Instigator / Pro
0
1479
rating
316
debates
39.08%
won
Topic
#3659

Biological reincarnation is real.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

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

Novice_II
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
22,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

It's evident, it's true that the topic is correct. It's scientific as in realizing everything around us.

Even philosophically broached by Swami Satchidananda . Everything that is will be.

That's as far as I'll go in the description. If you're really sharp, you'll see the topic is fact and non-contestable .

Round 1
Pro
#1
Let's start with some examples here of what I'm talking about.

Mr. Swami Satchidananda made an illustration regarding a handkerchief.

You search online if you care to, you'll find many things said by this individual.

The handkerchief changes form. Not just into different physical forms by external manipulation but also in atomic, molecular forms arranged different in matter.

We can look at the handkerchief, a waxed candle melting or a piece of wood that burns. It's a change of matter, change of form.

Even in death of anything, there's a change of form, a transition if you will.

All things of matter and matter making up all things, ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

That body , the corpse that goes in the ground becomes part to the soil. Through insects, to animals(non persons) to persons (animals).

All this is what is meant by biological recycling or reincarnation.

Looks like somebody in the comments was real sharp on this one . Real good, there you go, A+.


Con
#2
X. Default to con
  • Pro bears the full burden of proof, and failure to uphold such alone is sufficient for a con victory.

Framework
  • Biological: of or relating to biology or to life and living processes
  • Reincarnation: reincarnation, also known as rebirth or transmigration, is the philosophical or religious concept that the non-physical essence of a living being begins a new life in a different physical form or body after biological death.
  • Real: having objective independent existence (b) not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory. 

The handkerchief changes form. Not just into different physical forms by external manipulation but also in atomic, molecular forms arranged different in matter.
  • Changing form is not reincarnation. 
We can look at the handkerchief, a waxed candle melting or a piece of wood that burns. It's a change of matter, change of form.
  • See above. Changing form is not a new life. 
Even in death of anything, there's a change of form, a transition if you will.
  • Changing form is not death. And if an entity is dead, a change in form is not a new life. If someone dresses up a dead body it does not become revived. 
That body , the corpse that goes in the ground becomes part to the soil.
  • And it does not begin a new life. 
Through insects, to animals(non persons) to persons (animals).
  • Distinct individual objects have their own lives. One does not ontologically begin a second life after death. 
All this is what is meant by biological recycling or reincarnation.
  • False, reincarnation means the non-physical essence of a living being begins a new life in a different physical form or body after biological death. This was not evidenced by pro. Recycling is not reincarnation in any ontological sense, 

Round 2
Pro
#3
"Changing form is not reincarnation. "

Never said it was. Pay sharp attention to the exact order of words.
My position has nothing to do with reincarnation itself.

There's a coined expression here you could of picked up on.

"See above. Changing form is not a new life.  "
It's not about new lives, it's about what we can call recyclability .

"Changing form is not death. And if an entity is dead, a change in form is not a new life. If someone dresses up a dead body it does not become revived. "

Let's say it once more. We're not talking new lives. We're not talking new life.

New life has nothing to do with the rearranging of things here in this context.
When a person dies, they do change form. They don't remain intact.
Are you aware of bodily decomposition?

That's what it's called.

"And it does not begin a new life. "

Very good, you're starting to get it.

"Distinct individual objects have their own lives. One does not ontologically begin a second life after death. "

I'm not talking about one beginning a new or second life.

You must have the biggest misunderstanding of the words I'm using here.

It shows with the following response.

"False, reincarnation means the non-physical essence of a living being begins a new life in a different physical form or body after biological death. This was not evidenced by pro. Recycling is not reincarnation in any ontological sense, "

Here's what I said again.

"All this is what is meant by biological recycling or reincarnation."

I just told you what is meant by biological recycling.

I'm telling you what I mean when I use the phrase.

I'm not talking about reincarnation.

I specifically said biological reincarnation.

That's what it says in the debate title.

Please don't cherry pick language in desperate attempt to make an argument.

Reminder, we're not talking about a new life after death.

Do not bring it up anymore.








Con
#4
Framework
  • While pro foolishly deferred the definition of terms to the contender, no aspect of the framework is challenged and consequently, it is accepted.  

y. Concession
  • The instigator has stated both: 
    • "I'm not talking about reincarnation."
    • "I'm not talking about one beginning a new or second life."
    • "Let's say it once more. We're not talking new lives. We're not talking new life."
  • This debate is on "biological reincarnation," and as pro has conceded that he is not even making an argument for reincarnation, he simply concedes the debate. 

z. Rebuttal
  • Our primary notes are evident: 
    • Biological: of or relating to biology or to life and living processes
    • Reincarnation: reincarnation, also known as rebirth or transmigration, is the philosophical or religious concept that the non-physical essence of a living being begins a new life in a different physical form or body after biological death.
  • This is a debate over reincarnation, or the beginning of a new life after death, in some sort of biological way. The burden is massive, the definition of reincarnation does even asserts as "philosophical," or "religious," as opposed to biological. 
I just told you what is meant by biological recycling.
  • Recycling is not reincarnation
When a person dies, they do change form. They don't remain intact.
  • Changing form is not reincarnation (see round 1). 
Are you aware of bodily decomposition?
  • Bodily Decomposition is not reincarnation
Please don't cherry pick language in desperate attempt to make an argument.
  • Here pro goes as far as to assert that by arguing the resolution he made, I am "cherry picking." The delusion here is self-evident and urges a decision for con. 

