The Instigator
RomanCatholic
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Badman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Can a person prove their existence?

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 2 votes the winner is...
RomanCatholic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 848 times Debate No: 61887
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

RomanCatholic

Con

I am arguing that a person cannot prove that they exist in the physical world. By physical world I mean that they must exist in physical form and NOT in the imagination or mind of a being. If my opponent is unable to prove his existence than he will be defeated.

Rules:
My opponent will use each round in order to give as many "proofs" for his existence as he/she wishes. I will use the beginning of each round to rebuke the his/her proofs.

In the 2nd post of the 5th round my opponent is not allowed to post any new proofs, for I will not have a chance to rebuke them.

Good Luck!
Badman

Pro

If this entire reality is purely in the imagination of anybody, it could only be in the imagination of the reader of this debate. If it were in the imagination of anyone else, the reader couldn't vote against the imagined, predetermined, winner and if my opponent claims to be imagining me, then unless the person reading is incapable of voting against me that is proof enough that my opponent's existence is just as valid, of not less so, than my own.

Nevertheless, I will now go on to explain why this reality is not simply in the imagination of the reader and, instead, is objectively physical.

If this reality were in the imagination of the reader, they would find absolutely no flaw with it. They would find it to be flawless in every shape and form and absolutely to their taste. However, if this were the case, then whichever side they agree with would be the only side debated for. Thus, since no matter which side they support, the other is being debated for, it automatically is not their reality for an opposition of some kind exists. If this debate isn't real, then the ability to vote should merely be an illusion and my opponent should have absolutely no issue with losing it if he is voted against since his/her loss and my victory shouldn't be real.

If this debate is within anyone's imagination, my opponent isn't real. If my opponent isn't real, voting for him/her would be absurd and illogical in every way.

The only way my opponent is able to debate against me is by admitting I exist. If I only exist in the reader's imagination, my opponent must debate whichever side of the debate that the reader supports and the opposite side should not exist. Since it does, the reader's imagination is not controlling the reality of this debate. Since this debate must be real,it follows that I subsequently exist as one of the two debaters in it.

I conclude, reader, that I exist.
Debate Round No. 1
RomanCatholic

Con

"If this reality were in the imagination of the reader, they would find absolutely no flaw with it. They would find it to be flawless in every shape and form and absolutely to their taste. However, if this were the case, then whichever side they agree with would be the only side debated for." -Pro

You claim that in a person's imagination, he can have no competitors. This is obviously false. A man dreams, in that dream he is fighting a crocodile. Would my opponent say, "That is impossible, for in a person's dream, which cannot be flawed, the only side with representation would be the human's side of the fight, therefore making it so the crocodile cannot exist and hence a person cannot dream of fighting a crocodile?" I think not. I doubt that you have never dreamed, or imagined, an event in which you defeated something, and in order to defeat something that thing must exist (in your mind) and in order to defeat it, the defeated object must be against you.

Also, I do accept you existence, however, this is not the point. While yes, I believe you exist, I cannot prove to myself that you exist nor can you prove to me that you exist. Once you realize this, the debate will be over.
Badman

Pro

My opponent argues that someone can dream opponents. nevertheless, if they imagine opponents, they cannot imagine losing. Thus, my opponent must either prove that it is impossible for me, or himself, to win, otherwise both of us exist and, hence, I have proven my existence.

My opponent came up with his own rebuttal and rebutted it which is irrelevant to the debate and isn't what I retorted with.

My opponent has explained why it would be possible for an imagined opponent to beat your own imagined side of the debate within the realms of the dream but he ignored all my other points.

Why do other voters exist? why can they vote against the creator/god's side? Why can absolutely anyone debate on any side of this debate? In fact, my opponent has literally rebutted my round one arguments and instead decided to focus solely on the fact that it is possible this could all be imagined despite all the argument is made to prove just how absurd such a statement is.

Proof isn't about making something undeniably true, if that were the case no lawyer would ever win their case. Proof is about making something true beyond reasonable doubt (the key word being 'reasonable' rather than 'absolute').
Debate Round No. 2
RomanCatholic

Con

I just daydreamed. In this dream, I was sitting upon a hill. A wolf came and we quarreled for a few minutes. Eventually, the wolf tore out my throat, killing me. I was defeated, I lost. This is very possible. People imagine losing all the time.

So, it is very possible for it to be in someone's mind.

That being said, I never claimed it had to be in a person's imagination. Can you prove that 99% of people on debate.org are real humans except for a 1%, including you are computer generated debaters? The problem is that you immediately made it so it was in the imagination of a "creator/god."

The following are definitions of prove from various websites

: to show the existence, truth, or correctness of (something) by using evidence, logic, etc. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

1.
to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument:
to prove one's claim. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

to make it clear that something is or is not true:
to show after a time or by experience that something or someone has a particular quality: (http://dictionary.cambridge.org...)

To prove is to demonstrate or establish that something is true or to show certain abilities.
(http://www.yourdictionary.com...)

Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)

No where in there is "reasonable doubt" or anything similar in those definitions

By accepting the debate you took on the task of either proving or losing, and while this does put you at a huge disadvantage, that is your fault. Unless in my post to start off round 5 I cannot give any reasonable evidence whatsoever to refute your statements, you will have to take the loss on this one.

Basically, you have to prove that in any scenario, you must exist, while this is nearly impossible, you have put yourself in this position by accepting an extremely difficult debate.
Badman

Pro

Badman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RomanCatholic

Con

Well, he didn't post anything, presumably because he may not exist.

So, I've decided to put in a poem by Mr. William Blake

A Poison Tree
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
I was angry with my friend;
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.

And I waterd it in fears,
Night & morning with my tears:
And I sunned it with smiles,
And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night.
Till it bore an apple bright.
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine.

And into my garden stole,
When the night had veild the pole;
In the morning glad I see;
My foe outstretched beneath the tree.
Badman

Pro

Badman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Badman

Pro

Badman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by farthead 3 years ago
farthead
cheyennebodie: what may be a meaningful goal to others does not have to be meaningful to you.
Posted by Badman 3 years ago
Badman
<3 u
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Badman.I would consider it if you were badwoman.
Posted by Badman 3 years ago
Badman
looooool cheyene, marry me.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Philosophy is for people who Do not have any meaningful goals in life.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
I just pinched myself. Yea, I exist.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
RomanCatholicBadmanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
RomanCatholicBadmanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits, so conduct to prove. Also, Pro had stronger arguments through the actual debate.