The Instigator
tarkovsky
Pro (for)
Tied
4 Points
The Contender
KingTyler18
Con (against)
Tied
4 Points

That there is reason to believe that experience after death is possible.

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,494 times Debate No: 21661
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

tarkovsky

Pro

Before we begin, I'd like to at least mention something that everyone is already probably thinking: my case is probably going to be pretty desperate. This I admit wholeheartedly as I realize the unconventionality of my position. However, I do believe that despite its unconventionality, this topic should be part of the open forum of debate. I look forward to debating someone who can treat the debate seriously and with at least some sensitivity.

Now then, this debate will have for its resolution that there is reason to believe in the possibility of at least some form of experience occuring after biological death.

I will argue for the resolution, con will argue against, and the onus will be mine. Additionally, one self-imposed condition will be that neither Pro nor Con can refer to any form of religious scriptures or teachings as evidence.

Reason, here, will mean any justification that meets the standards of logical validity.

Biological death, here, is the irreversible cessation of life processes by an organism.

Experience, here, will refer to any form of qualia or impressions without restriction to human qualia or impressions.

I look forward to a stimulating debate and a thanks in advance to my fellow interlocutor.


KingTyler18

Con

I think this is a fascinating topic and look forward to a spirited debate. I accept your terms, and I am confident I can refrain from referring to religious text. I instead will base my argument as the con to this subject, that it is based not on any scientific evidence (which I will cite) but on wishful thinking. Thanks ahead of time to my opponent and I am confident we can keep this respectful.
Debate Round No. 1
tarkovsky

Pro

I’d like to extend a very fond thank you to KingTyler18 for accepting this debate. I appreciate his enthusiasm and look forward to perceptive criticisms.

Preamble

I’d like to start with two points on metaphysical inquiries:

1. “Every metaphysical question encompasses the whole range of metaphysical inquiries.” (Heidegger, 1929, pg. 93)
2. “Every metaphysical question can be asked in only such a way that the questioner as such is present together with the question, that is, placed in the question.” (Heidegger, 1929, pg. 93)

These two points can be stated summarily as: “Metaphysical inquiry must be posed as a whole and from the position of the existence that questions.” (Heidegger, 1929, pg. 94)


Why Is There Everything Rather Than Nothing?

This isn’t, strictly speaking, a question (just interrogative) as it precludes any answer whatsoever. That is to say that, quite literally, by the logic already posed by the question, any answer is already out of the question. The reason for this is that it acts similar to the kid who will indefinitely ask “why”. As everything encompasses, just that, “everything”, you would have to go beyond everything to obtain an answer and this is patently impossible.

At the same time, there is more than one way to interpret this ‘question’. The first interpretation supposes everything always existed, and there was no movement from a state of nonexistence to existence. The second supposes that there was some sort of movement from nonexistence to existence. The following argument will be given assuming the latter interpretation. The first interpretation will be addressed in the section labeled "clarifications".

I bring this metaphysical question (interrogative) up because it has some utility when transposed into a more specific articulation (though I’d like to point out that the specificity of the novel articulation doesn’t ruin its inimitable generality; the would-be-answer would be the same to both the specific and generalized form). The specifying transposition brings the question of why there is everything rather than nothing to, why do I exist rather than not exist? That these two metaphysical questions are essentially the same should be more or less understandable, but should someone object, I’d like to remind everyone of our two points in the preamble. Specifically, the first point shows that because they already encompass the whole range of metaphysics, these two questions are essentially the same: to answer one is to answer the other. They both fall into the a special category of questions, namely, metaphysical questions as they both are really just interrogative statements and preclude any possible aswer. Finally, that their reason for unaswerability is identical; the scope of both questions encompasses everything which leads to infinite regress.

Why Do I Exist Rather Than Not?

