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

life is meaning less+++ I want to argue with a theist please

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: 5/18/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,407 times Debate No: 23677
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




hello competitor
today we will be arguing about if life is meaningful or if its not
I will be argue that life is meaningless
If you choose to accept, I ask you to please bring your points in this round



Because my opponent has not offered any definitions, I will offer my own to provide a more clear debate.

meaningless - []
1 : having no meaning; especially : lacking any significance
2 : having no assigned function in a language system

I will argue both definitions.

meaning - []
a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : purport
b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : import

2 : something meant or intended : aim

We can see that definition 1 (of meaningless) coincides with definition 2 (of meaning).
Secondly, we can see that definition 2 (of meaningless) coincides with definition 1 (of meaning).
I will argue accordingly.

life - []
a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

I will argue these definitions together to provide for a more clear debate, and hope that my arguments themselves remain clear to Pro and the voters throughout this debate.

I would like to begin my arguments with an introduction in order to explain some of the points that I plan to make. By doing this, I will explain exactly what my points mean, in order to avoid confusion.

I will essentially be arguing 2 cases at once, one will be about life itself, and one will be about the word life. These are two completely different things. The word "life" had a definition, and therefore a meaning. I will argue this, aside from my second argument that life itself is meaningful, for if it were not, there would be no reason to be alive. We create our own meaning of life, and therefore give ourselves a meaning to live, a meaning to our own life, and even meaning to the lives around us.

With this, I will begin my arguments.

Contention 1: What is Life?

As my definition states, it is "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body." My question to Pro is that if there is a reason we are living, how can there not be a meaning to it? We live because of all of the cells in our bodies that live. The cells that function, and help us thrive. Why is it that we continue living by our own choice if there is not a meaning, as well? Are we talking about a general meaning, or a personal meaning? The term meaning alone covers both, and therefore if I can prove there there is any meaning to life (being general or personal) I prove the resolution in my favor.

If life was meaningless, it would have absolutely not a single meaning, correct? Therefore, if I can prove that there is a single meaning to any life, I win this debate.

"Life has the meaning we give it. It has our richness, our enthusiasm, our pride. Or our cowardice."
Miguel Torga, 1907-1995, Portuguese writer, Di�rio

It is because I agree with Miguel Torga that I must say that there is, of course, a meaning of life, therefore, it is not meaningless. As Torga writes, "life has the meaning we give it." Until we give life a meaning, it does not have one. I give my life a meaning by saying that the meaning to my life is to help people. Most teachers believe it is to educate, most politicians believe it is to do what is best, and so on. Because there are near 7,000,000,000 people on this planet, and at least a single one of them gives a meaning to life, life is not meaningless. It does not matter how much life there is, or what kind of life it is. Just because there is life, and some people give meaning to it, proves that it has a meaning.

Whether personal or general, life serves a purpose to all of us, individually. We battle diseases to keep life going. Tell me, if life was meaningless, why would we try to preserve it?

Contention 2. What is life?

Life is a well-known word with a definition. Life has four letters, the first of which is an L, the second an I the third an F and the fifth an E. Because life is a word, and it has a definition, according to my definition of meaningless (2) life is not meaningless. Being that the definition states that something that is meaningless "[has] no assigned function in a language system," and the word "life" in fact does, life is not meaningless, and I win this debate.


As I stated, I argues two contentions, one about the meaning of Life being that it is a reason that we are alive, and the second about the word life itself.

1. Life has a meaning that we give it. We are alive for a reason.
2. The word life has a definition, and therefore a meaning.

I now await my opponent's first argument.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to note that the dictionary definition was not asked and thus isn't making this a true philosophical debate
Also I will answer your great question in your first argument. I would also like to thank you for providing the biological reason to why we are living and why we are humans. here is my answer, your existence is pointless, meaningless, and very random. I would like to point out that you answer is correct, we are living because all of the cells in our body help us survive, the reason they, the cells, do this is meaningless. You asked "Why is it that we continue living by our own choice if there is not a meaning, as well?' Well, I will answer this from my perspective, we continue to live because most people prefer not to die, as I would prefer to be living; but our preference does not make life worth living or meaningful or purposeful.

you may use as many quote or idea to support your argument, just as you did.

My argument is that life is purposeless because of three main reasons
1. No objective values exist
2. No objective morals exist
3. No objective meaning exists

1) This is the most logical view of life? If you truly understand what logic is then this will make sense.
you may ask why don't object values and object morality; and meaning for existence exist.
please let me explain.
Does objective morality exist?
The truth is, you will not find any morals in the laws of physics, or any laws of the universe. Morality is simply man-made. Made in the mind of the beholder. thus this proves
Here is a question when a tree falls does it make a sound?
The answer is no the tree doesn't make a sound, it makes a vibration, there needs to be a secondary quality to make it a sound. when humans hear things, a vibration is sent to our brain and chemical reaction occurs that makes us here a sound, The sound doesn't actually exist. this is the same with color, and object doesn't really have color, there are no such thing as red or green or blue or yellow. The reasons why we see color is because of our mind; if a dog see black and white object, they see gray, while humans will see a red object. This is the same with all of our senses.

