The Instigator
M0nK3Y
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cobalt
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Infinite Dimensions and a Dimensional Mind

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 1 vote the winner is...
Cobalt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 92111
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

M0nK3Y

Pro

I argue infinite dimensions exist.

If infinite dimensions exists, the mind would evolve to understand, or sense, new dimensions; as colour was unseen until animals evolved to sense colour, some effect may be unknown that we can adapt to understand.

Dreams show we access our minds depth, perhaps we can evolve to sense further depth.

I argue, dreams show potential of the mind.

Dreams can make concepts clear; dreams have been said to have prophetical, psychological or chronicle properties.

The nature of dreams shows promise. I'm sure if every super-power and free imagination was freely accessible, we would become addicted to the accessory. Dreams can fulfill our every want. I hypothesize that we can somehow harness the dream ability, and have that capacity tie to the physical world.

The mind is coercive, when we act socially or aesthetically, we do so in light of having a personality; and at other times we're either passive or active - a matter of ego.

Our ego and the general spirit of nature is dimensional. We learn shapes at a young age, three-dimensional objects and subjects form our environment. There is colour, there is time; respectively, in this theory, a higher dimension may be critical to some of our ability, that although we don't know, yet, is metaphorically, close enough to touch.

In infinite dimensions, dimensions, including those above and below our own dimension, would create a dimensional network (a super-dimension that encompassed dimensions; the encryption of infinite dimensions). We are in a dimensional network, some dimensions are above our comprehension, like colour, and some are below our comprehension, like depth.

Colour is enough evidence to suggest that a higher dimension exists that's linked to the physical universe.

We can sense colour but we know it by it's physical universe values. Depth on the other hand we can pinpoint mathematically; we can hear around objects or plan ahead.

Depth has colour and colour has depth, humans and colour have a bond, and I argue that we may adapt to know what colours mean, in the same manner as life adapted to know depth.

Colour is a higher dimension than us, that I argue our species can can harness. Colour has some influence in our life, but not enough for us to measure it. If we could measure colour, we could comprehend nature's swirling colours.

To conclude, I argue that infinite dimensions exist, that dimensional networks would eventually form, and our universe would eventually spur. My evidence is the dimensions of our universe that allow for dimensional logic to be theorized. Infinite dimensions are more logical than any God, and wouldn't affect the status quo, other theories can tie into the idea of a dimensional network. Due to the infinite nature, dimension can be adapted to cohere to every aspect of our universe; in a case where, metaphorically, there is a missing piece and we can't construct the puzzle, infinite dimensions is the most logical answer. A belief in infinite dimensions causing and sustaining existence, is as probable as the scientific process. The logic of infinite dimensions, is critical to this debate; it's not that they do exist, it's that, if they did, they cohere to our universe - and therefore, there is probability of infinite dimensions. Infinite dimensions theory 'stalemates' science perfectly.
Cobalt

Con

I'd like to thank the opponent for creating this debate and I'll start off with some debate-related points.

The opponent is making an existential claim and, as such, the burden of proof rests upon him. It is not my responsibility to prove that infinite dimensions do not exist, rather that the opponent claim lacks sufficient evidence to be considered true.

Definitions and Clarifications

A dimension is generally defined as a property of space or extension in a given direction. We consider only so many dimensions existing as is required to adequately describe the "location" of any given thing in our universe. One dimension would not be enough, neither would two. With three mutually perpendicular dimensions, we are capable of describing the location of all objects in our universe.

The opponent is suggesting that there are infinitely many dimensions, which seems to contradict the logic behind the definition of "dimension". However, I await his proof.

Evidence

The evidence that the opponent has provided thus far is insufficient.

Dreams

Dreams are an ultimately anecdotal form of evidence that cannot be scientifically confirmed. While we certainly know people have dreams, it is impossible for these to be observed by anyone not having the dream. More importantly, we have no reason to believe that dreams are indicative of reality. In fact, dreams are often fantastical in nature and non-representative of the reality we experience.

Dreams alone do not prove or even imply the existence of infinite dimensions in any scientifically or philosophically relevant way.

Color

The opponent reasons that color is "enough evidence to suggest that a higher dimension exists and that it's linked to the physical universe."

The actual reasons behind this are unclear. The opponent says, "We can sense color, but we know it by it's universe values. Depth on the other hand can pinpoint mathematically; we can hear around objects or plain ahead."

