The Instigator
t-man
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
BangBang-Coconut
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

It is possable for someone to know that they exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
t-man
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,074 times Debate No: 17011
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

t-man

Pro

I will be arguing that it is possible for someone to know that they exist.

Definitions:

To know: To have knowledge

Knowledge: Justified true belief http://www.philosophypages.com...

To exist: To have actual being http://dictionary.reference.com...
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I accept the definitions my opponent has provided!
Here is to a wonderful debate.
Debate Round No. 1
t-man

Pro

Someone can have knowledge of their existance because:

1: They could belive that they exist.

2: If they belive anything they would have to exist just because they're thinking at all. This would make their belief that they exist true.

3. Their belief would be justified from the fact that they are thinking. You can't do anything such as thinking if you don't exist

"I think therfore I am."

They would have justified true belief, the definition of knowledge. They would know that they exist.
Vote Pro




BangBang-Coconut

Con

I think opponent for this debate!

=Framework=
Obs1: The topic uses the word "Know" This implied that this is a debate of fact, not of logic.
Obs2: My opponent prove it is possible for some-one to know that they exist; at the point that not do this, they do not fulfill their BOP and I will win the round.
Obs3: the BOP is entirely on my opponent, I do not have to prove some-one cannot know that they exist. thus my only responsibility is to refute my opponent's arguments.

=Arguments=
First my opponent's logic is flawed.
1. they claim that they a person could believe they exist.

2. This is is based on 1 which is only a belief; not proven fact.

3. Their logic is circular. 2 is based on one, and yet 2 proves one.

"I think therfore I am."
-Refer to obs1, this is a debate based on fact not logic.

=Conclusion=
- My opponent has proven nothing, thus you cannot vote for them.
- I have disproven my opponent, thus you must vote for me.

Vote Con Please!

Also,
=Sources=
[1] They do not exist.
Debate Round No. 2
t-man

Pro

Rebuttal 1
Its common sense that someone can believe something. People believe things all the time. At this moment you're believing that someone can't know that they exist. I believe that I'm wearing a green shirt right now. Some people believe in God. How is belief in one's existence any different?

Rebuttal 2
In 2 I was establishing that it is true that that person exists. It is based on 1 so the truth of 2 depends on the truth of1. I address that in rebuttal 1.

Rebuttal 3
Just like 2, 3 is based on 1, but 1 is not based on 3. 3 establishes that someone's belief that they exist is justified. This does not support 1. I support 1 in Rebuttal 1.

Conclusion

In the end Con's arguments come back to 1; That it is possible for someone to believe that they exist. As previously stated 1 is common sense. Con has said nothing to refute 1.
Vote Pro.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent for their replies!

=Argument=

1. A belief is taken on faith, not fact. While I believe that Jesus Christ is lord and savior of all, I never would try and prove him to be in a debate; as it is a matter of faith.
Now as an extension, while I believe Jesus is the only way to heaven Pastafarians believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only way to heaven. Now if beliefs where something accepted as legitimate arguments in any debate; than there is a paradox in place as many beliefs contradict each other.

A believes that B is wrong; B believes that B is right. Both cannot be true, so one must prove that one or the other is right.

2. Extend from 1.

3. Extend from 1.

=Conclusion=

My opponent has only proven that a belief can be held, he hasn't yet proven that a person can know they exist.

=Underview=
I believe I will win and be given all 7 points.
According to Pro a belief is legitimate proof of an argument so this is my belief.
Also I believe my opponent has forfeited this debate, so the next round doesn't matter.
Debate Round No. 3
t-man

Pro

"According to Pro a belief is legitimate proof of an argument"
I think Con misunderstands my argument. I am not saying that something is true just because someone believes so. I will rephrase my argument here. Fred will be someone who believes they exist. I will show that they can know they exist.

Argument

P1: If Someone believes they exist and that belief is true and justified, than they exist.
P2: Fred believes he exists.
P3: If Fred believes something, than he exists.
P4: It is true that Fred exists.
P5: Fred is justified in believing he exists.
C1: Fred knows he exists.
or
P1:A,B and C-->D
P2:A
P3:A-->B
P4:B
P5:C
C1:D

P1:
Follows from the definitions of to know and knowledge.

P2:
You have already agreed that this is possible. This is what 1 from my original argument was saying.

P3:
This and P4 was what 2 from my original argument was saying. You can't be doing something without existing. more specifically, you can't believe anything without existing.

P4:
Follows from P2 and P3

P5:
This is what 3 from my original argument was saying. Fred would be justified in his belief that he exists because he is thinking. If he's thinking, than he exists.

C1:
The logical conclusion If the rest is true.

Conclusion

I have shown logically that it is possible for someone to exist. I await Cons reply.
Vote Pro!
BangBang-Coconut

Con

My opponent's logic is still completely circular, he has yet to prove it is possible to know we exist

P1: This establishes the theory
P2: This establishes a belief
P3: This is based on P1 and P2 a theory, and a belief
P4: This is not proven
P5: No warrant, only circular logic

Please Vote Con, as my opponent has not proven their stance to be true!
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by samiam96 5 years ago
samiam96
Touché it is true that you could have quoted Kant, but did you?
And yes I did read the debate, you are also assuming that I have no education in theological sciences and philosophy, which indeed I do. Pro, to me won because although you did claim that pro had circular logic, not proven fact, it was not proven, only stated. By thinking of a counter case you are indeed thinking, so if anything you are proving pro's case rather than your own.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Kant is not ridiculous at all. You just need to be very attentive in reading him.

I think the argument I had in mind isnt actually Kantian but is made by a number of people (including Hume I think?)
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
That's only theory, it doesn't prove anything.
I could have easily quoted Kant's metaphysical ethics as Raisor recommended and whipped that half-baked ideological process of a quote.

Ugh, if you're going to make a comment at least read the debate and see that THERE IS NO WARRANT to believe the Pro. It's circular logic based on ideals, there's no knowing anything.
Posted by samiam96 5 years ago
samiam96
I think therefore I am, case closed thanks for coming, Pro won like a boss, although they did choose the topic.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Bleh, maybe; I just really don't like Kant. >->
The categorical imperative seems unachievable, and his other works just sounds ridiculous.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Should have whipped out the Kant, Neg.
Posted by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
In my last round P1 should have said: If Someone believes they exist and that belief is true and justified, than they know they exist.
Sorry for that.
Posted by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
Sorry for making the words small. It was an accident.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
t-manBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con tried, but it was an unwinnable argument. Pro correctly stated that in order for a person to think they must exist, so Cons refutation is negated. Pros blunder with his fonts almost cost him S.G. but Con had way too many mistakes.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
t-manBangBang-CoconutTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: BangBang failed to realise that he is begging the question if he chooses to disregard the reliability of his perceptions. The Metaphysical perceptive inference supplied by T-man remained unrefuted by way of being misunderstood as circular.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
t-manBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Kant is not ridiculous at all. You just need to be very attentive in reading him. I think the argument I had in mind isnt actually Kantian but is made by a number of people (including Hume I think?)
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
t-manBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: It would have been nice to see more expansion of Decartes argument as noted in reflections on first philosophy, but Con should have argued it is possible to believe without existing or attacked the argument through lack of framework 2:1 Pro
Vote Placed by Haasenfeffor 5 years ago
Haasenfeffor
t-manBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: win?
Vote Placed by Spartan 5 years ago
Spartan
t-manBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't actually make an argument, and pro used sources. once. so he barely wins that point.