At this point, I’d like for our readers to consider five points of fact from my frame of reference:

1. I exist as a conscious and experiencing being.
2. There was a time when other conscious, experiencing beings ostensibly existed, but I cannot recall any consciousness or experience at that time.
3. There was a time when other conscious, experiecing beings ostensibly existed that precedes any and all recollections I have.
4. You must be a conscious, experiencing being to form something recollectable.
5. There was probably a time when I was not a conscious experiencing being, videlicet, the time that precedes all my recollections.

It should also catch our notice that these facts can be taken as a syllogism. The reason I add “conscious and experiencing” is to distinguish states of existence. Perhaps I existed, beforehand, as some dispersed probability, disembodied but present. However, this distinction is made only in order that we might keep it in line with our original question, that is to say, that this hypothetical, objective probability state would share its origin with everything; that it doesn't 'escape' the question. (Why Everything Instead of Nothing?)

What these points of fact illustrate is that there was a time that I did not have the same kind of existence that I do now. Rather, when speaking in terms of consciousness, there was a time that I did not exist. More importantly though, was that this state of nonexistence ultimately led to my current state of existence. Here I want to make a quick clarification: I am not ascribing a causal status to my nonexistent state. Instead, it should be considered a known prerequisite of sorts.

In short: Given the terms of my present, conscious, experiencing state, there is reason to believe that future states of consciousness and experience are possible so long as they proceed from the same terms.

The terms (with respect to consciousness and experience)
1. There was an interval in which I did not exist.
2. The interval of nonexistence was followed by an interval of existence.

Asymptotic Causality

Here we move to the usefulness I spoke of regarding the metaphysical question “why do I exist rather than not?”. As I already demonstrated, this is, indeed just a transposition of the more general metaphysical question “Why is there everything rather than nothing?”. Additionally, I’ve shown that this is a special kind of question in that it cannot be answered. Therefore, the causal link between a state of nonexistence to existence, in light of this question, is infinitely distanced from us. The causal link between nonexistence and existence is a veritable asymptote.

If there is no answer to the metaphysical question, then, it follows, necessarily, that an answer cannot be found. So, the search for any answer, especially in terms of cause and effect, is a thankless task. Furthermore, as long as a definite answer isn’t found, what can be said, whatsoever, about the metaphysical question will be given as a possibility.

It isn’t a long haul now to get to our resolution. Death is the ostensible end of my present state of existence, that is to say, I will no longer be a conscious experiencing being. In other words, at death, there is reason to believe there will be an interval in which I do not exist. With that, I will satisfy the first term of my present state of affairs which gives me reason to believe that it is possible that an interval of consciousness and experience will follow.

Thus, there is reason to believe experience after death is possible.

Clarifications

That “Why is there everything rather than nothing?” is not a question: The very notion of question presupposes the notion of answer and, as such, one component cannot be absent. Phraseology doesn’t establish functionality. Any possible solution to this interrogative is already a problem for it and would just as soon fall into question, ad infinitum.

That the first interpretation poses no problem for the possibility of experience after death: Should existence be preponderant to nonexistence is already evidence that existence is a more likely state than nonexistence which is reason to believe that experience is possible, if not probable, after death. Furthermore, even if this was the case, the foregoing argument could still be made as the preponderance of existence doesn’t present any overt conflicts with it.

Works Cited

Heidegger, Martin, and David Farrell. Krell. Basic Writings: From Being and Time (1927) to The Task of Thinking (1964). New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2008. Print.



KingTyler18

Con

Well, I must start out by saying I do not think I will be able to match my opponents length in my argument. Instead I will sum up my opponents argument as best I can and get right to my point.

Why is there something rather than nothing?
This is the basis of my opponents argument. Why do I exist instead of not? Well, the purpose isn't mine to explain evolution. Neither biological or cosmological. I would refer you to a book and lecture by Prof. Lawrence Krauss "Something from nothing" Which explains in perfect scientific reason why we have a universe from nothing or at least how it's possible. In a nut shell, nothing, has mass. There is a lot going on in nothing, on the quantum level anyway. If you have about an hour I would recommend this lecture.

http://youtu.be...

