The Instigator
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
55 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
54 Points

I Don't Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 20 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,263 times Debate No: 14210
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (65)
Votes (20)

 

FREEDO

Pro

By accepting this debate you agree to everything I lay out here.

Pro shall argue that I do not exist.
Con shall argue that I do exist.
Con, upon accepting this debate, is accepting the primary burden of proof.

Con has these burdens:
1. Give a reasonable explanation why the arguments of this debate should be based on probability rather than certainty.
2. Upon providing burden 1, prove that it is probable that I do exist.

This will happen if Con does not accomplish the burdens:
1: If Con provides a lousy argument(by discretion of the voter) explaining why the debate should be based off of probability rather than certainty then it will have to be assumed that my existence is uncertain and thus Con loses.
(Normally, there would be a new burden for Con to prove that my existence is certain but since the integrity of Con's explanation is judged after the debate this can't be done)
2: Con may provide a reasonable explanation why the debate should be based on probability rather than on certainty but if Con does not prove that it is probable I exist then Con loses.

The debate shall have this lay-out:
Round 1, Pro: Intro/rules
Round 1, Con: Burden 1.
Round 2, Pro: Rebuttal to burden 1.
Round 2, Con: Burden 2
Round 3, Pro: Rebuttal to burden 2
Round 3, Con: No arguments may be posted; short closing statement.

This is essentially a 2 round debate but it is expected to be difficult and highly semantical.

If either Pro or Con forfeit a single round, besides Con's closing statement, it is an automatic loss.

Definition of I:
The entity who started this debate.

Definition of entity:
Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit.

These definitions are clear and do not need any further definitions of words in them; Con may not present any.
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank my Pro for creating this debate.

By Pro claiming that they do not exist, this only proves the existence of Pro, for if Pro did not exist, then Pro would not be able to make claims about Pros non existence and/or any claims about existence is general.

My 1st argument

1) Only something that exists can make a claim about existence
2) Pro is making a claim about existence
3) Therefore Pro exists

Moving on...........

Now its interesting that pro has indeed created this debate. As pro has defined "I" in the I don't exist claim to be defined as "The entity who started this debate".

Pro admits they have created this debate, but only something has causation power. If Pro did not exist, then Pro could not be the casual agent of this debate. Seeing Pro does agree that they are the casual agent of this debate my 2nd argument is as follows

My 2nd argument

1) Non existence has no causal power only something existent has casual power
2) Pro has created this debate
3) Therefore Pro exists

I look forwards to Pros reply.
Debate Round No. 1
FREEDO

Pro

It is now regrettable leaving my debate open for it appears that an imbecile has accepted my debate.

I clearly laid out how this debate was to work and Con did not follow my guidelines. For this, Con should be marked with misconduct.

Since the debate has changed, the plan must be changed. Things will be made more simple for my simple-minded competitor. Con's burden shall be shifted to prove certainty rather than prove probability and the rest of the debate shall be back and forth with rebuttal arguments on the same isse rather than have two parts.

=== Arguments ===

1. Con claims that "Only something that exists can make a claim about existence" This is correct.
2. Then Con claims "Pro is making a claim about existence" and thus concludes "Therefore Pro exists". This is...also correct.

That's right--I don't challenge these statements. However, here is my argument:

These statements in no way help Con's case. For it is not Con's job to prove that Pro exists but to prove that "I" exists. After-all, the definition of I is "The entity who started this debate.". In-order for Con's argument to have any ground, it must first be proved that the person debating right now is the same person who started the debate.

The same applies to Con's second argument.

Good-luck.
Illegalcombatant

Con

Pro says "I clearly laid out how this debate was to work and Con did not follow my guidelines. For this, Con should be marked with misconduct"

It was not my intent to not follow the guidelines, it was my understanding that in the absence of any argument to support a probability argument for Pros existence I as the Con would have the default burden of having to prove with certainty Pros existence. Maybe Pro could find it is their heart to forgive me ? Its with great regret we are all not perfect like God................and maybe Pro.

"Things will be made more simple for my simple-minded competitor. Con's burden shall be shifted to prove certainty rather than prove probability and the rest of the debate shall be back and forth with rebuttal arguments on the same issue rather than have two parts"

I thank Pro for making things more simple. As it has been said, complication beyond necessity is deception.

