The Instigator
Mr.Infidel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

What would happen if Pinocchio said, "My nose will now grow"?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+20
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 9 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 23,165 times Debate No: 19094
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (9)

 

Mr.Infidel

Pro

I affirm that if Pinocchio said, "My nose will now grow" his nose will more than likely grow.

Pinocchio
is a fictional character with a nose that will grow every time he lies. Consider the premise:
  1. If Pinocchio lies, then his nose will grow.
  2. Pinocchio lies.
  3. Therefore, his nose will grow.
  4. If Pinocchio tells the truth, then his nose will not grow.
  5. Pinocchio tells the truth.
  6. Therefore, his nose will not grow.
I would like to debate this interesting paradox. 1st round is acceptance only!
socialpinko

Con

As per rules, first round is acceptance. So accept. It's been a while since I debated this particular individual so it should be fun. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Infidel

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate and I look forward to an interesting debate on this interesting paradox. Remember I am arguing that there is a higher probability than not that Pinocchio's nose will grow.

My arguments can be summarized as:
  1. The Now factor;
  2. The truth factor; and
  3. The omnipotent factor.
The Now Factor

If Pinnochio said, "My nose will now grow", Pinocchio is talking about his nose growing right now. What is the meaning of the word now. According to dictionary.com, "now" is defined as the present time or moment [1] hence his nose will grow after he says "my nose will now grow" as there was a delay.
  1. If Pinocchio lies, then his nose will grow.
  2. Pinocchio said, "my nose will now grow".
  3. However, his nose did not grow now.
  4. Therefore he is lying.
  5. Therefore, his nose will grow.
The Truth Factor

Another possibility we must look at is the possibility that Pinnochio could possibly have been telling the truth, and that it Pinocchio's nose does not only grow when he is lying. In this case, his nose grows even though he is telling the truth. Nowhere have I said that Pinocchio's nose only grows when he is lying, but it does grow all the time when he lies.

The Omnipotent Factor

The final possibility we need to look at is the omnipotent factor. It has been suggested that Pinnochio is, in fact, omnipotent [2] Therefore, if he says, "My nose will now grow" he has the power to make his nose grow.

| CONCLUSION |

If Pinnochio says, "My nose will now grow", I believe I have shown there is a higher probability than not, that his nose will grow.

Thank you!

References

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...;

[2] http://bitsandpieces.us...;
socialpinko

Con

I thank my opponent for an interesting opening round and hope to provide just as interesting arguments. But before I do so, I will attempt to refute his three arguments.

The now factor

Anatomy of the grammar behind the statement

My opponent's first argument is basically that the very semantic structure of Pinnochio's statement would imply a lie. From the same source that Pro obtained his definition of 'now', one can find another alternate definition which fits more eloquenty into the sentence and which I believe more effectively demonstrates the purpose of the statement. The definition reads:

In these present times; nowadays

When Pinochio says the statement, "My nose will now grow.", he is not describing an already existing fact. If he were, the grammatically correct statement would be "My nose is(in the process of growing). There is an obvious difference between these two statements, one describing an action that is about to happen(such as when a magician claims that he will now saw a woman in half) and the other describing an action that is currently happening. Basic grammar and common sense dictates that Pinnochio when making the statement had the former meaning in mind.

The truth factor

The possibility of multipe growth qualifiers

In this argument, my opponent brings up the possibility that Pinnochio's nose also grows when he is telling the truth. However, this possibility is actually demonstratably false. If we start from the premise that there are basically three types of statements as relating to this debate, then there is proof that Pinnochio's nose does not grow when he is telling the truth. The three statement types are truthhood, falsity, and a statement where the speaker is unsure about the truth/non-truth value or is not making a declarative statement. So, in order to diprove this argument, we need only find a declarative statement made by Pinnochio in which his nose does not grow. Refer to the 50 second mark of my video[1] in which Pinnochio answers Jiminy's question regarding whether he wanted to be a real boy. Pinnochio answers affirmatively that he does in fact wish to be a real boy. This obviously being a declarative statement, we can see that Pinnochio's nose in no way grows after he makes the statement, leading any rational observer to conclude that his nose at the very least does not grow when he is making a truthful statement.