My opponent brings up great ideas and has a wonderful element of philosophy. However, the topic is that there is Reason to believe experience is possible. I have seen no such reason demonstrated by him whatsoever. In his last statement, he said

"In other words, at death, there is reason to believe there will be an interval in which I do not exist. With that, I will satisfy the first term of my present state of affairs which gives me reason to believe that it is possible that an interval of consciousness and experience will follow."

This could be true, and everything else he stated could be a scientific fact. However all he said was that this gives HIM reason to believe. This may not apply to most or anyone else. I see the Big Dipper in the sky, that gives me reason to believe someone dropped a pan in space. This doesn't make it true, or at the very least, true for anyone else.

You were in fact something else, a state of being as he put it before your conscious self. Atoms, sub-atomic particles created in the nuclear furnace of a star billions of years ago. Would you refer to this state of "being" a conscious one? I hardly think so. You may indeed return your atoms to the earth and they will do what they do. You will not be aware of it, nor is there any reason to believe you would.

It all comes down to evidence, not philosophy, not hope, and not wishful thinking. My opponent has provided a great philosophical debate, even something worth thinking about, but without evidence there can be no reason. Reason without evidence is faith. The topic was "There is reason to believe experience after death is possible." Not "I have faith that experience after death is possible."
Because we wish something to be true, does not provide evidence, thus no reason to state that it is indeed factual.

To quote Carl Sagan "If we wish to know the truth of our origins and our destinies, we must embrace the facts the Universe gives us, and put aside reassuring fables, no matter how fond of them we are."

Science and evidence has provided no reason to believe that there is indeed a state of conscious after life. It hasn't provided evidence to the contrary either. We must go with facts provided and change our thoughts on each subject as new facts arise. Until there is evidence to suggest that an after death state of conscious being is possible, then there will be no reason to believe otherwise.
Debate Round No. 2
tarkovsky

Pro

I’d like to start out with Con’s strongest point which is, in fact, purporting a two-fold refutation.

Con writes:

I would refer you to a book and lecture by Prof. Lawrence Krauss "Something from nothing" Which explains in perfect scientific reason why we have a universe from nothing or at least how it's possible. In a nut shell, nothing, has mass. There is a lot going on in nothing, on the quantum level anyway. If you have about an hour I would recommend this lecture.

The purported refutation applies, by my count, to both, my argument that the metaphysical question posed earlier doesn’t have an answer and equally (and by dint of the former) that there is reason to believe that there is experience after death. That said, I’d like to take a quote, directly (at about the forty minute mark of the video), from the lecture Con has posted wherein Krauss says:

This answers this crazy question religious people keep throwing out... why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is there had to be, If you have nothing in quantum mechanics you’ll always get something.” (Krauss, 2008) underlining is my own.

From here, I’d like to point out why none of this constitutes as a legitimate refutation of any claims made in my argument.

"Religious People"

I believe the most obvious and cogent disqualification is the religious frame Krauss throws on the statement. The very terms of the argument explicitely preclude religious characteristics. Furthermore, rather than deeming the question itself crazy, it seems more likely Krauss was referring to the use religious people make of the question, videlicet, as an argument for the existence of a deity. Immediately, we should see this doesn’t apply to my case as no such argument was given. Moreover, the metaphysical question wasn’t even given as direct evidence for experience occuring after death. All that was said was that it establishes that the movement of non-existence to existence cannot be explained in terms of cause and effect because, by the underlying logic of the question itself, causality would, necessarily, come into question by the question. This is because the principle directing this movement would have to be a primary principle; establishing why things are the way they are, as the way things are are because this principle exists and, aha, if the principle exists, yet existence is being questioned, we can only conclude that it isn’t a suitable answer. Therefore, posing any principles as an aswer would be unavailing.

Scientific Mendacity

Once again, I’d like to reiterate my belief that Krauss was referring not to the ridiculousness of the question itself (as I don’t see anything overtly ridiculous about it), but rather, the ridiculousness of the religious arguments which are predicated from it. Nonetheless, there is still the matter of Con’s argument:

In a nut shell, nothing, has mass. There is a lot going on in nothing, on the quantum level anyway.

