Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Topic
#4537
Death doesn't exist
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
3
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Bella3sp
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 21,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
3
1524
rating
53
debates
75.47%
won
Description
Death doesn't exist argue against this statement.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Death doesn’t exist it can’t possibly exist and life is both proof and evidence for this.
To consider this we must first think about the opposite of death which is life.
Life is conceived, it builds in a womb or egg, it is born, it matures and eventually is considered to have died when it ceases to function eventually decaying away in to a particulate dust over time. The dust itself eventually decaying in to a state so small it simply evaporates in to quantum space.
Assumption: Death is the period beyond life the post life period. Whether this is to a religious ‘Heaven’ or a non-existence has its own separate debate. For this debate we can consider the scientific mechanical to be the expected outcome, which holds that; Death is a permanent state of Non-Existence I’d like you to imagine this non-existence as simply nothing, zero, … true Ether not even space exists as nobody is there with the senses to perceive of it. In this nothingness 'Existence itself' is ‘Dead’
Now I would like you to consider your state of existence currently, you are a physical form known as a Human, you have a brain and a mind and can conceive and consider thought. Lets say you are 6ft and 18st male, A ‘big one’ considering you came from a single cell.
At the point of conception you were a single cell, before conception you were a sperm in your fathers sack among many sperm. Now what were you before you were a sperm? A twinkle in your father’s eye as he met your mother for the first time. What where you 100 years before you were a twinkle? Did you ‘Exist’? let’s take it back a billion years before your family or species existed, where were you then? Did you exist? Logically we know you didn’t exist, however I will accept current particle theories that suggest fundamental particles are indestructible, the particles that would one day used to make you cannot be destroyed they can only decay in to their fundamental forms. So let’s go back to before life existed a tall, did you exist then? Before the universe existed? If we agree death is a state of non-existence surly we can also agree you were non-existent at one stage before you existed.
If Death is non-existence and the period before life is also non-existence surly your current existence here and now is proof death doesn’t exist at least not in the permanent form humanity considers to too be. As death is fundamentally a non-permanent state as evidenced by the existence of life.
If death is truly the end of existence how are we all coming in to existence from a state of Death or ‘Non-Existence’ If death or non-existence is not a barrier to existence what is it? Can it be called death? I’d say it’s nothing, I’d say it doesn’t exist at all, it can no more prevent new life spawning than the non-existence we came from that was unable to prevent us from spawning in to life, strangely enough its seems we are all afraid of the very thing we came from, the very thing that was unable to stop us being here and now, alive and well. In fact non-existence may indeed have pushed us in to existence as I personally cant remember making a decision to exist pre life.
Con
#2
Thanks John00,
I. Pre-Layout
Pro, Round one: Argument setup
Con, Round one: Argument setup
I'll be using this chance to only write my arguments and leave rebuttals for next round.
II. Burden of Proof
I believe the Burden of Proof is shared with pro and con.
Pro must establish that death does exist.
Con must establish that death does not exist.
III. Definitions
What is death?
the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism.
What is exist?
a: to have real being whether material or spiritual
IV. Arguments
1. Human death
Death is when your body can no longer function; all your organisms are dead. Every single human thar has existed had died.
Common assumptions:
- A. Death cannot exist because your body remains and then deceases into 'dust'
- B. Life is always pretained to death
A.
First off, for the first assumption that is false. Death is not saying "every part of you is gone", death means no longer surviving. When all your organs are shut down, not alive anymore, you are dead. Or even just one organ, it can be considered dead. Its simply seen with every human that has been alive; they die. This doesn't revolve around just humans either.
B.
Later mentioned in my second contentions.
Common examples of death around human life
All of the organs inside of a human body don't need die for it to be labeled as "death", singely they can be considered dead.
Examples:
- The brain and nerve cells require constant and constant supplies of oxygen. They will die within a few minutes without oxygen.
- Skin cells usually die within a process of six weeks; pushed to the surface, harden, and die.
2. Death in general
Can my passion die? Can my passion to create art die? Can my passion be considered dead? Death revolves around dead.
It seems people only think it revolves around the living organs, cells, etc. Can emotional things die as well?
Can my friendship with someone die? Can my relationship die?
3. Death with living things, not just human life
When you do not fulfill the basic needs of something to survive, it dies.
This revolves around, all, living things.
To survive, most living things need food, water, sunlight, and oxygen. If those living things are not fulfilled, as said, they die.
Roots, leaves, grass, etc.
4. Ideas of "Alternatives"
The circle of life is for living things to die, to say death itself doesn't exist is false. This is not just an opinion, this is objective reality. Death happens. It happens to all of us, and it will happen for future things to come. Even with science, and all these future ideas of "staying alive with non-living organs to survive", living things will die. Your mind will not die, but what about those previous organs? Those living organs will die. These "non-living organs" cannot die and should not be factored into death. But, the living things will die.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I. Pre-Layout
Pro, Round one: Argument setup
Con, Round one: Argument setup-
- Agreed
II. Burden of ProofI believe the Burden of Proof is shared with pro and con.
- Agreed
Pro must establish that death does not exist.
