The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Squishy_Pineapples
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

most debate worthy subject that can exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 6/11/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 620 times Debate No: 76441
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

are there rocks?

i can close my eyes and imagine that there are no rocks, and believe that they simply dissapeared
Squishy_Pineapples

Con

I accept your challenge and will show that the topic 'are rocks real?' is in fact not a debate worthy topic
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

i accept your acceptance sir

facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, rocks are matter
Squishy_Pineapples

Con

Why thank you sir!

In response, I would like to question the purpose of the affirmative's statement.
What are you trying to say? Rocks being made up of matter does not qualify the questioning of their existence, therefore, why do you find this such a worthy debate topic?

I personally believe that we have more important things to argue about than rocks. Current world issues or subjects of public interest are more suitable for a debate topic and are more relevant than the existence of rocks.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

my position is its clearly not debate worthy, but i argue for it not being so, becasue then you argue from my point of view, see?

my point is.. if its not debate worthy that there are rocks becasue we see rocks and have plenty of memory of rocks, then is the subject of there being a god debate worthy? to contrast
Squishy_Pineapples

Con

Ok..... ummm... well...... ahhh......
I am slightly confused so I assume that I misconceived the purpose of this debate. So I am going to assume that what im about to say is arguing the correct thing but if I am wrong please tell me.

Yes, we can see rocks. Therefore this means that there is no value in arguing over their existence. However, God is not a visible being and therefore it would be valid to debate over his existence. I propose that a better debate topic would be to argue on something that is subjective rather than debating the existence of something the rest of the world confirms is true. Moral issues are perhaps the most debate worthy topics because it both brings different points of view into light, promoting informed thought on important topics, and helps to gather public interest and opinion in a topic.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

as clear as i see rocks, is as clear it is that i dont see god

my entire point is, if its subjective, there is no point in debating it, as it just as clear you dont know that, as you know there are rocks
Squishy_Pineapples

Con

If it were a subjective argument, it is up to each side to show why they think that their opinion is superior.
In the context of; is there a god? You say that we cant see God, therefore we shouldn't debate over his existence. Yes, it is true that you cannot see God, however, how would you argue any other theory or religion. Evolution lacks just as much evidence as Christianity does. If we take a pretence that we can't see wind, or we cant see heat, it is obvious that they both exist despite the fact that we cant see them. The same goes for any other subjective topic. There is no point arguing on a definitive topic because common knowledge and facts blatantly disproves any different statement. There is proof that rocks exist (I would doubt you'd come across anyone who disagrees with this fact) therefore its not debatable. We can't see God therefore, we debate on his existence. It is a subjective topic.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

if you are lost in the forest and hungry, and you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is deadly poisonous?

know=physical experience

i breathe, and i feel Wind, i hear Wind, i see Wind in a snow storm

to my experience god is simply information, i am not a unicorn but you can believe in me

are you more certain that there are rocks then that there is no god?
Squishy_Pineapples

Con

I personally believe that God exists. However, many do not.
We all know for a fact and are certain that rocks do exist.
Therefore, it is more scholarly to argue on something we perceive differently
rather than debating the existence of an existing object.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
hmm, to simplify, we dont argue if there are rocks, because we see them, but, we also see, that we dont see god.. i am as certain that i see rocks, as i am that i dont see god. so debating that there are rocks is as important as there being a god... and ofc there are rocks?

i wasnt trying to go that far as to say rocks are not real, i was just being ironic in the headline actually, i wanted the other guy to debate for me.. and argue that there is as much point in talking about god, as there is if there are rocks

life is true, life is matter, matter is now
Posted by Acuhlenh 2 years ago
Acuhlenh
vi_spex is not literally trying to argue for or against the existence of rocks. The real question being asked is an epistemological one. That is to say the real question is; what are legitimate ways to obtain knowledge?
The question regarding the existence of rocks is really an inquiry into the validity of obtaining knowledge through sensory data. From this point of view the question are there rocks may very well be the most debate worthy topic. What we use to obtain knowledge shapes our attitudes and responses to all other questions.

This is also an ontological question or a question asking what is real? Is God real? Are objects that we see real? What qualities does an entity need to have to be considered real? Just because we see rocks do they exist? From this point of view again the question are there rocks is clearly once again a debate worthy topic because what we consider to be real shapes our views on all other matters.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
np, if you got the point thou you would see there is just as much point in debating about god, as there is about there being rocks
Posted by Squishy_Pineapples 2 years ago
Squishy_Pineapples
Oh ok, thanks for a, well, interesting debate :)
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
i conceed btw, you win!
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
as clear as i see rocks, is as clear it is that i dont see god
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
sure :)
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
@vi_spex, we should debate sometime.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
so you would argue that there are no rocks?
Posted by mfigurski80 2 years ago
mfigurski80
You would have to get a video camera and film the rocks with your eyes closed. But then, you probably could say that you created both the film and the rocks on it when you opened your eyes afterwards.

There is no real proof against this, unless the Occam's Razor counts.
No votes have been placed for this debate.