Instigator / Pro
0
1661
rating
39
debates
79.49%
won
Topic

Resolved: Truisms, despite adding no constructive value to their discussions, are still worth mentioning within said discussions

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
0
Sources points
0
0
Spelling and grammar points
0
0
Conduct points
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
12,000
Contender / Con
0
1473
rating
100
debates
32.0%
won
Description
~ 1,142 / 5,000

I have seen this topic on a Chinese debating show called "I Can I BB" and find this intriguing. Both sides are full of fallacies but I enjoyed analyzing it nonetheless. Now, to DART, I support that truisms are still worth mentioning even if they add no constructive value to the arguments. Truisms should still be stated even if it is common sense to all sides, Introducing no new ideas to any.

Definitions:
Truism: A self-evident statement, a statement that is always true, common sense.
Constructive value: The degree in which said idea/thing keeps the discussion alive. especially in terms of the addition of new ideas.
Discussion: A talk between at least two personalities about at least one idea.

Rules:
1. Arguments must be based on common sense, or based on arguments based on common sense, or based on sources based on common sense, etc. If an argument of gish gallop is unsupported it is thus considered weak.
2. No new arguments in R3
3. Keep the discussion Civil and do not break any Coc rules.
4. Forfeiture and waives will result in a conduct loss, and concession grants a debate loss.

What are we waiting for? Let's do this.

Round 1
Pro
Ah, sorry for establishing an argument so late. Nevertheless, I thank Seldiora for accepting this debate. 

Argument: Truisms are the foundation of constructive discussions

Proof by cases

Minus all the small talks and meaningless nonsenses, we have all kinds of discourses that, directly or indirectly, rely on truisms. It is relied on social experiences to decide where to cite the truisms, but it does not rely on mere experiences that we know all things true rely on truisms to be true, direct or not, and you'd be right, that really does sound like a true statement, because truisms must be true, and if something is supported by only ents, it is undoubtedly true, unless some non-true declarations intervened within the justification: which in that case, would not be considered "supported by only true statement".

A truism is widely accepted and it needs no other evidence beneath it to support it to make people believe it is true or make it true.[1]

Let us get close to one example, theoretically, that can illustrate that things that are supported by only true statements are indeed true.
  • A is true
  • B is true
  • C is supported by A and B and only A and B
  • Because so, C is true.
I think all people can realize that the process above is true. It is the Proof by Exhaustion, and it is widely accepted as a viable method for mathematical and even philosophical issues[2].

This is one simple logical format for many arguments. Now let's put in some actual filler in it.
  • A: A jog of 1000 meters begins with a single step.
  • B: Steps are usually made by feet.
  • C: (Supported by A and B) Thus, a 1km jog would most likely begin on foot.
  • I think all the masses who have even the littlest bravery that motivated them to read a topic like this would know that the 3rd one is true.
And, you can repeat this process:
  • A: A 1km jog would most likely begin on foot
  • B: hands aren't feet
  • C: Thus, a 1km jog would most likely not begin on hands
And again.
  • A: A 1km jog would most likely not begin on hands
  • B: A piano is most likely to be played by hands
  • C: Thus, the thing you use to jog kilometers would most likely not be the thing you play piano with
Indefinitely, if you have the time and energy for it. I doubt that you could do it on and on, but it is certainly possible: True statements-supported statements will be true. From truisms, you can build upon and on, until it is no longer possible.

All constructive discussions must maintain some truth, or it is chaotic nonsense

Let's just resolve one of the counterexamples: What if someone's constructive discourse is mere nonsense? Let's give Flat Earth a shot, using the proof illustrated by the cases above. 
  • A: The earth looks flat
  • B: The earth pictures can be photoshopped
  • C: The governments could commit in conspiracy
  • D: Thus, it is possible that our earth is Flat.
It is not defined what is a truism or not, because a truism is a truism if it is self-sufficient or it is widely believed. If those flat earthers widely believe that the earth is just flat as common sense, it is a truism for them, and it can go on as constructive. Only that facts can disprove those "truisms", it can be verified as "untrue", and in turn, if you don't have enough proof, you cannot change anyone's minds, because what you believe is false is what they believe as true.