It is not obvious how this relates to higher dimensions. Color and depth are fully understood concepts from a three dimensional perspective. Color is the product of our eyes interpretting light of different wavelengths, while depth is a product of us having multiple eyes.

Sound is a broad longitudinal wave that can easily be reflected. As such, it is not surprising that we can hear sound around corners/other objects/etc.

There is no reason to consider color (or sound) to be something existing in a higher dimension, as it is completely explainable in our current, 3-Dimensional system. Beyond that, the opponent has no real evidence explaining why this apparently 3D phenomonenon may actually be more multidimensional than we think.

Conclusion

The opponent's argument is seriously lacking in evidence. In order to move forward, the opponent will need to make significant strides in demonstrating that infinite dimensions exist.

I look forward to his response.
Debate Round No. 1
M0nK3Y

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate, Con.

On 'Definitions and Clarifications', I'm going to have to ignore the current 'scientific' definition for dimension, because it doesn't accept new dimensional theory; and, as far as I know, we are not restricted to past scientific theory. Given that the 'Definitions and Clarifications' argument stands, Con has won the debate before I can argue for my position. Therefore current scientific definitions are obsolete.

Con has picked raw Colour and raw Dreams for scrutiny. I believe Con's argument against dreams showing promise for the mind is opinionated, and his argument against colour being a higher dimension is invalid through, what would be, after I hypothetically win this debate, obsolete knowledge about Colour.

"Dreams are an ultimately anecdotal form of evidence that cannot be scientifically confirmed. "

Con suggests that because our scientific process cannot confirm evident dream states, dream states are not stable evidence. I agree with Con, however, I would go on to say, dreams are a 'hard problem', one that cannot be solved by traditional means.

I ask Con and judges to think about my Round 1 statement, "There is colour, there is time; respectively, in this theory, a higher dimension may be critical to some of our ability, that although we don't know, yet, is metaphorically, close enough to touch". We experience dream states, but we cannot understand scientifically a dream state beyond chemical reactions. We can sense dreams, but we cannot know dreams.

My argument against Con is that dreams are evidence, but they are evidence that, as Con said, cannot be confirmed. I would go on to argue that the sense of dreams, should be treated as evidence; that although we cannot express confidently a dream, it's a hard-problem that we may be able to solve one day.

The burden of proof rests not on my shoulders in this case, but the burden of dreams, does. I ask Con and judges to accept the burden of dreams, and if they cannot, provide logical reason against my argument that is not evidence-heavy.

"More importantly, we have no reason to believe that dreams are indicative of reality. In fact, dreams are often fantastical in nature and non-representative of the reality we experience."

Con, in this statement has misinterpreted my argument. I do not tie dream states to the physical world in the sense he has implied. I tie dreams to the physical world, by their phenomenon, not their content, and I had suggested that because of the phenomenon, perhaps it's possible to evolve, mentally, in the way of the phenomenon.

A very creative example of evolving the harness the phenomenon: a visual radar that effectively gives humans a short visualization of a nearby environment, especially in times of danger.

"Dreams alone do not prove or even imply the existence of infinite dimensions in any scientifically or philosophically relevant way."

Again, a slight misinterpretation, but In Con's defence, I didn't write clearly.
I stated that dreams show promise of the mind, not that dreams proves infinite dimensions. If we ever evolved some dream-akin ability, such as a visual radar I described with malleable words previously, it would prove the promise of dreams I suggested. I have no proof that this will be the case, it's a 'hard-problem', like that of 'the hard-problem of consciousness.'

Onto colour then. I will admit, I have made a stark claim without any evidence other than what I claim to be logic, that colour is a higher dimension. Con believes that comprehending wavelengths that lead to the effect of colour, is understanding of colour, but I would relate this to understanding chemical reactions creating the effect of dreams, is an understanding of dreams. Again we have a hard-problem, one that I argue can only be solved through wordless perseveration " not formulating ideas with words, but experiencing the world, colour and becoming naturally conditioned.

"Sound is a broad longitudinal wave that can easily be reflected. As such, it is not surprising that we can hear sound around corners/other objects/etc."

I think Con has dodged the point here, his first show of ignorance, but since he has been respectful previously, I'll let this pass.

