I also like chocolate. I couldnt go on animal products alone. I started building muscles. Muscles are made from calories, water and air, so I need to eat more calories, drink more water and breathe more air with proper breathing so that I get bigger muscles.
I eat what I like, even if its not healthy. I want to grow big and strong, and have muscles. For that, I need calories and protein, which I would prefer not to get from walnuts but something more tasty like meat or milk.
"I actually suggest the Dev from this site to allow vote less debates as well with same structure where people can give opinion as review not vote. Then there will be so many people here"
Thats what I suggested to WyIted. Not sure if he will do it.
Right now, there are debates with judges here, but then debaters must agree on which judges to select, which might be a problem. I do think this site maybe needs some very simple training program for voters as well, or maybe just make it mandatory for voters to include all arguments in a vote so that there are no complains based on some arguments not being considered.
"Website made by wyited, she is Christian, it's more hard to deal with them on their platform. They mute or bad to people like us."
I know plenty of sites censor opinions, but from what I know, WyIted believes in free speech. I dont know what his site will be like, but its great to have a back up site in case this one goes away. I personally like this site because it gives room to people to express themselves, and the written notes and debates can be found even years later. Simply, I dont know many other sites which give this much freedom. YouTube, a very popular site, for example, removes comments automatically if its spam filter is triggered. Also, YouTube used to be good for debating, but in last 10 years it slowly got filled with bots who just post comment and never address any replies to it. So I moved from YouTube to here.
"I think I will try the website made by bestkorea and wyited."
I dont know if Wyited made the site functional yet. To be clear, Wyited is the one making the site and putting in effort. Its his site. I just named it. He needed a good name for site, and I suggested "DebateWars" as it captures the very essence of what happens in debates.
This will deal with round 2, regarding my vote.
Con says Pro relies on subjective experiences and religious interpretations.
Pro repeats that we are discussing spiritual meaning of dreams. Pro says that Con didnt establish any framework to exclude religion from a debate. Pro makes case for religion being relevant to academia.
Con says personal experience is insufficient evidence, that you cant expect others to believe you simply because you experienced something. Con says that if personal experience appears logical, then it doesnt mean its true.
Pro counters by saying that dreams are known to science only because people report them, thus essentially pointing out value of personal experience. Pro points out that its unreasonable to assume that all truth must be scientific to be credible. Pro points out that if something is perfectly logical, then it must follow from premises.nPro says that Con conceded that Pro's case is perfectly logical.
Con makes a case against dreams being from Allah, mentions example of all other religions that have millions of followers who claim to have received dreams from a different entity.
Pro here makes the case for islam and says that Allah guides whoever he wills, also that dreams can come from Shaitan.
Con says that natural process is a contradiction to divinity.
Pro counters by saying nature and natural laws arent separate from Allah, thus no contradiction.
Con says there is a gap between scientist considering dreams as nothing more than brain activity, and Islam considering some dreams spiritual or divine.
Pro counters and points out that science is unequipped to study spiritual or divine aspects of dreams.
Pro asks a question "Has anyone ever invented a device capable of verifying dreams?", points out that there is no method or device which can measure content of dreams. Pro points out that dismissing spiritual or divine nature of dreams without evidence is just as speculative as affirming it. Pro also points out that many theories in science arent based on direct observation.
Con starts making a case of Quran contradicting with known facts.
Pro counters by saying that source of spirituality isnt the topic, but spirituality itself is the topic. Pro also says there is evidence which supports the existence of God, but doesnt expand much on it. Pro also adds that science is limited.
Con points out that by Pro's standard, anything someone dreams could be regarded as divine. Con says that its logically inconsistent to say that you can receive messages from an all-powerful deity only in limited manner with limited reception.
Pro covers this in a separate response when saying that its basically applying purpose to argue against divine dreams.
Con says that Pro cannot actually prove the existence of Shaytan, and that nightmares are normal and explainable.
Pro counters by saying that there are millions of testimonies from different eras, cultures and regions of world regarding demons, which cannot be dismissed as mass delusion or coincidence. Says that these accounts point to phenomena beyond our current scientific comprehension. Pro points out that science cannot fully explain massless particles like ultraviolet, infrared... This points to limitation of science. To quote Pro: "If science cannot understand nature of energy or photons, how can it categorically reject existence of entities made from such elements... Lack of knowledge is not basis for denial".
Con makes the case that Pro's dream of earthquake didnt predict the earthquake which happened after dream, and that dreaming isnt proof of anything.
Pro claims that Islamic theology provides an explanation for spiritual significance of dreams. Pro shows link to a dream which exposed history of mankind. Pro provides many quotes from Quran.
Conclusion from round 2:
Both debaters here focused a lot on Quran, and Con did provide a challenge to Quran, but it was essentially a safe play for Pro. If Con disproves Quran, Pro loses nothing, and if Con doesnt disprove Quran, it opens a possibility of Allah influencing dreams. Even if I accept Con's claim that Quran contradicts with known facts, it still isnt proof against dreams being divine or spiritual. Its just a defense move. Framework for disproving that dreams are spiritual or divine isnt made.
This round very much points out 4 important things: 1. Personal experiences are the only way to verify dreams. 2. Its unreasonable to reject everything not proved by science. 3. Science is limited, cannot observe dreams or spiritual, thus cannot disprove it. 4. There are mass cases of people experiencing spiritual things.
This negates Con's framework, and establishes a case on personal experience which creates possibility, which is further extended to round 3.
I am going to address round 1 arguments in my vote, and then I will move on to round 2, and that should be it.
Con makes a very short case in round 1.
According to Con's source, dreams are nothing more than images and stories created by our mind.
Pro negates this by saying that scientific studies on dreams focus on physical aspects, but do not disprove the existence of divine dreams.
