The Instigator
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
CriticalThinkingMachine
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Life

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 3 votes the winner is...
CriticalThinkingMachine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,126 times Debate No: 26406
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

RationalMadman

Con

I am against the need for life, I believe that if I were God, or the creator behind 'everything' I'd make everything inanimate and unconscious.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Pro


I am against the need for life, I believe that if I were God, or the creator behind 'everything' I'd make everything inanimate and unconscious.



In order to be God, the creator of everything, you would have to be alive. In order to be alive, you would have to have life, so you need life even if you want to create a world where there is no life. Your argument refutes itself. Thank you. End of debate.


Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Con

I think we need to define life before we get into this.

Since pro failed to do so I shall take this responsibility upon myself.

Life[1]: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

I do not see how a non physical entity creating all things has to show characteristics of life, please elaborate on this or justify any other definition you wish, however you must make sure there are no flaws in your justification.

Source:
[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
CriticalThinkingMachine

Pro

I think we need to define life before we get into this. Since pro failed to do so I shall take this responsibility upon myself.



I did not “fail” to define the word “life”. To say that someone failed to do something implies that they tried to do it but were unable. I never attempted to define life, as we all understand what it means and doing so was unnecessary.



It makes no sense for Con to say that since I did not define life, he must. He’s supposed to do that anyway. He’s the one who instigated the debate, not me. He should not try to shift responsibility.



Con then defined life using the oxford dictionary. I agree with the definitions presented on that site. It does not change the debate.



I do not see how a non physical entity creating all things has to show characteristics of life, please elaborate on this or justify any other definition you wish, however you must make sure there are no flaws in your justification.



It may be possible for a life-less world to simply follow from a life-less God, but Con specifically referred to God as the creator of the world. To create involves intelligence, experience, forethought etc. all of which require life. So again, in order for God to create a world with no life, God must have life. Con’s argument is self-refuting.



But suppose we ignore Con’s self-refuting argument about God creating a lifeless word. He might say that he is simply against life and not bring God into the matter. Well, life is necessary for just about everything that happens. We wouldn’t be debating this right now if we did not have life. We would never get to see movies, listen to music, read books, exercise, have sex, go bungee-jumping, ride roller coasters, go to an opera etc.



Pro has not presented a case for why he thinks that a world with no life is better than a world with life. Why living in a life-filled world is better is obvious. It gives our life meaning. Without we are nothing but rocks.

Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Con

I believe, yes 100% believe, that we are nothing more than rocks. I am a worthless, pointless being with no purpose other than to come to terms with death or die trying to come to terms with it. All things 'die' even inanimate things, a rock erodes, a television gets trashed you get the picture. So I need the pro to please justify why he is any more important than a rock, especially if the end of the world, the sun and our universe is inevitable (if he wishes to refute the inevitability then he must indeed propose why it is so, preferably by proof that there is something which can exist forever, I believe that everything comes to an end based on observation of everything I have ever com to know in my life, all things I have seen or known have died).

His single, and rather futile, justification for life is as follows "We wouldn't be debating this right now if we did not have life. We would never get to see movies, listen to music, read books, exercise, have sex, go bungee-jumping, ride roller coasters, go to an opera etc." But if us and everyone who reads this debate will eventually die, there is indeed no point in debating in the first place, making our existence no more worthy than a rock's (I refer to a rock as he seemed to like this comparison).

I agree we should drop God because it's irrelevant and God is nothing to do with physical organic matter, which is life. Ok.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Pro

Con has dropped the God point. He says he did this because it is irrelevant. Well he’s right, so I don’t know why he brought it up in the first place. But anyway, Con has now brought up another point:

So I need the pro to please justify why he is any more important than a rock, especially if the end of the world, the sun and our universe is inevitable.

But if us [sic] and everyone who reads this debate will eventually die, there is indeed no point in debating in the first place, making our existence no more worthy than a rock's.

Just because I am going to do one day does not make my existence just as insignificant as a rock’s existence. Con has not spelled out why he believes this is so. But it’s obvious why it is not. The consequences of something are not the only thing that matter. The thing in itself also matters. A rock cannot do anything, where as human beings can do amazing things, including hold debates. There is no comparison. Human beings are infinitely more important than rocks. The point here is that the principle of something matters, not just the consequences of it. Sometimes people go to court to sue people for a very small amount of money that they are rightly owed, but they do it not to get the money, but to uphold the principle of justice. Similarly, the fact that we are all going to die one day does not make us worthless in ourselves.

And even if I am going to die one day, that does not mean that I cannot resurrect after that and live for eternity. It is logically impossible for something to become nothing. My soul, because it already exists, can never become nothing. It will always exist, so I will always have consequential importance as well.

I’d just like to add that I had no idea this debate was going to turn into a debate about mortality/immortality. In traditional debate format, after a debater makes his opening argument, he is not supposed to bring up new arguments in later rounds but only continue debating the points he and his opponent made in their opening statements. If this were the case, Con would have already lost as I refuted his opening argument. But he can get away with taking the debate in a new direction now because he made no rules forbidding it in in his introduction. In fact, he made no rules.

Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Con

Rules are lame.

Anyway, there is nothing that makes the statement "humans are infinitely more than rocks' true. Neither is any justification given for principle versus consequences. IF I rape someone, I'd be fine with the rape itself for I am a moral nihilist. I do not rape them because of the sole issue of the consequences of it. There are psychopaths and sadists who aren't criminals purely out of fear of consequence, even then many do it anyway because of lack of ability to emotionally comprehend consequences (sociopaths literally cannot process consequences before acting impulsively). So I see that in the human race itself, and many animals, the only thing stopping us acting madly or badly are the consequences (or fear of them) for dong so.

You are not anything more than a rock because there is nothing intrinsically incredible about this debate in the first place. The rock exists and erodes and so do you. I find it rather ironic you think you have a soul, you must either give evidence of this or drop that point, we agreed to drop religion and god out of this so don't be silly and raise unfalsifiable religious nonsense into this please. I merely meant God as in the creator of universe not God the person.

You statement about it being impossible for something to become nothing is nonsense, everything originated from nothing did it not? If not you must explain how not and then justify and prove the everything has existed for eternity otherwise it's logical to assume there was once nothingness.

In conclusion, there is nothing intrinsically better about those that are living to those that are not, we are just as meaningless and futile in anything we do as they are, we merely have the ego and self-esteem to think we are more important.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Pro

[1] So I see that in the human race itself, and many animals, the only thing stopping us acting madly or badly are the consequences (or fear of them) for dong so.

[1A] Pro says that he sees that in the human race, people only act morally out of the fear of negative consequences. But his only evidence for this is himself. Well, that proves that he only acts on consequences. It does not prove it for the human race. Ask just about anybody why they act morally. Sure you’ll get a few people who say that they only do so to avoid negative consequences, but history is filled with people who acted morally because they believed it was simply the right and just thing to do, or who acted morally even when they knew that the consequences of not acting morally would be beneficial to them. (Martin Luther King Jr. Rosa Parks, Ghandi etc.)

[1B] Even if it were true that the whole human race only acted based on consequences, that does not make it right. Don’t make an appeal to popularity.

[2] You are not anything more than a rock because there is nothing intrinsically incredible about this debate in the first place. The rock exists and erodes and so do you.

[2A] I never that humans are more important than rocks because this debate is intrinsically important. I said that the consequence of a thing does not define the thing entirely. Suppose someone intends to do something nice for another person but accidentally hurts the person instead. Would we say the person is immoral just because the consequence he brought about was negative. Of course not. You must separate intentions from consequences. Similarly, you must separate principles from consequences. The consequence that humans will perish one day does not change the fact that the principle that humans have more worth (because we can do great things) than rocks.

[3] I find it rather ironic you think you have a soul, you must either give evidence of this or drop that point, we agreed to drop religion and god out of this so don't be silly and raise unfalsifiable religious nonsense into this please.

[3A] Why do you find it ironic?

[3B] Evidence of the soul is hardly controversial. The word “soul” is just a synonym for mind or consciousness, or personality. Do you really deny that these exist? We couldn’t be having this debate right now if we did not have thinking souls. We would just be blobs of meat with no intelligence.

[3C] The soul is not necessarily a religious topic, (it can just be a philosophical topitc) it is not unfalsifiable (you can check to see if there is a soul by asking if we have experiences or not), and we never agreed to not bring religion into this. If your use of God as creator is not religious, then neither is my use of the soul.

[4] You [sic] statement about it being impossible for something to become nothing is nonsense, [sic] everything originated from nothing [sic] did it not? If not you must explain how not and then justify and prove the [sic] everything has existed for eternity otherwise it's logical to assume there was once nothingness.

[4A] It is not the case that everything originated from nothing. That has never been proven and it logically impossible. 0 plus 0 will always be 0. It will never turn into 1 one day. A 1 can never come from a 0. Something can never come from nothing. I don’t have to prove that everything always existed, but that something always existed. Similarly, a 1 can never become a 0. My soul can never become nothing. Hence my life has meaning in consequence as well as in principle.

CONCLUSION

Con has still presented no reason for why he believes that life is meaningless. He has only asserted it, saying that we are worthless because we will die, and he has ignored my refutations.

Debate Round No. 4
RationalMadman

Con

Life isn't meaningless you are right.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Pro

Thank you. Vote Pro.

conduct: tie
No offensive arguments on either side.

grammar/spelling: pro
Con had several run on sentences in his last posting.

arguments: pro
Con conceded.

sources: tie
No sources were required by either side.

4 points to me.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Wow, Con got demolished with Pro's R1 argument. :P
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
RationalMadmanCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won from Round 1
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
RationalMadmanCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: CriticalThinkingMachine was more rational than Madman.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
RationalMadmanCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.