The Instigator
SethBedeGB
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

I Believe that Anything, "Alive", Has "Mind" = "A Mind" or an Equivalent.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 874 times Debate No: 21886
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

SethBedeGB

Pro

I "Mind" / "Have Mind" therefore I Think therefore I Am therefore I Am ALive?!.. It seems that more and more people are contesting this?!.. I have remained "Sure", throughout My Life that something as simple as, say, a Buttercup has the tiniest (or greater) of what you would refer to as "Mind"?!.. When my own reclaimed itself after approaching a complete void, there was no Doubt to Me that I had, finally, confirmed My Own!.. I have remained (as I said) Sure that anything I have "encountered" as Alive seems to exhibit equivalent properties to what I regard as "Mind" with respect to Mine?!.. Therefore I am willing to contest that (portion of) Mind = (portion of) Life to quite a significant "Extent", if not, Fully?!.. Anyone?!..
Zaradi

Con

Sounds interesting, at least from what I was able to decipher.
From what it appears to be, the resolution in question is that having a "mind" is equal to having life. Pro is in support of this, I will be refuting it.

My case will take the form of three seperate but sufficient contentions:

1. Semantics - the pro did not define what a 'mind' was in his last speech, so I will define a mind as a brain commonly found in humans and animals and not found in plants. But since plants are certainly alive, having a 'mind' does not always equal having a life.
2. Metaphysical - I will advocate for a form of metaphysical solipsism that states that everything outside of our own mind does not exist. Only I truly exist because only my mind I can verify exists. I cannot verify if pro exists, therefore he does not exist. The argument takes the form of this syllogism, which I will defend in my next speech:

1. My mental states are the only things I have access to.
2. I cannot conlude the existence of anything outside my mental states.
3. I can conlude my mental state exists.
4. Therefore, only my mental states exist.

3. Troll - To be alive (since my opponent did not define this, either) is to have all the necessary bodily functions to maintain life. For example, for me to have life and be alive, I would need to have a pulse, be able to breath, eat, and drink water. The fact that I have a mind adds to me being a human, as well. But zombies have a mind, yet are not alive in the sense that we are. They have no pulse. They do not need to eat, drink, etc. since their bodily functions are no longer functioning. So zombies are not alive, yet they have a mind. So having a mind cannot equal having life.

I await my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
SethBedeGB

Pro

This Seems to be an Awful lot of Scientific "Hogwash"?!.. What Con has Failed to answer is a Scientific approach To FROM my Mind; I Think Therefore I Am Therefore I AM Alive!.. Con has, in fact, upHeld my argument by simply Specifying that there is No, Clear "Robotic" connection (as his argument goes) between Mind and Life.. Still, the Buttercup has its Teanciest element of thought BeCause it IS Alive and Both its Tiny amount of Life and (Mind)-thought DeRive from the equivalence I have originally Stated..

Furthermore, Zombies would certainly show that any "Life" they Did, "Sustain" was DiRectly linked to how much "Thought" they were (interestingly) enGaging in from Their concept of Mind... In Fact, a Zombie would be a Wonderful, ExPonent of my Case as it would show preCise eQuivalence of any existence of Mind to its relative "Living"?!

Mind/"My"-Mind=>Thought=>I Am=> I Am Alive is where I would, Still put the ball back in Play?!..

Look around you, ALL who are examining my Case and see WHERE you think "(my)MIND", actually, IS?!.. You WILL see (as I have for the Last 41 years) that it is handcuffed to the Places where Life Prevails.. EVERY Time!.. The Table that your Computer is On is Suddenly "Thinking" once it is BACK in The Forest from which it Came?!

It should be, quite sufficiently apparent from simple, experimental Observation?!..
Zaradi

Con

Okay, so it looks like my opponent's last round essentially come down to him only a) restating his origional point, which I refuted last round with my three points, and b) talked about how zombies prove his case. I'll go through each point and explain how he is wrong and I am still clearly winning.

A: Restating his case

My opponent's first, third, and fourth paragraph all amount to him simply restating his previous position, which my first, second, and third points refute. My opponent adresses the third one, the one about the zombies, but concedes the first two. In so far that he did that, his case is still refuted going into the third (and final) round. So let's go through the two arguments that he conceded and explain why they refute his position and cause the voters to vote con.

1. Semantics

Since my opponent conceded this argument, he concedes that a mind will be defined as a brain as normally possessed by humans and animals and not by plants. This negates his position because, as we will look to his example of a 'buttercup', the buttercup is alive, but does not have a mind. But how is this true, under my opponent's case? If the plant doesn't have a mind, how can it be alive? The question to that is it couldn't be alive. But since it is alive, we can verify that a mind does not always entail having life, thus causing the voters to vote con.

2. Solipsism

Since my opponent concedes solipsism, we must look at the resolution from a solisptemic point of view. If solipsism is true (and for the purpose of this round it is, since he conceded it), then nothing outside of my mind exists. Thusly, my opponent's mind cannot exist. Yet he still lives. So how can he be living if his mind doesn't exist?

To avoid confusion, I'd like to clarify on what this implicates. To do this, I will provide a few figurative examples. For example, we can all say that George Washington, Commander of the first Continental Army and first president of the United States of America, is dead. There's no questioning this fact, unless you want to pull something like what thett and FREEDO did here: http://www.debate.org...

But we also know that George Washington DID exist. Non-life does not automatically entail non-existence. In the same way, non-existence doesn't automatically entail non-life. So even if my opponent's mind doesn't exist, he can still be living.