Con proves that 95% of dreams are forgotten.
Pro responds to this by saying that if most dreams are forgotten, then that doesnt negate the existence of divine or meaningful dreams.
Pro does say that there are some dreams which lack spiritual or divine element.
Con claims that dreams are easily manipulated, that person can control his dream. Con also makes an example of asking questions to people who were aware that they were asleep.
Pro responds by saying that the ability to manipulate dreams through lucid dreaming is limited to self-originated dreams, does not negate existence of true dreams.
Now, the argument that "if Allah controls the universe, then influencing dreams is not beyond His power" sounds like Pro is asking Con to disprove Allah's existence to disprove the possibility of Allah influencing dreams.
Pro mentions some stories of people predicting things with dreams.
He also mentions his own experience.
My conclusion from round 1:
The personal examples mentioned in round 1 have definitely set some basis for proving possibility in later rounds.
Con builds his case on majority of dreams, but obviously Con's case doesnt include all dreams, as Pro points out, which leaves a gap in Con's argument.
Con's source which deals with dreams being nothing more than images and stories created by the mind, I would accept if Pro didnt challenge it, but Pro did challenge it by saying it deals with physical aspects only.
Here is an updated vote:
The debate is about possibility existing or not, as mentioned in description.
Con mentions sources showing natural cause of dreams.
Pro counters by saying how science can study brain activity and physiological changes, but it cannot access the actual content of dreams.
It is impossible to classify dreams as spiritual or non-spiritual by using science.
Occuring in brain doesnt mean dreams are material.
Con says that Pro is required to prove that dreams have divine or spiritual meaning.
Says that Islam and personal stories arent a sufficient form of evidence.
Pro counters by saying that dreams have forseen historical evidence with precision.
Gives examples of dreams predicting events, dreams that came true.
Con points out flaws in using religion as evidence.
Con says science cant study or measure spirituality because science can only meassure what can be physically observed.
Con says that science even in early times wasnt based on religion.
Says that science and religion do not mix.
"Religion isnt science."
Con says that non-scientific evidence isnt valid.
Con challenges Pro to show an instance where personal story is considered valid as evidence.
Pro counters this easily by saying that personal perception is obviously valid for a person. Pro shows that personal experieces are sometimes true, with examples where personal experiences are true even if not observed by science, such as how does it feel to taste sweetness or to see red.
This makes me come to conclusion that personal experience can be true even if not observed by science, thus some possibility of being true is proved to exist.
Con says that people can tell anything, and trusting then is an unwise mindset which leaves you open to manipulation.
However, this doesnt negate the fact that some personal experiences are obviously true.
Con mentions that physical evidence is needed before considering something as a fact. Says that stories do not meet that standard.
Pro provides example of neuroscientist claiming dreams are outside the realm of neuroscience. This serves as an additional counter to Con's claim that science has observed dreams.
More so, example of psychologist claiming dreams can have spiritual relevance. Hence, possibility exists.
Then another example which says consciousness cannot be fully explained by physical process alone.
Con says it would be absurd to suggest that hearsay is to be taken as valid in courts, and that logic needs empirical evidence in order to be true.
Con shows example of logic with sharks where logic is proved false, even if before proof appeared, such logic was considered perfect.
Con says that he doesnt need to disprove personal experiences, and that he didnt call an opponent a liar, but simply that personal experience cannot be treated as true since we cannot know what happened, it lacks verification, we cannot know what happened in a personal story.
Shows studies of link between dreams, emotions and memories that do not have a divine factor.
Says that dreams serve people to prevent health issues and to regulate emotions.
Con mentions EEG and MRI.
Pro responds in multiple places, one by saying that even if they could scan brain's imaginary, thoughts and sensations, it would still mean that dream being spiritual or normal one is subjective.
Pro points out that studies dont explain why dreams contain meaningful or predictive content.
Con makes a point that mass and energy relationship isnt matter and energy relationship.
Con says that Pro's arguments do not demonstrate anything divine or spiritual.
Con says that saying that we cannot determine if dreams are divine or not is not a concession, because opponent still cannot prove that dreams are divine.
Repeats that perfectly logical argument is not the same as being true.
Con starts responding to points about atheism. I dont see how talk about atheism is even relevant to this debate.
Con says that opponent didnt prove the divine nature of dreams, and that opponent relies on hearsay.
My conclusion on round 3:
From all this, I understand that Con very much agrees that spirituality cannot be observed by science.
So if spirituality cannot be observed by science, how am I supposed to form a conclusion that science says spirituality isnt there?
Pro was right in noticing that when Con says spirituality cannot be observed or measured, Con destroys his own case of trying to disprove spirituality with science.
If Con agrees that spirituality isnt physical and that science can only observe physical things, how then do his scientific examples prove lack of spirituality?
Additionally, with some personal examples being obviously true even if not observed by science, it means it is possible that some personal examples are true, thus it proves that personal experiences have possibility of being true, thus personal experiences of spiritual have possibility od being true.
I think I proved here that watching video argument would change nothing in my vote. Con was unable to bring up anything in comments which would make me think that we can observe dreams, let alone their causes.
Per debate's description, this debate was about possibility itself, and I dont see how is Con even supposed to prove that there is no possibility, or make a case for it being impossible.
Simply put, personal experiences arent the best evidence, but they certainly weigh more than complete lack of proof on Con's side.
I am still not sure how this will be resolved, but I think I explained everything I needed to explain. If Con wants to extend on this, he can start a new debate called "Science can observe dreams".
I have literally never seen a machine which shows exact things person dreams, so obviously there is no full observation of any kind.
"And whatever pro set is irrelevant, because he can't provide any evidence where I did."
