Instigator / Pro
0
1258
rating
374
debates
39.84%
won
Topic
#5914
No statement is true, not even this statement
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
The topic literally cannot be disproved because it claims that it is not true. Thus, proving it wrong would just confirm what the topic says.
Plus, I have no burden of proof, as by saying that no statement is true, I am not claiming that any statement is true, thus I dont need to prove any statement.
Hello,
This is a rather interesting paradox to explore, and I hope we can have a good faith debate about the idea of the existence of truth.
Opening Statement
We are here to debate the resolution: 'No statement is true, not even this one.' While my opponent claims this paradoxical assertion absolves them of the burden of proof, the very structure of their claim demands scrutiny.
First, they must prove their position—that no statement is true—including their own. This is no small task, as the resolution itself is self-refuting. If it is true, then it must also be false, creating an irreconcilable contradiction that invalidates their argument.
Second, in logic and debate, the burden of proof rests squarely on the person making the claim. By introducing this resolution, my opponent has assumed responsibility to justify it, yet they have offered no evidence or reasoning to support such a sweeping assertion. They have instead simply relied on hiding behind the paradox rather than justifying their position. They say that by disproving the statement is to only confirm it. This is a misunderstanding of logic. The statement "No statement is true, not even this one" is a self-refuting paradox. If the statement is true, then it must also be false. If the statement is false, then there exists at least one true statement, which undermines the claim of the statement. So, disproving it doesn't "confirm" the claim but instead exposes the logical contradiction.
Finally, I will demonstrate that their position not only collapses under its own contradictions but also misunderstands the nature of truth. Clear counterexamples, such as mathematical truths and observable facts, render their resolution false.
As the contender, I only need to refute their universal claim by exposing its logical flaws and presenting undeniable truths. My opponent’s argument may appear paradoxical, but it fails to withstand scrutiny. Let's see if they can prove their resolution—because without proof, this debate ends here."
Arguments
My opponent has not defended their position but instead chosen to hide behind the paradoxical nature of their claim. By asserting that 'No statement is true, not even this one,' they present a self-refuting argument, assuming its paradox exempts it from scrutiny. However, a paradox cannot serve as a defense—it must be justified, explained, or resolved. Without doing so, my opponent is merely evading the responsibility to substantiate their resolution, hoping the paradox itself will shield them from meaningful critique.
They argue that because the statement does not claim to be true itself, they hold no burden of proof. However, this is a misrepresentation of both their role in the debate and the nature of their resolution. By asserting that 'No statement is true, not even this one,' they are making a universal claim that inherently requires justification.
Even if their claim is paradoxical, it still demands defense. They cannot simply sidestep the burden of proof by stating the resolution denies its own truth. To assert something—even to deny truth itself—is to take a position, and in debate, every position requires support. Without proof, their argument remains hollow and self-contradictory, collapsing under the weight of its own paradox.
1. The presupposition of truth
Philosopher Alfred Tarski, in The Semantic Conception of Truth, explains:
"A statement cannot deny the concept of truth while simultaneously presupposing its own truth, as this creates a logical inconsistency."
My opponent's argument that denying truth absolves them of making a claim is fundamentally flawed because denial is still a claim. By asserting that "no statement is true," they are making a universal, declarative statement about truth itself. Even if their resolution denies its own truth, it remains a claim that requires justification.
Denying the need to prove their position does not exempt them from the burden of proof. If they propose that "no statement is true," they must logically demonstrate why this is the case—even if their statement paradoxically includes itself. Without such justification, their position is not an argument but an unsupported assertion.
2. The need for justification
Let me be clear—my opponent seems to think that by denying the very concept of truth, they've found a magical loophole to escape the burden of proof. But let's call this what it is: a slight of hand. They are making the claim that ‘no statement is true,’ yet somehow believe they don’t need to prove it. That’s like someone saying, ‘I’m not guilty of any crime,’ but refusing to provide any evidence or argument to back up that statement, simply because they’ve denied their guilt.
Denying the need to prove something doesn’t exempt you from proving it. In logic and debate, the burden of proof always lies with the one making a claim. By asserting that ‘no statement is true,’ my opponent has made a claim and, as the instigator, they have the responsibility to justify it. They can’t simply say, ‘Well, I’m denying everything, so I don’t have to prove anything.’ That’s not how logic works.
