This House Believes That The Law of Non-Contradiction Is Sound!

I’ll start by stating that I’m comfortable with the formulation of the law of non-contradiction, as given by my opponent. First, I wish to make clear the meaning of proof. In order to prove that something is the case, one must rely on prior premises – in order to prove that Socrates is mortal, one must hold that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man. Likewise, the argument that all apples are fruit, no onions are fruit, and therefore no onions are apples only holds true because it is accepted that the conclusion can be derived from the premises. How, though, are those premises proved? If it is the case that the proof of a thing relies on there being accepted premises to deduce the thing from, then you may either go on indefinitely with proving premises via more basic premises, or you may find a “bedrock” or sorts. The first is unsatisfactory, since an end can never be reached (and if this is true and nothing can be proved, it itself cannot be proved, meaning that it is false), but the second can be defended. It can be seen, just by opening one’s eyes, that three basic things hold true: that something exists, that something exists that can grasp that something exists, and that the things that exist exist as something. In other words, existence exists, a consciousness that can perceive consciousness exists, and that the things within existence have identity. These things are implied with every action or thought one takes. These are axiomatic concepts – they are the point from which all proof comes. These are the most basic principles that are assumed in any discussion. If one says that they can be refuted, their argument is self-defeating. Examine the argument that, for example, nothing exists. This refutes itself – the very utterance of that sentence shows that things do, in fact, exist. The argument that nothing has identity is equally pointless. If that which exists does not have identity, then it holds that it does not have a specific form or any specific qualities – it is existence without any existents. Any man can see that this is impossible, as existence without existents cannot be said to be existence at all. It is merely emptiness. If it does hold true that things exist and that that which exist has identity, and that identity is the qualities those things that exist have, then it is known that those qualities are specific and real. For if an existent exists, and that existent has qualities, those qualities must exist as well – else the existent would be nothing at all. Qualities that are not qualities, also, cannot be said to be qualities. If things exist which have specific qualities, then it holds that, in order for those qualities to be had, they cannot be in conflict with other qualities. For A to be all white and all black would for it to be neither, for one or the other must be chosen. An all white and all black entity cannot exist, by virtue of definition. If such an entity did exist, it would have a nature which destroyed the concept of nature. If it is all white, then for it to be all black would require it to not be all white – it can be seen, by any honest man, that these two qualities cannot be present in the same entity at once. If they were, the entity could not have a nature, since its nature would be one of non-existence (and such an entity would, therefore, not be able to exist). A problem arises for he who tries to refute non-contradiction – since it is an axiomatic concept, all proof relies on it. Just as you cannot refute the existence of language by speaking, you cannot refute non-contradiction by assuming non-contradiction. This is a stolen concept – he who tries this smuggles in the very assumptions they have set out to destroy. If these things are vital to the refutation, for them to be refuted would also refute the refutation. Any argument against non-contradiction relies on non-contradiction on every level. Take the phrase “non-contradiction is false”. If this is true, then it can be said that it is also false at the same time, since it being true would require things to be as they are and not as they are at once. If it is true, it becomes nothing other than an arbitrary mess. No proof can be said to refute proof – to say so would be to devalue any proof completely, including the proof which was made to do the devaluing. It has been made plain that any proof against non-contradiction is impossible, as any such proof accepts that axiomatic concept in order to refute it.