The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

When Searching for Truth, Compiling conclusive deductions is more effective than Debating.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
the_real_l has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 352 times Debate No: 103137
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




If you wanted to know if a dollar bill was counterfeit, you have 2 basic options:
1- Learn many of the forms of counterfeit bills out there.
This would mean you would have to learn many types of counterfeit, perhaps all of them
to be conclude with certainty whether the bill is either Counterfeit or Genuine.
However, as examining all counterfeit is nearly impossible, as there are countless forms of counterfeit even for a simple dollar bill, it is more efficient to:
2- Study the original bill very closely. Examining every detail, in particular, the security features of the bill. This way, you only need to learn one. The real one.

Illustrative Conclusion:
Assuming having full ability to distinguish with certainty between the Genuine Bill and any counterfeit, It would be a waste of time to attempt to learn all the forms of counterfeit. Whereas, learning the Genuine Bill would save you the trouble. This method is more efficient and effective.

The Drawn out Conclusion:
The same can be true of any truth. For example, in religion, attempting to study all religions in search for the true religion would be a waste of time, if not at least, inefficient. To find the Genuine Truth, one simply must solve which religion is the true religion, then study that one.
This does not mean however, to assume that whatever religion a person believes in is automatically the true religion. That much is obvious. However:

Premise 1:
Every Premise of an Argument must be in Harmony with all other premises and the Conclusion.
Premise 2:
If a Conclusion of any Argument is False, then either A: One of the Premises must also be False or B: One or more True Premise(s) that would change the Conclusion to become Accurate, must still exist, though unknown, or unaccounted for.
Meaning, If any religion is false (a conclusion) then something in that religion will always somehow disagree with some sort of conclusively certain evidence somewhere. Just like a math equation.

Comparing many religions together in order to find the true religion would be inefficient as apposed to the preferred option: Drawing absolutely certain conclusions based on absolute evidence and deductions.
Debating involves looking at two arguments. But using the evidence and deductions to come to a conclusion, if done perfectly, and with the all the needed evidence (which must also be correct) will always lead to the correct answer.

I believe this concept is true for any truth.

Don't search for truth with debates (comparing arguments). Examine the all the applicable evidence, and deduce certain conclusions, and you will always eventually find the correct answer.


In some cases we can reach the truth by conclusive deduction and debating. However contrasting them like Pro has done is nonsensical. Wouldn't in most cases the sides turning up for the debate have already done their own "compiling" of "conclusive deductions"? I will take it that Pro means reaching the truth only by means of compiling deductions is more efficient than the means of deduction followed by debate.

Pro gives examples of identifying bills and religion as questions which we would do better compiling truths rather than engaging in a challenge of ideas. I will challenge these one by one and provide my own example.

In the famous words of Arthur Conan Doyle "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth". This is to remind us that there is only one truth. If there is one truth, then all conflicts in debate must help us isolate the crux of things. When Pro gave his example of counterfeit bills, at the heart of that example is a debate. One person holding out a bill saying "this is real" and another person holding out a note saying "this is real". This debate would fast boil down to "this one part of the bill should look like this", a truth efficiently narrowed in and very easy to verify. This is in stark contrast to the truth obtained by finding a genuine bill and outlining every single detail of it to reach the true definition of a bill as Pro would have us do.

Furthermore, the "truth" can't be listed out like pro would like to have us believe. In 1904 J.J. Thomas's model of the atom was the plum pudding model. A model that explained everything at the time to satisfaction. Pro would have us believe that Thomas should know what to do next in propositional logic, a way to get one step further to the truth. However things are not so simple in atomic theory. It took until Rutherford to come up with an opposing model that the differences in the model could be identified and an appropriate experiment arranged to see which one is true. The finding of truth in model building is almost entirely achieved through debate from Keynesian economic model challenging the classical economic model to Relativity challenging classical physics debate offers us a "shortcut" if you will in the infinite inexhaustible and futile attempts to go step by step attempt to find truth, that is by definition efficient.
Debate Round No. 1


As for the 1st point, I suppose i have to agree to some extent. If the humans always made perfect deductions, and in turn, perfect conclusions, there would be no need for debates, since no correction would be needed. However, we live in a world where humans make mistakes, and quite often at that. Meaning every conclusion should be questioned to some degree, debated, meaning to examine, verify, and even question each of the premises and in turn the conclusion, thereby refining an argument. Debating is a means of correcting a current argument or in cases, at least coming closer to the truth to some extent, and also exposing false premises and/or conclusions.

As for the Dollar Bill, I also agree strongly with the Doyle quote. It's deductively reasonable. Only 1 truth.
And the 1st argument you present in the same paragraph, is that a debate has the potential to isolate falsehoods from truths. I also agree.
However, on the ladder:
Say you did truly understand the exactly every detail of the Genuine Bill, then with that accurate knowledge, there is no need to Debate about whether a bill is fake or not. With enough time examining the fake, a detail/many details will eventually reveal the truth. With a complete understanding of the Genuine Bill, all that's needed is an Examination. A Test of Verification. No need to compare 2 arguments, such as, "it is, and here's why" or "it isn't, and here's why", but simply, "This detail does or doesn't match and it means this..." Simple deductions.

Though, however, i am lead to believe that not all truths may leave footprints to study as one could believe. Some truths have to be tested. Some do not. Some must simply be observed. Some simply understood through deductions. Not everything can be deduced without interaction. Humans create invalid arguments because humans make mistakes. I realize that there is one fact:
When an Argument collides with an alternative answer (debating), holes in arguments can potentially become unmasked. Truths become unveiled. Falsehoods, just the same.

I suppose i must reach a new conclusion. Debating, and Deductive reasoning shouldn't be treated as 2 separate methods to reach the truth, but rather, they are 2 elements of the same process. You use Deductive Reasoning to form an Argument based on Evidence. Then you refine your argument with debates, (which by definitions, includes personal inner debates).

Thanks wisetank. You've helped me refine, if not completely withdraw my argument. I believe you are correct.


The black and white fallacy I suppose.

I think its easy to believe that because in debates we are only comparing ideas that at the end of the day we are only verifying one idea to be true and making no headway. However even our debate today reached a conclusion you probably deemed impossible by the phrasing of the title.

I thank you for your time and your thought provoking topic. I enjoyed our discussion very much.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by the_real_l 1 year ago
How do i withdraw a debate? lol
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.