Their argument "I am not claiming that any statement is true, thus I don't need to prove any statement." is a deflection. They are indeed claiming something: the universal falsehood of all statements.
They cannot escape the burden by hiding behind the paradox because the paradox itself requires defense.
3. The unfalsifiable position
My opponent has created for themselves an unfalsifiable position, making it inherently untestable and meaningless in debate.
Philosopher Karl Popper, in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, notes:
"A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific and meaningless."
Like the famous "Liars Paradox", this paradox is in and of itself a nonsensical statement. Their claim is unfalsifiable because it denies the existence of truth while relying on its own truth to make the claim. By asserting this paradox, they have made a statement about truth that cannot be tested or disproven. If the statement were true, it would contradict itself, because it would also mean the statement is false. And if it's false, it means that some statements are true, undermining the entire resolution. So, we can’t prove it true or false, which makes it meaningless in a logical debate. A falsifiable statement is one that can be proven false through evidence or logical reasoning, like, "All ducks are black." The paradoxical statement, by its nature, can't be subjected to this, which is why it fails to hold up in a rational discussion.
This is exactly what a non-falsifiable claim looks like—a claim that cannot be examined or tested for validity. By hiding behind the paradox of their own statement, my opponent is avoiding their responsibility to prove their position. In debate, everyone making a claim is required to defend it with evidence or reasoning, but this paradox prevents them from doing so, rendering their claim invalid for the purpose of debate. This self-referential loop renders it logically incoherent. For example, if someone says, "There is an invisible, undetectable unicorn in the room," this is a non-falsifiable claim—there’s no way to prove or disprove it, so it becomes meaningless in any logical context.
4. Some examples of truth
My opponent’s claim that ‘no statement is true, not even this one’ is inherently self-defeating because it denies the very existence of truth. In order for us to engage in this debate at all, we must assume that truth exists. The very nature of debating presupposes that we can make and assess true or false statements.
Take basic math as an example. If we say that 2 + 2 = 4, that is a universally accepted truth. If truth didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be able to make or verify such claims, and this basic principle would be meaningless. But we know that 2 + 2 = 4, and this truth is consistent across time and cultures, showing that truth exists and is something we can rely on. Another common truth relied on is the Law of Gravitation.
Furthermore, we are currently engaging in a debate, which itself presupposes that truth exists. If my opponent’s statement were true—that no statement is true—then not only would this statement be false, but everything we are saying right now would be meaningless. Our ability to communicate, reason, and challenge one another in this debate assumes that truth exists in the very framework of logic and reason we are using. Without truth, this conversation, or any conversation, would not be possible.
So, by participating in this debate, my opponent is already contradicting their own position, whether they claim it is true or not. By making the original assertion, my opponent made a truth claim. If truth did not exist, we wouldn’t be able to have any meaningful exchange, nor could we make claims like '2 + 2 = 4.' Therefore, the existence of truth is undeniable, and my opponent’s paradox is not only logically inconsistent but self-refuting.
Concluding Statement
To conclude, my opponent’s paradox fails not only logically but fundamentally undermines the very principles of reasoning that make debate and discourse possible. By asserting that 'no statement is true, not even this one,' they are trapped in an inherent contradiction—if their statement is true, it must be false, and if it is false, then truth must exist, which invalidates their claim.
They have attempted to avoid the burden of proof by hiding behind the paradox, but in doing so, they have made a universal claim—one that requires justification. By denying truth, they’ve inadvertently affirmed its existence because, without truth, we would not even be able to engage in this debate. Truth is an undeniable foundation of all reasoning, including the very structure of this conversation.
To disprove this paradox is not to "confirm" it but to show that it is logically incoherent. Proving something wrong doesn't validate the claim but rather shows its internal contradiction. In fact, this is the very process of disproving a claim—identifying that a paradox cannot hold logically. No statement can stand on simply its own weight. It cannot prove itself, and thus, disproving it cannot prove it, but only point out its own inconsistencies.
Ultimately, their argument collapses under the weight of its own logical inconsistencies. To deny truth is to negate the framework in which any claim can be made or evaluated. Therefore, I urge that we reject the paradox and affirm that truth does, in fact, exist—both in our reasoning and in the truths we rely on every day.
Thank you.
Round 2
First, they must prove their position—that no statement is true—including their own.Second, in logic and debate, the burden of proof rests squarely on the person making the claim
This is my opponent misunderstanding burden of proof.
