The futility of "if"
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Since it is April Fools’ Day, I will celebrate by offering a revised challenge of “if.” This one varies slightly from the first, and will, hopefully, deter argumentative definition of words as a feature of the debate.
Therefore, this debate’s challenge, is: “’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.”
Definitions:
Utilitarian: useful by intentional-purpose activity. Frequency of use is not a factor, even when used frequently. A thing may be used frequently, or not, without meeting the intentional-purpose qualification. For example, using a flathead screwdriver as a wedge to pry one object from another, such as a lid from a bottle, may be useful, but that is not the intended use of a flathead screwdriver. Therefore, in the context of the debate, “if” is a word that introduces a non-utilitarian value that cannot attain value until the condition of the “not true” changes to “true.” It is the conditional statement of an if/then proposal that must change; not the definition of ‘if’ and/or ‘utilitarian.’
Theory: A scientific concept proposed which has not yet earned “fact” status while still called a theory, regardless of its pervasive use in scientific protocol as a fact. Example: the Theory of Relativity.
Acknowledgement: Recognition of a condition that is currently either true or not true. The ‘if’ statement is the qualifier of a true/not-true condition, but is not the vehicle to change one condition to the other.
I’m going to be honest; this debate isn’t exactly my mug of cough syrup. I’m going to put a concerted effort into cataloguing as many arguments as possible, but my ears are leaking cranial fluid just from reading the first round.
I’ll start with Pro’s arguments. That is, I’ll try to start with his arguments, but he seems to only have one, and it is too oblique, to the point that I had to parse it from the rest of the text to understand. I don’t know, maybe I’m just not good with this type of abstraction over the minutiae of defining terms. He starts by mentioning another debate he did with oromagi on the same subject. Cool. Then he delves into the meat of his argument. He posits that any use of the word “if” belies any notion of truth in the status quo sans any external manipulation of factors. For example:
If I could speak for everyone… is not currently a true statement unless I somehow produced a device that forced people to speak in unison. The latter part of that clause, where I somehow find a way to meet the “if” statement is purely external. This sounds reasonable enough.
Con contends that an if statement can depict the truth though, suggesting that the statement “if Donald Trump is president…” demonstrates a true fact because whatever subsequent action follows the “if” statement is predicated on Donald Trump being president, which is an undeniable fact.
Pro offers a retort that I feel could have easily been countered. He suggests that both opponents subscribe to the Greek idea of knowledge, which is that something must be believed, true, and justified to be considered knowledge. Because a speaker who presumably says “if Trump is president” doesn’t know about US politics (per Con’s postulation) the statement can’t possibly fall under the epistemological framework he provided because it isn’t believed or justified by the speaker. In other words, the speaker is expressing that he “doesn’t know” if Trump is president.
I’m voting Pro on this exchange because Con doesn’t really refute the Greek principles that Pro is espousing. Con never raises issue with the three stipulations of knowledge, which means I must flow it across the debate.
The argument over this if-then statement doesn’t really develop past this point. Perceptible changes in lingo to explain the arguments notwithstanding, both debaters repeat stuff. There is a debate going on in the background around the nature of truth, but it is only tenuously linked to the topic, and I want to get to the chief reason I’m voting for Pro: the last round.
Con, you should not make new arguments, particularly one that is a kritik, (critique of the resolution,) in the last round when Pro cannot get around to addressing those arguments. Also, you should not basically drop everything else to make such an argument by admitting your arguments were decimated. Whether there were restrictions placed on the final round or not, this is a clear violation of debate ethics. It’s not a major one in my opinion, it just means you cede basically all of the other arguments by not sufficiently responding to them. As for the kritik itself, I am flummoxed. Should people only be beholden to the explicitly stated title? What about other rules and definitions that, hitherto the last round, you adhered to? If adhering to the rules was an onerous burden, then why not offer this kritik first? All of this is insubstantial due to the violation of the debate structure, but they are foremost objections I would have as a competitor.
All in all, not a bad debate. But, because Con ceded so much in the last round by not responding, I have to give the victory to Pro.
Thanks. You guys are helping me grow as a debater!
Thanks for voting with a detailed analysis.
This is blamonkey circa 2020 voting on this debate:
https://i.pinimg.com/474x/86/fd/bf/86fdbf4d0b1fc2e6afb55929c87c7f24.jpg
Bump. This needs votes.
Bumping over spam to encourage other voters.
Sorry this comment is not just for you. it is for anybody who can vote. I just somehow typed SupaDudz when I didn't mean to.
If I get time I will
I would suggest you put the topic IN the title next time so no one would exploit this as I did.
C'mon, let's vote.
I like how you handled the last round, offering a point I had not considered, and you raise a good argument. However, I consider the debate title as just a catch phrase, like an advertising hook to drawn interest. The real debate subject is in the description:“’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.”
Is there any limitations to what I can and can't do in each argument? Do I have the privilege of refutation in round I?
I mean by such notions that have been, historically, but may begin to have cracks with String Theory, for example, treated as fact. Example: the speed of light is the maximum achievable speed. And that black holes are total gravity sinks.
What do you mean? The Theory of Relativity is also a theory in and of itself.
How, then, do you explain science's use of Einstein's "Relativity," which has always had the predicate, "Theory of...?"
You're wrong about the word "theory."
Theory: A scientific concept proposed which has not yet earned “fact” status while still called a theory, regardless of its pervasive use in scientific protocol as a fact. Example: the Theory of Relativity.
In reality, a theory is "an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing." Example: The Germ Theory of Disease