The Instigator
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BangBang-Coconut
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

Prove your own existence as a separate being

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 4 votes the winner is...
BangBang-Coconut
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,206 times Debate No: 15488
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

THEBOMB

Con

I will be trying to disprove your existence while you are trying to prove your existence.

Everything that is sensed externally is just a physical manifestation of yourself. Everything that is perceived is just subconscious images projected into the outside world. The different people who are all different in some way are just parts of you that want to achieve different goals. Therefore, you are just a projection of my mind and are part of my mind. This means you do not exist as a separate being because you are actually a part of me.
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate!

I am real because have a debate.org account. Thus I win.

Now allow me to point out something about this argument; it has a claim, warrant, and impact. Thus it is a viable argument.

Claim: "I am real..."

Warrant: "...because I have a debate.org account."

Impact: "This I win."

My opponent has the instigator has the burden of proof to show that I do not exist, but has not done so.

First, their opening arguments have no warrants as to why they are true. So therefore we cannot consider it in the realm of this debate

Second, my opponent issued this debate to any-one who wanted to accept it; therefore the arguments are generic arguments that my opponent makes with-out a basis of empirical evidence.

Finally, My opponent cannot extend these arguments as arguments readily relative to me in the next round because we already know they are non-unique.

Vote Pro, I am real.
Debate Round No. 1
THEBOMB

Con

I roughly stated that the universe is contained within me. The cynical person is the part of me which is cynical. The happy person is the part of me which is happy etc. If the universe is contained within me everything is me. You would be me. This means "you" are not a separate being. I do not need to support why the universe is me because everything is me. Therefore, I do not need tell that the universe is me because there is no one else to tell it to but, myself. There is no need to support the argument because the argument alone supports itself. There is no way for "you" to disprove that fact that the universe is me and therefore, "you" are me and not a separate being.

Your entire argument is that "you" are real because "you" have a debate.org account. But, since I am the universe and debate.org is in the universe debate.org is part of me. Since debate.org is me then "your" account is me then if "your" account is me then "you" are me.

Empirical evidence is originating in or based on observation or experience. But, the universe is me. Since the universe is me then all empirical evidence is me.

I can extend this argument to "you" because it is talking about the universe, which includes "you", since it directly applies to "you" there is no way to say that it is not relative.
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

I thank my opponent for their very swift rebuttal!

So first of all, my opponent suffers from a multiple causation fallacy argument.

The warrant behind myself no existing as a a separate entity, is that that they are the universe; and the warrant behind them being the universe... is that they are the universe. The warrant behind my opponent's argument is circular thus we cannot accept it

Further more, my opponent claims that they do no need to prove this as they are the universe. This argument is fallacious on multiple levels-
First, it is as their prior argument dependent on itself; thus it has no warrant.
Second, if this where a true statement then my opponent would have no problem backing it up empirically. Yet he further claims that is unnecessary by warranting this claim again back to his other circular and unwarranted argumentation.

Further more; If my opponent's claims where really true then this debate would not be necessary in the first place. If he where the universe (which is not even a concept garnering sentience) then he would not have to debate this topic thus putting him at risk of losing (thus shattering my opponent's reality)

Finally on a logical/philosophical appeal; say my prior logic has not won the resolution for me. If I am not my own individual being but am apart of my opponent, then voting for me is the exact same thing as voting for him.

So I then Ask that you vote for the universe through me. My warrant behind this, is that by my opponent's logic I am the universe

Now going onto a different note, my opponent has not refuted my claims in the prior round; therefore they extend across to this round and can be counted as direct voting reasons in my favor.

therefore by logical conclusion of both mine and my opponent (or the universe) you must Vote Con
Thank you :D
Debate Round No. 2
THEBOMB

Con

Everybody is one consciousness. I cannot prove that you exist outside of my mind. I will split consciousness into a couple parts: "me" and "you". "You" is representing anything that can not be "me". Without "me" there is no "you", because there is no "me" to conceive "you". Therefore, everybody is a construct of my mind. Furthermore, "you" are here only because of "me" and basically this means my reality in which I am existing in exists within me. So the universe exists within me because the universe is my reality.

You say that this argument is not needed because I risk shattering my reality but, you don't know what reality is considering you are "you" and not "me". In reality "you" can argue about reality with "me". This does not place me at the risk of shattering my reality as it is part of the reality.

You stated: "Finally on a logical/philosophical appeal; say my prior logic has not won the resolution for me. If I am not my own individual being but am apart of my opponent, then voting for me is the exact same thing as voting for him."
You are trying to argue that you are a separate being but, you just stated that you are not. Therefore, you lose this debate.

If you are the universe then again I am part of you which means again you lose the debate as you have not argued that you are separate.