I have nothing to prove because I am not claiming that anything is true. The topic, as it states, considers all statements as "not true". Thus, it does not claim that any statement is true.
Burden on proof is on the person who is trying to prove a statement true.
My position doesnt try to prove any statement true, but considers all statements not true, thus I have no any burden of proof because my position doesnt say that any claim is true, thus doesnt need to prove any claim true.
In fact, my very position in this debate is that my position is not true, thus my opponent cannot disprove my position in any way. Should he try to prove my position completely true, that is impossible. However, proving any part of my position false means the other part is essentially true.
Since I am not claiming that any claim is true, I have nothing to prove true, thus the burden of proof rests on my opponent.
I also have no burden of proving anything to be "not true", since I never claimed that it is true that something is not true.
Rather, the very topic "No statement is true" does not require me to prove any statement because it doesnt claim that any statement is true.
The very topic already includes that it is not true that "no statement is true". Thus, my position has no any burden of proof on it whatsoever.
What am I supposed to prove to be true if my position is that no statement is true? There is no statement which I need to prove true because my position doesnt claim that any statement is true.
Thus, the burden of proof is completely on my opponent.
If the statement is true, then it must also be false. If the statement is false, then there exists at least one true statement
This is my opponent essentially conceding the debate. My opponent holds all the burden of proof in this debate, as he is the only one claiming that something is true. He needs to disprove the topic completely to win.
However, he concedes that if he disproves one part of topic, the other part of topic becomes true. This creates an impossible situation for my opponent. If he proves topic false, topic becomes true. If he proves topic true, then topic becomes false. This is a fully closed infinite circle where I dont even need to do anything since my opponent conceded that topic cannot be completely disproved, and with burden of proof fully on him, he loses by default.
My opponent made another mistake of coming up with examples of what he thinks are "truths". But this only helps my case, since if topic says that topic is not true, then you trying to prove topic false just means you are arguing for my position.
Rebuttal and Apologia
Perhaps an excerpt taken from a commentator of the Philosophy Stack Exchange explained the basis of what appears to be my opponent's argument saying, "You have the burden of proof, not me!" in place of an explanation of your good reason to believe what you believe... is resting your argument on the demand that your interlocutor explain why you shouldn't believe what you believe.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat - the burden of proof lies with the speaker, not with the one who negates.
While it’s true that the resolution itself presents a paradox, that doesn’t absolve the person asserting the paradox from the burden of proof.
In logical discourse, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not on the person negating it. By stating that "no statement is true," my opponent has made an assertion about the nature of all truth, which they must defend. To claim that nothing is true, including the statement itself, is still a statement that needs to be substantiated. Even if the resolution is self-referential, they are still asserting something that requires proof.
My opponent has evaded responsibility by suggesting that denying truth frees them from justifying their position. This is incorrect. A universal claim—whether about truth or falsehood—requires defense. They cannot simply argue that no statement is true without offering reasoning or evidence to back up that claim.
"What am I supposed to prove to be true if my position is that no statement is true?"
My opponent is absolutely correct in this recognition of the paradox. The question they pose—"What am I supposed to prove to be true if my position is that no statement is true?"—is, in itself, an illustration of the paradox they as the instigator must defend. I would also point out that apart from the title of the debate, I was given no precise definition of the actual claim my opponent is making. Therefore, as the contender, I was forced to attack the initial claim under the assumption that my opponent would be willing to defend it. The most my opponent originally said about their claim was the following:
"I am not claiming that any statement is true"
They said what they were not claiming, not what they were claiming. If there is no claim, then there is no purpose in this debate. My opponent will have simply presented a paradox, say, "Deal with it", and will have might as well left the debate.
The paradox they present is one that asserts that "no statement is true," and they’ve cleverly shifted the burden of proof away from themselves by suggesting they don’t need to prove anything. However, they miss the point that by stating "no statement is true," they are indeed making a claim about truth, which requires justification. In logical discourse, the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, regardless of whether the claim is paradoxical.
As the instigator of the debate, my opponent holds the responsibility to defend their position. The paradox they propose, in its entirety, asserts that no statement is true, which includes the very statement they are using to argue. If they do not prove their claim, their entire argument falls apart because they are asserting a universal statement about truth, which is self-contradictory.