Its a general knowledge that you cant observe people's dreams. It was enough for Pro to mention it for voters to accept it, but Pro also gave the explanation of science being limited. Besides, your argument depended on proving that you can observe dreams, and after reading the debate I didnt find any premise which leads to conclusion that you can observe dreams.
"Once again, this is irrelevant because it is not a whole violation to bring the video in the middle of the debate."
I didnt say its a "violation". I simply said I reject it because it wasnt written in debate.
"I have already told you repeatedly that I have discussed this with the moderators, and they concurred that you can use a video in a debate."
You can use it as much as you want. I just dont have to accept it as a voter.
"Secondly, your reasoning is the very problem. You rejected it specifically because it was a video argument, and you didn't even bother to listen to it."
Well, a text debate does mean a text debate.
"White flower has already confirmed to me that you are not allowed to just ignore it simply because it's a video. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, that answer is not going to change."
Whiteflame is not "White flower". But if Whiteflame says that I must accept something not written in debate as part of a debate, then sure, I will make a new vote which includes your video as well.
"So have a good day and please do not message me anymore because I will not respond to it."
Oh, I am not even messaging you. I am merely explaining my vote. So if you dont want me to explain my vote, I dont see why did you message me in the first place.
"I never said that it allows you to see a person's dreams. "
So now you cant see them?
"I only said that it allows you to observe dreams because you are monitoring their brain activity"
Monitoring brain activity has nothing to do with observing dreams.
", which are affected by dreams."
Monitoring things affected by something isnt the observation of that something.
"I feel like I have to tell you that simply saying that you can observe something does not necessarily always mean you have to physically see it."
Okay, so you cant see dreams.
"For example, you cannot physically see wind, yet you can still observe it through measuring it."
Measuring wind has nothing to do with measuring brain activity.
"So if we can measure wind without seeing it, I don't see how we're not able to observe dreams through brain activity, even if we cannot see the dream itself."
Maybe because dreams and wind arent same things.
You also cant even observe all brain activity, so I am not sure what confuses you.
"Did you miss the part where it was established that I can make a video in the form of an argument, and therefore claiming that written arguments are required isn't true?"
It was not mentioned in description that its allowed, and this is a debate site based on text, not video. Also, I have already explained why video arguments are rejected.
"right. Which means that you violated the rules by ignoring what I said simply because I gave a video link rather than writing in a text."
There are no voting rules which say that links are valid arguments.
"you're not allowed to ignore arguments just because of the form they are given."
If someone just posts bunch of links in a debate and says that all arguments are there, I have no need to even open those links, since no argument was presented in debate itself.
If you think otherwise, thats just your opinion, and when you vote, you can apply it.
"Yes they are that is the whole point they are hooked up to machines montitoring their brains and talking to them. Brain activity and dreams are the same thing. I am sorry if this simple concept escapes you but different words can have the same meaning."
Monitoring brain activity and observing dreams arent same thing. As Pro has explained, science is limited and cant observe dreams.
""In science, monitoring dreams is achieved by tracking brain activity through techniques like electroencephalography (EEG), which records electrical signals from the brain, allowing researchers to identify distinct patterns associated with different sleep stages, particularly Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep, when dreaming is most likely to occur""
So you think EEG makes you see people's dreams? I dont think so.
"I didn't use personal experience in my argument. I provided links to evidence that was either in the form of a video or based on academic studies."
As explained before, since science cant observe dreams, the only thing left is your personal experience examples, such as some people being able to control what they dream.
"Which also subsequently means that, unless you can actually provide an example of said contradiction"
It was written in my vote:
"Con starts by saying how most dreams are forgotten. He also says that some people can control their dreams.
However, Con says that personal experiences dont count as valid examples in this debate.
Pro provides a great counter. Apparently, the only way to verify dreams is with personal experience, as science has no way to record or observe dreams. Thus, all evidence related to dreams Con provided is based on personal experience.
So if we reject personal experience, Con's entire case based on personal experiences falls apart and he cannot disprove the possibility of dreams having divine or spiritual meaning, thus he cannot possibly win.
However, if we accept personal experiences as valid, then Pro's case is proved and Pro wins.
This huge contradiction in Con's case and basically "lose or lose" position is essentially what gives win to Pro."
"Personal experiences are either valid evidence or they are not valid evidence. Neither of these premises given in debate can make Con's case work. Con's case has no possible framework to prove his case, while Pro's framework supports Pro's case.
Pro further proves his case by explaining the limits of science. Logically, if science is in this case limited and incomplete, it cannot at the same time be complete and give complete answer.
This negates Con's case related to any scientific evidence, leaving personal experiences which Con rejects, so basically, nothing is left for Con."
"Incorrect, I may not have made in argument in writing. However, I still gave one in the form of a video"
So no written arguments.
"The person you are supporting has also claimed to have done this. So, your argument is pointless since your trying to justify voting for someone on the very premise you claim makes mine not valid."
My reason for voting had nothing to do with either video link. I used arguments written in debate to give vote.
"Monitoring someone's dream is the same as monitoring brain activity. "
Thats still not observing a dream. You have already conceded that you cannot see other people's dreams.
"Dreams can't happen without a brain"
That doesnt mean you can observe dreams.
", so monitoring someone's dream is the same as monitoring brain activity"
No, observing a dream, as you have said yourself, is something you cannot do.
"Actually it is because there not simply "Watching them" they are connected to machines that allow scientists to monitor brainwaves and thus see spikes in neural activity."
Monitoring brainwaves, again, has nothing to do with monitoring dreams. Spikes in neural activity also doesnt mean you are observing their dream.
"We may not be able to see in their minds eye what occurs in the deram"
So now you say you actually cant observe a dream?
"but we very much monitor brain activity in dreams."
Again, thats not observing dreams.
