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

the default position on any imaginary claim is i know its false

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: 8/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 78759
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

you are not wearing a hat right now because i dont know that you are
Brendan_Liam

Con

I am wearing a hat right now (coincidentally, but irrelevant). I think that already demonstrates the PRO position false...

Pro's claim (that I'm wearing a hat) may have been imagined... but unfortunately the claim was TRUE. That alone disproves his claim in at least this round. Nor does the claim being imaginary (based on nothing outside Pro's mind) allow him to KNOW anything, about default positions or positive positions of claim. This response proves he DIDN'T know, and actually what he claims he did know, was FALSE. This doesn't bode well for the rest of the debate.

As it appears, our debate has begun and that's his only argument so far-now shown to be unhelpful to Pro's position and if anything, destructive TO his position.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

so you are not lying right now?
Brendan_Liam

Con

I don't see that it would matter. But no, I am wearing a hat and I was wearing a hat before the debate was even found... I always wear a hat when I'm due for a haircut... it's pretty scruffy and I don't like hair in my face, so yes, a baseball cap that says "VT" on it, which recently I found out was a "Virginia Tech" hat... and met a girl from Virginia as a result.

But all that did was shorten my argument... and I'll prove it if you pose a less likely example of what you're trying to prove here.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

is it true that i am wearing a hat right now? if you dont know, then surely it isnt true that i am, no?

your argument, is that i know you are wearing a hat?
Brendan_Liam

Con

Ok, enough nonsense. I see no arguments here, but assume the vague idea is the issue of Burden of Proof-which indeed rests on the one with the "imaginary claim"

But that's not your argument. You never mention BoP.... rather you claim that any default position is KNOWN to be false. ie the non-position is always right.

Now no question on where BoP is inherently between "claims" and "lack of claim"

But burden of proof is NOT knowledge-it's simply what happens when you make a positive claim (vs. no claim, which is a negative position). The default may or may not be true.

the default position is the safe one (ie no burden of proof to fulfill) but it doesn't by simply being the default become true-it simply determines WHERE the BoP is.

And you have made a positive claim-now proven false, by the simple hat example, and also via the argument here.

Were you going to make an argument? You know, so we can debate it? Not so far.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

if you have to prove to me with evidence that you are wearing a hat, is it true for me to state right now before such thing has accured and considering we dont have a time machine to go back and look, that you were wearing a hat as you typed that?

at the point a claim is true, its not a religious claim, so religious claims are also not about knowledge

belief is false, becasue i dont know is true, so i dont know is true, not belief or disbelief

if god fell from the sky to prove his powers magically somehow i dont know but then we would know, and atheists would be wrong, theists would have an argument..

true goes beyond just evidence, you can see on a live feed right now that i am wearing a hat as evidence but you still wouldnt know the machine or some people are tricking you, and really i am not wearing a hat

if i claim santa will come and bang your wife later because you was bad that one year.. your initial reaction isnt i will call 911 or lets drive to Canada to hide.. the default position is i dont know beyond what i know, and i know i am reading these Words on a screen and typing them on my keyboard

right.. the default
know is the default position, life, but i am certain i dont see a dog in my room right now, so if you claim a dog is biting me i would have to tell you clearly a dog is not biting me, there is no dog in my room.. its like binary code 0 1, now is true not now is not true, i am one is true, if you say a dog might come by my house randomly and run in and bite me and it might turn out that you are right about that

when i answer i dont know, it Means i know i dont know, becasue how else would i know. so i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, and i have no doubt about that

when i am alone, the true size of the human population is one
Brendan_Liam

Con

"the default position on any imaginary claim is i know its false"

if you have to prove to me with evidence that you are wearing a hat, is it true for me to state right now before such thing has accured and considering we dont have a time machine to go back and look, that you were wearing a hat as you typed that?

But your ability to PROVE it has no bearing on its truth or not. This rather is clearly a fallacy of "don"t look at it"s not happening." Well it did happen, you were wrong. And the proper way to approach it would be multiple regression analysis" for example, find OUT the odds of a man, age 42, in Wyoming, etc etc etc would be wearing a hat. I bet in Wyoming it"s at least 50%. But let"s pretend it"s ONE percent just to be nice. YOU STILL can"t claim to "know" because at least 1% of the time, you actually KNOW you are wrong if anything. That one time can happen any time, and a lot ifit"s really 50% . Right now for example, I"m not wearing a hat, or a shirt. But you didn"t know that either" You"ve only proven your position false, whether I was wearing a hat or not (and I WAS) because the simple fact remains-I could have been, therefore you cannot claim knowledge of the situation, but only a probability and even then, only intelligently if based on data. Yours was not.

