate.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
I don't believe you are a hamster.
Posted by santanisgreat 7 years ago
santanisgreat
i cant belive i am a hamster
Posted by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
Cody_ Franklin Alright, let the voters decide, but I have two things to say before I bow out.
1. I thought we were arguing semantics, so "you know what I mean" doesn't help. All of what you say is taken literally.
2. You could have found your own example of contradicting statements.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Pro clearly proved his case by demonstrating the unfairness of Con's position and by explaining the nature of the paradox.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
C: tied.
SP/G: tied.
A: Pro. I was undecided until his R3 1.b-c; both sides argued well IMO.
S: Con, for using any, even though they were only Answers.com and Google definitions.
Posted by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
args to pro

conduct tie (close call due to abusive burden)

spelling/grammer tie
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
The Instigator has the responsibility to craft a sensible resolution. I don't think it is possible to escape that responsibility by a caveat in the opening argument. It amounts to proclaiming, "A condition of accepting this debate is that you must agree to lose." It's fair to balk at that. Arguments to Pro.

Posing a nonsense resolution is not a conduct penalty, it is a logical error. There is no insult or violation of the rules of debate. Categories other than arguments a tie.

I don't like these "too cute for words" debates, but, hey, it's a free country.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
RFDs people! We have to know what we did well, and what we did... well, not so well. :P
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Pro - Con blames Pro for accepting an inherently impossible debate, and then tries to assert an auto-loss for trying to redesign the debate to be fair to both.
S/G: Tied
Arguments: Pro - Con dropped his original argument, ignored the either-or fallacy, and didn't sufficiently respond to either of Pro's two approaches to the question.
Sources: Tied - Con's sources were used only for definitions, and did not count.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by The_Anarchist_Opposition 7 years ago
The_Anarchist_Opposition
branden333Cody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
branden333Cody_FranklinTied
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 santanisgreat 7 years ago
santanisgreat
branden333Cody_FranklinTied
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 lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
branden333Cody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
branden333Cody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 7 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
branden333Cody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
branden333Cody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by branden333 7 years ago
branden333
branden333Cody_FranklinTied
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 Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
branden333Cody_FranklinTied
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:23 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
branden333Cody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05