The Instigator
Ajabi
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
vwv
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

This House Believes That The Law of Non-Contradiction Is Sound!

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 with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 680 times Debate No: 63130
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

Ajabi

Con

Shalom Alecium!

This is to discuss whether the "law of non-contradiction" as stated by Aristotle: any property cannot at the same time both belong, and not belong to the same object in the same respect.

You need more than 3500 Elo to accept, if you do not have 3500 Elo you need my permission before accepting. My opponent has the complete burden of proof, and s/he must start immediately in the next round, and skip the last round. Anything written in the last round will not be considered.

Spelling and Grammar, and conduct will only be considered if a party is in extreme violation of any of them. You need 2500 Elo to vote, with a Select Winner voting system.

No trolling, deconstruction semantics, or otherwise intellectual dis-integrity allowed. I wish you the best of luck!
vwv

Pro

It is the fault of Ajabi to allow people below 3.5k Elo to accept this debate.

He holds full responsibility for poorly setting up the debate. I see absolutely no reason to cower away from a lower caliber debater in fact that is so irrational that it verges on blatant fallacy.

I shall now explain why the law of non-contradiction is true.

If something is a thing, then it definitely is that thing. It cannot somehow not be not that thing. This is because to exist means you cannot not exist while you exist.

It is also true the other way around.

If I am not something, than I cannot then be that thing.
Debate Round No. 1
Ajabi

Con

I shall not present an argument. The rules on debate.org do not allow me to limit the debate with regards to Elo, even if I say "someone better than me" it takes the rank, not the Elo.

My opponent has purposely, and rudely broken the rules that I had set forth in this debate. I had decided to send this debate to bossyburrito if no one else accepted (over 3500), and I find that my opponent should be penalized for doing this, wherein he should lose this debate.

I would be all right with debating this with vwv perhaps next month when I have more time, if he can request this challenge in a polite manner.
vwv

Pro

You have absolutely no right to not debate and this counts as concession which is simply forfeiting wihtout the red text to accompany it.

If A is E

Then A is not not E.

If A is not E

Then E is not an attribute of A.

Simple.

Counter it or concede.
Debate Round No. 2
Ajabi

Con

I shall once more in protest not write up an argument. My opponent broke the rules, and instead of apologizing (in which case I would have debated him) he boldly claimed that the rules were my fault. I reserve the right to keep rules, and by breaking them my opponent lost this debate. Even now I see not a shred of remorse from him.

I extend my other rounds, I have won this debate.
vwv

Pro

I am not debating the debate's resolution here remotely, thus I have not violated the rule of not debating in the last round.

This is pure explanation of a certain misunderstanding over the debate's rules itself, that is all.

I avoided this in Round 2 solely out of the hopes that my opponent would drop it as it was irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Instead of this response, I was totally ignored and have been backed into a corner which is not related to the resolution whatsoever.

Please vote on the debate purely from my round 1 and 2 arguments (I am aware of slight error I made in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of my R1 argument and I apologize for this but hope my message was conveyed better by my R2 summary".Alright, let's set things straight here.

Pro set up the debate with the physical capacity for anyone to accept it (I assume, unless he/she had criteria that somehow allowed me to accept it while some were restricted). Then Pro proceeds to set up a rule scheme of who can, and cannot accept the debate.

Pro never once states, indicates or hints towards the notion that the penalty of rule breakage would be debate loss regardless of one's validity of debate.

Pro also highlights that permission was needed before debating, and I am now going to explain why I undeniably had his permission before the debate, regardless of what he says afterwards.

I urge you to view the evidence below of Ajabi displaying capability of understanding how to enforce rules to the maximum extent.

He has displayed that he can clearly state the consequences of not obeying rules. He stated no such thing here.




He also displayed that he can specify when he wants to have comments/messages for confirmation of permission. He stated nothing of the sort here.





Ajabi shows further capability of preventing people from accepting including setting Elo to be above his (which is a checkbox in the settings). He also has proven that he can combine several settings to make a debate impossible for anyone to accept. I had lower Elo than him yet I could accept, meaning he wilfully didn't tick the box to prevent it.







He retains this ability very recently as well as consistently all the way back to as far as 2 months ago. [http://www.debate.org...] to suggest that he forgot it would be preposterous.

By process of elimination, since Ajabi lacked these features to the rules of this debate, it follows that I already had his permission to debate it. In addition, it follows that if I didn't obey them, his failure to state that I'd lose if I didn't obey them means I don't auto-lose.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
lol
Posted by vwv 2 years ago
vwv
Pretty sure I said R3 not R2
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
"If A is E

Then A is not not E.

If A is not E

Then E is not an attribute of A.

Simple.

Counter it or concede."

lol, so sassy
Posted by vwv 2 years ago
vwv
please look at the entire R3 argument of mine...
Posted by vwv 2 years ago
vwv
he has proven in past to clarify if permission needs to be explicitly given. He did no such thing. I assumed I had his permission when i clicked 'accept' and it let me. ;)
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
"You need more than 3500 Elo to accept, if you do not have 3500 Elo you need my permission before accepting."
Posted by vwv 2 years ago
vwv
He set no requirement. He specified no commetning nor pm needing to be allowed.
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
People are allowed to set the conditions for their debates, so long as they are fair i.e., so long as they are not designed to score a superficially easy win. Vww should have respected Ajabi's elo requirement.
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
rofl
Posted by bossyburrito 2 years ago
bossyburrito
I'd debate this, if you'd have me.
No votes have been placed for this debate.