Here’s where their argument falls apart: If no statement is true, then their own statement cannot be true—and that is precisely what makes this a paradox. My opponent recognizes this, and therefore apart proving how the paradox can stand against scrutiny has avoided the entire point of debate and given themselves nothing to prove. The task, therefore, is not to prove that no statement is true (which is impossible), but to prove why this paradox does not collapse on itself. If my opponent cannot overcome the contradiction inherent in their claim, they fail to prove their position.
Simply stating that "no statement is true" isn’t enough; they need to defend why this assertion is not self-refuting. This is where the burden lies, and no clever sidestep can erase that. If they fail to substantiate their claim—whether through reasoning, evidence, or logical coherence—they cannot win this debate.
"But this only helps my case, since if topic says that topic is not true, then you trying to prove topic false just means you are arguing for my position."
This is interesting because if I were to become trapped withing the paradox, I would be arguing the following position: "No statement is true, not even this statement" Is not true. However, would it not be equally contradictory for my opponent to claim, "No statement is true, including this statement" is true—but doing so leads them into the paradox, which renders the position logically unsustainable. This is where the paradox traps them: they can't affirm or deny the statement without contradicting themselves. Then again, I have been given no clear statement defining the position of my opponent.
My opponent claims that I’ve conceded the debate because disproving one part of the paradox would make the other part true. This is not a concession—it is a recognition of the inherent contradiction within the paradox. If the statement "no statement is true" is true, then it must also be false, creating an irreconcilable contradiction. If it's false, then at least one statement must be true, which undermines the entire premise.
This paradox doesn’t exempt my opponent from proving their position; it exposes the logical flaws within it. My role in this debate is not to "disprove" every aspect of the paradox but to demonstrate that the paradox itself is self-defeating. It is also not to prove anything as my role is not that of the instigator. My opponent’s position relies on an infinite loop of self-contradiction, and no matter how they attempt to argue it, this paradox cannot withstand logical scrutiny.
Simply pointing out that "No statement is true" leads to a paradox doesn’t automatically mean you've won the debate. You’re still making a claim that has to be unpacked and understood. The issue with your reasoning is that by framing it as an infinite loop with no room for rebuttal, you’re overlooking the fact that paradoxes don’t necessarily mean "win" in logical debates. They may indicate a problem with your premises or reasoning, but I am free to challenge the underlying assumptions. The fact that "No statement is true" leads to a contradiction means that it’s a logical problem—not an automatic win for you.
You do need to prove something. Even though no consistent logical position can be taken without contradicting itself. You need to explain why your paradox doesn’t break down under scrutiny. Until you do, your position cannot stand.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I would simply ask as a clarification question to my opponent. What is your exact claim/ position? You either gave no specific claim, or I have missed it in an ambiguous setting. Is it simple that, "No statement is true, not even this statement." Or is it "No statement is true, not even this statement" Is true. Or is it something completely different? I only ask because I have not been told if you are attempting to defend the paradox itself, or if you are trying to simply present a paradox and dare me to attempt to disprove it. In that case, this is not a debate, but rather a philosophy and logic class where you have asked me to make an attempt to try to solve what is just another version of the Liars paradox.
Round 3
A universal claim—whether about truth or falsehood—requires defense. They cannot simply argue that no statement is true without offering reasoning or evidence to back up that claim.
My opponent again fails to understand that I am not saying that some statement is true. By saying "no statement is true", I am also saying that it is not true that "no statement is true".
My position doesnt need to defend any statement because it doesnt say that any statement is true. Thus, if I am not saying that anything is true, I dont need to prove anything true. This includes proving true the statements which say that something is not true.
Topic is basically divided on 2 most basic parts:
1. No statement is true
2. It is not true that "no statement is true"
These arent contradicting each other. It is possible that truth cannot be proved to exist, thus the two statements are not in any contradiction if they are both not true.
However, should my opponent argue that truth does exist, he faces a problem. By disproving claim 1 and proving that truth exists, he also proves claim 2 to be true. Thus, topic is not possible to logically completely disprove. At logical best, my opponent can disprove only 50% of the topic.
We see that two claims combined form a claim that all statements are not true. With this, I dont need to prove any statement true, because my position isnt that any statement is true. The only one claiming that some statement is true is my opponent, thus burden of proof is on him to prove the statement he considers true. I dont consider any statements true, thus I dont need to prove any statement true.
