The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

True debaters never lie, or qoute liars, as a source of truth.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2014 Category: Music
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 61445
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




Your truth is your own,
walk the plank,
Quote the unknown
swear to another's moan.


True debaters are those who debate. False debater would be a person who claims he debates but doesn't.

I already talked about this, in my debate

This debate is a source of truth because I pushed the boundaries of traditional debating by talking about debates themselves and by examining the criteria to evaluate debates, exposing them to amusing (yet meaningful) comments. Pushing the boundaries (in that case) meant in some sense, escaping debates, thus being able to acquire truth.

"True debaters" do lie, or quote liars, maybe not consciously, but they do, i also explain that in my other debate
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent believes you can be truthful, and tell lies at the same time, by his own words. Vote for my opponent please, fool.


No. I didn't say that. I said true debaters lie. Only those who push against the boundaries of normal debates become closer to the truth, but that would make them something different to "debaters"

You can be truthful, by leaving a debate or by pushing against its boundaries.
Debate Round No. 2


please vote CON, man. hue mans


My opponent has not yet given a reason to defend his point.

I can prove that even debates can be false themselves:

Check this debate.

"Pro is not going to win this debate". Now, who won? Pro. 14 points to 0.

In this case it wasn't even Pro who lied. The voters turned his words into lies by making him win. So what is important in a debate? Once again, it's not truth. It's credibility: having people believe that you are right. So debaters can still lie if they are believable.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Political Science

The science behind all the evil that exists
No less of it now, then before the science
Here the political scientist speak
To lead the weak into their den

What is the den of science?
It is a clique of master tyrannists
to gain only the best
for their own.

We talk of science amongst ourselves.
And make laws to enslave the unfearful
of their own decisions.
Profits we are, Political scientists.

Lots of profits to be gained
PROFITS!!!!!!!!!! ye ha!!!!

Political Science.
Killing more then any force on earth.


Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Debate like a UN sort is your idea of validity?

Grab some Americans cash and run to your national bank? That is the status quo in UN land.

Please expand on d bag. unless you are one.
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
So you really are just a d bag huh?
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Stupid folk wear blind faith I "heart" t shirts. That is the truth, much deeper then yours shallow man.
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
Max you are suppose to debate. You should have argued that a true debater doesn't need to lie. But no the point of this debate was for you to make some sort of stupid opposite-point. If you want to discuss the truth of an issue I'd be happy to have a private message conversation on a subject. But the problem with searching for a universal truth is that it lies in multiple perspectives.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
My "opponent" just proved my point. Debates are all about popular opinion, and votes, the truth is meaningless to a true debater, the ultimate scoundrel.
Posted by TruthGen 2 years ago
I'm planning on making a debate about the point of debates. I already did one about debates. Feel free to check it out.
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
This would be an interesting topic if it was taken seriously. It brings up many questions. What is the point of debate? To prove/reveal the truth or to simply convince others? What is the "truth" for that matter? Can we ever know it given our bias of perspective?
Posted by TruthGen 2 years ago
You cannot claim that Pure Truth is unobtainable while assuming that your sentence is true.

And pure truth is obtainable, that's why there are laws of physics and not only hypothesis or theories.

"Even for me", i find that funny hahaha, you are funny.

But let me quote Einstein: "As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it."

It's a humbling quote. The more we know, the less confident we are of our knowledge and capacities to know. The more we know, the more aware we are of our own ignorance.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
In his BASIC 1950 book on Dianetics,
LRH stated that Absolutes have to be logically unobtainable.

Pure Truth is unobtainable,
even for me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.