The Instigator
Octavian
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
thethickgreyline
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

My opponent exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 979 times Debate No: 8836
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Octavian

Con

You, my opponent, must prove to me that you exist.

You-Whoever accepts this debate

My opponent-Whoever accepts this debate

Exist-To have life; live:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
thethickgreyline

Pro

I thank my opponent for an extremely interesting debate.

I would like to point out that knowing and not knowing are two very different things. I simply have to prove that some evidence shows that I exist. Since my opponent can give no evidence that I do not exist, any evidence I can give that I might exist will negate his resolution. I must stress that my opponent has to completely negate all evidence that I give.

I assume through the "I think therefore I am" line of reasoning my opponent believes he exists. Is it not such a leap to say that other beings like my opponent would also exist?

There must be a other or others otherwise I would not exist or the world around me would not be what it is. If there is an other who has powers over me who is to say that there are not others in the same situation as myself?

For the purpose of debate let us assume that we have met and that I have physically touched you and spoken to you.
Your senses say that I exist. Have you reason to fault your senses? You have some evidence that I exist right in front of you. You can touch, smell, hear see and although it would probably be unsavoury, taste me. Can you give proof evidence that your senses are incorrect? You may be able to reason that it is possible I may not exist but you have no proof that I do not, rather you have evidence through your senses that I exist.

William of Ockham made the observation that the simplest solution is the most probable. To quote the words of Albert Einstein "Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable." I put it to you Octavian that my existence is the simplest explanation of the sensory evidence your brain receives upon seeing, hearing, smelling or touching me.

I ask you Octavian, can you prove that I do not exist? Do you have any evidence that I do not? Basically you have no way of proving that I do not exist. Whereas sensory evidence suggests that I do exist.

To say I don't exist would be to say that your mother and father do not exist. But do you really believe this?

I remind people viewing this debate that I have only to provide any form of evidence, no matter how small, that I exist in order to win this debate. Octavian must refute every point I have made with proof that I am 100% incorrect to uphold his resolution that I cannot provide any evidence that I exist.

To simplify, my opponent has no proof that I do not exist, however, there is sensory evidence that I do exist. I realise that sensory evidence by itself is not 100% proof that I exist, however, it is more proof than my opponent can give that I do not exist.

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1
Octavian

Con

I would thank my opponent for accepting this interesting debate.

Now, the burden of proof does rest upon my opponent. For I cannot know if he exists if I have never experienced him with any of my senses, and one should require empirical proof to know if something exists. It is entirely a possibility that my opponent exists, just as it is possible for Flying Unicorns and the Monster in My Closet.

As for the statement, "I think, therefore I am," this holds no real significance now, as there are computers and computer programs that are close to being sentient and can think and reason. (Based off of this definition of think: use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments. Source: http://www.google.com...)

Now, that I have never experienced my opponent empirically, that the argument about thinking constitutes being is entirely false, this makes it very likely that his existence is false. Even if I had met him in person and he was not a computer or a figment of my imagination I could not know or he could not prove to me that he exists unless technology was developed that I could go inside his/her mind.

I cannot prove to a point beyond any doubt or chance that my opponent does not exist, however since no real proof has been presented for his existence. In conclusion, based off mine viewpoint of never hearing, seeing, feeling, hearing, or tasting (that would be weird) my opponent, or his being able to prove he is a living sentient being, there is in the 90% chance range that my opponent doesn't exist.
thethickgreyline

Pro

Thank you for your response.

I accepted this debate under the false pretence that we were acting under the assumption that I could use all empirical evidence possible to show that I exist. You have not made any point in your first round limiting the debate to a hypothetic situation where I can only have contact with you over debate.org. It is therefore possible for me to prove to you that I exist through the empirical evidence that could be provided if I travelled to wherever you are and touched and talked to you ect. I find that you have sprung this on me rather unfair; however, although I have already made points that have in my view, won this debate, I will continue to attack your arguments.

Even if you had limited this debate to me not being able to use most empirical evidence you already conceded when you said "In conclusion, based off mine viewpoint of never hearing, seeing, feeling, hearing, or tasting (that would be weird) my opponent, or his being able to prove he is a living sentient being, there is in the 90% chance range that my opponent doesn't exist." Remember that I only have to provide any evidence at all that I exist. My opponent has basically stated that I have given a small amount of evidence that I exist. I'd also like to point out that your statement that there is a 90% chance I don't exist is not founded in statistics and completely incorrect. If I had to estimate I would say there is about a 60% chance that I do exist from your point of view as without any proof for either side there would be a 50% chance i do exist and a 50% chance i dont exist.

My opponent also stated "I cannot prove to a point beyond any doubt or chance that my opponent does not exist". Octavian has just conceded the fact that he has no proof at all that I do not exist.

As for Octavian's statement that I could be a computer. I researched this statement and found that this was impossible with the current level of technology. I would also like to add that I seriously doubt a computer programme made to debate exists as it would lack the ability to think for itself. Hans Moravec from the Robotics Institute of Carnegie Melon University said "Computers have far to go to match human strengths" http://www.transhumanist.com.... So as we see the human brain is still far superior then any computer and it is ludicrous that I am simply a computer.

A computer is only programmed to perform whereas the human brain can think for itself and react accordingly. computers also have no sense of self, no ego, no emotion and will not stray from the task they have been given to perform. I on the other hand can show all of these things. I am amazing and I am happy that I am winning this debate. XD
Debate Round No. 2
Octavian

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this entertaining and interesting debate.

The simple fact is that my opponent has provided no evidence for his existence, with the burden of proof belonging to him. Just as well, it is not a 50/50 chance when no proof has been provided, just as it is not a 50/50 chance that unicorns exist. Vote con.
thethickgreyline

Pro

thethickgreyline forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by nikiri 7 years ago
nikiri
Making up an unprovable debate and taking the CON side.

Very fair.
Posted by Octavian 7 years ago
Octavian
It's ok, I just barely got in my latest argument for one of my debates I was so busy, I had only three minutes left! :D ;)
Posted by thethickgreyline 7 years ago
thethickgreyline
I'm really sorry I didn't have the time to write my third round Octavian i have been really busy. I had some good points to :( I think it would have ended up being quite even as to who won.

Oh well, I really enjoyed this debate it was extremely interesting. Give us a chalenge sometime soon. I would love a rematch.
Posted by Octavian 7 years ago
Octavian
Thanks for the debate thethickgreyline, it's been fun :D.
Posted by thethickgreyline 7 years ago
thethickgreyline
A mistake on my part, I forgot to cite where i got the qoute from. It was from this site. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
OctavianthethickgreylineTied
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:40