"From a scientific standpoint, a dream is a sequence of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations that typically occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep, particularly REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep."
That has nothing to do with observing those images, ideas, emotions or sensations, let alone the cause of those.
"According to studies in neurobiology, dreams are often the result of brain activity as the mind processes information, emotions, and memories from waking life."
Often =/= always.
"The brain, in this view, generates dreams as a natural byproduct of its nightly maintenance and consolidation of knowledge."
Notice the words "in this view", so thats not Pro's position, but an explanation of the position held by someone else.
"How do you think scientist's came ti this conclusion that the pro said? By MONITORING BRAIN ACTIVELY."
So your proof that monitoring brain means observing dreams is that some scientists came to conclusion about dreams?
Oh God...
So if I come to conclusion about your debate, then I have observed it, thus you now cannot even claim that I ignored your arguments.
"I submitted the link in the debate for voters to see and review"
Links arent arguments. Links are sources. Arguments are what you write in debate.
"and mods have said videos are just as legit as written arguments."
They are legit if voters accept them. I have provided reasons why I didnt accept a link as argument.
Plus, I have read votes of other voters, and there was no mention of you solving the obvious contradiction of your case.
So if you solved the contradiction in your video, sure, I will delete my vote myself, but given how blatant the contradiction is, I dont think you addressed the contradiction anywhere.
"I submitted multiple sources that demonstrated that scientists can indeed observe dreams"
No, you didnt.
"In fact one of my sources highlighted an experiment that showed people being tested to be responsive to dreams when asked questions."
Watching people sleep and talk in sleep is not observing their dreams.
"More over, I explained in my arguments that scientists can monitor brain activity while someone is sleeping."
Monitoring brain activity has nothing to do with observing dreams.
"Pro even acknowledged this."
No, Pro clearly said that science cannot observe dreams.
If you are done with your little outburst, we can move along.
"The first is your admission that you ignored my video argument intentionally."
The arguments from video werent presented in debate itself, so they can be ignored.
However, I have read other votes as well, and nothing in them seems to affect my vote.
" You also lied and said that I "dropped" the arguments of the Pro, which is false"
Show me where you addressed the mentioned contradiction of your case.
"However, all you did was show obvious bias, especially when you argue that the logical arguments of the Pro are somehow better than my empirical evidence"
Your "empirical evidence" was negated by obvious fact that science cannot observe dreams.
I dont know why I got error 3 times on my vote. I had to make vote shorter. Also, I tried to put everything in 5000 characters, which is the limit.
What I meant at start is that as a voter, I dont add premises. I only use premises given in debate to form a conclusion which is either topic or anti-topic.
I have mostly given up on voting. Too much work to do it properly, especially with big debates. I only vote on debates with forfeit, and I am not really sure if that round of just video link from Con counts as forfeit. I would normally count it as a round forfeit, but I am not sure if mods will remove my vote if I vote like that.
Maybe you could debate in forum section of this site as well. Forum doesnt have voters and doesnt really have character limit or number of responses limit.
I do like formal debates, but forum is way better, especially with group debating.
Plus, I am not always in the mood to write long text. In formal debates, it is kinda "expected" of me to write 10,000 characters and respond to every detail my opponent says, which I am not always able to do.
Plus, sometimes I prefer developing just one argument with 10 responses rather than having to develop many arguments in few responses available.
I will admit I dont usually put much effort in formal debates, because forum simply takes away more of my time. There is just some charm in the forum which doesnt exist in formal debates.
The site is very much dying in the debate section and member count. However, forum seems active enough, even though it too has lost many members.
I dont know why debate sites tend to die like this. Maybe too much competition drives people away, and most people consider debating as competition due to their incorrect mindset. Debating isnt a competition, but if people set wrong goals for themselves, then it is.
Not sure why anyone would give even more opportunity to government to indoctrinate kids.
That would be awesome!
Everyone in Japan is at least 10% gay, so this topic kinda favors Pro.
I also like chocolate. I couldnt go on animal products alone. I started building muscles. Muscles are made from calories, water and air, so I need to eat more calories, drink more water and breathe more air with proper breathing so that I get bigger muscles.
I eat what I like, even if its not healthy. I want to grow big and strong, and have muscles. For that, I need calories and protein, which I would prefer not to get from walnuts but something more tasty like meat or milk.
Cant wait for Pro to explain how does he prove a premise without observation.
I dont know what counts as physical evidence, and I would hate to accept the debate just to disagree on the definition.
"I actually suggest the Dev from this site to allow vote less debates as well with same structure where people can give opinion as review not vote. Then there will be so many people here"
Thats what I suggested to WyIted. Not sure if he will do it.
Right now, there are debates with judges here, but then debaters must agree on which judges to select, which might be a problem. I do think this site maybe needs some very simple training program for voters as well, or maybe just make it mandatory for voters to include all arguments in a vote so that there are no complains based on some arguments not being considered.
"Website made by wyited, she is Christian, it's more hard to deal with them on their platform. They mute or bad to people like us."
I know plenty of sites censor opinions, but from what I know, WyIted believes in free speech. I dont know what his site will be like, but its great to have a back up site in case this one goes away. I personally like this site because it gives room to people to express themselves, and the written notes and debates can be found even years later. Simply, I dont know many other sites which give this much freedom. YouTube, a very popular site, for example, removes comments automatically if its spam filter is triggered. Also, YouTube used to be good for debating, but in last 10 years it slowly got filled with bots who just post comment and never address any replies to it. So I moved from YouTube to here.
"Best.korea you too?"
You can tag me, but I check these comments anyway because I am curious, and this debate is on top.
I am not going to comment on other votes.
All this fighting in comments happens on every debate site, even on YouTube. Its what comes with debating.
