Biological reincarnation is real.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 19,999
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
It's evident, it's true that the topic is correct. It's scientific as in realizing everything around us.
Even philosophically broached by Swami Satchidananda . Everything that is will be.
That's as far as I'll go in the description. If you're really sharp, you'll see the topic is fact and non-contestable .
*Looking for arguments against only biological reincarnation*
- Pro bears the full burden of proof, and failure to uphold such alone is sufficient for a con victory. The definition of reincarnation itself informs us that it is a "philosophical or religious concept," so pro also holds the burden to prove that it is a biological one as well.
- Con need not provide any argument of his own.
- Biological: of or relating to biology or to life and living processes
- Reincarnation: reincarnation, also known as rebirth or transmigration, is the philosophical or religious concept that the non-physical essence of a living being begins a new life in a different physical form or body after biological death.
- Real: having objective independent existence (b) not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory.
- Nothing to rebut, no argument from pro. He bears the entire burden of proof here.
- Extend.
- Not objected to, and consequently accepted.
- Pro has not upheld his burden of proof.
- Extend. Pro has not made a single argument for the resolution.
- Not objected to, and consequently accepted.
- Pro has not upheld his burden of proof.
Done.
I would like my vote on this debate removed on the grounds that I no longer agree with it.
I already believe that reincarnation is logically possible, especially as a theist, so I already agree with such a position. I am only accepting these debates to directly benefit from incompetent people. I would say if reincarnation is true, it would be in a metaphysical sense which is not explicitly biological. I also want to place a halt on explicit metaphysics debates because for now because I want to read more into the branch. It seems to me that we agree on a lot more than we disagree in my impression however.
Would you be interested in debating in this same topic, Novice? i would prefer to put it as "reincarnation is not illogical" or "reincarnation has good evidence". Would you be interested? I will of course take mall's position on the matter.
Doesn't matter. This person is obsessed with this topic.
I would recommend putting a definition for "biological reincarnation" in the description.