The Instigator
MikeNH
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
TheAmazingAtheist1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Science says you have no brain

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
MikeNH
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 563 times Debate No: 40447
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

MikeNH

Con

This first round is for acceptance.

In a previous debate you said the following:

"Have you ever touched, smelled, heard, seen, or tasted your brain? No? Then according to the established laws of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocols, Science says you have no brain. So how should we trust your lectures? Faith correct? Exactly. That's what keeps things alive and moving."

Yes I have seen my brain in various scans/pictures, and I contend that science can easily demonstrate that I have a brain, and that no faith is required to belief that I have a brain.

Faith, I think we agree based on what you've stated previously, is defined as the belief in something without any evidence. Logic, reason, skepticism, and the critical assessment and testing of falsifiable claims is what provides evidence and sufficient justification to believe any claim, including the claim that I do in fact have a brain.

In order to move forward, we both need to reject the idea of hard solipsism, namely that one can only one's own mind is sure to exist, in other words nothing outside of the brain can be known to exist. If you do not accept this starting premise, we can't really have this debate, as you would be conceding that you would in fact be debating yourself inside your own mind, rather than another thinking human via the internet.
TheAmazingAtheist1

Pro

Whoops... My bad.

Logic, reason, skepticism, and the critical assessment and testing of falsiable claims does in fact provide evidence and sufficient justification that we have a brain. Without one, we can not think. Scientists have confirmed that every habitable species (Including us human beings) were created with a brain and has provided proportional, adequate evidence.

It was just an example, by the way.

Anyways, thank you for bringing up my mistake.
Debate Round No. 1
MikeNH

Con

You really lost me with that response.

"Logic, reason, skepticism, and the critical assessment and testing of falsiable claims does in fact provide evidence and sufficient justification that we have a brain."

Ok I suppose I'm with you so far...

"Without one, we can not think."

Right...

"Scientists have confirmed that every habitable species (Including us human beings) were created with a brain and has provided proportional, adequate evidence."

What is a "habitable species"?

So are you conceding that you've lost this debate, or are you being sarcastic? I really do apologize, but I just can't tell.
TheAmazingAtheist1

Pro

I am very skeptical, by the way.

I am both conceding that I lost this particular debate and that my previous example was insufficient.
Debate Round No. 2
MikeNH

Con

"I am both conceding that I lost this particular debate and that my previous example was insufficient."

Ok then, lets just fill in the final arguments so we can close this. Thank you.
TheAmazingAtheist1

Pro

Alright.

blablablablabla. blablabla. blabla. Bla Bla Bla Bla Yoxoxoxoxoxxo?
Debate Round No. 3
MikeNH

Con

Filler text as opponant conceded;
TheAmazingAtheist1

Pro

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
Albert Einstein
Debate Round No. 4
MikeNH

Con

Filler text as opponent conceded;
TheAmazingAtheist1

Pro

Filler text as opponent conceded;
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
MikeNHTheAmazingAtheist1Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO gave up, so con wins.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
MikeNHTheAmazingAtheist1Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument to con for Pro admitting defeat. Pro, you can decline a debate and admit that you are wrong about an example in the comments section or something. You don't have to accept an official debate just to admit that something said in a different debate was wrong.