I think the main problem is the win system. I would prefer if popular vote didnt decide who wins a debate.
"I think I will try the website made by bestkorea and wyited."
I dont know if Wyited made the site functional yet. To be clear, Wyited is the one making the site and putting in effort. Its his site. I just named it. He needed a good name for site, and I suggested "DebateWars" as it captures the very essence of what happens in debates.
Comments 151, 157 and 158 cover the 3 rounds. Let me know if I have missed anything. I think I have covered the framework for proof on both sides.
This will deal with round 2, regarding my vote.
Con says Pro relies on subjective experiences and religious interpretations.
Pro repeats that we are discussing spiritual meaning of dreams. Pro says that Con didnt establish any framework to exclude religion from a debate. Pro makes case for religion being relevant to academia.
Con says personal experience is insufficient evidence, that you cant expect others to believe you simply because you experienced something. Con says that if personal experience appears logical, then it doesnt mean its true.
Pro counters by saying that dreams are known to science only because people report them, thus essentially pointing out value of personal experience. Pro points out that its unreasonable to assume that all truth must be scientific to be credible. Pro points out that if something is perfectly logical, then it must follow from premises.nPro says that Con conceded that Pro's case is perfectly logical.
Con makes a case against dreams being from Allah, mentions example of all other religions that have millions of followers who claim to have received dreams from a different entity.
Pro here makes the case for islam and says that Allah guides whoever he wills, also that dreams can come from Shaitan.
Con says that natural process is a contradiction to divinity.
Pro counters by saying nature and natural laws arent separate from Allah, thus no contradiction.
Con says there is a gap between scientist considering dreams as nothing more than brain activity, and Islam considering some dreams spiritual or divine.
Pro counters and points out that science is unequipped to study spiritual or divine aspects of dreams.
Pro asks a question "Has anyone ever invented a device capable of verifying dreams?", points out that there is no method or device which can measure content of dreams. Pro points out that dismissing spiritual or divine nature of dreams without evidence is just as speculative as affirming it. Pro also points out that many theories in science arent based on direct observation.
Con starts making a case of Quran contradicting with known facts.
Pro counters by saying that source of spirituality isnt the topic, but spirituality itself is the topic. Pro also says there is evidence which supports the existence of God, but doesnt expand much on it. Pro also adds that science is limited.
Con points out that by Pro's standard, anything someone dreams could be regarded as divine. Con says that its logically inconsistent to say that you can receive messages from an all-powerful deity only in limited manner with limited reception.
Pro covers this in a separate response when saying that its basically applying purpose to argue against divine dreams.
Con says that Pro cannot actually prove the existence of Shaytan, and that nightmares are normal and explainable.
Pro counters by saying that there are millions of testimonies from different eras, cultures and regions of world regarding demons, which cannot be dismissed as mass delusion or coincidence. Says that these accounts point to phenomena beyond our current scientific comprehension. Pro points out that science cannot fully explain massless particles like ultraviolet, infrared... This points to limitation of science. To quote Pro: "If science cannot understand nature of energy or photons, how can it categorically reject existence of entities made from such elements... Lack of knowledge is not basis for denial".
Con makes the case that Pro's dream of earthquake didnt predict the earthquake which happened after dream, and that dreaming isnt proof of anything.
Pro claims that Islamic theology provides an explanation for spiritual significance of dreams. Pro shows link to a dream which exposed history of mankind. Pro provides many quotes from Quran.
Conclusion from round 2:
Both debaters here focused a lot on Quran, and Con did provide a challenge to Quran, but it was essentially a safe play for Pro. If Con disproves Quran, Pro loses nothing, and if Con doesnt disprove Quran, it opens a possibility of Allah influencing dreams. Even if I accept Con's claim that Quran contradicts with known facts, it still isnt proof against dreams being divine or spiritual. Its just a defense move. Framework for disproving that dreams are spiritual or divine isnt made.
This round very much points out 4 important things: 1. Personal experiences are the only way to verify dreams. 2. Its unreasonable to reject everything not proved by science. 3. Science is limited, cannot observe dreams or spiritual, thus cannot disprove it. 4. There are mass cases of people experiencing spiritual things.
This negates Con's framework, and establishes a case on personal experience which creates possibility, which is further extended to round 3.
I am going to address round 1 arguments in my vote, and then I will move on to round 2, and that should be it.
Con makes a very short case in round 1.
According to Con's source, dreams are nothing more than images and stories created by our mind.
Pro negates this by saying that scientific studies on dreams focus on physical aspects, but do not disprove the existence of divine dreams.
Con proves that 95% of dreams are forgotten.
Pro responds to this by saying that if most dreams are forgotten, then that doesnt negate the existence of divine or meaningful dreams.
Pro does say that there are some dreams which lack spiritual or divine element.
Con claims that dreams are easily manipulated, that person can control his dream. Con also makes an example of asking questions to people who were aware that they were asleep.
Pro responds by saying that the ability to manipulate dreams through lucid dreaming is limited to self-originated dreams, does not negate existence of true dreams.
Now, the argument that "if Allah controls the universe, then influencing dreams is not beyond His power" sounds like Pro is asking Con to disprove Allah's existence to disprove the possibility of Allah influencing dreams.
Pro mentions some stories of people predicting things with dreams.
He also mentions his own experience.
My conclusion from round 1:
The personal examples mentioned in round 1 have definitely set some basis for proving possibility in later rounds.
Con builds his case on majority of dreams, but obviously Con's case doesnt include all dreams, as Pro points out, which leaves a gap in Con's argument.
Con's source which deals with dreams being nothing more than images and stories created by the mind, I would accept if Pro didnt challenge it, but Pro did challenge it by saying it deals with physical aspects only.
