Debate Rounds (3)
My opponent will make his definition in Round 1. In rounds 2 and 3, we will both argue why our definition is better.
- Reliable sources are not taken into account
- Forfeit means loss
- People who are making up stuff will have a hard time proving something exists.
- People can easily agree upon what can be registered by human senses.
Note that "existence" can not be adjective, it can only be a noun. Resolution clearly says "existing".
Problems with my opponent's definition:
- "Being" can not be adjective. People can not easily agree upon what is "being"(as noun). Also, unicorn(for example) is a being, but he probably does not exist.
- If everything that exists has objective reality, as my opponent's definition suggests, then either there exists only one thing or there are multiple objective realities. Or "having" is not the right word.
- Now we need definition for reality, that does not include words like existence, existing, etc
- Assuming we resolved 2 problems above this one, how can we know if something has or hasn't objective reality?
To be clear, I will define anything that has objective reality as anything that takes form in the cosmos. "Reality" is the cosmos.
In your original definition, you state "existing" is anything that can possibly be processed by human senses. This discounts anything that humans have no chance of sensing as nonexistent. There is something known as the Many Worlds Theory in quantum physics. It suggests that there may be an infinite number of alternate realities "existing" among us, though we are not capable of sensing them. Let's assume alternate realities are real. By your definition, they are discounted as not real because humans can't sense them. By my definition, they exist simply because they have an objective reality (or take form in the cosmos). This is just one of the many possibilities of existing your definition negates because of the limits of human senses.
1) Since other worlds can not affect this one, there is no way it can be proven true, and if we believed other worlds do not exist, nothing would change.
2) Since other worlds can affect this one, we can indirectly register them with our senses, therefore they exist by my definition.
I thank my opponent for making this an interesting debate.
My definition is all inclusive. It includes everything that exists, whether we can prove it's "real" or not. My definition understands there are mysterious facets of reality that mankind currently doesn't know about.
I thank my opponent as well. This debate was a lot of fun!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.