All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

# I exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Danielle
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 12/6/2010 Category: Miscellaneous Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,522 times Debate No: 13927
Debate Rounds (4)

 Pro My argument is a simple one. If I am typing this, I must exist, even if I am just a robot, or a debate.org account. The resolution says nothing about what I am, only that I am. Therefore, the existence of revolution, even as a mere account, affirms the resolutionReport this Argument Con Thanks, Pro. As instigator of a non-agnostic resolution, my opponent has the burden of proof [1]. My opponent gives two contentions in favor of I's existence: 1) If I am typing this, I must exist... 2) The resolution says nothing about what I am, only that I am. First, Pro must prove that "I" is typing this. If Pro cannot prove "I" is typing that, then this contention is irrelevant. Second, Pro is correct that the resolution says nothing about what "I" am. Therefore, "I" can refer to something that does not in fact exist. For all we know "I" refers to a unicorn, which probably doesn't exist [2]. Even if you say unicorns exist, it doesn't change the fact that we don't know what "I" refers to meaning we don't have absolute proof of its existence. My opponent has not fulfilled his burden. [1] Michalos, Alex. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1969. p 370. [2] http://whyunicornsdontexist.com...Report this Argument Pro Thank you for accepting, Con. 1. Somewhere in the world, something, even a computer program, is typing this argument. Whatever it is that is typing this argument is "I", by definition. My opponent cannot deny that the word "Revolution" exists at the top of this debate page on the Pro side. Even if I do not exist as a material being, I exist as a word. As I stated and my opponent acknowledged, my existence as a word would prove the resolution, because anything that is "I" would prove the resolution. Also, if I am a unicorn, unicorns must exist because I do, as affirmed above. Finally, we do know what "I" refers to, or at least one of the things it refers to. One of the things it refers to is the word revolution.Report this Argument Con Thanks, Pro. My opponent begins, "Somewhere in the world, something, even a computer program, is typing this argument." This is not a contention in Pro's favor. Because a computer program is not capable of formulating thought, then the speaker of that statement ('I' by definition) does not exist as a real being in reality, but merely reflects what another existing being has programmed it to do. For example, if a talking toy baby says "I'm hungry" does the 'speaker' of that 'I'm' exist? Of course not. The actual toy exists, but the entity or individual the toy portrays or pretends to be does not really exist. Another thing to note is that 'I' also refers to the narrator of a literary work written in the first person singular [1]. However, the narrators of literary works do not often exist. For instance, Holden Caulfield is the narrator and speaker known as "I" in The Catcher in the Rye. However, Holden Caulfield does not actually exist. Pro writes, "My opponent cannot deny that the word 'Revolution' exists at the top of this debate page on the Pro side." No, I will not deny that, but I don't feel that it's relevant to the discussion. My opponent continues, "Even if I do not exist as a material being, I exist as a word." This completely changes the context of my opponent's argument. Originally Pro said that the typing of the argument is what ensured existence. However words are capable of neither forming thoughts nor typing. Therefore, just because a word exists does not mean that a speaker behind it (constituting as "I") exists. For instance the word "argument" exists at the top of the page too, but that doesn't mean an "I" exists behind it. Next, Pro states "As I stated and my opponent acknowledged, my existence as a word would prove the resolution..." However I don't recall ever acknowledging such a statement, but I invite Pro to quote me and find where I said that so I can justify my alleged acknowledgment. Moving on, my opponent's statement about unicorns existing is irrelevant because he hasn't proven "I" exists. My opponent concludes by saying we "know" that the word 'I' at least refers to the word "Revolution," but I've already explained how that is irrelevant and/or would not help support my opponent's case. Pro has not fulfilled his burden. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...Report this Argument Pro Revolution forfeited this round. Con Please extend my arguments.Report this Argument Pro Revolution forfeited this round. Con Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the debate. Please extend my arguments and vote CON.Report this Argument
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Revolution 7 years ago
See this debate, where Con proved his opponent did not exist, and won.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Revolution 7 years ago
If you look in the history, there's been some pretty heated debate on this topic: Con has often won.
Posted by dinokiller 7 years ago
Pretty much biased, you exist, we all know that.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.