Its fine. I just want to do a vote properly so it meets the required standard and so that Con has nothing to complain about.
It is expected for votes to be challenged. It happens all the time.
New updated vote includes video from round 3 and its points.
I will address round 1 and 2 in detail later today, so that should have everything covered.
Here is an updated vote:
The debate is about possibility existing or not, as mentioned in description.
Con mentions sources showing natural cause of dreams.
Pro counters by saying how science can study brain activity and physiological changes, but it cannot access the actual content of dreams.
It is impossible to classify dreams as spiritual or non-spiritual by using science.
Occuring in brain doesnt mean dreams are material.
Con says that Pro is required to prove that dreams have divine or spiritual meaning.
Says that Islam and personal stories arent a sufficient form of evidence.
Pro counters by saying that dreams have forseen historical evidence with precision.
Gives examples of dreams predicting events, dreams that came true.
Con points out flaws in using religion as evidence.
Con says science cant study or measure spirituality because science can only meassure what can be physically observed.
Con says that science even in early times wasnt based on religion.
Says that science and religion do not mix.
"Religion isnt science."
Con says that non-scientific evidence isnt valid.
Con challenges Pro to show an instance where personal story is considered valid as evidence.
Pro counters this easily by saying that personal perception is obviously valid for a person. Pro shows that personal experieces are sometimes true, with examples where personal experiences are true even if not observed by science, such as how does it feel to taste sweetness or to see red.
This makes me come to conclusion that personal experience can be true even if not observed by science, thus some possibility of being true is proved to exist.
Con says that people can tell anything, and trusting then is an unwise mindset which leaves you open to manipulation.
However, this doesnt negate the fact that some personal experiences are obviously true.
Con mentions that physical evidence is needed before considering something as a fact. Says that stories do not meet that standard.
Pro provides example of neuroscientist claiming dreams are outside the realm of neuroscience. This serves as an additional counter to Con's claim that science has observed dreams.
More so, example of psychologist claiming dreams can have spiritual relevance. Hence, possibility exists.
Then another example which says consciousness cannot be fully explained by physical process alone.
Con says it would be absurd to suggest that hearsay is to be taken as valid in courts, and that logic needs empirical evidence in order to be true.
Con shows example of logic with sharks where logic is proved false, even if before proof appeared, such logic was considered perfect.
Con says that he doesnt need to disprove personal experiences, and that he didnt call an opponent a liar, but simply that personal experience cannot be treated as true since we cannot know what happened, it lacks verification, we cannot know what happened in a personal story.
Shows studies of link between dreams, emotions and memories that do not have a divine factor.
Says that dreams serve people to prevent health issues and to regulate emotions.
Con mentions EEG and MRI.
Pro responds in multiple places, one by saying that even if they could scan brain's imaginary, thoughts and sensations, it would still mean that dream being spiritual or normal one is subjective.
Pro points out that studies dont explain why dreams contain meaningful or predictive content.
Con makes a point that mass and energy relationship isnt matter and energy relationship.
Con says that Pro's arguments do not demonstrate anything divine or spiritual.
Con says that saying that we cannot determine if dreams are divine or not is not a concession, because opponent still cannot prove that dreams are divine.
Repeats that perfectly logical argument is not the same as being true.
Con starts responding to points about atheism. I dont see how talk about atheism is even relevant to this debate.
Con says that opponent didnt prove the divine nature of dreams, and that opponent relies on hearsay.
My conclusion on round 3:
From all this, I understand that Con very much agrees that spirituality cannot be observed by science.
So if spirituality cannot be observed by science, how am I supposed to form a conclusion that science says spirituality isnt there?
Pro was right in noticing that when Con says spirituality cannot be observed or measured, Con destroys his own case of trying to disprove spirituality with science.
If Con agrees that spirituality isnt physical and that science can only observe physical things, how then do his scientific examples prove lack of spirituality?
Additionally, with some personal examples being obviously true even if not observed by science, it means it is possible that some personal examples are true, thus it proves that personal experiences have possibility of being true, thus personal experiences of spiritual have possibility od being true.
I was informed by mod that I have to add video to my vote, as well as include more points from previous rounds.
So I will release an update to my vote in comments which covers all Con's arguments and many of Pro's arguments.
I think I proved here that watching video argument would change nothing in my vote. Con was unable to bring up anything in comments which would make me think that we can observe dreams, let alone their causes.
Per debate's description, this debate was about possibility itself, and I dont see how is Con even supposed to prove that there is no possibility, or make a case for it being impossible.
Simply put, personal experiences arent the best evidence, but they certainly weigh more than complete lack of proof on Con's side.
I am still not sure how this will be resolved, but I think I explained everything I needed to explain. If Con wants to extend on this, he can start a new debate called "Science can observe dreams".
I have literally never seen a machine which shows exact things person dreams, so obviously there is no full observation of any kind.
"And whatever pro set is irrelevant, because he can't provide any evidence where I did."
Its a general knowledge that you cant observe people's dreams. It was enough for Pro to mention it for voters to accept it, but Pro also gave the explanation of science being limited. Besides, your argument depended on proving that you can observe dreams, and after reading the debate I didnt find any premise which leads to conclusion that you can observe dreams.
"My arguments never relied on personal experience. They relied on fields of study and tests that were conducted by scientists in those fields."
It was already explained in debate that science cant observe dreams, thus any argument about observing dreams can only be personal experience.
"According to your own logic, you had no reason not to listen to what I said"
The reasons were explained in the vote. The video makes it harder for me to vote, and enables cheating.
"because every link I provided was accompanied by a written argument until round three."
And I have accepted every round except your round 3.
"Second, a link to a video is not "a bunch of links.""
You are right. One link is not a bunch of links, and neither of the two are arguments.