The statements which led to my conclusion we ignored, so I will reiterate; contrary to our understanding of colour, our understanding of depth is mathematically precise " it's not a 'hard-problem'. On the other hand, colour is something that we can only understand by our understanding of the dimensions of the physical world " which Con quite correctly stated are threefold. I argue that with perseverance, we can evolve to understand the dimension of colour.

I sense that the ;'dimension of colour' is a weak statement. I will therefore try to elaborate on the dimension of colour. Let's imagine a cube frame that is of the standard three-dimensions; then, let's colour it green. I have claimed that colour is a higher dimension, and the foundation to my claim is that the dimensions of a cube are not changed, but rather challenged by colour. I argue that colour it Is an additional dimension on top of length, width and depth, that quite possibly can alter these dimensions in such a way that they become abstracted {i.e. half of the cube being unseen; the cube being full and not a frame}. This, in my opinion, shows colour is a higher dimension than length, width and depth.

To conclude, I imagine Con will respond with a more traditional argument, that I lack evidence and it cannot be considered a scientific debate; but I have stated it's a hard-problem, as is that of consciousness, and highlight the fact that conscious people exist. I would like to restate my request of a sensory and evidence equal debate, avoiding the evidence-heavy argument I have predicted, confidently. Thanks again, good luck this round, Con, I eagerly await your Round 2 argument.
Cobalt

Con

I'd like to thank the opponent for the quick response! Let's get started.

Definitions and Clarifications

I can accept that we will not assume the current scientific definition of "dimension" to be absolutely correct. However, the opponent will not only need to introduce a new definition, but he'll also need to demonstrate why it is a better definition than our current one. Simply referencing "dimensional theory" is not enough of a demonstration. We need a thorough, clear analysis of why we should prefer a different definition, otherwise the current definition should and does stand.

It is not accurate to say we should consider current definitions as "obselete" simply because they defeat the opponent's case. He chose to argue this point, not the voters or I. As such, he needs a compelling reason as to why his definition, whatever it is, is good and preferable.

Color and Dreams

The opponent does not do much in the way of providing any reasonable evidence as to why color and dreams are in any way indicative of infinite, or even more than three dimensions.

I agree that dreams are inherently a "hard problem", but we cannot simply fill in our gaps of knowledge with whatever fantastical idea we wish.

We can claim that dreams may be indicative of higher dimensions just as we can claim that dreams may be cast into our minds by the power of unicorns. Both statements are technically true, considering the "may be" portion, but that does not mean either one should be seriously considered without compelling evidence of some sort.

The mere existance of dreams has not been shown as compelling evidence of much of anything by the opponent. The same applies to higher dimensions, as they related to dreams according to the opponent. I higher dimensions may be critical to some of our ability, but the opponent has offered no real reason to believe this.

Burden of Proof

The opponent has asked me to accept the "burden of dreams". I am unsure of what that means, but I assume it means the burden to prove that dreams are not indicative of higher dimensions. This is, of course, incorrect usage of the burden of proof. The BoP is reserved for the entity making the positive (existential) claim regardings the existence or state of something. In this case, the opponent is making the claim that dreams imply the existence of higher dimensions. He is making the positive claim and, thus, has the burden of proof.

It is not my job to accept the burden of proof or prove anything at all beyond the idea that my opponent's claims are insufficient to uphold the resolution. This is a basic and fundemental idea in argumentation theory, and I will not break it simply because the opponent asks nicely. (He does ask nicely, though.)

More On Dreams

The opponent clarifies that he is referring to the phenomenon of dreams as being indicative of higher dimensions, rather than the content of dreams. This further creates a bind for him, evidentially, as we are no longer talking about the "hard problem" of the content of dreams, but the "known reality" that dreams do occur.

As of yet, no evidence or logical reasoning has warranted a belief that the occurence of dreams implies a higher dimension. Again, the fact that they may be the result of higher dimensions is irrelevant without evidence.

The opponent does clarify that the 'dream argument' is meant to show the potential of the human mind, not prove the existance of more than 3 dimensions. I'm not sure that the "dream argument" even reveals anything new about the potential of the mind, as we were already well aware that humans (and some other animals) dream.

Light

The opponent admits that "[he] can only [solve the light problem] through wordless perseveration, not formulating ideas with words..." This is fantastic in a personal experiential sense, but it has little purpose in a debate.

