Instigator / Pro
13
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#622

Materialism is true

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
0
4

After 4 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
25
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description

No information

I proved an immaterial realm is necessitated for Pro to justify voting for him. You came up with your own arguments against it, in ways that Pro never brought up.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

If the other debate has Rounds after and never points out the weakness of my syllogisms, you cannot (well the lack voting rules say you can so let's say rather shouldn't) tear them apart when he conceded it all was plausible if knowledge was proven to be immaterial, even partially.

-->
@Type1

How would you have done so... or is it top secret?

-->
@RationalMadman

That doesn't matter. My job as a voter is to address how strong your arguments were. Your syllogisms were poorly structured. Even though pro accepted C1, that doesn't change the fact that the structure was invalid. C1 can be true and your structure can be invalid at the same time. Furthermore, all of your syllogisms had the same problem, so having C1 would just get you caught up at C2 instead.

-->
@RationalMadman

I didn't forfeit for the stupid reasons you think I just didn't get to it on time. I would have been perfectly happy to attack your shite arguments.

-->
@Type1

Why did you forfeit Round 3 if you had any logical avenues left?

-->
@RationalMadman

Stop bitching just because the actual person who is correct is in the lead for once.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

You debunked me backing my C1, that even Pro explicitly concedes to in his R2, by bringing your own logic and arguments into the RFD.

You'll not get this one removed, because cherrypicking is allowed and considered subjective interpretation of the voter that is valid but I know objectively that I didn't misplay at all. It made perfect sense how MP and mP of C1 led to it. Pro agreed to the logic but disagreed that knowledge was immaterial which I proved was true in my R2.

-->
@RationalMadman

Nonsense. Your Round 2 and 3 arguments are simply counterpoints to defend your Round 1 argument, which I debunked. Don't get mad at me because you didn't use syllogisms properly. I addressed the main arguments as per the voting rules and your subsequent arguments did nothing to revive your main arguments at all.

-->
@Human

Also would like your feedback, WSA.

-->
@David

Please vote here if you have time and are interested in an alternative way to prove dualism that doesn't require disproving the physical aspects of consciousness.

-->
@Ramshutu

I know you'll vote but tagging to remind in advance.

Thanks

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Nice cherrypicking and ignoring my Round 2 and 3 for the arguments vote.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 3 point to pro for arguments, 2 points to con for sources, and 1 point to con for conduct

RFD: See above

Reason for mod action:

(1) In order to award argument point, the voter must:

Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points

2) Sources are insufficiently explained. In order to award sources, the voter must:

Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's

The voter fails to do these things thus is removed

-->
@RationalMadman

Yeah I'll vote.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Here's a philosophy debate where I debated an interesting troll-angle to make Pro have to admit they are wrong if they want to win.

-->
@David
@Titanium

You guys read this if you want to see how to escape seemingly unwinnable situations, as well.

-->
@Barney
@Ramshutu

Will appreciate a vote here, it's a fun read where you will probably think Type1 actually had me screwed from Round 1 but realise, in pleasant surprise, what I do later on.