The Instigator
SecularMerlin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Can the concept of spirit/soul be adequately defined or proven to exist?

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
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
01day16hours05minutes41seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 182 times Debate No: 107896
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

SecularMerlin

Con

In order to win my opponent must have a clear specific definition for this concept that does not contain the words spirit or soul, nor any permutation thereof (i.e. spiritual or soulful) and also have a viable method of determining the existence or nonexistence of spirits/souls that does not rely on anecdotal evidence for support. That is to say that no appeal to special knowledge can be made only observable repeatable methods that do not rely on previous belief in the proposition can be used.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for the debate Con, I accept.
I find it hard to believe that Con hasn't come across proof of spirits/soul.
Either way, I agree to affirm the resolution.
I'll also supply definitions per Con's request.

*Spirits*

Gosh, it seems like there are just so many corroborated definitions and proof of spirits that it's almost difficult to procure just one example.
Not because it's hard to find an example; it's hard to choose just one.

Do you go old school and showcase the proof in the moonshine and illuminate your spirit that way, or point to the plethora of people currently dealing with spirits in their own homes?

So many spirits to choose from, yet such a difficult a choice to make.
I mean, some spirits are just not as well known as others, so pointing to those may confuse or confound readers.
Then again, pointing to the obvious, better-known spirits, which can be found just about anywhere in the developed world, might come off as being condescending.

While Con prohibited the use of anecdotal evidence, it's still noteworthy that I myself have had many confirmed encounters with spirits.
I most certainly had spirits at my parents' house at one point in high school, and, though I was distracted, I'm utterly positive there were spirits at my wedding; all the guests will attest.

The resolution asks whether or not the concept of the term "spirit" can be adequately defined or proven.
It just seems so silly to do so, because nearly everyone has been exposed to spirits in one way or another; pointing it out is sort of being "captain obvious."

My close friend actually works with spirits on a daily basis, and, as he describes it, there exists a spirit that goes into humans' bodies, changes their behavior and personality, and, in many cases, makes the person pass out from the invasion.

When you come in contact with a spirit and it manages to enter your body, you may feel like your possessed.
Some people even describe a warm feeling entering their gut, but nearly all describe a "buzzed" sensation after the spirit enters and remains inside of them for a while.

What may not be a surprise is that for some people, experiencing a spirit can become a violent or very dangerous event.
For these people, after coming in contact with the particular spirit, they become easily agitated and may begin attacking others because the spirit is ravaging their body; over time their body can feel the health effects.

Some spirits just flat out take over people's lives to the point where the person is so used to living with the spirit inside of them, they almost require the spirit to stay alive.
As you can imagine, this negatively impacts their social life, because no one wants to hang around someone constantly messing with spirits; people are aware of the inherent dangers, especially of the stronger spirits.

So, on to the evidence.

After much debating with myself, I've chosen to provide 4 examples of spirits, and I've decided that photographs perhaps are the best medium for the evidence.

1. brandy


2. whiskey


3. gin


4. rum


What more proof do you need?
70, 80, dare I say, 90 proof?
https://www.cwspirits.com...


*Soul*

Yeah, when I think about the "soul" term of this resolution, it brings up many past memories.
Listening to all of the recordings and stories of the soul that appeared years ago really gives me a pleasant feeling.

Some of those memories reemerge when watching videos of that soul.

These are videos of people who have clearly found the soul this debate is calling for.
https://www.youtube.com...

You can also go to many churches and find full groups of people celebrating the same soul from those videos, which is a true testament to the corroborated standard of "soul."

Just listen to the sounds from those videos.
How do you explain them without necessarily categorizing them as a soul sound?

How you gonna tell me James Brown aint got no soul?
https://www.youtube.com...


*Conclusion*

Spirits exist and soul exists.
You can even enjoy a spirit while experiencing soul.
Have a drink and a listen, and you too can define and determine the existence of "spirit" and "soul."


Definitions

spirit - strong distilled alcoholic drink such as brandy, whisky, gin, or rum.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

soul - a kind of music incorporating elements of rhythm and blues and gospel music, popularized by American black people.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
SecularMerlin

Con

Well congratulations. You certainly have won the debate in the technical sense. As a charming bonus You have also robbed it of all value. I understand that contextually you are correct but you must have realized that this would prevent the discussion I wanted to have rather than furthering it. Boo on you sir. Well played but boo. You were obviously more interested in winning than in the discussion itself. So congratulations you win, and I am still waiting for a sensible definition of spirit/soul in the sense that the occultist or theist might use it.

