The Instigator
soudhamini
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Itsallovernow
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

My nature is the nature of everything

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,131 times Debate No: 16073
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

soudhamini

Pro

My nature is the nature of everything.
Here is the document to substantiate my argument: http://questioncentre.files.wordpress.com...

Is there anyone to negate that my nature is the nature of everything?
Itsallovernow

Con

My opponents "document" and case is flawed. His stance is that of composition fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org...). You can not claim that a property you possess is the same as another seperate entity.

To make it clearer: "If atoms are invisible, and if I am made up of atoms, I am therefore invisible."
Just as you can't say: If I am a part of the nature of everything, and if the nature of everything is a part of me, I am therefore the nature of everything.
Debate Round No. 1
soudhamini

Pro

My nature is your nature. Is this a compostional error? Doesn't it make the sense - my nature is same as your nature? It does not make the sense - 'I am you.'

In the same manner - my nature is the nature of everything makes the sense - my nature is same as the nature of everything. This does not mean that 'I am everything.'

So, this is not a fallacy.
Itsallovernow

Con

Itsallovernow forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
soudhamini

Pro

soudhamini forfeited this round.
Itsallovernow

Con

My opponent presented no arguments, but clarified the need to define "nature"

DEFINITION:
"•the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized"

My opponent claims that her characteristics are the characteristics of everything. This is fallicious.
Debate Round No. 3
soudhamini

Pro

soudhamini forfeited this round.
Itsallovernow

Con

Itsallovernow forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
soudhamini

Pro

soudhamini forfeited this round.
Itsallovernow

Con

Arguments extended....
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
"You can not claim that a property you possess is the same as another seperate entity."

You can. The fallacy is informal (like most) for a reason. Notice your link refers to errors in inference, not deduction or proof. Still, you are correct in this case. :)
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
I completely and utterly agree with GeoLaureate8. You can't let a document argue for you and not tell about it.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
What's with the spamming divisibility rubbish lately?

Also a 27 page pdf doth not a 8k limit comply.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Or if you're going to rely on the source, at least expound upon what it says. Simply making an assertion and posting a link providing an argument for you isn't necessarily sufficient. Even an explanation of your link would suffice.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"My nature is the nature of everything. Here is the document to substantiate my argument:"

LMFAO! This is debate.org where you have to make your own argument, you don't let a link make the argument for you!!! LOLOLOLOLOL!!
Posted by Lionheart 6 years ago
Lionheart
The wording of your opening argument is very odd. I would choose to reword it and fix your grammar if you want a challenger soon.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
soudhaminiItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments, fewer FFs by con.