The omnipotent factor

The source my opponent provided not working. Seeing as he provides no other substantial evidence for Pinnochio's alleged omnipotence other than the link, it is safe on my part to dismiss the argument as it holds no evidential or logical weight. At the most, the argument could only rise to the height of speculation since in order to prove his theory, my opponent would need to show with evidence why Pinnochio did not incorporate his omnipotence either to make himself a real boy in the first place, or how a puppet made out of cherry wood would come to possess such powers in the first place.

Now on to my own positive arguments in favor of my case.

Assumed falsity of Pinnochio's statement or the Argument from inability

As anyone who has ever read 'The Adventures of Pinnochio' or seen the more popular Disney adaptation of the character to film, Pinnochio's personality is just like that of a small boy. Pinnochio is not very intelligent and his mind seems to function just as a prepubescent real boy would. As such, Pinnochio obviously does not or would not understand the logical and philosophical outcomes of such a statement.

Why is this fact relevant? From the very fact that a lie(of which I have established is the only method of making his nose grow that can be evidentially backed up either from my opponent's framing of the character in R1 or from a plethora of video evidence. A lie is defined by Dictionary.com as:

A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive

Seeing as Pinnochio has trouble tying his shoes, it does not seem like a stretch of the imagination that he would be unable to lie about the statement, just as it would be impossible for someone who had never heard of Lysander Spooner could not be held to be lying for saying that he did not have a beard. Pinnochio has no knowledge(that is ever shown) of even rudimentary skills in logic or philosophy. Seeing as lying is the purposeful intent to deceive and Pinnochio does not have the knowledge necessary to carry that out, his statement could not have been a lie. The resolution has been negated as I have shown that Pinnochio's nose would more than likely not grow in the event that he said "My nose will now grow".

[1]
I apologize for the voice overs every ten or so seconds.
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Infidel

Pro

My link for the omnipotent source does not work. Here is the omnipotent source:



http://www.funnyjunk.com...

Anyways, that is all I have time for, unfortunately. I request my opponent to wait until Tuesday to make his reply. I am very, VERY busy.

Sorry for the lack of refutation. I just needed to get in my omnipotent source.
socialpinko

Con

My opponent has not responded to my refutation of his 'Now Factor' argument, his 'Truth Factor' argument, or my own Argument from inability and so I will extend those arguments. My opponent has however provided his source as to his 'Omnipotent Factor' argument and so I will spend this round attempting to refute it solely.

The omnipotent factor

The argument may be summed up as follows. Assuming that if his nose grows, he lied and if he lies, his nose grows, Pinnochio must necessarily be omnipotent since he may make any claim truthful since the universe "does whatever it can to avoid paradoxes". Basically, Pinnochio may claim for example that either his nose will grow or he will become a real boy. Assuming the statement is false(and that neither his nose will grow, nor will he be magically transformed), we are lead into a paradox because if he does not become a real boy his nose will grow, making it a truthful statement, then un-truthful, and so on and so on ad infinitum.The only way for this not to be a paradox is if we grant that he would become a real boy, thus effectively making Pinnochio omnipotent and giving him the power to make his nose grow at will.

However, this argument runs into some problems quick. For example, consider this example. A man X is about to cross a bridge guarded by Man Y. Many approaches Man X before he attempts to cross, telling him that if he correctly answers the next question, he may pass. Man X responds by saying, "You will not allow me to cross". We are at a clear paradox here that may logically occur with no meddling by any natural laws against it. Must Man X be omnipotent then to resolve the paradox? If we say no than there is no more reason to say yes in Pinnochio's case.
Debate Round No. 3
Mr.Infidel

Pro

Thanks for a fun debate!

==DEFENSE OF MY ORIGINAL ARGUMENTS==

Sorry I could not defend my original arguments in the previous round, I shall spend my time in this round rebuting your arguments and defending my arguments.

THE NOW FACTOR

To refute this, my opponent sadly resorts to semantics, which as we will see, holds no water.

"My nose will now grow" meaning "Now, my nose is in the process of growing at this moment." Hence, the syllogism is as followed:
  1. Whenever Pinocchio lies, his nose grows.
  2. Pinocchio said, "My nose will now grow."
    1. Meaning, "In this present time, my nose is in the process of growing."
  3. However, his nose at that present time was NOT in the process of growing.
  4. Therefore, he lied.
  5. Hence, his nose will grow
THE OMNIPOTENT FACTOR

In efforts to rebut this, SocialPinko has attempted to argue a paradox, which as we will see holds no water and has nothing to do with the debate.

Person X is about to cross the bridge.
Person Y is guarding it.
Person X says, "You will not allow me to cross."

