The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TUF
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Nihilism Is an Ignorant and Self-defeating Position

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 103425
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Nihilism, defined as "an extreme form of skepticism:
the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth," has at least two serious logical problems:

1) The act of denying real existence
proves real existence (who is performing the act of denying?)

2) The act of denying objective truth
is itself an act of attempting to posit an objective truth.

Both 1 and 2 are self-refuting logical fallacies.

Also, have you ever noticed that people who claim to be skeptics are never skeptical of their own skepticism? Actually, there are no skeptics anywhere -- just individuals who hate God and make up lame excuses not to worship him.
TUF

Con

Hi there, I imagine this will be a quick debate.

To start, I believe my opponents understanding of Nihilism is fundamentally flawed. Nihilists don't "deny real existence". I am acutally curious at what source of information fed him this idea. Nihilism at it's definition feels "that existence is senseless and useless"(1), not that it doesn't exist at all. Planes of existence and reality are another ball game entirely, but seeing as my opponent set the parameters up that way, I will argue it anyway.

Simply denying existence isn't proof that existence doesn't exist. In fact Metaphysical Solipsism is a philosophy that theorizes "The self is the only existing reality and that all other realities, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence." (2)

Both theories that existence exists, and that only we exists, however, are both subject to critiques of Fallibilism. Denying objective truth does not posit an objective truth, and reverts in on itself. Fallibillism suggests that no beliefs can be conclusively justified, knowledge does not require certainty, and that almost no basic beliefs are certain or conclusively justified. (3) Essentially fallibilism is fallible, just as Objective Truth is fallable. To have a subjective belief doesn't posit that you believe others also share your subjective belief.

Finally I think it is far-fetched to assume skeptics aren't skeptical of their own skepticism. Maybe some are, sure, but not accross the board. I for one am a skeptic, but don't claim to know all the answers, and most nihilists I know tend to feel the same. It's ignorant to claim to know a God-like entity doesn't exist, but not as much to say one probably doesn't exist.



Sources:

(1) https://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"Nihilists don't "deny real existence"

Sure they do.

"Simply denying existence isn't proof that existence doesn't exist."

I didn't claim that it did, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" In fact Metaphysical Solipsism is a philosophy that theorizes "The self is the only existing reality and that all other realities, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence." (2)"

This debate is on Nihilism, not Solipsism: Do you have a learning disability?

"Denying objective truth does not posit an objective truth"

I didn't claim that either, so that is another straw man on your part.

"Objective Truth is fallable."

No it isn't.

"To have a subjective belief doesn't posit that you believe others also share your subjective belief."

I didn't claim that either, so that is yet a third straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"Finally I think it is far-fetched to assume skeptics aren't skeptical of their own skepticism."

No it isn't.

"I for one am a skeptic,"

No you aren't.

" It's ignorant to claim to know a God-like entity doesn't exist"

...because God does exist.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time. =)
TUF

Con

My opponent doesn't cite evidence for his false idea of nihilism. We can extend my argument and dictionary source, and look at this as a concession.

My opponent seems to retract his first claim that denying existence is proof that existence is real, by saying he didn't make that claim, though it was clearly written by him in his opening round. Maybe this is some irony, based on what appears to be my opponent living in a different reality. Maybe my opponent is hoping his first statement doesn't exist, and this statement from him was a metaphor all along.

Next my opponent doesn't try to dispute Solopsism, which directly refutes the theory of existence outside one's own mind. We can count this as another extension, as he instead resorts to insults.

Again my opponent denies reality by claiming he didn't make his second claim. I am starting to think he didn't even read his own opening arguments, allow that extension for this debate as well.

He doesn't argue against fallibilism, and acts like a kindergartner saying "nuh uh" to everything that opposes what in his mind is a superior view, though he doesn't validate these views with logic or arguments. Ultimately, I cannot argue against chronic narcissism.

Anyways, GG, sorry for the waste of time voters. At least this will be an easy read and vote against the instigator.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"My opponent doesn't cite evidence for his false idea of nihilism."

The definition I posted is correct.

"My opponent seems to retract his first claim that denying existence is proof that existence is real, by saying he didn't make that claim"

I did not say that I didn't make that claim, you liar.

" my opponent living in a different reality."

How many realities do you think there are?

"Next my opponent doesn't try to dispute Solopsism,"

This debate is on NIHILISM, you moron, not on SOLIPSISM.

"Again my opponent denies reality by claiming he didn't make his second claim."

I didn't deny that I made my second claim, you liar.

"He doesn't argue against fallibilism,"

This debate is on NIHILISM, you idiot, not on FALLIBILISM.

" and acts like a kindergartner saying "nuh uh""

I never said that, you liar.

"validate these views with logic or arguments."

I supported all of my statements with arguments and logic, but you supported none of your claims. Therefore you lost the debate.

" Ultimately, I cannot argue against chronic narcissism. "

You apparently can't argue at all -- you're too stupid.

You lost the debate -- thanks for your time! =)
TUF

Con

Moron, liar, stupid, idiot, etc, etc. Second grade insults are all my opponent know. My round 1 arguments were ignored. Please extend them as my opponent didn't have one valid argument in this debate.

Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Without God, being uncivil could not be objectively wrong.
Posted by platoandaristotle 5 months ago
platoandaristotle
Most uncivil debate ever.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Thanks! =)
Posted by TUF 5 months ago
TUF
Hi there, welcome to the website! You set time parameters to 3 days, which means after accepting the debate I have 3 days to post the argument. It will be the same for all 3 rounds. :)

Anyways, good luck and have fun!
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
I'm still new here, so not quite sure how this works yet....

Someone accepted my debate challenge, but failed to write anything at all.

This means I win the debate by default, right? =)
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
You are wrong.
Posted by platoandaristotle 5 months ago
platoandaristotle
Nihilism denies value theory - it denies any moral values or meaning to life.
It does not deny metaphysics or any existence
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 5 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaTUFTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't acknowledge Con's arguments at all. Also, ad hominem attacks.
Vote Placed by bsh1 5 months ago
bsh1
PurushadasaTUFTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Terrible conduct by Pro--several insults (e.g. moron) were aimed at Con. This is not how debate ought to be conducted. Conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 5 months ago
dsjpk5
PurushadasaTUFTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: In round three, Pro called Con an "idiot", "moron", "liar", and "stupid". This is poor conduct.