Debate: Proofs and arguments within

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Another quote for the "Debate Wall of Shame." And it hasn`t been proven that somewhere under the crust of the Earth there are little green men living in a society we have not discovered yet. I assume that they do not live there because it has not been proven. I am under no obligation to prove that they do or to live my life on the possibility that they do. Or perhaps we should all accept the possibility that they do live there since it has not been proven that they do not. In that case we should spend billions of dollars making absolutely sure that they do or do not live there so we can be sure that our deep drilling into the earth does not cause them damage. See how absurd proving negatives are? -- particularly when related to science if that perception of negatives being possible until proven is suposed to be held in equal consideration to the positive or what we know is most probable. To live one`s life based on the improbabilities due to negatives not being proven is the road to neurotic land -- the place where functioning in a world society would cease.

Um, it'd be relatively easy to support the claim, "plants don't feel." Just like my original point, in any practical situation, you can easily prove a negative to the same degree as a positive. In this case, what would interpret feelings in a plant? If it lacks the needed components, and we were able to agree on the biological components of "feeling feelings", then we could safely say plants don't have feelings.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin See how absurd proving negatives are? -- particularly when related to science if that perception of negatives being possible until proven is suposed to be held in equal consideration to the positive or what we know is most probable.

Ok, an example. You've probably heard about this in your history lessons sometime... People living many many many years ago thought the world to be FLAT. In fact, people were prosecuted for believing otherwise, and I've heard of cases of some people being ahnged because of their beliefs.

You see, this is believing a positive. It doesn't make one neurotic to try to prove a negative. You have to look at both sides until you've come to a conclusion, something either does or doesn't. They are both equal until proven 100% factual. Therefore, since the earth is a sphere, it's easy to say that the people who thought the world was flat, to be neurotic.

So you see, both sides, either proving a negative, or proving a positive are equal in every sense, until one of them has been PROVEN.


Accepting that something is true, when it's not been proven, means you are ignorant. Facts change every day to falses, and falses to facts. YOUR ruse will not work.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer If it lacks the needed components, and we were able to agree on the biological components of "feeling feelings", then we could safely say plants don't have feelings.

Yes, LC, but what makes you think your opponant is going to agree upon the biological componants as we can relate to them as they pertain to feelings of pain? You would be opening yourself up to a whole other debate -- debating what feelings are and others, etc.... That is why opponants to vegetarianism bring up the "how do you know plants don`t have feelings or can`t feel pain. Prove they don`t." They know they can ultimately hide with the "maybe they have feelings different from us that we can`t sense or measure presently" trump card.

This just underscores my point, that in debate, particularly those issues having to do with science, one does not seek to prove a negative but rather a positive.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Another Debate Wall of Shame entry from the "Vegetarianism" thread:

Quote by: Kubedawg So, please provide proper documentation supporting your claim that plants do not suffer, or contain less life than that of an animal.

One does not set out to prove negatives -- particularly in regards to science. If one has an assertion in the positive to make, then they are the ones who hold the burden of proof. If until a positive has not met the burden of proof, then it need not be accepted as so. So, until someone can prove that plants have pain and can suffer, it is quite acceptable to believe that in all probability they do not.

[kubedawg]

What if the negative becomes proven? Does it then become a positive? No, it becomes fact.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg What if the negative becomes proven? Does it then become a positive? No, it becomes fact.

The inverse positive is stated as fact.

Scientists, and for the most part the public in general also, do not usually speak of facts in the negative. Sure, they can, but most people choose to speak in the positive about facts.

Example:

Interviewer: Mrs. Smith, please describe the shape of the Earth.
Mrs. Smith: It is round.

Note: she and most would not normally answer in the negative, "it is not flat."

Another example:

Interviewer: Mrs. Smith, please describe the greatest attribute of your husband.
Mrs. Smith: He is loyal.

Note: She and most would usually not reply with "He does not cheat on me."

[Cephus]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I don't think this site is exclusive to people with debate experience. Hell, I don't even have a college education, as I am sure others here do not.

It isn't about having debate experience, it's about understanding logic. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of people yelling at each other and making no sense at all while doing it.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin The inverse positive is stated as fact. Scientists, and for the most part the public in general also, do not usually speak of facts in the negative. Sure, they can, but most people choose to speak in the positive about facts. Example: Interviewer: Mrs. Smith, please describe the shape of the Earth. Mrs. Smith: It is round. Note: she and most would not normally answer in the negative, "it is not flat." Another example: Interviewer: Mrs. Smith, please describe the greatest attribute of your husband. Mrs. Smith: He is loyal. Note: She and most would usually not reply with "He does not cheat on me."

