Is there a meaning to life?
Debate Rounds (5)
Debate will be settled as so
ANY ARGUEMENT GOES!!!
1rst round- Acceptance
2nd round- Arguement
5th round- Conclusion
failure to comply to these rules by either side will result in forfeit
Thought I should mention this is my first one, so yeah, kinda neat I guess.
My Arguement will go as so...
There is many meanings to life... my favorite '42'
Basically saying life is what you make it and that is what gives life meaning
Life's meaning difers completely from one person to anouther, my meaning of life is Jesus
anouther's meaning may be travel, or art, mybye philosophy... Who cares?
By looking at your profile and your arguement you probably signed up just becouse you saw my arguemment and my new created debate became your new meaning whether you truely want to prove it or not...
If PRO does not prove that there is an intrinsic meaning to life, then CON wins the debate.
meaning - purpose; reason for being
Since PRO has not provided a framework, judges should use the one I stated above for deciding the outcome of this debate.
Whether or not there is a meaning to life is simply impossible to prove. We have no evidence that an external, deity-like entity that could have set an intrinsic meaning exists, nor do we have any surefire signs here on Earth or in space that we have seen. In the absence of evidence, due to the principles of scientific thought, we must assume that the negative hypothesis is true for any practical purposes. In other words, since we can't prove that there is a meaning to life, we have to assume that there simply isn't one.
Life is essentially a meaningless condition assigned to certain entities that possess specific characteristics, such as the ability to procreate, seek out food, and produce waste, among other processes. The only reason it exists is because DNA developed, and life was the most effective method for the DNA to spread itself around. The DNA evolved life as a container and spreader for itself. We call this evolution, and it is an accepted fact in the scientific community.
So, to summarize: because it is impossible for PRO to prove whether or not there is an intrinsic meaning to life, then, due to scientific reasoning, CON must win this debate under the framework. QED.
Con states sience I have provided no framework then I must argue the intrinsic meaning of life... hmmm
Sience I can debate this either way I will NOT immediatly disqualify CON for breaking the terms of the debate
said terms: "ANY ARGUEMENT GOES!!!" #WHATTHETERMSWERE2015
________________BUT I Will forgive her...________________________________________________________________________
What you want me to argue is that there IS a intrinsic meaning to life ok then...
belonging naturally; essential.
meaning - purpose; reason for being
So all I have to say is yep there is a clear intrinsic meaning or belonging naturally to a purpose or reason to be...
In cons arguement he states " The only reason it exists is because DNA developed, and life was the most effective method for the DNA to spread itself around. The DNA evolved life as a container and spreader for itself. We call this evolution, and it is an accepted fact in the scientific community" (CON) but wouldn't this be a reason to be alive in itself? procreating... If nothing less than to spread DNA strands around... and may I mention that not only has CON said this but he has presented a Red Hearing Falacy asserting that life is essentailly meaningless and that Evolution is more than a theory.
I rest my case...
well for now I rest in Peace...
"Life's meaning difers [sic] completely from one person to anouther [sic], my meaning of life is Jesus
anouther's [sic] meaning may be travel, or art, mybye [sic] philosophy... Who cares?"
By saying this, my opponent has essentially conceded the debate. Life's meaning can be set on a person by person basis, that's true. As an absurdist, I believe that myself.
However, this is not an intrinsic meaning to life. There is no set purpose for living; one can set whatever purpose he or she desires. But even this is not an intrinsic meaning, since one doesn't have to do so.
The difference between an intrinsic meaning and a non-intrinsic meaning is very important. With the latter, there is no debate; it's obvious to anyone that one may set one's own meaning for his or her life. If we couldn't do that, everyone would all have the same meaning, the same purpose. As my opponent has conceded, this is clearly not true. Pretty much anyone would agree that we can have our own individual meanings. So, without my intrinsic framework, there really is no debate (you could say that my framework is intrinsic to the debate ;)).
Therefore, based on the fact that my opponent has conceded his/her entire side, CON should win the debate.
"By looking at your profile and your arguement [sic] you probably signed up just becouse [sic] you saw my arguemment [sic] and my new created debate became your new meaning whether you truely [sic] want to prove it or not... "
Nah, I just wanted a topic I know really well for my first debate. Just testing the waters and all ;)
Also, just a side note, that's not really how a purpose works. A meaning, in this context, means an overarching reason for being or purpose. It doesn't really apply to day-to-day life.
