The Instigator
Zendigity
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
shift4101
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

I'm just a Figment of your imagination, prove to me I'm not.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,766 times Debate No: 18643
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Zendigity

Pro

I'm here, that much is easy enough to see, but what's the reason I've been summoned here to this spot for you to read this? How can you prove I'm not just some figment of your imagination, taking part in a dream you're unable to become aware of? Am I here to make you aware of the fact that you're dreaming by engaging you in an argument over what it is you perceive? What is it your existence here is missing; perhaps I'm supposed to show you the connections to find what it is you're seeking; or maybe what you're seeking is something that's already been found. How am I here without you there to witness it; were you not there, would I be?
shift4101

Con

I don't have an imagination. Thus, your argument is false. Other people have imaginations. I, on the other hand, know exactly what I'm going to do and what I'm going to say to whom always.

If I do have imagination which I have never used before, then that argument above fails. But I began to exist at one point. Because I began to exist, that means I was created, in some way. If I was created, something created me. If something created me, something else exists. If something else exists, we are both subjected to some sort of rules that allow both of us to exist. If there are rules that define what is possible so me and that something could coexist, then those rules apply to everything else we can perceive, too. If the people and objects we perceive are subjected to the same rules as us, there is no reason to think that they are any different than us. If a person or object isn't any different than you, then you really have no business not believing that it exists.

If you don't like that, than randomness proves foreign existence.

[P1] If randomness exists, then you cannot make up something.
[P2] Randomness exists
[Conclusion] You cannot make up something.

Premise 1 will be challenged. If randomness exists, or to word it differently, something occurs that you could not have forced yourself to imagine at one point, then that object is foreign and still exists. And if two things can coexist, well, just look at the above paragraph.


Engineer's argument

You exist simply because you typed the words on the page. If you didn't exist, than those words wouldn't be there, where I am looking, currently at the screen. So you exist. Get over it.
Debate Round No. 1
Zendigity

Pro

What you've done is stated the parameters of your mind, your mind being the process through which you define what you perceive of your physical surroundings. These parameters are there to control the outcome of your experience, to produce the results you're able to deal with.
None of this is real, only energy being perceived as information through consciousness. Your lack of "imagination" reflects the truth of my argument in that this is all just a part of this one dream you're unable to wake from, arguing with yourself about what it all means.
The screen which you perceive isn't really there; it's only a field of energy vibrating in a pattern which you define as being a screen; the words you see written upon it exist only within your mind's capacity to understand them.
If you were not there to perceive this, in your many forms, then how can you guarantee that this really exists as anything more than an illusion?
shift4101

Con

Engineer's argument

People exist because they do. Its not that hard to deduce, you're just over-thinking it.

Real argument

I didn't state anything in my mind. I am in total control of what I do, and I'm telling you I didn't do that.

If nothing is real, than consciousness is not real. But it is. And since it exists, it was created. And since it was created, than someone or something created it. If someone or something created it, than something else exists, etc...

Whatever caused the screen to exist, all I can conclude is that it wasn't my imagination. I don't have one.

You are concluding that I have simply "willed" everything into existance, but that is not what your resolution stated. That stated I "imagined" everything into existance, but this is not so, because I don't have an imagination. If my opponent would like to continue sputing his "What If" arguments, he must first relate how I willed everything else (with the exception of the other thing(s) that exists and the rules regarding me and the other thing(s)) with my imagination, which he cannot, because I have none.

My opponent tried for an easy win, and because of his poor word selection in the beginning, he has inevitably lost.

Another easy win for me. Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 2
Zendigity

Pro

What makes you so certain that people exist, is it beyond the realm of possibility that I would go through such an effort just to create an opponent you could produce such an "easy win" against? How do you know this isn't some sort of schizophrenic episode that's beyond your ability to detect?
Who's taught you the meaning of the word imagination? Are these people as real as I am or do they exist solely within your perception the way the rest of this world does?
I'm not here to explain how you've willed this all to be, perhaps your consciousness is simply a piece of a universal entity that incorporates everything and connects us all on this plane of existence. I'm here to bring something to light about your character, the character you've created as the "you" which you assume to be; that character is only a myth; a figment of the mind's imagination that encompasses your existence in the mind of those which your mind perceives is there.
shift4101

Con

I still stand by the notion that I simply didn't, because if I did I would have realized it, and it cannot be my imagination because I know I don't have one. Therefore, the resolution I accepted to debate doesn't stand up, because my opponent fails to prove I have an imagination, or that I did will anything into existance. All of his arguments are "What if".

Since my opponent didn't bother, let me define imagination.

Imagination: The faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses http://www.google.com...

Now, this debate didn't solve anything. My opponent initiated this well knowing that nobody could provide any conclusive arguments against him. But because he phrased his resolution poorly, and didn't attack simple statements I made, (I don't have an imagination) I have to conclude that I have still won this debate. He didn't even make a single argument, but rather asked questions repeditally!

So, since I was the only one who made arguments and provided a source for any information that I may have provided, I urge a vote to con in this silly debate! Have a good evening, voters!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Macroscope 6 years ago
Macroscope
If your just a figment then you cannot come up with things i dont allready know.
Posted by Crede 6 years ago
Crede
Also this is unprovable by any scientific method, science cannot disprove the metaphysical concept that everything is actually separate from my mind. However you also can't prove it so if nothing else it makes this debate a tie for whoever your opponent will be. A tie would make you lose because youre resolution states you are a figment of my imagination, and not just possibly a figment of my imagination. Good luck though, but I do think your gonna lose this one.
Posted by Crede 6 years ago
Crede
Lol, how did Neo know that when he woke up from the matrix he wasn't in another matrix?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
Zendigityshift4101Tied
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 set a resolution which was based on the assumption that his opponent had an imagination. Since only Con would know if he has an imagination, Cons refutation is valid. Pro could not overcome it however and without that, all of his arguments are negated.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Zendigityshift4101Tied
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 never proved that he was a figment of Con's imagination. Debate was S
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Zendigityshift4101Tied
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 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: Pro never fully addressed the "I have no imagination" argument. But Con loses conduct for defining words in the last round. "imagination" really should have been defined in R1, or R2, but not the last round.
Vote Placed by Rednerrus 6 years ago
Rednerrus
Zendigityshift4101Tied
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 took the blue pill.