The Instigator
Aerogant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

A Brutal Research Made On Fungi

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,026 times Debate No: 59599
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

Aerogant

Pro

I spent 1 hour of research to prove to you that I'm not fooling around, so here it goes. My more in-depth theory on what fungi is, along with very interesting things to consider which I put together based upon this research.

The fungi exists in both water and land - there's more land species than water species. The mushroom is shaped like a jelly fish, so I cross-referenced the human fingers to that of a jelly fish's ability to use its "what seems like a finger" to electrocute, after also researching if electricity only travels to your fingers upon shuffling your feet, to come to a fascinating conclusion that our finger's design is based on the design of a jelly fish, and the shape of the jellyfish does resemble fingers, legs in some form. Then I dug deeper, literally, because the mushrooms are underground and give life to all the other trees - again, I did more research, and found out that the nails are the best way to tell if we have any disease or not, therefore the fingernails are connected to the rest of the body (forest) and on top of that, ironically, I also figured out that the fingers in their design are exactly like a species of baby mushrooms; pink on the base, and as it reaches its ends, it turns white! Here's a picture: http://snag.gy...

As you can see, I do my researches in a way that I don't just regurgitate other information - I create bigger, more expansive conclusions based upon a heated hour of curiosity, I am very proud to have discovered yet another piece of the puzzle. It all makes sense, now. It also explains why the human hair reminds me of the under-side of a mushroom's cap, and why we use the phrase "thinking cap". Yes! This is a break through for me!

(This is for Domr, since I'm not sure where the last debate went; I did cut some parts, to make it less "me", as my previous elation has died down since then).
9spaceking

Con

I accept. My opponent must prove why his research is brutal, since the resolution is "A Brutal Research Made On Fungi" and my opponent is pro.
Brutal: savage; cruel; inhuman.
I would like to ask why his research is either savage, cruel, or inhuman.
From: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Aerogant

Pro

Well, you see, there was once a man named Domr, that could not win a debate with me because one day I decided to do something clever; I argued the term "debate", by debating against it, as the term "debate" means "two-sided argument", in which I contested thoroughly, somewhat profoundly, as I knew very well that we lived in an omni-directional sea of cosmos, where "here" is no other than space, as all things directional are merely distinctions, much like the term "debate", which resorts to logical fallacies by reducing the world and ideas to a "war between two people", even though everything is universal, affected at some point, in some manner, due to the butterfly effect, therefore I have thus proven that the term "debate" was an inaccurate distinction, especially when compared to the entirety of this realm we live in, because life is not about wars or "two-way streets", it's omni-free, and anybody, anything, can go anywhere it goes provided the conditions meet them, rather than having other life forms make up standards of conditions for them.
9spaceking

Con

My opponent has failed to show how his research was brutal.
Debate Round No. 2
Aerogant

Pro

It's an adjective - why are you debating the adjective, not the fungi research I did? It's like me using the title "I wrote a cool book", and you'll accept the debate based entirely on the term "cool", with the statement: "Why is it cool?", well friend, I can't tell you because adjectives are the most subjective parts of a title.
9spaceking

Con

I am debating the adjective because it is the crucial pinpoint of the debate. You showed absolutely no sources in your fungi research (okay, one in the very beginning) but in no way is that even remotely savage or inhuman.
Debate Round No. 3
Aerogant

Pro

No, it's not. I was merely referring to how I took a single hour to break down the Universe's design even more to the point it's really becoming profound to even consider that human life evolved from ocean life, let alone the jelly fish. It is brutal to me to drop so much ice on this guy's fire, like I would call it brutal if I put too much ice in someone's cup of tea. It's brutal, because it's the word I used to describe how much pressure and odds I went against in 1 hour to prove what my brain is truly capable of.

Now, stop with the tautology - either address the profound part, or forfeit and pretend this debate never existed. I am not going to win pointless debates.
9spaceking

