. In Round 3, the debate continues with both sides expanding on their earlier positions.
Are you serious?
It's better you read 2nd and 3rd round what you saying is false, I did not continue the arguement but I change my stance into scientific.
What about discord, but arguing there is so hard, because of no formal structure it's more like discussion, you can prove your side and non sense argument keep popping and every single time you have to prove you are smarter then them lol.
I like formal debates because your hard work is saved and if you want to argue with someone new you can present debate here and then can continue. Most of the time when ask people to come here they just run away. Formal debating is very hard for amature but they try to show off on other platform where there is no voting. 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.
You can say there are forum for that but it's not one to one and also limited. So structure is needed just like debates here.
Then I want another feature which is also give option of group debate as well where one team can have 3 rounds and then other team can have 3 or one round from the member of one team then other and just like that next from one then other, turn based.
Then I think this website would be even more great.
About votes I think their should tiers for them too. And resting of voters as well, in which if a voter gives splendid RFD and there person also give positive reviews about the voter against whom he did vote.
Also if one person did vote bomb, then his credibility goes down and eventually banned from voting.
And also a feature in which even after voting end a person can review about the output of debate. One feature in DDO I loved wa that people can say they agree before or after with the debator.
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.
Tbh I have won all those debates becuse I remove skin from hair, but still I would say I am rusty.
Otherwise I was not letting atheist go till the last round, they were forfeiting way too early.
That is what I was suppose to do with them for next debate but biased vote flish obvious win. It is discouraging, you cannot tell someone why you lost at first look until they read the debate to know it's vote bomb.
How can you ask so much to BK to watch the video in 3rd round for his vote and you are not asking from Barney and lemming for my 2nd and 3rd rounds.
Why put 5 rounds limit just make only 1 round then..
Vote based on 1 round is not considered vote bomb?
While you were so much pushing BK for hot looking into video arguemnt.
It's double standard.
As con summarizes: "Pro's argument fails to show how the supposed gap between the psychological understanding of dreams and their potential spiritual significance is bridged."The problem here is that this
A minor disagreement I am left with for con is his re-review of the single dream in question, and statements that it wouldnāt count even if it did accurately and measurably predict the future. That would be the type of proof a scientist would look for to connect dreams to the super
Response:
Hahhahha single dream?
Here is RFD has finished and rest he talked about conduct and sources.
He did not touch 2nd and 3rd round from both side.
What is it whiteflame?
If no body counts 2nd and 3rd round it seems 4th and 5th would have been extra waste. People preasume they are true and keep pretending it.
Always last round is real deal, my strategy is always to summarize and present best arguemnt in last round. Most of time in instigate and there is chance for opponent to respond but this time I had to respond to opponent whatever he enquired. That is why I gave many examples in last round for dreams and many even in first round the dream of Yousef as and Ibrahim as mentioned my opponent could look into it. Because content are not relevant here becuse they are very famous one.
See RFD has ended here.
He only gave decision based on 1st round.
Same goes fro lemming, I will break down lemming as well.
Rebuttal 4 (the hypotheses are not mutually exclusive) was almost good; it just fell back on the appeal to false authority of holy books. In this note, the mud example was quite effective in affirming that said authority is false; and this was further bolstered with the sources for dreams predating Islam (as unsoun
Response:
That predated dream is mentioned in the Quran as well.
The debate was about dreams not the Quran, as far as logical that divine dreams exist then from where interpretation comes is not much relevant.
About mud example.
I neglected it becaus it's lack of my opponents knowledge, I wish this guy could debate with me on these topics and how ianm going to destroy him.
Well it's about abiogenesis.
Science and quran is on same term.
Clay and human have same elements.
Cannot go any further as was totally irrelevant otherwise could prove it. But space was short for that matter. I deleted a lot of material from each round because or space.
This is sometimes merited, but we really need a mechanism to differentiate man-made dreams from others if this is to hold water (and just that all true dreams will be remembered doesn't do this so long as others are remembered too).
Response:
That is my point, dream itself do not determine, but it's interpretation, that is why I said the very premise of this debate is subjective. We are discussing the interpretation of dream not only dream itself.
Who will do interpretation? Well my opponent did not ask it, I do not know why Barney is asking it. And I did not see my opponent making any solid counter to it. It's just obvious that not only you will see dream if Allah wanted to show you something but will guide you to it's interpretation as well. They story of Yousef (PBUH) which I mentioned in debate has answer about it and also mentioned who can do interpretation.
Pro gives a personal accounting... A dream featuring a horse cart, which prevented him from dying of a heart attack or something worse than dying of a heart attack... I am not believing that pro believes this.Con challenges that this interpretation is pure speculation.
Pro attempts to hand wave away pro's case, by reiterating parts of his own.
Response:
He is still in the first round and even not completed it. he is talking I have repeated it many times while in RFD he did two times about my personal example where he misspell anecdotal.
Fun part:
At this point con has hand waved barney's brain to say dreams are shit of mind and do not over focus it just enjoy manipulating it and live your wildest dream by dreaming and you can even have affair with hot aliens š
Pro says holy books say dreams are divine and/or spiritual.Con of course gives the obvious counter that other religions exist (it's strong, but not quite as strong as he would like it to be, since pro's writeup included more than one god).
Response:
Probably Barney drunk?
I have talked in great detail about existence of demon scientifically and even Allah.
Where?
2nd round but Barney just read few lines from 1st round let's see how far he can go.
So let's talk what I said. I said demons are created from fire which originates from matter and energy is released.
Demons are that energy.
(Probably infrared light
And snacks ultra violet )
Bracket are addition.
While Allah is sustainer of everything like a light and energy source for everything as demons are also from matter so they are different then human but their also originates from matter.
About Allah example was given which was metaphor otherwise it's impossible to comprehend infinite being.
But Barney is not only accusing me believing 2 gods which I never said in debate but it's lie.
Only Allah is god one and only.
He is sustainer of everything with his Noor which is his knowledge and ilm.
Thanks š
Here we go
Pro moves on to describe three separate types of dreams. One comes from a god, the other comes another god, and the third comes from man. This immediately begs the question of how to tell any of them apart (as con calls it, bridge the gap in that seeming contradiction); but I will treat either of the first two as spiritual if they can be proven.
Response:
He might be illuminati because he considers the devil as god.
But
I have stated in my debate that all of them are controlled by Allah one and only. As Allah has written the taqdeer or fate, I have discussed it as well in debate. Demons and humans are his creation and Allah allows them to do what they do and so everything is his will.
He saying how can distinguish between them?
Response:
Answer is go read the debate š especially my dump
One says they're chemistry, the other says they're a gift or curse from the divine... As a voter, I'm going to treat this issue as on balance; or to say victory goes to the most and most likely.
Response:
One says they are chemistry other says it's divine.
Actually it should be,
One says it's chemistry but not divine,
You have not read what other says
Lol šš
As a voter involved going to treat this issue in balance and and say victory goes to most or most likely to con, why would I read the debate what a heck is an moderator no one can revoke my vote and I do not need to read the debate at all
;)
Pro does an immediate gambit at the start with a word dump... I strongly advise separating paragraphs in future.
