The Instigator
DiggyDawg
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points

You cannot prove nor disprove by proving this debate exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-6
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 7 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,783 times Debate No: 12671
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (26)
Votes (7)

 

DiggyDawg

Con

Let's see if you can not prove this debate exists.
FREEDO

Pro

=== INTRODUCTION ===

For those who are having trouble understanding the resolution:

The title is "You cannot prove nor disprove by proving this debate exists" and my opponent is CON, so is against the title.

This means that my opponent is making the assertion that it CAN be proven or disproven that this debate exists.

I am PRO so I will being arguing that the existence or nonexistence of this debate cannot be proven.

=== DEFINITIONS ===

Prove:
-verb
To establish the truth, authenticity, validity or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim.
[1]

"This debate"
-noun
The debate titled "You cannot prove nor disprove by proving this debate exists.", instigated by DiggyGawg, contended by FREEDO and taking place on debate.org. The word "debate" used here isn't necessarily confined literally to the actual definition of debate which is "(noun)A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.[2]" but rather includes that definition but is more specifically referring to the formal process FOR debating on the website of debate.org.

-
All other definitions in this debate will be assumed upon common sense, no tricky semantics will apply.

=== ARGUMENTS ===

Whoever is reading this debate at the moment is an individual conscious entity. This person knows this because it is self-evident, that is, intrinsically known with absolute certainty that they themself are existent and conscious. It is from this consciousness that they know anything at all, that they draw conclusions about existence as a whole.
Here is my first contention; that there are only two ways to know anything at all with any certainty, which is to prove. The first way is through self-evidences; something they know in of their own being, such as "I think therefore I am". The second is through axioms; a concept which must be true because in any attempt to dismiss it you would actually have to apply it, such as "a thing is itself". Outside of these two things there are no certainties. Any claim of certainty must be based on either self-evidences, axioms or both.
Here is my second contention: That the assertion of this debate being existent is based on neither self-evidences nor axioms. Thus it cannot be proven to exist.
My opponent might say that the existence of the debate is self-evident to the reader because they are looking right at it. This is incorrect and a fundamental misunderstanding of what self-evident is. Self-evident means that an individual conscious entity will know that they ARE sensing, but it does not mean that they know what they are sensing is true. With intellectual-honesty the reader of this debate must realize they have absolutely no verifiable knowledge on whether this debate is a hallucination or not. In-fact, they cannot verify whether ANYTHING they sense is real or not. They only thing they can verify is THAT THEY ARE sensing, as well as the truth of axioms.
This website may not be real.
The chair they're sitting in may not be real.
This very conversation may be a construct of their imagination.
They also cannot confirm that these things ARE NOT in existence.
I suspenseful await my opponent attempt at a rebuttal.

=== SOURCES ===
1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://education.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 1
DiggyDawg

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate. Also thank you for understanding and explaining.

Pro states "This website may not be real." However, we experience it. We read and should it ever have sounds, hear it. As Pro stated, I did mention that, however this debate could truly exist should text ever reach self-awareness.

Pro also states "They also cannot confirm these things ARE NOT in existence." How can you confirm something not in existence yet you can prove it is in existence should it be physical?

Also you say that the chair(Or rather couch I am sitting on) may not be real. However, if it was not real, or physical, I would not be sitting on it.
FREEDO

Pro

.....wow..really? That was your whole argument?
Debate Round No. 2
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
LOL, I just realized Phil actually edited my argument to exclude the profanity.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Oh, I forgot to address the "hallucinations" just because someone has "hallucinations" does not infer or in any way give credence to your premise. That's like saying 6 billion people are all having different perceptions of reality while at the same time all working together in the same reality. You give no evidence to suggest that certain "hallucinations' are different than other "hallucinations" caused by atmospheric or medical condition. I should have a debate resolution that says "You can get an atheist to bow to any absurdity simply by saying anything is possible" I am not implying you are an atheist or questioning your religious beliefs. This thread has just given me an idea for that resolution.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
"I said it was possible." Why is it possible? What if any anomalies in the universe suggest even the slightest chance there is another reality. There is only one reality per universe. If you want to talk multiple dimensions as separate universes and there for different realities that would be incorrect, because dimensions are just different view points of the same reality. IE: from above, below from the side or outside the cube. Just saying something is possible is not sufficient argument for your premise. You offer nothing from which to form any hypothesis or theory for a different reality in the same universe. I can at least make an argument for a creator or a god. You see a universe you see a planet earth with complex animals yet we have no idea how they came to be and no one can prove anything conclusively as to how they came to be. Your premise that there is another reality is based on nothing. You offer nothing other than to utter the words from your mouth and use a made up story "THE Matrix" as a possible theory to another reality when in fact you are just regurgitating what someone has said before. The Matrix is a fictional story and offers nothing to even consider there is another reality. You have said nothing other than to say it is possible. Why is it possible I ask you?. If you think I am upset or something I am not. What you don't like is that I will not bow to absurdity and say something like "We agree to disagree" You are going to have to do a lot better than just say it is possible and offer nothing to form even the slightest hypothesis or theory. You must put forth some kind of verifiable observation or anomaly for your statement to be considered intellectually. Again just saying something is possible isn't enough to garner the title of a hypothesis or theory. It's blather.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Sadolite, I want you to read this very slowly. So far you have failed to reason with me because you have proven twice that you have no idea what I am saying. I never implied that that the reality we sense is an illusion, as I clearly explained. I said it was possible. As such, I don't need evidence to prove that it's an illusion because I never said it was. There is evidence, however, to prove that not all senses being perceived are always what is occurring. In referring to sight, these are called hallucinations. A person does not know when they are hallucinating, it is fully possible that you could be hallucinating right now. Notice, I'm not saying that you are, or that I am, I am saying that it is possible. Our senses are not self-evidences, they can be wrong. What IS self-evident is THAT we sense, but not whether WHAT we sense is correct. The only things of which we can have any certainty are self-evidences and axioms.
Posted by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
Woahkay, calm down, now, Sadolite. It's not like we disagree with you, I find this debate dumb too, and I think FREEDO was just joking...
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
No, I do know this is the only reality. I have tried to act as though it wasn't when I was younger and "reality" came and bit me in the a##. It is you who are being intellectually dishonest by suggesting there is some other form of reality than this, when clearly there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that there is other than to entertain the idea with meaningless blather. I will refer you to Occam's Razor. You can go ahead and entertain that idea but I can assure you it will get you know where, you will learn nothing from it, and it will always be a worthless topic of conversation on any intellectual level both now and in the future. This world this universe and everything in it is reality and I will bet my children's eyes on it. unless of course you can prove otherwise. I don't have to prove anything the proof is right in front of your face 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year. The proof that there is no other reality is so overwhelming it "DOESN'T" boggle the mind.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
I don't think there is some other form of reality other than this. But the fact is I don't know. And neither do you. You're only being intellectually-dishonest to say otherwise. You COULD be in the matrix. It is POSSIBLE that everything could be an illusion.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
No, I could not be the matrix and I know it. Reality, that's the thing that hurts when it bites you in the A## when you think there is some other form of existence other than reality.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
You could be in the matrix for all you know.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
I stand corrected. But none the less it does not change the fact that debates about whether or not things exist are still infantile blather
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by thisoneguy 6 years ago
thisoneguy
DiggyDawgFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 6 years ago
wmpeebles
DiggyDawgFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
DiggyDawgFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
DiggyDawgFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by wesswll 6 years ago
wesswll
DiggyDawgFREEDOTied
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 sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
DiggyDawgFREEDOTied
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 FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
DiggyDawgFREEDOTied
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