The Instigator
vwv
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Domr
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

'Yes or No' questions are fundamentally different to 'True or False' questions.

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...
Domr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,071 times Debate No: 63153
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

vwv

Con

Conditions for eligibility

Must have 8-43 completed debates and must be able to follow rules.


Rules of Discourse


1. Absolutely no trolling whatsoever, even a slightly sarcastic joke or jest for any other purpose than highlighting a point. (It can be amusing for purposes of letting a point sink in, not to mock the opponent nor their arguments). If you are caught trolling, you will be given a warning and then a full strike will occur the second time. If trolling occurs in last round, even one instance of it results in full strike.

2. No profanity at all. Replacing a letter in a rude word is not allowed either. Even if the word is permitted by the DDO filter absolutely no room for profanity of any severity is permitted. Using it results in full strike immediately; zero tolerance.

3. No abuse of opponent allowed at all. Cannot attack them personally or mock them in any way. Cannot bring any profile information to sway votes.

4. Round 2 must contain 0 rebuttals and only constructive arguments with round 1 being acceptance. Will result in warning if violated (transferable to trolling warning, meaning warning expires if this is committed).

5. Accidentally misinterpreting which side one represents results in warning. If one has warning here, trolling warning allowance expires.

6. No Wikipedia, or Wiki[anything] links are allowed. The resources on the Wiki page are allowed but not the Wiki page itself.

7. Round 1 is up to Pro to offer definitions and full explanation of the debate. If they fail to do so, Con has full rights over these aspects of the debate.

Any warning after another warning means strike.

Warning = Conduct mark lost.

Strike = Debate lost.

If opponent has a warning but you have strike, you lose the debate. If both have a warning, conduct is tied (probably). If both have a strike then this is clearly very bad and voters can decide as they please.

Domr

Pro

I will gladly accept this debate.

As I am Pro, I am agreeing, and arguing FOR the topic: 'Yes or No' questions are fundamentally different to 'True or False' questions.

I will begin to define the definitions I see necessary to debate this topic. I will also give a full explanation of the debate, as listed per Rule #7 in Round 1 by Con.



"Yes or No Questions": Questions that are designed in a manner to achieve an answer of "Yes" or "No"

"True or False Questions": Questions that are designed in a manner to achieve an answer of "True or False"
(the above definitions decided upon common knowledge and use of words)




Fundamentally (adverb): used to make an emphatic statement about the basic truth of something.

Different (adjective) : not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality.
(the above definitions are decided upon the links sourced below)

https://www.google.com...

https://www.google.com...


As Pro, I accept full Burden of Proof (BoP). To achieve BoP it is my duty to show how 'Yes or No' questions, are different (in ANY way) from "True or False" questions.

If Con is unable to successfully refute any argument I make showing ANY difference between these Two Sets of Questions, I have then succeeded in BoP, and should be voted as the Winner as of this debate.

I leave any further opening statements and opening arguments to Con.
Debate Round No. 1
vwv

Con

Similar =/= Different

Fundamentally =/= Externally

To truly understand this topic one must comprehend that just as Spanish can be translated/converted/adapted into French, because they are not fundamentally different, heat/thermal energy can be converted into light energy and vice versa of course.

I challenge my opponent to come up with a single y/n question that cannot be converted to a t/f question with equal difficulty to answer as the y/n question was.

Example:

Are you homosexual?

Is it true or false that you are homosexual?

All y/n is, is a broken down form of t/f

On top of this, y/n is answered in the same way but it is simply cut short.

>Is it true that you are a criminal?

1. It is true, it is false
2. It is probably true, it is probably false
3. It may be true, it may be false
4. I don't know

>To what degree is it true, or false?

1. very true, very false
2. quite true, quite false
3. pretty true, pretty false
5. barely true, barely false
4. Indeterminable

Now look at the y/n version

>Are you a criminal?

1. yes, no
2. probably
3. maybe
4. I don't know

>To what degree is the answer known?

1. yes, no
2. probably
3. maybe
4. I don't know

Here we find one slight issue (or so you think). 'Yes' and 'no' are nouns/exclamations whilst 'true' and 'false' are adjectives regarding the correctness of an assertion in the form of a statement.

This is not actually proof that they are fundamentally different because this difference is more proof that they are fundamentally the same and overall similar. Apart from 'Persian' vs 'Iranian', we very rarely see two items of a category being identical. This is because if they are both fundamentally and externally identical there is basically no point in keeping them both as functioning linguistic representations of what they mean. Instead one is 'killed off' so that the other can persist. If y/n and t/f were identical there's be no need for the other term to exist in the first place. They are simply a simplistic form vs a complex form is exactly the same concept of questioning.

There are no y/n questions that cannot be converted into a t/f format. On the other hand, because t/f is the more complex of the two it is not as easy to break it down when the adjective part of it becomes part of the question ('how true' or something).

Instead of the t/f format you can actually ask it for y/n like this:

>How certain are you that the answer to the previous question is yes?
>How certain are you that the answer to the previous question is no?

This will be able to answer in very, quite, pretty and barely (as well as indeterminable). On the other hand, these again convert far better in the merged question:

>How certain are you that the answer you gave to the previous question was true?
>How certain are you that the answer you gave to the previous question was false?

Then these merge better into

>How true was the answer you gave to the previous question?

(Asking how false is silly because it is an absence of truthfulness).
Domr

Pro

I will start off with recapping a few things from my previous round...

"Fundamentally (adverb): used to make an emphatic statement about the basic truth of something."

Fundamentally is simply helping emphasis the word Different, meaning it can be taken out of the premise and the premise will still have the same meaning.


"Different (adjective) : not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality."

"As Pro, I accept full Burden of Proof (BoP). To achieve BoP it is my duty to show how 'Yes or No' questions, are different (in ANY way) from "True or False" questions."


Now I will quote a short excerpt from Con's argument as it directly details my argument. (This is not a rebuttal, this is actually my argument)

"Here we find one slight issue (or so you think). 'Yes' and 'no' are nouns/exclamations whilst 'true' and 'false' are adjectives regarding the correctness of an assertion in the form of a statement."


As my opponent has gladly pointed out, as is my first argument, T/F questions require an adjective to answer their questions. Y/N questions require a noun.


Adjectives and nouns are different from each other.

I truly appreciate Con making his arguments for me.

This falls under my BoP of finding ANY difference between the two. Therefore, according to the rules set out in Round 1 by me, I win this debate.

I do not believe any rebuttals would be plausible as of this point, but I will let Con decide on that, and continue this debate as necessary based on the responses.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
vwv

Con

vwv forfeited this round.
Domr

Pro

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
vwv

Con

vwv forfeited this round.
Domr

Pro

my opponent has deleted his account.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
I would report myself if I could, since it seems all the cool kids are being reported.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
You have been reported for reporting him
Posted by vwv 2 years ago
vwv
you have been reported
Posted by TheRandomGuy69 2 years ago
TheRandomGuy69
vwv is bad at debating
Posted by vwv 2 years ago
vwv
Good job for round one
Posted by vwv 2 years ago
vwv
I do not have to justify my settings.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
strange, why stop at 43 debates?
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
"Just beacuse the answer is yes, doesn't mean the answer is true."

-Doctor Who :)
Posted by hatshepsut 2 years ago
hatshepsut
A somewhat odd proposition & format for someone just signing on an hour ago.

Questions are never "true" or "false" anyway. They're questions. You're probably thinking of the distinction between predicate and adjunct questions, and can Google to find out.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
why is the cut off 43? That is very odd
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
vwvDomrTied
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: Forfeiture