 

Round 3
Pro
#5
"This debate is on "biological reincarnation," and as pro has conceded that he is not even making an argument for reincarnation, he simply concedes the debate. "

News flash, you assumed that reincarnation and biological reincarnation were the same thing.

Now you concede to that.

"This is a debate over reincarnation, or the beginning of a new life after death, in some sort of biological way. The burden is massive, the definition of reincarnation does even asserts as "philosophical," or "religious," as opposed to biological. "

You assumed what the debate was about. You thought you knew what it entailed and you thought you had it in the bag.
Now you're dictating what the debate topic is. A debate topic you didn't create and you're telling me how it's going to go .

Just admit you moved too fast in choosing to enter a topic you really had no clue about.

This is why I always offer people to ask questions to get an understanding first before they just jump on board.

Once you accept and I begin that first round, you have to be ready for anything I will broach and hope it is exactly what you have a counter for.

In your mind, you're just thinking reincarnation, plain as a day.

I never heard of the expression "biological reincarnation" before. So I can't assume what a person means coining those two terms together.

I try to stick with the facts .
I believe you are so hell bent on being right, you're disregarding my position, to strawman it and tell me where it's at.

Incredible.

"Recycling is not reincarnation"

Never said it was.
If you want to insist the topic is about reincarnation, the debate is over.

You have no arguments to rebut biological reincarnation. All you're prepared for is to argue against reincarnation whether you admit that or not.

I had a suspicion, somebody would read into the topic statement.
I mean when you have a habit of doing that, you do that with just about everything you read.

"Changing form is not reincarnation (see round 1). "

That's not my point. You see there, you just glossed over it. You said, "Changing form is not death ".

In death, the body does change form.
Are you aware of what bodily decomposition is?

I think you do . You didn't answer that question . The decomposition is changing the form. That's the point. You said being dead or death is not a changing form.
Now you want to switch the words up.
See I'm careful with words while you're sly, sloppy and hasty with them.

"Bodily Decomposition is not reincarnation"

Not the point as elaborated above.

"Here pro goes as far as to assert that by arguing the resolution he made, I am "cherry picking." The delusion here is self-evident and urges a decision for con. "

Stop reading into things. It's like this with every debate with you , it seems like.



Con
#6
Framework
You assumed what the debate was about.
  • False, the terms were clearly defined (see round 1 Framework).
Now you're dictating what the debate topic is.
  • The Dictionary/English language has already done that.  

y. Concession
  • Mall continues to admit that he is not arguing for reincarnation, thus conceding the debate to con. He does quite well in facilitating the readability of this debate for once. In addition, there are other concessionary comments/exchanges 
    • Con: "Recycling is not reincarnation" Pro: "Never said it was," serves to admit that his own argument does not prove any form of reincarnation.
    • Con: ""Bodily Decomposition is not reincarnation" Pro: "Not the point as elaborated above," serves to admit that his own argument does not evidence any form of reincarnation.

z. Rebuttal
If you want to insist the topic is about reincarnation, the debate is over.
  • I believe pro made the resolution, although he may have forgotten. Regardless, the debate has been conceded previously so it de-facto was already over.

Conclusion
  • Nothing seems to evidence reincarnation that is somehow a biological process. The definition of reincarnation itself informs us that it is a "philosophical or religious concept," so pro also holds the burden to prove that it is a biological one as well.

Round 4
Pro
#7
"False, the terms were clearly defined"

No , you thought they were. Again, how are you going to tell me what I mean by the terms I choose to use?

I tell you, not the other way around. How do I know you assumed?
It's because in assumptions such as this one, you're wrong. How do we know you are wrong?
You verify with the source. Who is the source?
The source is yours truly.
You did not have the correct understanding of what I said. You may not or won't admit it, I understand that.
It's a desperate move on your part .

"The Dictionary/English language has already done that.  "

You're dictating the dictionary to dictate it so you're dictating.

This debate is over. Everything else you're saying, I've already covered.

You have no refutation, no argument for biological reincarnation.

You only know how to argue to counter reincarnation. That's not the debate and those that read honestly know that this is not the debate.

You have no refutation, no argument for biological reincarnation.

Con
#8
Framework
No , you thought they were. 
  • (Shows inability to read). 
Again, how are you going to tell me what I mean by the terms I choose to use?
  • Pro did not define his own terms.
  • Consequently, con defined the terms in round one, to which con subsequently does not object to, until a round later when he changes his mind and says he is not willing to defend his own resolution. 

y. Concession
  • Extend. Pro deciding not to defend his own resolution while holding the burden of proof is peculiar. 

z. Rebuttal
It's not about new lives, it's about what we can call recyclability .
  • This is not reincarnation. 
You have no refutation, no argument for biological reincarnation.
  • Voters can read all previous rounds for this. Pro has failed to demonstrate a form of reincarnation (starting a new life after death) that is also biological (despite being a philosophy/religious concept). The decision is easy.