The Instigator
Ifandonlyif
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Yassine
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Is there in culture, humanities, sciences anything new(newness)as in without any previous existence?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Yassine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,052 times Debate No: 73539
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Ifandonlyif

Con

"For, as a matter of fact, painters, even when they study with the greatest skill to represent sirens and satyrs by forms the most strange and extraordinary, cannot give them natures which are entirely new, but merely make a certain medley of the members of different animals; or if their imagination is extravagant enough to invent something so novel that nothing similar has ever before been seen, and that then their work represents a thing purely fictitious and absolutely false, it is certain all the same that the colours of which this is composed are necessarily real." Descartes
Yassine

Pro

I Thank Con for instigating this debate & I accept the challenge.



Resolution:


- Culture: the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively [*].

- Humanities: learning or literature concerned with human culture, especially literature, history, art, music, and philosophy [*].

- Science: a systematically organised body of knowledge on a particular subject [*].

- New = without previous existence.


[*] Google Dictionary.




BOP


- The burden of proof is shared as per the format of the resolution.



=> I leave this in Con’s hands to start his opening arguments.



Best of luck.

Debate Round No. 1
Ifandonlyif

Con

Ifandonlyif forfeited this round.
Yassine

Pro

Yassine forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ifandonlyif

Con

Ifandonlyif forfeited this round.
Yassine

Pro

Thanks Con.



Preface:


- It seems we both forfeited :( though I shall establish my case in this round.



Case:


- Without delving too deep into the subject, a knockdown argument can be made for the fact that there exist new elements in culture, humanities & sciences:

P1. Each distinct individual has a unique set of events different from all others.

P2. Each distinct individual has at least one unique event not occurring twice for any other.

P3. There are, so far, always new distinct individuals.

P4. There are, so far, always new unique events.

P5. There are new unique events.

C. Therefore, new elements in culture, humanities & sciences exist.


Defence of premises & conclusion:

(P1) => True, for otherwise there would exist a combination of two distinct individuals who have identical events, which means two identical distinct individuals, absurd!

(P2) => True, for it follows from (P1).

(P3) => True, for humans are mammals, they give birth to new generations, every generation.

(P4) => True, for it follows from (P2) & (P3).

(P5) => True, for it follows from (P4).

(C) => True, for it follows from (P5). More precisely, for instance, new events means new elements in History, which means new elements in Humanities [1], which means new elements in culture, humanities & sciences.



Rebuttals:


- Descartes passage talks about paintings & art, not about culture, humanities & sciences in general.

=> Hasty generalisation fallacy [2] to say the least.



Conclusion:


- We can summarise the argument made above in an equivalent simpler format: if Con was right, then there is no new elements in culture, humanities & sciences. Which implies that culture, humanities & sciences are stagnate & fixed throughout History. Which implies that the culture, humanities & sciences of the ancient Egyptians contained all the elements of our modern culture, humanities & sciences, absurd!

=> Thus, Con is wrong.

=> Therefore, I win the debate.

=> Vote Pro.



Sources:


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Yassine 1 year ago
Yassine
- Wow! @tejretics, thanks for the vote, much appreciated.
Posted by Yassine 1 year ago
Yassine
- Thanks for the vote ^_^ .
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
IfandonlyifYassineTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the majority of the debate, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting, while Pro forfeited only one round. Thus, conduct to Pro. | S&G - Pro. The resolution is more or less incoherent due to severe errors in, and lack of, punctuation. | Arguments - Pro. Pro was the only one to present any contentions, and Con's forfeiture hindered their ability to present any arguments. Thus, arguments to Pro. | Sources - Pro. Pro used the only sources. | 7 points to Pro. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by RoyalFlush100 1 year ago
RoyalFlush100
IfandonlyifYassineTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and provided no sources.