The opposite of true is false. There are statements between true and false, and ambiguity can just be that it could be true or false.

We have that in order to establish a constructive discourse, we must have some equal grounds(Things we believe in as common, true statements), and true statements support one(or even both) sides of what they may be discussing(such as if we should test more powered weapons or not). Truisms are the foundations of their arguments in the discourse, and stating them, which wouldn't add anything valuable considering all know that this is true, would indirectly(or even directly) support their side of proof. Truisms, as the foundations of their arguments, should be mentioned so logic can be built up from there, and if not mentioned, then it wouldn't be known that this side is supported by common sense, which would hinder said subject from persuading. Truisms are a good method for proving one's case, and as a result, it should be mentioned in a constructive discourse as the foundation of the person's final case.


I pass the virtual microphone to my opponent.
Con
Pro is being nonsensical and contradictory. He includes extra truisms and provides no necessity to actually mention them in said discussions, and directly violates the core idea of the truism itself. His truism is the famous saying "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step", which is definitively a truism, but is also symbolic. Parents may say this to help encourage their children to play piano (journey of playing the piano begins with playing a single key), but it is completely unnecessary to say that "Of course, the journey of the thousand miles is translated into a thousand notes, and the first mile is the first step, right son?" As you can see the parent's original wisdom is starting to come into stupidity and the children feels like they are treated as stupid. If I say that the we should strive to achieve human virtue, symbolically as the good stories of the bible, this is a truism. Everyone wants to help others out and everyone uses the moral and figurative stories to let them know of other truisms such as "please forgive others more" or "stop worrying too much about life". There is no need to mention other unrelated truisms that could detract the conversation into an argument, such as "oh, yes, the bible doesn't mention evolution and says God created the two persons himself, but don't you worry, there's a good explanation for that..." and delve into a long, long religious argument. The point is that only the necessary is necessary and the unnecessary is absurd and nonsensical. If the children are truly stupid and do not understand the truism, then perhaps they should not play piano at all if they cannot relate to the miles to the notes and the steps to the keys.

Pro vouches for constructive arguments, but makes no cases for unconstructive truisms. Establishing evidence that the earth is round are necessary truisms to one that doesn't understand science, or logic. Or perhaps someone is insane or stupid in a way that they haven't even thought about the earth's roundness. Consider this, let's assume I believed in pro's philosophy and was as detailed as possible regardless of unnecessary or necessary.

Let's define truism: a self-evident, obvious truth. Excellent. This should be necessary. Any more is absurd. Based on pro, we might have to define every word hereon forth, however. Let's use Dictionary.com definitions. Self-evident. What is self-evident? Evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic. What is obvious? Easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge. But what is proof or demonstration? Proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. Demonstration is the act or circumstance of proving or being proved conclusively, as by reasoning or a show of evidence. Alright, so we've established evidence is very important in the idea of truism. So what is evidence? That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign. Now what did we learn here? Absolutely nothing. It's just a circle of unnecessary truisms, definitions in this case, that try to make it clearer what the truism is. But from the concise words already know there is no need for proof, no need for evidence, some indication or sign to back up the claim. This entire paragraph was arguably just an entire word soup that didn't help us at all. Clearly, unnecessary truisms aren't relevant within this discussion.

Round 2
Pro
1. Bad context?

Still, Con has indeed not defeated my argument yet.

Pro is being nonsensical and contradictory. He includes extra truisms and provides no necessity to actually mention them in said discussions, and directly violates the core idea of the truism itself. His truism is the famous saying "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step", which is definitively a truism, but is also symbolic. Parents may say this to help encourage their children to play piano (journey of playing the piano begins with playing a single key), but it is completely unnecessary to say that "Of course, the journey of the thousand miles is translated into a thousand notes, and the first mile is the first step, right son?" As you can see the parent's original wisdom is starting to come into stupidity and the children feels like they are treated as stupid.
My opponent tried not to challenge the idea of said proof presented in R1 where that if A and B are both true, then C, which is supported by A and B, is true.

