Resolved: Truisms, despite adding no constructive value to their discussions, are still worth mentioning within said discussions
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
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.
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.
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.
- A is true
- B is true
- C is supported by A and B and only A and B
- Because so, C is true.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
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.
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)
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".
- Q: Why is Trump a bad president?
- A: Because he is a 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.
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.
Oh, oof. Didn't realize this had no votes
That's quite the tongue twister!
Also, sorry no one ended up voting on this.
"People are people that are people and aren't non-people. People, As people, Must do things like people and not do things like non-people. People, As people that are people and not non-people, Must behave like people, Or else, They will be categorized as non-people, Which is not people and therefore is not-not-not-people, Which is non-people. People are people, And people are not non-people. People that are people should be people until they want to be non-people, Which that they should still be people even if they want to be non-people, Which makes them as much like people as possible for the standards of the people."
1.5hrs left. Vote.
1.5 days remain for voting. I am feeling too tired to be likely to get around to it.
did you accidentally mistype "no constructive value" in this debate? All your arguments seem to support Necessary Truisms but not Unnecessary Truisms
you might want the "tie your shoe", "please be careful" argument now...
You know how literal I am. Maybe I am not using "I love you" as a reason. Who knows?
oh, I just thought of an excellent argument to counter "I love you"
I hope it is not those two. Going on someone undefeated in top 3 is not the best idea ever, but if it is, perhaps it is fate.
thoughts on this topic? Is con impossible to win, as shown in I can I BB? Or can you two garner some incredible arguments that Con hasn't thought of?
"I said, truisms should still be stated even if it is common sense to all sides, Introducing no new ideas to any."
Didn't catch this. I just skimmed the debate
"Please Stop babbling. If you think you are good enough for this then accept it. If you think you are not then leave this alone. Please I said."
You are becoming needlessly aggressive.
I said, truisms should still be stated even if it is common sense to all sides, Introducing no new ideas to any.
Please Stop babbling. If you think you are good enough for this then accept it. If you think you are not then leave this alone. Please I said.
never mind, I listened to his "I love you" speech and I don't think anything could defeat that, the idea that humans are emotional creatures and therefore must speak useless truths at times.
Problem is I can’t win against her on stage. That tv show is debating for amusement, not logic. People would commit fallacies against viable logic and simpletons would vote the one with only amusement at hand.
the woman in the Chinese show uses the crux, "let me think, let me be silent, let me craft a better argument, so that not only is this true, it is also worth mentioning", that's how she almost ties the pro side [but Pro's solid useless "I love you" is a very, very strong conclusion]
If you think you’d be good enough for this, then accept this.
never mind, are you sure you thought of a good argument against the woman? She seemed remarkably difficult to defeat.
Problem here is that there is an infinite combination of conversations to be had... And in some of them, mentioning a truism is bound to be helpful, especially when talking to someone who does not recognize said truism. This is impossible to win as CON, so I'll pass
IDK, Con's BoP is that truisms are not worth mentioning in convos.
is this even possible for con to win this one?