The Instigator
wrestle
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

We Cannot Know Anything

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 9 votes the winner is...
Logical-Master
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,218 times Debate No: 5568
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (9)

 

wrestle

Pro

"We cannot know anything"
Logical-Master

Con

Prove it.
Debate Round No. 1
wrestle

Pro

The answer is that I can't as confirmed by studies of philosophy, especially of David Hume.
Without the possibility of knowledge, I am left with belief: belief about all things, material or abstract. Belief about everything I chose to accept as valid; that this table is real, what scientists tell me, ideas, religions, our amazing planet and its people.
I cannot trust material objects to stay where I believe them to be (my pens for example), and I also have difficulty with with the limitations of man-made systems like mathematics and logic.
Logical-Master

Con

"The answer is that I can't as confirmed by studies of philosophy, especially of David Hume.

Wait, so you're saying you can't prove your argument? Well if that is the case, then this should be taken as a concession on your part as that is pretty much what you're required to do.

Fortunately, I can DISPROVE the topic.

As I said in the comment section

. . . The statement "we cannot know anything" contains an internal contradiction. Claiming "we cannot know anything" is suggesting that we do KNOW SOMETHING and that is that "we cannot know anything. Thus, even according to the statement itself, we CAN KNOW something.

"Belief about everything I chose to accept as valid; that this table is real, what scientists tell me, ideas, religions, our amazing planet and its people."

At the very least, we know that the "idea" of the table exist. Or are you suggesting that you can prove "ideas" don't exist or that you can show that we can't confirm whether or not "ideas" exist. If so, I'll provide an explanation as to why you're wrong. At any rate though, if you accept, you will have to agree that we know of something which certainly exist.

At any rate though, the above line of reason is unnecessary, my fair audience, as this debate simply concerns whether or not we can know ANYTHING. Given that my opponent has stated he can't prove his claim and given that I've shown that the claim suggest we CAN KNOW something, I believe that is fair enough reason for a CON vote.

Thank you for your time.

Buh-bye.
Debate Round No. 2
wrestle

Pro

The only way I can know anything is by the knowledge given to me by someone or something else. This can happen by learning from my parents, my society, everything I come into contact with from the day I was born until the day I die.
This is why two human beings who live in a completely different part of the world like the USA and a remote village in Africa have completely different knowledge about everything and anything. If I spend all my life alone in an empty room with no windows and no doors I will have no knowledge at all, from not knowing how to walk to not knowing that 2+2=4. All the knowledge that we have was giving to us by someone else. Therefore our knowledge can never be truly objective.
Is it no coincidence that we are all become our parents. [How did the first person know anything?

People never know things, they only subscribe to hypotheses with more or less commitment.
Logical-Master

Con

Ladies and gentleman, note how my opponent completely ignores my logic on there being an internal contradiction within the topic. This is sufficient reason to stop reading as of now and just vote CON. However, to pacify my opponent, I shall respond to what he has stated in his 3rd round anyway.

"Therefore our knowledge can never be truly objective.
Is it no coincidence that we are all become our parents. [How did the first person know anything?"

Alright, I see where you're coming from, but claiming that our knowledge can never truly be objective is same as suggesting that we know our knowledge can never truly be objective, thus, we still do KNOW SOMETHING.

"People never know things, they only subscribe to hypotheses with more or less commitment."

Once more, my opponent is making a claim that suggest he know something as he is suggesting that he knows that "people only subscribe to hypotheses with more or less commitment." No matter how you look at, PRO agrees that we can know something and is therefore negating the topic. Thus, it is quite clear that he agrees he has lost this debate.

Thanks for the debate. Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
"The statement "we cannot know anything" contains an internal contradiction. Claiming "we cannot know anything" is suggesting that we do KNOW SOMETHING and that is that "we cannot know anything. Thus, even according to the statement itself, we CAN KNOW something."

-Beautiful one-hit KO.
Posted by aeneas 8 years ago
aeneas
i believe that we can know things because i believe i can know things. i, along with every sane person, assume that logic is true. I dont think that our belief in the basics of logic need to be defended, but by using logic to refute that we cant know anything you are making a clearly circular argument. Basically what im saying is that "can we know facts about the world?" is a question that cannot be answered so it makes no sense to answer "yes," but because it has no answer we cannot be expected to really take it seriously.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Interesting. Based on what premise do you believe we can know things?
Posted by aeneas 8 years ago
aeneas
well, wrestle made a mistake in forming the argument. He shouldnt have made such a broad statement. instead, he should have argued that our knowledge is the result of experience, and this experience is subjective. Also in claiming that wrestle is contradicting himself, you are assuming that you know what logic is. I agree that we can know things, but this must be taken without support.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
i love Logical Masters first speech
Posted by monkeyyxxsun 8 years ago
monkeyyxxsun
nods head
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
"Prove it."

Amazing.
Posted by monkeyyxxsun 8 years ago
monkeyyxxsun
what a wonderful debate O__O
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Oh yeah and the resolution contains an internal contradiction. Claiming "we cannot know anything" iss suggesting that we do KNOW SOMETHING and that is that "we cannot know anything. You lose.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
*reported*. GTFO.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
wrestleLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by CP 8 years ago
CP
wrestleLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by spinnerclotho 8 years ago
spinnerclotho
wrestleLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
wrestleLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
wrestleLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
wrestleLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by wrestle 8 years ago
wrestle
wrestleLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
wrestleLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
wrestleLogical-MasterTied
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:07