I do not think in the negative. I think 50/50 almost always. Even if I were to be on your side about this, you would still think less of me as I am not as one sided as you are. Because I think 50/50 I understand the importance of having negatives because you cannot have one without the other, until it's proven, and to say that it is neurotic to think of the possibility of a negative, regardless of whether or not it's accepted, is just plain retarded.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg Even if I were to be on your side about this, you would still think less of me as I am not as one sided as you are.

No, I would think you are trying to be intellectually honest and respectful of how people assert in areas of debate and how those are accepted in most cases by science, law, and acadamia. I would think you have just merely ceded a point you have been defending and have come to realize there is nothing wrong in retraction when one has been wrong.

I would not think less of you as a person. Relinquishing a point you are just wrong in would make me think more of you.

[StrongHeartsWin]

More for the debate wall of shame and those who insist on thinking proofs are for negatives:

Quote by: Kubedawg No, you provide information that proves my theory incorrect

[kubedawg]

Proofs are both positive and negative. WTF don't you get about that? Can someone talk some sense into this person? And stop with that wall of shame, it just shows that you cannot debate properly and have to take it personally.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg Proofs are both positive and negative.

I never said proofs cannot be negative. I clearly said that in science and mostly in law and acadamia, assertions are propelled and based on positive proofs. Perhaps since this site is focused on debate and respect for the spirit of debate, admin and moderators may want to weigh in with their opinions on the topic of how proofs assertions are generally put forth and accepted as answer and in the form of question.

So, admin and mods, what is your opinion? Which is the mostly adhered to and accepted in the disciplines of science, law, and acadamia?

A) No one is under any obligation to prove a negative in an argument.

B) We are under obligation to prove a negative by someone who offers it up as an arguement.

For those who have gone to higher education, the answer should be quite easy as to what is the norm in the major disciplines.

WTF don't you get about that? Can someone talk some sense into this person? And stop with that wall of shame, it just shows that you cannot debate properly and have to take it personally.

Kubedawg, the Debate Wall of Shame is here as an educational reference for those who do not understand the normal rigors of debate as it pertains to burden of proof, and the obfuscating techniques employed by those who counter positive arguments by trying to tell someone to prove a negative. Such a thread should be indispensible to the spirit of a forum dedicated to debate -- for it educates the uneducated on those issues.

Moderator Chris made a general thread about debate, I wonder why he didn`t add more detail to it such as I have been adding and pointing out here. Perhaps he will come on this thread and explain to you that in science, law, and acadamia, one is under no obligation to prove a negative. It would benefit you to see someone point that out to you as to what is the norm in debate and proofs.

[Kamehameha34]

Let me clarify something:

Comparing one form of life to another is not asking you to "prove a negative".

I was merely suggesting that plants may, due to the presence of life, feel pain, and anyone sincerely honor-bound to avoid the pain and suffering of others would have considered that.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Let me clarify something: Comparing one form of life to another is not asking you to "prove a negative".

You were not comparing or asking me to compare. You were asking me to "consider" an unproven negative as a balance and put it on equal value of what we know about animals with central nervous systems.

I was merely suggesting that plants may, due to the presence of life, feel pain, and anyone sincerely honor-bound to avoid the pain and suffering of others would have considered that.

Your statement below is obfuscation because you want the consideration for a negative to be put forth as a balance against a positive and then considered equally. To put it out as a balance is asking one to give it equal credence or consideration just as some could ludicrously claim,

"If you are adverse to causing property damage from underground exploration, then why would you just assume little green men don`t live under the Earth somewhere because it hasn`t been proven that they do? After all, it hasn`t been proven that they don`t occupy some space we have not yet explored."

That is the construct you have below with different values substituted. It is built on the ludicrous argument technique of employing negatives to prove a point or to act as a balance against a point. It is even more unacceptable with science -- such as biology.

Quote by: Kamehameha Quote: If you are so adverse to causing pain, then why would you just assume plants don't feel it because it hasn't been proven that they do? After all, it hasn't been proven that they don't.

You would best serve future arguments of yours on most topics if you abandon that debate technique. It does nothing to disprove or even mitigate the positive of another`s argument. It just leads you open to personal scrutiny that you are not well versed in debate or what is acceptable in use for assertions or counter assertions -- not to mention science and how things are asserted or challenged within it.

[Chris]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Moderator Chris made a general thread about debate, I wonder why he didn`t add more detail to it such as I have been adding and pointing out here. Perhaps he will come on this thread and explain to you that in science, law, and acadamia, one is under no obligation to prove a negative. It would benefit you to see someone point that out to you as to what is the norm in debate and proofs.

Sorry where was this?

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin So, admin and mods, what is your opinion? Which is the mostly adhered to and accepted in the disciplines of science, law, and acadamia? A) No one is under any obligation to prove a negative in an argument. B) We are under obligation to prove a negative by someone who offers it up as an arguement. For those who have gone to higher education, the answer should be quite easy as to what is the norm in the major disciplines.