Response:
It's not my fault, I created draft in my mobile but when uploaded in website it just messed it.
This problem I have complaint a lot before thought it's not eating spaces between words but it did between paragraphs.
But I have given up on this long time ago. Which is real problem because it indeed affected my presentation and thus to even people reading it. They are forgetting my points when they end reading my debate but to me it's more likely they do not read more then 1 round.
Obviously you consider my words dump otherwise why would you vote con.
It's something preset
experience is not evidence" technically it's just very weak evidence, known as antidotal. Still, good point.
Arguemnt:
All evidence is weak or you can say until they are proven to be strong.
During the debate exchange of arguments can change the course of action.
My personal experience was one of the weak evidence among many other strong evidence. I never took my example as my core argument. Though that was to show my opponent that see I have even experience dream which had spiritual meaning.
By the way it's not antidotal it's anecdotal.
But not all dreams anecdotal experiences.
I have argued about it in great depth.
And you have acknowledged it was good point.
Any ways let's move on
Although dreams have fascinated us since the dawn of time, their rigorous, scientific study is a recent development[1ā4] (Supplementary Fig. 1). In The interpretation of dreams [5] Freud predicted that āDeeper research will one day trace the path further and discover an organic basis for the mental event.ā Recent work, which we review in this article, begins to fulfill Freud s prediction.
The study of dreams is a formidable task, because dream consciousness is only accessible via report rather than direct observation (Box 1) and because it is difficult to manipulate dream content experimentally, whether by exposure to stimuli before[6,Ā 7] or during sleep[7,Ā 8]. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the contents of specific dreams[9], and most modern dream research tries to relate neuronal activity retrospectively toĀ dream formĀ rather thanĀ dream content,Ā i.e. to focus on properties ofĀ allĀ dreams rather than to investigate the neural correlates of aĀ particularĀ dream. Yet, as we shall see, encouraging progress has been made in relating the phenomenology of dreams to underlying brain activity, and to studies of brain damage and development.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2814941/?utm_source=chatgpt.com#SD1
I am doing this for fun. No expectation from them.
Check:
RFD---con argues dreams are due to biology and stimuli, such as being able to be manipulated (presumably, without the researcher manipulating any god or gods).
Response:
There is difference between lucid dreams and regular dreams.
Conclusion:
We are discussing dreams not lucid dreams.
Even we discuss lucid dreams, we already know this category falls in dreams which are controlled by mind.
Extra:
I already acknowledged these types of dreams exist.
But
Can my opponent deny regular dreams?
Solution:
This problem I addressed perfectly by saying 3 types of dreams.
My opponent:
He acknowledged one type which is lucid dreams and he himself distinguished two types, one regular and one manipulative.
I can write 1000000 of words only about this while I deleted many times to make it concise.
But people do not accept detail then concise would be nothing for them.
Biology and stimuli:
Are you suggesting that God will come and say to a person I will come tonight in your dream and say something to you then it would be considered spiritual ?
Lol
God controll human brain and stimulate it to produce dreams if he wants to convey something.
He has made a mechanism, just like a person is free to do a lot of things but sometimes he ended up doing without knowing that he is doing that thing for Allah.
Same goes for dreams, Allah has made them for purpose, and when purpose is not being served it can act wildly.
Presumably not god?
Well even a person is manipulating a dreams still chances is that Allah wants it that way.
By Allah every single action happens when he allows.
I have discussed it in 2nd round in great detail.
Tbh I can talk about it for hours and hours on this point.
Hahahhah, man you votem bomb, I am done with this website. Not another debate. You really do not want me on this debate. The error to.be not a able to post argument on DDO let me leave the website. But this website I left because or barney's vote bomb. Clear vote bomb, my 2nd and 3rd arguemnt was completely neglected by Barney and lemming. So sad and disappointed by biased.
I object Barney' vote it's total garbage. Good bye debateart. I think I will try the website made by bestkorea and wyited. I think americandebater24 would be happy and last time this moderator helped his friend as well. If I am going to be proven false because of vote bomb what is purpose to come here and get insulted by dumb votes.
I am done here,
Extreme level of intellectual dishonesty.
Wow man
I am out of here this guy has gone mad, even before and now, why not message those comments in which you started insulting me so I become toxic as you called me toxic.
I am talking with whiteflame and other person I did not tag him . He was suppose to leave the site which he claimed. He is that much mad when it's tie he probably get heartache if he will loose.
Probably this is complete shit.
I am out of here, I can't handle it anymore
This debate from 2 vote within then 10 points against me, reached to 3 points against me. It shows I was loosing and I have researched 90000 words on this topic and count my opponent, in first round what is his input and effort. And then in 2nd round most part is my quotes.
And in 3rd part it's almost forfeit by giving just video.
You can see, if a person dedicate himself for some topic and yet I was complaining about lack of space and rounds, then I assume it's his right to become concerned. Right?
In fact I should be even more frustrated, because something happens with me all the time because I am Muslim. I am sure you did not forget the debate which I had with Lancelot. Those in just votes are still there. And in there debate I even had 5 rounds and more efforts.
If this mess is going to happens every single time I debate, should it not be frustrating ?
My opponent is playing emotional blackmailing card here. I would say he is the most frustrated here. When he was winning he was chill. When it becomes tie he become so Kuch disappointed that he is rage quitting. If I had won probably something worst on his part could happen with him.
I have that much of sense, to see am I winning or loosing. Tbh BK out it in great way and even I am astonished how she can interpret my argument and she is very much intelligent.
Thanks to Allah we have people like her active on this website. Shila is another example. So I did not loose complete hope. I hope new debates would not be much troubles. Probably I should debate with people I already know and know their personality, it's more appropriate.
This debate is tie for me so no gain for me at all.
In fact such a mess and drag should let me feel discouraged. But the people I mentioned let have some hope. And I also feel satisfied with moderation of whiteflame. He is not much active, obviously everybody has his or her personal life and getting busy in it is natural, no complain about it.
I did not harass anyone, when a person engaged with someone on some topic and going through some process and sudden mood swing, which your are not aware of even before referring that person, like when I was writing and did not refresh my page I send my reply to AD24, then I stopped after seeing he do not want to engage anymore. if someone accuse you of disrespect harassment and insult, they are very bad traits, they must prove it. He said something to you and you took action without investigating it? Do you think after so much dishonesty on votes, how could I accept it. While savant removed his points on his own, with savant I had private conversation, it was very nice and he is my friend and with lemming I am going to paste it here, if moderator allow, while AD24 must prove where I insulted him and harassed him.
About your decision about lemming vote to not remove, I do not feel comfortable and I also do not agree. He never responded to my arguments of sciences in entire debate but he only responded on my religious explanation, how can he give vote on secondary arguments but not based on primary argument, while adding arguments in last round is is not allowed for instigators not contendor. And I did not add any new argument, I gave arguemnt what my opponent demanded from me which was five ke empirical or scientific study which I did.
I would say honesty is best policy .
