Instigator / Pro
0
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Topic
#2268

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

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description

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.

Oh, oof. Didn't realize this had no votes

-->
@Intelligence_06

That's quite the tongue twister!

Also, sorry no one ended up voting on this.

-->
@Barney
@seldiora

"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."
---anc2006, Debate.org

-->
@Barney

1.5hrs left. Vote.

1.5 days remain for voting. I am feeling too tired to be likely to get around to it.

-->
@Barney

vote plz?

-->
@Intelligence_06

did you accidentally mistype "no constructive value" in this debate? All your arguments seem to support Necessary Truisms but not Unnecessary Truisms

-->
@Intelligence_06

you might want the "tie your shoe", "please be careful" argument now...

https://youtu.be/zXCMenXD5BY?t=9

-->
@seldiora

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"

-->
@seldiora

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.

-->
@Barney
@oromagi

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?

-->
@Intelligence_06

"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

-->
@Intelligence_06

"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.

-->
@MisterChris

I said, truisms should still be stated even if it is common sense to all sides, Introducing no new ideas to any.

-->
@seldiora

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.

-->
@Intelligence_06

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.

-->
@seldiora

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.

-->
@MisterChris

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]

-->
@seldiora

If you think you’d be good enough for this, then accept this.

-->
@Intelligence_06

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

-->
@seldiora

IDK, Con's BoP is that truisms are not worth mentioning in convos.

is this even possible for con to win this one?