There is no way to lie all your life
Debate Rounds (5)
Next 3 rounds = arguments
Final round - NO NEW arguments.
I accept. :3
I would like to first point out that I will be defining "life" and "lie" as an average and in the context of the debate.
life = full human life - birth to death - and average of 66 years
lie = An intentional untruth. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
As we all know, it is possible to lie and get away with it. But, is it possible to lie all the time? In order for me to win this debate, I need to produce only one situation in life in which you cannot lie.
My first scenario:
ME: "Are you alive?"
Liar: "Yes" = truth so:
ME: "Did you lie?"
Liar: "Yes" = truth so:
That would mean the liar is not alive. I know the real truth by logic (he must be alive) so his "untruth" was simply a "piece of the puzzle" for me to prove he was lying. He indirectly told me the truth.
This may seem vague so I will provide another example to clarify:
ME: *straps liar to polygraph and pain meter/functioning brain scans*
ME: *pokes liar with sharp stick*
ME: "Do you feel pain?"
Liar: "Yes" = truth so:
"No" but the brain scan tells the opposite story. He may have lied through his mouth... but his body told the truth. Kinda like sign language...
Thank You. Over to you Con.
Here's how you lie your "whole life":
Baby is born.
Baby is convinced world is new and dangerous.
Baby lied to himself because he become comfortable in a few moments, but is still confused over what the world is. Before he can reach clarity a murderer rushes in and kills him.
The baby lied to himself his whole life (which lasted a few seconds, but hey, it's a sad whole life for you!)
Therefore at least one person can lie his whole life.
However, in my previous argument I defined life as an average lifespan = 66 years. Unless a baby dies at 66, I'm afraid your argument is flawed.
If you have complaints about my definitions, you should have clarified in the comments before taking this debate.
And seeing how you did not provide a rebuttal to my two scenarios, my claim still stands strong.
My opponent says "NO WAY". That means that my opponent must prove there is no scenario--ZERO scenarios in which you can lie all your life. My opponent claims that the average life was 66 years, but that's the improved rate since a long time ago. A long time ago, certainly it would be possible to lie "all your life" since the average life was too dang short. My opponent's definition is unfair mainly because he never stated in the resolution "NOWADAYS there is no way a person can lie all your life", no, simply, the resolution is "there is no way to lie all your life". Therefore I can make the scenario ANY scenario, because my opponent says there is NO way. So I can make the scenario be a baby because HIS average life is only a few seconds long, therefore I found a way that people can lie all their lives.
"My opponent's definition is unfair mainly because he never stated in the resolution"
My definition is completely fair. If you wanted to clarify you should have said so in the comments. This is your own fault.
"My opponent claims that the average life was 66 years, but that's the improved rate since a long time ago."
"In the Bronze and Iron Age life expectancy was 26."
26 is still not considered a baby.
And before you start complaining that my source is wikipedia... read these:
Not only that,
"Before he can reach clarity"
is more of a question, not a lie.
Your "baby" scenario does not work.
And you still haven't rebutted my other two scenarios even after two rounds.
My opponent only uses a source to help me, in modern day life expectancy is 66 while in Bronze and Iron age life expectancy was 26. Why don't we go all the way back to the beginning of the human race, where people were certain to die of disease or lack of knowing of other animals? They would certainly get slaughtered as a baby. Also, my opponent uses a personal pronoun, "YOUR" in the resolution, meaning that only ONE person has to lie all his or her life. It's not like the resolution requires me to support that EVERYONE can lie their whole life, no, I just have to provide merely ONE instance--one OUTLIER, that manages to negate the resolution. That guy doesn't have to be the average person. He can be special. I will support this further with this instance: For example, what if the resolution was that "No one should be tortured". Well your average person certainly does not deserve torture, but "no one" includes EVERYBODY, and that means I can choose ONE PERSON so bad, so terrible, that he somehow deserves to be tortured. Similarly, we aren't talking about the general population. I'm not saying that the average man on earth can lie all his or her life. However, "the average man" is only one of many man--one of many methods I may try to defeat the resolution. I could choose a sly woman. I could choose Barack Obama. I could choose that hobo on the street. Even though are are many obstacles preventing the people above from lying forever, my opponent's 2 scenarios do not apply to my baby (since he cannot even speak, only lie to himself consciously and subconsciously). Thus I win. Vote me.
"Also, my opponent uses a personal pronoun [your life]...That guy doesn't have to be the average person"
Yes he does. I defined life as an average. And since it is "that guy's" (average) life, he himself must therefore be average.
"Well your average person certainly does not deserve torture"
You are right. However my second scenario is not torture, a sharp stick causes pain as does a papercut, or even a small punch. My scenario works as long as the brain scan picks up anything at all! A average person does get punched at least once in his life. Also, my first scenario still stands just as strong.
"my opponent's 2 scenarios do not apply to my baby"
Yes they do. If the baby was to live 66 more years (like already defined), either of my scenarios kick into place and he would have been forced to tell the truth.
Again, There is no way to lie all your life. And logically, there are "many obstacles preventing the people above from lying forever" (your words) so think about it and vote me.
Once again, the average life is not specified in the resolution. "Whole life" is only defined as one's entire life span. Therefore I do not have to pick a random or average person, I can pick ONE PERSON who can lie all their lives. The baby is one way a person can lie all their lives. Game over, I win.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Unfortunately for pro, Con is correct in that there was no set standard for "life" in the resolution itself, which is the main focus of each debater. Since life wasn't cited by a source, it was up for debate in and of itself, which Con proceeded to do. By showing that averages fluctuate in differing times, matched with his example of a baby, I was given a reasonable example of how someone can lie their entire life. In the future, I would recommend Pro utilize definitions which are all cited from academic or supported sources. Otherwise it's subject to debate. I'd also recommend Pro be more specific in his resolutions since that seemed to be a major issue in this debate. You can easily re-state the *full resolution* in Round 1. Sources - Pro. Pro was the only one to utilize sources in this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.