Let's enforce this logic on the claim my opponent presented.

A: A jog of 1000 miles begins with a single step(TRUISM, TRUE)
B: The sentence above should be interpreted by symbolism instead of literally(NON-PROVEN)
You see: It is everything about the context. Using the correct truism in the wrong scenario would fail to make the other side realize that it is a truism. Also, I do not support the incorrect uses of truisms. If no true statements can prove that truisms used here are not a good choice, then the use here would thus be unsupported or insufficiently supported.

Also, using the wrong statements even those statements are correct isn't what I am trying to say. The wrong contexts do not hinder the true nature of its literal interpretation: which is what makes it a true statement.

Give another example: All lives matter. Is it true? Yes. OK. Go yell this at any BLM protester. Truisms don't always work out at all times, but nevertheless giving one example of it not working does not make it completely useless within the fundamental structure of discussion.

Truisms dictate whether this statement is true or not, but truisms also dictate whether the practical application, in terms of the context of this statement, is justified or not. Saying "You will die one day" to any of your grandparents or elderlies, and see how they react. "You will die one day" is indeed true, but saying them to someone so close to death yet fearing it is also known to be a bad context for it.

Just because truisms prevent a true statement from being a good time to be mentioned in some contexts, it does not make truisms not worth mentioning. This is like saying because Men should not enter woman's bathrooms, how about it not entering any existing building? Parts not working does not make the entire thing not working at all.

My opponent questioned not that all constructive discussions are supported by a large foundation of truisms. Mentioning the root of the discussion is no bad, especially when you are drawing the others to the real theme.

2. Utter nonsense?

My opponent opened up the idea of "Non-constructive truisms", but fails to notice that every truism has a purpose. It is only subjective that something is useless, while a needy one will find everything useful upon gift.

In other words, If it conveyed something, even if it conveys nothing externally, it still conveys SOMETHING. That SOMETHING will be useful in some way. The only useless statement is one where conveys nothing, which said "statement" would be a lack of statement, which is no statement at all. Truisms are statements and they convey something. I could use "This statement describes no other statements within the context", sounds right? Now I could use the said statement to prove why Trump is a bad president.

1. This statement describes no other statements within the context.
2: Thus, it describes something, no matter what it is.
3: Because A is self-evidently true, it is a truism.
4: There is always evidence of a statement, if true.
5. There is verifiable evidence that proves Trump is bad at being a president.
6. If that evidence is indeed true, that signifies that the output statement is true.
7. Verifiable Evidence suggests Trump is a bad president.
8. Thus, it is more likely than unlikely that Trump is a bad president.

Truisms are general statements that can be the foundation of lots of stuff. Saying that some truisms are of no constructive value is actually not right: You just didn't gain any knowledge because you should already know it beforehand. It carries value nonetheless.

I rest my case. Truisms are the foundations of structural discussion and they always carry, or apply, to some sense of information, whether you like it or not.
Con
1. Pro is contradicting himself here, I get that even necessary truisms have the right place to say, but he has not proved the unnecessary truisms are worth it in the first place. If even mentioning "The Chinese saying 'thousand miles begins with single steps' is an Idiom and ought to be interpreted symbolically most of the time" (you can see from this source that it's a symbolic proverb -- https://literarydevices.net/a-journey-of-a-thousand-miles-begins-with-a-single-step/#:~:text=Meaning%20of%20%E2%80%9CA%20Journey%20of,about%20determination%20and%20avoiding%20procrastination.) seems unproven to pro, then to him it is an unnecessary truism, and therefore even worse than necessary truism, which can be spoken in the necessary context (in the Bible as a self-help motivation as said above). Pro's attempt to prove that most miles walking begin with your feet, and therefore inapplicable to playing piano, completely undermines the context of the proverb, and could only hinder the parent's attempt to motivate their child to play piano. He himself showed a clear example how unnecessary truism will hamper even the ideals of a necessary truism. This alone should defeat his stance.

