All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 5 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Resolved: Mind-Body Dulaism is true
Mind–body dualism, or mind–body duality, is a view in the philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are distinct and separable. 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
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.
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
Con called Pro a " Jew",
That's poor conduct
In the following debate, bsh1 allowed a debate with four rounds where only 2 are forfeited to result in non-removal of Pink freud's vote:
"Pro ff 2 rounds which is poor conduct"
This debate is identical. so my RFD is that Pro forfeited 2 Rounds, which is poor conduct.
Got to say, con's final remark sealed the debate. There was no physical stimuli to encourage him to make a racist remark, yet his spirit cried out...
With literally half the debate forfeited, the arguments did not quite reach any destination. Had con stuck to the facts instead of straw manning everything (pro never mentioned God, so why bring that in?), his case could have carried him across the finish line. Had pro not forfeited, his withheld Free Will defense almost certainly would have seized the day. The issue of the twins suggests something we clearly do not understand; but con did a decent job relating it back to physical mechanisms (while I would also expect a shared brain and shared experiences to produce one person not two, this wasn't followed up on enough). As for Free Will, we indeed base our sense of justice on criminals having a choice, but as con pointed out, we might just be hoping it matters.
No matter how much I want to give this to pro, I can’t. Con gave clear reasons why we shouldn’t consider the example of the hogan twins, and stated that free will isn’t necessarily true as our moral imperative doesn’t mean much.
However BoP is shared here, and con offers nothing of his own - so it’s not possible for me to award him arguments.
This was very close though virt - stop forfeiting rounds!
Final round: “Jew”
I shouldn’t need to explain how egregious Racial and religious slurs are in a debate. This is so outrageous it outweighs pros forfeits. What is wrong with you con?
Conduct to pro.
Interesting topic but incomplete debate for which both participants share responsibility. Pro's opening is surprisingly weak. There's the case of the conjoined twins which is both recent and unique. It is hard to draw many conclusions from a phenomenon so difficult to measure or repeat. C2's syllogism is miswritten (conclusion should read dualism is true, I suspect) and soft. Philosophers have been debating free will since the Garden of Eden: Pro's argument amounts to we have free will because most of us believe we have free will. Con countered fairly effectively but did not read Pro's setup- Pro must offer evidence refuting dualism. Con never addressed shared burden and loses arguments. Pro barely responds and no-shows the rest of the debate. Con likewise forfeits and then ends with a personal epithet clearly meant to offend in the present context. Under most circumstances, Pro's double forfeit should have been insurmountable but Con snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by twice failing Pro's rules (dual burden + civil conduct) as well as violating DART's code of conduct. Both args and conduct go to Pro by default.