belief is false, becasue i dont know is true, so i dont know is true, not belief or disbelief

Well I care to differ. So would the people at NASA. Math is imaginary, it"s not real in most places" is there really a zero? Is there really a -1? These are all imaginary concepts" yet, represent reality and allow us to manipulate it as though real. This is true in many places-and proves Pro"s position false. For example, the field of economics guides politics, sociology, domestic and foreign policy, geopolitical strategy". These things are all real enough" ask a Palestinian. But the things they are based on are fake, and most of them are Economic principles. Economics is nothing BUT assumptions-imagined ideas" imaginary products, "widgets" and "wadgets" but something real is as real as something IMAGINED WITH BELIEF in some cases. For example, when Alan Greenspan would say "Interest Rates are going to drop X %" he didn"t actually DO anything to the money supply-which according to the general Supply of Money arguments (Gold Standard, Bi-Metallic Standard, etc.) he generally needed to" ie tweaking the invisible hand as they say. But, he was so trusted" that his words alone, his CLAIM led to belief" which then led to behavior that caused his prophecy to be true, with no action beyond the words on his part" Belief became reality.

This alone proves Pro"s position beyond false.

if god fell from the sky to prove his powers magically somehow i dont know but then we would know, and atheists would be wrong, theists would have an argument..

irrelevant to default arguments, etc" not relevant to the debate.

true goes beyond just evidence, you can see on a live feed right now that i am wearing a hat as evidence but you still wouldnt know the machine or some people are tricking you, and really i am not wearing a hat

this was already refuted above-a sliver of a chance is all that is required to prove Pro"s position wrong, I have.

if i claim santa will come and bang your wife later because you was bad that one year.. your initial reaction isnt i will call 911 or lets drive to Canada to hide.. the default position is i dont know beyond what i know, and i know i am reading these Words on a screen and typing them on my keyboard

Ah-so you admit you don"t know, when an imaginary claim is made, thank you Pro, how generous.

right.. the default
know is the default position, life, but i am certain i dont see a dog in my room right now, so if you claim a dog is biting me i would have to tell you clearly a dog is not biting me, there is no dog in my room.. its like binary code 0 1, now is true not now is not true, i am one is true, if you say a dog might come by my house randomly and run in and bite me and it might turn out that you are right about that

Actually the default would be DEATH. Because the default is always passive. Like atheism-"a" means "without" Death is to be lacking in life. So death, the PASSIVE position is the default. Life is the manifest, the ACTIVE, the aware, the POSTIVE position, not the default. Death is default" default is always the NON, the NOWHERE, the LACK OF. The rest didn"t help or really address his position or mine.

when i answer i dont know, it Means i know i dont know, becasue how else would i know. so i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, and i have no doubt about that

So the default in your own words is indeed that you DON"T know, so I think while my arguments were better" either Pro got confused which side he"s arguing, or I am confused" or both.

when i am alone, the true size of the human population is one

This is again a fallacy of assuming that the lack of evidence is proof of or correlative to an event not occurring. Further-in your case, it"s even special pleading-why WOULD you think there were other people if you only look at where it"s even seemingly true. But I don"t see the merit toward the argument. |

That said, in all cases-the default position is NOT KNOWING.

What"s that word that comes to mind? Agnostic. Yes, that means "WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE" and while it refers to knowledge of GOD/S, it"s the most useful word for this debate. It tells us the default position on the exact issue at bar: KNOWLEDGE" and the default is NOT "gnostic" but "Agnostic." The one like I said-the one LACKING something, the one WITHOUT" the DEFAULT, the "agnostic" the one lacking knowledge, there"s your default Pro, the opposite of what you argued.
Report this Argument
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

only know is true, if i dont know is true, then i dont know is true, not that the claim is true, but i can believe it

belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

well what happend..

i dont know why these conversations gets so clouded with tekst..."

dude i cant respond to 100 claims at once.. i am not con
Brendan_Liam

Con

No new arguments to refute.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
any imaginary claim is sufficient to define the default positon, no need for many examples unless to clarify
Posted by Brendan_Liam 2 years ago
Brendan_Liam
not enogh letrs u mean
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
sry to many claims, im not going to adress all that when the conversation is ending..
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
to be more accurate, i dont know=i know my answer is false
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
nais :)
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Well yeah.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
just kidding man.. im almost saying not much

did you see me kicking enemy A SS in your mind??
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Aight. Good to know.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
you probably wont believe this... but its superman here, spex is leading the task force to glory, just taking a break at the moment now that everything is perfectly .... and the enemy's chances are less then.....
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Sup, spex?
No votes have been placed for this debate.