Instigator / Pro
34
1487
rating
85
debates
46.47%
won
Topic

Mind-Body Dualism

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
15
12
Sources points
10
10
Spelling and grammar points
5
5
Conduct points
4
1

With 5 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

David
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
28
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Description
~ 1,624 / 5,000

Resolved: Mind-Body Dulaism is true

Definitions

Mind–body dualism, or mind–body duality, is a view in the philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical,[1] or that the mind and body are distinct and separable.[2] Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, and between subject and object, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism and enactivism, in the mind–body problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism

It is my burden to prove that mind body dualism is true and it is my opponent's burden to prove that mind-body dualism is false. The burden of proof is shared. Con has to do more than refute my arguments, con needs to present arguments against mind-body dualism.

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution, the reality of the US political landscape, and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Pro must post their arguments in R1 and waive in R4
10. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a loss

Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and conduct

>Reason for Decision: The instigator used sources so basically a source is better than no source.
Pro also kept it to the debate while the contender called Pro a "Jew". Bad conduct.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not sufficiently justify any of the points they award. If one debater offers no sources, the comparative analysis between sources is not necessary, but it remains necessary to perform the other steps required to award sources points, namely: explaining how the sources that were used impacted the debate and assessing at least one source specifically for its strengths or weaknesses. On the conduct point, there is no comparative analysis between the debaters' conduct, and the voter does not "demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate."
************************************************************************

Added:
--> @David

Interesting topic. Shame it wasn't played out all the way. The story about the twins is fascinating but I see a hole in the argument. Pro stated that it was "two people sharing one brain" But this is not actually accurate. The cited article clearly stated that there was a wall between their brains that was so unique that it has it's own name. Both of them still had separate brains and after doing a little bit of research I was able to find that the behaviors that Pro highlighted from the article are easily explained physically. The parts of the brains that are connected is used for sensory and motor function, which the twins can co control. So this makes physical sense. The parts of them that are different, personality, quirks, etc. were other parts of their respective brains that were not connected. If the twins in fact had one unified brain, this story would have been truly amazing, but sadly, this was not the case.

Also, on your syllogism, the conclusion was suppose to be "then dualism is true" I'm assuming it was just a typo.

Added:

Final argument:
"Jew"
10/10

Added:
--> @David

When the brain is split, the mind is also split. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain How can mind-body dualism be reconciled with this?

Added:
Contender
--> @David

Don't worry I will add an argument tomorrow.