Debate Between Dualist and Materialist

S: Hello, my name is Simon Riley and I am here to debate as a Dualist.

C: Greetings, my name is Craig Fairbass, and I am going to be the judge. 

J: Hi, I’m John Price and I’m here to debate as a Materialist. Let’s get right to it.

S: Coming from the position as a Dualist, I will be the one to make the opening statement. There are unexplainable phenomena that happen for no logical reasons, emotion being a big one of these.

J: Emotions are just a result of our evolutionary care for every individual, our democracy. Because we are so complex, we have come to defend every single human being we possibly can, and not allowing evolution to work its course, we are an anomaly in a chain of natural phenomena.

S: You are disproving yourself, for if we are off the logical path, then it is not an explained phenomenon. Why do we have emotions, even before democracy or our morals came to be? What evolutionary purpose do emotions serve?

J: Perhaps it’s not purely following the laws of nature. Science has been, and can be wrong. That doesn’t prove or disprove the fact that there is no such thing as a non-physical extent of this realm.

C: First round has ended; allow a moment for the judges to give a score.

-          5 minutes later

C: Judge’s ruling, gives it to the side of Materialism, on Mr. Price’s side. 

J: My opening statement will be this following: A man has dreams as a result of brain function, a man has emotions as a result of complexity in brains, our complexity is seen in our great empire on this earth, why is it so baffling that some things appear non-physical, if our minds are this complex, physically, is a non-physical explanation that essential to explain such a thing?

S: Touching on Monism is a good argument, but a used one nonetheless. You are saying that nothing is of the realm of mind; all this is a result of complexity and biological evolution. But this brings me back again to the theory of evolution. If everything is really all material, why would we have emotions, or—

C: Repetitive argument, please make a final statement.

S: The mind exists, as seen by contradicting scientific rules.

J: The mind exists, true, but only as a form of a brain, synapses going across each other, information in electric impulsese. Idealism goes very well against *all* scientific theories, as opposed to materialism which only goes against a few in very minor ways. What Idealism suggests is that there possibly is an entity that controls the workings of our everyday lives, now that suggests that the laws of physics don’t apply, because gravity doesn’t control how fast things fall anymore, an entity does. This also goes against genetics, because then children are born as a result of magic, and not due to fertilization of egg cells. You may not hold this specific argument, but if you support the broad argument of Idealism, you say that this *might* be possible, and we are certain it is not at all possible.

C: Second round has ended; the judges are ready to give a score to John Price as a materialist. This debate is over, as there are three rounds, and you have already won the ruling majority of them. It is settled, idealism is not considered an officially working theory, as of this debate.