The Instigator
Loveshismom
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

We Indeed Exist.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 996 times Debate No: 49819
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (5)

 

Loveshismom

Pro

I will be arguing that we exist. "We" will be referring to people in general, and not only me and my opponent.

First round- acceptance only.

Second round- arguments.

Third to fifth rounds- rebuttals.
Wylted

Con

My opponent has made it clear to me that he is arguing against solipsism and philosophical zombies. He has the burden of proof. I wish him good luck in disproving solipsism and the concept of philosophical zombies.
Debate Round No. 1
Loveshismom

Pro

Loveshismom forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

My opponent hasn't given an argument. I can only conclude it's because he doesn't exist and therefore can't type.
Debate Round No. 2
Loveshismom

Pro

Loveshismom forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

My opponent has yet to prove he even exists. He should post an argument so I can attempt to verify his existence.
Debate Round No. 3
Loveshismom

Pro

Loveshismom forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Loveshismom

Pro

Loveshismom forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

My opponent doesn't exist. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Loveshismom 3 years ago
Loveshismom
The scapegoat bleats, I have a question for you.
Posted by Loveshismom 3 years ago
Loveshismom
I dunno
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
You have no room to talk. This is only, really my second one. The first was a default, which doesn't count. The 2nd was a reverse pentagram. I stole Imabench's for about 3 days, but I was just being a smart alec so that doesn't count. This pic, I will keep a while. Probably about 3 months.

Why did you give me an easy win. You could have spouted some objectivism and then used Occam's Razor to prove your case?
Posted by Loveshismom 3 years ago
Loveshismom
Wylted, why are you repeatedly changing your profile picture?
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
You should on me then instead of message me in debates.
Posted by Vikki28391 3 years ago
Vikki28391
Wylted It's me Krazzy, they banned me too.
Posted by mattcat83 3 years ago
mattcat83
So why is Con debating this? According to Con, no one other than at most himself exists. Perhaps Con believes that he doesn't exist, which is absurd, but regardless if Con grants that Con exists then the problem becomes whether anyone else exists. If not, this is called "Solipism," the doctrine that no one else exists. 'Else' here refers to anyone other than the Solipsist - the speaker that utters the Solipsistic doctrine, 'no one else exists.' The burden of proof is only relevant once the pragmatics of the context of utterance are first established and secondary to that end.

The same goes with the Problem of Other Minds and the metaphysical possibility that all others than the Solipsist may be "philosophical zombies," which was Chalmers name for the things that behave as though they have minds and exhibit all external behavior as if they did, but in fact do not. Zombies are only relevant with the un-argued for position that to be a person, one must have a mind; eliminativists about the mind would dispute this as would animalists about personal identity. Whether zombies are even metaphysically possible is also contentious as their possible existence may entail the actual existence of qualia, which many dispute as they are prima facie incompatible with a functionalist account of the mind.

The possible world of one person, the Solipsist, and the rest zombies is also irrelevant as it is clear that in the actual world, Con is conducting a debate with who he is committed are not people. So it remains unclear as to how Con could win. Surely, nobody could vote for him if in fact he was correct about the actual world. By telling us that none of us exist and that there are no persons other than himself, such assertions carry the conversational Gricean implicature of presupposing the very thing it disputes: that we are person who do exist with which he disagrees. I submit that this utterance is pragmatically incoherent and that it be dismissed.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
A341, he is making a positive claim. Why would BOP be on me?
Posted by A341 3 years ago
A341
I don't know if the burden of proof is on Pro, I think Pro could come up with many reasons why the burden of proof is on Con.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Scapegoat,
We in context refers to real humans. Voters typically look negatively on unfair semantics. If you accepted and was a jerk about stuff you'd likely lose.

Don't worry about my use of commas. When you did all caps on the word 'would' you technically misspelled it. I don't want to hear crap from somebody who doesn't know proper use of capitalization.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
LoveshismomWyltedTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I thank Con for at least making me laugh with all the forfeits. Clear conduct and arguments to Con. Sad that the forfeits happened as this debate had some serious potential.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
LoveshismomWyltedTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
LoveshismomWyltedTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
LoveshismomWyltedTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Opponent forfeits, points con.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
LoveshismomWyltedTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. lol, indeed your opponent did not exist this debate.