CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
33
of course not bare assertion fallacy
Debate Score:52
Arguments:82
Total Votes:60
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 of course not (18)
 
 bare assertion fallacy (20)

Debate Creator

TzarPepe(336) pic



The supreme and ultimate reality is a bare assertion fallacy?

My argument is "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". I want to make it clear that I have nothing to do with my argument. I am simply framing the debate, and pointing to the one who is making the case.

Dermot claims that "the supreme and ultimate reality" is an argument that commits a bare assertion fallacy

"In philosophical terms, your argument commits a “bare assertion fallacy” i.e. the argument is assumed to be true merely because it says it is true, and it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent in the original statement it purports to prove. After all, the same ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all."


To make this clear, Dermot is claiming that the supreme and ultimate reality.... Not me... Not anything I'm saying... but THE SUPREME AND ULTIMATE REALITY is a bare assertion fallacy.





of course not

Side Score: 19
VS.

bare assertion fallacy

Side Score: 33
1 point

The fact that I've managed to get all these people to admit that they believe in The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is very telling.

They don't actually believe that The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is a fallacy. They only have a problem with me because they know I rep Jesus.

Ya'll think you know Jesus, but do you really know Jesus? I don't think so.

My faith is only strengthened by the purity of what I say, and the type of reaction that it is met with. I must be in a pit of demons!

I hope that ya'll get rid of your demon problem one day.

Side: of course not
Dermot(3644) Disputed Banned
1 point

Ah , you represent Jesus now I wonder how he feels about that ?

So you believe in demons also ? I guess they're part of the supreme and ultimate reality along with talking serpents and Baalam the famed biblical ass who was gifted with the power of ..... speech

Side: bare assertion fallacy
TzarPepe(336) Clarified
1 point

My position is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.

You don't have to believe in the bible or Jesus, or any of that stuff. It's only right there along with what I'm saying because it is a witness. You don't have to believe in the bible to believe in God.

Side: of course not
-6 points
Amarel(2388) Disputed
7 points

Dermot does not deny the existence of Ultimate reality, he denies that god is an appropriate term for ultimate reality. Furthermore, biblical verses cannot be shown to be the word of ultimate reality anymore than satanic verses.

I could say that god is TzarPepe. Would you deny the existence of TzarPepe? Of course not, since you ARE TzarPepe. Anyone who denies that you are god does not consequently deny that you exist.

Another topic entirely is the question of whether or not TzarPepe wrote Beowulf. If Beowulf was written by a regular mortal man, then it has no bearing on whether TzarPepe is god, which has no bearing on whether TzarPepe exists.

To make the analogy perfectly clear. Whether the Bible was written by Ultimate Reality is a different matter than whether Ultimate Reality is god. The existence of Ultimate Reality is not synonymous with the existence of god if god is not the correct term for ultimate reality.

The naming of a thing known to exist as synonymous with a thing of questionable existence is not an argument of reason aimed at truth, but rather an argument of semantics aimed at rhetoric.

Side: bare assertion fallacy
Dermot(3644) Banned
1 point

Thanks Amarel for correcting yet another misrepresentation of my position by ..... a frog

Side: bare assertion fallacy
TzarPepe(336) Clarified
0 points

Ok, so Dermot believes in the ultimate reality. As you do too?

That's all that needs to be said.

You both believe in the existence of God.

Side: of course not
Dermot(3644) Banned
3 points

This is your seventh debate on the very same topic each one has been destroyed yet you persist , whys that ?

I list several of the informal fallacies you make in your deeply flawed arguments .

I note also you your attempt at totally misrepresenting my position to others I thank Amarel and Winston for stating the truth about what I actually said .

I see now you have also resorted to dishonesty and Ad Hominem against others who correct your nonsense .

First I shall list the several informal fallacies you're guilty off ....

Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.[17]

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[18]

Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."[19]

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;[20][21] sometimes confused with proof by assertion

Here is your very first statement regarding the whole essence of your argument ,

YOU SAID .......

The Ultimate Reality is The Ultimate Reality.