If accuser can prove their claim and lemming vote remain untouched then I am will leave this website. Because I am not toxic with good people, I have seen swearing and slandering against me and my religion and my Allah and my prophet, no body took any action while I remain complaining about it.
And whiteflame did not help me in votes, both voters took their point back by themselves while the vote casted in my favour is still under ambiguity and weighted against lemming vote. Lemming vote is based on my quran evidence, how could they be just? It's very tiny part of debate.
RFV 6/6Undermining the Use of Religious EvidenceIs a fair point to make, and a consistent theme that Con has argued.People of different beliefs, will often lack the presuppositions required to take the claims of different beliefs at face value. I think.. . . Though one 'can argue science is not a monolith, not 'all groups believe in the same scientific claims.
Key point2I'm not so sure about Pros claims, sources would be valuable to Pro.
Key point 3It's too late to argue who the burden of proof rests on, (Last round)And there are various arguments on how to apply the BoP.I've been applying it equally to both, since it wasn't mentioned.
Pro makes decent argument about the 'application of dreams mattering more than whether the dreams are physical.However, In my view Con has been arguing effectively against people applying only to Pros religion as well as the existence of Divine or Spiritual argued by Pro.Though it is possible that a person possessing many of Pros views would be more convinced by Pro than myself.
Hobson and various other sciences.The 'problem is that Pro and Con have been using the terms Divine and Spiritual, in a way I would classify as 'more than psychological/human culture/Emotion/Will/So On.Another problem, is this all 'really feels like a final round rush, which generally is frowned upon in debates I think.
It 'is offering a lot of sources claiming the limits of science regarding dreams and consciousness.It is also difficult to digest easily.
"I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone."I think that is a nice gesture.
Who cares? Justice must be served. If you want someone to not disturb you just stop replying, it's childish if you feel harassment when someone argue for your argument.
I have accepted lemming' lame vote and accepted easy win as the but you this comment"My report didn't get addressed yet" made me ne mumscruntize lemming argument again. Why complain now?
Did I not say in my last round there vote on my debate carefully, probably you did not see how it went on my previous debates. One vote on my previous debate was like lemming from Bella which I really wanted to get tested and checked but the problem is long gone.
All these matters are related to our afterlife and eternal life not some fun fare.
I take them seriously and I have taken it.
Alhamd ll Allah
May Allah guide us all ameen
Last round was not considered by lemming as well from my side and adding new argument is bad practice if instigated intro new arguments no defending. It's inevitable for defender and responder though I extended them from my 2nd round which my opponent neglected even from 2nd round
See the lemming neglected and dropped my 3rd round too.
RFV 6/6Undermining the Use of Religious EvidenceIs a fair point to make, and a consistent theme that Con has argued.People of different beliefs, will often lack the presuppositions required to take the claims of different beliefs at face value. I think.. . . Though one 'can argue science is not a monolith, not 'all groups believe in the same scientific claims.
Key point2I'm not so sure about Pros claims, sources would be valuable to Pro.
Key point 3It's too late to argue who the burden of proof rests on, (Last round)And there are various arguments on how to apply the BoP.I've been applying it equally to both, since it wasn't mentioned.
Pro makes decent argument about the 'application of dreams mattering more than whether the dreams are physical.However, In my view Con has been arguing effectively against people applying only to Pros religion as well as the existence of Divine or Spiritual argued by Pro.Though it is possible that a person possessing many of Pros views would be more convinced by Pro than myself.
Hobson and various other sciences.The 'problem is that Pro and Con have been using the terms Divine and Spiritual, in a way I would classify as 'more than psychological/human culture/Emotion/Will/So On.Another problem, is this all 'really feels like a final round rush, which generally is frowned upon in debates I think.
It 'is offering a lot of sources claiming the limits of science regarding dreams and consciousness.It is also difficult to digest easily.
"I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone."I think that is a nice gesture.
What is special in video, just same repetition.
He himself claimed he did not put any rule in debate and whiteflame told me that video could be considered at FF if voter deems it
I transcribed the video from my opponent and responded it in 3rd round, there was nothing new most of repeated arguments.
If you want I can paste here for you to see.
I have responded it and he neglected a lot of things from my 2nd round while I shifted my stances according to my opponent's demand into scientific. I always do that for all debates I always compare spiritual with material. First spiritual then material. My opponent thought I have only 1 argument under my sleeves. But I was going to respond according to science as I know atheist do not believe in spirituality even though the the topic at hand is spirituality yet they even do not begin to talk about it by saying it do not exist and consider themselves true by default. Which my opponent did and I point out this overconfidence which every single atheist show.
Not only they can't see dreams while sleeping it's far beyond but they even can't see even a person is awake. Lol what they do they just construct images or something after mapping stimuli of other people who when watch or see something and their brain shows activity.
And try to ruplicate it
Otherwise seeing dream or thought or vision in mind is equal to seeing consciousness which is impossible.
The hard problem or consciousness has never been solved..
I could not sleep lol
But I will sleep after this comment .
Con
According toĀ Medical news today.comĀ dreams are nothing more than "stories and or image's createdĀ by our minds while we sleep."Ā Ā
Pro
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.Ā
Conclusion:
From both definitions we can see dreams are created by the mind.
Mind:
I have talked about it in my debate.
But here is more insight
From a neuroscience perspective, the mind is often described as the result of neural processes within the brain that give rise to consciousness, cognition, emotions, and behavior. Here are some authoritative references:
1. Kandel, Eric R., et al. (2013). Principles of Neural Science.
This book discusses the neural basis of mental functions, such as perception, memory, and decision-making.
Relevant quote: "The mind arises from the activity of the brain, and understanding the brain is essential to understanding the mind."
2. Gazzaniga, Michael S., Ivry, Richard B., & Mangun, George R. (2018). Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind.
Explores the biological mechanisms underlying mental functions like attention, memory, and reasoning.
Relevant quote: "Cognitive neuroscience bridges the gap between the biological brain and the subjective mind."
3. Damasio, Antonio (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness.
Focuses on how brain processes produce consciousness and emotions.
Relevant insight: Consciousness is tightly linked to the neural networks responsible for perception and emotion.
Conclusion 2
About consciences and unconscious mind which create dreams has been discussed in great detail in my debate plz look.
Cons claim
That dreams are created by brain cannot be proven by science. Process occur in brain during we sleep do not produce dreams as by definition of con and pro both but mind. I have proven mind is not material but consciousness and dreams occur when brain is unconscious means not mindfull which is even more elevated state of non material existence or something which create dreams.
My definition
You can see involuntarily mind creates dreams in my definition while con relates it to experiment where dreamer responds to question. Which scientific research is valid and how can it be related to this case.
Mind is not physical and produce dreams and even the information I provided above are all related to immaterial abilities whether it's conginition thinking ability or memory. Nothing is material in mind.
Come on brother, my video link was in 2nd round the last link, how atheism got into us.
The link of dream or non believer king was also neglected.
My light arguemnt was also neglected.
