Instigator / Pro
13
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#730

Can we know anything to be 100% True?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

PsychometricBrain
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
18
1574
rating
10
debates
80.0%
won
Description

Round 1: Opening Statements, No Rebuttals.
Round 2: Rebuttals of Round 1 Statements
Round 3: Rebuttals of Round 2 Statements.
Round 4: Interrogation. Questions Only about any part of the topic.
Round 5: Answering Round 4 Questions and then closing statements.

Con must accept this format in order to debate this topic.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

yes to debating soon, tho I don't like my chances. I'm thinking about "Hannibal lost Carthage at Cannae," "Humanity should colonize the Moon before Mars," maybe another autonomous vehicle debate with a narrower focus. What's yer chew?

-->
@oromagi

Cheers Oromagi, I'm sure you'll be in the top 5 in no time, looking forward to debating you some time soon and I hope you're not beating me too badly in the voting competition ;)

-->
@PsychometricBrain

Congrats, PB, on top 5 silver

-->
@Ramshutu

I'd also appreciate a vote from you

-->
@Barney

You've given me helpful feedback in the past on DDO, I'd really appreciate a vote from you on this one.

-->
@Ramshutu

First vote :D

-->
@PsychometricBrain

I'm watching a youtube series on skepticism so I'm feeling the depth of this debate right now, lol

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I agree, I believe we went through the important points on both sides of the debate

-->
@PsychometricBrain

good debate

-->
@PsychometricBrain

I like the questions. This should be fun. :)

I meant to say "C: 2+2=4 can not be known to be 100% true." in round 2, not "C: 2+2=4 can not be known to be 100%."

Round 2 Sources::
[1]: page, M., & Exa..., 1. (2018). 1 and .999 repeating are the same quantity. Exactly equal.. DebateArt.com. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from https://www.debateart.com/debates/130
[2]: The Existential Risk of Math Errors - Gwern.net. (2019). Gwern.net. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from https://www.gwern.net/The-Existential-Risk-of-Mathematical-Error
[3]: (2019). Mentalmodels.princeton.edu. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from http://mentalmodels.princeton.edu/papers/2010mms%26human-reasoning.pdf

What does votes have to do with the validity of knowledge? isn't that just subjective?

Because Evans, Barston and Pollard (1983) shows why votes on debates are often incomprehensibly irrational (as people's biases - whether they agree with the conclusion - has a highly signficant effect on whether arguments are accepted/considered valid). You seem like you'd be interested in finding out more about people's decision-making process while voting on your debates.

-->
@RationalMadman

The User PsychometricBrain ("I") has the impression ("feel like") that the user RationalMadman ("you") would find PB's opening argument enjoyable (would dig my round 1)...

-->
@PsychometricBrain

???????

-->
@RationalMadman

I feel like you'd dig my round 1, especially since Evans, Barston and Pollard (1983) can account for many of the "funny" votes on DDO/DISL/DART.

-->
@Speedrace

The one thing would have to be true and apply to reality at the same time.

So I can't say A is this because I defined it that way and then say it's true simply because I defined it.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I lost you after “cool” lol

-->
@PsychometricBrain

You read and agree to the terms in the description correct?

-->
@Speedrace

I'll hit you with this topic after this one's settled if that's cool.

I would say yes, proving one thing wins it for me but it has to be something non arbitrary because can you really call a name true in the epistemological sense? maybe a priori, but generally the concept of truth doesn't become contentious until you add the physical element and I would argue that logic is meant to apply to the physical so I would have to show that the truth applies to the world. At least that's how I see it.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Will you separately challenge me to this?

-->
@PsychometricBrain

Lol yeah

-->
@Speedrace

I feel your pain, I thought Ralph was actually Con and was disappointed that I couldn't take the Con position. Turns out I was wrong though, lucky for me :)

-->
@PsychometricBrain

Aw man, I really wanted to try this haha

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

If you proved even one thing to be 100%, would you automatically win?

Pro merely has to prove 1 thing to be true in order for him to win.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Ramshutu

My bad, I meant "Pro", not "Con".

Showing nothing can be shown to be 100% true means that the statement that you can’t show anything to be 100% true is 100% true.

Pro can win by running Solipsism.

The only way I can see a Con winning this resolution is through a kritik.