Lie Proof

Case A02EFB9B-5784-41DD-9569-1A8EA026454B
Sponsor: Robert Thibadeau

  • Status

    State
    Next Steps
    Case Date
    Watch Video
    Jurors Accepted
    Juror Verdicts Finalized

    The details, verdicts, and comments within this case record come from its participants. The Court's role is solely to facilitate the case process.

    Copyright © 2022-2025 Bright Plaza, Inc., All Rights Reserved. No one may publish a case, or any part of it, without a clear reference to the link with the case number as in https://www.truthcourt.net/case/<case-id-number>

  • Details

    Name
    Category
    URL
    Accusation
    Lie Truth
     
    Argument

  • Verdicts

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    If we assume that the fundamental computation of any neural system is the predication derived from Natural Language Studies of human behavior, then we can prove every sentence can be a lie or a truth depending on its predication context.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    If we assume that the fundamental computation of any neural system is the predication derived from Natural Language Studies of human behavior, then we can prove every sentence can be a lie or a truth depending on its predication context.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I don't nearly enough about this subject. Will wait for Bob to explain this.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I am having trouble with this concept definition, so I don't know.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    If we change the definition of something, then it means something else. That's profound ...

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    in a logical or philosophical sense, it’s true that every sentence can be a lie, because interpretation allows for context to shift meaning

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I could both disagree and agree so I’m kind of on the fence, I would love to hear the rest of the jurors opinions .

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is a self-contained proof.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Well is it? Negating ' all' means only some. So some sentences may be lies. Negate that again and you get either none or all sentences may be lies.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I'm confused with what the plaintiff is actually saying. e.g. This is a white wall. How can that be a lie if the wall is indeed white in color?

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    I get confused with your characterization of "This sentence is not true" is the same as "It is not true that this sentence is not true".

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    There are two easy ways to disprove this. First, if you add something to the sentence, it's no longer the original sentence. "This sentence is not true" is not the same sentence as "It is not true that this sentence is not true". Changing a statement fundamentally doesn't mean that the original statement has a new, hidden meaning revealed ... you've just created a new and different statement! Second, there are objective truths that are not untrue to any person with any kind of morality or ethics. The sentence "Raping people is evil" is objectively true. There is no credible argument to the contrary without a corrupt cultural background or being intellectually dishonest. But if somebody would like to argue that it's a lie, please let me know. I'll bring the popcorn because the responses to that argument will be worth watching!

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It doesn’t account for sentences that are tautological, like "The gunman is armed is dangerous" or factually true by nature, like “Three plus three equals six,” which are not subject to reinterpretation as lies

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Bob, you gonna have to simplify your arguments for simple people like me.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    It's not any of the truth. If I say that all red-skinned, white-fleshed fruit with black seeds inside them are watermelons, I haven't changed the nature of apples, I've just confused the definition of watermelons. This causes an immense amount of confusion and is not profound. We see this kind of thing all the time with bad actors playing semantic games around words like "genocide" but it's not profound, it's just intellectually dishonest. There are only a handful of objectively "true" statements that cannot be contravened without reflecting a horrible cultural background or intellectual dishonesty. For example, the statement "Raping people is evil" is objectively true. You can make new statements using that clause, but I would love to hear the reactions to somebody arguing that the phrase "Raping people is evil" is a lie. I'll even bring the popcorn.

    Answer: No
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It’s more like word play. A thought experiment that blends semantics with philosophy rather than stating pure fact.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    With the stipulated assumption this is true without deceit.

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    There is no deceit.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    With the stipulated assumption this is true without deceit.

    Answer:
    Unsure about this
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    I don't understand the accusation so I don't know if their is deceit or not.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is manipulating.
    Answer Confidence: 85 %
    Supporting Text:
    I think this is meant to manipulate us into believing this?

    Answer:
    The deceit is that the lie is misleading.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    It's cute, but it's completely false. When you add to or take away from a sentence, you have a new sentence, not a new way of interpreting the original sentence.

    Answer:
    The deceit lies in the illusion that truth and lies are fixed opposites, when in reality they depend on perception and framing
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The deceit lies in the illusion that truth and lies are fixed opposites, when in reality they depend on perception and framing
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    The truth is intended although, as demonstrated, it can also be taken as a lie, by the proof itself.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    The truth is intended.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Ether way, it seems the declaration doesn't actually say anything.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Watching the Youtube video, I am so confused I don't know if maybe it was intended to confound the issue.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    This is Schrödinger and Heisenberg wrapped up in a linguistic proposition. The proposition that all statements are both true and false is consequentialist and means that no language has any innate meaning. For example, the sentence "You can trust that nothing bad will happen if you give me your credit card numbers, SSN, and address" is both true and false until you give me your information and something negative happens with your data. Until something negative happens with the data, the statement is true. Once something negative happens with the data, the statement is false. That's consequentialist and not a factor of the language itself, which means that the language has no property of truth or falsity until something occurs which can be observed.

    Answer: Yes
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    It’s intentional. The point is to challenge how we define “truth” by showing that even truth itself can be questioned.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    I'm not sure what the motivation is.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to really confuse us.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    Semantic navel-gazing.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    The motivation is to be informative
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    exploring how language and context can twist or uphold meaning.

    Answer:
    I'm not sure what the motivation is.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    I believe this is an important proof for society and for all critical reasoning for which humans are capable.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Not sure I get what the plaintiff is getting at.

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    At this point I have no idea.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:
    Yeah, sure ... why not?

    Answer: Acceptable
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    Highly acceptable among thinkers, philosophers, or debaters — but confusing or uncomfortable for people who prefer absolute clarity.

    Answer: Don't Know
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    Mystery upon mystery.
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 10 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    Label needed to make some sense of this.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    This is factually untrue.
    Answer Confidence: 100 %
    Supporting Text:
    But then out comes the "But that label is both true and false" semantic game, even though it's not something that can be accurately ascribed either trait. There is very little objective truth, and it is so glaringly obvious that any argument to the contrary is either intellectually dishonest or reflects an abhorrent cultural background.

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text:

    Answer:
    No label needed
    Answer Confidence: 90 %
    Supporting Text: