The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Mharman
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

incorrect reasoning=brain damage

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...
vi_spex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 307 times Debate No: 96886
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

a healthy mind is resonable
unresonable=belief
resonable=knowledge
Mharman

Con

Some people aren't smart, but that doesn't mean they have brain damage. Some stupid people don't know things, or haven't learned them yet, or are just confused and can't understand them.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

you are twisting things, just because you are not that smart dosnt mean you reason incorrectly
Mharman

Con

Even then, people who have been known to reason incorrectly still have functioning brains. There are some aspects they just don't or can't understand, because they don't know everything about the situation. Misinformation is very deadly, as it can lead to incorrect reasoning, and then poor choices after that. That is why it is important for people to know the facts.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

and facts are unchanging, facts are knowledge.. fact is personal memory

now you are twisting it to functioning braines
Mharman

Con

I'm not twisting anything. Many people have made incorrect reasoning without brain damage. By your logic, you'd be brain-dead by now.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 week ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Some_Confused_Kid// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I go with con here.Con had better spelling and grammar because Pro forgot to period,and some capitalization mistakes.Con had more convincing arguments.Con refuted Pro better then Pro did.Reliable sources goes to tie because both Pro and Con did not put sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to show how a given side's argument was difficult to understand as a result of how it was written. A lack of periods and capitalization mistakes don't clearly cause that difficulty. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. Saying one side had better refutations and better arguments isn't specific.
************************************************************************
Posted by Mharman 2 weeks ago
Mharman
If it was like that from the start, it wasn't damaged. Your evolution argument is irrelevant.
Posted by vi_spex 2 weeks ago
vi_spex
but, i am not smart on how cars work dosnt mean i have brain damage, i just didnt learn it
Posted by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
"Some people aren't smart, but that doesn't mean they have brain damage." That's incorrect. If a person is not intelligent, then something did not form correctly in their brain. At our level of evolution, our brains are designed to reach at least within a certain range of intelligence. The only thing that would prevent it from being reached is a deformity in the design selected by evolution. Basically, if a person isn't smart, something went wrong in their brain's development. That technically can be considered damage.
Posted by whiteflame 3 weeks ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Some_Confused_Kid// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con actually had a real argument.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct or S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to evaluate the arguments of both sides specifically. Generalizing about whether or not each side even had an argument is insufficient " if one side did not have one, it should be clear why their points were not arguments, and if the other side did have them, it should be clear why those arguments were successful in affirming/negating.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 4 weeks ago
vi_spex
not religious
Posted by TheRealSpassky101 4 weeks ago
TheRealSpassky101
And vi_spex = crazy.
Posted by vi_spex 4 weeks ago
vi_spex
belief=religion
Posted by Mharman 4 weeks ago
Mharman
Why is this debate in religion category?
Posted by Mharman 4 weeks ago
Mharman
Hi.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Overnight 2 weeks ago
Overnight
vi_spexMharmanTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G to Con because Pro's was so bad I couldn't really understand what he meant throughout his argument. Arguments to con because he stated that even though people aren't smart, that doesn't constitute brain damage. Pro responded by stating that intelligence isn't relative to function of the brain, which I saw as wrong. Con also brought up the point about misinformation, which really sealed the debate for me, since Pro basically ceded that argument in the next round.
Vote Placed by TheShaun 2 weeks ago
TheShaun
vi_spexMharmanTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Con used insults at the end. Pro almost seemed to use an insult, but only if their statement is taken out of context. Grammar- Pro made a lot of mistakes. I didn't see any from Con. Arguments- Con didn't seem to understand the point that Pro was making. Sources- Since Pro is technically correct, they most likely acquired their point of view from a reliable source. Con obviously acquired their point of view from an unreliable source since their information was incorrect.