Nice try, but I submitted multiple sources that demonstrated that scientists can indeed observe dreams. In fact one of my sources highlighted an experiment that showed people being tested to be responsive to dreams when asked questions. More over, I explained in my arguments that scientists can monitor brain activity while someone is sleeping. Pro even acknowledged this. So, nothing was negated but your own inbility to be fair since you did not bother reading what I wrote or reviewed the evidence.
So how is this relevent to our debate?
This can verify the content of dreams which dreamer has told us, it even proves my point. Dreamer telling dream during dream or after does it change the fact there it's subjective and personal. Clearly dream being spiritual are 100 percent related to interpretation. Content must be analyzed and then interpreted later to whatever has been seen in dream is related to reality or not.
You must not be that childish to not understand this simple logic.
Bro seriously?
You said I have not put any source and yet you have confirmed my source and in fact explaining it. See my source can he checked so now where is your argument that I did not put any scientific source. Also you said URL is actually accepted source. Bro I have been debating for very long. It's not good now. You are not being sincere here.
Cherry picking some scientist was not my fault. Tbh have those sources written in my draft as well who backed your point and I could analyze them as well in more detail but their was not much space and also 3 rounds as well. That is why I said 3 rounds were not enough.
If 1 scientist back my point that should be enough, only 1 substantial witness is enough in courts for most os cases.
We cannot do anything about it as whatever is in debate judgement should be passed on it. And having chance to respond at last is something which is advantageous sometime. If it would have been 5 rounds then I could do more but I got the edge this time.
š¤¦āāļøš¤¦āāļøš¤¦āāļøš¤¦āāļø
š¤¦āāļøš¤¦āāļøš¤¦āāļøš¤¦āāļø
. In Round 3, the debate continues with both sides expanding on their earlier positions.
Are you serious?
It's better you read 2nd and 3rd round what you saying is false, I did not continue the arguement but I change my stance into scientific.
Have your read 2nd and 3rd round?
What about discord, but arguing there is so hard, because of no formal structure it's more like discussion, you can prove your side and non sense argument keep popping and every single time you have to prove you are smarter then them lol.
I like formal debates because your hard work is saved and if you want to argue with someone new you can present debate here and then can continue. Most of the time when ask people to come here they just run away. Formal debating is very hard for amature but they try to show off on other platform where there is no voting. 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.
You can say there are forum for that but it's not one to one and also limited. So structure is needed just like debates here.
Then I want another feature which is also give option of group debate as well where one team can have 3 rounds and then other team can have 3 or one round from the member of one team then other and just like that next from one then other, turn based.
Then I think this website would be even more great.
About votes I think their should tiers for them too. And resting of voters as well, in which if a voter gives splendid RFD and there person also give positive reviews about the voter against whom he did vote.
Also if one person did vote bomb, then his credibility goes down and eventually banned from voting.
And also a feature in which even after voting end a person can review about the output of debate. One feature in DDO I loved wa that people can say they agree before or after with the debator.
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.
Tbh I have won all those debates becuse I remove skin from hair, but still I would say I am rusty.
Otherwise I was not letting atheist go till the last round, they were forfeiting way too early.
That is what I was suppose to do with them for next debate but biased vote flish obvious win. It is discouraging, you cannot tell someone why you lost at first look until they read the debate to know it's vote bomb.
I even want vote removed from my previous debate where Bella and Barney vote bomb.
How can you ask so much to BK to watch the video in 3rd round for his vote and you are not asking from Barney and lemming for my 2nd and 3rd rounds.
Why put 5 rounds limit just make only 1 round then..
Vote based on 1 round is not considered vote bomb?
While you were so much pushing BK for hot looking into video arguemnt.
It's double standard.
As con summarizes: "Pro's argument fails to show how the supposed gap between the psychological understanding of dreams and their potential spiritual significance is bridged."The problem here is that this
A minor disagreement I am left with for con is his re-review of the single dream in question, and statements that it wouldnāt count even if it did accurately and measurably predict the future. That would be the type of proof a scientist would look for to connect dreams to the super
Response:
Hahhahha single dream?
Here is RFD has finished and rest he talked about conduct and sources.
He did not touch 2nd and 3rd round from both side.
What is it whiteflame?
If no body counts 2nd and 3rd round it seems 4th and 5th would have been extra waste. People preasume they are true and keep pretending it.
Always last round is real deal, my strategy is always to summarize and present best arguemnt in last round. Most of time in instigate and there is chance for opponent to respond but this time I had to respond to opponent whatever he enquired. That is why I gave many examples in last round for dreams and many even in first round the dream of Yousef as and Ibrahim as mentioned my opponent could look into it. Because content are not relevant here becuse they are very famous one.
See RFD has ended here.
He only gave decision based on 1st round.
Same goes fro lemming, I will break down lemming as well.
Rebuttal 4 (the hypotheses are not mutually exclusive) was almost good; it just fell back on the appeal to false authority of holy books. In this note, the mud example was quite effective in affirming that said authority is false; and this was further bolstered with the sources for dreams predating Islam (as unsoun
Response:
That predated dream is mentioned in the Quran as well.
The debate was about dreams not the Quran, as far as logical that divine dreams exist then from where interpretation comes is not much relevant.
About mud example.
I neglected it becaus it's lack of my opponents knowledge, I wish this guy could debate with me on these topics and how ianm going to destroy him.
Well it's about abiogenesis.
Science and quran is on same term.
Clay and human have same elements.
Cannot go any further as was totally irrelevant otherwise could prove it. But space was short for that matter. I deleted a lot of material from each round because or space.
This is sometimes merited, but we really need a mechanism to differentiate man-made dreams from others if this is to hold water (and just that all true dreams will be remembered doesn't do this so long as others are remembered too).
Response:
That is my point, dream itself do not determine, but it's interpretation, that is why I said the very premise of this debate is subjective. We are discussing the interpretation of dream not only dream itself.
Who will do interpretation? Well my opponent did not ask it, I do not know why Barney is asking it. And I did not see my opponent making any solid counter to it. It's just obvious that not only you will see dream if Allah wanted to show you something but will guide you to it's interpretation as well. They story of Yousef (PBUH) which I mentioned in debate has answer about it and also mentioned who can do interpretation.
Pro gives a personal accounting... A dream featuring a horse cart, which prevented him from dying of a heart attack or something worse than dying of a heart attack... I am not believing that pro believes this.Con challenges that this interpretation is pure speculation.
Pro attempts to hand wave away pro's case, by reiterating parts of his own.
Response:
He is still in the first round and even not completed it. he is talking I have repeated it many times while in RFD he did two times about my personal example where he misspell anecdotal.
Fun part:
At this point con has hand waved barney's brain to say dreams are shit of mind and do not over focus it just enjoy manipulating it and live your wildest dream by dreaming and you can even have affair with hot aliens š
Pro says holy books say dreams are divine and/or spiritual.Con of course gives the obvious counter that other religions exist (it's strong, but not quite as strong as he would like it to be, since pro's writeup included more than one god).
Response:
Probably Barney drunk?
I have talked in great detail about existence of demon scientifically and even Allah.
Where?
2nd round but Barney just read few lines from 1st round let's see how far he can go.
