Instigator / Pro
4
1302
rating
218
debates
44.95%
won
Topic
#3821

Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. I am always right.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1700
rating
544
debates
68.01%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Pro
#1
Let us begin.

I will explain why I am always right and why people who disagree with me are wrong.

Premise 1:
I give myself the right to decide.

Premise 2:
I decide what is true.

Premise 3:
I decide what is false.

Premise 4:
I decide what is proof.

Premise 5:
I decided that I am the God.

Premise 6:
I decided that I am the source of all morality and all truth.

Premise 7:
I decided that other people are, in most cases, dogs who should serve me until they die.

Premise 8:
I decide who is right and who is wrong.

Premise 9:
I decide what is right.

Premise 10:
I decided that I am always right.

Premise 11:
I decided that those who disagree with me are always wrong.

Premise 12:
Other people are not valuable and in most cases shouldnt even be considered as people.

Conclusion 1:
Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

Conclusion 2:
I am always right.

About proof:
When proof doesnt agree with my opinion, the logical conclusion is that proof is invalid.

About other Gods:
Other people cant declare themselves Gods because they are not approved by me. They will never be Gods because I disagree with it. I decide who is God.

About circular logic and other fallacies:
I decide what is a fallacy and in which cases is something a fallacy. For example, I can decide that "I like it because I like it" is not circular reasoning when I say it. But if others say it and I disagree, then it is.

About contradiction:
It is impossible for me to commit a contradiction because I decide what is a contradiction and I decided that I never committed a contradiction. I also decide when is something a contradiction and when not.

Common question:
"What gives me the right to decide?"
I have a right to decide what is wrong. I decided that the question above is wrong.
I decided that my claim "only I have the right to decide" is not wrong.

Now, some people might say: 
"You are being offensive"
I dont think I am being offensive. I consider myself very polite. I decide what is polite, so this is an easy answer.

Some people might ask:
"Why other people cant decide what is right?"
I decide if something is right. I decided that it is right that other people cant decide.

Now its time for refutations of Cons arguments.
Some will say: "How can you refute his arguments when he didnt even make them yet?"

Actually, its easy. First, I simply conclude he could make arguments that oppose to my world view.

Premise 1:
I decide what arguments are incorrect.

Premise 2:
I decided that arguments that oppose my world view are incorrect.

Conclusion 1:
If Con makes arguments that oppose my world view, those arguments are incorrect. 

It seems that this logic can be used to easily refute the next 5 rounds of Cons arguments.

By my decision, I have won this debate. 

It will be boring that the next 4 rounds will probably be filled with me repeating same argument over and over. 

However, Gods job is not all fun and games. 

Go ahead, Con. Tell me what you think so that I can decide if its wrong.
Con
#2
Premise 1:
I give myself the right to decide.
Pro 'gave himself' the right to decide... what? As in decide what? This is not even a premise because we don't know what decisions have been granted.
Premise 2:
I decide what is true.
How is that possible?
Definition of true

1a(1)being in accordance with the actual state of affairstrue description
(2): conformable to an essential reality
c: being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumedthe true dimension of the problem

If Pro is not conforming to or being in line with that which is actually the case, in reality, Pro is deluded and only thinks he is correct and speaking truth while not actually doing so.
Premise 3:
I decide what is false.

false
adjective

false adjective (NOT REAL)
B2
not real, but made to look or seem real:

B1 disapproving
not true, but made to seem true in order to deceive people:

Pro cannot decide what is false, something deceives and seems true despite being untrue and unreal regardless of Pro's perception.

Premise 4:
I decide what is proof.
No, Pro does not decide what proof is or is not, in fact Pro has not proven any of the premises so far.
Premise 5:
I decided that I am the God.
No, Pro did not decide this, Pro decided that he believes it.

Premise 6:
I decided that I am the source of all morality and all truth.
Again, this has nothing to do with anything.

Pro can only decide that he believes he is these things, he cannot decide that he is them. Pro has to prove to us he is if it is the case and even then he didn't decide it. If Pro is the source of all morality and all truth, it is because he was regardless of deciding to be or not. This entire premise is nonsense.

Premise 7:
I decided that other people are, in most cases, dogs who should serve me until they die.
You cannot decide that, you can only decide that this is in line with your beliefs.