I concede and this will be my last argument for this debate. Only how should I word my challenge next time in your opinion in order to avoid this confusion in the future?

Also I won't say I didn't enjoy your answer as it was somewhat humorous.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for your response, Con.
Con seems to pretty much agree with me, for the most part; that's nice.
Con also has declared that last round was Con's last argument.
Thanks for the debate, Con.

*Responding to Con*

Con says:
"Well congratulations. You certainly have won the debate in the technical sense."

My response:
Is there any other sense in which you can win?
Thanks for the concession, though.


Con continues:
"As a charming bonus You have also robbed it of all value."

My response:
Just to be clear, it's still a win, despite the robbing of value, right?
*snatches value and runs*

Con furthers:
"I understand that contextually you are correct."

My response:
I would argue that correctness has value and that this value was brought to the debate.
Just sayin'.


Con reasons:
"you must have realized that this would prevent the discussion I wanted to have."

My response:
You started a debate about the definition/proof of spirit/soul and that's exactly the debate you got.
Really read your 1st round and see that nothing in there *defines* the terms of the resolution, in fact you requested to have your opponent define the most crucial terms of the resolution leaving you discussing what *they* interpreted those words to mean, not *you*.


Con whines:
"Boo on you sir. Well played but boo."

My response:
Don't hate the player, hate the game.


Con assumes:
"You were obviously more interested in winning than in the discussion itself."

My response:
Yet, I set up clear definitions to guide our discussion, I made my case, and opened up an opportunity for the debate to continue and you ended it.
As far as intent to have a discussion goes, I'm demonstrating much more.


Con gripes:
"I am still waiting for a sensible definition of spirit/soul in the sense that the occultist or theist might use it."

My response:
Then *that's* what you should have put in your 1st round Con.


Con concedes:
"I concede and this will be my last argument for this debate."

My response:
Yay!
Thanks for the debate again, Con.


Con inquires:
"how should I word my challenge next time in your opinion in order to avoid this confusion in the future?"

My response:
Word it however you want, just include definitions for each term in the resolution and state that accepting the debate means agreeing to debate the provided definitions.
This way, no one can distort your debate and you get to discuss whatever it is you were actually trying to discuss.
Always put definitions 1st round.
Always.


Con admits:
"Also I won't say I didn't enjoy your answer as it was somewhat humorous."

My response:
That right there is worth more than the win.
I had a lot of fun constructing the case...I tried to blur the line between ghost spirit and alcohol spirit and immaterial soul and soul music, so to hear that it was perceived as funny is awesome.


Thanks again, Con, please type "forwarding" for the remaining rounds, so that we may end this and get a proper vote on it.
May the spirits be with you.
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Pro

Forwarding...
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks again Con.
VOTE PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 days ago
MagicAintReal
Here's a debate where i did something similar to the resolution.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 days ago
MagicAintReal
Yeah, me too.
Posted by SecularMerlin 3 days ago
SecularMerlin
That's part of what I love about it.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 days ago
MagicAintReal
Hahaha, it's just a silly debate site anyway.
Posted by SecularMerlin 3 days ago
SecularMerlin
Thanks for the advice either way. Good debate, nothing like being completely trounced for a much needed dose of humility.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 days ago
MagicAintReal
It seems like you want to debate whether or not someone can demonstrate the existence of a soul.
So make the resolution:

The Soul Can Be Demonstrated To Exist.

Provide the definitions:

soul - the immaterial part of a human being, regarded as immortal.

immaterial - not physical or contingent on physical, spatiotemporal existence.

You'd be Con, and you'd actually get the debate you want, I think.
Posted by SecularMerlin 4 days ago
SecularMerlin
The more I think about it the funnier it gets. Still trying to figure out how to word the next one. Hard to make a debate about the inability to define a term because you of course cannot define terms. Perhaps if I can quote your definitions? Would that be permissible?
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 week ago
MagicAintReal
Thanks envisage for the vote, I'm glad you found it funny, I had fun writing it.
Posted by SecularMerlin 1 week ago
SecularMerlin
Yes.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 week ago
MagicAintReal
Sometimes it's surprising what you might be surprised by.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 4 days ago
dsjpk5
SecularMerlinMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Envisage 1 week ago
Envisage
SecularMerlinMagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: LOL. I am still laughing as I write my RFD. Pro certainly did prove the existence of "full bodied spirits" with adequate "proof". Lmfao. Concession too.