There is a soul
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 5 votes and 18 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
"As I write in the story, Boyle accomplished an almost unthinkablefeat of strength. The world record for dead-lifting a barbell is 1,003pounds. A stock Camaro weighs 3000 pounds. So how did Boyle pull it off?"
Yes, You Really Can Lift a Car Off a Trapped ChildThe Science Behind Seemingly Impossible Feats of Strength
Most of these deaths were not due to starvation or disease, but to severe emotional and sensorial deprivation – in other words, a lack of love. These babies were fed and medically treated, but they were absolutely deprived of important stimulation, especially touch and affection.
Losing a loved one really can cause someone to die from a broken heart, scientists claim.
It is possible for a female cat to get impregnated by like several different male cats at the same time.For example my kitty parents has 2 dads.The first dad is orange and the second dad is black and white. The mom cat was impregnate with both dads And the baby cats has DNA for both dads.
In Africa when a male lion takes over the heard.It kills all lions that previously belonged with the last alpha.This is programmed into them.They Almost always do this when they take over and become alpha.I consider this proof that animals do not have souls.
Some guy pulled a 3000 pound car off a small child.The world record for lifting stuff before this was 1003 pounds.Through the power of love he biologically became 3 time stronger through the power of love.
During extremely high stress situations, the body can release pain-deadening chemicals that essentially allow the individual to push their body past normal limits. In the short term, this allows for heroic acts, like lifting a 3000lb car a couple inches off the ground to save someone, but shortly after the event, the individual becomes aware of strains and injuries suffered as a result. In the case cited, the man who lifted the car actually broke several of his teeth, because his jaw was clenched so tight as he lifted. He only became aware of this afterward. There is simply no basis for concluding souls exist from this phenomenon. There is a perfectly scientific, material explanation.
Giving is good for our health. A wide range of research has linked different forms of generosity to better health, even among the sick and elderly. In his book Why Good Things Happen to Good People, Stephen Post, a professor of preventative medicine at Stony Brook University, reports that giving to others has been shown to increase health benefits in people with chronic illness, including HIV and multiple sclerosis.
Again, my opponent does not explain why this characteristic of animals indicates absence of souls. However, I think his implicit logic can be inferred in this case. As I understand his point, my opponent is saying male lions exhibit a degree of brutal behavior toward their fellow lions that is antithetical to the possession of a soul. This argument has two problems. 1) Humans can be quite brutal toward each other too, so by my opponent's own logic, humans should not have souls. This contradicts his main argument. 2) My opponent fails to show why it's more likely that the behavior of lions is explained by the absence of a soul than the product of natural selection.
The way to distinguish if we have a soul or not is the power of love.
Telling me how something works does not disprove that it was done by the soul.
Con told me that this feet is not proof of a soul by telling me how it work.He says chemicals were released while he performed this amazing feet.How does this prove it is not the soul that did this.
The biblical word for soul does not denote “soul,” as in the popular notion that the soul is the 'real me clothed in the body.' When people die their “souls” survive for all eternity. This modern mystic view is rejected by modern science who, despite all their efforts, has been unable to prove that a "soul" exists. Actually, the term for the soul in Hebrew is nefesh and it means a “life force,” that keeps the vehicle, the body, alive, or a “person.” Nothing more. The intellect, and not the soul survive death.
Convincing argument - I believe Con has the more convincing argument, by default. It is hard to debate in favour of a Lion not having a soul, and a soul being exclusive to a body builder that can lift cars.
Reliable sources - Pro provided more sources than Con. However by default, i would assume any source that validates a Lion having no soul, but a car jacking body-builder having one, must be an unreliable source, and so i feel in this unique situation, Cons own opinion is equal to that of being the greater source, than any of the sources provided by Pro
spelling and grammar - both appeared to be highly literate
better conduct - I am actually going to give Pro a little tick here. You cannot argue against someone arguing for "love" and i feel, whilst ever so minor, the Cons final statement at the end of the debate where he "interprets" the motives, or reasons for his opponents forfeiting, just gave a remote air of over assurance
ARGs to CON: PRO's argument was essentially a string of non-sequitur. Between the cats having babies and men lifting cars, PRO asserts that the power of love is proof of soul without any kind of evidence.
Conduct to CON for forfeit
Argument: Pro never defined "soul," specifically, but related it to the ability to love. In addition, Pro wandered into an area of demonstrating, if not love, then the ability to adopt another father's litter in animals, which is a diversion from the debate subject. It was left to Con, which was not challenged by Pro, to define the germane terms in the debate. Points to Con.
Sources: Pro had sources, but none spoke to the direct debate subject. Con had no sources. Tie
S&G: Pro: lack of spacing: true.It, heard.It
slang: by like several...
spell: heard [should be herd]. Points to Con
Conduct: Pro: Forfeit debate. Point to Con
Basically a BoP failure. The big issue is pro disputing that a soul can be quantified (or was he claiming that each member of different religions have a wholly different type of soul?). Con on the other hand refuted that the evidence offered (someone lifts something heavy, and cats) is evidence for some unknown soul by explaining it in terms other than a soul; which left the evidence equally us having a soul to be as valid as claiming our souls are our skeletons.
Pro could have won a debate about love being fundamental in humans.
Conduct for forfeiture.
Sources tied due to them not advancing the case.