The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points

The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1I

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,610 times Debate No: 8659
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (49)
Votes (7)

 

TheSkeptic

Con

Note: the "1I" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes.

[Definition - Existence]
http://dictionary.reference.com...
1. the state or fact of existing; being.

*NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY.

[Definition - Valid]
http://dictionary.reference.com...
1. sound; just; well-founded
2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

*NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). Let's try to avoid semantics, and get a good hearty debate going.

Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with the intent of showing that it is PROBABLE/DEFINITE the deity exists (through their argument). Saying that something is possible does not necessarily mean it exists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is how the debate will play out:

Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysical supreme being. If my opponent chooses to affirm a metaphysical supreme being, then he/she need to define it's properties (otherwise there will be nothing to debate). Then, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles).

Try to not list too many, ranging from 1-3 is preferable.

Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such.

I hope we have a good debate!
Logical-Master

Pro

NOTE: I shall be using the tags (hence the html here) found on this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Greetings and many thanks for starting this debate. I wish my opponent the best of luck and request that the audience vote on which side presented a more compelling argument. With that said, let us proceed.

[b][color=red] 1) Background [/color][/b]

Unfortunately for my opponent, he has placed himself at a grave disadvantage through allowing me to argue in favor of the existence of any "god" which I choose. The problem is that there are [b]SO MANY[/b] different renderings of what it means to be a god, that I have many easy ways out of having to put too much thought into what I'm arguing and still come out on top. For instance, I could just as easily take the idea of god that translates to someone who is famous and recognized by many and insist that Peyton Manning is a god and that the proof of his existence can be found on Fox or WB every fall during most sunday or monday nights. The only out of this would be for my opponent to prove that there was one objective rendering of god . . . but in all honesty, there isn't. Some cultures consider the rain to be god, some consider kings or emperors to be gods and some consider humans to be gods, given their dominance of the planet. In essence, every idea of god is no more valid than the other.

If PRO brings up the need for "official" definitions, I shall argue that Peyton Manning and/or Barack Obama is considered a god based on one of the definitions provided by oxford dictionary.

2)[b][color=blue] Argumentation [/color][/b]

For now though, I'll stick to a more known idea (at least by the average member on this website) of what a god is and argue in favor of pantheism.

The argument is simple:

1) Whatever is responsible for the development of the known universe is to be considered god.
2) Evidence points to the creation of the universe having occurred as an effect from itself (in other words, created itself, via big bang)
3) Therefore, evidence suggest that the known universe is god.
4) The known universe exist.
5) Therefore, evidence points to god existing.

I'll be more than happy to clarify on any of these premises if necessary.

Keep in mind CON's statements from R1 as well as what I said in the background section. Because of this, premise number one cannot be challenged. The only way CON can win this debate is by finding a problem with premises 2-5 or prove that there is an objective definition of god (though it's doubtful that even he thinks this, or else he wouldn't have allowed me to have an unlimited number of options in this debate).
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate challenge.

Unfortunately, it seems my opponent has resorted to jumping on the supposed opporutnity to "argue in favor of the existence of any 'god' which [he] chooses." He seems to believe this is so when I offered that my opponent can affirm the existence of a god of an already known religion (Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc.) or a god he so defines. However, I didn't put it so blank as that - I specifically stated that it should be a METAPHYSICAL SUPREME BEING. Sure, it should read "metaphysically supreme being", but I really doubt that simple error in grammar tense was the cause of the confusion. So how is my opponent's argument in err? By simply looking in depth at the definitions:

Metaphysical[1] is something of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses, otherwise known as supernatural. This is a definition with specific limits in which we can judge the existence of god or not. Obviously, Peyton Manning and/or Barack Obama are not metaphysical. On the other hand, the definition of supreme is much more relative, and I concede that it's definition is shaky. However, the definition of being[2] is the quality or state of having existence, something that can definitely be judged.

That being said, how does my opponent's argument fare?

====================
Argument for Pantheism vs. Definitions
====================

My opponent boasts that his first premise can't be refuted, but to the contrary it is the most flawed. As stated before, if my opponent want's to argue for a god with specific characteristics, one of it's characteristics has to be the state of being metaphysical - otherwise known as being supernatural.