I find a grave misunderstanding in this in that it completely ignores the real scope of the metaphysical question. As explained, any principles fail to serve as an answer to the question, much less the observable principles of quantum mechanics. What my opponent is doing is changing our meaning of nothing, which is completely unfair to the original question, as it isn’t at all concerned with that special type of nothing which can be given a physical description in terms of quantum behavior. Alas, this is nothing more than simple equivocation.

Even more to the point, at about thirty-two minutes in, Krauss says “What’s so beautiful about a universe of total enegy zero? Well only such a universe can begin from nothing...you don’t need a deity. You have nothing, zero total energy, and quantum fluctuations can produce a universe.” We see more evidence that Krauss didn't consider the question crazy, also he implicitly states that what he means by "nothing" is a system (in this case a universe) of zero total energy. This doesn’t imply the scope of “nothing” referred to by the original question and thus obfuscates what relation his statements might have with respect to the question “why is there everything rather than nothing?”.


Points on “Reason”

The rest of Con’s contentions can be summarized with his statement:

It all comes down to evidence, not philosophy, not hope, and not wishful thinking. My opponent has provided a great philosophical debate, even something worth thinking about, but without evidence there can be no reason. Reason without evidence is faith. The topic was "There is reason to believe experience after death is possible." Not "I have faith that experience after death is possible."
Because we wish something to be true, does not provide evidence, thus no reason to state that it is indeed factual.

With this statement, I see a host of problems, all of which disqualify its legitimacy as a refutation. First and foremost is the apparent breach of terms. I quote myself from the first round:

Reason, here, will mean any justification that meets the standards of logical validity.

Nowhere was it stated that "reason" was to mean having met any scientific standard of validity. Consequently, the resolution was never posed as a scientific statement and shouldn’t be forced to satisfy the conditions establishing scientific validity. Moreover, when my opponent agreed to these definitions in the first round he meant that he agreed to abide by these meanings in the proceeding argument and disregarding this agreement doesn’t save him from going on to refute himself by establishing new meanings to these terms which were not originally accepted by the resolution. At the same time, science shouldn’t be considered the only legitimate avenue to truth. To imply that philosophy is on the level of "wishful thinking" is, altogether, disagreeable.

Futhermore, I did actually offer evidence to legitimize my resolution. Not only was it logically valid but I even went further and explained why this was the only reliable domain from which evidence should be taken. At the same time I think it’s interesting to note that, should any of our readers be curious enough to watch the video, I’d like them to take notice at about thirty-three minutes in. At that point, Krauss jokes about how he knew the universe was flat but the data didn’t fit his predictions (which actually seem to come from rather arbitrary reasons like ‘its the only mathematically beautiful universe’). Krauss says: “ People like me were pretty sure the universe was flat, but the damn observers came up with the wrong number.” This seems to imply that the entire case from Krauss hasn’t yet met the level of scientific validity that Con expects my own argument to meet. Thus, per his own standards of validity, his foregoing point about the inherent ‘quantum abilities’ of nothing to produce a universe is self-refuting.

Thus I entreat that Con’s refutations be rejected as both fallacious (a la equivocation) and self-refuting. At this point I’d like to sum up my previous argument which should be regarded as unrefuted and tenable. The summary is as follows.

Summary

A: Our metaphysical question has no answer and, ipso facto, is not strictly a question.
A1: No answer implies asymptotic causality with respect to non-existence and existence.
A2: No definite answer implies any answer will be given in terms of possibility.

B: “Given the terms of my present, conscious, experiencing state, there is reason to believe that future states of consciousness and experience are possible so long as they proceed from the same terms.
B1: Terms with respect to experience: 1) There was an interval in which I did not exist. 2)The interval of nonexistence was followed by an interval of existence.
B2: Death satisfies our first term. Therefore, should consciousness and experience proceed from death, it will proceed from the same terms.

Resolution: There is reason to believe experience after death is possible.













KingTyler18

Con

All right, I will keep it simple.