My opponet has essentailly said that I am wrong but conceded in an Absurdist point of view that there is a meaning to life "Life's meaning can be set on a person by person basis, that's true. As an absurdist, I believe that myself." (CON).
so essentally I have won again in a non-intrinsic point of view!
the fact that my opponent has conceded this Pro should win again
In his explaination thatintrinsic framework is needed to judge this debate, he has not set a meaning tointrinsic as I have nor rebuttled my arguement that life made by D.N.A in order to spread itself out is intrinsicin it self, so again why shouldn't I win.
The only clear point I have seen CON make is that there is no Debate without aintrinsic framework so if the judges feel that is more accurate then I would point out niether of us could successfully defend his/her side and therefor must be tied!!!
"Sience [sic] I can debate this either way I will NOT immediatly [sic] disqualify CON for breaking the terms of the debate"
I did not break the terms, I simply provided a framework for the judges" decision. You had an opportunity to provide one, but you didn"t. As per normal, the judges should use my framework to decide the outcome, as that was the only one provided.
Your terms of "any argument goes" are valid, but that"s not a framework.
My opponent defines the word intrinsic as "belonging naturally; essential," however I don"t think this captures the full meaning of what I"m trying to say. I"m using the word intrinsic in the sense of something that is a fundamental property of something else. For example, fusion is intrinsic to a star, because if it doesn"t have fusion reactions, it ceases to be a star.
"but wouldn't this be a reason to be alive in itself? procreating... If nothing less than to spread DNA strands around..."
Procreating is an essential part of propagating life, but it is not an intrinsic purpose. If one does not procreate, it"s not like he or she ceases to be alive. I suppose it could be one"s purpose, but it is not intrinsic
"he has presented a Red Hearing [sic] Falacy [sic] asserting that life is essentailly [sic] meaningless and that Evolution is more than a theory."
This isn"t a red herring, it"s only a red herring if the point isn"t relevant to the debate, which that is. That"s my entire side. That"s what I"m arguing for. Of course it"s relevant.
I see that my opponent is a creationist, and has implied that evolution isn"t real with his "theory" comment. This is outside the scope of this debate, but it bugs me that people still deny evolution, so I"m going to give you some evidence anyway. It"s not like it"s hard to find. Since this isn"t really relevant, and I"m on vacation right now, I"m not going to type up a full argument for it, but I"ll provide some links and short blurbs and leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.
Here are five simple pieces of evidence that support human evolution by natural selection. We can clearly see the progression in complexity from older fossils to newer fossils, plus we share a ton of DNA with chimps and monkeys, suggesting that we have common ancestors (not that we evolved from monkeys, we didn"t; we both evolved from the same animal).
This link from UC Berkeley demonstrates a few different types of evidence for evolution, the "Evidence by example" link being most helpful in my opinion. That shows examples such as the changing coat of the common sparrow due to differences in light in different parts of North America.
This whole article is pretty neat, and gives a nice overview of scientific terms, but I would like to point you to section #2: "A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing." This means that many scientists have tested the hypothesis and confirmed that they find it to hold. So, by my opponent claiming that evolution isn"t "more than a theory," he is actually saying that it"s been verified by many scientists. This is true, and shows my opponent"s ignorance of the subject.
This link is good if you want a nice overview of how evolution works. It also has this nice line: "Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology."
As you can see, evolution, despite being "just a theory," is actually one of the greatest and most successful ideas in the history of scientific thought. It is substantiated by the vast majority of scientists, and there is essentially no debate about it in the scientific community. It"s an observable fact. I encourage anyone reading this to question their own beliefs and be open-minded; have a healthy amount of skepticism about any and every idea you come across. Expand your mind, and hold truth over all else. Over tradition. Over being right all the time. Be scientific. Be smart. Be thinking. It's okay to not know everything. No one knows everything! But it's great to find out more about the world around us, and we do this through the triumphs of scientific thought.
So please; read what's above and consider it. There really is a lot of work put into discovering this mountain of evidence. This may be the most important collection of links in your life so far. Take the leap. Open your mind.
BurningCriticism forfeited this round.
Essentially, my argument rests on the fact that it is impossible to prove that there is an intrinsic meaning to life, and therefore we must assume that there isn't one, based on conventional scientific reasoning. The "intrinsic" part is required, as without it, there is no debate, since it's obvious that people may assign their own meanings to their own lives. If this were not true, religions wouldn't exist.
My opponent has not brought up anything valid to refute this point.
So yeah. Thanks for a neat first debate, and please vote CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Last round was forfeited by Pro, therefore all arguments were conceded that were made by Con in the previous round, Con also showed how Pro had the BOP, which remained unfulfilled, as by the end of the debate, Pro was unable to respond to Con's rebuttals. So conduct and arguments to Con. Sources were only used by Con. And Pro made quite a number of spelling errors [mybye, arguement, sience], whereas Con made very few.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.