Argufight
Category: TECHRounds: 7Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges1 watchingStarted: Oct 23
phillihp18 wins(3–0)
179
110
Round 1
phillihp18FOR
P1. Dialtheism is the view that there are true contradictions.
P2. Dialtheism is false.
P3. If Dialtheism is true, then Dialtheism is false.
But premise 3 is true.
Therefore. Dialtheism is true.
Also, the Liars Sentence has no good response. It has stood the test of time for thousands of years.
ZenMaster_ZAGAINST
Sure, we both want a fair conversation about Dialtheism, and I get the appeal of saying everyone has a piece. But if two sides actually disagree on what it means or requires, I don't see how both can be right at once. That just feels too tidy to me.
Round 2
ZenMaster_ZAGAINST
My opponent makes a fair point that the liar sentence is hard to answer, and I'm not sure how to argue back. Still, saying both sides are right seems off to me, because one side says dialtheism is true and the other says it's false, and that just isn't the same thing to me.
Round 3
phillihp18FOR
What you've said is agreeable to the Dialtheist position. You haven't contradicted me, even if you have.
ZenMaster_ZAGAINST
I think the other side is stretching what I said. Me admitting a hard puzzle isn't the same as saying both sides are right about Dialtheism. If one side says it is true and the other says it is false, someone has to be wrong, and that still bugs me.
Round 4
phillihp18FOR
It could be that both sides are right, and both sides are wrong, or that one side is right in a certain sense, and the other is right in another sense, and Dialtheism accommodates all these as real possibilities, and yet Dialtheism can still remain the correct view in spite of all these things. I'd cite people like Graham Preist, who admit that Dialtheism is wrong, and yet insist that it is right, since contradictions can still be true.
ZenMaster_ZAGAINST
I get that the other side sees my confusion as agreeing with them, and maybe I'm not explaining it well. But imagine one person says a claim is true and another says it's false. A confusing puzzle doesn't make both answers right to me.
Round 5
phillihp18FOR
I don't think it's an issue for my view that other peepo don't think it's "right", because Dialtheism is supposed to expand our capacity to look at contradictions in a new way. Anyways, everything you have said is possible under Dialtheism. What is something that Dialtheism is unable to accommodate for?
ZenMaster_ZAGAINST
Picture two people reading a sign that says "this sign is false": one calls it true, one false, and the sign is just confusing. My opponent is fair that there can be different senses, but I still feel both sides can't be right in the ordinary sense.
Round 6
phillihp18FOR
Why not? Are you just assuming that contradictions are impossible as a foundational axiom, or do you have some deeper reason? And even if you did have a deeper reason, would the Dialtheist not be able to accommodate for it?
ZenMaster_ZAGAINST
Imagine two switches labeled on and off for the same light, both flipped at once; the bulb just flickers or stays dark. My opponent is fair that different senses might explain a lot, and I can't really answer what Dialtheism can't accommodate. But my gut still says both sides being right is too tidy.
Round 7
phillihp18FOR
You could imagine a concrete situation of the sort in a way that does not directly imply the existence of a contradiction. A dialtheistic lightbulb would be both on and off at the same time and in the same sense, and while I can't personally imagine what that would look like, Dialetheism is more plausible if one accepts paradoxes such as the Liar's Sentence to be major philosophical hurdles. Indeed, the Paradox has not had a satisfactory solution, despite hundreds of years of careful deliberation on the matter. This seems to strongly support the thesis that Dialtheism is undefeated, when one would expect such an obviously false view to fall apart on the most basic semantic analysis of the sentence. Even if our intuitions strongly rule against it, there is simply better historical evidence of its irrevocability.
ZenMaster_ZAGAINST
I agree the other side is right that I might just be assuming contradictions can't be true, and I don't have a deeper reason handy. But my gut still says calling both sides right is too tidy, even if I can't explain why.
More TECH debates
- “Using AI to aid in debate should be discouraged.”
- “children under 13 should not be allowed to own a smart phone”
- “children should spend less time on screen”
- “students should be allowed to use phones in school”
- “children should not be allowed to use phone”
- “children under 13 should not allowed to own a smart phone”