The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

This poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing

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 3 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2014 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 702 times Debate No: 55859
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

shakuntala

Pro

I find this poem captures the longing of soul mates in very emotive language and imagery

l'Anima Canta
http://www.scribd.com...
if you dont read the poem there is no point in debating

Preface
the souls cry across time for he for she
soul mates pine for eternity to be again both we
oh ohh ohh
souls long to be we again both we for eternity
parted in times immensity the soul mates long again to meet in the worlds eternity to be we
to meet to kiss to be we
to be we not parted for eternity
Zarroette

Con

I thank my opponent, shakuntala, for the opportunity to debate the ramifications of this poem.


Subjectivity versus objectivity/inter-subjectivity

My opponent states that he/she “find[s] this poem captures the longing of soul mates in very emotive language and imagery”. This is not sufficient to fulfil his/her BoP. Since the resolution pertains to objectivity, Pro must affirm that the poem does objectively hold those values, or at the very least, for the most part, inter-subjectively. Failing to do so will result in my victory.

Pro could appeal to objectivity/inter-subjectivity by:

  1. Producing a study that shows a large number of people think that this poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing
  2. Demonstrate that said elements of this poem (‘full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing’) objectively exist within this poem

Again, at the present time, all my opponent has provided is his/her personal feelings of the poem, which fails to fulfil the BoP.

The existence of soul mates

In this debate, it will be contested whether this poem captures the soul mates longing. Since no definition of what a soul-mate has been provided, I will now provide one. According to ‘Today’s Christian Woman’, soul mates are, “God bringing together two lost hearts who experience the end to their loneliness and realize complete compatibility in all the deepest longings of their being” [1].

This concept of ‘soul mates’ has not been provided with any proof, by my opponent, and just because there is a definition for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it does not mean that such a thing exists. Instead, the question is begged, in assuming that soul mates exist. The resolution does not refer to the soul mates in the poem, rather, ‘soul mates’ as a much broader concept. It is the 'soul mates' longing, which implies an objective phenomenon, rather than a specific showing of a particular couple’s possession. Otherwise, the ‘mates’ would be grammatically fitted with a possessive apostrophe.

So, in regards to the concept of soul mates, I ask that Pro provide evidence for such things, or else he/she will have failed to provide arguments to fulfil his/her BoP.



Reference

[1] http://www.todayschristianwoman.com...

Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

con makes some excellent points
as for objective standards all Ican say is have you been in love have you been loved -how can you present t objective standards to access this love or being loved -some things are subjective

you seem to believe in the scientism of quantifiable things i.e if it cant be quantified then it is not valid so i ask again how do you quantify your love or the love of your lover

or again if you believe your mum/dad etc love you how do you prove this through quantifiable objective standards

or if you say to your lover you love him/her and he/.she says prove it what quantifiable things will you show or say-to each one he/she might say you are just lying or trying to deceive

con says

"Pro could appeal to objectivity/inter-subjectivity by:

Producing a study that shows a large number of people think that this poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing
Demonstrate that said elements of this poem ("full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing") objectively exist within this poem

Again, at the present time, all my opponent has provided is his/her personal feelings of the poem, which fails to fulfil the BoP."

in answer
I present the views of nicraM - in the comment section- to give evidence of someone who subjectively saw the the beauty and the longing and the this longing or beauty is there even if as nicraM says you don't believe in soul mates or souls

"I was going to debate this but once I read the poem, I realized something. The poem is a nice piece of writing and even if you don't believe in soul mates or souls for that matter, it still tends to warm your subconscious.

so I ask con give us your subjective views on the poem if you agree with nicraM then i can present you as evidence for as well as seeing the beauty that captures the soul mates longing-thus undermining your claims
Zarroette

Con

Thank you for the response, shakuntala.

Subjectivity versus objectivity/inter-subjectivity


“as for objective standards all Ican say is have you been in love have you been loved -how can you present t objective standards to access this love or being loved -some things are subjective”

My opponent essentially concedes the debate by admitting that the resolution can only be proven subjectively, rather than objectively. Again, the resolution pertains to the objective: ‘This poem is…’ (objective), rather than: ‘This poem can be…’ (subjective).



“you seem to believe in the scientism of quantifiable things i.e if it cant be quantified then it is not valid so i ask again how do you quantify your love or the love of your lover”

That’s your problem – you’re the one claiming that it’s possible.



“or if you say to your lover you love him/her and he/.she says prove it what quantifiable things will you show or say-to each one he/she might say you are just lying or trying to deceive”

By implying that it’s impossible to objectively argue for some things (e.g. the resolution), when affirmation of the resolution requires objective arguments, then you’re in a lot of trouble.



