The invisible things are the most important in the earth
Debate Rounds (2)
The invisible things, like freedom, justice, and mercy are the most important things in this world. Without them, the world would be a mess.
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 
- Freedom: the condition of being free of restraints 
- Justice: the upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law 
- Mercy: compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power 
- Mess: a chaotic or troublesome state of affairs 
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.
"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!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mdc32 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.