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


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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 362 times Debate No: 93741
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




belief=not knowing


Accepted. I'm going to assume the first round is for accepting the debate because you didn't clarify the debate structure.
Debate Round No. 1


i am right, you prove me wrong


If you're expecting a monologue about how absolutely ridiculous the debate question is along with your "evidence", I can do that for you.

First of all, there is absolutely zero context as to what you mean by "know = true" and "belief = not knowing", so I'm just going to *attempt* to decipher this nonsense. If I'm not mistaken, I think you are trying to say that a "belief" is having an opinion with no empirical evidence, and that to "know" something would require not only the acceptance of the experts in said field, but also to have empirical evidence to justify the belief. This is not true at all. You CAN in fact believe something with empirical evidence, but to just have empirical evidence stand alone doesn't make your position true, the same way that you can "know" something with empirical evidence but would need further confirmation from experts and scholars of the field (as stated before). Also, your argument looks at the situation too "black and white". There can be situations where you can feel like you *know* something through your own mistaken "empirical evidence" that can turn out to be not true.

Let's first identify the definition of what "empirical evidence is":

"Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim."

Empirical evidence is any tangible source of information that justifies whatever you "believe" or "know" from truth or falsity of whatever claim you are trying to defend. With that, what if the empirical evidence is rejected by a large consensus from experts and scholars who research the very field you are trying to prove your point in? If it's tangible evidence, it can STILL be considered "empirical evidence" by definition. However, it falsifies YOUR BELIEF that "know = true".


Take for example those who believe that aliens once visited this earth:

Much of the time, they would point towards "empirical evidence" of alien UFOs visiting earth through different pictures, and that in essence, TO THEM, is "empirical evidence". But, to the very definition of empirical evidence, it DOES qualify as tangible evidence that they use to justify their beliefs. HOWEVER, the empirical evidence can in fact be untruthful, and proven wrong (even if the people who believe aliens have come down to earth still use it as a means to justify their position), and many of the times this has happened which rejected many popular ideas in societies around the world. (Take for instance the general consensus from climatologists and scientists that climate change is real for an example of this. The vast consensus of climate change being fake changed when sufficient evidence with support of scholars and scientists came out.) [Source:]

So by definition, you are incorrect. To "know" something does not automatically make it "truth" like you stated. And to "believe" something doesn't make it so you "don't know". You can very well personally believe it to be truth yourself (with the assistance of false empirical evidence) to make your statement about "belief" be WRONG. Just because you THINK you "know" something, it doesn't make it true.

For example, your 18% win ratio through 700 debates is living proof that someone can think they "know" something but still be "wrong" or "unknowing". [Source:]

A debate of the validity these statements is just a game of semantics, but we can have a RATIONAL discussion through looking at events in history that can easily prove your theories to be incorrect.

To "know" does NOT mean you think the "truth".
Debate Round No. 2




Because Pro just completely changed his position on what he thinks "belief" means, I guess I convinced him. I'll just extend my previous arguement here because he provided no substance to go off of, and I think I provided sufficient arguements so far to take this debate easily.

Thanks Pro for your time.

Please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.