B: “Given the terms of my present, conscious, experiencing state, there is reason to believe that future states of consciousness and experience are possible so long as they proceed from the same terms.”
B1: Terms with respect to experience: 1) There was an interval in which I did not exist. 2)The interval of nonexistence was followed by an interval of existence.
B2: Death satisfies our first term. Therefore, should consciousness and experience proceed from death, it will proceed from the same terms.

To say that there is indeed reason to believe experience after death is possible because one did not exsist in the first place and now does is hardly an argument. Then to follow by saying death satisfies the first term when which we did not exsist but since we do now, there you have our conciousness. This sounds vaguely familiar to reincarnation, which this argument is not about (but I would be glad to refute also.) Then he goes on to refute himself by saying "should conciousness and experience proceed from death, it will proceed from the same terms." Should conciousness proceed from death? My opponent is demonstrating an argument from the assumption that conciousness does in fact proceed from death, a fact he has yet to demonstrate adequately. In a nut shell he is saying "So if this is true, I am right."

It cannot be proven that exsistence follows death in any meaningful sense. Because we had a period of non exsistence before our lives now in no way asserts that we have a conscious one afterward, or that this cycle somehow repeats itself. He is coming to the assumption, he called it a logical and valid resolution, that an interval of existence follows an interval of non existence everytime, or should at least, therefore...REASON. Reason where there is none.

I am confident the readers will see through his rather long and unlettered argument for what it is, fatuous. You may very well believe in an afterlife, but this does not give it substance in fact. Certainly not in my opponents argument anyway. Then he goes on to say I refute myself because the video I recommended mentioned religious people, or to say I implied philosophy was equatable to wishful thinking? This surely couldn't have escaped any of you could it?

Lastly, and almost comically he states "science shouldn’t be considered the only legitimate avenue to truth." Science is a tool for understanding the natural world. It's not perfect, but it's the best tool and the only tool we have got. Whatever is not consistent with the facts is thrown out or revised. The psuedo philosophical and meta physical claims of my opponent are simply untrue.

Debate Round No. 3
tarkovsky

Pro

I’d like to begin with Con’s first and only point that bears even a semblance of a legitimate contention. With this contention, I will demonstrate that not only has Con failed to make a legitimate argument against my case, but that he his claim tacitly demonstrates that he is currently in no position to make any arguments whatsoever regarding the resolution.

Then he goes on to refute himself by saying "should conciousness and experience proceed from death, it will proceed from the same terms." Should conciousness proceed from death? My opponent is demonstrating an argument from the assumption that conciousness does in fact proceed from death, a fact he has yet to demonstrate adequately. In a nut shell he is saying "So if this is true, I am right."


Quickly, I’d like to make this contention slightly more comprehensible and point out that Con is claiming I have given into the fallacy of circular reasoning in that my premise presupposes the conclusion. In the first, I submit my claim cannot be representative of this fallacy as my conclusion isn’t even present (my conclusion is the resolution). Moreover, my condensed argument presented in round 3 shouldn’t be taken as being a 'one-to-one' substitute for my original argument, as my claims are buttressed and each point is treated with much more necessary explanation in my original argument.

Facts and Circular Reasoning

Here, I’ll make the more the perceptive point that Con’s contention is founded on a fatal misunderstanding of the resolution (as opposed to my argument). Con asserts that you cannot use ‘the fact’ that consciousness proceeds after death as an argument demonstrating that fact. In many ways, I don’t even know how to answer this as it doesn’t even really begin to address any of my points at all. I am of the belief that the resolution was given in a perfectly clear language: “that there is reason to believe experience after death is possible.” Further, any vague language was later cleared up by the definitions given in round one.

The resolution never said experience after death was a fact; that it is the case that after biological death, that each and everyone one of us experiencing beings will, with an apodictic certainty, go on experiencing. In fact, all the resolution said was that experience after death is possible. Assuming that consciousness does proceed from death was never meant to validate any facts, as Con explains, because validating facts was never the aim of the resolution. Assuming consciousness proceeded from death was only meant to test whether or not, by assuming it was factually occurring, we did not meet with any logical contradictions.

