The Instigator
blackkid
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
MOV_8556.MOV
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

You Do Not Exist

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 2 votes the winner is...
MOV_8556.MOV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 654 times Debate No: 60936
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

blackkid

Pro

Your objective if you choose to accept is to reason that you exist. My objective if you choose to except is to reason that you do not exist.

Rules:

1. You are allowed 3 points for your evidence of existence. (I.E., I exist because A, B, and C) and you may not add more points, you must stick to the points you choose.

2. You may use quotes and citations however you may not chop up paragraphs. If you choose to use a citation you must use the entire paragraph so that people do not have to factcheck your interpretation. It makes it easier for judging. If for some reason the paragraph is too long or the context is not clear you must at least incorporate four sentences so it's not a guessing game.

Format:

R1P: Your Opening Argument
R2C: My Rebuttal
R2P: Your Defense and/or Rebuttal
R3C: My Rebuttal and Close
R3P: Your Rebuttal and Close

Yes, you get an extra round to lay the framework for your three points. This is intentional. This is for fun so don't get to frustrated if you take it on. :D
MOV_8556.MOV

Con

I believe I exist because

(A) I can touch/feel others and they can touch/feel me.
(B) I can think. If we did not exist we would not have complete thoughts or be able to function and do things like talking and eating.
(C) There is no real reasoning to believe we don't exist.
Debate Round No. 1
blackkid

Pro

(A) Nothing more than tactile illusions (http://www.newscientist.com...). "You" believe you are being touched because you believe you exist and therefore as a pawn in the universe are granted the same falsehoods as all others including "touch" however you never actually touch anything (http://www.liveleak.com...) particularly because "You" are a collection of particles manipulated to produce a phenomena.

(B) You do not "Think" but instead react (http://io9.com...) which means in essence that your belief that you think and function is false as you are just a phenomena produced and reacting as a phenomena should; "You" exist only in the sense of being a collection of atoms playing out what a collection of atoms would play out if they were in "Your" circumstances no different than an ice cube melting from being near a high temperature. As such you do not have complete thoughts and your functionality is nothing more than the prolonged standard reaction of such a phenomenon as you.

(C) There is no reason to believe that a collection of atoms produces an "individual" versus a proposed standard for natural progression. Atoms exist. The Universe exists. All things contained of both exist. However the concept of a "Higher Brain" or "Sentience" do not exist, "You" do not exist, "You" are the natural progression of atoms in a deterministic universe; what "You" consider life is nothing more than just another standard phenomenon and all that "You" do is a deductive standard for the universe's progression.
MOV_8556.MOV

Con

MOV_8556.MOV forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
blackkid

Pro

*Poof!*

I was right! Come on guys, I was right!
MOV_8556.MOV

Con

MOV_8556.MOV forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
My pride~ No... NO!
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
,_, I'm so sad my logic trap didn't get to be sprung.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
Well, that's too bad.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
If this keeps up, Pro is right, Con "Do Not Exist."
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
I too would like to see how this debate goes.
Posted by Erika113 2 years ago
Erika113
I love the idea of this. Can't wait to see what'll happen...
Posted by MasterNate 2 years ago
MasterNate
Lol... Poor con doesn't know what he's getting into.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
blackkidMOV_8556.MOVTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: ff, but pro never made a good case for why con did not exist (he should have been more specific with possibly "an individual can be able to not exist")
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
blackkidMOV_8556.MOVTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. But as to arguments, Con gave reasons for their existence, and Pro did not refute them sufficiently--the "You" was not specified in R1 as "a thinking individual", so Pro basically conceded; he said ""You" exist only..." But that concedes that in some sense Con exists--and the individual aspect was not specified. So arguments to Con, surprisingly, given the number of forfeits here. But conduct for the forfeits.