CreateDebate


Debate Info

18
13
Doing good Not doing so good
Debate Score:31
Arguments:26
Total Votes:31
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Doing good (15)
 
 Not doing so good (11)

Debate Creator

atypican(4875) pic



An exercise in sophistry

I recently read a quote (supposedly from Socrates that said "Sophists can refute any proposition, whether true or false". It kind of hit home if you know what I mean. So I was wondering if I should just embrace that I am sophist. First though, I want to test if the shoe fits. Here present a statement that you personally hold to be true and I will attempt to refute it, no matter whether I agree with it or not.

Doing good

Side Score: 18
VS.

Not doing so good

Side Score: 13
2 points

Define a sophist, in your own practical terms. I'm interested in giving you a proposition that you may wish to refute.

Side: Doing good
1 point

For purposes of this discussion, I only mean one who can create an argument against any position.

Side: Doing good
2 points

I'm curious to learn more about this. Make an argument from this simple claim.

"Sunny days are good."

Side: Doing good
2 points

"You are doing a good job at this"

Side: Doing good
atypican(4875) Disputed
1 point

Thanks. I only admit to one stump so far :)

Side: Doing good

Doesn't sophism lead to nihilism (in the epistemological sense)? If you can refute anything, then you can disprove your own refutation. In the end, there is no truth.

Side: Doing good
1 point

I am speaking from experience when I say yes. Do you think an enlightened nihilist's mental health suffers due to the inability to whole heartedly endorse a specific "big story" narrative that they can realize their significance in?

Side: Doing good

I hope not. I have to admit though, I kinda enjoy constructing meaning for the world and then tearing it down. Christianity was fun to overcome, now utilitarianism is falling apart, my next attempt is going to try and accept meaninglessness so we'll see how that goes. I actually fear finding meaning, because then the search will be over!

Side: Doing good

In literature, well thought-out adversarial forces (be they situations, antagonists, a combination thereof, or something else altogether (?)) are more important to the enjoyment of a given work than the specific traits of the protagonists.

Side: Not doing so good
1 point

thousandin1 stumps the sophist :)

Side: Not doing so good
2 points

It is harmful to create a semantic distinction between the religious and non-religious. ;)

Side: Not doing so good
1 point

Oh you ARE good. I'm going to try, but this post is just to thank you for that :)

Side: Not doing so good
1 point

Ah, well, I try from time to time. Good response on your part.

Side: Not doing so good
atypican(4875) Disputed
1 point

The creation of the illusory semantic distinctions supporting the false dichotomy you refer to, is not the primary cause of the harm to which you refer. Rather, it is the stubborn tendency to regard ourselves superior to others that causes it. There are many other Us vs Them false dichotomies through which this tendency is expressed. They are designed to create the illusion of significant and serious differences between large sections of people who in truth share practically identical core values. The logically untenable distinction drawn between religious and non-religious is a mere symptom of deeper issue, in and of itself it is not harmful.

Side: Doing good
1 point

Precisely. ;) The distinction is not itself problematic; the judgement and assumption commonly attached to it is.

Side: Doing good
1 point

Can this work for you?

"Obama is the president of the United States of America."

Side: Not doing so good
atypican(4875) Disputed
1 point

Apparently the carefully arranged illusion that Obama presides over the affairs of the United States of America, more than say "the heads of powerful transnational corporations" do, works for some people, but not me.

Side: Doing good
1 point

Try to refute the statement that

a + 0 = a

where 'a' is any real number, '+' is addition and '0' is the additive identity of the real numbers.

Side: Not doing so good
atypican(4875) Disputed
1 point

Zero is an illusory notion to begin with, and so is equality. The idea that you can add zero to anything is ridiculous on it's face.

Side: Doing good
Nebeling(1117) Disputed
1 point

That argument might show that a mathematical system that contains this statement can't model the world, but it doesn't show that the statement itself is wrong as seen from within a mathematical system. Can you show that this statement is mathematically wrong?

Side: Not doing so good