Philosophy is futile

[kedaman]

The person with the more logical, evidence-supported argument. Who else would win a debate? Or do you think it really is arbitrary?

There are mutually exclusive positions not empirically supported, equally supported by logic. For instance that the world has a beginning in time, and is also spatially limited, versus that the world has no beginning and is not spatially limited. This is Kant's first antinomy of pure reason.

 

[Hands Open]

Philosophy is futile? It doesn't progress? "God" says it's worthless?
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; becuase these questions enlarge our concept of what is possible, deepen our intellectual imagination, and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation.

For proof that dogma can lead to not thinking I point you to the OP.

 

[Hands Open]

who defines who wins anyway? Or do you think there is an objective game which everyone has to agree on?
Pythagoras: Truth is subjective, it is mere opinion.
Socrates: Do you really mean that something is true by virtue of being my opinion?
Pythagoras: Yes.
Socrates: Then my opinion is this: Truth is not subjective, truth is objective and you are wrong.
Pythagoras: You are correct.
Who wins?

Just what kind of "christian" are you anyways?
Do you refer to Socrates as being the end all be all of what is truth?
Do you believe god is absolute?

You make strange arguments for one who believes there is a god.

Also, pointing out a paradox doesn't support anything.

The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.

All that you have shown is that pythagoras has said something that cannot logially mean anything, the same as the sentances I have written above.

Truth is subjective, (kinda). As a society and a race we decide that solopsism isn't true even though we can't logically refute it. Being skeptical about everything gains us nothing so we go with what makes the most sense. In this there is the asumption that there is a reason for one thing to make more sense than another. So even though life is still subjective in general, we have probability and logic to decide amongst possible options.

So your opinion isn't simply true because you have it, as truth is not completly subjective as long as we have circumstances to base our opinions on. Agreeing with this is all part of being in a society. You may disagree that blue is blue because in the end it is indeed subjective, but in a society of people that will get you nowhere.

So to answer your question, the winner is determined by the defintions set by the society, and who's opnion matches these definitions the closest. You've seen a society like this. It called america.