The Instigator
SinSyto
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

The idea and or concept of a higher power is essential for human growth and development

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 4 votes the winner is...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,006 times Debate No: 31842
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

SinSyto

Pro

Growth-
a. The process of growing.
b. Full development; maturity.

Development-Grow or cause to grow and become more mature, advanced, or elaborate.

Essential-necessary
DakotaKrafick

Con

I accept.

The resolution my opponent will be trying to affirm is this: "The idea and/or concept of a higher power is essential for human growth and development." Or, in other words, it is necessary for human beings to believe in some higher power in order to come together for a common purpose, that common purpose being the progression of their species/civilizations (inadvertedly or otherwise).

Looking forward to a succinct yet fruitful debate. Ball's in your court now, SinSyto; don't let it be a return ace.
Debate Round No. 1
SinSyto

Pro

I agree to what my opponent has clarified and now I shall tell you why it is the case. Humans are very simple creatures, and from the beginning of our lives, until the very end, we want to survive and live comfortable.

Example: Whether it be god or government these forms of a "higher power" unify us for the common but hard to reach goal of a happy and liveable life. Without the concept of something greater then ourselves how would the human race aspire to even reach the heights we have obtained?
DakotaKrafick

Con

I thank my opponent for his brief response. Taking into consideration that Pro here is the one affirming the resolution and instigating the debate, it is assumed twofold that the burden of proof rests on him. I'm sure he'd agree. Therefore, my only real objective in this debate is to examine my opponent's arguments and refute them adequately. If I can do that, then there would be no good reason to believe the resolution is true (at least not one presented in the debate).

However, Pro not only failed to provide any good reasons to believe the resolution is true; he failed to provide any reasons whatsoever. His previous round lacked any form of deductive reasoning that could even theoretically point toward the truth of the resolution.

I'll grant that human beings, as a whole, generally want to survive and live comfortably. It is in the interests of these desires that we may ever develop and grow our civilizations in the first place. But until some logical connection is made between (A) human beings having interest, ambition, and/or ability to grow and (B) human beings having some belief in a "higher power," my opponent can't point to any conclusion implying that there is one.

He goes on to say that these forms of a "higher power" (be them gods or governments) do indeed unify us for the common purpose of growth and development. But it seems my opponent is confused about which resolution he's affirming. He must argue that belief in a "higher power" is a necessary precondition for human growth, not merely a possible one.

Faulty inductive reasoning such as my opponent's could be applied to all sorts of absurd things. For instance, I could argue that eating bananas is necessary for living a physically healthy life because bananas have shown to be part of the diets of some physically healthy people. But I won't because that's fallacious. It's entirely possible to get the nutrients that bananas provide elsewhere and still live a healthy life. Equally, unless my opponent can explain otherwise, it might be possible for some other thing besides belief in a "higher power" to drive human growth.

My opponent concludes his four-sentence argument by asking, presumably rhetorically, if belief in a "higher power" isn't necessary for human growth, then how else can human growth be achieved? Frankly, I'm insulted my opponent would even resort to such a tactic. This is not how one should affirm the truth of his resolution, by placing the burden of proof on his opponent to prove the negation. I don't accept the burden of proof my opponent is trying to shovel onto me, nor should I have to.

It's essentially the same as someone affirming "God exists" asking "Well, if God doesn't exist, then how did the universe come into existence". It, in it of itself, a non-argument. Even if the answer to the latter is entirely unknown, that is not justification to believe the former.

Though the submitting of the following is entirely extraneous to my objectives in this debate, it is at least interesting to note ants (a species that is arguably more organized and developed for their own species' survival than humans) develop and grow their civilizations without the necessary brain cells to even conceive of a "higher power".
Debate Round No. 2
SinSyto

Pro

SinSyto forfeited this round.
DakotaKrafick

Con

What a shame. Extend all refutations.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
SinSytoDakotaKrafickTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
SinSytoDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to make an argument of substance. His R2 argument was short, and adequately rebutted by Con. The forfeited round loses him conduct.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
SinSytoDakotaKrafickTied
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: F.F.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
SinSytoDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to provide adequate arguments and show why the resolution was true. Conduct to con for the forfeit.