If it isn't broke don't fix it
Debate Rounds (3)
My opponent has not provided any definitions, so I shall do so:
Broke: "not working properly" (1)
Fix: "to make (something) whole or able to work properly again" (2)
These definitions capture the usage of "fix" and "broken" in the phrase "If it isn't broken, don't fix it."
The BoP also lies on my opponent.
Contradiction of terms
My opponent claims it is possible to fix something that is not broken. He gives an example of Apple software. However, this clearly is a contradiction of terms. "Fixing" is only said of something which is not working. What constitutes "not working"? Obviously, this means somehting that doesn't function properly or does not achieve the ends we desire it to.
If something is not broken, that is, it is functioning properly and working as we desire it to, it is utterly impossible to "fix" it. Fixing always means to restore something to its proper or desired function. Thus, if we are even able to "fix" something, it obviously must have been broken in the first place.
My opponent's arguments fail, since by the very definition of "fix" and "broken" it is utterly impossible to "fix" something which is not "broken."
Fix and Broken have multiple definitions. Fix may also mean "to correct or set right; adjust."This is a very real definition as well as the one stated in my beginning argument. Fix means "to do work to improve or adapt something. "
Broken also is defined by "being imperfect or incomplete."
With the definitions stated previously it is very possible to fix something that is broken. Also when you have something that is broken you can take that a couple of different ways. Using the definition previously stated if it is broken or incomplete, this means there is room for improvement. This statement is typically used figuratively in situations where not every one is happy. someone might say why don't you change that (Implying that it is not satisfactory) and another might say "if it isn't broken don't fix it. When used in a situation like this what is "not broken might not be broken to the owner but is broken or incomplete to someone else." Anyway what I am saying is that something might be broken to someone else but may not be broken to another. So with this being said why don't people "fix something that isn't broken so it is satisfactory to the majority.
It is very possible to fix something that isn't broken.
My opponent did not set definitions in the first sound, so it is customary for the accepter to clarify definitions. Thus the definitions I provided should be the definitions used.
My opponent concedes my arguments. Under the definitions I provided, my opponent has not met his burden of proof.
Relativity and self-defeating arguments
My opponent states that what is "broken" may be relative. But this is self-defeating. If the function of something is relative to the user, then my opponent cannot show "If it's not broken, don't fix it" to be false. In other words, if the matter is really relative as my opponent claims, he will not be able to show this notion false, since it would vary from person to person. Thus, my opponent would not meet his burden of proof.
If the matter really is relative, then when the person stating "If it isn't broken don't fix it" is also making a true statement in regards to themselves. If it isn't broken to that person, it's impossible to fix it.
Thus, claiming relativity of what constitutes "broken" is self-defeating.
My opponent has conceded the debate under the original definitions.
You cannot "fix" something that is "not broken." Fixing always implies improving or restoring to a certain condition. Thus, in order to "fix" something, that which you are fixing must lack something in some way. Hence it is impossible to fix something that isn't broken.
javeldc forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited. I'd like to thank Krazzy_Player for pointing out that I used the wrong terminology when I insinuated my opponent conceded arguments. I think the proper term I should have used is that my opponent dropped my arguments.
Yet I have countered every one of my opponent's arguments, and shall present a final horned argument:
P1: Either this debate is under the definitions I gave, or it is under the definitions my opponent gave.
P2: If it is under the definitions I gave, then my opponent has dropped my arguments and I have won.
P3: If it is under my opponent's definitions, then the resolution is relative, and my opponent cannot fulfill his burden.
C: Therefore, in either case, my opponent has not met his burden of proof, and his arguments fail.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments made by both the sides were equally better. Con's stance regarding the resolution, "If it isn't broke don't fix it" was even a object isn't broken there is still room for improvement, Pro refuted this by stating, "Fixing is only said of something which is not working." This I conclude by saying both the sides arguments were equally better and convincing. Con lost conduct for the forfeit. S & G goes to Pro as Con made some "punctuation" errors, also Pro's formatting was better compared to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.