Premise 8:
I decide who is right and who is wrong.
You know what, this may be true as in 'right and wrong to me'. Pro decided who is right and wrong to Pro but Pro does not decide who is actually right and actually wrong.
Definition of right
 (Entry 1 of 4)
2being in accordance with what is just, good, or properright conduct
3conforming to facts or truth CORRECTthe right answer
4SUITABLEAPPROPRIATEthe right man for the job
5STRAIGHTright line
7aof, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body which is away from the side on which the heart is mostly located
blocated nearer to the right hand than to the left
clocated to the right of an observer facing the object specified or directed as the right arm would point when raised out to the side
d(1)located on the right of an observer facing in the same direction as the object specifiedstage right
(2)located on the right when facing downstreamthe right bank of a river
edone with the right handa right hook to the jaw
8having the axis perpendicular to the baseright cone
9of, relating to, or constituting the principal or more prominent side of an objectmade sure the socks were right side out
10: acting or judging in accordance with truth or facttime proved her right

wrong
 adjective
wronger\ ˈrȯŋ-ər  \; wrongest\ ˈrȯŋ-əst  \
Definition of wrong (Entry 2 of 4)
1not according to the moral standard SINFULIMMORALthought that war was wrong
2not right or proper according to a code, standard, or convention IMPROPERit was wrong not to thank your host
3: not according to truth or facts INCORRECTgave a wrong date

It's true that 'wrong' has other definitions that Pro may decide but if that's what Pro means it's wrong as in 'feels uncomfortable' not wrong as in 'opposite of being right'.

Premise 9:
I decide what is right.
I literally just addressed this.

Premise 10:
I decided that I am always right.
You cannot decide that, you either are always right even if you wish you weren't or you are not always right even if you wish you were.

Premise 11:
I decided that those who disagree with me are always wrong.
You cannot decide this, also which people? 

Person X can disagree with person Y who has a disagreement to person Z's position that also disagrees with person X's on the very same matter. Therefore, this blanket statement has glaring holes beyond the way it's identical to the 'decide I am always right' nonsensical statement.

Premise 12:
Other people are not valuable and in most cases shouldnt even be considered as people.
This is not even a premise because we don't know how much value or in what context the value is. If people shouldn't be considered as people, this premise is internally defunct as it considered them to be people within the same premise.

Conclusion 1:
Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.
This is from which premises combined? A syllogism is supposed to have 2 premises and a conclusion

The rest was irrelevant.

Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you for your response, even tho I havent read most of it.

But I noticed that you were making some arguments, and asking "why do I get  to decide? Decide what?".

I am right. I decided that I am right. You are wrong. There is no why. There is no how. I decided that I am the truth. I decide what is the truth. You will lose. You are opposing to me.

Which returns us to my premises.

You asked for 2 premises, since you cannot understand more than 2.

Okay then.

Premise 1: 
It is right that I decide.

Premise 2:
I decided that I am right.

Conclusion:
I am right.

Lets do two more.

Premise 1:
I decide who is right.

Premise 2:
I decided that I am right.

Conclusion:
I am right.

Alrighty. Lets do more.

Premise 1:
Everything I say is right.

Premise 2:
I say that you are wrong.

Conclusion:
You are wrong.

Okay, one more.

Premise 1:
If I say that I am right, then I am right.

Premise 2:
I say that I am right.

Conclusion:
I am right.

Now, time to refute your arguments.

Premise 1:
I decide what is illogical

Premise 2:
I decided that your arguments are illogical

Conclusion:
Your arguments are illogical. 

So you are wrong. It doesnt matter that people will vote for you. You have lost.

Thank you for the debate.
Con
#4
I noticed that you were making some arguments, and asking "why do I get  to decide? Decide what?".
Why do you get to decide what is right, I presume is what you're referring to.

For the record, it was a rhetorical question that cannot be answered since the correct answer is that you are not ever capable of being the gatekeeper of what's right and true.

Instead, if you happen to always be right, you are so regardless of your will to be so (or not be so) and if you happen to be wrong/not-right that is also outside of your control.

I am right.
About what? What context?

I decided that I am right.
You cannot decide that. The definition of right has absolutely 0 capacity to reside within the realm of what you decide and control:

Definition of true
1a(1)being in accordance with the actual state of affairstrue description
(2): conformable to an essential reality
c: being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumedthe true dimension of the problem

None of this is decided by you.

You are wrong. There is no why. There is no how. I decided that I am the truth. I decide what is the truth. You will lose. You are opposing to me.
Prove that is true.
Premise 1: 
It is right that I decide.

Premise 2:
I decided that I am right.

Conclusion:
I am right.

I object to premise 1. It depends on your decision and contextual qualifications.
Premise 1:
I decide who is right.