In other words, it was only meant to demonstrate that it was not a logical inconsistent statement. This doesn't mean that it has to happen, only that it can happen. Therefore, Con’s claim of circular logic can be disregarded as fallacious (a la straw man) in that 'experience after death being regarded as a fact' was in neither my premise, nor my conclusion.

The Negation of the Negation of Possible

I can only infer from Con’s malapropos contentions that he has completely failed to understand the resolution, that is to say, he doesn’t even know what we are supposed to be debating. Allow me to explain the onus I had incurred for this argument. That the resolution asserts that experience after death is possible supposes an argument that is able to demonstrate one thing and one thing only: that the statement “It is the case that experience after death is impossible” is false, or more formally, “that it is not the case that experience after death is impossible.” In some cases, simply denying the one case doesn’t automatically imply its opposite, however, the nature of possible and impossible will allow this to be the case; impossibility is the negation of possibility, therefore to negate the former is simply to negate the negation of the later which is the same as affirming it (¬(¬A) ⇔ A). Therefore, if the resolution already presupposes this, it would follow that it is my duty to put forth an argument that would aver and legitimize this claim. Should my argument fail, it wouldn’t be able to withstand logical scrutiny.

In consequence, it isn't only that Con cannot offer any counter arguments, but that he cannot offer any original arguments at all as he has tacitly suggested that he completely misunderstood the resolution and can’t appropriately address the topic at hand. Thus, all arguments extended from Con, up to this point, should be rejected as fallacious (a la straw man) given that he has shown an inadequate understanding of the resolution. Though Con may be unable to make the distinction between what is considered a scientifically verified fact and what is considered logically possible, I am confident that our readers are, indeed, capable of making that distinction and thus should rely on their own perspicacity should they wish to examine my case any further and satisfy any personal curiosities.

The Rest

is either misconduct that, heavy-handedly, asserts my argument is wrong because ‘it’s stupid’,

“I am confident the readers will see through his rather long and unlettered argument for what it is, fatuous.”

“To say that there is indeed reason to believe experience after death is possible because one did not exsist in the first place and now does is hardly an argument.”

“Lastly, and almost comically he states...”

more evidence of a totalizing straw man,

“It cannot be proven that exsistence follows death in any meaningful sense.”

“He is coming to the assumption, he called it a logical and valid resolution, that an interval of existence follows an interval of non existence everytime, or should at least, therefore...REASON.”

or a patently incomplete thought.

“ Then he goes on to say I refute myself because the video I recommended mentioned religious people, or to say I implied philosophy was equatable to wishful thinking? This surely couldn't have escaped any of you could it?”

So for my peroration, I entreat that our readers vote Pro not for the reason that Con’s arguments weren’t enough to refute my case, but because no pertinent refutations were offered, whatsoever. As the point of the debate is to allow one party, representing one claim, challenge the opposing party respresenting the opposing claim and, strictly speaking, since no such interaction came to pass, due points should be awarded to Pro. Pro's argument stands unchallenged while Con is off debating some different resolution entirely.


KingTyler18

Con

I thank the Pro for the debate topic. I am also happy he stuck with it all the way. I am new to the site and this is the first time an opponent has stayed through the whole thing.

I would have to disagree with his straw man accusation. Is it not the case, as far as misconduct goes, that you stated my argument was fallacious? Then to go on stating that I am a "totalizing straw man' or that I said your argument was stupid. I never said that at all as I do not think your argument is stupid. I stated in Round 2, that you mistook me for saying philosophy was wishful thinking. I stated that you made an intriguing, even poignant philisophical argument. I maintain that view now. However you failed to demonstrate any 'reason' to believe the resolution at all. I am very aware of the resolution that we were debating, you can select any definition of reason, science, belief you want, it doesn't give your argument any foundation whatsoever. He demonstrated a massive error in his last rebuttal that I must admit I was a little taken aback by. When there was no good logic in his retort, he resorted to insults. I would extend an apology to the instigator if he thought my refutations were more crass than his.