My opponent cannot possibly disprove topic even if one or both statements are not true, because topic says that topic is not true. "No statement is true" means that entire statement of topic is also claimed to be not true by topic itself. Thus, if he proves topic to be not true, he at the same time proves topic true. So even if he was to disprove 50% of topic, he would end up proving 100% of it in my favor.
This logical puzzle cannot be solved in any way by my opponent, no matter how many armies of mathematicians and philosophers he brings into this debate.
Also, my opponent has taken additional burden of proving that truth exists.
However, truth is a self-contradicting concept.
Truth, in order to be known, requires a system for determining what is true and what isnt true. However, the system for determining truth cannot be true itself.
System for determining truth cannot determine that the mentioned system is true, as that would be circular logic.
Take the example of senses. You only know about reality because of senses. However, nothing can confirm that your senses are true. You cant use reality to prove your senses because you are already using senses to prove and observe reality.
Same applies to logical axioms, logical premises...ect.
Nothing can prove itself, as that would be circular reasoning. A cannot prove A, any more than saying how "God exists proves that God exists". If things were able to prove themselves on their own, then I would now prove that unicorns exist by saying that unicorns prove unicorns. Thus, saying that things can prove themselves yields absurd results.
However, if you use B to prove A, then you must also prove B. If you use C to prove B, then you must prove C, and so on to infinity, creating another absurd.
Thus, truth doesnt exist. All statements are essentially unproved, and there is no self-evident truth as that is still unproved and thus cannot be considered true.
Thank you, my opponent, for a fun debate.
Thank you for this debate. It is always a pleasure.
Rather than presenting a clear and defendable position, my opponent has essentially given me a logical puzzle that mirrors the classic "Liar’s Paradox," in which they ask me to attempt to solve a paradox rather than actually defend an argument. The paradox my opponent presents — "No statement is true" — isn’t a position that can be logically supported or refuted in a conventional sense. Instead, they’ve set me up to fail by presenting an unsolvable paradox and, in turn, claim victory simply because it cannot be resolved. This is not debate. And victory is not merely gained because the paradox one presented is unreasonable, nonsensical, and inherently contradictory.
This is not how a proper debate works. Debates require each side to clearly lay out their position, support it with reasoning or evidence, and engage with the opposing argument. My opponent did none of this. They presented a paradox without clarifying their position in the first round, cited no sources, and failed to provide any concrete reasoning or defense of their claim. Even after I asked for clarification on what exactly they were asserting — whether they believe "No statement is true" is true, or if they think it is merely a rhetorical puzzle — I received no answer.
Furthermore, my opponent’s argument in round three — focusing on circular reasoning and the topic of debate itself — would have been more relevant in round one, where they should have clarified their position in the first place. Without that clarification, there’s no clear argument to dissect or engage with.
The paradox my opponent presented essentially leaves us with an unsolvable problem, but that doesn’t make their claim valid or proven. A true debate would have required them to present a logical framework or evidence to support their stance on truth, not just an invitation to solve a paradox. They only began to touch on the nature of truth in the final remarks of their final round, in which they finally said what was worth saying, "That truth doesn't exist." However, if truth does not exist, then one has no need to even take my opponents claim seriously. If truth does not exist, then there is no morality, no right, and no wrong. For, it is upon the foundation of known truths that these things are predicated. Without the existence of truth, I don't know why my opponent is even on this platform to begin with. Why debate over truth claims if truth cannot be known?
Therefore, my argument stands: My opponent did not effectively engage in a debate; they merely presented a puzzle and expected me to solve it, which is not a legitimate claim to victory.
The paradox my opponent presented essentially leaves us with an unsolvable problem, but that doesn’t make their claim valid or proven. A true debate would have required them to present a logical framework or evidence to support their stance on truth, not just an invitation to solve a paradox. They only began to touch on the nature of truth in the final remarks of their final round, in which they finally said what was worth saying, "That truth doesn't exist." However, if truth does not exist, then one has no need to even take my opponents claim seriously. If truth does not exist, then there is no morality, no right, and no wrong. For, it is upon the foundation of known truths that these things are predicated. Without the existence of truth, I don't know why my opponent is even on this platform to begin with. Why debate over truth claims if truth cannot be known?
Therefore, my argument stands: My opponent did not effectively engage in a debate; they merely presented a puzzle and expected me to solve it, which is not a legitimate claim to victory.
Thank you for the discussion.
The funny thing about this debate is that I am arguing that my position isnt true.
What?!
Whaaaat?!
We were just talking about this!!
😂🤣