Premise 2:
I decided that I am right.

Conclusion:
I am right.
I Challenge premise 1 as totally false as it is based on absolutely zero facts or logic.
Premise 1:
Everything I say is right.
Even if it is, that is not due to you deciding to be right.

Premise 2:
I say that you are wrong.
Conclusion:
You are wrong.
Premise 1 is entirely contingent on proving all your statements right/true. You have not done this.
Premise 1:
If I say that I am right, then I am right.
NO! This is a false premise outright.
Premise 2:
I say that I am right.

Conclusion:
I am right.

Now, time to refute your arguments.

Premise 1:
I decide what is illogical
No.
Premise 2:
I decided that your arguments are illogical
Conclusion:
Your arguments are illogical. 

So you are wrong. It doesnt matter that people will vote for you. You have lost.
What nonsense?

Thank you for the debate.
You are welcome
Round 3
Pro
#5
I could have just ignored your arguments, since they are self defeating.

Still, maybe some people will actually learn something if I explained it to them? Yeah, did that ever happen?

Lets begin by destroying your entire case with Gods wisdom.

"Instead, if you happen to always be right, you are so regardless of your will to be so"

My will decides what is right. So you are wrong.

"About what? What context?"

I am right about everything.

"You cannot decide that. The definition of right has absolutely 0 capacity to reside within the realm of what you decide and control"

You are wrong. I decide what is right. The definition of right resides with what I decide. 



Definition of true
1a(1)being in accordance with the actual state of affairstrue description
(2): conformable to an essential reality
c: being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumedthe true dimension of the problem.

"None of this is decided by you."

All of it is decided by me. 

I decide what is real. I decide what exists. I decide what is essential reality. I decide what is an actual state of affairs. I decide what is ideal. I decide what is the case. I decide everything. I am your God. You will worship me.

"Prove that is true."

I decide what is proof. I decided that my words are the proof.

"I object to premise 1. It depends on your decision and contextual qualifications."

Not fully correct. Everything depends on my decision.

"I Challenge premise 1 as totally false as it is based on absolutely zero facts or logic."

I DECIDE WHAT IS FACT. I DECIDE WHAT IS LOGIC.

Next round please do better. It took you like a month and you still havent come up with anything.

THANK YOU FOR THE DEBATE.

Con
#6
Pro has not explained anything.

Pro does not choose to be right all the time if he is, it could only be the case that Pro is regularly correct without choosing to be.

If Pro is consistently correct all the time, why is Pro incapable of demonstrating this? All Pro tells us is that he has decided it but rightness is not based on the right person deciding they are right, it is based on them proving themselves to be close to truth and correctness regularly.

This debate itself is an example of Pro being incorrect and flawed, suggesting Pro is delusional as opposed to always right 
Round 4
Pro
#7
"Pro has not explained anything."

Pro explained, but Con didnt understand. So Pro has to explain again.

"Pro does not choose to be right all the time if he is"

If I decide who is right, then I chose that I am right. And we have already established that I decide who is right because I decided that I decide who is right.

"it could only be the case that Pro is regularly correct without choosing to be."

I am always right exactly because I chose to be always right. I decide who is right.

 "If Pro is consistently correct all the time, why is Pro incapable of demonstrating this?"

I already demonstrated it in round 1, sadly Con didnt understand. Read again my premises.


"All Pro tells us is that he has decided it but rightness is not based on the right person deciding they are right"

I decide what is rightness based upon.
Being right is based upon my decision to be right. I am right because I decide what is right and I have decided that I am always right.

"it is based on them proving themselves to be close to truth and correctness regularly"

I decide what is truth. I decide what is correctness. I decided that I am the truth and correctness, while others who oppose me are always wrong.

"This debate itself is an example of Pro being incorrect and flawed, suggesting Pro is delusional as opposed to always right"

I am always right. You are incorrect and flawed. You are delusional. I have decided so.

THANK YOU FOR THE DEBATE
Con
#8
Pro cannot decide to be right all the time. If Pro is right all the time, that's outside Pro's control.

Since Pro is inherently wrong about deciding to be right all the time, Pro is a liar and delusional.
Round 5
Pro
#9
I decided to be right all the time. I am right because I decided to be right.

Everything is under my control.

What possible word can you think of, that wasnt decided and defined by me?

Truth? I decide what is truth.

And I have all the proof, since I decide what proof is.

Con
#10
What possible word can you think of, that wasnt decided and defined by me?
Where is the evidence you decided and defined them?