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

What if life was just an illusion and a punishment and death was it's liberation?

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: 11/6/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 867 times Debate No: 96770
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




All of us have a one way , biased point of view in life where we believe what we are taught is right. From the day we could understand and comprehend ideas, we were taught, "death is bad". In your opinion is that ideal of death really a bad thing? What if life was just a punishment and death was only achieved when we had learnt what we had done wrong?!


I agree that we are naturally biased to believe certain things based on our worldviews, where we were raised, who raised us, etc. You are arguing that life is an illusion and a punishment and death is a liberation. There are plenty of good things that come out of living. Your stance is that of an emo person, someone who just "gives up." Of course, life would be a punishment if you give up; nothing good comes from it.

We are not taught that death is bad, but that it is unwelcome. If death was a liberation from punishment, then I fail to understand why humanity is so adverse about death. It is because life is good, and we are to live it and cherish it and share it and produce it. We are the only species in the world that is cognisant of their inevitable death. This is why we have religions, many of which promise some sort of afterlife, save for Eastern religions, which preach reincarnation. Many religions believe in the sanctity of life, and that it must be preserved (for example, all religions teach that killing is wrong). Why would there be so much effort spent on preserving an illusion?
Debate Round No. 1


My point of view is not emo, in fact it is considering the whole perspective. The whole perspective is what you fail to consider as you say that, "If death was a liberation from punishment, then I fail to understand why humanity is so adverse about death". It is because we are afraid, mostly unknowing of what happens to a person after death. It is something that we cannot comprehend as we do not know what happens after death. We live in a society that is getting more poverty stricken, corrupt and selfish as the days pass, and I believe we are approaching the dark ages kinda like something you'd read in a dystopian book. We do not know we came to be on this planet for a fact, some say it was evolution, some say it was God who created us. None of the theories confirm the mean of existence, and therefore I ask u how can you be so sure?! We spend time, money, effort preserving this illusion because we are scared...Scared of the unknown?


"Cogito ergo sum." Descartes. "I think, therefore I am."

Sure, the world is spiraling down, but that doesn't make it an illusion or a bad dream. If your grades in school sank, you cannot pinch yourself and wake up to good grades. In fact, calling what horrible things are happening in the world grossly underestimate humanity's darkest moments, such as genocide, fascism, slavery, etc. These things happened. Something caused it, and today has been affected by it. There is a consistent chain of cause and effect that goes all the way up to the very first signs of human life; we call this long chain the butterfly effect. If you've ever played Until Dawn, you have experienced the butterfly effect. What happens to us now is the result of hundreds of different factors. You wouldn't be here as you are today without your parents meeting and having intercourse. What happened that resulted in their meeting? What happened that resulted in your grandparents' meeting? It's a long chain of consequences that goes up to the very beginning of human history and beyond. I have to say, this is a very grandiose illusion. Evolution, therefore, does prove our existence. And if evolution proves our existence, then life has to be real and not an illusion. Also, according to Merriam-Webster, the definition of death is as follows:


Full Definition of death
a : a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life " compare brain death
b : an instance of dying
a : the cause or occasion of loss of life
b : a cause of ruin
capitalized : the destroyer of life represented usually as a skeleton with a scythe
: the state of being dead
a : the passing or destruction of something inanimate
b : extinction"

I would like to call your attention to definition 1a: a permanent cessation of all vital functions: an end of life. How can death be real if life isn't? These two concepts are the ones we both know for certain hold true for each of us, no matter our personal experiences. We live and we die. What happens in between is up to us.
Debate Round No. 2


Again, here you're using a dictionary to define death. Death is something we don't know of, therefore we cannot define it, we can only think that we are defining it accurately. And that's the whole point of my argument, what if we are incorrect in our ideals about death. You have no ethos, pathos or logos that can prove otherwise, as once dead humans obviously completely inert and so therefore you have no credible source or logic behind the fact that life is in fact better than death, as you have never had the experience of being dead?! As simple as that. And by the way, evolution is a theory just like the theory of continental drift, it isn't an universally accepted fact. In order to universally accepted it has to be a law, which the theory was evolution is most clearly not. Thank you.


I think we all know what death is, and what it entails. You are arguing that apples are really oranges, which is asinine. It is universally accepted fact that people are alive when their vital functions are working, and dead if those same vital systems no longer work. In your first argument, you ask, "What if life was just a punishment and death was only achieved when we had learnt what we had done wrong?!" Because I'm pretty sure no fetus, an innocent organism that does what it is supposed to do naturally, deserves to be punished through living. And think of how many different ways one could die. I could get hit by a car, have a severe allergic reaction, get shot, get blown up, get poisoned, die from nuclear bombs, etc. If someone is driving to work, and they get hit by another car, and they die, I highly doubt they were thinking to themselves, "Hmm, what have I done wrong today?"

Do you know the story behind "Cogito ergo sum?" Rene Descartes had decided that he would doubt anything that couldn't be backed up with absolute fact. In the end, he only learned that the only certainty was his doubtings! My point is, you are doing the same thing with this question. Yes, we don't know anything about life after death. But that puts an afterlife's existence into question, not death. Everyone knows what death is.

Furthermore, if you wish to doubt everything you have learned throughout your life, you must be aware that our knowledge of the world has been built up for thousands of years upon things called axioms. Axioms, according to Merriam-Webster, are:

"Full Definition of axiom
: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1
: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth"

Axioms cannot be proven, but they are accepted based off of their logical reasoning. So yes, if these axioms were indeed inaccurate, then the whole of human understanding would be called into question. Yes, a scary thought indeed. However, using afterlife as an example, no one knows everything. I don't, you don't, no one does. So, we have to assume certain things at first (axioms) in order to continue on building our human knowledge up.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 2 years ago
The meaning of life is ........drum roll TIME. You have approximately 75 years on average to do whatever you chose, it might seem like a long time but it's mere seconds in the evolution of the universe, we are just a spec in time.

So live your life to the fullest because once you die it's over, all gone, like an ant when you step on it as you are walking down the street, you don't even notice it but that ants life is over.
Posted by Williamcrdv 2 years ago
The contender missed the entire point of the topic which isn't even a proper invitation for debate. I am surprised anyone even accepted this topic. This was just a hypothetical situation contemplating the actual meaning of life and death. It could have been formulated much better. As it stands it is just an invitation for discussion not debate.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 2 years ago
This debate sounds like a statement made by ISIS
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: I award a conduct point to the Con because the debate innately is impossible. The job of the instigator is to actually provide fair ground in the debate, and that is why Con gets 1 point. Arguments: However, the burden of proof in the debate lies in the Pro's camp. And he doesn't actually provide any arguments for his resolution, while Con bases his arguments on generally accepted fact. Con carries conduct and argument points.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.