So can whatever caused the development of the universe be considered metaphysical? The answer is NO. Supernatural is of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe[3]. So by definition, the cause can't be supernatural since it has been observed (in the scientific sense), namely the Big Bang.

====================
Conclusion
====================

Sure, perhaps I should change my words around slightly. Supreme is a relative word that probably should be done away with. 'Being' is a broad term, and perhaps 'entity' can suit much better for the purposes of this debate. However, metaphysical has been clearly grounded, and my opponent's argument is logically contradictory to this statement. The universe and whatever caused it to develop BY DEFINITION can't be supernatural.

It's sad to see that this debate has become a simple battle of definitions, but alas this is what my opponent has brought upon himself.

---References---
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Logical-Master

Pro

[color=red][b] Background continued [/b][/color]

Ladies and gentleman, if you'll refer back to the first round, CON clearly stated that I may choose any [b]specific[/b] god of my choosing. We must keep in mind that it has only been in this round where he has added the terms "known religion." To avoid turning this into a "the instigator wasn't clear, thus has to pay for his/her lack of clarity" debate, I shall agree and accept that he did in fact mean a god of an already known religion. However, this does not help him at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As this page clearly dictates, there are in fact known religions (even sects of what can be constituted as mainstream religions; ironically, there are sects of the three religions CON list during this round which embrace pantheism or uphold pantheistic elements) which embrace pantheism. Since that is the case, I have met the instigators terms, hence allowing you ample motivation to dismiss his objections to my case. With that said, let us remember that this debate is about determining whether or not the arguments in favor of this god are valid and not whether or not the entirety of the religions themselves are valid.

In terms of Peyton Manning or Barack Obama, I shall agree with my opponent that they do not adhere to his terms when noting the "religious" clarification on "any specific god."

[color=green][b]RE: Argument for Pantheism vs. Definitions [/b] [/color]

I boasted that my first premise couldn't be refuted unless my opponent objectively demonstrated that the pantheistic rendering of what constituted as a god was false. My opponent instead opts to argue that I simply haven't met his parameters, but as you can see above, I clearly have.

(Though I might tinker with this idea of pantheism being metaphysical in the next round, should I get the chance).

[b]Conclusion[/b]

As you can see, I have clearly met CON's parameters. Pantheism is indeed supported by many sects of many different religions. His only option as of now is to do as I've requested and demonstrate that my definition of god is objectively false or demonstrate that my argument is false. Either way, I look forward to the next round.

As for becoming a simple battle of definitions, I beg to differ. This is a debate is rather an opportunity to explore waters which are not usually explored and argue on whether or not there is even a objective understanding of "god" in the first place. My opponent is an atheist, thus is not a pantheist. Since he isn't a pantheist, this should be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate pantheism as being a false position. Seeing as I've abided by his parameters, this is the only thing he can do.

With all that said, I'll play one card face down and end my turn.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Con

Ah, I get it now. It seems my opponent wasn't going along with the second option I allowed - affirming the existence of a metaphysical being - but instead he was aiming to fulfill the first option - affirming the existence of any god of any known religion.

My opponent states that this debate won't be a fiddle with semantics, or a "simple battle of definitions". Unfortunately, his argument is exactly that. I will show in the following argument that my opponent's god is really a disguised form of atheism - this God of pantheism is no more than an unnecessary sound, adding nothing new to intellectual discourse.

====================
Which flavor of pantheism is it?
====================

There are actually several forms of pantheism, but unfortunately my opponent fails to explicitly state which one he is arguing for. In the Wikipedia article my opponent cites, it lists three main types of pantheism: Classical pantheism, Biblical pantheism, and Naturalistic pantheism. So the question arises, which group of pantheism is my opponent arguing for? The only way is to go into detail which group of pantheism believes in what, and compare it to my opponent's syllogism in his first round (refer to it if you need).

Classical pantheism is a theistic form of pantheism. Significant aspects of it is that the god of Classical pantheism is supernatural and is either personal or impersonal, which is why classical pantheism can't be what my opponent is arguing for. As I stated in my previous round, my opponent's syllogism states that the god he is affirming is part of the natural world - since he defines it as the big bang. Thus, classical pantheism is not my opponents position.