“I present the views of nicraM - in the comment section- to give evidence of someone who subjectively saw the the beauty and the longing and the this longing or beauty is there even if as nicraM says you don't believe in soul mates or souls”

If two people claimed that they saw a pink unicorn, does that mean that the pink unicorn exists? Not necessarily, because the standard for objective proof requires a lot more than that. Likewise, having two people claim that this poem is something isn’t enough to prove that the poem is what they claim.



“so I ask con give us your subjective views on the poem if you agree with nicraM then i can present you as evidence for as well as seeing the beauty that captures the soul mates longing-thus undermining your claims”

My subjective views aren’t relevant to this debate. You, as Pro, are trying to prove that this poem objectively does what you say it does.

The existence of soul mates

There is no trace of my opponent responding to arguments made here – extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

con says
"My subjective views aren"t relevant to this debate"

she is quite wrong as she said above
"Pro must affirm ..., or at the very least, for the most part, inter-subjectively. Failing to do so will result in my victory."
thus admitting the role of subjectivity"

i asked for her subjective views on the poem but she refused

con says
"Producing a study that shows a large number of people think that this poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing"
I produced nicraM from his comment which affirms that some one did see the beauty of the soul mates longing
which he stated
said
"I was going to debate this but once I read the poem, I realized something. The poem is a nice piece of writing and even if you don't believe in soul mates or souls for that matter, it still tends to warm your subconscious.

I also asked con for her subjective views to see if she could see the beauty Thus if she did then she would have been someone else like nicraM -she did not respond -thus indicating perhaps a bit of fear that her own subjective view might shoot her in the foot by showing that she herself sees beauty in the poem

con says
"...or at the very least, for the most part, inter-subjectively. Failing to do so will result in my victory."
thus admitting the role of subjectivity""
I did provide evidence ie nicraM thus she cant claim victory [also con herself might have been evidence but she did not have the courage to tell us her subjective views which we can only assume was because of fear of giving evidence that does not support her con position

all in all
1)I did provide some one who subjectively saw the beauty- thus con cant claim victory -from her own words
"Failing to do so will result in my victory.thus admitting the role of subjectivity"
Zarroette

Con

Thanks for the debate.

Subjectivity versus objectivity/inter-subjectivity

1. Pro was to affirm the resolution by either objective/inter-subjective methods. For whatever reason, Pro thinks that [“for the most part”] inter-subjective means that the requirement is only two people’s vouching. Again, the opinions of two people does not make for something being true.

“I did provide some one who subjectively saw the beauty- thus con cant claim victory -from her own words”

This quote shows that my opponent has no conception of the standard of evidence required. Again, the resolution required my opponent to provide evidence that the resolution was seen objectively, or for the most part, inter-subjectively (i.e. out of 7 billion people in the world, a good majority of them would believe it).

I really can’t be any clearer: two people’s confirming something does not mean that it is true.

2. You’d think that if Pro were to be arguing in favour of this resolution, he/she wouldn’t require my opinion mid-debate to make his/her case.

3. Pro essentially concedes the debate here, in the 2nd round, by saying: “as for objective standards all Ican say is have you been in love have you been loved -how can you present t objective standards to access this love or being loved -some things are subjective”

He’s rhetorically asking how he can meet his BoP (proven objectivity or convincing inter-subjectivity), implying that it can’t be met. In other words, Pro argues that what’s required of him to win this debate can’t be done.


The existence of soul mates

My opponent has completely dropped this argument; the resolution is negated on this point alone.


Conclusion

Pro fails to meet his/her BoP. Pro even indirectly admits that what is required to meet the BoP can’t be done. The latter of my arguments was completely dropped by Pro. The resolution has been negated. Thank you for reading :)


Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TheLastMan 2 years ago
TheLastMan
Cap, atlast, victory for you. *clap*
Posted by alexmiller887 2 years ago
alexmiller887
I can't even be bothered.
Posted by alexmiller887 2 years ago
alexmiller887
Jesus Christ, you AGAIN? Anyway, you are going to get trolled by this guy,
Posted by nicraM 2 years ago
nicraM
I was going to debate this but once I read the poem, I realized something. The poem is a nice piece of writing and even if you don't believe in soul mates or souls for that matter, it still tends to warm your subconscious.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
shakuntalaZarroetteTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Its clear that Z showed a loophole in S's resolution, with the problem of subjectivity.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
shakuntalaZarroetteTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro didn't fulfill his BoP
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
shakuntalaZarroetteTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con won this debate with one sentence. One she was able to establish that this entire debate revolves around the concept of subjectivity, it was over. Pro would have to show this resolution from an objective standpoint which he failed to do. I would type out a longer RFD but there is no need. Con lays out my thoughts verbatim in her second contention in R1