"Third, there is no way to make a video on this site without providing a link"
This isnt a video site. This is a text debate site.
"Besides, we both know the real reason is due to our innate biases"
You concede to being biased?
"and the fact that you are a troll on here."
Not sure why are you insulting voters. I never insulted you.
"You have no legitimate cause to argue"
I need a cause?
"Once again, this is irrelevant because it is not a whole violation to bring the video in the middle of the debate."
I didnt say its a "violation". I simply said I reject it because it wasnt written in debate.
"I have already told you repeatedly that I have discussed this with the moderators, and they concurred that you can use a video in a debate."
You can use it as much as you want. I just dont have to accept it as a voter.
"Secondly, your reasoning is the very problem. You rejected it specifically because it was a video argument, and you didn't even bother to listen to it."
Well, a text debate does mean a text debate.
"White flower has already confirmed to me that you are not allowed to just ignore it simply because it's a video. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, that answer is not going to change."
Whiteflame is not "White flower". But if Whiteflame says that I must accept something not written in debate as part of a debate, then sure, I will make a new vote which includes your video as well.
"So have a good day and please do not message me anymore because I will not respond to it."
Oh, I am not even messaging you. I am merely explaining my vote. So if you dont want me to explain my vote, I dont see why did you message me in the first place.
"I never said that it allows you to see a person's dreams. "
So now you cant see them?
"I only said that it allows you to observe dreams because you are monitoring their brain activity"
Monitoring brain activity has nothing to do with observing dreams.
", which are affected by dreams."
Monitoring things affected by something isnt the observation of that something.
"I feel like I have to tell you that simply saying that you can observe something does not necessarily always mean you have to physically see it."
Okay, so you cant see dreams.
"For example, you cannot physically see wind, yet you can still observe it through measuring it."
Measuring wind has nothing to do with measuring brain activity.
"So if we can measure wind without seeing it, I don't see how we're not able to observe dreams through brain activity, even if we cannot see the dream itself."
Maybe because dreams and wind arent same things.
You also cant even observe all brain activity, so I am not sure what confuses you.
"Did you miss the part where it was established that I can make a video in the form of an argument, and therefore claiming that written arguments are required isn't true?"
It was not mentioned in description that its allowed, and this is a debate site based on text, not video. Also, I have already explained why video arguments are rejected.
"right. Which means that you violated the rules by ignoring what I said simply because I gave a video link rather than writing in a text."
There are no voting rules which say that links are valid arguments.
"you're not allowed to ignore arguments just because of the form they are given."
If someone just posts bunch of links in a debate and says that all arguments are there, I have no need to even open those links, since no argument was presented in debate itself.
If you think otherwise, thats just your opinion, and when you vote, you can apply it.
"Yes they are that is the whole point they are hooked up to machines montitoring their brains and talking to them. Brain activity and dreams are the same thing. I am sorry if this simple concept escapes you but different words can have the same meaning."
Monitoring brain activity and observing dreams arent same thing. As Pro has explained, science is limited and cant observe dreams.
""In science, monitoring dreams is achieved by tracking brain activity through techniques like electroencephalography (EEG), which records electrical signals from the brain, allowing researchers to identify distinct patterns associated with different sleep stages, particularly Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep, when dreaming is most likely to occur""
So you think EEG makes you see people's dreams? I dont think so.
"I didn't use personal experience in my argument. I provided links to evidence that was either in the form of a video or based on academic studies."
As explained before, since science cant observe dreams, the only thing left is your personal experience examples, such as some people being able to control what they dream.
"Which also subsequently means that, unless you can actually provide an example of said contradiction"
It was written in my vote:
"Con starts by saying how most dreams are forgotten. He also says that some people can control their dreams.
However, Con says that personal experiences dont count as valid examples in this debate.
Pro provides a great counter. Apparently, the only way to verify dreams is with personal experience, as science has no way to record or observe dreams. Thus, all evidence related to dreams Con provided is based on personal experience.
So if we reject personal experience, Con's entire case based on personal experiences falls apart and he cannot disprove the possibility of dreams having divine or spiritual meaning, thus he cannot possibly win.
However, if we accept personal experiences as valid, then Pro's case is proved and Pro wins.
This huge contradiction in Con's case and basically "lose or lose" position is essentially what gives win to Pro."
"Personal experiences are either valid evidence or they are not valid evidence. Neither of these premises given in debate can make Con's case work. Con's case has no possible framework to prove his case, while Pro's framework supports Pro's case.
Pro further proves his case by explaining the limits of science. Logically, if science is in this case limited and incomplete, it cannot at the same time be complete and give complete answer.
This negates Con's case related to any scientific evidence, leaving personal experiences which Con rejects, so basically, nothing is left for Con."
"Incorrect, I may not have made in argument in writing. However, I still gave one in the form of a video"
So no written arguments.
"The person you are supporting has also claimed to have done this. So, your argument is pointless since your trying to justify voting for someone on the very premise you claim makes mine not valid."
My reason for voting had nothing to do with either video link. I used arguments written in debate to give vote.
"Monitoring someone's dream is the same as monitoring brain activity. "
Thats still not observing a dream. You have already conceded that you cannot see other people's dreams.
"Dreams can't happen without a brain"
That doesnt mean you can observe dreams.
", so monitoring someone's dream is the same as monitoring brain activity"
No, observing a dream, as you have said yourself, is something you cannot do.
"Okay now we have you lying again.
https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-entered-peoples-dreams-and-got-them-talking
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/284378#_noHeaderPrefixedContent
https://hms.harvard.edu/news-events/publications-archive/brain/nightmares-brain"
Nowhere in this source is dream being observed.
"Actually it is because there not simply "Watching them" they are connected to machines that allow scientists to monitor brainwaves and thus see spikes in neural activity."