We are supposed to be discussing with words whether infinite dimensions exist. Furthermore, Pro is supposed to be proving (with words) that infinite dimensions exist. While his experience may indicate to himself that there are many more dimensions than three, this is purely anecdotal evidence in this setting. Anecdotal evidence is largely worthless when it comes to seriously trying to prove or logically/evidentially imply something, as it cannot be repeated experimentially or experienced by any other person but the one it affected.

Sound

The opponent has said that I misinterpretted the sound argument, and I do apologize for that. I was not attempting to be rude or caddy. I simply didn't quite grasp that sound was referenced as a "lower comprehension" understanding as compared to the "hard problem" of color.

Back To Light

If it is not clear, I am attempting to follow the opponent's argument in the order provided. As such, my bolded titles may be repetitive. I will attempt to bring each point under its own section next round.

It's important to make a differentiation here between "color" and "light". Light is the physical electromagnetic wave that propogates through space. "Color" isn't quite as easy to define. Physically, it refers to the particular wavelength of the light. Neurologically, it refers to our minds interpretation of said light in our mind.

If we are referring to "light" or the physical definition of "color", there is no reason for more than 3 dimensions. Just as we can scientifically perceive depth and understand it on a mathematical level, we can rigorously understand light on the same level. Light is a physical phenomenon that propogates through three dimensional space. Length, width and depth are adequate in detailing the behavior of light and are enough dimensions to mathematically model the behavior of light.

As for the "neurological" definition of color, one can still see only three dimensions are needed. This definition of color only requires the existence of a mind. We know that color exists, as this is a (nearly) universal experience. We have not found reason to believe that our mind exists in any more than three dimensions. Therefore, the neurological definition of color does not require a higher number of dimensions.

So really any definition of "color" or "light" we look at, we see that no more than three dimensions are required.

As for the "cube" example, the opponent confuses "physical property" with "dimension". Dimensions have to do with space while physical properties have to do with non-space related attributes. A green cube does not cause a cube to take up any more or less space than a red cube. As such, color can not be considered a "dimensional property". This goes for other physical properties, like temperature, material, smoothness, etc.

Conclusion

The opponent is correct in his assumption that my complaints will be based on his lack of evidence. This is, after all, my duty as Con. It is my job to show that there is not enough evidence presented by Pro to justify the belief in the resolution.

Consciousness truly is a hard problem. However, that does not excuse the opponent from the burdne of proof. In fact, the opposite is the case. He is making the truly marvelous claim that an infinite number of dimensions exist. This requires a marvelous amount of evidence, otherwise there is no reason to entertain it as anything more than a fanciful idea that is fun to think about.

I personally would deny the opponent his request for a "sensory and evidence equal debate", as the sensory evidence the opponent references is completely anecdotal and not repeatable. I know that I have never had the experience that infinite dimensions exist and I'd be willing to bet that it is not a common experience. Good evidence is what matters when it comes to proof, not anecdotal wonderings. I understand that this makes the opponent's case that much more difficult, but he signed up to support this incredibly difficult topic -- not me.

I look forward to Round 3!
Debate Round No. 2
M0nK3Y

Pro

It seems to be a common theme in modern science to throw upon others the burden of proof, even with the hard-problems I suggested. It's an illogical response to hard-problems, the fact that there is no stable evidence for them, is the foundation to hard-problems. If I said to Con that dream-states are more than chemical reactions, but a sensory experience as well, Con would request I present proof.

I call this reliance on the argument, 'the burden of proof is on you', lack of individual wisdom. Con could not win this debate if the encore supporting his lack of wisdom was silenced. In fact, Con is not intelligent, Con relies on the common beliefs and automatic behaviour of audiences; of course people will clap to the "burden of proof", of course people laugh at the recital of a tale in which is mentioned the stone which the builders reject.

Con also continues to be immature, saying that he doesn't understand some key points I made in my argument, and then continues to produce an argument against what he managed to decipher. The statement, "I don't understand", is not an argument, it's lack of an argument, and Con admits defeat when he claims he doesn't understands. Any argument Con makes for an imaginary argument after he claims his stupor, is void, the same goes for any judge who thinks similarly. In this round I direct Con to the parts in Round 2 he misunderstood, to give them more than a second thought.

Let's move on to the content of Con's Round 2 argument.

Con has stated "but he'll also need to demonstrate why it is a"better"definition than our current one".

