Instigator / Pro
14
1500
rating
9
debates
72.22%
won
Topic
#5369

There are more ways to know the truth than by physical evidence.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
0
Better legibility
2
0
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

MAV99
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

This debate is focused on the different ways in which to know the truth and the veracity of each way.

As such, references will mainly be to the science of neuroscience and philosophy. I will consider any neuroscientist with a degree as a legitamate authority to quote, as well as any well regarded philosopher throughout history, all biases against their knowledge of the physical sciences disregarded. Links to the quote are prefered.

All terms one uses to defend their position must be, as best as possible, defined and explained in a short well developed paragraph. If no definition is possible, then at least the most accurate description according to the user.

REAL-TRUE-FACTS MUST BE EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE AND OR LOGICALLY-NECESSARY

-->
@7000series

I would, except I agree with your topic of debate.

Nevermind then.

-->
@MAV99

I will accept this debate if you accept my debate - "People always have a moral responsibility to think critically about their actions."

My favorie ways of knowing the truth are via rational evidence and empirical reasoning.