All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and same amount of points on both sides ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Either of us may take any position. While in normal debates, the two may take opposing sides, it is fine if we argue for the same idea. The arguments can be analyzed on their own independent of whether we disagree or agree with each other. So I am not concerned with it if we argue for the same side, and thus this is unrated.
The round structure is flexible, but round 1 we can just state our own positions generally without any evidence of logic to support. We can present definitions and acceptance in this round. Every other round we each can use however we want.
I am not fully committed to this view though. I'm closer to a more "agnostic" view but since I lean towards this view from agnosticism, I'll argue it and see how it goes.
I see no need to define anything. Every word will be given the most sensical definition based off of context clues. If you're arguing a word means something we all know it doesn't (i.e nice means angry or something) that will be ridiculous. So, I don't have any particular definitions needed to be presented here, if my opponent wants to present some, feel free.
So, while I'm keeping this extremely short right now, I think this is a very compelling argument.
Premise 1: The self cannot control two bodies at once. My reasoning for this premise is there's never been any instance where this has logically occurred(and not better explained by some other phenomena like mental illness) in the thousands of years of recorded history. Given this claim is based on a lack of evidence for something, I do not have any evidence. I find it logical to make this conclusion given there's never been any evidence for the billions of selves in existence to be able to do this. So, the lack of evidence for thousands of years is very telling. Should my opponent challenge this, I would request an instance where this has occurred.
Premise 2: Two different selves would be controlling a body that has the same genes(identical twins) with constantly the same neurotransmission going on. Even two different selves control two conjoined twins who share the same body. This article chronicled 13 different cases of conjoined twins, and reading over their stories obviously indicates there are two different people here, but one body, including one that shared the same head(and thus brain) but was two different selves. I see no reason why humanity won't advance to a point wherein we can control neurotransmission completely in all of the brains. We're constantly finding more and more about neurotransmission in the brain, here are just a few recent articles talking about studies finding new things to show we are constantly finding more about neuroscience.    So, given premise 1, these two bodies made up of exactly everything the same would be controlled by two different selves.