Biblical pantheism is simply pantheistic beliefs in a Biblical context. Obviously, nothing in my opponent's syllogism even refers to the Hebrew Bible, so this can't be my opponent's position as well.

Finally, we come to naturalistic pantheism. It "holds that the Universe, although unconscious and non-sentient as a whole, behaves as a single, interrelated, and solely natural substance." This is seemingly my opponent's position, since he states that the god he is affirming is synonymous with the Big Bang.

That being said, I have two points of criticism:

====================
Error in opponent's syllogism
====================

In my opponent's syllogism, there is an error in premise 3; let me re-copy the first three premises:

1) Whatever is responsible for the development of the known universe is to be considered god.
2) Evidence points to the creation of the universe having occurred as an effect from itself (in other words, created itself, via big bang)
3) Therefore, evidence suggest that the known universe is god

You see it? There's an error in reasoning between premise 1 and premise 3. The big bang, which my opponent refers to as god, can't be equated to the known universe. If my opponent is arguing for naturalistic pantheism, which is the only viable form of pantheism close enough to fulfill his argument, then he is at a serious error here. The Big Bang is NOT the Universe, it is simply the event that began the development of the universe.

Would an engineer be considered a building? Would a painter be considered a piece of artwork? Would a doctor be considered a form of surgery? The answer to each of these questions is an obvious no - and it's the exact same for my opponent's argument. Is the Big Bang considered to be the Universe? Of course not, but my opponent makes this grave mistake. Therefore, his syllogism from the get go is at flaw, and thus his argument amounts to nothing.

====================
Playing semantics
====================

Naturalistic pantheism has one very major flaw, it is an an intentional misuse of terminology. The word "god" has been abused many times, and it seems to manifest when concerning pantheism. To state that "god" is the universe is to say nothing different from atheism. If naturalistic pantheism believes God to be equatable to nature, then what different is it from atheism?! There is no personal God, there is no supernatural entity, and there is no dogma or doctrine to follow. Naturalistic pantheism is absolutely the same as atheism, but with different terminology! In other words, it's semantics.

Naturalistic pantheism has nothing to offer when compared to atheism but perhaps a "spiritual-like perspective" of nature. When you tear away at such romanticized thinking, then you come with atheism at it's core. My opponent's argument does nothing but to argue for atheism.

However, here I can perhaps predict that my opponent can jump on this. That even though it is playing semantics, it may be seemingly still okay. This is an option I shall leave to the voters. Though I didn't say it explicitly, I did state in my first round that I wanted to "avoid semantics", and it seems my opponent wants to do the same. If that is true, then he needs to account for such a flaw in naturalistic pantheism.

====================
Conclusion
====================

My opponent has made two grave errors. First, he makes a leap of logic in his syllogism; a simple analysis reveals the embarrassing mistake. Second, he is close, if not already guilty, of playing semantics. Whether or not he should be held accountable for this is up to the voters and how he responds. I submit that if all he can resort to is petty semantics, then the fair winner should be me.

I eagerly await my opponents response.
Logical-Master

Pro

REPOSTING THE LINK ON HOW TO SEE THE TAGS: http://www.debate.org...

First, lets get one thing clear on what constitutes as semantics as the insinuation which my opponent is throwing around is not what is generally understood as "semantics" or "playing semantics" on this website. Semantics or playing semantics consist of a contender ignoring an instigators parameters or implied parameters for a debate and arguing beyond said debate's context. In my opponent's second round, he was insisting that I was guilty of this through arguing that I did not uphold his parameters. However, as I managed to demonstrate in the previous round, I have followed my opponents parameters precisely, hence why my opponent is now focused on refuting pantheism (or at least my argument in favor of it) rather than insisting that I've taken part in debate.org taboo.

====================
RE: [b]Which flavor of pantheism is it?[/b]
====================

1) My argument can apply to any of the 3 flavors of pantheism. This is because we are debating on the existence of said god rather than the merits of any theistic religion (something I clarified in the previous round). In other words, religious groups could very well be wrong about some of the qualities of the pantheistic god, but as long as said god is demonstrated to exist, such misconceptions are irrelevant.