2. I don't think pro understands EXACTLY what this topic is talking about. It says truisms, while UNCONSTRUCTIVE, are still worth mentioning. That means every truism that pro supports must be UNCONSTRUCTIVE, in order for him to win. Some examples are "every 60 seconds a minute passes", "My shoe is a shoe", "my username is seldiora", so on and so forth. CONSTRUCTIVE truisms are those that inspire people and are necessary to prove things, such as "If ONLY P can Cause Q, that means No P results in No Q". As such, he is supporting CONSTRUCTIVE truisms in argument B, which help prove Donald Trump may be bad, since there is evidence he is a bad. UNCONSTRUCTIVE truisms would be something like "Trump is currently president", or "people are voting for Trump", or "Trump is a contestant for the election", all three which are not completely necessary to prove the unworthiness of Trump. And he still hasn't proved that truisms 2~4 contribute anything or are worth mentioning at all. With only statements 1, 5~8, it's already enough to know you have evidence that Trump is bad. The unnecessary truisms are not worth mentioning.

I feel like pro's trying to confuse me to get me to support his case (there is a very good symbolic argument for unnecessary truisms, but he has not mentioned it and I do not recommend bringing it up in the very end, as you cannot refute my refutation), but in the end, proverbs are still necessary (constructive) truisms, and unnecessary truisms make you look stupid and hamper your ideals, as pro himself displays in round one. 

Remember voters, Pro has to support Truisms that are UNCONSTRUCTIVE to the topic. He proves nothing by supporting excellently grounded truisms necessary for philosophy or crucial to human ethics.
Round 3
Pro
Surely you would expect me responding. I am ready for R3.

1. Pro is contradicting himself here, I get that even necessary truisms have the right place to say, but he has not proved the unnecessary truisms are worth it in the first place. If even mentioning "The Chinese saying 'thousand miles begins with single steps' is an Idiom and ought to be interpreted symbolically most of the time".
That, however, does not defeat my point. My opponent is trying to say as if no matter how the symbolism is used, it should remain useful, or else Pro's resolution is unproven.

Let's go back to the original scenario Con provided: Using said idiom to convince someone to play the piano. However, it provides no benefits to playing the piano, merely that it is possible to start playing Piano. In fact, you can probably do anything humanly possible had you use that saying for every scenario, but just saying that there is a starting point does not make the starting point desirable or making the starting point clear. 

Said saying should be cooperated with other proven facts(such as why playing the piano is good, the benefits of playing piano) to truly convince one to play the piano. Just because the truism is a truism, it doesn't mean anyone can use it to prove anything as long as it is related. Saying "a journey of 1000 miles begins with the single step" while providing no actual usage for the hobby would make the receiver think "Thanks, I know but I am not interested". In simple words: Even if truism is indeed true if it is not sufficient proof for the thing you are trying to convey, you are not using it the correct way. You wouldn't use "You will die one day so it doesn't matter" to comfort your grandparents in bed because you know this probably will hurt them more than it comforts them. Using truisms the wrong way does not make the usage of them constructive. In fact, spewing random nonsense in and out of both ears of a constructive discussion would not benefit anyone in any way, even if what you are saying is indeed correct. Unconstructive truisms are merely adding no knowledge to the listeners, but are still necessary to prove the issue. Unconstructive truisms(apart from false nonsenses), will be worth mentioning if they are necessary to prove the issue.

Saying what the other side knows to convince them of nothing else is obviously useless, but that doesn't mean you cannot use them to any other extent. Saying what the other side knows to convince them of nothing else is like just building the foundation of a supposed building, then build nothing on top. You could use more efficient methods but you don't: That doesn't mean you can't mention it another way. I will give another example.
  • Q: Why is Trump a bad president?
  • A: Because he is a president.
This is like using something everyone knows to convince people of nothing: Using it the incorrect way. It doesn't prove this issue even though it can resolve another issue. Likewise, every truism can itself prove its own issue, and to say it cannot resolve anything else is like saying Buildings are useless crap because they can't even fit through my mouth!

However, we can use these supportive statements to prove that Trump is really a bad president.

