The Instigator
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Citrakayah
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Con exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
Citrakayah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,301 times Debate No: 26160
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

RationalMadman

Con

Prove it.
Citrakayah

Pro

(I’ll be using my own definitions here; if Con has any problems with them I request that he provide alternatives.)

Con asks me to prove he exists. I would like to begin by noting Descartes, and the statement, "I think therefore I am." Of course, this doesn't prove Con exists. It only proves the viewer exists.

Nevertheless, Descartes provides a starting point. Even if we take solipsism to be true, the act of imagining something means it exists. The term ‘exist’ does not only refer to something that physically exists. If the reader is indeed the only thing in existence (and the reader must exist), then I, Con, this site, and the computer the reader is viewing this on all exist in the viewer’s imagination. Regardless of whether or not we have any real-world counterparts, we exist, in some form. Remember, Con hasn’t specified in what form he exists. Whether he has a physical body, is an alternate personality of some sort, or a figment of imagination is quite irrelevant.

Now, Con may not be a sophont, or even a true sapient being, regardless of whether or not he has a body, is currently sharing it with someone else, or is simply a pure figment of imagination. But Con must exist, at least in some form. If I write Con into a story, and Con only exists in that story, Con still exists—but only in ink, graphite, or electronic data. Con wouldn’t be a sophont. Con couldn’t react to stimulus unless I made him. Con wouldn’t even have a form of matter. But Con would exist in the form of information.

Indeed, it is impossible to give an example of something that does <em>not</em> exist in the form of information. The very act of giving the example presumes one can imagine the entity.

To summarize:

  1. Regardless of whether or not something has physical existence, if someone is perceiving it, then it must exist as information.
  2. The viewer is perceiving Con.
  3. Therefore, Con exists as information at the very least.
Three logically follows from one and two. Two is assumed to be the case, since otherwise the viewer could not see this debate. One is, I admit, something along the lines of semantics, but I don’t think it’s very much of a stretch, and Con never defined the term ‘exist’ anyway.
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Con

Con does not exist, neither as a figment of imagination, nor as a member of this computer-based argument. The reason being that con never was imagined, nor was con a member. Con merely is nothing.

Pro exists for pro is proposing the idea that con exists.

However, con's argument is merely not existing... Thus rendering pro's arguments true but inapplicable to con.

Pro is proposing an idea, pro can be analogised to matter.
Con to antimatter, it exists merely as an absence of pro, it destroys pro by merely causing non-existence.

Pro is proposing that as a concept con exists, but con is not a concept, con is merely an anti-concept to pro, an absence of support for the concept you could say.

Pro is almost like energy, and con the urge to rest. Con only seems to exist because pro exists and there happens to thus be an apparent opportunity to oppose in ways which con appears to take but con itself is non existent, merely acting as an anti-pro for the purposes of balancing logic and nature, con is an anti-existence of pro.
Citrakayah

Pro

"Pro is proposing that as a concept con exists, but con is not a concept, con is merely an anti-concept to pro, an absence of support for the concept you could say."

But we can imagine this anticoncept. If I say 'X is good' Con would be 'X is not good'. Both pro and con exist as concepts; this is how we can argue pro and argue con. If we cannot perceive con, then how could we argue that con is true? And frequently one does argue that con is true. By arguing one's nonexistence, then one clearly has a concept of what one is, otherwise one would be unable to say whether or not it existed.

The absence of support for a concept is itself a concept--this is how we can comprehend the lack of support for a concept. If we could not perceive Con, I would be unable to argue with Con. Yet clearly I can argue with Con, otherwise I would not be having this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Con

There is no con, this is not an argument.

you are arguing with an absence of 'proness' in other words a lack of the essence which is pro, in terms of complete and utter absence, whereby any sense of pro is diminished the moment we enter what we perceive to be 'con' but in fact ends up being non existent the moment we try to delve into it.

Imagine this: You are in outer space and look out of your spacecraft's window and see a star. The star is pro, you are a voyager seeking belief, in between you and the star is nothingness, empty space if you will, this is con. It is nothing, it is the absence of whatever pro is, in the sense of complete and utter absence, not mere neutrality.
Citrakayah

Pro


Con’s example actually proves me right.


The gap Con describes isn’t actually empty. It’s filled with the very fabric of space-time. The gap is a distance of space-time; it could be considered an amount of space-time. Space-time exists, therefore the gap exists. For the gap not to exist, the two locations would have to be the same, exactly the same.


For Con’s argument to work, we must consider the gap to be filled with an absence, a true nothingness, something that absolutely isn’t. But the very act of imagining this absence that isn’t requires it to exist, if only in our mind, though we may find it incomprehensible. Cthulhu exists in our mind, as does Azathoth and Hastur. Yet the very description of these entities renders them impossible for us to understand. We do not have to understand a concept to have an idea of it, or to know of the concept. For instance, I do not understand life. But life exists inside of my head as a concept.


If we are to consider whether or not Con exists, we must first have some idea of Con, even if we don’t truly understand Con. Otherwise such a discussion would be meaningless. But to have some idea of something means that it exists.


Therefore, Con exists.


Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Con

Con is only appearing to exist because there are areas of this belief where pro does not exist, hence the absence of pro appears to be Con.

IF an absence of something is a presence and existence then I think we need to revise logic altogether.
Citrakayah

Pro

Well, let's think about that. Technically, cold is the absence of heat--yet cold still exists, at least as a concept. Vacuum is the absence of air--but there is such a thing as a vacuum. It's a concept.

Con hasn't asked me to clarify how he exists, only that he does.
Debate Round No. 4
RationalMadman

Con

Oh yes that is true about the vaccuum.
Citrakayah

Pro

Indeed.

My thanks to Con for the great debate.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
I don't. It was a legitimate philosophical question.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
Why does everyone think I am a troll.
Posted by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
I feel I must point out that if this was a troll debate, I actually never noticed it.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
ishallannoyyo, techanically, Con doesn't have to prove he doesn't exist. He has challenged us to prove he exists. If we accept the challenge, then the burden of proof is on us to prove he exists, and all he has to do is refute our arguments. He hasn't claimed that he doesn't exist, and he hasn't agreed to shoulder the burden of proving that he doesn't, so he has no burden of proof in this debate. But I'm okay with that.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
If you can shorten this debate by two rounds, I might accept.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
RM, you have to prove that you don't exist? Did you pick the right side?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Like_a_Boss 4 years ago
Like_a_Boss
RationalMadmanCitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: He proved Con exists.
Vote Placed by Straight_A_Kate 4 years ago
Straight_A_Kate
RationalMadmanCitrakayahTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is just stupid
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
RationalMadmanCitrakayahTied
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: I'm convinced that con exists.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
RationalMadmanCitrakayahTied
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: Troll debate though Pro thankfully brought some sound and clever philosophical reasoning in to make it interesting. Con never seemed to refute Pro's point regarding Con's existence as a concept or as information, a clever way of refuting the seeming presupposition that anything that exists must exist physically. Con's R5 seems to be a concession, though Pro won this debate even without it,
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
RationalMadmanCitrakayahTied
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: Well, looks like Con more or less conceded last round.