Con has misunderstood my argument countless times, and he is yet to interpret it correctly. I presume this is because he is comfortable with current scientific theory, or is trying to win this debate cheaply.

"Dimensional theory", is not the name of my theory, but theories on dimensions.

I'd like to take this time to highlight that Con does not give my arguments a second thought, but rather rushes, skim reading the face print and ends up arguing with his own imaginary friend. I have done exactly the opposite, for I respect Con's argument and debate in general.

"I agree that dreams are inherently a "hard problem", but we cannot simply fill in our gaps of knowledge with whatever fantastical idea we wish."

There's nothing wrong with dreams being 'fantastical', Con. It doesn't make the phenomenon less real. Con has failed to argue here, his statement truly does not make sense. "I agree dreams are inherently a 'hard problem', is fine, but "but we cannot simply fill in our gaps of knowledge with whatever fantastical idea we wish", is merely an opinionated resolution " a shout out to opinionated judges.

"We can claim that dreams"may be"indicative of higher dimensions just as we can claim that dreams"may be"cast into our minds by the power of unicorns. Both statements are technically true, considering the "may be" portion, but that does not mean either one should be seriously considered without compelling evidence of some sort. "
How are unicorns a 'hard problem'? Con is joking around, and I'm going to dismiss this argument based on immaturity. Responding to it seriously would be detrimental to my own, and the mind of any reader.

Onto the Light section of his argument, since I have complete disbelief In what came prior. Con's misunderstanding, or Con's pseudo-debating is not intellectual discourse. Again, to reply would be stupid.

"The opponent admits that "[he] can only [solve the light problem] through wordless perseveration, not formulating ideas with words..." This is fantastic in a personal experiential sense, but it has little purpose in a debate."

We are supposed to be discussing"with words"whether infinite dimensions exist. Furthermore, Pro is supposed to be proving (with words) that infinite dimensions exist."

Con, we are discussing with words, I'm not showing weakness to words, I simply stated that wordless perseverance may lead to understanding the dimension of colour.

"While his experience may indicate to himself that there are many more dimensions than three, this is purely anecdotal evidence in this setting. Anecdotal evidence is largely worthless when it comes to seriously trying to prove or logically/evidentially imply something, as it cannot be repeated experimentially or experienced by any other person but the one it affected."

As I have said to Con, I disagree that throwing about the burden of proof is not sensible conduct where hard-problems are concerned. The fact that dreams and colour are hard-problems, are critical to my argument. Con has agreed that dreams are a hard-problem, but continues to ask for the burden of proof.

Judges, I will dismiss the rest of Con's argument, as his inability to understand is not an argument, but an easy way to escape the thought of my argument. I've read his Round 2 argument, and most of it is based on his own semantics in replace of my own. Personally, using my own judgement ability, I have won this debate, and I know the votes will go the opposite way.

If you misunderstand anyone's argument, you shouldn't vote. I've spoken to highly intelligent people who understand, and acknowledge those who don't. As a judge, you should be able to compromise with both the Con and Pro argument.
Cobalt

Con

It is unfortunate in this final round that the opponent has become disrespectful and negligent in addressing my arguments. Not only does he claim that I am "unintelligent", but he says I am trying to win this debate "cheaply".

I understand that his position is difficult to defend, but that does not give him special priveleges. Argumentation theory demands a burden of proof, it demands clash and it demands clarity. As for the opponent's claim that I admitted to "not understanding" his argument -- I made that statement based upon the "sound" argument, which was a misinterpretation on my part regarding a single sentence in the opponent's opening argument.

The opponent is likely most frustrated that I have refused to agree to the "what if" style of debate he is trying to engage in. "What if" conversations definitely have their place in intellectual discourse, but this is not the place. "What ifs" are more suited to casual conversations around a fire than on this debate forum, where rigor is valued.

I'll hit all arguments in the following section. I'll bring all arguments on a particular section under its own heading, for clarity.

Light

The opponent largely ignores my argument on this issue claiming that my "inability to understand is not an argument". Again, I'd like to clarify that I have understood the opponent's argument. Refer to my Round 2 analysis on the "green cube" and the discussion regarding "physical properties" versus "spatial dimensions". I demonstrated that 3 dimensional theory adequately explains the phenomenon of light.

