Living Is Impossible
Debate Rounds (4)
Con fully defines all terms.
I'll find a way.
As Pro did not specify when I should supply definitions, I will do so here:
Living - having life; being alive; not dead.
Is - 3rd person singular present indicative of be.
Impossible - not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc.
Possible - 1. that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.: a disease with no possible cure.
2. that may be true or may be the case, as something concerning which one has no knowledge to the contrary: It is possible that he has already gone.
I only have a single sylogism to provide.
P1. Living requires having life
P2. Organelles are made up of non-life(atoms)
C1. Organelles are not living
P3. Cells are made up of non-life organelles
C2. Cells are not living
P4. Organs are made of non-life cells
C3. Organs are not living
P5. Organisms are made of non-life organs
C6. Organisms are not living.
Therefore, life is impossible since this would continue to any of the most complex organisms. According to Con's definition.
Thank you, Pro. I will address my opponent's syllogism in two points:
1. It is very difficult to prove impossibility. Even if the assertions made in Pro’s syllogism are correct, the conclusion is only that “organisms are not living”. The resolution of this debate, that Living is Impossible, is outside the scope of Pro's syllogism. Proving that organisms as we know them are not living does not prove that living is not possible.
The only thing that can negate possibility is “knowledge to the contrary”, per the definition of “possible”. Therefore, unless Pro has knowledge to the contrary, it is possible that alien beings are living, that beings in other dimensions are living, that god is living, etc. Unless there is contrary knowledge (such as the knowledge that all things that exist in all universes are made of atoms), then there is always a possibility that something is living, even if it is in some unknown system or universe.
2. Pro’s syllogism seems to assume a definition of “life”, but does not make clear which definition. Pro’s P2 states that atoms are “non-life”, but does not provide proof for such an assertion, nor does it provide the definition of “life” by which that assertion was formed. Let’s look again at the definition of “living”:
Living - having life; being alive; not dead.
Now let’s look at some definitions of “life”:
Life - 1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3. the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual.
4. a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul.
5. the general or universal condition of human existence:
6. any specified period of animate existence.
7. the period of existence, activity, or effectiveness of something inanimate, as a machine, lease, or play.
As you can see, Pro’s syllogism seems to involve a very narrow definition of “life”, while the actual definitions and implications of "life" are far-reaching. While an atom may truly be “non-living”, Pro has thus far not shown that something made up of “non-living” materials can not have a life all its own, despite the previous state of its parts. On the contrary, the possible interpretations and meanings of “life” allow for both organisms and inanimate objects to be “living”.
Back to you, Pro.
I will be unable to complete this round due to moving. I will present my rebuttals next round. I apologize Con.
AlexanderOc forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Generally, I just found Pro's arguments to not affirm the resolution. It's about as basic as they come, uses a fallacy of composition in an attempt to affirm, and falls far short of the goal. The fact that he doesn't counter-rebut Con's argumentation ends the debate before it even starts.
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.