Con

We don't know how much information you got in one hour. We can only deduce from paragraph one.
You said: "The fungi exists in both water and land - there's more land species than water species. The mushroom is shaped like a jelly fish, so I cross-referenced the human fingers to that of a jelly fish's ability to use its "what seems like a finger" to electrocute, after also researching if electricity only travels to your fingers upon shuffling your feet, to come to a fascinating conclusion that our finger's design is based on the design of a jelly fish, and the shape of the jellyfish does resemble fingers, legs in some form. Then I dug deeper, literally, because the mushrooms are underground and give life to all the other trees - again, I did more research, and found out that the nails are the best way to tell if we have any disease or not, therefore the fingernails are connected to the rest of the body (forest) and on top of that, ironically, I also figured out that the fingers in their design are exactly like a species of baby mushrooms; pink on the base, and as it reaches its ends, it turns white!"
Here's what you figured out in one hour:
1. Fungi is both water and land species
2. Mushroom is shaped like Jellyfishes
3. Electricity stuff that don't help you research mushrooms, because mushrooms don't create electricity
4. Mushrooms give life to all other trees
5. Fingernails are the best way to tell if we have any disease or not (irrelevant)
6. Fingers in their design are exactly like a species of baby mushrooms

However, since 2 of your points are null, you actually learned only 5 facts. That's not brutal at all. In fact I can just search up 14 facts in merely one minute. [1] And I didn't think it was savage or hard at all! If you think finding 6 facts in one hour is "brutal", then you've got a lot to learn.

[1] http://www.health24.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Aerogant

Pro

Wait, it's not?

So... Dark matter isn't ignorance?

The star isn't neurons in our brain?

Fire isn't passion and will?

Water isn't wisdom, shape and consciousness?

Electrons don't behave like bees?

The human heart doesn't have three stages akin to three heart stages of sea creatures?

The human body doesn't create the same waves of energy as a planet body?

The human eye isn't the birth of a galaxy, or the shape of a nebula, or the shape of a galaxy at birth?

The human genitalia and the human facial organs are not connected, even though both sides of the body contain erectile tissues?

The sky outside of our windows does not have the qualities of how our ideas come and go, even though we use it as a metaphor in comic illustration books?

The human's biology system isn't on the same frequency as the planet?

The human body doesn't emit its signals in the same way as a leaf sends signals to other leafs?

The human's nails and eyes have no relationship with the oyster, the bone material produced by it and what happens to a pearl when it goes bad - that it turns yellow?

There's nothing special about spirals, like the sink hole, the whirlpool, the black hole and the tornado?

There's no connection between how there is a consciousness and a sub conscious, as there is a surface and a depth to every ocean?

There's no relationship between the births of human life and space life, even though they both start out in dark times, being free to become anything?

There is no evidence that demonstrates the human heart being a larger brain than the brain itself, even though the brain follows the heart, not the other way around?

That the mushroom picture clearly doesn't show the Universe used it to design our fingers?

That the jelly fish doesn't look like the mushroom, which doesn't have similarities to the design of our fingers in a Universe that is scientifically proven to have a self-similarity system where in the wisest of men have never said, "As above, so below"?

That the human life never came from the ocean life? Even though the coral mimics the design of our bone structure?

That the human body standing up makes it harder for people to make the connection, as the human body should be on all fours like a turtle, so everything makes sense then?

That the fingers, while on all fours, is on ground level, which creates the design of a plant - how our body, hands and feet mimic the design of plant roots?

In other words, Con, learn how to argue against an inner genius before you make a fool out of yourself by demonstrating that you are here to troll and treat these discussions like a toy for transient power and pretentiousness. I am breaking down this entire Universe to levels that you could only dream of doing - while you sit around doing nothing with your brain, and picking at the brains of others. You keep doing that, while I define this Universe and tie it to the human existence to explain to people what human experience truly is on such a grand level that takes more than you'll ever have in your life at the rate you are going, to ever piece together. I sacrificed my childhood and my desires to make sense out of everything - I did not do this so people like you that chose to hold yourself back from intelligence and wisdom could condescend me and miss the entire point of every angle of all that is context, which you misunderstood because you are not here to understand - you are just here for some imaginary set of points, when winning is the unrealized defeat - if you are winning, then it's because you have not found a challenge in your life. I will continue to make myself lose by searching for ways to challenge myself, while you continue to be an opal easily scratched by basic statements made by me, and I will live on as the diamond that cannot break after the sheer heat I have put myself through over these years to go beyond humanity and insanity.

Can't make sense? Make noise! You should be a politician Con, because you don't make examples; you make excuses. You don't solve problems; you shift problems. You don't stand behind your statements; you stand behind your stasis!

It profoundly disturbs that when errors occur, the last thing people are concern with is whether they are the problem.
9spaceking

Con

FINAL ROUND
The stuff about humans and deep philosophical life is completely irrelevant. You are researching about mushrooms, fungi in particular. You made merely one statement that fungi were similar to humans' fingers. The end.

