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
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro set up basic logic reasoning for why the immaterial doesn’t exist, and can’t be shown. Not a great start, but enough to meet his initial burden of proof.

Con argues that knowledge is immaterial, he doesn’t explain why he comes to that conclusion, or the reasons that he can consider knowledge immaterial rather than a product of the material brain - he just seems to clip in the conclusion somewhere around in C4.

Pro casts doubt by stating that knowledge is a mere product of the material brain and con has to show they’re separate.

Cons final round does a little bit better, showing that emotions and feelings are interpretations and thus non physical. It’s unrefuted due to the conflict. So arguments have to go to con.

Conduct to con for forfeit

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments: This one was close. In the end, I was left more convinced that the "proof of materialism" was in itself, not materialistic, and since we can experience that it must be real. This is a bit shaky, and pro even contested this idea by claiming that consciousness is immaterial, however they didn't attempt to back up their position when it really counted.

Conduct: Awarding the conduct to Con because Pro forfeited R4.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Spelling and grammar: Both had decent spelling and grammar, therefore it's a tie.

Reliable sources: Pro only used 1 single source in his debate and it was from a wiki page, Con not only used a wider variety of more trustworthy sources but used his sources in his argument better than pro did as pro throughout the debate mostly used anecdotes. Therefore con has better sources.

Conduct: Pro ff the last round while Con didn't. Therefore Con by default had better conduct.

Convincing arguments: Both made decent points, however in the final round Con absoulutely destroyed most of Pro's argument on this point.

"There is a missing link, even in the Harvard-supported research into proving consciousness to be physical, to identify what exactly knowledge known to the conscious being is and what the emotions experienced turn into from 'hormones' into genuinely felt sensations."

Con than stated,

"There is absolutely no way to explain it is in a physical sense because while you can prove consciousness to be materialistic in the sense of this definition, you cannot explain where, how or when knowledge is or feelings are 'operating' or absolutely tangible in a physical sense for the conscious being to 'access' with their conscious thinking. Instead, only the 'why' and the 'what' are explainable, meaning it isn't entirely unreal but it lacks any physicality."

- This statement alone while doesn't 100 % prove that materialism doesn't exist, it does provide reasoble doubt on the entire concept of materialism. And since all Con had too do was to provide reasonable doubt, Con easily won the debate in terms of convincing arguments.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Argument points.

Pro:
1. Only material is observable
Pro use sound strong inductive reasoning (everything ever observed is material) to reach a probabilistic conclusion. This meets the Burden of Proof

2. Only material is necessary
Pro did not meet the burden of proof here because pro did not address how abstracts could be material or unnecessary in all cases

3. Only material is sensical
Same problem as the last statement. Pro did not explain how abstracts how abstracts could be material or arbitrary in all cases.

4. Only material is tangible
This is basically the same as the first argument, except it address the sensory aspect of observation. So it also meets the BOP

5. Only the material exist.
Pro's argument is true by definition here. Although, it's a tad redundant since anything that exists is necessarily material. This is a tautology.

Con:
Con did not use proper structure in any of the syllogisms, so they are all invalid. I'm going off of the actual rules for categorical syllogism.

Major Premise (MP): Proving things in a non-physical way can still be valid proof.

Minor Premise (mP): Material things can be proven to exist by physical means only.

Conclusion (and also Contention so the symbol will be 'C' as my Conclusions will be my actual Contentions/Points of argumentation)...
C1: The proof for the non-materialistic is both able to be and highly likely to be non-physical and is entirely capable of being valid in spite of being such.

Here, Con did not follow the rule of even distribution nor did Con use the proper wording for the arguments themselves. A properly distributed argument with valid language looks like this.

1. All A's are B's
2. Some B's are C's
C. Therefore, some A's are C's

Furthermore, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. This is why the distribution is necessary, to gain logical connectivity. Since all of Con's subsequent premises rely on the first conclusion and also commit the same error in structure by not using the even distribution, Con's entire set of syllogisms and subsequent arguments defending them are also invalid. This was Can's entire argument.

After weighing both arguments, I find that Pro has met the BoP of proving that materialism is true. Con was not able to meet the BoP on the contrary nor was Con able to point out any flaws in Pro's arguments.

Sources.

So according to the rules of voting, I have to provide at least one source, and also describe their net impact on both side and then compare them.

Pro's sources were centered around defining things in order to show the truth of the claim. In particular, Pro sourced a Wiki on Empirical Evidence which help to demonstrate the nature of what is and is not observable and what can and can't be evidenced. This was a key point in the debate. So this source was specifically useful. Overall, I would say that pros sources had a net positive impact and no particular source was unreliable.

Con's sources were a couple of definitions, a guide to syllogisms, and an article about a study. The definitions were helpful for clearing up terms in the debate. The guide to syllogisms was accurate. The article about the study in particular was a dubious source that merely quoted data from a study without showing the methodology. I think this source hurt Con a bit in terms of credibility. Con also claimed that this source helped to demonstrate the metaphysical by saying that it proved "sensory". But the study never mentions anything about the metaphysical at all.

Overall. Pro ends up with the better sources because Con's sources ended up being a net loss due to the study.

Spelling and Grammar.

Both sides formatted their arguments in a way that was easy to read. Neither side made any noticeable error and all definitions were well understood. I call tie on this.

Conduct.

Neither side was rude.

Rules say I can award conduct on a single forfeit if argument points were award or an explanation was posed for not awarding. Since Pro forfeit the crucial final round and all other things were equal, I award conduct to Con

Good debate. I hope this was a better vote