true negates belief
Debate Rounds (5)
i know i am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, i dont have to imagine it
"True negates belief"
The definition of true is as follows:
In accordance with fact or reality. -https://www.google.com...
The definition of negate is as follows:
nullify; make ineffective. -https://www.google.com...
The definition of belief is as follows:
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. -https://www.google.com...
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.
i dont have to imagine that i am reading these words, as i know i am
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.
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
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. -https://www.google.com...
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.
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
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.
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
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.