I challenge you: something does or does not exist.

You: argue that something exists or something does not exist.

I: argue the contrary (something does not exist or something exists).

You choose which position you would like to argue for when you announce that you challenge me to the debate.

The first challenger to challenge me in this thread is the official challenger.

3 posts each, within 3 days total (72 hours)

1 post minimum required daily by both posters, no maximum

The first poster is decided by the judge’s coin flip. The winner of the coin flip may either make the first post or pass to the opponent. There are no rules concerning posting/responding formats, as long it stays within the debate thread. You may use as many words/images/links as you would like in order to prove your point. Once the coin flip has been made, called, and decided upon, then the judge must open the formal debate thread to which the first poster must post. After the first post is made, the timer begins.

The first poster is obliged to prove the point given to him, no matter which point it is.

The first poster must prove either: 1) something exists, or 2) something does not exist.

Carleas must be the sole judge and he must give an extremely detailed explanation of why he believes the winner has ‘won’ the debate.

I argue that your challenge exists. I win. The end.

Just kidding, please do not regard my post as an official challenge. I do not feel like having my ass kicked today.

Is that a challenge? – lol.

LOL

Please be referred to the edited version of my post.

Everything exists.
Existence is context.
Everything exists in it’s context.
Every other ‘limited’ notion of existence is a ‘subset’ of the complete set of “everything exists”!
No ‘debate’ necessary, just a simple understanding of the definition.

Is that a challenge?

No, it’s a lesson.
I gave you the definition of existence that transcends debate. You can offer nothing that “does not exist” as evidence in rebuttal. With no evidence, there is no debate. All the evidence supports that ‘everything exists’.

I misunderstood your challenge at first. I thought one person would argue that a thing either existed or it didn’t, and that the other would then argue that it both existed and did not exist (i.e., was somewhere between “existence” and “non-existence”).

The thing is that “things” by definition exist, as (our) language treats only of “things”. It is therefore impossible in language to argue (logically) that a “thing” does not exist.

“This thing is non-existent.”

In this sentence, “non-existent” is technically an adjective. We may therefore rephrase the sentence as follows.

“This non-existent thing is [i.e., exists].”

This sentence breaks the law of non-contradiction, is therefore illogical, and therefore nonsensical. By the way, note that the word “this” already contradicts the supposed non-existence of what is referred to (and so would “that”, “some”, “a”, “my”, “the”, “every”, etc.).

Does the word “thing”, or any noun for that matter, contradict the supposed non-existence of what is referred to? Can one refer to a non-existent “what”? How about “nothing”? “Nothing” is obviously a contraction of “no” and “thing”. “No” in turn is a contraction of ‘na’ and ‘a’, meaning “not ever”. “Na” derives from ‘ne’, meaning “not”. “Not” makes what it refers to negative. In the case of “nothing”, or “non-existence”, this negation does not denote an opposite but an absence (in mathematical terms, “not 1” in this case would not mean -1 (let alone any other absolute number greater than 0), but 0 (“not even one!”)). “Absence” derives from the Latin ‘abesse’, a contraction of ‘ab-’ “away” and ‘esse’ “to be”, meaning a being-away. There can therefore never be talk of an absolute, but only of a relative absence (more absent here than there, where the “thing” in question “is”).

By the way, what do you mean by “prove” in your OP?

Sauwelios and others,

This thread should be reserved for undertaking my challenge only.

If you are not volunteering, then please don’t post, thank you!

I’m considering. What do you mean by “prove”?

I mean to prove whatever position I am given in the debate. – that something either does or does not exist.

It’s not certain that you are the one who has to prove his position (as that depends on the outcome of Carleas’ coin-flipping). Anyway, you still haven’t given a definition of “to prove”.

Sorry, I started it.

…Shit, I did it again!!!

Ok, I’m sorry, I’m done now.

The challenger determines who must prove what by default, as stated.

Are we required to quote anyone in this challenge? if its a text based challenge I can’t do it, but if its not I could give it a shot…
But lets clarify, when you say something, do you mean the existence of any object or existence periiod?

Sauwelios, I think the challenge is more against himself than any takers.

It seems he’s already mentally challenged by my question.

Unreasonable, when I ask you what you mean by “prove”, you cannot include that word in your definition.

The rules seem pretty clear and flexible to me. You can do just about anything you want within the challenge thread.

Sauwelios,

I don’t think I need to define “prove” here…

And I think you do. I certainly will not take up the gauntlet unless I know what is expected from me. You could forever maintain that I did not “prove” the existence or non-existence of the thing in question—in your sense of “prove”. So if you want me to accept your challenge, you’d better define “prove”.

As far as I know, the existence of a world external to my mind is not provable—as is the non-existence of such a world. All that stands proven, to me, is the existence of my experience—and not even whether it’s a perception or a hallucination. Do you see my difficulty?

He is right UR

Thanks.