So, as explained three paragraphs above, solipsism is the second nail in the coffin for my opponent's case. He also responded to my third point, but I'll show you why his argument is insufficient to prove his side.

B: Zombies!!!!!!

My opponent is right about one thing he said, at least to a certain extent. Zombies WOULD be a wonderful point for my opponents case....if they were alive. Remember, I defined to be alive as to be able to perform the necessary bodily functions in order to maintain life. He conceded this definiton, so it's going to be the truth in this round. Since he conceded this, we can reasonably conclude that zombies do not live. They do not need oxygen to live. They do not need a pulse (i.e. a heartbeat) to live. They do not need food or water to live. Thus, they are not alive. But they have a mind! So doesn't that prove that they're alive? Nope, it doesn't. They're still not performing the necessary bodily functions needed to maintain life, so they cannot be living. This contradicts with my opponent's case of "If you have a mind, you have to be living!"

But even if you still think that my opponent's arguments against my third point are good and sound logic, let me point out that it's only one point in my case of three seperate and independently sufficient points, meaning I only have to win one of my points to sufficiently disprove the pro's case and the resolution, thus meriting a con ballot. Since my opponent conceded two of my three points, I have two seperate and independently sufficient points as to why the resolution is false and why my opponent's case is wrong. That's enough to merit a con vote. So even if you don't buy the zombies argument, I still have two other arguments that my opponent conceded as to why I'm still right and he's still wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
SethBedeGB

Pro

My Friend, Con is, a little, Clutching at Straws, now... Each of his, further Analyses reveals the Stronger Set of "Handcuffs" between the truth of thinking "Mind" and Life. From the Buttercup's "Death" to the point at which The Zombies are, apparently Dead but Still appear to be Living and thinking; the connection gets Clearer..

If you can, again, look around you before you vote and then match, as I said, the origin of Life and Living with the Use of Mind and "Thinking", you will, quickly reveal that they Are one and the same. Again.. Mind->I Think->I Am-> I AM Alive... Simply "Check out", wherever you are my theory; SEE and Assess where Mind lies within Life and Life exists with the Fullness of Intuitive Mind and I Hope I Can establish your Vote. They ARE "Joined-at-the-Hip" and it takes simple observation to realise this.

You need look no further, with consideration of my case, than aRound you to Evidence, fully, my Assertion...

Vote for Me if you Conclude that Mind and Life from your evidence ARE One-and-the-same. Vote Con if you cannot accept the Clarity of your Obervations?!... I Hope the Truth will "Out"?!..
Zaradi

Con

I'm a little bit baffled by what to do with this round. I was at least hoping for my opponent to try to put some sort of refutation on my arguments in his last round. But, sadly, all my opponent has done is restated his previous thesis. A thesis which I have already refuted. So I'm a little bit confused as what I ought to put here. I guess I'll just go through and restate my points and explain why my opponent's failure to refute them means that he loses this round.

Contention One: Semantical Argumentation

The entire premise of this contention is to explain what we are defining to be a "mind", since it is the premise of this entire debate. I defined a mind as a brain commonly associated with the one possessed by humans and animals, and not plants. So, if all things that have minds have life, then what doesn't have a mind, as per the pro case, cannot have life. But plants don't have a mind, as defined and conceded by myself and my opponent, respectively. But we all know that plants have life. That can be found in any second grade science textbook. But if they don't have minds, are plants suddenly dead in the pro's mind? This is the first of three sufficient reasons as to why the pro's case is wrong, which is sufficient to merit a con vote. This contention has been conceded throughout this entire debate, so this is one of the easiest places to vote con off of. Plain and simple.

Contention Two: Solipsism

I advocated for a form of metaphysical solipsism that basically says I can only verify that my mind exists. Everything outside of my mind does not exist. Therefore, pro doesn't exist (which also make his mind not exist). But he's still alive. But if his mind no longer exist, how is he alive? If his case is true, and since he's conceded solipsism to the point where he's conceded it's truth and is entirely true, then is he not alive? He would argue that he IS alive, but that would only contradict his case. This is the second reason to vote con.

Contention Three: Zombies!!!

My opponent conceded to be alive meant that one had the necessarily bodily functions to maintain life. Zombies are in exact contradiction to this, since they do not breathe, they do not drink or eat, and they do not have a heartbeat to circulate blood throughout their body. Therefore, by the standards imposed on all humanoid beings, they are not alive. But they have a mind! It may not work, but they do have a brain! So wouldn't they be alive, as per the pro case? This is directly refuted to my opponent's case, and it goes essentially conceded throughout the entire round. He tried to make an argumnt against it, but it was already front-lined by how I defined what it meant to be alive, a definition which he conceded. This is the third easiest place to vote con.

All three of these points directly refute my opponents case and proves the resolution false. Thus, you need to negate.

And since I have 5,000+ characters left, here's some pictures of lolcats to pass the time.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Ahhh...those kittehs. So trollin'.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Nevermind, I think I understand what it's saying. I'll bite.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
......can anyone translate what that said?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
SethBedeGBZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Should be obvious
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
SethBedeGBZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: well...the meaning behind my vote is quite obvious...Pro didn't defend his case. Whereas Con refuted Pro's case.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
SethBedeGBZaradiTied
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: pro es un troll
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
SethBedeGBZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins arguments for actually arguing, but Pro wins conduct for funny trolling