The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Better to Deduct Certain Evidence, then Debate (Compare Arguments)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
the_real_l has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 418 times Debate No: 103138
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




If you wanted to know if a dollar bill was counterfeit, you have 2 basic options:
1- Learn many of the forms of counterfeit bills out there.
This would mean you would have to learn many types of counterfeit, perhaps all of them
to be conclude with certainty whether the bill is either Counterfeit or Genuine.
However, as examining all counterfeit is nearly impossible, as there are countless forms of counterfeit even for a simple dollar bill, it is more efficient to:
2- Study the original bill very closely. Examining every detail, in particular, the security features of the bill. This way, you only need to learn one. The real one.

Illustrative Conclusion:
Assuming having full ability to distinguish with certainty between the Genuine Bill and any counterfeit, It would be a waste of time to attempt to learn all the forms of counterfeit. Whereas, learning the Genuine Bill would save you the trouble. This method is more efficient and effective.

The Drawn out Conclusion:
The same can be true of any truth. For example, in religion, attempting to study all religions in search for the true religion would be a waste of time, if not at least, inefficient. To find the Genuine Truth, one simply must solve which religion is the true religion, then study that one.
This does not mean however, to assume that whatever religion a person believes in is automatically the true religion. That much is obvious. However:

Premise 1:
Every Premise of an Argument must be in Harmony with all other premises and the Conclusion.
Premise 2:
If a Conclusion of any Argument is False, then either A: One of the Premises must also be False or B: One or more True Premise(s) that would change the Conclusion to become Accurate, must still exist, though unknown, or unaccounted for.
Meaning, If any religion is false (a conclusion) then something in that religion will always somehow disagree with some sort of conclusively certain evidence somewhere. Just like a math equation.

Comparing many religions together in order to find the true religion would be inefficient as apposed to the preferred option: Drawing absolutely certain conclusions based on absolute evidence and deductions.
Debating involves looking at two arguments. But using the evidence and deductions to come to a conclusion, if done perfectly, and with the all the needed evidence (which must also be correct) will always lead to the correct answer.

I believe this concept is true for any truth.

Don't search for truth with debates (comparing arguments). Examine the all the applicable evidence, and deduce certain conclusions, and you will always eventually find the correct answer.


Thank you for producing a detailed argument for fact-based method to evaluate truth; evidence rich arguments have certainty moved mankind forward in areas of science and engineering where proofs are critical in establishing successful outcomes.

However, in the realm of religion, where a successful outcome is gaining memberships, preserving traditions, or a tool for maintaining power, things like facts and evidence are few and far between. Much of the origins of religions are lost and the meager arguments from ancient texts are woefully lacking in rigor, usually depending on one-time miracles (which cannot happen give our current understanding of the universe) or events that we still have no evidence for.

"Searching for (religious) truth" relies on a presupposition that a particular text is accurate and the arguer has no access to anything beyond that other than suppositions and their individual belief. Instead, they rely on "philosophical" trickery, fake academics (aka theology), poor science or outright lies to bolster their search to confirm the truth they already believe in.

Therefore, given the lack of solid evidence for religious claims, and, more importantly, "truth" is less important than religious membership, I contend that it is actually NOT "better" to debate evidence. For the religious, their claims need not rely on evidence at all but purely on personal belief: hence we have dozens of religions with thousands of branches: they can't even decide amongst themselves what is "true"!

So whilst I agree in your main premise, in the arena of religion, I think you're misunderstanding what "better" means in terms of a successful outcome.
Debate Round No. 1


I withdraw my argument. It is certainly the case that my previous argument was a result of "Black and White Fallacy" as
one individual called it. Funny, i say the phrase "Not everything is black and white," quite often. My problem was that i tried to isolate Deductive Reasoning from Debating. When really, they are simply 2 parts of the same equation when searching for the truth in a matter. The scientific method even confirms this. First you Observe evidence. Then you theorize based on that evidence. then you test it. Rinse and repeat. The more this is done, the closer to the truth a person is likely to come. In Theory, a person can always reach to truth about anything if he does this enough and with an open mind. (just speculation though). But to the point, testing IS debating, or at least an element in relation. One debates another possibility in order to isolate them, eliminating one false possibility at a time until you come to the truth. Combating 2 arguments (debating) is very similar to testing to see where the flaws in our theories may or may not lie. We aren't trying to win. We just want to know the truth. At least i do anyways. Most i believe feel the same. Please forgive the tangent, but i felt moved to say that. It's been a useful discovery to me.

Anyways, in conclusion, i withdraw my argument and conclude the following in simplicity:

Deductive Reasoning cannot possibly be more effective than Debating, because they are simply 2 sides of the same coin.
2 Functions on the same equation in the search for truth, whether they take a public form such as this, or even
private thoughts, debating is still a key function needed to find truth.

Thankyou everyone for your brains for a while. I believe i've taken a liking to this website. It seems i was correct in
suspecting that it may become potentially useful to me. Perhaps i can benefit others as well. On the next argument turn, i will simply mark "Withdraw" so as to end the useless remaining rounds.


I agree with everything you have learned and said! Well done for conceding early! Onto the next debate!
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
If there is no evidence to deduct there is no argument to be made.
Posted by holla1755 1 year ago
I think both are best. It's good to deduct certain evidence, but it's also good to be on the defensive by assuring yourself that your deduction is better than every other deduction that can be made on the matter. Debating helps you be so assured.
Posted by RandomTruth 1 year ago
I think to concede, you just need to state you do so and you have no further arguments. We can then quickly end our turns. Thanks.
Posted by RandomTruth 1 year ago
I think to concede, you just need to state you do so and you have no further arguments. We can then quickly end our turns. Thanks.
Posted by the_real_l 1 year ago
Thanks for the Input MagicAintReal. And after some time, i've come to agree.
That makes much more sense. Ive posted a similar argument at the same time by
accident. Is there a way to forfeit the argument by chance? I will change my argument.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
1. The resolution should read:
It is better to deduct certain evidence THAN debate.

2. You assume deducting evidence and debating are jointly exhaustive or mutually exclusive, and they're not.
Posted by the_real_l 1 year ago
The argument you present is certainly valid. However, there is always one truth to everything. Even if, in this case, that means that no religion is true is also an option, meaning that the belief in no one true religion itself is considerable. (when not all the right premises are present, imo).
Posted by MrDelaney 1 year ago
The existence of a counterfeit object presupposes an authentic one.
Your religion analogy does not hold because we have no reason to presuppose any of them to be authentic. While we know they cannot all be right, they could all be wrong.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.