The Instigator
Gruenenfelder
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
logical-master123
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Are ghosts possible, and are they real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
logical-master123
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 466 times Debate No: 81470
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Gruenenfelder

Pro

In the typical style of ghosts as spiritual beings, I think it is ridiculous to say that ghosts exist. However, I think after death the conscious mind goes somewhere - and string theory proves the idea of many parallels to our universe. This supports reincarnation. Therefore, I personally believe that ghosts could be a form of the conscious mind that has gone into a new parallel that already has others. Therefore, they would be a "ghost" of some kind. But this doesn't mean that the classic figures of ghosts that I think are somewhat ridiculous don't exist.

First off, while many who don't believe in ghosts say that science proves their non-existence, this isn't fully true. Scientists over the years have gone back and forth on their existence, many seeing this as their flow with social thought, as opposed to real science. Many other scientists actually take up the business of paranormal study, which shows not all scientists deny the existence of these passed-on creatures. The Theory of Relativity and the Many Worlds Theory also support the existence of ghosts, as well as String Theory.

And while I may try to use only science, we should look to the many believers out there who insist that they have seen ghosts, and the countless photos and videos supporting them. Though many have been proven to be fake, it is not a bad idea to look to all of these believers and what they have to say. For thousands of years people have believed in ghosts and besides the simple mental illness argument, there isn't much explanation for their stories.
logical-master123

Con

I accept. Arguments and Rebuttals will go in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Gruenenfelder

Pro

I apologize for also posting this in the first round, but this is my first debate on Debate.org:

In the typical style of ghosts as spiritual beings, I think it is ridiculous to say that ghosts exist. However, I think after death the conscious mind goes somewhere - and string theory proves the idea of many parallels to our universe. This supports reincarnation. Therefore, I personally believe that ghosts could be a form of the conscious mind that has gone into a new parallel that already has others. Therefore, they would be a "ghost" of some kind. But this doesn't mean that the classic figures of ghosts that I think are somewhat ridiculous don't exist.

First off, while many who don't believe in ghosts say that science proves their non-existence, this isn't fully true. Scientists over the years have gone back and forth on their existence, many seeing this as their flow with social thought, as opposed to real science. Many other scientists actually take up the business of paranormal study, which shows not all scientists deny the existence of these passed-on creatures. The Theory of Relativity and the Many Worlds Theory also support the existence of ghosts, as well as String Theory.

And while I may try to use only science, we should look to the many believers out there who insist that they have seen ghosts, and the countless photos and videos supporting them. Though many have been proven to be fake, it is not a bad idea to look to all of these believers and what they have to say. For thousands of years people have believed in ghosts and besides the simple mental illness argument, there isn't much explanation for their stories.
logical-master123

Con

Thank you to post your same argument in the second round. I will post my arguments then my rebuttals

I will first go on my three arguments of why ghosts are not real. First I will see some observations and the Overview of this debate. Then I will start some definitions of this debate and then in the end, my arguments.

Overview, Observations

First of all I would like to point out that this debate is about if ghosts are real or if they are not real. We have to show evidence.

My first observation is that the BOP is on Pro. He has to show the burden of proof of the resolution.

Defintions

Ghost: the soul of a dead person thought of as living in an unseen world or as appearing to living people

Real: actually existing or happening : not imaginary

Right now this debate is all about Pro saying that ghosts are real and giving proof to us why. I have to negotiate the resolution and say why there is no ghosts. The ghosts are not included, Halloween white ghosts who say "Peek- A- Boo!"

Arguments

Now I will start and go into my arguments.

1. There is no science.

Science is basically everything. Also matter. However a ghost does not fit in those properties. Ghosts can move into solids and go out. Because there is no science there is a very big possibility that ghost do not exist because there is no science in them. They are ont evn material because they can go and move out of solids. So what are they, and also do they possibly exist? I think no because there is no science in these ghosts.

Science is always mostly right. Even if you show our felt them, you have no actual evidence. The only evidence is science and logic. Because of this no one think ghosts are real because there is no real evidence from science and logic. This shows that there is no science in these the studies of there is ghosts or not which does not follow science, meaning that it is not true.

2. Evidence

Is their any evidence you saw an ghost? Can you show anyone else your proof? Do you have an picture? If we do have a picture, we can always see ghosts becasue they are visible but why can't we. This shows that there is no real proof. There is no real science to prove or math. You don't have a picture. Right now our Con team has some evidence by science. The "ghosts" doesn't follow the rule of science. This shows that we really don't need to know that there is ghosts because it is obvious. There is no science!

Many photos show ghosts. However why can't we see ghosts in our own eyes when the pictures show them. We have no real evidence unless someone gives real proof to us humans that they really saw an ghost.

Conclusion

What I wrote was all about the evidence of ghosts not living and also that is because of the science and mathematics. It just doesn't follow science. So is there ghosts? Probably not. Also here is evidence. The ghost is not there. However except for the body, everything is there. There is the emotion.

Now I will go on to my rebuttals and end my case.

Rebuttals

1. I will rebut his second argument first because that was basically his first argument. His argumenyt was basically about science doesn't work, which is the opposite of my argument. First of all science is basically everything. Everythng follows their rules. Gravity works because of science. Everything works because of science. There is no explanation of science of ghosts. The Theories that Pro is stating are just their opinions. Pro did not give us any facts and information or proof why they beleive and now this, when Pro just stated that they supported the existent of ghosts. Pro states this is the opposite of science. But what is the opposite of science. And where do you knwo that scientists think that there is existence when there is no real proof because you can't really see ghosts. Right now Con says that ghosts are a belief and there is no real proof that there are ghosts when there is proof there are no ghosts.

2. "Though many have been proven fake." Ends my rebuttals. There are no real ghosts and all the things they thoguht were all fake which finishes the resolution negotiated saying that ghosts are fake form Pro's arguments.

This is my end of this second round. Back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 2
Gruenenfelder

Pro

Gruenenfelder forfeited this round.
logical-master123

Con

Because the opponent forfeited, there is nothing to rebut.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
Gruenenfelderlogical-master123Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff, and while pro does kind of suggests ghosts are plausible, con shows that there is no science, logic, or any proof of ghosts.