Pro says "For it is not Con's job to prove that Pro exists but to prove that "I" exists. After-all, the definition of I is "The entity who started this debate.". In-order for Con's argument to have any ground, it must first be proved that the person debating right now is the same person who started the debate."

When Pro made these claims, they were referring to themselves as the "I"

This is semantics over Pro vs I. I will reword my first argument then.......

1) Only something that exists can make a claim about existence.
2) The entity known as "I" is making a claim about existence.
3) Therefore "I" exists.

Pro says "in-order for Con's argument to have any ground, it must first be proved that the person debating right now is the same person who started the debate."

Do I ? The claims made by Pro as the "I" were made in a temporal context. (the past)

Lets look at Pros existence in two different temporal contexts, the past and the present

Context 1 in the past

1) In the past Pro has claimed they do not exist
2) Only something that had existed can makes claims of existence
3) Therefore Pro has existed

Context 1 in the present

1) Pro claims they do not exist
2) Only something that exists can make claims of existence
3) Therefore Pro exists

Now Pro claims lack of continuation between the past Pro and the present Pro. But so what ? The argument only applies to its respective time reference.

If Pro wants to only reference the past, the argument stands.
If Pro wants to only reference the present then the argument is still the same

To demand that the past and present be the same is a contradiction, if the past was the same as the present in the same time reference then it would cease to be the past. As it has been said time (past/present/future) is what stops all events happening together. Pro as the "I" claims about existence is an event in time.

The argument it is...........

1) Pro as the entity know as "I" makes a claim about existence (whether in the past or present)
2) Only something that exists can make claims about existence (whether in the past or present)
3) Therefore Pro as the I exists (whether in the past or present)

At the very least, it has been proven Pro as the "I" exists (in a past time reference). Therefore the claim "I don't exist" (which was made in the same past time reference) is proven false.

I Look forwards to Pros........or should I say the entity known as "I" response.
Debate Round No. 2
FREEDO

Pro

=== Responses ===

//When Pro made these claims, they were referring to themselves as the "I"//

False. It's the other way around. When "I" made this debate they were referring to themselves as Pro. But since it has not been established whether the person debating now is the same person that started the debate, it can no longer be establish that "I" is Pro. Since is can not be established that "I" is Pro, it can not be established that "I" exists based on Con's arguments.

//1) Only something that exists can make a claim about existence.//

True.

//2) The entity known as "I" is making a claim about existence.//

False. By saying "making" you are already assuming that "I" exists. Circular reasoning. The correct word may very well be "made" and not "making". In which case....

//3) Therefore "I" exists.//

...does not follow.

//Do I ? The claims made by Pro as the "I" were made in a temporal context.//

You've done the same thing. In that very statement you assume that Pro is "I". Circular reasoning.

//1) In the past Pro has claimed they do not exist
2) Only something that had existed can makes claims of existence
3) Therefore Pro has existed//

This is true if we are speaking of Pro as "I", which "I" was but has not been established if they currently are. You know that "I" was Pro but you don't know whether that Pro as "I" is Pro as me.

//1) Pro claims they do not exist//

False.

//2) Only something that exists can make claims of existence//

True.

//3) Therefore Pro exists//

1 false, therefore, does not follow.

//1) Pro as the entity know as "I" makes a claim about existence (whether in the past or present)//

It has not been established that Pro is the entity known as "I".

//2) Only something that exists can make claims about existence (whether in the past or present)//

True.

//3) Therefore Pro as the I exists (whether in the past or present)//

1 false, therefore, does not follow.

===Arguments: Reasons Pro may not be I===

1. The simple answer:

This account may be passed off to different people to use it. It is fully possible for each round to be written by a different person.