Con must establish that death does exist.
- Corrected in comments
III. Definitions What is death?
the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end ofthe life of a person or organism.
- I accept this definition and understand it isnot the definition I used in my opening but I will use this definition going forward.
What is exist? a: to have real being whether material or spiritual
- Agreed
IV. Arguments 1. Human death Death is when your body can no longer function; all yourorganisms are dead. Every single human that has existed had died.
- This argument is framed as the concept of physicaldeath, it mitigates the existence consciousness. While it is well established thatconsciousness has no known physical properties it also remains true that consciousnessto some degree exists as a functioning part of all living beings as a requiement to be considered 'alive'.
Common assumptions:
A. Death cannot exist because your body remains and thendeceases into 'dust'
B. Life is always pretained to death
A. First off, for the first assumption that is false. Deathis not saying "every part of you is gone", death means no longersurviving. When all your organs are shut down, not alive anymore, you are dead.Or even just one organ, it can be considered dead. Its simply seen with every human that hasbeen alive; they die. This doesn't revolve around just humans either.
- Consciousness to some degree is a requirement forsurvivability. If we accept as stated that “ Death is not saying "every part of you isgone", death means no longer surviving” we must accept that the loss of consciousnessresulting in a loss of survivability leads to a state of ‘Death’ yet we know this not to be true as non-consciousness occurs every 24hrs. consciousness is not subject to the physical nature of Death as it has no physicality to be able to experience death.
- I would argue that consciousness is fundamental aspectof a life forms ability to survive and thus live. I also hold the view that consciousnessis part of a living being cannot experience death as it has no physical propertiesthat enable it to physically cease to function or enter a state of Death.
- If consciousness is the way in which we perceiveand interact with life, and it cannot experience physical death then what islife? if the way in which we experience it cannot itself experience death? If thephysical body does go in to a state of death how can the non-physical componentof consciousness follow it in to death? Left unanswered this question alonerefutes the idea of death by leaning it to the non-physical nature of the consciousnessthat allows us to experience life, if it is non-physical it cannot experience decaythus how would it reach a state of non-functioning or death.
B. Later mentioned in my second contentions. Common examples of death around human life All of the organs inside of a human body don't need diefor it to be labeled as "death", singely they can be considered dead.
- I accept that the overall body systems are a collaborationof many unique and individual organisms acting in a symbiotic capacity to deliverthe overall entity known as a life form.
- I would refute the idea that these organismshave to exist in the physical to be described as an organism. Without conscious thoughtno organism is an organism as organisms cannot exist without the thought “I needto survive”
Examples: The brain and nerve cells require constant and constantsupplies of oxygen. They will die within a few minutes without oxygen. Skin cells usually die within a process of six weeks;pushed to the surface, harden, and die.
- Why do they ‘Die’? we know onereason is decay but let’s say the sub conscious thought that manages the supplyof oxygen via red blood cells and navigation of the body was no longer present, the skincell could also die from simple lack of consciousness. It can effectively dieas a result of a non-physical but vital component of the body not being present..the sub conscious.
- This posses the question, how is it that a non physical entity with no evidence to suggest its physical existence can directly affect a physical body by simply not being present?
2. Death in general Can my passion die? Can my passion to create art die? Canmy passion be considered dead? Death revolves around dead.It seems people only think it revolves around the livingorgans, cells, etc. Can emotional things die as well? Can my friendship with someone die? Can my relationshipdie?
- I have addressed non-physical thought in myabove response
3. Death with living things, not just human life When you do not fulfill the basic needs of something tosurvive, it dies. This revolves around, all, living things.
To survive, most living things need food, water,sunlight, and oxygen. If those living things are not fulfilled, as said, theydie. Roots, leaves, grass, etc.
- To this I would ask what are the basic needs of consciousness?What does it require to survive?
- All living things require the conscious thought to understand of the concept of physical survival.
4. Ideas of "Alternatives" The circle of life is for living things to die, to saydeath itself doesn't exist is false. This is not just an opinion, this isobjective reality. Death happens. It happens to all of us, and it will happen forfuture things to come. Even with science, and all these future ideas of"staying alive with non-living organs to survive", living things willdie. Your mind will not die, but what about those previous organs? Those livingorgans will die. These "non-living organs" cannot die and should notbe factored into death. But, the living things will die.
