The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

The invisible things are the most important in the earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 781 times Debate No: 62780
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)




The debate will have 2 rounds. There is only one rule, rebuttal only for Con.
The invisible things, like freedom, justice, and mercy are the most important things in this world. Without them, the world would be a mess.


Apologies for such a late response; I have been pondering my response for some time now, especially with no arguments being made on my side. Because I only have the right to rebuttal, the BoP falls completely on Pro. Therefore, my sole priority is to disprove even one of Pro"s arguments, and successfully fulfill my duties as Con.

First, I will lay out some definitions, simply to clarify things. This should not be taken as an argument, nor a rebuttal, but simply as a means to make things clearer for the judges. Additionally, I am not attempting to get into a debate over semantics; that serves no purpose in this debate (yet"). This power should be in my hands at this point seeing as a few terms were not accounted for in Pro"s opening statement. Should this fall into a misconduct, I advise judges to disregard this paragraph (though I"m not sure how it could seeing as I am not making arguments).

- Invisible: impossible to see; not visible [1]
- Freedom: the condition of being free of restraints [1]
- Justice: the upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law [1]
- Mercy: compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power [1]
- Mess: a chaotic or troublesome state of affairs [1]

Next, I would like to address and refute these claims of invisible concepts such as "freedom, justice, and mercy." In my defense, I would argue that at least two of these are not completely invisible. Freedom, for example, while being a concept or immaterial thing, is not always invisible. Something as simple as a jail cell is enough to disprove this; one can plainly see that an individual within this cell would not be free, and would not have freedom.

This same concept can be seen in justice, as well as mercy. Fair treatment is something that can be witnessed, even in something as simple as equality within the workplace. As long as someone can physically see that everyone is allowed to have one donut from the break room, fair treatment is in place, and justice (according to standards) is upheld, but not in an invisible form.

Lastly, in arguing against the invisibility of these ideas, we come to mercy. Mercy, or compassionate treatment, can be seen in many aspects in life. Yes, physically seen. Mercy can be observed with interactions dealing with stranded animals, offering them a place to recover and possibly live. This nurturing act, a clearly visible act, demonstrates mercy on a visible level.

Next, I would like to address the claim that "the world would be a mess." This is a valid argument, seeing that the overall functionality of the world tends to rest on these few things. However, things being "a mess" or even anything close to it is simply not based in fact. Unless Pro is able to provide proof of this (not stating that he can"t; just saying he hasn"t yet), he has not fulfilled his BoP, and that point is then invalid. Refuting this point further, one can look at history and see that even with these things being absent, the world was not flung into a state of chaos. Previous to the Civil War, slaves were legal within the United States, and everything went on smoothly (relatively). Do not mistake this for my support of slavery; nowhere near what I am referring to. But when one looks at the situation previous to freedom being granted to the slaves, the South was not utter chaos. Things went smoothly, and the North fought not because the South was in peril or out of control, but because they did not agree with their standards.

Being a different type of debate, my round ends here. I am not able to present new arguments, so I look forward to my opponents new arguments in this upcoming final round.


Debate Round No. 1


To disprove the first point, no, you cannot see freedom, only the products. Moving on, you also cannot see the air, yet we need it to stay alive and healthy. And if you are a Christian then you definitely believe that the invisible things are the most important. These facts are irrefutable, no sane man would say " I can see the air!" No, you cannot. Some would say that you can, claiming that the sky is blue because it reflects the air. ( Taken from Yahoo Answers) Yet some of the greatest minds of the scientific world say that the sky is blue because the sun's rays and heat warm and the chemical reaction of the air, ( still not visible) turns the sky blue. As I said before, you cannot see mercy, Justice or freedom. You can see acts of mercy, but what you SEE is the person giving the mercy. Same with justice and freedom.


Thanks to my opponent for a quick reply! Definitely makes these debates more enjoyable when we can debate quickly.

"No, you cannot see freedom"

To begin, I am not quite sure how you cannot see freedom. I clearly stated that freedom is the condition of being free of restraints; therefore being in restraints, one can see that freedom is restricted.

"And if you are a Christian then you definitely believe that the invisible things are the most important."