"I AM that I AM" is what God said.

Salvation can only be from God."

This is the God I believe in. Do you deny my God? Do you deny our Lord?

God, The Ultimate Reality, The Supreme Being, The Highest Truth, The Sanctifier, Our Shepherd, The One who is present, The Healer, The Righteousness, The Provider, The Peace, The Most High, The One who sees, The Almighty, The Everlasting, The Anointed One.

MY REPLY WAS .......

In philosophical terms, your argument commits a “bare assertion fallacy” i.e. the argument is assumed to be true merely because it says it is true, and it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent in the original statement it purports to prove. After all, the same ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all.

You need a new argument I've destroyed it so has Amarel , Winston and several others , proof by assertion is yet another fallacious argument you're guilty off count yourself defeated ...... yet again

Side: bare assertion fallacy
TzarPepe(336) Clarified
1 point

You can't destroy my argument. To think so is delusional. My argument is perfect.

The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.

If you think you can undermine that, you can't possibly know what it is you are putting into question.

Side: of course not
Dermot(3644) Disputed Banned
1 point

You say..... you can't destroy my argument ..... But I did and everyone else did also , worse for you everyone can see your humiliation

Side: of course not
2 points

Obviously there is an "ultimate reality", however this reality we inhabit could be the "ultimate reality". Since you don't believe that this reality is the ultimate reality but you do believe that an ultimate reality exists, stating that a higher, ultimate reality must exist is a baseless assertion.

Side: bare assertion fallacy
TzarPepe(336) Clarified
0 points

You believe that there is "ultimate reality".

Just stop right there. The rest of what you say ceases to make any sense after you realize that I'm talking about that. You aren't looking at the right thing.

What I think, believe, say, etc. is not what I'm talking about.

The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.

I am not important.

I must become less, so that The Word becomes more.

Side: of course not
WinstonC(864) Disputed
2 points

Dermot isn't disputing the fact that a reality is the ultimate reality, or at least not from what I've seen.

Side: of course not
Amarel(2388) Disputed
1 point

I must become less, so that The Word becomes more

The existence of ultimate reality does not logically lead to your statements about ultimate reality.

Side: of course not
Dermot(3644) Banned
1 point

I did not say the supreme and ultimate reality is a bare assertion fallacy what I actually said was ........

"In philosophical terms, your argument commits a “bare assertion fallacy "

See the difference ? Why are you so disengenous and continually lying regarding what others actually said ?

You're truly a dreadful debater and running round saying everyone is wrong and you're right is simply childish and sadly typical in your case

Side: bare assertion fallacy
TzarPepe(336) Clarified
1 point

You were disingenuous from the get go because you weren't really listening to MY argument despite the fact that I've corrected you a baker's dozen or so times.

You can't address my argument because you know it makes you wrong. You always want to divert to something else. You want to talk about everything really except the big G.

You already know deep down, probably not even that deep down that denying The Supreme and Ultimate Reality makes you an idiot.

You still are doing it. You are still talking about me.

I'm not making my argument. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is the argument. It isn't my argument. It stands alone.

You are too weak to topple The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. You know you can't win that battle.

Side: of course not
Nomenclature(1181) Clarified
2 points

You can't address my argument

You seem to be under the false impression that you have an argument. You don't have an argument. Pretending that God and reality are the same word with the same definition therefore God is real is not an argument. It's a false conclusion founded on an equally false premise.

Side: of course not
Dermot(3644) Disputed Banned
2 points

Ah so that's the game , because I stated you're disengenous and a compulsive liar and I proved it you turn my charge back on me ; you never corrected me you merely said because you say something is true well then it must be true ; your argument from assertion is yet another failure to add to the 6 that I mentioned already .

Your argument and attempt at using Indian mysticism and in particular your thinking on reality is something you possibly read on the back of a cereal box because like the bible you only have a fleeting knowledge of what you proclaim to know ; no doubt you're possibly a big fan of the equall nutty Deepak Chopra who comes out with the self same horseshit

Side: of course not