- It is agreed that the circle of life is physically evidenced inthe world around us however I would put it to you that the conscious thoughtrequired to achieve life and thus Death is a non-physical yet evidently existent and 'Alive' presence. That this non-physical consciousness dictates the moment a physicalbody dies. Consciousness itself in being non-physical, means it cannot experience death aswhat part of it would ‘Die’? how can it decay to a state of non-functioningwithout the physical properties to do so?
If life wouldn't be alive without consciousness, how can death be be truly dead without it?
- I look forward to your response.
Round 3
Con
#6
Seems were on equal footing as you forfeited last round as well.
I. Pre-layout:
Accepted by pro.
II. Burden of Proof:
Accept by pro.
III. Defintions:
Both were accepted by pro.
New definition:
What is consciousness?
a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
Can be contested, of course.
IV. Numbered Sections
Each and every section of the rebuttals are numbered. If you would like an easy refer to mention "number six states .." it's there.
But I also use it when I state: "it has already been adressed in number ..."
V. Defense:
I don't quite understand what pro is saying in some circumstances, but i'll try to the best of my abilites.
That said, voters, I will be skipping over round one rebuttals. Pro practically restates their exact comments from round one. If anything else I missed that does need to be addressed from round one, feel free to speak up pro.
1:
This argument is framed as the concept of physicaldeath, it mitigates the existence consciousness. While it is well established thatconsciousness has no known physical properties it also remains true that consciousnessto some degree exists as a functioning part of all living beings as a requiement to be considered 'alive'.
Alright. What pro does here is basically just stating that consciousness is a "functioning part of all living beings" which is part of the requirement to be alive.
Sure, I can somewhat agree to this within a degree. My argument will be low this, explaining why that is false.
As for living things, not just beings, plants are living but have no sign of "consciousness". Even with some things it can do, its not evidence. This term usually I see is misunderstood.
As for the rest, my argument is still active.
2:
Common assumptions:A. Death cannot exist because your body remains and thendeceases into 'dust'B. Life is always pretained to deathA. First off, for the first assumption that is false. Deathis not saying "every part of you is gone", death means no longersurviving. When all your organs are shut down, not alive anymore, you are dead.Or even just one organ, it can be considered dead. Its simply seen with every human that hasbeen alive; they die. This doesn't revolve around just humans either.- Consciousness to some degree is a requirement forsurvivability. If we accept as stated that “ Death is not saying "every part of you isgone", death means no longer surviving” we must accept that the loss of consciousnessresulting in a loss of survivability leads to a state of ‘Death’ yet we know this not to be true as non-consciousness occurs every 24hrs. consciousness is not subject to the physical nature of Death as it has no physicality to be able to experience death.
I disagree when it comes to this though.
Heres why:
My organ can die but I still have conciousness.
My organ dying would be death, it would be dead.
Also, my question to you is, if the brain is responsible for consciousness and it shuts down (forever) would that be death? The brain obviously will be dead, but in the state of consciousness? When your brain dies, your entire consciousnesses, gone.
Furthermore, when pro says we experience it every twenty-four hours, is he talking about sleep? Or another factor? Because, such as in a coma, you can be unconscious but still alive. You can be alive but not awake. You can be dead, and obviously, not awake.
- I would argue that consciousness is fundamental aspectof a life forms ability to survive and thus live. I also hold the view that consciousnessis part of a living being cannot experience death as it has no physical propertiesthat enable it to physically cease to function or enter a state of Death.
It can be, but their are other fundamental aspects.
We can be unconscious and still survive.
- If consciousness is the way in which we perceiveand interact with life, and it cannot experience physical death then what islife? if the way in which we experience it cannot itself experience death? If thephysical body does go in to a state of death how can the non-physical componentof consciousness follow it in to death? Left unanswered this question alonerefutes the idea of death by leaning it to the non-physical nature of the consciousnessthat allows us to experience life, if it is non-physical it cannot experience decaythus how would it reach a state of non-functioning or death.
We can experience "physical death". But, if your talking about consciousness in general. If we don't know about it, how do we know it's not physical? What if it is physical.
See, people with disabilities, some cannot even move nor talk. These being a common consciousness. Does that mean they longer have conciousnesso or never had consciousness? Does it mean we really need it?
Our consciousness doesn't need to die for us to die. Which will be commented down below at five and six.
3:
B. Later mentioned in my second contentions. Common examples of death around human life All of the organs inside of a human body don't need diefor it to be labeled as "death", singely they can be considered dead.- I accept that the overall body systems are a collaborationof many unique and individual organisms acting in a symbiotic capacity to deliverthe overall entity known as a life form.- I would refute the idea that these organismshave to exist in the physical to be described as an organism. Without conscious thoughtno organism is an organism as organisms cannot exist without the thought “I needto survive”
Um.. I somewhat disagree this but can't at the same time. However, I will say consciousness only survives with living organisms. If an organism dies, which it can, its consciousness is forever gone.