So let's talk what I said. I said demons are created from fire which originates from matter and energy is released.
Demons are that energy.
(Probably infrared light
And snacks ultra violet )
Bracket are addition.
While Allah is sustainer of everything like a light and energy source for everything as demons are also from matter so they are different then human but their also originates from matter.
About Allah example was given which was metaphor otherwise it's impossible to comprehend infinite being.
But Barney is not only accusing me believing 2 gods which I never said in debate but it's lie.
Only Allah is god one and only.
He is sustainer of everything with his Noor which is his knowledge and ilm.
Thanks š
Here we go
Pro moves on to describe three separate types of dreams. One comes from a god, the other comes another god, and the third comes from man. This immediately begs the question of how to tell any of them apart (as con calls it, bridge the gap in that seeming contradiction); but I will treat either of the first two as spiritual if they can be proven.
Response:
He might be illuminati because he considers the devil as god.
But
I have stated in my debate that all of them are controlled by Allah one and only. As Allah has written the taqdeer or fate, I have discussed it as well in debate. Demons and humans are his creation and Allah allows them to do what they do and so everything is his will.
He saying how can distinguish between them?
Response:
Answer is go read the debate š especially my dump
He also states how can prove them?
Response:
Again go read the debate š
One says they're chemistry, the other says they're a gift or curse from the divine... As a voter, I'm going to treat this issue as on balance; or to say victory goes to the most and most likely.
Response:
One says they are chemistry other says it's divine.
Actually it should be,
One says it's chemistry but not divine,
You have not read what other says
Lol šš
As a voter involved going to treat this issue in balance and and say victory goes to most or most likely to con, why would I read the debate what a heck is an moderator no one can revoke my vote and I do not need to read the debate at all
;)
Pro's states he will argue dreams "are not merely products of the brain but can be divine in nature, carrying spiritual meaning and purpose."
Response:
What is it? He will argue but did he not?
Whiteflame can I tag you in the breakdown of barneys' RFD?
Best.korea you too?
Pro does an immediate gambit at the start with a word dump... I strongly advise separating paragraphs in future.
Response:
It's not my fault, I created draft in my mobile but when uploaded in website it just messed it.
This problem I have complaint a lot before thought it's not eating spaces between words but it did between paragraphs.
But I have given up on this long time ago. Which is real problem because it indeed affected my presentation and thus to even people reading it. They are forgetting my points when they end reading my debate but to me it's more likely they do not read more then 1 round.
Obviously you consider my words dump otherwise why would you vote con.
It's something preset
experience is not evidence" technically it's just very weak evidence, known as antidotal. Still, good point.
Arguemnt:
All evidence is weak or you can say until they are proven to be strong.
During the debate exchange of arguments can change the course of action.
My personal experience was one of the weak evidence among many other strong evidence. I never took my example as my core argument. Though that was to show my opponent that see I have even experience dream which had spiritual meaning.
By the way it's not antidotal it's anecdotal.
But not all dreams anecdotal experiences.
I have argued about it in great depth.
And you have acknowledged it was good point.
Any ways let's move on
I have discussed below phenomenon in my debate.
Look at this, wow.
Although dreams have fascinated us since the dawn of time, their rigorous, scientific study is a recent development[1ā4] (Supplementary Fig. 1). In The interpretation of dreams [5] Freud predicted that āDeeper research will one day trace the path further and discover an organic basis for the mental event.ā Recent work, which we review in this article, begins to fulfill Freud s prediction.
The study of dreams is a formidable task, because dream consciousness is only accessible via report rather than direct observation (Box 1) and because it is difficult to manipulate dream content experimentally, whether by exposure to stimuli before[6,Ā 7] or during sleep[7,Ā 8]. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the contents of specific dreams[9], and most modern dream research tries to relate neuronal activity retrospectively toĀ dream formĀ rather thanĀ dream content,Ā i.e. to focus on properties ofĀ allĀ dreams rather than to investigate the neural correlates of aĀ particularĀ dream. Yet, as we shall see, encouraging progress has been made in relating the phenomenology of dreams to underlying brain activity, and to studies of brain damage and development.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2814941/?utm_source=chatgpt.com#SD1
I am doing this for fun. No expectation from them.
Check:
RFD---con argues dreams are due to biology and stimuli, such as being able to be manipulated (presumably, without the researcher manipulating any god or gods).
Response:
There is difference between lucid dreams and regular dreams.
Conclusion:
We are discussing dreams not lucid dreams.
Even we discuss lucid dreams, we already know this category falls in dreams which are controlled by mind.
Extra:
I already acknowledged these types of dreams exist.
But
Can my opponent deny regular dreams?
Solution:
This problem I addressed perfectly by saying 3 types of dreams.
My opponent:
He acknowledged one type which is lucid dreams and he himself distinguished two types, one regular and one manipulative.
I can write 1000000 of words only about this while I deleted many times to make it concise.
But people do not accept detail then concise would be nothing for them.
Biology and stimuli:
Are you suggesting that God will come and say to a person I will come tonight in your dream and say something to you then it would be considered spiritual ?
Lol
God controll human brain and stimulate it to produce dreams if he wants to convey something.
He has made a mechanism, just like a person is free to do a lot of things but sometimes he ended up doing without knowing that he is doing that thing for Allah.
Same goes for dreams, Allah has made them for purpose, and when purpose is not being served it can act wildly.
Presumably not god?
Well even a person is manipulating a dreams still chances is that Allah wants it that way.
By Allah every single action happens when he allows.
I have discussed it in 2nd round in great detail.
Tbh I can talk about it for hours and hours on this point.
Look at it lol, Barney doing this shit again.
Hahahhah, man you votem bomb, I am done with this website. Not another debate. You really do not want me on this debate. The error to.be not a able to post argument on DDO let me leave the website. But this website I left because or barney's vote bomb. Clear vote bomb, my 2nd and 3rd arguemnt was completely neglected by Barney and lemming. So sad and disappointed by biased.
I object Barney' vote it's total garbage. Good bye debateart. I think I will try the website made by bestkorea and wyited. I think americandebater24 would be happy and last time this moderator helped his friend as well. If I am going to be proven false because of vote bomb what is purpose to come here and get insulted by dumb votes.
I am done here,
Extreme level of intellectual dishonesty.
Wow man
I am out of here this guy has gone mad, even before and now, why not message those comments in which you started insulting me so I become toxic as you called me toxic.
I am talking with whiteflame and other person I did not tag him . He was suppose to leave the site which he claimed. He is that much mad when it's tie he probably get heartache if he will loose.
Probably this is complete shit.
I am out of here, I can't handle it anymore
I already apologised about it, then I refrain insulting anymore, but after that did I?
This debate from 2 vote within then 10 points against me, reached to 3 points against me. It shows I was loosing and I have researched 90000 words on this topic and count my opponent, in first round what is his input and effort. And then in 2nd round most part is my quotes.
And in 3rd part it's almost forfeit by giving just video.
You can see, if a person dedicate himself for some topic and yet I was complaining about lack of space and rounds, then I assume it's his right to become concerned. Right?
