The Instigator
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
TheOrator
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Problem of philosophy: Appearance or reality?

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 8 votes the winner is...
TheOrator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,257 times Debate No: 23960
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (8)

 

Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

If you are under 21 don't bother.

My argument is that all forms of non-Christian thinking can't account for truth since they can't account for reality without reducing themselves to irrationality.

1. rebuttal/arguments
2. cross examination
3. closing/arguments
TheOrator

Con

The con argument in this debate is focused around the fact that that in order to prove the resolution correct, the pro must first prove all non-Christians inherently illogical. This will be his burden of proof throughout the round.

Contention 1: The Pro must first prove Christianity correct.
To quote the Pro in this round: "they can't account for reality without reducing themselves to irrationality.". According to this quote, the main and only reason the con is proven false in this round is that they do not believe in the Christian explanation of the beginning of the universe. Because of this, the burden of proof in the round lies on the Pro to prove the Christian explanation correct in order to prove all other explanations wrong. If the Pro cannot properly prove this correct in his round 3 (as it shows in his guide of how the round will proceed), then there is no way they can win the debate.

Contention 2: There is no logical way to prove Christianity correct.
Christianity as a whole cannot be proven right or wrong because it all lies on the amount of faith in the individual person. That is why no headway has been made in the actual debate between athiests and Christians, and the only way for this to be proven one or another would be if a Christian soul who went to heaven wuold come back and confirm that there was in fact an afterlife. Unless this rediculous and only source of empirical evidence should happen, then the earthly debate will always be based on the amount of faith. Because it is based upon faith and not logic, the Pro cannot prove Christianity correct and as such cannot provide the burden of proof he is required to provide in the round.
Debate Round No. 1
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

Con broke the rules and also doesn't know what the debate is about.
TheOrator

Con

Since my opponent did not adhere to the cross examination format, I'll just move on like normal.
Two things:
1.) Age does not matter in a debate unless you're debating a twelve year old or another case where a brain is underdeveloped rationally.I a case where I have 100% win ratio (for now) and have a logical process capable of posting the rebuttal in round 1, the only reason to not accept me as an opponent would pure, illogical bias.
2.) "My argument is that all forms of non-Christian thinking can't account for truth since they can't account for reality without reducing themselves to irrationality." Clearly your position on this matter is that non-Christian philosophy cannot be true due to the fact that the foundation of these philosophies is flawed because the reason they provided for reality existing is apparently false. Because my duty as con is to negate the resolution, and your duty as pro is to prove the resolution correct, I negated your proof thus proving the resolution false.

So yes, I know what it's about :)
Debate Round No. 2
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

Con broke the rules and also doesn't know what the debate is about
TheOrator

Con

All right, let's just cut to the chase. I made points, my opponent didn't refute them. Unfortunately this is common when he knows he's lost, and which is why he still has a 0% win record, regardless of the fact that he can actually debate well (http://www.debate.org...), even though it's mostly about religious fanatical terms. I know this makes me lose the conduct vote, but I probably already lost that for overlooking the 21 and under thing, even though that was pure bias in the first place.

But yeah, I accept that I lost the conduct vote (unless the fact that he didn't argue makes you want to vote for me, in which case go for it), but everything else I win due to totally dropped arguments across the board. The only thing he even tries to say is that I don't understand the resolution, even when I explain what exactly the resolution is about and he doesn't actually say why, which results in that attack being both groundsless and false.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PabloM 4 years ago
PabloM
To those voting Pro up for "Made more convincing arguments":
Seriously?? Did you even read the debate?? Since when does "zero" equate to "more convincing"??
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Plus, as I proved, I did understand the debate :P It's the same debate he's been passing off under different names for a while
Posted by PabloM 4 years ago
PabloM
Since the text-message validation-code that allows me to vote still hasn't arrived yet, I may as well post my opinion here:

Con broke Pro's arbitrary rules, and may have misunderstood the intended direction of the debate.
However Pro didn't even attempt to address Con's arguments. Pro also claimed Con didn't understand his argument, yet declined to clarify. Therefore the ony one who made any kind of sense or contributed anything to the debate was the Con.

Can you really claim to have won a debate if you didn't do any actual debating....?
Posted by philosotroll 4 years ago
philosotroll
I must have missed the part where, "Con broke the rules and also doesn't know what the debate is about." is a sufficient rebuttle. If he comments indicate a lack of understanding of the subject matter, then the Pro must demonstrate that this is the case, in addition to pointing it out. The failure to do so is a failure of the Pro, without which a misunderstanding cannot be attributed to the Con.
Posted by Meatros 4 years ago
Meatros
I can see docking a conduct point, but giving him the arguments?
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
I can't believe I'm losing an argument because I overlooked a slight sentnece, I mean he didn't even make it a requirement to accept, I just saw the accept button and accepted :P
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
As my opponent has commented on the round and has been online for quite a while, I would be grateful - assuming that he refuses to argue this debate as he has done so many others - if he at least submitted his argument stating that the debate is over like he has done in the past rather than letting the time run out.
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 4 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Great thanks.
Posted by Meatros 4 years ago
Meatros
Hez, when starting a debate, you can create an age range - next to 'opponent' you'll see advanced options where you can apply a filter.
Posted by FlameofPrometheus 4 years ago
FlameofPrometheus
1rst As pro do you believe realty is a constant or not?
2nd There's people under 21 who know the principles of existence fairly well. ( I myself know a large amount about irrationalist thinkers, existentialists objectivists, ect.)
3rd You can account for existence and be rational
4th I would like to be your opponent if you wish me to be.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
Hezekiah_AhazTheOratorTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offered ZERO arguments, but Con broke the age limit rule (Which i think is bullshit to have in a debate)
Vote Placed by Meatros 4 years ago
Meatros
Hezekiah_AhazTheOratorTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke the rules, but put forth an argument. Conduct for pro, arguments to con, since he provided some which stood unopposed.
Vote Placed by FlameofPrometheus 4 years ago
FlameofPrometheus
Hezekiah_AhazTheOratorTied
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: The pro didnt debate. The con clearly knows what the debate is about. Also pro didnt mention which rules were broken so.... how would i know which ones? Thus pro didnt debate con did all to con
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Hezekiah_AhazTheOratorTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke the rules.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Hezekiah_AhazTheOratorTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Breaking rules = auto loss
Vote Placed by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
Hezekiah_AhazTheOratorTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Everything's debatable, even rules. Counter Campbell.
Vote Placed by LibertyCampbell 4 years ago
LibertyCampbell
Hezekiah_AhazTheOratorTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Rules are rules. Don't accept it if you are under 21, its pretty simple.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Hezekiah_AhazTheOratorTied
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: Pro decided to be a lawyering D-bag instead of arguing the topic.