Instigator
Points: 25

Perception is Reality

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
That1User
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 24
Description
What one perceives to be real is reality, as opposed to reality existing as one holistic objective entity
Reality is formed by the individual, every person lives in their own reality at the same time
This is counter to the belief that everyone lives in the same reality at the same
BoP is shared, Pro argues perception is reality, Con argues reality is objective
Reality: the quality or state of being real, the totality of real things and events (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality)
Round 1
Published:
Reality constituents what is real
What is real is determined by an individual person first and for most
A person determines what is real by sensing, experiencing, and exchanging information
This first step in knowledge collection, sensing and experiencing, is perception, the individual perceives something as real 
Even in the exchange of information the mind determines what's true, the mind perceives what is real 
Since reality is what is real, and what is real is determined by perception, what one perceives to be real is reality

There are multiple people with multiple perceptions so there are disagreements on what is real and thus what constitutes reality. That leaves two possibilities, either everyone is wrong about the reality that they live in objectively (since they're so many differing views, no one agrees with someone else 100%, there's even disagreement at the individual level), or everyone lives in different realities simultaneously, with individual perceptions forming what is real, what is reality.  
Published:
First I would like to define reality and perception, so we don't run into issues later on.

Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Perception: the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.

The argument that perception of reality=actual reality is logically incorrect. For perception of reality to equal actual reality, there would have to be many realities, as every person has a different perception. But from the definition of reality, we must conclude that there can only be one reality, as there can only be one state in which things exist. It's not possible for you to be bald and have 3-meter-long hair at the same time. That would defy logic, as something cannot be two absolutely different things at the same time. That's the first issue with the idea that there are many realities.

A second issue is with evidence for your claim. For a hypothesis be proven right/wrong, there must be three things:
Your claim, which is what you're trying to prove.
Your expectation, which is evidence that either supports or disproves your claim.
Your conclusion, in which you conclude if your claim was right or wrong. 

By using this, you can determine if proving your claim is possible. If your claim is that rats can fly, your expectation would be to find a flying rat. But when you don't find any flying rats, you conclude that they can't fly. Without an expectation there can't be a conclusion.

You see the issue with your claim? You cannot pass from the expectation to the conclusion, because there is nothing to expect. There is no expectation, and therefore there cannot be any evidence for that perception=reality. To find the truth, you make a hypothesis and then see if events support it. How would anything support your hypothesis?
Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 5
Forfeited
Forfeited
Added:
--> @BigBoonj
You messaged the second I got on, sweet!
Instigator
#56
Added:
--> @That1User
Yeah, that would be great. Let's restart.
Contender
#55
Added:
--> @BigBoonj
Holy fuck I forgot about this completely until last night but then I passed out and woke up 2 hours after the forfeit. We can restart this and repost our R1 arguments if you'd like
Instigator
#54
Added:
--> @That1User
Are you going to publish your argument?
Contender
#53
Added:
Perception is entirely self-consistent. Whether or not it is reality cannot be proven so long as perception is self-consistent. Therefore, even if our perception of reality is wrong, we can only live as if it correct.
#52
Added:
I just got back and found an argument on the nature of reality, which is supposedly objective
Instigator
#51
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Yeah add a receiver and I should see the message with the blue bell.
#50
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
I replied, not sure if you got pinged or not. I've never used the forums here.
#49
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
that works too
#48
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Can't tag you so just wait for me to upload it in the philosophy forum section.
#47
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
that works tag me in it
#46
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Forum page?
#45
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Excellent question. Now put it somewhere else and I'll answer it.
#44
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Missed out the be and should have added the word subjective instead of objective.
Here is the actual question.
How can you be objective when you are using something subjective like senses?
#43
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
You mean this old thing right here?
"How can you objective when you are using something objective like senses?"
I have no problem answering, PM me or challenge me to a debate and you'll get your answer. I already told you long before you asked this question that I wanted to move the discussion and you want to ignore what I said and that's why you're not getting an answer right now.
btw, "how can you objective" is not a sentence. You used objective as a verb here and it's an adjective. Please restructure this question after you present it to me somewhere else when you're done with your temper tantrum.
#42
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
full ff on all sides, hardly a coherent debate
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Full forfeit from both sides. Not enough information to assess arguments.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to Pro for Con FF.
Pro was better at arguing because he/she/they point out that perception is the only thing we know to be real. What we are perceiving is enslaved to the perception and that is how we ascertain our assumed reality.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro's argument was that what we perceive is real, which is an assertion of the debate topic as well. This means that pro's support for the topic was the topic itself and it was ultimately circular. Pro does mention at the end that there is a second possibility, but fails to properly consider it. This was a missed opportunity by pro that could have been a potential proof by contradiction.
Con's argument first provided firm definitions for perception and reality that matched their general usages.
Con does a proof by contradiction by showing that in Pro's Model, realities would all have to be different. Pointing out this contradiction was huge.
Con wrongly points out that Pro had no expectations for results. This was not true as Pro did claim two possibilities which shows expectations. I was looking for con to point out there being more possibilities. Con missed the mark here and lost a chance to gain more ground in the debate.
All of the following rounds were blank, so judging from the initial arguments. I am forced to give Con the point since his first counterargument destroyed Pro's initial position and Pro never posed a rebuttal to muddy the waters.
All other points tied.