1500

rating

0

debates

0.0%

won

Topic

#3032
# Con Cannot Prove to Pro (me) That They Truly "Know" Anything.

Status

Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00

DD

:

00

HH

:

00

MM

:

00

SS

Parameters

More details
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Category
- Miscellaneous
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Rated
- Characters per argument
- 10,000

1671

rating

44

debates

68.18%

won

Description

~ 0
/
5,000

No information

Round 1

Hi, BoP is on you Con.

The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim, as noted by Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

However, even if voters don't accept this, there is a very simple proof by contradiction.

Firstly, assume that Con cannot prove to Pro that he knows anything for certain.

However, because this is a truth (in our assumed world), Con knows that he "cannot prove that he knows anything".

Therefore he can prove his lack of knowledge.

This is something that he can prove.

But this clearly contradicts the premise, therefore there must be something that can be proven to be known.

Even if pro shoots down all my arguments, if I simply agree with the premise (and he cannot refute the premise), then I have proven *something*, defeating his self-contradictory premise.

Some examples of things easily proved are mathematical axioms such as X=X, 1+1=2, and if X*Y=Z, then Y*X=Z, under standard variable and mathematical system. These can be proved simply by using the very logic and definitions underlaying math. "2" is defined as the number greater than "1" by a difference of "1", under base 10. It's as simple as that.

Other logical systems can also be easily proven, for example, let there be a logical statement,

if P then Q.

P is true,

therefore Q is true.

This is proven self-evidently through the very existence of logic and human definition of logic. As you can see, I know mathematical truths and logical truths.

Round 2

I didn't read your argument, therefore even if everything you said was true you didn't prove it to "me" :)

Pro claims that my argument is not "proven to him", yet he is merely failing to refute my arguments.

The definition of prove is "demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument." (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+prove&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS752US752&oq=define+prove&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i433l8j0.1432j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Even free dictionary agrees with this concept, stating that merely evidence has to be shown (https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/prove+to+someone+that).

I have demonstrated the truths, and since Pro has refused to point out the flaws in the facts, we can only assume he is convinced, because the burden of proof is on him to show that I did not know these truths.

K, thanks for your input.

Well - the resolution was to convince you - it was about the concept of proving something to you, therefore - that's how you lost in my book - also that you incorrectly identified your BoP

There are truths of which you are not convinced, therefore you are convinced of them.

oh, very smart. But you'll have to do better than that to beat me!