The Instigator
cargiannis
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The purpose of life is to create life.

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 6 votes the winner is...
cargiannis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,195 times Debate No: 59978
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (6)

 

cargiannis

Pro

The title is my argument.
Aerogant

Con

Nope. Life can't be without destroying it over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
Debate Round No. 1
cargiannis

Pro

Dying, or being "destroyed", is a part of life, but it is not life's purpose.
Aerogant

Con

Life is about being destroyed; if you don't destroy stupidity, then what is life?
Debate Round No. 2
cargiannis

Pro

If life was about being destroyed then it would of have ended a long time ago. Since the beginning of life, life itself has grown. Only individual lives have ended.
In response to your question, what is life? Life is a characteristic of physical beings that respond to stimuli and are capable of self-sustainment. Living beings live in many different ways, some have a choice on how to live. The reason for life; and what most living beings choose to do is, to create life. This is through any means in which life is made or extended, more than it is being destroyed.
Aerogant

Con

The entire Universe is based on the death of vessels which store energy so that energy can explode and spread outwards to start over the process, yet this time instead of, say for an example, 3x3, it's now 9x9.

The male genitalia is based on how the star explodes; the female genitalia is based on how the black hole creates.
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cargiannis 2 years ago
cargiannis
@Aerogant
Thought things have come and gone within life, life itself has only grown.

@evangambit
What you could debate is that since the beginning of life, life's purpose has been to destroy life. Much like Aerogant's argument.

@Abrakadabra
What "it " is, is to create life.

@schachdame
I am trying to prove that my theory is substantial through peer review via this debate forum. I am doing this by refuting his arguments, as well as articulating my position, all while using logic.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Man does not negate anyone, when they negate themselves by pretending to be bigger when they are in fact smaller. You are very young and naive; there's much for you to learn still, so again, I will leave your falsifiable statements be.

No, I'm simply expressing myself free as I can be, while addressing the results of your fallibility.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
im negating what you say, I have no need for a BOP, or even arguments. and no, man backs down when threatened that's the natural response, look at dogs, cats, lions, even tigers and boars. you have an over blown ego, so when you feel threatehned you stop arguing and start insulting, you prove this when you say " I am revered by geniuses. Saying that I am not intelligent is the last thing you'd want to say to me. This brain of mine has made breakthroughs on a level that is not for those that did very little with their brain to pursue transient matters which last temporarily." it shows how arrogant and stuck up you are.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
That's coming from someone that doesn't provide arguments, just baseless assertions, while proceeding with their condescension, as if belittling me makes me little - that's what man does when they feel intimidated, they puff themselves up to appear intimidating; it's a natural trait I am very well aware of. So thank you for the compliment, I did not know that I was that intimidating to you until now.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
im gald you are catching on, you have an over inflated ego and it shows in your debates, you isult judges, opponents, and yourself when you act this way. There is literaly no point in discussing with you because you don't debate you post red herrings.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Judges today are simply fudges - the proof is in the pudding.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
It's nice to know that you have to condescend me now. It's the sincerest form of flattery, after all. If I am a 7 year old, with a brain capacity of a floppy disk, then this simply proves that you only are here to deconstruct my value as a being.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
its a red herring, judges now a days are more likely to side against a death penalty than in the medieval days, your arguing things that don't apply to the discussion.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
proud much? you are arrogant 7 year old with the brain capacity of a floppy disk. no one revers you. they use your name as a joke. you don't know what a fallacy is and have no way of explaining why the fallacies you claim apply.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
It's a metaphor, because judges are equivalent to eye-witness accounts. It's how the dark ages killed innocent people - the lawful system was created to eliminate people by using word games and mind traps.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by saboosa 2 years ago
saboosa
cargiannisAerogantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: this is a debate?
Vote Placed by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
cargiannisAerogantTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
cargiannisAerogantTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never refuted Pro.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
cargiannisAerogantTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: argument never refuted
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
cargiannisAerogantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con spammed. Pro showed that life attempts to create life, which was not refuted.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
cargiannisAerogantTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm tempted to award the arguments to Con for a failure to fulfill BoP from Pro, who never gave anything but assertion to support his position--he never supported the existence of a "purpose", let alone that that purpose was to create life. But fundamentally, I think this debate was too much of a mess to properly score, so I'm nulling it. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.