The Instigator
AEQUITAS
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mecap
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Absolute Truth #2

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,183 times Debate No: 6349
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

AEQUITAS

Pro

From the first debate in this series I have proved that there is absolute truth. This debate will deal with how we can find absolute truth. A.J. Ayer, building upon David Hume's views, said that a statement can only be meaningful for humans if it's self-evident or if empirically verifiable (can be proved by one or more of our five senses). One of the implications of this is that it is meaningless to even discuss the idea of a GOD since this idea doesn't fit into one of the two criteria mentioned above. I disagree. I think that we can know if there is a GOD or not and I think that this is important. This debate is arguing against agnosticism. If it can be shown that Ayer and Hume are wrong then it would mean that we can reason about absolute truth (which we've already proved existed in debate 1) and therefore agnosticism's only reason for not doing so would be indifference.
mecap

Con

Please note that my opponent has not provided any argument in the first round. Since my opponent has not stated his/her position and the title does not help define the topic I can't argue against a topic which is not defined; therefore, I'll have to just reply to what my opponent has posted.

"This debate will deal with how we can find absolute truth."
- I don't see where you propose how we find absolute truth... so I'll just say that I'm taking the con side on that argument. We find absolute truth from multiple sources, and most notably from observable and/or verifiable sources.

"One of the implications of this is that it is meaningless to even discuss the idea of a GOD since this idea doesn't fit into one of the two criteria mentioned above."
- So you're arguing that all-caps GOD (not God or god) is the source of absolute truth... now I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a WILD guess that this is the Christian "GOD" (and not any other random "GOD"). But again, that's just a guess so I can't argue against my own guesses, I need your arguments to con against ;).

"I think that we can know if there is a GOD or not and I think that this is important."
- OK... let's hear it.

"If it can be shown that Ayer and Hume are wrong then it would mean that we can reason about absolute truth (which we've already proved existed in debate 1) and therefore agnosticism's only reason for not doing so would be indifference."
- "Not doing so" what? Not reasoning about absolute truth? Or not reasoning about the existence of God?

------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:

My opponent has not defined a proper topic for debate, so I can't respond until my opponent posts his/her alleged source of absolute truth. I'm guessing he's going to propose that god is the source... but I don't want to waste my argument if my opponent is not arguing that god's the source of absolute truth.
Debate Round No. 1
AEQUITAS

Pro

AEQUITAS forfeited this round.
mecap

Con

Please note that my opponent forfeited the last round without presenting an argument, everything I said in the previous round should carry over. Given the fact that the topic is not precisely defined I'll enjoy the freedom to share my position on absolute truth.

My position still remains that absolute truth is obtained from observable and verifiable sources such as: 2+2 = 4, a triangle has 3 sides, the moon revolves around the earth, the earth revolves around the sun, and so on.

Affirmed!
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
Roy, I have to tell you that I'm starting to regret these debates... they undermine my attempts to improve my debating skills.

I am even starting to feel like these debates may have actually degraded my debating abilities, especially the exchanges with GodSands... that kid takes the cake! Better luck next time, I hope I get a challenge :).
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
mecap, How do you come up with these debates where the proponent never defines the resolution and then forfeits every round? I feel that fairness requires a quota system whereby we all get some of these.
Posted by yesikant 8 years ago
yesikant
You "proved" there is absolute truth by debating a random 15 year old girl in two paragraphs in front of a totally random online audience. Ok. Sure.

Your debate topic is meaningless. I have no idea what I would be supposed to argue. The positions you say come from Ayer and Hume are not even close to what both authors argued. Have you even read Hume or Ayer? You said that they both thought "statements are meaningful if they are self evident or empirically verifiable". That is totally false. Both Hume and Ayer concluded that nothing is "empirically verifiable". Hume was famous for articulating the induction problem. I have not read Hume myself, but I have read Ayer. Ayer claimed that inductive inference presumed the uniformity of nature. For, for me to inference that my induction is representative, requires me to assume a constancy in nature. For Ayer, the uniformity of nature was totally unprovable. Arguing for such uniformity would be totally circular because such an inductive logic would presume uniformity in the first place. Ayer says he was very influenced by Hume, so I would assume he is similar.

Hume denied empirical verifiability as did Ayer. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
You don't provide a resolution or reasons supporting whatever it is that you think the resolution is. You do not provide a link to the previous debate, which you claim proved something or other. On top of that, you restrict the debate to two rounds, so there is not much chance that whatever you are positing will be identified before the debate ends.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
AEQUITASmecapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
AEQUITASmecapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
AEQUITASmecapTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
AEQUITASmecapTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07