  • Trump is the president.
  • Bad things are usually what people resent.
  • People who do bad things more than good things are bad people.
  • A bad job at the job will consider one a bad person at the job.
  • Bad policies are bad when comes to political executive positions.
  • Trump had bad policies(supported by sources).
  • Trump is bad at being a president.
  • Trump is a bad president.
Everything above the bolded statement is truisms: Widely accepted ideas that requires no proof to be recognized as true. Stating what people would know to prove something would indeed making the truisms not valuable with the discussion since it is just what people knew at the time, but it is still mentioning because it is supportive of the proof of something worth proving, which would make truisms, despite not being valuable, still able to prove something, which is why it is worth mentioning.

Technically a constructive truism would be one that adds knowledge to the viewers, such as those logical proofs and the axioms used to prove complex mathematics stuff. Common sense and truisms that people are tired of hearing that it adds no knowledge to their brain capacity would be able to still prove stuff. For example: "My username is Seldiora" can be used to prove "9spaceking is Seldiora", which is using common sense for the people to prove something that could be useful because it can bring the coworkers and the friends of Seldiora to debating. No matter what, you can always prove something.

but in the end, proverbs are still necessary (constructive) truisms, and unnecessary truisms make you look stupid and hamper your ideals, as pro himself displays in round one. 
My opponent is confusing the necessity and the constructivity of a statement as blended as one. One that adds no new knowledge to the other's brain can still be used to prove something with convenience. Necessary and unconstructive truisms exist and they can be used to prove stuff.

Remember voters, Pro has to support Truisms that are UNCONSTRUCTIVE to the topic.
I did.

Truisms, despite adding no new knowledge to the brain, can still be convenient to prove other things. Vote Pro for this debate. Thank you.

Con
Essentially, pro's argument comes down to the idea that unnecessary truisms can still build up and prove something that is worth mentioning. However, it becomes extremely vague whether this truism becomes necessary or not. He has conceded that even a necessary truism can be bad in the wrong context, but if an "unnecessary truism" is "good", doesn't it become necessary as a result? In order for pro to prove that Trump is a bad president, he must indeed establish that Trump is president in the first place, and define "bad" so that the debate isn't muddled and strange. But not everyone may know Trump is president, and so in a debate about Trump's bad presidency, it suddenly becomes a necessary truism, compared to say, a debate about flat earth. Defining words in a premise is definitely a necessary truism, however as I proved in round 1, constantly repeating yourself and overusing truisms causes annoyance and makes people frustrated, stopping to listen as a result. You blur the line between necessary and unnecessary and it's entirely possible for some gish gallop to occur, especially with people not always being logical and Pro saying in R1 that Flat earthers may think unnecessary (wrong) "truisms" to be necessary.

In I Can I BB, pro focused on truisms that are unnecessary regardless of the context, such as "go brush your teeth" or "tie your shoe" or "please be careful" which display a parent's love for the children, and hence should be mentioned. However, Intelligence did not mention any of that here, so it is irrelevant to his case (and highlights its weaknesses), and he tries to distinguish the actual necessity of the "unnecessary truism" in a debate, which gets very muddled and could become a Necessary Truism to establish a context. Other useless truisms such as X equals X or every sixty seconds a minute passes are practically never needed to be brought up in a discussion. Normal people in America when discussing about trump already know that he is president. They know what "bad president" standard is, and only need to discuss his actual actions and policies. It's only when you need to clarify to outsiders that it becomes a necessary truism. 

Conclusion: Pro muddled the idea of unnecessary versus necessary, but there are some truisms that people are just annoyed at and contribute nothing to the context, while pro's truisms are actually necessary to prove that Trump is a bad president, especially since not everyone might know who Donald Trump is. It may SEEM unconstructive but it is actually very good background. Consider a high level scientific paper that uses basic science to establish strong and difficult principles, it would be wise to begin with seemingly obvious, but necessary truisms (perhaps Newton's laws or Einstein's Relativity Theory) to construct the complex formulas. But 100% of the time I can guarantee a high level science paper would not need to prove 1+1=2 or 1=1 or any extremely basic mathematics, otherwise, it would be too long and absurd.