To resolve this paradox, we can say that person X has the "all-power" (or omnipotence) to force his way through the bridge. Same way goes with Pinocchio.

THE TRUTH FACTOR

My opponent really does not rebut this except by using an argumentum ad ridicul in which he shows an example from the movie in which Pinocchio's nose did not grow after he told the truth. The question I bring to my opponent is this: How do we know if Pinocchio's nose only grows when he lies, but never grows when he is telling the truth?" Moreover, we must look at the possibility that Pinocchio's nose simply did not grow when he told the truth. Hence, we may be able to sum it up in this syllogism:
  1. Whenever Pinocchio lies, his nose grows.
  2. Whenever Pinocchio tells the truth, there is a possibility of his nose growing.
  3. Pinocchio said, "My nose will now grow."
  4. Hence, if he tells the truth, there is a possibility of his nose growing.

Thank you for a fun debate!

socialpinko

Con

The now factor

My opponent has made an argument essentialy based on semantics and then is surprised when I show the error in his argument based on those semantics. Basically, the entire argument rests on point 2 of his syllogism which rests on the phrase "My nose will now grow" meaning "In this present time, my nose is in the process of growing". Pinnochio said his nose "will now grow", not that his nose "is growing" My opponent is here equivocating present and future tense statements. There is no reason to believe Pinnochio is describing an already existing fact rather than an about-to-exist fact when he says his nose will now grow.

The omnipotent factor

My opponent proves my point in his response to my argument. He claims that in order to resolve the paradox I showed, Man X must be omniotent. However, he has not shown why this would happen. My point in showing this is that there is no evidence of a natural 'paradox solver' in the universe, since the paradox I showed is of essentially the same type i.e. a liar paradox.

The truth factor

My argument was in no sense an appeal to ridicule. My opponent made a claim, so I showed some evidence of the opposite occuring. I ask my opponent, if we are to believe the clam that his nose can grow when he is telling the truth, is there evidence of this? My opponent argues that there is a possibility his nose grows when he tells the truth, however that is a non-argument. There is also the possibility that his nose does not grow when he tells he truth. When there is a possibility of both options, why throw out the video evidence?

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Grape is going to solve this problem, if it's the last f*cking thing he does.
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
STOP!! My head HURTS! O.O
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Upon further reflection, I have changed my mind. Maninorange is correct. I will elaborate tomorrow or Wednesday on why I think so.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
I'm going over the proofs that you've presented and it's getting very confusing. You're using a sort of implied disjunction elimination rule, but that rule is only is only valid if you keep your assumptions the same and you keep varying them.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
@ maninorange -

The move from 4) and 6) to 7) in my proof is completely valid. Formally, it is called the rule of negation elimination:

"A sentence A may occur in a proof psi if among the earlier items of psi are both a sentence and its negation." (I stole this definition from my professor, who stole it from his professor. It's the circle of life, or something...)

Here is another way to look at it:

Consider the sentence A --> B (if A, then B). This sentence is true when B is true or A is false (that's the definition of if...then in formal logic). In other words, it just tells us that you can't have A without B. If A is a contradiction, then A --> B is true regardless of the truth value of B because A will always be false and that is sufficient to make the whole thing true. The conjunction of a sentence and its negation is always false (C and not C, for instance). So if we have C in the proof and not C in the proof, we can conjoin them into (C and not C). Then we can infer (C and not C) --> B for any sentence B. because it will always be true. Then we derive B from (C and not C) and (C and not C) --> B by modus ponens.

Here is an example proof.

Proof B from, A, A --> C and A --> not C

1) A (assume)
2) A --> C (assume)
3) A --> not C (assume)
4) C (1, 2, modus ponens)
5) not C (1, 3, modus ponens)
6) (C and not C) (4, 5, conjunction introduction)
7) (C and not C) --> B (6, contradiction implies anything)
8) B (6, 7, modus ponens)

A, B, and C can be any sentences whatsoever.

"As opposed to saying that Pinocchio's nose would not grow, you could just as well say that Godzilla ate the Tooth Fairy." - That's right. That conclusion is at the very core of what it means for logic to be truth functional. I simplified this into one step (going straight from C and not C on separates lines in the main proof to B on a new line) because I did not except it to be controversial. You really lose a lot in terms of what you can prove in a logical syste
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
You have made the same mistake in the same way three times now. I'll try a different tack.