Next, bringing up my views on religion carry no purpose in this debate. Even being Christian, why am I not allowed to argue another point of view? Even if I don't believe it completely, I am still allowed and able to put forth a strong argument.

"These facts are irrefutable"

Facts? What facts? This debate is entirely opinion-based, on which aspects of life, physical or invisible, are the most important. You failed to prove any of these facts, by the way.

"Some would say that you can, claiming that the sky is blue because it reflects the air."

Proving my point. If it is a claim that individuals make, then it is a possible point of view. No proof was offered that this view is wrong, but merely another way of looking at the sky being blue.

"Yet some of the greatest minds of the scientific world say that the sky is blue because the sun's rays and heat warm and the chemical reaction of air, (still not visible) turns the sky blue."

Fine. I will agree that the chemical reactions are not visible. But they turn the sky blue? Meaning we can see the blue sky? That would mean the sky, or air, is visible.

"As I said before, you cannot see mercy, justice or freedom."

No proof of this. BoP falls on Pro, and they have failed to demonstrate this.

My refutation claiming the world would not go into chaos or become a mess is avoided in Pro's second round (not saying that this was a "dropped argument," but more of a dropped refutation.)

Furthermore, this debate does not even revolve around whether justice, freedom, and mercy are visible. It states that invisible things are the most important in the world. Even if Pro was able to prove that these things are invisible (which he hasn't provided proof), he provides no arguments showing they are the most important. Therefore, Pro was not able to prove his side, and seeing that I am not entitled to give arguments, this debate should, in theory, go to me.

I thank my opponent for a speedy debate. Thoroughly enjoyed this arrangement! Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zanomi3 3 years ago
Just the literal text, actually. Vote me would imply voting because it's me, vote con would mean because my arguments were stronger. Doesn't really matter, in any case. The debate wasn't here in the comments; it was in the debate.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
Zanomi, if you are Con, then how is there any effective difference between saying 'vote for me' and 'vote for Con'?
Posted by Zanomi3 3 years ago
Alright fine. Those two words shouldn't really impact the outcome of the debate anyway.

Congrats on going to a debate camp! But this isn't debate camp. It's a fun website to debate with others when you have time on your hands. Sure, debates are formal, but it's all just for fun.

Not sure I ever said "vote for me," but instead vote con, little bit of a difference there.

Also, you're 14. Even if you are mature, I'm not sure I'd consider that a young man. No need to put it in caps either; I can read fairly clearly. I wasn't even trying to attack you in that statement; I was saying that, according to the way the debate was conducted, it's clear we can both be mature, and neither of us are really childish.
Posted by crushboy79 3 years ago
Oh, by the way, I am a young MAN not a kid, thank you very much.
Posted by crushboy79 3 years ago
That's actually, not lame. I was told by a pro debater during a debate camp NOT to say, "vote for me!" And just cause I am 14 does not mean I cannot see immature comments like" Vote for me" It's common sense that is pretty lame.
Posted by Zanomi3 3 years ago
Not quite sure how that is lame, but no matter. Was a decent debate nonetheless. Telling me to grow up? I don't need to take that from a 14 year old kid. Not saying I'm so much older or anything, but really? Pretty easy to see from the rest of the debate that neither of us is really childish.
Posted by crushboy79 3 years ago
And its pretty lame to say at the end of your arguments "Vote Con!" C;mon, grow up a bit.
Posted by crushboy79 3 years ago
Thank you for a good debate, hope we remain tied. Good job, I look forward to meeting you in the future. ( no, I wasn't trying to add to my debate, merely mention that)
Posted by Zanomi3 3 years ago
I appreciate a good debate though! Hardly anyone responds with arguments as quickly as you do (even I took forever to begin...)
Posted by Zanomi3 3 years ago
Unfortunately, comments here do not play a part in the debate, however logical or true they are.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mdc32 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I've been following this but just barely caught it before it finished. Con wins sources, because he used a source and Pro didn't. Also, Pro didn't fulfill his real BoP, because he didn't prove anything on his own part. Pro only showed that mercy, justice, and freedom could be invisible, not that they were the most important.