In fact I should be even more frustrated, because something happens with me all the time because I am Muslim. I am sure you did not forget the debate which I had with Lancelot. Those in just votes are still there. And in there debate I even had 5 rounds and more efforts.
If this mess is going to happens every single time I debate, should it not be frustrating ?
My opponent is playing emotional blackmailing card here. I would say he is the most frustrated here. When he was winning he was chill. When it becomes tie he become so Kuch disappointed that he is rage quitting. If I had won probably something worst on his part could happen with him.
I have that much of sense, to see am I winning or loosing. Tbh BK out it in great way and even I am astonished how she can interpret my argument and she is very much intelligent.
Thanks to Allah we have people like her active on this website. Shila is another example. So I did not loose complete hope. I hope new debates would not be much troubles. Probably I should debate with people I already know and know their personality, it's more appropriate.
This debate is tie for me so no gain for me at all.
In fact such a mess and drag should let me feel discouraged. But the people I mentioned let have some hope. And I also feel satisfied with moderation of whiteflame. He is not much active, obviously everybody has his or her personal life and getting busy in it is natural, no complain about it.
I did not harass anyone, when a person engaged with someone on some topic and going through some process and sudden mood swing, which your are not aware of even before referring that person, like when I was writing and did not refresh my page I send my reply to AD24, then I stopped after seeing he do not want to engage anymore. if someone accuse you of disrespect harassment and insult, they are very bad traits, they must prove it. He said something to you and you took action without investigating it? Do you think after so much dishonesty on votes, how could I accept it. While savant removed his points on his own, with savant I had private conversation, it was very nice and he is my friend and with lemming I am going to paste it here, if moderator allow, while AD24 must prove where I insulted him and harassed him.
About your decision about lemming vote to not remove, I do not feel comfortable and I also do not agree. He never responded to my arguments of sciences in entire debate but he only responded on my religious explanation, how can he give vote on secondary arguments but not based on primary argument, while adding arguments in last round is is not allowed for instigators not contendor. And I did not add any new argument, I gave arguemnt what my opponent demanded from me which was five ke empirical or scientific study which I did.
I would say honesty is best policy .
If accuser can prove their claim and lemming vote remain untouched then I am will leave this website. Because I am not toxic with good people, I have seen swearing and slandering against me and my religion and my Allah and my prophet, no body took any action while I remain complaining about it.
And whiteflame did not help me in votes, both voters took their point back by themselves while the vote casted in my favour is still under ambiguity and weighted against lemming vote. Lemming vote is based on my quran evidence, how could they be just? It's very tiny part of debate.
RFV 6/6Undermining the Use of Religious EvidenceIs a fair point to make, and a consistent theme that Con has argued.People of different beliefs, will often lack the presuppositions required to take the claims of different beliefs at face value. I think.. . . Though one 'can argue science is not a monolith, not 'all groups believe in the same scientific claims.
Key point2I'm not so sure about Pros claims, sources would be valuable to Pro.
Key point 3It's too late to argue who the burden of proof rests on, (Last round)And there are various arguments on how to apply the BoP.I've been applying it equally to both, since it wasn't mentioned.
Pro makes decent argument about the 'application of dreams mattering more than whether the dreams are physical.However, In my view Con has been arguing effectively against people applying only to Pros religion as well as the existence of Divine or Spiritual argued by Pro.Though it is possible that a person possessing many of Pros views would be more convinced by Pro than myself.
Hobson and various other sciences.The 'problem is that Pro and Con have been using the terms Divine and Spiritual, in a way I would classify as 'more than psychological/human culture/Emotion/Will/So On.Another problem, is this all 'really feels like a final round rush, which generally is frowned upon in debates I think.
It 'is offering a lot of sources claiming the limits of science regarding dreams and consciousness.It is also difficult to digest easily.
"I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone."I think that is a nice gesture.
Any action against it?
Indeed, thanks
I am sorry I have dragged you into this mess.
Who cares? Justice must be served. If you want someone to not disturb you just stop replying, it's childish if you feel harassment when someone argue for your argument.
I have accepted lemming' lame vote and accepted easy win as the but you this comment"My report didn't get addressed yet" made me ne mumscruntize lemming argument again. Why complain now?
Did I not say in my last round there vote on my debate carefully, probably you did not see how it went on my previous debates. One vote on my previous debate was like lemming from Bella which I really wanted to get tested and checked but the problem is long gone.
All these matters are related to our afterlife and eternal life not some fun fare.
I take them seriously and I have taken it.
Alhamd ll Allah
May Allah guide us all ameen
Last round was not considered by lemming as well from my side and adding new argument is bad practice if instigated intro new arguments no defending. It's inevitable for defender and responder though I extended them from my 2nd round which my opponent neglected even from 2nd round
See the lemming neglected and dropped my 3rd round too.
RFV 6/6Undermining the Use of Religious EvidenceIs a fair point to make, and a consistent theme that Con has argued.People of different beliefs, will often lack the presuppositions required to take the claims of different beliefs at face value. I think.. . . Though one 'can argue science is not a monolith, not 'all groups believe in the same scientific claims.
Key point2I'm not so sure about Pros claims, sources would be valuable to Pro.
Key point 3It's too late to argue who the burden of proof rests on, (Last round)And there are various arguments on how to apply the BoP.I've been applying it equally to both, since it wasn't mentioned.
Pro makes decent argument about the 'application of dreams mattering more than whether the dreams are physical.However, In my view Con has been arguing effectively against people applying only to Pros religion as well as the existence of Divine or Spiritual argued by Pro.Though it is possible that a person possessing many of Pros views would be more convinced by Pro than myself.
Hobson and various other sciences.The 'problem is that Pro and Con have been using the terms Divine and Spiritual, in a way I would classify as 'more than psychological/human culture/Emotion/Will/So On.Another problem, is this all 'really feels like a final round rush, which generally is frowned upon in debates I think.
It 'is offering a lot of sources claiming the limits of science regarding dreams and consciousness.It is also difficult to digest easily.
"I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone."I think that is a nice gesture.
What is special in video, just same repetition.
He himself claimed he did not put any rule in debate and whiteflame told me that video could be considered at FF if voter deems it
06:04 Speaker 1
issues and regulating emotions rather than messages from an unverified God.
06:09 Speaker 1
Now, I don't know about you voters, but I think that studies from universities and results found
06:13 Speaker 1
from using EEG and MRI techniques serves as just a little bit more concrete than the Quran
06:19 Speaker 1
when it comes to physical matters such as dream states. Now, I want to address my opponent's
06:23 Speaker 1
misrepresentation of my opponent's views on the subject of dreams and emotions. I would like to
06:24 Speaker 1
ask him to tell us what he thinks about the concept of dreams and emotions.
06:25 Speaker 1
They try to argue that E equals mc squared establishes that matter can be converted into
06:31 Speaker 1
energy. However, this is a falsehood. E equals mc squared does not establish the relationship
06:37 Speaker 1
between matter and energy. It actually establishes the relationship between mass and energy.