2) Nevertheless, to pacify my opponent, I shall agree to defending naturalistic pantheism, provided it's more along the lines religious naturalism (just t make sure I'm upholding the religious aspect of his parameters)

====================
RE:[b]Error in opponent's syllogism[/b]
====================

In terms of the so-called error in reasoning which my opponent is referring to, this is nothing more than a blatant (blatant because my own words are present in his quote and contradict his words) use of the strawman fallacy.

1) Whatever is responsible for the development of the known universe is to be considered god.
2) Evidence points to the creation of the universe having occurred [b]as an effect from itself[/b] (in other words, created itself, via big bang)
3) Therefore, evidence suggest that the known universe is god

Notice the phrase "as an EFFECT from itself." In other words, I'm not saying the big bang created the universe; the process and the state which is effected by said process are CLEARLY NOT being equated. I'm saying that the universe created itself through utilizing the big bang (the event). Ergo, the error which my opponent claimed was present does not exist.

====================
RE: Playing semantics
====================

My opponent quotes the wiki article and claims that pantheism's flaw is an intentional misuse of terminology. However, I would like to point out that this just goes back to the demand which I placed upon my opponent in my first round: Prove that my definition is false (which can be done through showing that there is an objective understanding of god). In doing this, my opponent will have the right to claim that my position is actually misusing any terminology. Until then, it's as I already said: Each definition is no more valid than the other. Going about my opponent's methods, one can easily argue that even if the being which is described as the Christian God exist that it isn't truly a "god", but just a tool of the universe.

In addition, as the same wiki article pointed out, I would claim that this intentional misuse of terminology objection is quite feeble as the [i] pan-" prefix modifies the "-theism" suffix to such an extent that pantheism in fact has little to do with traditional theism. [/i]

Furthermore, due to my own sleepyness, I'm just going to quote the remainder of the wiki article says verbatim rather than use my own words:

"[i]An argument intended to show that the term "pantheism" remains appropriate for the modern, or naturalistic interpretation of pantheism is that the contemporary pantheist sees the term "God" as a synonym for "nature". If nature is equivalent to the theological concept of God, then saying "all is God" (pan-theism) is the same as saying "all is nature". Accordingly, this is the way that many pantheists choose to view the term "pantheism" — all is nature, nature is all. Pantheism, then, is (in this view) essentially a form of spirituality based on nature rather than on supernatural entities such as deities. Accordingly, it is widely accepted that the modern interpretation of pantheism is essentially naturalistic, and therefore constitutes a form of naturalistic spirituality.[/i]"

So there you have it. My opponent is free to object to any of what is said in the quote as I shall gladly defend it.

====================
RE: [b]Conclusion[/b]
====================

My opponent's claim that I've made a leap in logic is revealed to be nothing more than the usage of the strawman fallacy on his part. In terms of playing semantics, I ask that you look back to what I've already said on the matter of semantics. I further ask that you note that the only time my opponent has actually argued this (at least with some validity) was in the previous round when he argued that I had ignored his parameters. However, as you can see for yourselves, he has dropped this argument entirely and has argued directly in terms of whether or not pantheism is valid. Anything else which is considered semantics is nothing more than what applicable to any debate.

Lets keep in mind that what my opponent is doing is asking you to vote against my arguments based on emotion. At best, I can see how this would work in terms of conduct, but for the other voting categories? I'm afraid this plea is only a request to hold this debate in contempt and vote based on matters that don't concern whether or not actual arguments were refuted.

Furthermore, I'm upholding a well established viewpoint. I could ALMOST see if I just pulled something out of the blue (ideas that little to no one thinks of when they see the word "god", which I'd probably be doing had I decided to actually argue in favor of Barack Obama or Peyton Manning being gods), but this is absolutely not the case here. To vote me down just because I'm arguing in favor of this well established viewpoint under the guise that I'm "playing semantics" is absurd and is no virtually no different than voting against someone just because you personally don't agree with their views. In other words, this is nothing more than close mindedness.

With all that being said, I stand waiting for my opponent's final round.