C) We are able to acknowledge the fact that there are positives and negatives, and under no obligation to prove or disprove either as they are equals, and because trying to prove just a positive based on the assertion of most people, doesn't make you, or any of those people correct, until that positive has been proven. The same situation goes for negatives, jsut because people's assertion is against a specific idea or theory, does not make it untrue, until it has been disproven.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Chris Sorry where was this?

Sorry, Chris. I must have confused one of the other threads. Any rate, since you are here, what is your view on telling someone to prove a negative?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg C) We are able to acknowledge the fact that there are positives and negatives, and under no obligation to prove or disprove either as they are equals, and because trying to prove just a positive based on the assertion of most people, doesn't make you, or any of those people correct, until that positive has been proven.

No one has ever denied acknowledging that positives and negatives exist in the world. The issue is that: In the science disciplines no one is under any obligation to prove or disprove a negative and he who asserts a positve is under obligation to prove his assertion. You do not understand that basic tenet of science and debate.

As for the underlined, how can something that is asserted in positive form become proven until someone tries to prove it??? You seem to think that it can. That statement leaves me baffled as I guess it does others as well.

The same situation goes for negatives, just because people's assertion is against a specific idea or theory, does not make it untrue, until it has been disproven.

That is right -- it may not make it untrue, but no one is under any obligation to disprove it or consider it equal in consideration to what is proven or what is most probable until the positive which is against the negative is shown to be false. Just because one does not go out of their way to disprove a negative does not mean one should take it into consideration if there is no evidence supporting any probable likelhood of it as being true.

Look:

It has not been proven that green men do not live under the crust of the Earth at some place. So, you are under obligation to believe it or consider it with the equal probability that they do not. Since John believes they do, you must not discount that they do not until you prove they have not.

Absurd! And that is the reasong and logic you are wanting us to accept?!

Amongst you other readers -- Who amongst you adhere to the logic and reason he is telling you is correct? I am curious as to who buys into this ludicrous point being put forth? Surely, most of you do not, do you??? -- regardless if you agree or disagree with me on any aspect of animal issues or vegetarianism.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin You were not comparing or asking me to compare. You were asking me to "consider" an unproven negative as a balance and put it on equal value of what we know about animals with central nervous systems.

We don't know if plants experience pain, but we DO know that death does NOT cause pain, only the processes before it, which can be avoided with instantaneous death. And I thought your desire to not cause pain would allow you to consider an uncertain amount of pain after you consider this minimal/nonexistant amount of pain.

Your statement below is obfuscation because you want the consideration for a negative to be put forth as a balance against a positive and then considered equally. To put it out as a balance is asking one to give it equal credence or consideration just as some could ludicrously claim, "If you are adverse to causing property damage from underground exploration, then why would you just assume little green men don`t live under the Earth somewhere because it hasn`t been proven that they do? After all, it hasn`t been proven that they don`t occupy some space we have not yet explored." That is the construct you have below with different values substituted. It is built on the ludicrous argument technique of employing negatives to prove a point or to act as a balance against a point. It is even more unacceptable with science -- such as biology.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you wouldn't be able to understand that it wasn't an argument, merely a suggestion, and probe. If I knew your specific thoughts regarding the avoidance of pain, then I would be able to make a more effective argument. Instead, you want to tie it down in subjectivities, so we ultimately have to keep repeating ourselves or agree to disagree.

You would best serve future arguments of yours on most topics if you abandon that debate technique. It does nothing to disprove or even mitigate the positive of another`s argument. It just leads you open to personal scrutiny that you are not well versed in debate or what is acceptable in use for assertions or counter assertions -- not to mention science and how things are asserted or challenged within it.

Ok, next time I address you, I'll make sure it's in argument format, since anything I say will be applied to a debate, whether or not it's my intent. :rolleyes:
I don't have to do that with anyone else, but whatever.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Look: It has not been proven that green men do not live under the crust of the Earth at some place. So, you are under obligation to believe it or consider it with the equal probability that they do not. Since John believes they do, you must not discount that they do not until you prove they have not.

What this brings up is something that is so farfetched, noone would ever believe it unless they were on a bad trip of acid or something. Plants, on the other hand, are things that ACTUALLY exist, and they ACTUALLY live, therefore, it's not that farfetched to believe they have feeling without a central nervous system. In fact, it's not farfetched to believe that ALL living organisms have feeling of some sort.

I'm trying to tell you that just because it's a positive, because others up to now have said it's probable that plants do not feel, does NOT make it true. This is a situation where only science can figure it out. Because plants are very different from us, it's very difficult I assume, however, in this particular case, it is more important to question the positive and think of the negative as well. I'm not saying to always believe the negative, that would make a person neurotic, as you've said, but always believing the positive, is also being neurotic, so you must consider both although one might be more believed, because the positive may be untrue when proven. You have taken this thread and exaggerated it and it makes your statements ludicris.