The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LogicalLunatic
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

you are just a bunch of atoms

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 4 votes the winner is...
LogicalLunatic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 596 times Debate No: 60098
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Max.Wallace

Pro

Thanks for telling us that NPR!
LogicalLunatic

Con

I accept. Definition of "bunch":
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
In titling this debate, my opponent has made the claim, whether he/she knew it at the time or not, that we are composed of atoms that are the same.
Also, my opponent used the word "just", which means my opponent made the claim that the only thing we are is atoms.

Allow me to explain why my opponent used faulty logic.
First of all, not all atoms are the same. Some atoms have X number of Protons/Electrons and some atoms have Y number of Neutrons. As a result, there are different types of atoms with different compositions and uses. Obviously I am not a blob of one material, so this assertion of my opponent's must be false.

As for "just", if I prove that humans consist of something other than atoms, then I win automatically.
If there is a single rogue subatomic particle in my body, then my opponent will lose.
Neutrinos are a form of subatomic particles.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Trillions of Neutrinos pass through your body EVERY SECOND.
http://www.chacha.com...
https://www.flickr.com...
And it is likely that humans produce neutrinos too.
Therefore, I have proved my case, or at least I have shed a sufficient amount of doubt upon the claims of my opponent, who has burden of proof. I await my opponent's rebuttals and arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Pro

I must say, it is truly hilarious how one bunch of atoms tries so hard to smash another. Are their any VPR employees in your circle? I bet there is.
LogicalLunatic

Con

I have no idea what the heck you just said.
Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Pro

I wrote a bout 12 words, and you in your brilliant need to express your genius, used 150 or so to counteract that. Your smart? I suspect that you have a big attachment to NPR, either directly or subconsciously. way to go to extremes, in order to defend your values.
LogicalLunatic

Con

Sir, I don't even know what the NPR is.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
National Public (tax dollar subsidized) Radio! FYI. You are not from the radio age are you?
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
Oh Max Wallace, won't you ever understand that you're on a debate site? Your personal attacks and 2 sentence arguments have no merit.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
NPR, National, Public, Radio! What your ancestors love There it is, tard!
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
However if Con can prove the existence of a soul he could win.
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
I don't know if this is cheating but Max Wallace is a nutter butter and could use the help so here it goes: "you" needs to be defined because even if we are chalk full of neutrinos those neutrinos are not "you", or what defines what "you" is.

As for the "we are multiple types of atoms" argument, this does not invalidate the premise. Just because we are made of multiple types of atoms does not mean we are not made of atoms.
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 2 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
@evangambit If a word is not defined by the instigator, the contender should define it. If the definition is worded selfservingly, then that is the fault of the instigator for not defining an unclear word.
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
"a group of things of the same kind that are held or tied together or that grow together"
"a group of people or things that are together or are associated with each other in some way"
"a large amount"

Not really sure I buy your definitional argument. One of the three definitions is "a large amount" and the other two don't exactly strong offer strong arguments by themselves.

That atoms differ in certain characteristics doesn't realistically make "bunch" an incorrect word (not that I am a fan of arguing semantics anyway).

The claim that "I am not a blob of one material, so this assertion of my opponent's must be false" seems straw-man-ish.

The argument that neutrinos pass through and are created the body is an interesting one. The implication, though, is that one should also claim light bulbs "consist of photons". Personally I'm not a huge fan of either of these claims. "Consists" seems to imply that they play a non-insignificant role in chemical/physical interactions, and I don't believe neutrinos do anything approaching substantial for/to us (I may be wrong).

Of course, Pro's claim itself, perhaps by virtue of its non-controversial-ness, sort of deserves the kind of excruciatingly scrutiny you bring to bear upon it. It certainly makes for a more interesting debate!
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Thank you.
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 2 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
That was absolutely ruthless.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Please tell me that you aren't from the South.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
Max.WallaceLogicalLunaticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol
Vote Placed by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
Max.WallaceLogicalLunaticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not attempt to debate, merely engaged in ad hominid attacks.
Vote Placed by SocialistAtheistNutjob 2 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
Max.WallaceLogicalLunaticTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro did not meet Burden of Proof
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Max.WallaceLogicalLunaticTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to fulfill BOP, plus neutrinos.