I further described that "color", both the physical and neurological definition, both require only 3 dimensions to be understood. This is especially interesting to not for the "neurological" defition, as it shows that things that occur in our mind is limited to three dimensions since our mind itself is physically bound to those three dimensions.

"Dimensional Theory"

The opponent claimed that he disliked my "traditional" definition of "dimensions", so I asked that he present a definition or set of definitions in its place. Rather than do so, the opponent says "Dimensional thoery is not the name of my theory but theories on dimensions." As is obvious, this is not a definition of any kind. These "theories on dimensions" are not qualified, evidenced or explained. As such, my definition stands, since it is the only definition anyone bothered producing.

Dreams

The opponent seemed to miss my point, thinking I was being rude. This regarded the phenomenon of dreams and whether they indicate the "potential of the mind", which further implies higher dimensions. I stated that it is perfectly accurate to say this may be the case, just as it is perfectly accurate to say most anything may be the case. I used the unicorn example to demonstrate that may be's alone have no place in debate if they cannot be in some way reasonably supported.

I've pointed out that the occurence of dreams does not imply a 5th dimension, much less an infinite amount of them. Without some semblance of proof or logic, the claim does not hold.

Hard Problems

I agreed with the opponent in that many of the ideas he's expressing are "hard problems" in that their difficult to prove and/or that we're unable to prove them now. However, he seems to hold the assumption that this somehow relieves him of his duty to prove what he's saying. This is not so.

The burden of proof is an extremely important concept; without it there would be no way to judge whether some debater A did his due diligence in the debate. The opponent's repugnance toward the concept is completely irrelevant as to whether it should be implemented. I occasionally have debates where my position is untenable and I would just as much like there to be no burden of proof. However, I had to deal with it, just as the opponent does -- as argumentation does not work properly without it.

Conclusion

In this round the opponent became hostile and dropped many of my arguments. I have demonstrated that he lacks adequate proof of his claims and he has agreed with me in this matter. The opponent's idea is certainly something I wouldn't mind talking about at the bar with a few beers, but here it holds no real value since it cannot be backed up.

Note that I am not pushing evidence as "absolute proof" here. Literally any type of reasonable evidence would suffice, such as logic, expert opinion, etc. The opponent offered none of these, deciding instead to argue an opinion and "cool idea".

It is for this reasons that I have taken this debate. I'd like to thank Pro for sticking it out and the voters for reading. Have a nice day!
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: MagicAintReal// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RFD here: http://www.debate.org...... I will explain any point if asked.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly analyzes all arguments made in the debate by both sides and makes an effort to come to a decision. Much as the reporter alleges that the vote is illogical, that is a) not sufficient reason for removal, and b) not clearly evident from reading the vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by M0nK3Y 11 months ago
M0nK3Y
Where hard-problems are concerned, as I've already told you, the burden of the hard-problem outweighs the burden of proof.

I am conscious Con, I don't care what you think on that matter. It is not something that I question - I know I'm conscious.
Posted by Cobalt 11 months ago
Cobalt
As Con, I only need to show that you didn't prove your point. (That you didn't meet the burden of proof.) I don't have to make any arguments beyond that, really.
Posted by M0nK3Y 11 months ago
M0nK3Y
Short analysis.

Con may agree with it, but he couldn't interpret my clear English argument correctly. I imagine he looks at the vote and says "Yes, yes, yes yes yes yes this makes sense". It's pure egoism on Con's side, Con has not made any points I haven't refuted, he has repeatedly put the burden of proof on my head where the hard-problem is concerned.

There is not one point other than burden of proof Con has made that hasn't been refuted, so when he has asked for logic, it was produced before his eyes -- that he then misinterpreted, or denied based on opinion.
Posted by M0nK3Y 11 months ago
M0nK3Y
I disagree with the vote, not that it matters.

It's not so much that Con wins, it's that the vote should be void.
Posted by M0nK3Y 11 months ago
M0nK3Y
Don't take anything personally, Con.

It was a good debate!
Posted by Cobalt 11 months ago
Cobalt
Thanks! Same to you.
Posted by M0nK3Y 11 months ago
M0nK3Y
Best of luck, Cobalt.

Don't take anything personally.
Posted by lord_megatron 11 months ago
lord_megatron
@vi_spex rofl
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 11 months ago
MagicAintReal
M0nK3YCobaltTied
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: RFD here: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/88165/ I will explain any point if asked.