Later. :D
Debate Round No. 3
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate, it's been a pleasure.

Likewise, I need to clear up this misconception my opponent has of what determined "playing semantics". He falsely claims that it is when a contender ignored "an instigator parameters or implied parameters for a debate." But I ask of him - what part of the word 'semantics' ever implies such a definition? If one were to ignore the instigator's parameters, this wouldn't be semantics. It would violating the placed rules.

Instead, "playing semantics" is usually to intentionally abuse terminology. The definition of the word semantics is "the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs[1]." In laymen terms, semantics is the definition of words. The implied usage of the word playing is to "take advantage of[2]." Take these two definitions into context, and to play semantics is simply to take advantage of defining words/the definition of words. So is my opponent guilt of this? Definitely.

As I have shown, naturalistic pantheism is at a complete mistake of playing semantics, or better known as intentionally abusing terminology. It romanticizes atheism by defining nature or life as "God", even though it adds nothing new.

====================
Which flavor of pantheism is it?
====================

My opponent agrees to defining naturalistic pantheism, so there is no further discussion needed here.

====================
Error in opponent's syllogism
====================

Ah, so my opponent tries to take another path in order to avoid a potentially embarrassing error in logical procedure. Fair enough, I will simply focus on his supposed valid reasoning and demonstrate once again it's erroneous. Since my opponent relies on the second premise on the logical coherency of his argument, let's examine it in detail.

"Evidence points to the creation of the universe having occurred as an effect from itself (in other words, created itself, via big bang)

At first glance it is seemingly convincing, but when you take it apart bit by bit it becomes obviously false. My opponent is stating that the universe created itself via the big bang. Quickly we can see a contradiction - how can the universe create itself?! This is like saying something that didn't exist caused itself to exist.

My opponent thinks he can rely on this crucial phrase "as an EFFECT from itself", but it turns out that it defeats his side even more. There are several hypothesis concerning the origin of the Big Bang. It can be uncaused (which is the most popular hypothesis) or be the result of some quantum/string theory event. However, no one has ever proposed that the universe created itself - that is logically absurd.

My opponent need to realize that the Big Bang is a theory explaining the DEVELOPMENT of the universe, not the cause of it (assuming it had a cause). Fields like quantum gravity discuss this possibility. I stress again, the idea that the universe can create itself is nonsensical.

====================
Playing semantics
====================

Even if my opponent's syllogism succeeds, he still falls prey to playing semantics.

My opponent's definition is not false (since in the context of a debate it can be defined), but this wasn't my point. To define nature as god is to say nothing at all. It makes the word "god" a meaningless word, a mere sound. I might as well say "oohblagh" or "fumie" instead of god, and it will be no different. I may understand if naturalistic pantheists add some more characteristics, like if nature is personal or perhaps even sapient. However, to simply reword nature as "God" is to add NOTHING in an intellectual discourse.

This is a debate, which is why you may get away with such things. However, in a real philosophical discussion pantheism is nothing more than New Age folly. If someone were to argue that Peyton Manning is God, would they seriously be considered in the intellectual community? Of course not - even if said person were to change NOTHING about the characteristics of Peyton Manning, the only response they would get is that they are abusing the term "God". They are abusing said term because they have stripped it of it's common meaning (an omni-entity), and simply left it as a useless sound.

Don't get me wrong, it's fine to redefine "God" from the common monotheistic conceptions. However, to simply strip it of ALL meaning and instead make it a useless synonym is ridiculous. I might as well call all machines "God", or all beautiful women "God". As long as I play with semantics, I can get away with such incoherent conceptions. But you don't see me doing that, do you?

Your quote from Wikipedia about naturalistic pantheism does nothing to further it's validity. As I said before, the best that can be said about it is that it's a romanticized way of viewing nature. Besides that, it has nothing to add towards intellectual discussion or progress. It's like being an optimist or pessimist - just different outlook at life.

====================
Conclusion
====================

My opponent is constantly shifting back and forth, avoiding the real issue at hand. His argument for naturalistic pantheism consists of a flawed syllogism and semantics. In fact, at this point the only thing he can really resort to is semantics. There really isn't much more to say, so I will just quote several important claims my opponent makes in his conclusion:

"However, as you can see for yourselves, he has dropped this argument entirely and has argued directly in terms of whether or not pantheism is valid."