06:42 Speaker 1
It also does not demonstrate that demons such as the djinn are real. Everything in thermodynamics
06:48 Speaker 1
is physical, and in order to argue that the concept of demons can be supported by physics,
06:54 Speaker 1
they exist in a physical state. And when it comes to things like gods and demons, these things are
06:59 Speaker 1
not physical for thermodynamics to apply. My opponent also lied in their argument. They
07:04 Speaker 1
claim that I conceded a point, which is not true at all. They claim that since I said that we cannot
07:09 Speaker 1
determine that dreams are divine, I somehow relinquished my ability to refute their claim.
07:14 Speaker 1
However, considering they have shown their willingness to cherry pick and delete my words
07:18 Speaker 1
when trying to offer refutation, this is a false argument. In actuality, saying that we cannot
07:24 Speaker 1
determine if dreams are divine or not is not a concession. It's actually consistent with my
07:29 Speaker 1
stance because I am saying that my opponent cannot prove it. Not that we cannot determine it,
07:34 Speaker 1
and therefore it is real. At no point did I ever concede about dreams in the debate.
07:39 Speaker 1
I also never said the pro's argument was perfect in logic. I only stated that even if you make a
07:44 Speaker 1
perfectly logical argument, it is still not the same as being true since truth is not determined
07:49 Speaker 1
by logic. Another point of interest in my opponent's argument is that throughout their argument they've
07:54 Speaker 1
accused me of bias and intellectual dishonesty. However, that is rich coming from my opponent,
07:59 Speaker 1
who has not only argued solely against my argument, but has also argued against my argument.
03:01 Speaker 1
since this will be the last argument I can present. My opponent claimed in rebuttal 3
03:06 Speaker 1
that their evidence is factual and that my refusal to accept non-scientific evidence
03:11 Speaker 1
is a flawed understanding of what constitutes evidence. I find this argument very amusing
03:16 Speaker 1
because the non-scientific evidence that they claim I am refusing to consider
03:21 Speaker 1
is a mix between a personal story on their account and religious bias. I challenge my opponent,
03:26 Speaker 1
however, to show any instance where a personal story is considered factual and valid.
03:30 Speaker 1
Most societies and people take the view that, in order for something to be taken as fact,
03:35 Speaker 1
there must be evidence that goes far past the words that others tell them. Otherwise,
03:39 Speaker 1
people can tell you anything and no one will be able to fact-check the information.
03:43 Speaker 1
Such a mindset is unwise as it leads you to be open to manipulation.
03:47 Speaker 1
So with respect, it is not that I demonstrated a flawed understanding of evidence.
03:52 Speaker 1
Quite the opposite. My standard of evidence is that I need
03:55 Speaker 1
physical evidence before I will consider something to be fact.
03:58 Speaker 1
A story and teachings from a belief system do not meet that standard.
04:02 Speaker 1
Should people be able to be dragged into courts and declared guilty because of other people's hearsay?
04:07 Speaker 1
If the answer is no, then my opponent's argument is dead in the water.
04:11 Speaker 1
In rebuttal 4, my opponent claimed that the debate is between me and them and not a third party.
04:17 Speaker 1
That's a pretty hypocritical statement considering they themselves invite their
04:20 Speaker 1
god to act as a third party in the debate. They also show a fundamental misunderstanding of truth
04:25 Speaker 1
because they argue that just because their argument is logical and reasonable,
04:29 Speaker 1
then it is enough to make it valid.
04:30 Speaker 1
What my opponent does not realize is that being valid isn't the same as truth.
04:35 Speaker 1
You can have perfect logic and what you're saying is still not factual.
04:39 Speaker 1
The reason for that is due to the nature of logic itself.
04:42 Speaker 1
Logic can indeed be a guiding force for reason,
04:45 Speaker 1
but if relied on solely with no empirical basis or framework, it can justify literally anything.
04:50 Speaker 1
For instance, if I told you that animals have bones and that since sharks are a
04:55 Speaker 1
type of animal, they must therefore have bones themselves, you would not be able to argue
04:59 Speaker 1
against it from a logical perspective. However, studying the anatomy of the shark
05:03 Speaker 1
will prove me wrong, despite my perfect logic. I also never called my opponent a liar just
05:09 Speaker 1
because I dismissed their personal experiences. For me to call them a liar, I have to be accusing
05:13 Speaker 1
them of spreading a falsehood intentionally. However, all I have said so far was that we
05:17 Speaker 1
cannot know what actually happened in a personal story and therefore cannot treat it as true since
05:22 Speaker 1
it lacks verification. That is not the same thing.
05:25 Speaker 1
The same thing is calling someone a liar.
05:27 Speaker 1
Okay, now that I have basically addressed my opponent's arguments,
05:30 Speaker 1
I would like to add my own as for why dreams do not have divine meaning.
05:34 Speaker 1
If you remember, my opponent has made many arguments for why they believe dreams can be
05:39 Speaker 1
both meaningless and divinely inspired. One of their arguments was that dreams are ways for
05:43 Speaker 1
either Allah to communicate with you or evil spirits to mess with you. However, scientists
05:48 Speaker 1
have actually discovered a link between dreaming and memories and emotions that do not have a divine
05:54 Speaker 1
Recent studies under the name The Science Behind Dreaming have discovered that while dreams are
05:59 Speaker 1
indeed tied to memories and emotions, it serves primarily to keep people from developing health
00:01 Speaker 1
Hello voters. Due to the long nature of this debate, I decided to make a video dedicated
00:05 Speaker 1
to my arguments on the subject of dreams having divine messages or not. The first thing I would
00:10 Speaker 1
like to address is the pro's false claims of restricting them to a biased perspective.
00:15 Speaker 1
This assertion is untrue, as I have made no rules dictating how they would present their arguments.
00:20 Speaker 1
The only requirement of pro was to prove that dreams have divine or spiritual meanings behind
00:24 Speaker 1
them. My position has been based on scientific research that was backed up with sources showing
00:29 Speaker 1
the natural causes of dreams. Pro has responded by arguing that Islam and a personal story were
00:34 Speaker 1
sufficient evidence to establish the divine nature of dreaming. So if anyone is coming from a place
00:39 Speaker 1
of bias, it is my opponent who uses subjective forms of evidence rather than empirical research.
00:45 Speaker 1
The second thing I would like to address is the claim that I never excluded religion,
00:49 Speaker 1
and the implication that I am trying to limit the scope of their argument. While it is true that I
00:53 Speaker 1
never said my opponent could not use religion, I am also not limiting their argument simply because
00:58 Speaker 1
I offer rebuttals to them. I am not limiting their argument simply because I offer rebuttals to
00:59 Speaker 1
arguments based on religion. As a matter of fact, I expected it. However, just because you are
01:03 Speaker 1
allowed to use religion in your argument for divine nature of dreams, it does not mean that
01:08 Speaker 1
I can't point out flaws in doing so. So my opponent is really trying to claim victimhood
01:12 Speaker 1
where none exists. My opponent has also said that science has not studied religion and is not
01:17 Speaker 1
equipped to do so, going so far as to say scientists cannot directly measure or observe
01:22 Speaker 1
their spiritual significance. This is completely true, but not for the reasons they think.
