Biological reincarnation is real.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 1
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
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 .
*Looking for arguments against only biological reincarnation*
I think I would rather PM this conversation.
In the example against burden of proof given by the website you linked, the burden of proof is absolutely held by someone claiming a teacup is orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. However, if this same person came into a formal debate against me, I would at least put in a line about the unlikelihood of such an occurrence. The fact that Mall similarly refused to make any arguments was equally frustrating on my part as a voter. If these had been the standard vote system rather than win/lose, I would likely have rewarded you either Conduct or Argument points on the grounds that Mall was ignoring his burden of proof.
While I agree the burden of proof is on Pro both for instigating the argument and making the positive claim, NOT making any argument against the claim feels antithetical to the spirit of debate and DebateArt specifically. You weren't getting any votes anyways.
> "I don't consider any burden of proof to be so great that NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER can win by default"
I am a little at odds here...this is actually exactly what the burden of proof entails. If someone holds the full burden of proof, all the contender needs to do is refute their arguments, and if none are provided, the contender wins. "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove." I am afraid you are using a logical fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) in your assessment. Do you disagree?