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

the i dont know position means, i know its false

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 5 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 77177
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

vi_spex

Pro

i dont know is a position on an imaginary claim, the maybe, not yes and no

only know is true, and i dont know god
i dont know=i can at best imagine it

any false answer is imaginary

tejretics

Con

I accept. My interpretation of the resolution: "A position of 'I don't know' is the same as a position of 'I know it's false'." In another words, *any* agnostic position on any subject is the same as knowledge that it's false.

== Definitions ==

Know - "to perceive directly; have direct cognition of; to understand and have a clear and complete idea of." [1]
False - "not true or accurate; based on mistaken ideas." [2]

== Sources ==

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

no im saying know is true, and also i dont know is a position i know

as certain i am that i see rocks is as certain i am that i dont see god

false=imagination=imaginary=fantasy
tejretics

Con

== Resolution ==

Pro says I've misinterpreted the resolution, but I've merely *restated* the resolution -- Pro is changing the resolution as he wants. In R2, Pro changed the resolution to say a position of "I don't know" refers to *knowledge* that you don't know, but that's obvious.

Debate Theory. The resolution change is abuse of the debate system. (1) Changing resolutions is generally considered unacceptable conduct, and (2) Pro's interpretation of the resolution is stating a definite and obvious fact -- such facts cannot be used as resolutions since they aren't even debatable. This is abuse of debate since it guarantees an automatic Pro win since the resolution, in the interpretation that Pro takes. Thus, the resolution change cannot be accepted.

== Rebuttal ==

The BOP lies *entirely* on Pro, yet Pro hasn't made any arguments to affirm.

"as certain i am that i see rocks is as certain i am that i dont see god"

Pro fails to establish how this is relevant to the resolution.

"false=imagination=imaginary=fantasy"

This is equally irrelevant.

Until Pro fulfills BOP, presume Con.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

know is the opposite of knowledge

i havnt talked about knowledge..

know=physical experience

i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, and i am certain that i am not, so i know its false for me to say i see a dog in my room
tejretics

Con

OBSERVATION

Concession by omission - Pro has CONCEDED my interpretation of the resolution.

PRO's CASE

C1: "I haven't talked about knowledge"

Pro asserts that "Know is the opposite of knowledge," but this is a bare assertion. "Knowledge" is the abstract-noun form of the verb "know".

C2: "Know=Physical Experience"

This is ascribing to a position of epistemological empiricism, which has to be justified, else can be dismissed as a bare assertion.

"i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, and i am certain that i am not, so i know its false for me to say i see a dog in my room"

This is only relevant to Pro's INTERPRETATION of the resolution that I challenged and dismissed in R2.

CONCLUSION

Pro still fails to fulfill BOP, instead making bare assertions, so presume Con. Over to Pro...
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

you dont have knowledge of unknown claims.. knowledge is truth, truth can only be in the past....

do you know if your neighbour is home right now? or is he/she not home?
tejretics

Con

REBUTTALS

NEITHER of Pro's arguments is relevant to the resolution, and the question and the assertion have no link to the resolution. Pro has FAILED to establish such a link, and still fails to fulfill the BOP.

As such, presume Con. Over to Pro...
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

i have no clue what you are saying
tejretics

Con

OBSERVATION

"I have no clue what you are saying."

In the process, (1) Pro fails to fulfill BOP, and (2) CONCEDES the debate by omission.

As such, this is a CONCESSION. The resolution is negated...

VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
I personally have no interest in ever debating vi_spex, as much as he became an interesting example in a recent debate of mine (I compared him to Mikal).
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
@tajshar2k - vi_spex is a saint. He offers "free" Elo to whoever asks. That's noble :).
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
it is easy to win
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
@vi_spex Don't you ever get bored?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
yes it is impossible to win
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
@TJ- you shouldn't debate vi_spex! Come on :)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
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: Pretty straight forward, with pro accusing con of strawmanning it, con countering with claiming pro is moving the goalpost... Pro's grasp of the English language lead to him stating "i have no clue what you are saying" rather than trying to counter, or for that matter build up an argument to begin with. S&G was also nearly unreadable from pro.
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 Checkmark-1 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: Grammar: Pro Thriughout had bad grammar, And uses Equal signs in clearly Innappropiate places. Arguments: CONCESSION Sources: Pro fails to meat thw BOp, Only ckn uses sources.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
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 failed to provide *a* coherent argument affirming their resolution, as well as ignoring most of Cons contentions. Con was the only one to outline a full argument and negate his opponents points.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
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 Checkmark-1 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 was the only one who used sources. Pro had poor grammar. Con's arguments were not fully refuted by Pro and thus the resolution is negated.
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 as Pro has poor capitalisation throughout the debate, and used awkward and confusing structures. Arguments to Con because Pro dropped all of Con's rebuttals, which challenge the relevance of his arguments. Moreover, Pro has never once shown how his assertions relate to the resolution; for example, he claimed, 'as certain i am that i see rocks is as certain i am that i dont see god', but failed to explain how this is related to the IDK position, or how the IDK and 'false' positions are equivalent. All in all, Pro failed to fulfill his BOP and loses arguments.