----> If my opponent were to read clearly, in my previous round I stated that I changed tactics because I realized my opponent was arguing for a specific religion rather than a metaphysical supreme being. In fact, I shouldn't be at blame since my opponent never stated whether or not he was affirming a). the deity of a specific religion or b). a metaphysically supreme being. He simply offered me a syllogism that gave a vague definition of god, thus forcing me to presume he was arguing for the latter option.

"Lets keep in mind that what my opponent is doing is asking you to vote against my arguments based on emotion."

----> Entirely misleading. No where in my argument did I even hint at such a proposition - you should find that many of my personal beliefs may seem emotionally shocking to people, so why would I resort to emotions now? On the contrary, I gave an ultimatum to the voters. As it is now, I argue that all my opponent can rely on is semantics. This is where the dividing ground for the voters appears. Either they will state that since you "technically won", due to definitions, then they may vote for my opponent. Or they may say that if in the end you can only resort to such tactics, you doesn't deserve the win. Rather than appealing to emotion, I understand that the voters have different takes on what constitutes as a win, so don't accuse me with such a novice error.

"Furthermore, I'm upholding a well established viewpoint."

----> A viewpoint is only well established if the arguments for it are. As of now, all you have is semantics.

"To vote me down just because I'm arguing in favor of this well established viewpoint under the guise that I'm "playing semantics" is absurd and is no virtually no different than voting against someone just because you personally don't agree with their views. In other words, this is nothing more than close mindedness."

----> The that voting against someone because they were playing with semantics is equivalent to biased voting is absurd. If the voters feel that redefining a word and thus pushing the debate's intended trajectory purposefully of course may be a loss on your part, and not mine. It certainly isn't close mindedness, but a different attitude towards who had the better argument.

---References---
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Logical-Master

Pro

Logical-Master forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 8 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Even with the add-on, I'm not seeing the text bolded/underlined etc.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Just for the heck of it, I may just post all of what I would have said anyway tomorrow in the comment section. Too busy now though. Latuh.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Lol. I actually ran out of time for once.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
What a naive and simplistic way of viewing how human civilization has sprung about. Yes, common protection was one of the major reasons why human societies have sprung about. However, you'll find that it isn't so much of importance in the age we live in now. The society of today is much more complicated from it's primal stages of hunter-gather societies.

Not only that, but the clip also talks about the reason why people involve in what we call a "society". The looney younger guy thinks everyone is pragmatically deceiving each other, for what reasons he doesn't say. I'd argue that this -- along with your response -- is much too simplistic. Things like religion and morality have evolved alongside human evolution, and they play a vital role in how we interact with others as a community.
Posted by FirinMahLazor 8 years ago
FirinMahLazor
No, you dumb s/hits, society exists because it best provides for common protection. You and i can fight better than you or I, so we band together for protection.

Basic stuff here guys.
Posted by FirinMahLazor 8 years ago
FirinMahLazor
No, you dumb s/hits, society exists because it best provides for common protection. You and i can fight better than you or I, so we band together for protection.

Basic stuff here guys.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Hmm, first of all - pretty damn interesting anime.

But I don't really buy the idea that human society is pragmatically based on lies and "masks", nor how the old man answers :P. Really, the reason why human society exists is because of several reasons - the most important being our ability to reason. Because we have such a brain capacity, things like religion and morality come into play. Of course, I would argue that religion and morality both have "evolved" into what they are now.

After that is just sociology/psychology :D. I wouldn't take the main character's (I think) word verbatim since it's such a drastic over generalization, which is common in movies/anime :P.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Since we're pretty similar people, tell me what you think of 2:29-3:41:
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
No worries. My teeth are pretty sharp too. I usually don't show the full extent of them unless I'm dealing with guys like Firinmahlazor. :D
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
And pardon my language if it sounds too harsh, I tend to have aggressive prose in a debate :P
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by DictatorIsaac 8 years ago
DictatorIsaac
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by twmazer 8 years ago
twmazer
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
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