1) If Pinocchio lies, his nose grows.
=> If Pinocchio's nose does not grow, Pinocchio did not lie.
2) Pinocchio states "My nose will now grow."
3) Assume Pinocchio's nose does not grow.
4) By (1), Pinocchio did not lie.
5) By (2) and (3), Pinocchio did lie.

(4) and (5) are contradictory.

1) If Pinocchio lies, his nose grows.
=> If Pinocchio's nose does not grow, Pinocchio did not lie.
2) Pinocchio states "My nose will now grow."
3) Assume Pinocchio's nose grows.
4) NONE of our assumptions allow us to assume anything further with this information. Yes, he told the truth. However, as stated, this does not disallow his nose from growing. There is no contradiction in saying that Pinocchio's nose would grow.

I conclude that since the assumption that Pinocchio's nose would NOT grow leads to a contradiction and that since the assumption that Pinocchio's nose WOULD grow does not, Pinocchio's nose must grow.

YES there is a paradox, just as there is with all liar's paradoxes. However, for Pinocchio's statement, there is no such paradox, as I have demonstrated.
Note: I state again that I know that paradoxes are not lies. However, a nose growth for a paradox is the only non-contradictory way of handling the situation. Your reasoning to go from 4 and 6 to 7 is ludicrous. If this actually worked, then it would work for all assumptions. As opposed to saying that Pinocchio's nose would not grow, you could just as well say that Godzilla ate the Tooth Fairy. Pinocchio lied and did not lie. Translation: Pinocchio presented a paradox.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Let me show the proof of that Pinocchio's nose will grow and not grow under the assumption that he is lying more clearly:

1) If Pinocchio tells a lie, then his nose will then grow. (assumption)
2) A person tells a lie if and only if they say a proposition, and that proposition is false. (definition)
3) Pinocchio says, "My nose will now grow." (assumption)
4) Pinocchio lies. (assumption)
5) Pinocchio's nose grows. (from 1, 4)
6) Pinocchio does not lie (from 2, 3, 5)
7) Pinocchio's nose does not grow (from 4, 6)
8) Pinocchio's nose grows and Pinocchio's nose does not grow (from 5, 7)

Can we at agree that I did not use the premise, "If Pinocchio does not lie, then his nose does not grow"? I use the statement "Pinocchio does not lie" to get to "his nose does not grow" BUT I do not use the premise ""if Pinocchio does not lie, then his nose does not grow" to do so because there is another way.

I get 5) by modus ponens. You also have that in your proof.

I get to 6) because, per 2), someone lies if and only if they say something and it is false. The "if and only if" means that "x lies" and "x says y and y is false" must agree in truth value. Pinocchio says his nose grows and Pinocchio's nose grows, then "Pinocchio says his nose will grow and his nose does not grow" is false (because the latter conjunct is false), so it is also false that Pinocchio lies.

I now have 4) "Pinocchio lies" and 6) "Pinocchio does not lie." That is a contradiction, so I can derive anything I want. I choose to derive 7) "Pinocchio's nose does not grow." I could have derived anything. The premise, "If Pinocchio's does not lie, then his nose will not grow" was never involved. I did not have to contradict those two statements, I could have contradicted anything. It is also clearly possible contradict 2) or 3).

And obviously I get 8) by conjunction introduction from 5) and 7).
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
@ maninorange

(In response to my statement "4) Pinocchio's statement was not a lie (he said his nose would grow, and it did)")

"This is irrelevant to whether or not Pinocchio's nose would grow as there is no rule given overning his no requiring that it not grow when he tells the truth. This is not carrying through to the logical conclusion; this is simply the result of seeing his nose as a truth detector as well as a lie detector. Paradoxes are never addressed, and, therefore, the conclusion, as I have shown, must be that his nose would grow. Rules are only broken when we assume the nose would not grow."

I never said that Pinocchio's nose must not grow if he tells the true. I am aware the Pinocchio's nose is not a truth detector. That is not at all what this sentence says. Just to be total clear, we have:

"If Pinocchio tells a lie, his nose will grow."

From which we can get:

"If Pinocchio does not grow, he did not tell a lie."

by the contrapositive, but we cannot get:

'If Pinocchio's does not lie, then his nose will not grow."

Because there are cases in which that is true but the original statement is false.

I am not arguing for that. I am specifically trying to show you that there is a way to derive a contradiction without that premise. All that 4) says is that if Pinocchio said something would happen and it did, so he was not lying. That just follows tautologically from the definition of lying.

