The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Elord
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

absolutes=existence

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 2 votes the winner is...
Elord
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 284 times Debate No: 73307
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

true is not false, false is not truth, and truth is not true

false=imagination(belief)

true=physical experience(know)

truth=memory(knowledge)

i dont have knowledge of the future, and i dont have to imagine what happend yesterday when i can remember what happend yesterday, unles the memory is blurry then i might have to imagine the rest, and then its not truth nor true, know is true, know is now, now is matter

i know you are light on my screen and a story in my mind
Elord

Con

Pro makes several rather strange claims that I will try to clear up.
The debate centers around that facts/absolutes are what make up existence. Pro is claiming that any physical experience is true and belief and imagination is false. He falls into the "seeing is believing" camp. The problem is that only everything you personally have been through is the truth neglects things like books and movies. If I have never seen a zebra, but I read about an article and imagine it. Then if I do go to Africa and everything the articles says is true, wouldn't whatever I imagined from the book true, and not the premise that imagination is false? No, it was true but I personally didn't know about zebras before. This view my opponent argues is limited to you and nothing else and promotes a very egotistical look to the world. I can say "I HAVE NEVER SEEN GEORGE WASHINGTON EXCEPT FOR PAINTINGS SO HE CANNOT EXIST OUTSIDE THE MASS HALLUCINATIONS OF THESE ARTIST AND HISTORIANS!"

Also, this debate begs the question, what is physical experience? Everything you see is technically a lie.
Your brain stitches together a series of images to create motion like a movie. What you smell when you have a cold and when you normal are going to be vastly different. Our senses interpret the world but the ways they do it and how they are affected can change reality. Since it is so variable, we cannot accept Pro's argument.

" dont have to imagine what happend yesterday when i can remember what happend yesterday"
Memories is the brain imagining what happened at the time yesterday. This supports my case on why imagination isn't always false.
This disproves that line of his logic about how truth=physical experience and truth=memory. By the transitive property (which I will use several times), memory=physical experience which is false if one is the imagination of the other.
Now this phrase supports this rebuttal. "unles the memory is blurry." but isn't memory=physical experience=absolutes? How is it absolute if it can change and is biased. Thus his whole argument about how memory=physical experience=existence is false.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

opposite, seeing is knowing

with cameras shooting for me, watching tv is the death of death.

watching a movie is like me being inside the head of another person, watching stories inside his head.

i cant know imagination, so imagination is false

if you stand in africa looking at the zebras, and imagine a zebra, does that make the zebra you imagine true?

kNow=now=Physical experience

if i imagine that im going on a walk in a few minutes, and i go on a walk, does my imagination become true? for me as i read this i have to place my body in my imaginaiton to even understand it(not physically ofc..). the word gonna is an interesting word

only physical experience is true, real

ow so i also wrote false=truth=true=door probably, just throw some in there..

Elord

Con

I am at lost of what to say to my opponent. He hasn't really refuted my arguments beside says that movies and book count as being in the head of another person and thus making it true.

"me being inside the head of another person, watching stories inside his head."
Let's examine that statement. By your own philosophy, metaphors and similes shouldn't make sense since we can't physically observe it. I have never seen a tiny person "watching" stories and so it's wrong. This whole argment supports Con.

"i cant know imagination, so imagination is false"
"kNow=now=Physical experience"
"Know" is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "to have (information of some kind) in your mind" This contradicts your logic and it shows you can know imagination. Since "imagination" is defined as "the ability to imagine things that are not real : the ability to form a picture in your mind of something that you have not seen or experienced."

"if you stand in africa looking at the zebras, and imagine a zebra, does that make the zebra you imagine true?"
It means the zebra I had imagined before seeing it in person was accurate and true.

"if i imagine that im going on a walk in a few minutes, and i go on a walk, does my imagination become true? for me as i read this i have to place my body in my imaginaiton to even understand it(not physically ofc..). the word gonna is an interesting word"
I have no idea what this means. That is planning. You imagine the scenario but your actions make it true.

And you agreed with me that my logical connections were right.
As you can see, my opponent agrees with me on most things.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

experiencing stories on my speakers and tv could represent, an experience of a memory or fantasy inside my own head


i cant know imagination, i know you are light on my screen and a story in my mind



you already stated physical experience is mental.. and so its not real to you, but try losing your eyes, and then go watch the next sunrise



sense=physical experience


so was your imagining the zebra true? why go to africa at all the



troll face ;b









Elord

Con

My opponent has given up with his "troll face ;b" and his lack of rebuttals.
Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

im just playing ping pong with a penguin, and it is not capable of holding the bat
Elord

Con

I'm going to guess I'm the penguin and Pro is unable to hold the bat in this ping pong (debate) match.
Extend all.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

you guess, i dont

Elord

Con

Extend all and please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
vi_spexElordTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presents muddled argument to defend a cryptic resolution: arguments to Con, who had good counter-arguments. Conduct to Con: Pro instigated the collapse of the debate with lack of rebuttals and the troll face thing.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
FuzzyCatPotato
vi_spexElordTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Troll.