Monitoring brainwaves, again, has nothing to do with monitoring dreams. Spikes in neural activity also doesnt mean you are observing their dream.
"We may not be able to see in their minds eye what occurs in the deram"
So now you say you actually cant observe a dream?
"but we very much monitor brain activity in dreams."
Again, thats not observing dreams.
"From a scientific standpoint, a dream is a sequence of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations that typically occur involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep, particularly REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep."
That has nothing to do with observing those images, ideas, emotions or sensations, let alone the cause of those.
"According to studies in neurobiology, dreams are often the result of brain activity as the mind processes information, emotions, and memories from waking life."
Often =/= always.
"The brain, in this view, generates dreams as a natural byproduct of its nightly maintenance and consolidation of knowledge."
Notice the words "in this view", so thats not Pro's position, but an explanation of the position held by someone else.
"How do you think scientist's came ti this conclusion that the pro said? By MONITORING BRAIN ACTIVELY."
So your proof that monitoring brain means observing dreams is that some scientists came to conclusion about dreams?
Oh God...
So if I come to conclusion about your debate, then I have observed it, thus you now cannot even claim that I ignored your arguments.
Your own logic beats you.
@AmericanDebater
"Yes, however, when you are making an argument that's supported by sources that makes it valid. "
You didnt write an argument, so you concede that your round 3 wasnt valid.
"Your whole claim was that my empirical evidence was negated by the fact that, supposedly, scientists can't monitor the human brain."
I understand that words confuse you, so you think "monitoring brain" = observing dreams, however thats obviously not true.
"The video is the argument the link is simply the method in which you can review it."
My reason for rejection wasnt that I cant review it, but that argument wasnt written in debate itself.
"That is because the other voters didn't find a contradiction in what I said."
Which neither means that there was no contradiction in what you said, neither addresses the contradiction.
"in order for me to address a supposed contradiction. It has to be pointed out and proven"
It was literally mentioned over and over in the vote. You rejected personal experiences as evidence while using personal experiences as evidence.
@AmericanDebater
"I submitted the link in the debate for voters to see and review"
Links arent arguments. Links are sources. Arguments are what you write in debate.
"and mods have said videos are just as legit as written arguments."
They are legit if voters accept them. I have provided reasons why I didnt accept a link as argument.
Plus, I have read votes of other voters, and there was no mention of you solving the obvious contradiction of your case.
So if you solved the contradiction in your video, sure, I will delete my vote myself, but given how blatant the contradiction is, I dont think you addressed the contradiction anywhere.
"I submitted multiple sources that demonstrated that scientists can indeed observe dreams"
No, you didnt.
"In fact one of my sources highlighted an experiment that showed people being tested to be responsive to dreams when asked questions."
Watching people sleep and talk in sleep is not observing their dreams.
"More over, I explained in my arguments that scientists can monitor brain activity while someone is sleeping."
Monitoring brain activity has nothing to do with observing dreams.
"Pro even acknowledged this."
No, Pro clearly said that science cannot observe dreams.
If you are done with your little outburst, we can move along.
@AmericanDebater
"The first is your admission that you ignored my video argument intentionally."
The arguments from video werent presented in debate itself, so they can be ignored.
However, I have read other votes as well, and nothing in them seems to affect my vote.
" You also lied and said that I "dropped" the arguments of the Pro, which is false"
Show me where you addressed the mentioned contradiction of your case.
"However, all you did was show obvious bias, especially when you argue that the logical arguments of the Pro are somehow better than my empirical evidence"
Your "empirical evidence" was negated by obvious fact that science cannot observe dreams.
I dont know why I got error 3 times on my vote. I had to make vote shorter. Also, I tried to put everything in 5000 characters, which is the limit.
What I meant at start is that as a voter, I dont add premises. I only use premises given in debate to form a conclusion which is either topic or anti-topic.
I have posted this debate in vote requests, so maybe that will add more votes.
I have mostly given up on voting. Too much work to do it properly, especially with big debates. I only vote on debates with forfeit, and I am not really sure if that round of just video link from Con counts as forfeit. I would normally count it as a round forfeit, but I am not sure if mods will remove my vote if I vote like that.
"your arguments goes away in forum"
Thats true. Its hard to find forum topic later if you have too many of them.
Still, I save my good arguments in notes, so I dont forget them.
Maybe you could debate in forum section of this site as well. Forum doesnt have voters and doesnt really have character limit or number of responses limit.
I do like formal debates, but forum is way better, especially with group debating.
Plus, I am not always in the mood to write long text. In formal debates, it is kinda "expected" of me to write 10,000 characters and respond to every detail my opponent says, which I am not always able to do.
Plus, sometimes I prefer developing just one argument with 10 responses rather than having to develop many arguments in few responses available.
I will admit I dont usually put much effort in formal debates, because forum simply takes away more of my time. There is just some charm in the forum which doesnt exist in formal debates.
I am sorry for being stupid, but you have to understand that I didnt choose to be stupid. I was born stupid.
He argues that you had a hundred lives but that you also skipped them (didnt have them).
Small people need fairy tales.
I wasnt attacking anyone. Sorry if it was understood like that.
The site is very much dying in the debate section and member count. However, forum seems active enough, even though it too has lost many members.
I dont know why debate sites tend to die like this. Maybe too much competition drives people away, and most people consider debating as competition due to their incorrect mindset. Debating isnt a competition, but if people set wrong goals for themselves, then it is.
Strength depends on the brain. If the brain is stupid, strength will be used in bad way. Most brains are stupid, so strength is a great disadvantage.
Not sure whats up with obsession about who is weaker. If you read Tao, you would know that weak is stronger than strong.
Not sure why there are so many people who hate freedom.
Its fine.