I will end by stating why I think I carried the day. My opponent demonstrated reasons he has to believe a concious experience is possible after death, but they are HIS reasons. It is in fact the case, that there is no tangible evidence for the resolution, therefore, no reason to believe it. I say again, you may very well wish for it to be true, I could understand why you would, but this does not denote reason. To make a claim and try to use metaphysical claims from 1929 to justify your point is to show a willful ignorance of the facts. The fact is there is no evidence for it. Period.

If the resolution were "There is a reason to hope that experience after death is possible." I would not have accepted the debate because I would enitrely agree with him. My opponent wished to sling insults and assume that I had no idea what resolution we were debating. More untrue statements. He made a valid point when he said I did not in fact refute much of his points. He is correct on that statement and that is my fault. I merely wished to address facts, and he presented none.

Again, I thank the Pro for the debate and appreciate anyone who followed and voted. I look forward to participating in more debates in the future, perhaps even with our instigator today. Thank you all again.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
Thanks guys I appreciate the votes and helping keep up the dynamics of the debate. I appreciate the honesty and effort Baggins, I know my argument had a clumsy writing style and wasn't as put together as it should have been. Glad to see you still got the gist of it.
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
RFD: The argument from Pro is not very strong, but what is striking is the excellent analysis of the topic, something which is completely lacking in Con's rebuttals.

If we came from Non-existence to existence once, it is reasonable to think that it is 'possible' again. This is a highly condensed form of my understanding of Pro's position. It is clear from the resolution that the argument is for possibility only. Since Con has not presented any effective rebuttal, I will award it 2:0 to Pro based on arguments.

A further 2 points are mandated to Pro for conduct. 1 points for his excellent analysis of the subject. 1 point due to poor conduct of Con. Specifically, Con posted a link to a very long lecture rather than presenting the arguments (the lecture was anyway irrelevant to resolution). Tarkovsky actually went through the lecture and tried to rebut it. It was then conveniently dropped by KingTyler18.

That makes it 4:0 to Pro.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
Glad we finally got a vote in here, despite my disagreement with it as lars voted from personal opinion rather than debate content and failed to understand my argument. It's all good, I'm just glad there was some sort of response from the DDO community.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
Just wanted to say I hope Con didn't take any offense to my arguments. I'm glad we were able to go through start to finish. It's hard to not take something personally but, and maybe it's just me, I've always thought that 'fallacious' was strictly sterile as all it's really saying is that the argument isn't logically valid or it isn't directly addressing the target argument. At the same time it packs a punch as it's an unmistakable word, a rhetorical device really. It's hard not to sound demeaning or patronizing when the point is to debate, but, with respect to my use of it, 'fallacious' should be understood as a civil word. I didn't even really take your comments to heart so much, I just saw an opportunity to point them out and figured I'd dig for some points is all. All the same, I had fun completing a debate.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Before I continue reading past pro's opening arguments, I will say one thing:

Heiddeger! Fffff-yes! :D
Okay, all done. Continuing.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
Sorry if this came out only a few hours before the deadline, picked up a few extra shifts this weekend at work and I nearly didn't even find the time.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
@Anayasi

I'm glad you are excited about the debate! I only hope that my arguments don't disappoint you.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
Sorry if this took a little longer than should have been necessary to post. Dealing with midterms right now! Again I apologize!
Posted by Anayansi 5 years ago
Anayansi
I am believe in experience after death. I will be looking forward to this debate.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
I apologize for not stating this formally but I'd appreciate if we could keep the first round to acceptance.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
tarkovskyKingTyler18Tied
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 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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
tarkovskyKingTyler18Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Spelling is for being much clearer and more understandable - but avoiding jargon on both sides would have lifted the quality immensely. Pro had BOP. Pro showed we don't know if experience after death is possible because the question of existence is logically invalid. Con explained evidence is required for reason, and pro answered logical validity is required for reason. Pro's argument thus is self-refuting because it shows the question of experience after death is logically invalid. Neg win.