The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

everybody is agnostic by default, no one is born insane

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,093 times Debate No: 86207
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)




agnostic=let the content of the ufo in the night sky remain an unsolved mystery
agnostic=maybe position



I would like to clarify "no one is born insane" so we don't get into a semantics debate. I will not argue that people can in fact be "born" insane, because I'm pretty sure you are using the word insane as having radical religious beliefs etc. Let me know if you would like to include that in your argument or not. I'd suggest that we have arguments in round 2 and rebuttals and closing statements in round 3, please don't introduce new arguments in the last round to keep it fair. Thanks, I look forward to the debate :)
Debate Round No. 1


you dont set the limitations of necessety

ready to hear why i am wrong con


I will start this off with a basic logical syllogism:

Humans, by nature, have the unique intelligence and critical thinking skills to solve problems.
Humans have solved many unsolved mysteries.
Human nature drives us to solve unsolved mysteries.

The human psyche is set out to find answers. Agnosticism is a stance that takes intense contemplation and is a conclusion based off of all the evidence that humans have compiled in their drive to come up with a conclusive answer. It is unlikely that if agnosticism were the default position that one, we would have all of our extensive information in the first place in both religious texts or scientific text to set out to find a definitive answer regarding our origin.
Some of these texts and research include but is not limited to:
The theory of evolution,
The Big Bang Theory,
String theory,
The Bible, and The Quran.

Human nature by default has never "let unsolved mysteries remain unsolved". Even when tested at the earliest ages, likely the closest to test for a "default" characteristic of human nature, human nature consistently shows that it strives to answer questions and solve problems. Children are constantly being tested and having their boundaries redefined, and this is a critical concept in human development. Children must have, by default, expectations or beliefs regarding the laws of nature. They do not on the other hand, take a "maybe position".

As referenced by the Baillargeon study,

"In a recent series of experiments
(Aguiar & Baillargeon, 1999), 2.5-month-old infants were habituated to a
toy mouse (""Minnie Mouse"") that moved back and forth along a track
whose center was hidden by a screen (see Fig. 1). The mouse disappeared
at one edge of the screen and, after an appropriate interval, reappeared at
the other edge. Following habituation, the infants saw two test events. In
one (high-window event), a window was created in the screen"s upper half;
the mouse was shorter than the bottom of the window and so did not become
visible when passing behind the screen. In the other event (two-screen
event), the entire midsection of the screen was removed, yielding two separate
screens. In this event, the mouse should have appeared in the gap between
the screens, but it did not in fact do so; the mouse disappeared
behind one screen and reappeared from behind the other screen without appearing
in the gap between them.
The infants looked reliably longer at the two-screen than at the high-window
test event. This result suggested that, when shown the two-screen event,
the infants (1) believed that the mouse continued to exist when behind one
of the screens, (2) realized that the mouse could not disappear behind one
screen and reappear from behind the other screen without traveling the distance
between them, and (3) expected the mouse to appear between the
screens and were surprised when it failed to do so. This interpretation
was supported by the results of a control experiment identical to that just
described with one exception: The screen or screens were lowered at the
start of each trial to reveal two identical mice. The infants in this control
experiment tended to look equally at the two-screen and high-window test
events. This negative result suggested that the infants were able to use the
information provided at the start of each trial to make sense of the twoscreen
event: That is, they realized that no mouse appeared in the gap between
the screens because one mouse traveled to the left and one to the right
of the gap." Cite:

This proves that throughout the human lifespan, taking a decisive stance or belief, is a natural part of our psyche. It is also a part of human nature to either readjust our beliefs when confronted with conflicting information, or to find information to refute this conflicting information.

Humans by default will use information they have to give what they believe to be the correct answer, even if it is ultimately the wrong answer. Young children will be confused at first by conflicting information that goes against what they view the laws of nature to be, but they will continue trying to understand and learn. At no point in this study, however, do children by default say or take any action which suggests that they would let a physical event that goes against their understanding of the world remain unsolved. Human nature suggests that we are "programmed" to strive for understanding and search for answers.

Furthermore, if Agnosticism were the default position of all humans it would be reasonable to expect that at least the majority, if not all humans would be agnostic. However, as you can see by this pie chart in a poll conducted by Pew Research Center

About 75% of the population is affiliated with some religion. This study lumps three categories together for the remaining 16 percent. Only 16% of the global population could be assumed to be either 1. Atheist, Non-religious, or agnostic. and of these three groups it is reasonable to assume that the majority would reference a scientific theory to explain their beliefs about the origin of man, and not take a "maybe position".

I believe I have proved my point, but I would like to introduce another example.

You could reference the fact that we are even having this debate, which by definition, is a contest of arguments to ultimately seek out a conclusive answer regarding whether Humans are born agnostic or not. Neither of us have conceded or chose to let this question go unanswered, and let it remain an unsolved mystery. We are both humans, and so we are both using our brains to argue our stances. In fact, if you look around this site, or in the world, you will see people constantly debating, arguing, and trying to answer those unanswered or disputed questions to the best of their abilities.

For all of these reasons I believe I have proved that Agnosticism is not the default position of humans, and in fact, Human nature seeks to come up with a conclusive answer or take a definitive position on unsolved mysteries or problems.

I look forward to the rest of this debate.

Debate Round No. 2


a fish cant put a stick in the sea floor


mistakes are necessary for one to learn

maybe the blue hat on my head is god

non existence represents existence for me to percieve of it


Well, that was a good debate. I believe I have made my point.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: dynamicduodebaters// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: I'm gonna give conduct to pro, simply because con took an obviously troll topic and made it serious. Arguments it's self explanatory tho....

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments need to be explained. A reason for decision is not inherently self-explanatory in any instance. (2) Conduct cannot be awarded solely because one side took the debate seriously while the other didn't. That's not a clear reason for awarding this point.
Posted by kkjnay 2 years ago
Your turn
Posted by kkjnay 2 years ago
Okay I will include it then.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
i think its pretty clear
Posted by kkjnay 2 years ago
Would you like to clarify what you mean by "born insane"?
Posted by Torton 2 years ago
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
i know
Posted by Torton 2 years ago
A god.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
superman is god
Posted by Torton 2 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iTruthSeeker 2 years ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I must admit.. I thought this debate would be more thought provoking in its nature.. Con did a great job actually taking the topic seriously.. I cant say the same for Pro.