By itself, that is indeed not enough to conclude that Pinocchio's nose would not grow. I got 5) from 1) and 4), not 4) by itself.

"However, this [the paradox] is only because Pro specifically stated that Pinocchio's nose would not grow if he told the truth. We are not dealing with the same thing here. Don't let yourself be confused."

No, we are dealing with the same thing. I explicitly telling you that we do not need that premise to show that his nose should grow and not grow. There is another way to derive it, which I just demonstrate
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
@Grape:

You continue from my first scenario:

"4) Pinocchio's statement was not a lie (he said his nose would grow, and it did)"

This is irrelevant to whether or not Pinocchio's nose would grow as there is no rule given overning his no requiring that it not grow when he tells the truth. This is not carrying through to the logical conclusion; this is simply the result of seeing his nose as a truth detector as well as a lie detector. Paradoxes are never addressed, and, therefore, the conclusion, as I have shown, must be that his nose would grow. Rules are only broken when we assume the nose would not grow.

"Which is why it's a paradox: his nose should grow and not grow."

I understand what the actual paradox is. "This is a lie." This is irreconcilable as a true or false statement. Based on Pro's premises, it is also irreconcilable. However, this is only because Pro specifically stated that Pinocchio's nose would not grow if he told the truth. We are not dealing with the same thing here. Don't let yourself be confused.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
maninorange:

You have not taken your proofs through to their logical conclusions. Let's start with the first one:

1) Assume Pinocchio's statement is a lie.
2) Pinocchio's nose would grow.
3) As there are no other rules to prevent the growing of the nose given that he told the truth, this is where it ends.

But it does not end there. From 2, we can deduce:

4) Pinocchio's statement was not a lie (he said his nose would grow, and it did)
5) Pinocchio's nose would not not grow (from 1 and 4, because a contradiction implies anything)

So we get

6) Pinocchio's nose will grow and Pinocchio's nose will not grow (from 2 and 5)

Which is why it's a paradox: his nose should grow and not grow.

Looking at the second proof:

1) Assume Pinnochio's statement is true.
2) Pinocchio's nose has no reason to grow, so we can assume it does not.
3) Pinocchio's statement is then a lie.
4) Punocchio's nose would then grow.
5) As in the above case, there is reason to continue.

This contains two contradictions already, which are somewhat hidden in the word usage. 2) says that Pinocchio's nose would not grow and 4) says that it would, so we already have the paradox without having to do any real work. We can just derive

6) Pinocchio's nose will grow and Pinocchio's nose will not grow (from 2 and 4)

Which is the same paradoxical conclusion that we reached before.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by renji_abarai 5 years ago
renji_abarai
Mr.InfidelsocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I really isnt lying since he isnt putting much force or thought to lie about his nose growing. His onse only grows when he lies but he is not lying
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Mr.InfidelsocialpinkoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Lying is willful intent to deceive. Con's willing argument was pointing to the probably lack of willful intent. You can't expect much of an immature puppet.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Mr.InfidelsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Same reasons as previous voters.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
Mr.InfidelsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Spinko brings up an excellent point saying that Pinocchio must have full knowledge that the statement was false in order for it to be a lie. There is absolutely no way to tell this. It is the same as saying Bush lied about WMD when we have absolutely no idea whether or not Bush KNEW that there absolutely was no way any WMD could possibly exist in Iraq. GJ Spinko.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Mr.InfidelsocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: the video won it for him, ignore my comment.
Vote Placed by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
Mr.InfidelsocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: If it weren't for Pro's 4th premise, I would have granted him the most convincing argument for the truth factor point, as that is the stance I hold. However, given the fourth premise from round 1, you've already ruled that out.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Mr.InfidelsocialpinkoTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I think it is a shame that this became a semantic debate, rather than a true analysis of the paradox. social's rebuttals in this area were spot on.
Vote Placed by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
Mr.InfidelsocialpinkoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Commentz
Vote Placed by Crede 5 years ago
Crede
Mr.InfidelsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument of "Assumed falsity of Pinnochio's statement or the Argument from inability" won this argument for me. It seems to be more in line with the true Pinocchio. I would give Pro 2 points for arguments if I could because Con never talked about all the past experiences of Pinoc having with his nose ONLY growing after he completes his lie. This would have solidified Con's case against the "now" argument. But overall I think Con won this debate. Good job both of you!