The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

comprehending the question, is the answer to the question

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 6 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 458 times Debate No: 76828
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

vi_spex

Pro

is it not?
tejretics

Con

I accept.

== Definitions ==

I shall first define the term. "Comprehend" is to "grasp mentally; understand." [1] A "question" is "a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information." [2] An "answer" is "a thing that is said, written, or done as a reaction to a question, statement, or situation." [3]

== Arguments ==

(1) Comprehension vs. Answering

To "comprehend" something is to *understand* it. Understanding a sentence expressed to elicit information does *not* imply knowing the information and providing the necessary answer. We have no reason to believe that comprehension is actually knowing the information itself. This is seen in the very definitions of "comprehend" and "answer".

(2) Comprehension of an unanswerable question

Some questions are, currently, unanswerable, or, at least, some people would be unable to answer them. For example, I can *comprehend* the question "does God exist?", but answering it is beyond me. Another question which *is* scientifically unanswerable - "why are there exceptions to every rule?" [4]

I can understand what the question says, but am unable to answer it.

== Conclusion ==

Thus, comprehension and knowledge are *entirely different*. The resolution is negated.

== Sources ==

[1] Google ("define comprehend")
[2] Google ("define question")
[3] Google ("define answer")
[4] http://www.futuristspeaker.com...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

does rocks exist? does lies exist?
tejretics

Con

== Rebuttal ==

So far, Pro has *failed* to: (1) uphold their onus in demonstrating that comprehension = answering, and (2) rebut my case, which, thus, still stands.

Now, I shall address the questions Pro presents.

"Do rocks exist? Do lies exist?"

One can never know the answer, via. epistemic nihilism and Munchausen trilemma. [1] While this can count as a "response" and may even be the *result* of my comprehension, that doesn't mean comprehension necessarily = answering the question.

== Underview ==

Pro *fails* to (1) uphold their full BOP, or (2) rebut my case. The resolution is resoundingly negated.

== Sources ==

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

do you exist?

i am proving you dont comprehend the question
tejretics

Con

== Overview ==

Pro *drops* my contentions and fails to uphold BOP, so presume Con.

== Rebuttal ==

R1) I don't comprehend = I don't answer

"Do you exist?"

I *completely comprehend* this question. I understand the meaning of the terms "do", "you", and "exist"--where "exist" means to "have objective reality or being." [1] But, obviously, I can't answer it.

Pro *drops* my two contentions. The resolution is negated.

== Sources ==

[1] Google ("define exist")
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

subjectivity dosnt exist?
tejretics

Con

== Overview ==

Pro has not made a *single* point in the entirety of the debate - failing to fulfill BOP, present a case, or rebut my case, instead positing random questions *irrelevant* to the resolution, which remains negated. As such, till BOP is fulfilled, I am not obliged to address a question such as "subjectivity doesnt exist?", which makes no sense whatsoever.

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

does non sense not exist?
tejretics

Con

== Rebuttal ==

"Does nonsense not exist?"

I don't know the answer, but I clearly understand it.

Ultimately, the question is still irrelevant to the resolution since Pro's BOP is to prove the resolution is *necessarily* true in all circumstances.

Since (1) Pro doesn't rebut my case and drops it, and (2) Pro doesn't uphold their burden, the resolution is negated. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
you dont comprehend the question..

you dont understand what non sense and existence is
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
probably
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
probably
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
quest eye on=searching for answers
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
any question is a suffecient example to counter my claim
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
The definition of quesiton is not useful, more people know what question means than what elicit means (which I had to look up). So its kinda counter-intuitive, but whatever.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
existence=reality+experience
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
do you exist?
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
You didn't demonstrate that ...
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i demonstrated that he dosnt comprehend the Word existence, which is sufficient
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by greatkitteh 1 year ago
greatkitteh
vi_spextejreticsTied
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: Con used only Sources, And Pro's argument were rebutted and Irrelevant. Do rock exist?? Has No Meaning in this debate whatsoever,and Pro Also Doesnt go in detail.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
vi_spextejreticsTied
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: Hardly a close debate, no real arguments were posed by pro. Infact no assertions other than the resolution itself were made by Pro. He simply posed random questions. Con made obviously compelling arguments.
Vote Placed by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
vi_spextejreticsTied
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: Pro made no arguments, so he didn't carry his burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
vi_spextejreticsTied
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 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: Con made a clear distinction between comprehending and that being the answer to the question. This distinction was never addressed by Pro. Pro did demonstrate that a question that is not comprehended cannot be the answered, but that does not quite fulfil the resolution, due to the non-congruency with the resolution and the fact that it lacked objectivity. The BoP is way too high, too. So, arguments to Con. S&G goes to Con, too. I found several of Pro's grammatical inaccuracies to be jarring, when I read his work (e.g. "non sense, "dosnt"). I don't mind the odd error, but when there is an error in every sentence, it is far too distracting. Sources to Con because the definitions were integral to the debate, and the ones that Con referenced were credible.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
vi_spextejreticsTied
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: This was a quick vote. Con demonstrated that comprehending the question doesn't entail the answer. Pro doesn't challenge. Pro didn't have any contention, but questions which were unclear how they relate too the resolution. And even if they do, Con easily fended them off as irrelevant. I vote Con Also Con is the only who supported his argument with sources.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
vi_spextejreticsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G to Con, since Pro failed to adhere to numerous orthographic conventions, including hyphenation, spelling and, in particular, capitalisation. Con presented a case, but Pro never presented *any* case, only repeatedly throwing random questions to Con. Con successfully showed that he comprehended these questions, but did not know the answer, and also laid down a theoretical basis for refuting the resolution. The only statement that can be interpreted as an argument from pro, 'i am proving you dont comprehend the question', was a bare assertion, and even if it were true, it would only mean that there's one specific case in which Con neither understood nor was able to answer a question, and this does not support the resolution. Pro failed to fulfill his BOP, and thus loses arguments.