Examples: The brain and nerve cells require constant and constantsupplies of oxygen. They will die within a few minutes without oxygen. Skin cells usually die within a process of six weeks;pushed to the surface, harden, and die.- Why do they ‘Die’? we know onereason is decay but let’s say the sub conscious thought that manages the supplyof oxygen via red blood cells and navigation of the body was no longer present, the skincell could also die from simple lack of consciousness. It can effectively dieas a result of a non-physical but vital component of the body not being present..the sub conscious.- This posses the question, how is it that a non physical entity with no evidence to suggest its physical existence can directly affect a physical body by simply not being present?
They die because it's a need; its a need for survival.
People sub-consciously bit their nails, move their arms, type, not even thinking about it. How is it that it can affect the physical body? Because the subconscious that has been their your entire life, is gone. When you lose something that you've developed it affects you.
For example, we could not walk until it was developed. Untill we subconsciously walked without thinking "I need to walk", we just got up and walk.
This is just something that is there, that would affect us such as oxygen. We cannot see it, but its there, and it something needed for survival.
So yes, they can still die. I'm not sure how this completey related regardless.
4:
3. Death with living things, not just human life When you do not fulfill the basic needs of something tosurvive, it dies. This revolves around, all, living things.To survive, most living things need food, water,sunlight, and oxygen. If those living things are not fulfilled, as said, theydie. Roots, leaves, grass, etc.- To this I would ask what are the basic needs of consciousness?What does it require to survive?- All living things require the conscious thought to understand of the concept of physical survival.
This is irrelevant to my argument. Why? My skin cells can die but I still have consciousness.
Ill still answer, to an extent:
1. What does it need to survive? When our physical body dies, that consciousness as well leaves. Unless you can show proof, it survives, through the death of the physical body?
2. Yes, I believe this is correct. But why are you mentioning this? Death can still happen regardless of if we have consicious or need or not need it to survive.
5:
4. Ideas of "Alternatives" The circle of life is for living things to die, to saydeath itself doesn't exist is false. This is not just an opinion, this isobjective reality. Death happens. It happens to all of us, and it will happen forfuture things to come. Even with science, and all these future ideas of"staying alive with non-living organs to survive", living things willdie. Your mind will not die, but what about those previous organs? Those livingorgans will die. These "non-living organs" cannot die and should notbe factored into death. But, the living things will die.- It is agreed that the circle of life is physically evidenced inthe world around us however I would put it to you that the conscious thoughtrequired to achieve life and thus Death is a non-physical yet evidently existent and 'Alive' presence. That this non-physical consciousness dictates the moment a physicalbody dies. Consciousness itself in being non-physical, means it cannot experience death aswhat part of it would ‘Die’? how can it decay to a state of non-functioningwithout the physical properties to do so?
This is funny, because death can be physical. Our physical skin cells, can die. Our physical organs can die. Our physical body can die.
Per definition, when our physical body dies, wouldn't that mean our consciousness is gone? We no longer have anything to survive, we are dead, the consciousness can not exist because it has nothing to reflect on. Our consciousness will be gone because its no longer has anything to function on. When our physical body dies; our consciousness cannot exisit. Our consciousness has nothing to do with us, dying. If I were to talk about, "could our body survive without consciousness would we die?" that is different. But i'm not. I'm talking about something, someone, or something in someone, dying. Regardless of consciousness.
6:
If life wouldn't be alive without consciousness, how can death be be truly dead without it?
Repeat: "Our consciousness has nothing to do with us, dying. If I were to talk about, "could our body survive without consciousness would we die?" that is different. But i'm not. I'm talking about something, someone, or something in someone, dying. Regardless of consciousness."
I hope voters keep this in mind as well ^^^^^
I look forward to your next response.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro not defining what "death" is, thus losing the chance at nitpicking the defintion. In this case, merely apoptosis is enough to disprove Pro's position, which Con quickly was able to.
Also, forfeiture.
Your all good, challange me if you want to redo this.
apologies I was in attendance at wedding and missed this debate i hope to not miss the next and concede to some great points raised.
I'm Sorry
Sounds good.
i expect to have responded to your opening setup and points within the next 8 hours or so. i am fresh out of a round of debating the moon landings, its been a pretty intensive session over there.
I was about to say that this was the only issue I had with the argument set up you presented but you have beaten me to it. I am looking forward to this one it is a topic I enjoy exploring very much. if you don't mind i am going to physically use the text layout of your argument setup as a way for me to place my responses to each point visually underneath the points you have out lined in it. i apologise if this is amateurish, but it helps me make my points clearly showing what i am responding too in a coherent structure. i apricate your use of this framing for the arguments structure and am seeking to actively learn how to apply it with in my own argument structure.
To confirm, in my burden of proof, the roles are reversed. It was an accident created by my rush. I will correct it in round two.