2. The philosophical answer:

What is a person anyway? What is an individual? What does it mean to be alive? There are many answers to this but there is one which, surely possible, would destroy any of Con's assertions that Pro is the same person throughout the whole debate. As I theorized in my youth and, as I later found, famous philosopher David Hume aptly points out in "A Treatise of Human Nature":

"1. There are some philosophers, who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our SELF; that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. The strongest sensation, the most violent passion, say they, instead of distracting us from this view, only fix it the more intensely, and make us consider their influence on self either by their pain or pleasure. To attempt a farther proof of this were to weaken its evidence; since no proof can be deriv'd from any fact, of which we are so intimately conscious; nor is there any thing, of which we can be certain, if we doubt of this.

2. Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very experience, which is pleaded for them, nor have we any idea of self, after the manner it is here explain'd. For from what impression cou'd this idea be deriv'd? This question 'tis impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet 'tis a question, which must necessarily be answer'd, if we wou'd have the idea of self pass for clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression, that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are suppos'd to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, thro' the whole course of our lives; since self is suppos'd to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot, therefore, be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is deriv'd; and consequently there is no such idea." Source: http://tinyurl.com...

What does this mean? It means "the self" is an illusion because it is not truly constant. Every new state of consciousness is like a new being. You are your mind and when your mind changes your self changes. Imagine if a being was created that had all your memories and had your "personality" yet is separate from what is called "you". Would you call it yourself also? There is truly no difference between it and yourself at a different time.
Illegalcombatant

Con

Pro says "would destroy any of Con's assertions that Pro is the same person throughout the whole debate. "

This is a strawman, I never claimed that past Pro and present Pro are the same.

Lets look at the same claim in 2 different context.......

Claim 1) I claim that I am in France (making this claim when I am in France)
Claim 2) I claim that I am in France (making this claim when I am in Australia)

Both make the same claim (I am in France) yet 1 is true and 2 if false. How can the same claim be both true and false ?
That's because the claim is not really the same, a claim applies to the context it was given in.

Pro says "False. It's the other way around. When "I" made this debate they were referring to themselves as Pro"

1) The entity known as "I" referred to themselves as Pro
2) Only something that exists can refer to their themselves as a Pro
3) Therefore "I" exists

This proves that the claim "I" don't exist as false within the same context as "I" existing.

This proves the claim "I" Don't exist as false.

I would remind Pro and readers that the self refutation of "'I" don't exist" ONLY applies to the same context that which the claim of "I" don't exist is made.

Now Pro objects, on the basis, sure in the past Pro made this false claim, but maybe the future Pro is different from past Pro.

So what ? This doesn't refute my logical proofs, it only refutes the claim that "identity" is the same over time and or in different contexts. I never made such claims.

In conclusion, as soon as something claims it doesn't exist, its self refuting, due to having to exist in order to deny its existence. This shows the claim "I" don't exist as false.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
We all hate you now, FREEDO.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
FREEDO, a few seconds ago, I was thinking, "Well done, FREEDO, you managed to pull off a narrow victory."

Now I'm just utterly disappointed. Especially because it was an unjustified seven-point vote.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
That, sir, would have been a brilliant argument.
Posted by Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
Con should have turned Freedo's arguments on him. If you can't prove Freedo's writing anything, then no one should vote for Freedo because they don't know that a vote for Freedo is a vote for the Author. They have just as much ground to judge Freedo's debates by theLwerd's performance, or CharlesB's.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Oh Freedo, thats just sad.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
I don't blame you for looking at it like that though.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
It looks low but I honestly wouldn't have done it unless I thought I won. I've admitted defeat before, it's not like I'm hell-bent on winning.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Wow, seriously, Freedo? Votebombing for yourself a minute before the voting period ends?
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
So anyone who vote for me, is vote bombing eh ?
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
ANOTHER vote bomb?
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
FREEDOIllegalcombatantTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
FREEDOIllegalcombatantTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
FREEDOIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
FREEDOIllegalcombatantTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by 19146md 6 years ago
19146md
FREEDOIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:34 
Vote Placed by TheSquadBoss 6 years ago
TheSquadBoss
FREEDOIllegalcombatantTied
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 
Vote Placed by tatter_d 6 years ago
tatter_d
FREEDOIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
FREEDOIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by Cunit0814 6 years ago
Cunit0814
FREEDOIllegalcombatantTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Vote Placed by zeyneb8989 6 years ago
zeyneb8989
FREEDOIllegalcombatantTied
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:70