Truth and debate

[Dancing David]

Originaly posted by Jedi Knight

I have never lost a debate.

JK

_______________________________________

So someone who otherwise is intellegent comes out with this statement.
And why am I bringing it to the philosophy forum?

I feel that by exploring the possible justifications for this statement we can learn about the nature of truth.
I propose that we speak in non-judgemental terms on how someone can make a claim that every one else disagrees with and have it be true.
JK should not be refferenced directly , he is just the source of the quote. Please use 'the source' in the discussion.

I suggest that the source feels that the statement is valid because he knows that he is has not engaged in what is generally considered to be debate. It is oratory and therefore not debate. Therefore the conclusion.

Peace
dancing david

I think that

[Skeptical Greg]

A legend in his own mind...:rolleyes:

I think you have to participate in order to lose..

[c4ts]

Jedi has never lost a debate because he has never actually participated in a proper one the whole way through.

[Samus]

"I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me."
-- Dave Barry

People who say they never lose arguments are not telling the truth, at least, they're not being honest with themselves. Never losing an argument implies that you're always right. While some people may be right a lot of the time, nobody is perfect.

Now, if you keep changing the rules and refuse to engage anyone objectively, then you can also say you've never lost an argument. Of course, at that point, you are once again being dishonest.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by c4ts
Jedi has never lost a debate because he has never actually participated in a proper one the whole way through. There's a way through? :confused:

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
There's a way through? :confused:

Yes, it involves making a conclusive argument and rebutting your opponent's, then giving your opponent a chance to rebut yours. Jedi makes a conclusive argument and repeats it until everybody else gives up.

[Underemployed]

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

If you think we can have a reasoned discussion on the nature of truth here - or indeed, anyplace - then you will be waiting a long time for any 'conclusion'.

Let us say we start by defining our terms in the English language. Many threads have been abandoned after several pages trying to find a base definition of 'truth'. Mathematical truth? Scientific truth? Philosophical truth? Subjective truth? Are these all the same? Is one type of truth superior to the other?

To address just the quote, we can clearly say that the speaker is saying the truth as he sees it - or is knowingly lying. Either way we imply that there IS some kind of underlying 'truth' which may give credence to or falsify it beyond the existence of the speaker. Do you seek to find the basic truth for this (and any other) statement? You will not find it on this board.

On the other hand, if you are just looking for a good argument, I shall have to ask you now if you want the five minute introduction or the full half hour.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Underemployed
[B]Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

If you think we can have a reasoned discussion on the nature of truth here - or indeed, anyplace - then you will be waiting a long time for any 'conclusion'.
Philosophical discussion is without conclusion. It is far above something to be won or lost, like a debate. Jedi has never really participated in such discourse in a reasonable manner. He would rather try to turn it into a debate so he can "win."

[Dancing David]

Can a debate actually ever be 'won', is part of what I am hoping we can talk about.

What if both people make well reasoned arguments , supported with facts, and even make an attempt to understand the other person and then they still disagree? Would there be a winner?

1. One not loose a debate by not participating in one.
2. Debates can not be won or lost to begin with.

Peace
dancing David

[Doubt]

I have never failed to life a 1 ton bar bell.

This is more accurate that Jedi’s claim.
:D

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Can a debate actually ever be 'won', is part of what I am hoping we can talk about.

What if both people make well reasoned arguments , supported with facts, and even make an attempt to understand the other person and then they still disagree? Would there be a winner?

1. One not loose a debate by not participating in one.
2. Debates can not be won or lost to begin with.

Peace
dancing David

I've been on a debate team through most of high school, and they do have rules that determine a winner or loser. However, if debates on this forum can't be won or lost to begin with, then Jedi is right but he is also an idiot for pointing out he's never lost one.

[Hellcat]

Truth is only as relevant to the person involved, nothing else matters outside that criteria.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by c4ts


Yes, it involves making a conclusive argument and rebutting your opponent's, then giving your opponent a chance to rebut yours. Jedi makes a conclusive argument and repeats it until everybody else gives up. Well, that pretty much sums it up. Jedi Knight never lost a debate, and, for the same reasons, I never lost a boxing match.

Hans :rolleyes:

[Baker]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Originaly posted by Jedi Knight

I have never lost a debate.

JK


I voted without first reading your post I thought you were asking if there was any truth in debating and voted yes!:mad:

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by c4ts
Jedi has never lost a debate because he has never actually participated in a proper one the whole way through.
Ahem.
Yes, he has (lost one).
Look at the debate over the HUAC, that starts about 2/3 of the way down this page
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13368&perpage=40&pagenumber=4
and lasts for several pages...