01:26 Speaker 1
The reason science cannot study religion,
01:29 Speaker 1
is because science can only study what can be physically observed. Spirituality does not meet
01:34 Speaker 1
that standard. So it's not that scientists are unequipped, it is because nothing in spirituality
01:39 Speaker 1
can be physically observed to form a theory on them. My opponent's attempt to undermine the
01:43 Speaker 1
capabilities of science really works against their own argument. I will now address their
01:47 Speaker 1
second rebuttal claiming that historically the earliest universities and academic institutions
01:52 Speaker 1
were founded on religious principles. They even go so far as to boldly claim that, even today,
01:57 Speaker 1
religious studies remain a vital academic discipline, with PhD programs and rigorous
02:01 Speaker 1
research dedicated to the field. This entire argument is nothing more than sophistry.
02:06 Speaker 1
While it may be true that early-day academics and university was ruled under theocratic leadership,
02:11 Speaker 1
the actual academics of study were not. For example, even back during the medieval era,
02:16 Speaker 1
no teacher or academic claimed that the reason 2 plus 2 equals 4 is because gods created the
02:21 Speaker 1
universe to work that way. 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 no matter what religion you subscribe to,
02:27 Speaker 1
or what religion you are a follower of, or what religion you are a follower of, or do not. It is also
02:28 Speaker 1
why religion and academics do not mix. Religion is supported by beliefs while academics are
02:34 Speaker 1
discovered through rigorous studying and understanding. My opponent also claims that
02:38 Speaker 1
theology is an intellectual pursuit. That claim can be true if one is solely trying to understand
02:43 Speaker 1
the ideologies of the religion in question. However, that is not true when talking about
02:48 Speaker 1
non-theocratic fields. After all, can you remember the last time religion helped you
02:52 Speaker 1
in a biology class, much less came up? Because I certainly do not.
02:56 Speaker 1
I will address two more of my opponent's rebuttals before moving on to my own arguments,
Last 2 min was not transcribed by the software. Could not paste whole so will do in few message
I transcribed the video from my opponent and responded it in 3rd round, there was nothing new most of repeated arguments.
If you want I can paste here for you to see.
I have responded it and he neglected a lot of things from my 2nd round while I shifted my stances according to my opponent's demand into scientific. I always do that for all debates I always compare spiritual with material. First spiritual then material. My opponent thought I have only 1 argument under my sleeves. But I was going to respond according to science as I know atheist do not believe in spirituality even though the the topic at hand is spirituality yet they even do not begin to talk about it by saying it do not exist and consider themselves true by default. Which my opponent did and I point out this overconfidence which every single atheist show.
>Vote: Savant // Mod action: Removed at the Request of the Voter
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
Vote lemming not savant
You are absolutely right. Thanks for getting into this headache, it was such a drag.
Thank everybody :)
Not only they can't see dreams while sleeping it's far beyond but they even can't see even a person is awake. Lol what they do they just construct images or something after mapping stimuli of other people who when watch or see something and their brain shows activity.
And try to ruplicate it
Otherwise seeing dream or thought or vision in mind is equal to seeing consciousness which is impossible.
The hard problem or consciousness has never been solved..
Your last message was epic for this, nothing more was needed but still I thought I could relate whatever is within debate to solve the problem.
End of discussion.
I could not sleep lol
But I will sleep after this comment .
Con
According toĀ Medical news today.comĀ dreams are nothing more than "stories and or image's createdĀ by our minds while we sleep."Ā Ā
Pro
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.Ā
Conclusion:
From both definitions we can see dreams are created by the mind.
Mind:
I have talked about it in my debate.
But here is more insight
From a neuroscience perspective, the mind is often described as the result of neural processes within the brain that give rise to consciousness, cognition, emotions, and behavior. Here are some authoritative references:
1. Kandel, Eric R., et al. (2013). Principles of Neural Science.
This book discusses the neural basis of mental functions, such as perception, memory, and decision-making.
Relevant quote: "The mind arises from the activity of the brain, and understanding the brain is essential to understanding the mind."
2. Gazzaniga, Michael S., Ivry, Richard B., & Mangun, George R. (2018). Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind.
Explores the biological mechanisms underlying mental functions like attention, memory, and reasoning.
Relevant quote: "Cognitive neuroscience bridges the gap between the biological brain and the subjective mind."
3. Damasio, Antonio (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness.
Focuses on how brain processes produce consciousness and emotions.
Relevant insight: Consciousness is tightly linked to the neural networks responsible for perception and emotion.
Conclusion 2
About consciences and unconscious mind which create dreams has been discussed in great detail in my debate plz look.
Cons claim
That dreams are created by brain cannot be proven by science. Process occur in brain during we sleep do not produce dreams as by definition of con and pro both but mind. I have proven mind is not material but consciousness and dreams occur when brain is unconscious means not mindfull which is even more elevated state of non material existence or something which create dreams.
My definition
You can see involuntarily mind creates dreams in my definition while con relates it to experiment where dreamer responds to question. Which scientific research is valid and how can it be related to this case.
Mind is not physical and produce dreams and even the information I provided above are all related to immaterial abilities whether it's conginition thinking ability or memory. Nothing is material in mind.
Stop strawmaning bro, I have to sleep early today it's 11 pm here, I will discuss everything tomorrow and also lemming RFD as well
Come on brother, my video link was in 2nd round the last link, how atheism got into us.
The link of dream or non believer king was also neglected.
My light arguemnt was also neglected.
Nice try, but I submitted multiple sources that demonstrated that scientists can indeed observe dreams. In fact one of my sources highlighted an experiment that showed people being tested to be responsive to dreams when asked questions. More over, I explained in my arguments that scientists can monitor brain activity while someone is sleeping. Pro even acknowledged this. So, nothing was negated but your own inbility to be fair since you did not bother reading what I wrote or reviewed the evidence.
So how is this relevent to our debate?
This can verify the content of dreams which dreamer has told us, it even proves my point. Dreamer telling dream during dream or after does it change the fact there it's subjective and personal. Clearly dream being spiritual are 100 percent related to interpretation. Content must be analyzed and then interpreted later to whatever has been seen in dream is related to reality or not.
You must not be that childish to not understand this simple logic.
Then why you did not respond my personal video which I posted in my argument also why you completely dropped light arguemnt?
Bro seriously?
You said I have not put any source and yet you have confirmed my source and in fact explaining it. See my source can he checked so now where is your argument that I did not put any scientific source. Also you said URL is actually accepted source. Bro I have been debating for very long. It's not good now. You are not being sincere here.
Cherry picking some scientist was not my fault. Tbh have those sources written in my draft as well who backed your point and I could analyze them as well in more detail but their was not much space and also 3 rounds as well. That is why I said 3 rounds were not enough.
If 1 scientist back my point that should be enough, only 1 substantial witness is enough in courts for most os cases.
We cannot do anything about it as whatever is in debate judgement should be passed on it. And having chance to respond at last is something which is advantageous sometime. If it would have been 5 rounds then I could do more but I got the edge this time.