This statement is true
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 1
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Pro's justification was insufficient, almost absent. Was not justified enough. Though Con's rebuttal was also insufficient, he still elaborated and made some explanations that made it obvious that Pro's case is not granted. I vote con.
If pro said "this statement exists", rather "true", he could have a point. Con slightly touched this point, albeit indirectly.
Pros argument was tells us that the statement is true, but provides no source or anything really.
Con however, tells us the meaning of truth and also provides a reliable example, hence making a strong, and well structured argument.
Although he didnât really counter any of pros arguments, con wins by anything else.
Pro's reasoning is not sufficient for the contention because a lie can also exist.
Pro's putting the cart before the horse with this one because "existence" does not always denote "truth."
Con brought up a good point of Pro's statement not having any context.
Comment:
If "This statement is true" is "A," then "A" is true in relation to what exactly?
There's no context to provide a conclusion to the premise.
Both sides presented a painful debate with no citations or clear definition.
This debate centrers on the critical definition of "truth." The opponents offer differing definitions in their arguments. Pro, the instigator, may have made a damaging error by not offering his definition in Description, thereby tying down an irrefutable definition in debate. leaving the matter open until the argument phase began left Pro open to rebuttal by a more accurate definition, which Con offered in this one-round debate.
Pro definition of truth: "something which exists"
Con definition of truth: "In accordance with fact or reality"
Both failed to source their definitions, but consulting the definition, Con's definition makes the more accurate of the two, and most dictionary references, including the definitive OED, indicate variations to "accordance" of something "to fact or reality," i.e., what is true is fact or reality, and not merely existence.
Pro's argument then says, "The mentioned statement [the Resolution] exists, we can see it with our own eyes."
Con's rebuttal: "'This statement is true' refers only to itself and contains no reference to external facts." A statement referring only to itself is circular logic, sometimes referred to as logical fallacy. It does not hold. Therefore, Con wins by selection
Con only proved it was possible for the statement to be false, not that it was.
You have your opinion, I have my opinion.
Ok so by your logic, the statement "spiderman exists and this statement is true" is a true statement and spiderman exists because the statement itself is claiming to be true, just like your statement was. I dont think so.
I disagree.
The meow god statement's truth value is indeterminate. It is not true or false objectively. You state that it is false implying that meow god does not exist, but you can never say for certain that something does not exist making that statement-objectively- neither true or false. But lets not ramble too much. there is a clear definition for the word "true" and you did not seem to consider it before taking your stance related to that statement.
I was asking about my sentence about Meow. Is it true or false?
"Meow God exists and this whole statement is false." "Do I summon Meow God?"
What do you even mean. why would you summon meow god based on this statement? my analogy was this: just because a statement claims to be true does not mean it is. "spiderman is real" is implying that something exists, it is not proven that spiderman exists therefore this statement cannot be true or false. "this statement is true" implies that the statement holds a truth value about wether the statement itself is true. but true about what? about wether it is true? how do you determine wether a person who says "i am truthful" is actually truthful just based on what he said? that statement holds no truth or lie. it is just an empty grammatically correct sentence, holding no external or inherent meaning.
"spiderman exists and this is true"
So what happens if someone says:
"Meow God exists and this whole statement is false."?
Do I summon Meow God?