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

true negates belief

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 73738
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




i know i am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, i dont have to imagine it


The topic is as follows:

"True negates belief"

The definition of true is as follows:

In accordance with fact or reality. -

The definition of negate is as follows:

nullify; make ineffective. -

The definition of belief is as follows:

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. -

Given the definitions, one must accept that one is typing words on their keyboard or reading them on their screen. Therefore, that which is fact or reality does not make ineffective the acceptance of something as fact or reality.

Therefore, that which is true does not negate belief in the situation given.
Debate Round No. 1


i dont have to imagine that i am reading these words, as i know i am


My opponent says that he needn't not imagine, for he knows what he is doing.

However, if one is to come to a point where one knows he is doing something, one must accept this something as fact or reality.
Thus, one must believe to know.

Unless my opponent can show how one needn't accept "x" as fact or reality to know "x" is fact or reality, my opponent has not made a solid argument.
Debate Round No. 2


what are you most certain of right now, what your neighbour is doing, or that you are reading these words?

acceptance of reality is not belief, and fact is knowledge

know is the opposite of belief and knowledge, and belief is the opposite of knowledge

acceptance is not necessarily belief


My opponent's argument rests on the proposition that acceptance is not necessarily belief.

However, I have given sources to the definition of belief, which state that belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. -

Therefore, given the definition of belief, if one is to accept the statement "I am reading these words", one must have belief.

Therefore, that which is true does not negate belief in this situation.
Debate Round No. 3


i know you cant read these words with your eyes closed

belief is always false, as only know is true

i accept i dont know=i accept reality

i accept imagination=belief


My opponent says that belief is always false. Such a statement is self contradictory.

If belief is taken as defined, being the acceptance of a statement as true, then my opponent must accept the statement "belief is always false" as true. Therefore, my opponent must believe that "belief is always false". This is, again, self contradictory.

My opponent also equates the acceptance of imagination as belief. This is true, for if one accepts the concept of the process of imagination as true, they are believing in imagination. However, this is not an argument to further the position that what is true negates belief.
Debate Round No. 4


thats my point, if the statement is true then its not about belief.. not a religious claim

can you close your eyes and read on for me pls. and at the same time, try to believe that you can...

belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

reality is unbelieved, i cant believe in reality, and i cant know imagination


My opponent says that if the statement is true then it is not about belief.

Two problems:

1. "It" is an ambiguous term. We do not know that "it" is, or what "it" is about, so we cannot say that "it" is not about belief.
2. The position that what is true negates belief is not furthered by the claim. It should not effect voting as it does not pertain to the topic.

Also, my opponent brings up religious claims. This also has nothing to do with the debate.

Next, my opponent asks me to close my eyes and read. I, obviously, cannot do that. But I can believe that I can read with my eyes closed.

My opponent's argument, if put into a more formal matter, goes like this:

1. Beliefs can contradict with reality.
2. What is true is what is reality.
3. Therefore, beliefs can contradict with what is true.

This argument only shows the existence of false beliefs, it does not further the position that what is true negates belief.
Furthermore, if one is to accept any of which is true, one must use belief. This implies that beliefs are true. However, in neither case does what is true negate belief.

Therefore, this argument should also not be convincing, as it does not further Pro's position.

My opponent ends with belief=be lie, which I frankly do not understand the point of.

Pro finishes his conclusion stating that reality is unbelieved (sic), and that one cannot believe in reality.

This is also false, as one can definitely accept a statement of reality as true. This means one can believe in reality, thus negating Pro's final claim.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
Posted by AdithyaShark 3 years ago
The resolution should be TRUTH negates belief.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro did not support the resolution, therefore, did not meet the Burden of Proof. Pro's format is sloppy: grammar to Con.