Furthermore, you have never provided proof that I am not the universe. You have attacked my logic but, you have not proved that I am not the universe.
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

My opponent's logic is hereby debunked!
If my opponent is the universe and I am a part of him, then we are one; thus it is okay to vote for me.

however if any aspect of my personality exists outside of my opponent's than I still win as I disproved my opponent

For this lease refer to their first paragraph of refutation; regardless of whether or not my opponent was correct in their assertions in the beginning they have split consciousness and we are now two separate entities! Further-more my opponent admits that there are parts of myself that cannot represent himself! thus I am two-fold proven as a separate entity.

The next paragraph is now null as my opponent has admitted I am not the same being as they are. Any manner of logical justification beyond this is exceedingly extra-topical and cannot be considered as I have already proven my opponent false.

Going on to my opponent's refutations; say we accept this logic as viable; in which case neither I nor my opponent can win, but this debate must end in a tie, as we would be the same entity. Thus all issues must be voted on as a tie and even i there where a million votes, we would both end with zero votes on our side. My opponent's logic is three-fold debunked.

Going on my opponent says I have not proven they are not the universe; but have attacked their logic.
before my proof can be seen, we must clarify that through my opponent's claims I am a member of his person; in which case my proof is a first person admittance. With this in mind as prior stated my opponent's stance is four-fold debunked.

Again extend my prior logic that I exist independent of my opponent from my previous speeches, and we have a seven-fold reason to vote me up (Constructive in round 1(1), Negation in round 1(2), Circular and multiple causation fallacy debunk on round two (two arguments here)(3 and 4) and my refutations in this round (5, 6, and 7))

Now with my opponent's stance debunked on four levels; and my stance warranted on seven, you have an ten fold reason to vote for me in this debate, one reason for this round to end in a tie, and no reason to vote for my opponent

Thus logic would point to the fact that you must make the most prevalent decision, that being a vote for me.
Debate Round No. 3
THEBOMB

Con

If you are part of me you never argued that you are not part of me. You are trying to prove that you are not part of me and therefore not part of my universe. You never proved this.

Your consciousness does not exist because everyone has only one consciousness, mine. Therefore, you have no personality because you have no consciousness. Therefore, reality is in me and mine to dictate. The universe is my reality. The universe is in me. You are, therefore, part of me, a construct of my mind. Meaning you are me.

Again to bring up what you are trying to prove. You are trying to prove that you are not me. You are part of my reality so then, you are me because your just a construct of my mind. Because you have not proved that you are not me then you must be me. Furthermore, if you are me then only I can be voted on as you are me.

To conclude, my opponent has my conscious mind and my personality. I have proven that my opponent exists in a reality that I control. This reality is the universe. There is no possible way for me to prove he exists outside of my mind. Since, he cannot exist out of my mind he is in my mind and therefore, is a construct of my mind, since, "he" is a construct of my mind he is me. I can not shatter reality because I control reality since it exists in my mind. My opponent has stated several times that he is not a separate being therefore, "he" only exists in my mind. In sum, you must vote for me because I am the only one whose mind exists, by voting for my opponent you are voting that "he" is separate conscious entity divided from me, something, which I have proven, "he" is not.
BangBang-Coconut

Pro

In light of the fact that I had completely debunked my opponent's arguments last round; nothing my opponent has sadi as round four makes any sense.

My opponent continues to makes baseless attacks with circular unwarranted arguments.

Therefore since my opponent has essientially juts extended his earlier attacks (albiet they where re-worded) they do no stand up in this debates.

I extend my prior voters;

But going on, as of last round my opponent has also given me two new voters;

Eleven, my opponent has tried to break the fourth wall; he has not broken the wall thus he is wrong.
Twelve, If I get even a single vote(which could be my own vote); then my opponent is proven wrong and all votes must go to me.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Skyler827 5 years ago
Skyler827
Wow! This was a lot of fun to read. Great job guys! You're THEBOMB!

Epistemology is always riddled with the problem of the possibility of the universe being a concept of our minds and our projections of reality being completely false. This debate has given me an excellent consideration of the reasons why epistemology can be taken seriously: Con's argument is totally valid if and only if he is right, but there would never be any evidence visible to us and thus the only argumentation he can make is circular reasoning and baseless assertions, but he can never be proven wrong. He may have contradicted himself accidentally but the Matrix hypothesis is still an undeniable possibility. I appreciate the debate guys.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
THEBOMBBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh my goodness. Let's some up this debate. Existence. "You" but everything is ME. Me me me me me universe me the universe "you" but me me me. exist but me me me. Therefore me. Consciousness is part of me me me and me is universe plus "you" so consciousness me me me. "he" "you" but me me me! By the way, just calling him "he" proves that he's separate. You can't call yourself "he".
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
THEBOMBBangBang-CoconutTied
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: Con needs proof, and obviously can't provide one to his wild claim. By me voting on your debate I'm proving my existence.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
THEBOMBBangBang-CoconutTied
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: Con simply asserts with no warrant, and demands proof of negation.
Vote Placed by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
THEBOMBBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote Pro because Con provided no warrants and Pro's argument about circular logic was sound.