Instigator / Pro
Points: 16

There is a soul

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
Jeff_Goldblum
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 34
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Thanks for taking
Lack of soul

We always here how animals do not have souls.This seems to be biologically true.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.
This does not seem to be the case biologically for humans
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.
This is proof of  a soul



"As I write in the story, Boyle accomplished an almost unthinkable
feat of strength. The world record for dead-lifting a barbell is 1,003
pounds. A stock Camaro weighs 3000 pounds. So how did Boyle pull it off?"
Yes, You Really Can Lift a Car Off a Trapped Child
The Science Behind Seemingly Impossible Feats of Strength




A bunch of motherless babies are orphaned because of a disaster. These babies were well taken care of. All there necessary biological needs were met.They were fed and watered they diapers were changed. physically they were fine. But because they were not loved they all started to die off.They died from lack of love.


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.


Lack of love can be deadly.This is proof of a soul


The American goverment tried to replicate what had happened.There was 2 groups of babies.Both were physically taken care of.But One group was loved the other group was not loved.The group of babies that was not shown any love the babies started to die off.This is proof of a soul




Losing a loved one really can cause someone to die from a broken heart, scientists claim.

People have literally died from a broken heart.This is proof of a soul.





Hardened hearts.

A lot of people lie to themselfs and believe they are sociopaths.When in reality there hears have been hardened












Published:
Thanks to Crossed for setting up this debate.

I will begin by establishing burden of proof and proposing a definition of soul.

Definition - 
"The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal."

Burden of proof - 
As the claim-maker, my opponent carries the burden of proof. Crossed must prove - to the extent satisfactory to the voters - that humans have souls. My role is merely to dispute my opponent's evidence and prevent him from proving the existence of souls. I do not have to prove souls do not exist.

Argument
With this framework in place, it should be clear my opponent has yet to meet his burden of proof. His opening round consists of facts about human characteristics that he considers to be evidence of souls. He also lists characteristics of animals that he considers to be evidence of absence of souls in animals. However, none of these characteristics prove the existence of souls. In fact, in many cases, it is not even remotely clear how the listed characteristic is supposed to serve as evidence of a soul's presence or absence.

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.
My opponent has not made clear how this indicates absence of souls in animals.

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.
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.

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.
Once again, my opponent does not make explicit how "the power of love" proves the existence of souls in humans. Furthermore, the article he cites provides an entirely material explanation for the incredible feat of strength. 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.

I would quote and rebut my opponent's point about babies dying without love, but my counterpoints would be almost identical to the ones provided for the feat of strength example, so I won't bother.

I am confident that any objective voter can agree that, at this point in the debate, my opponent has failed to prove the existence of souls in humans. None of the characteristics of animals listed prove the absence of souls in them, and none of the characteristics of humans listed prove the presence of souls in us.
Round 2
Published:
The definition of what a soul is depends on what religion you follow.The way to distinguish if we have a soul or not is the power of love.

So a man lifting a 3000 pound car of  a small child would be proof of a soul.Note the world record of bench pressing is 1003 pounds.He became super man through the power of love.
or babies dyeing from lack of love is proof of a soul.
Or someone died from a broken heart is proof of a soul





Telling me how something works does not disprove that it was done by the soul.


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.

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. It is like if i say god made biological clocks in our body.Then they atheist tells me how the biological clocks work instead of telling me why it was not god who did it.He will say your clocks are activated by lights or by the 25 hour auto reset.As if telling me how it works disproves that god made it,  I of course respond by telling him we are built machines that is why we have clocks. but that is besides the point. A man lifting a 3000 pound car off a small child is proof of a soul.Telling me how it works does not disprove that it was the soul who did it.Telling me that chemicals were released does not disprove that it was the soul that released the chemicals that made him stronger through the power of love. Let say something so terrible happened to me that my mind in order to protect me started to suppressing memory's.Would telling me how my brain suppressing memory's disprove that it was the soul that caused this.Hell no.Giving to others can increase your life expectancy and make you happier.Would telling me that the brain released some kind of chemical that made the charity donor live longer disprove that this was the work of a soul.Hell no.Giving to other can help treat hiv and other chronic disease.This is proof of  a soul.Would telling me that giving to others released a chemical that help treat hiv.Prove that this was not the soul's doing.Hell no



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 reason why this kind of behavior is proof of an animals soullessness is because the lion is programmed to kill all the offspring of the previous alpha lion after they take the thrown.The reason why this does not work with humans is because we are programmed to feel guilty if we do something like this.Except in case's where our hearts have been hardened and lie to yourself and call yourself sociopaths.My hearts been hardened to.

Published:
At this point, I think it is unnecessary to do a line-by-line rebuttal of my opponent's arguments. Rather, I would prefer to highlight the two core problems at the heart of his argument.

1) Love = Soul (???)
The way to distinguish if we have a soul or not is the power of love.
I challenge my opponent to prove why exhibiting signs of love indicates the existence of a soul. I challenge my opponent to provide a convincing case as to why we should prefer to believe that an invisible, intangible 'soul' is the reason love exists, and not merely because chemicals in our brain make us feel love. My opponent is the claim maker. He needs to prove why his explanation is best. Since he has thus far failed to show why love equals soul, all of his examples describing "the power of love" are meaningless.

2) Burden of Proof
Telling me how something works does not disprove that it was done by the soul.
I agree, it doesn't necessarily. But that's entirely beside the point.

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.
It does not necessarily disprove the existence of a soul. But it is not my job to disprove the existence of souls. It is your job to prove the claim you are making. Demanding that atheists disprove the existence of a soul as a prerequisite for you dropping your belief in souls is completely irrational. We should only hold beliefs if those beliefs have been adequately substantiated. If a claim has not been adequately substantiated, we should not commit ourselves to believing it is true. We should instead withhold judgement.
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Extend.
Round 4
Published:
sorry i am having stuff going on that demands my attention.
Published:
I interpret this as a de facto concession by my opponent. Vote Con!
Added:
--> @Jonathan-Horowitz
Sound
#4
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
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.
#3
Added:
--> @zedvictor4
Good point
#2
Added:
--> @crossed
How exactly are you defining "a soul".
#1
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
50% FF
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.