The Instigator
Your_Conscience
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
ChickieBobbie
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

There is no meaning in life.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Your_Conscience
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 719 times Debate No: 56014
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Your_Conscience

Con

I challenge ChickieBobbie to a debate.
I will be arguing that there is a purpose to life, whether it's from religious beliefs, or from a Utilitarianism perspective.
Con, or ChickieBobbie must argue that there is no purpose to life.
Good luck, nihilist.
ChickieBobbie

Pro

Though I believe not in nihilism, three main points can be used to defend it.
First, nihilism is the belief that there is no telos to the cosmos if so this usually occurs because of (A) lack of reality , which can occur from relativism or (B) no made plan for the universe ( no God).
The ways to "prove" these are that (A) considering the lack of community between cultures and taking into account that their are 21 major religions, around 4,200 religions and 33,000 sects just for Protestantism one could assume there is no truth and that if there was a divine truth then it would be apparent in our world so we could all agree on the truth. Secondly (B), if so many people sin and the world is full of bad events God must not be destining people for his will or else they would be following it and show the world his glory.
Debate Round No. 1
Your_Conscience

Con

To try to elaborate on my opponents conjectures, he mentions religious, "truth". I believe the purpose of the argument was to discuss purpose in people, not whether or not things can have an absolute truth or not. Perhaps my opponent is confusing the argument for purpose, with the argument concerning Nihilism. However interesting that debate would be, it would be most beneficial for the Con to focus on discussing the meaning, or purpose of the lives of people, and to also include the secular views on it.

I shall try to place the viewpoints on what the meaning of life is.

The Religious View:

All things that are created must have a purpose, otherwise creation is meaningless.
God, or some divinity created the whole of humanity, which is included in life itself.
So therefore, life has purpose.

The Secular View:

All living things, due to their instinctive nature, have the desire to survive.
All animals eat to live.
All animals drink to live.
All animals reproduce to live.
Survival in itself is a purpose.
Humans, however, may have evolved beyond the primal need to survive, so it has the ability to create purposes for itself.
Humans also could be designed to help their own species, for survival, or to appeal their su
sympathetic needs.
ChickieBobbie

Pro

I believe my opponent is using a red herring here, I am indeed talking of religious truth because without truth then there is no certainty and nothing is reality. One just have and identify truth in in order to live day by day without forgetting who each person is and why they are getting up in the morning.

Now as a response to his argument, his secular view "argument" is not consistent. An end to life , excuse the slight pun, is that an end there is no evolving ends all temporary ends may lead to a final end but the final end can not change, if the end can be created by man then it is not an end. Happiness may be an end but you can not say that once you've achieved happiness that now friendship is an end for 1.) again ends all go to one final end 2.) ends can not change there must be a final end.

Now we can know there is no true final end because, there is no greater thing we can think of than God and this may SEEM contradictory for if there is evil in the world ( created by god?) then how can we achieve the end unless evil is an end and once again God is NOT equivalent to evil ( A is A not B)

For a secular view, the final end must come from somewhere and we've already covered how man can't create an end and since man never achieves survival as an end then nihilism would be an answer. If reproduction as a means to survival ( like many animals) is one of our ends then it is impossible for all animals must at least secularly die
Debate Round No. 2
Your_Conscience

Con

This all very poetic, Pro (excuse my mistake, I have just realized I referred to the Pro as Con, apologies), but you are not defending your statement, there is no purpose in life.
ChickieBobbie

Pro

I'm defending it by saying that yours is wrong and also you are not defending your statement.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Your_Conscience 3 years ago
Your_Conscience
Okay.
Posted by philosurfer 3 years ago
philosurfer
You should have used sources...and agreed to what it was you two were debating is what you should have done..
Posted by Your_Conscience 3 years ago
Your_Conscience
I should have put in more rounds.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by EliasPredko 3 years ago
EliasPredko
Your_ConscienceChickieBobbieTied
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: How will you "feel" when you experience death? You can't just be unconscious forever!
Vote Placed by KatieKat99 3 years ago
KatieKat99
Your_ConscienceChickieBobbieTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: .... SUCH A GOOD TOPIC!!!!!! WHY DID YOU WASTE IT. Both of your last stamens where so short there was no voters which made mad and Pro do you even know what a red herring is because you gave no connection to your opponent argument and Con really you had to only argue the religious side of it :/ This one goes to Pro just because he had marginally better conduct
Vote Placed by philosurfer 3 years ago
philosurfer
Your_ConscienceChickieBobbieTied
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: Yeah, really just a back-and-forth. No sources. The debate ideas (Nihilism v. Meaning) wasn't clear by both parties. I feel as though Con confused Purpose with Meaning - vise-versa - as Purpose and Meaning are probably not one and the same. Pro didn't distance himself or really accept a nihilist position, etc., etc. although started off by making points about religion by stating religious statistics and to show religion to be spurious .. but didn't really show how this relates to ultimate meaning on way or the other even if truth is elusive .. so it was all really "Eh" .. the debate drifted off into religious truth but still didn't really go anywhere.. so ideas about God were tossed around, blah, blah, blah..
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 3 years ago
Cold-Mind
Your_ConscienceChickieBobbieTied
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: Both made some very random statements.