What is sweet to one organism to another it may be bitter, this is true very true. senses are actually perspectives, and essentially a perspective is not a fact, thus, when you say life is meaningful, that is you perspective. but in a rationally and logically life is purposeless, just like our senses. why to we hear,see,taste,feel,have emotion to, have perspective toward object, because of biological survival, why do we need to survive, well we don't... but we just do it anyway...which makes life pointless and meaningless because it is a secondary quality . this is true for a individual and a group.


first of all I would like to note your pathetically silly quote doesn't prove anything. just because Miguel toga (a very bad example to prove that life is meaningful, also noting he's not a great thinker, He's more of a artist that created nice poetry) likes to be alive; does not mean Miguel has a meaningful life, nor does any individual. the most common reasons why we think life has mean is because we believe that because we are humans we are a special kind of thing or object, there is no difference then a rock life and a humans life what you think is entirely based on the arrangement of molecules in your head. If you get Alzheimer's, you will forget things. There is nothing special about you or your mind. if you do something with your life great , its assume in my perceptive, but not meaningful. You will stop existing one day and you will never think, see, touch, taste, smell, or hear anything else ever again. It will be as if the big bang or this universe never occurred from your point of view.

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (a more respectable and notable phil guy) once said "life is meaningless, that is why it is so beautiful."

osho once answers a question to the meaningless of life in a interview... I believe this will help me prove my point.
he was asked :

Beloved Osho, If everything is simply happening, then can there be any ultimate purpose to It all, or is life just an accident? Can it be said that life is evolving towards Some ultimate goal?

to understand that life is purposeless. And it is beautiful that it is purposeless. If it is purposeful then the whole thing becomes absurd – then who will decide the purpose? Then some God has to be conceived who decides the purpose, and then human beings become just puppets; then no freedom is possible. And if there is some purpose then life becomes businesslike, it cannot be ecstatic the West has been thinking in terms of purpose, but the East has been thinking in terms of purposelessness. The East says life is not a business, it is a play. And a play has no purpose really, it is non purposeful. ....... Life is not reaching towards some goal, life itself is the goal. It is not evolving towards some ultimate; this very moment, here and now, life is ultimate......Life as it is, is accepted in the East. It is not moving towards some end, because if there is some end who will decide the end and why? If God decides it, then you can ask the same question about God: "What is the purpose of creating a world with purpose?" or, "Why should he create a purposive world?" or even more deeply, "What is the purpose of God's existence?" Maybe life has a purpose and God decides the purpose, but then God's existence has to be questioned – why he exists – and that way the question is simply pushed one step ahead. Then God becomes purposeless, or you have to create another God to decide the purpose of this God. Then you will be in a regress ad infinite, then there is no end to it. Somewhere deep down you will have to come to the conclusion that this phenomenon is purposeless; otherwise there is no end. So why go from the world to the God? Why not say that life itself is purposeless? The whole game of logicians, the logicians, is stupid in a way. They say, "God created the world, because how could the world come into existence if there was no one who created it?" But the question can be asked, "Who created the God?" – and then they fall on their own. They say, "God is uncreated."

this I believe is his most important point, it fundamentally answers you specific question on why we exist, and why we preserve it.

Then think about it in other ways also. Firstly, if there is a goal why has't it been achieved yet? The existence has been existing timelessly, millions and millions of light-years it has existed, and the goal has not been reached yet. When will it be reached? If so many millions and millions of light-years have passed and the goal is nowhere to be seen, when will it be reached? Secondly, if some day the goal is reached, what will happen to existence? Will it disappear? When the purpose is fulfilled, then what? Conceive of a moment somewhere in the future when the purpose is fulfilled: for what will existence exist then? Then it will be purposeless for it to exist.

3) your response to what is life and its connection to the title seems to be flawed. firstly, your answer was some what obvious. most people knows life is a word, in Korean it spelled 생활; it being spelled like that in Korean does not give life meaning. also words them self are a preferences and not a fact, we need words to communicate to survive. For instance, the word forest doesn't exist in nature, in nature it is just a bunch of tree standing beside another. if I see four rocks, the number four doesn't actual exist in a floating four isn't hovering over the rocks.

review (I only have a few charters)
1. life has no meaning, the meaningless is what make life so special.
2. there is difference between morality and logic
3. con thinks he won the debate just because he define life on.


whyt3nn3rdy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


con has chosen to quit.
he also lack proof that life has meaning
i thoroughly demonstrated that that life has no meaning

please vote for me!!! I need to win one


whyt3nn3rdy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


con says i win!!!


Give Pro the vote, he says he needs it. :)
Debate Round No. 4


yeah!!!!!! He says I win!!!!!


Have a nice day, I hope this helps your ranking and stuff (that doesn't really matter ;) ).
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
Yeah, whatever, I can't debate these that only have a 24 hour limit. I have many other debated going right now. I'll just forfeit, as Pro says he needs the win for his record.
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
Yeah, whatever, I can't debate these that only have a 24 hour limit. I have many other debated going right now. I'll just forfeit, as Pro says he needs the win for his record.
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
Yeah, whatever, I can't debate these that only have a 24 hour limit. I have many other debated going right now. I'll just forfeit, as Pro says he needs the win for his record.
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
Actually, con has NOT chosen to quit. Read my previous comment.
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
Shoot, I had it all written out and ready to send. I only needed to check over it. I logged in 5 minutes late, can we please cancel this round?
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
Change the parameters so I can accept and I will accept.
No votes have been placed for this debate.