Instigator / Pro
3
1480
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#142

Science is not objective.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Type1
Judges
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
0 debates / 1 votes
Voted
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Judges
Contender / Con
4
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Description

The debate resolution is "Science is not objective."

This debate will follow the 3 rules of Civil Debate. - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/376

Civil Debate - Rule One: You cannot redefine truth.
Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent.
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.

Each participant will award and/or deduct up to 6 points to their opponent per round with the stipulation that points can never go below zero. The judge will award "arguments" (3 points) to the participant with the highest points tally at the end of the debate. In the event of a tie, no vote will be registered by the judge.

First round will be PRO's opening argument and definitions and CON's opportunity to challenge definitions and present counter-arguments.

Second round will be PRO optionally awarding points to CON for round one and modifying arguments to address concerns identified by CON and CON optionally awarding points to PRO for their response and modifying arguments to address PRO's points.

Third round will be the same as the second round with the addition of closing arguments.

Fourth round will be for points assignment/deduction and tally only.

If points are awarded or deducted (including a note for "no points"), CON will note points in the same round and PRO will note points at the beginning of the round following the arguments/comments that are being judged.

-->
@3RU7AL

"I would still consider that a personal win."

Why not? You awarded the points.

-->
@3RU7AL

Lol

-->
@RationalMadman

It appears as if I have lost this debate, however I have gained new insight into my philosophical arguments.

I would still consider that a personal win.

-->
@RationalMadman

Please create this debate and get a judge to agree to moderate and I will join - "I want the topic to be that when science isn't objective, it's pseudo-science. You CON, me PRO." if you are still interested.

-->
@RationalMadman

You seem to misunderstand.

It is impossible for me to win if you decide not to award me any points.

-->
@3RU7AL

but it's YOU who decides what I get rated and scored and YOU (who believes that resolution is true) that I have to prove is WRONG... see the issue?

-->
@RationalMadman

The burden-of-proof is shared equally by both participants.

-->
@3RU7AL

Because it is you who has to be convinced and you also have to avoid losing.

-->
@RationalMadman

Why don't you simply join this debate and argue that "true science" actually "is objective" and all "so-called-science" that fails the test of objectivity is actually "pseudo-science".

This seems like as good a starting point as any.

I'm pretty sure my arguments would be identical in either case.

-->
@RationalMadman

With these same proposed definitions?

-->
@3RU7AL

I want the topic to be that when science isn't objective, it's pseudo-science. You CON, me PRO.

-->
@RationalMadman

Please let me know if you would like to make any modifications to these proposed definitions.

-->
@RationalMadman

(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]

Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]

(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]

For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":

(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]

(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]

And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]

I propose that we provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_science
[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+objective&spf=394&cad=h
[8] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+subjective&spf=399&cad=h

-->
@3RU7AL

And what are the definitions?

-->
@RationalMadman

Perfecto.

-->
@3RU7AL

So let's first agree on definitions before debating then.

-->
@RationalMadman

In order to resolve the disagreement in viewpoints, each side builds a case with logical support.

You begin this process by stating explicit definitions and then addressing any conflicts between the PRO and CON definitions individually as they are identified.

This process is called "identifying common ground".

Once common ground is identified, then a logical case is built by both sides (upon the agreed negotiated definitions) and errors are identified by each opponent.

The point of Civil Debate is to actually resolve conflict and not simply to bully your opponent into submission.

If the definitions are not explicitly agreed upon, then both sides are able to build cases that may use similar words but actually have nothing to do with each other which results in two people talking past each other without realizing they are debating two completely different topics.

-->
@3RU7AL

Either science is objective or it's subjective.

To the former believer, the latter is speaking untruth in denying the resolution and vice versa.

-->
@RationalMadman

Please explain what you mean by, "You either learn nothing new or rule one is never broken."

-->
@3RU7AL

You either learn nothing new or rule one is never broken.

-->
@RationalMadman

Civil Debate - Rule One: You cannot redefine truth.
Every definition of truth requires facts.
Facts are indisputable.
Just like a court of law, both the prosecution and defense must agree on the facts.
If you and your opponent disagree about a fact, you must immediately stop the debate and negotiate the point of disputed fact.

Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent.
Just like a boxing champion, you are only as good as your opponent.
Ridicule is below the belt.
Use logic.
Your identity cannot qualify or disqualify sound logic.

Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.
When your opponent makes a valid objection, you have the option to award them a point.
Valid objections strengthen your argument.
Help your opponent strengthen their position by presenting a steel man.
The best debates are the ones that force you to learn something new.

I don't want rule three and I don't understand rule one as truth hasn't been defined.