In conclusion, vote me. My opponent has failed to show how he did a brutal research on fungi. He has merely shown a brutal resarch on human life and human body, nothing relevant to fungi.

VOTE ME.

Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
Domr, the "most agreed upon format" is the same quality in manner of the bipartisan group system, which again, was profoundly prohibited by the founding fathers, whom which were geniuses in their own right - very young, too; I believe some were as young as 18 when they signed the Declaration. Being "agreed upon" does not necessarily mean it's a good thing - it more than likely is a terrible design being pushed into implementation by stupid people that have no idea what the difference is between reality and their rear. So sure, if you think having many agreements on something somehow surmises the quality and depth of a design, even though by theory, people cannot see the greatest of things, like genius, or innovation or talent, unless it happens through something they can react to and compare to their own limits (e.g actions).

This is why this world is in shambles; people like you just don't know when to quit with the "safety in numbers" argument. There's a reason why there is a single sun driving all life, not a thousand, or a million or a billion stars - there's a reason why there's always one or a small group of people that change the thousands, millions or a billion people - there's a reason why there's less diamonds than any other mineral. Maybe one day the people will finally figure out that the mass will always be weak and vulnerable to their lack of growth and refinement.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
There is no premise listed...yet again Aero. So Con had to make an attempt to find any shred of a premise in your argument. Your title is the only thing that fit. You did not refute his choice.

Again your posts belong in a forum column, not a debate website. These debates have an agreed upon, and mostly understood basis of their format.

You are trying to change this format by saying you know more, or see things differently than most people.

If thats true...GREAT. But you're 'knowledge' or, "higher thinking" does not change the layout of a debate.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
LOL what?

And even if we take away all votes for me that "don't count" because voters are essentially too dumb to understand you...

we would still be tied, so that means you didn't win either
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
You did not "win" that debate". All who voted did not understand anything (so their voted cannot be justified), because it was too profound for all of you combined. I won that debate in the long run, because I'm on a completely different level of awareness of human consciousness and its cross-referential ties to the Universe's design.
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
I don't know why I am brought up in the second round arguments...

Aero: "there was once a man named Domr, that could not win a debate with me..."

If memory serves correct I am winning this debate...

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
it's alright. I'm patient.
Posted by Sashil 3 years ago
Sashil
5 rounds and three days to argue. You won't be seeing that win any time soon. :P
Posted by Sashil 3 years ago
Sashil
5 rounds and three days to argue. You won't be seeing that win any time soon. :P
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
TROLL NOOB-SNIPE! BOOYAH!
nac
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
Wait, it's not?

So... Dark matter isn't ignorance?

The star isn't neurons in our brain?

Fire isn't passion and will?

Water isn't wisdom, shape and consciousness?

Electrons don't behave like bees?

The human heart doesn't have three stages akin to three heart stages of sea creatures?

The human body doesn't create the same waves of energy as a planet body?

The human eye isn't the birth of a galaxy, or the shape of a nebula, or the shape of a galaxy at birth?

The human genitalia and the human facial organs are not connected, even though both sides of the body contain erectile tissues?

The sky outside of our windows does not have the qualities of how our ideas come and go, even though we use it as a metaphor in comic illustration books?

The human's biology system isn't on the same frequency as the planet?

The human body doesn't emit its signals in the same way as a lead sends signals to other leafs?

The human's nails and eyes have no relationship with the oyster, the bone material produced by it and what happens to a pearl when it goes bad - that it turns yellow?

There's nothing special about spirals, like the sink hole, the whirlpool, the black hole and the tornado?

There's no connection between how there is a consciousness and a sub conscious, as there is a surface and a depth to every ocean?

There's no relationship between the births of human life and space life, even though they both start out in dark times, being free to become anything?

There is no evidence that demonstrates the human heart being a larger brain than the brain itself, even though the brain follows the heart, not the other way around?

After all of this, and many more I could write but cannot due to character limit, you're telling me that my recent studies are not a debate? After all of this? All of these connections of a universal design, of a Universe that is scientifically proven to exist by a rule called "self-similarity", and I'm the one witho
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
Aerogant9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Debate was about fungi. Pro made no argument
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Aerogant9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't really make a case or support a resolution. The title can be presumed to be the resolution, barring clarificaiton, which is what Con did here...Pro never really gave any alternative resolution that should have been considered. Further, even his complaints about Con's response were...odd, to say the least. He claimed that it would be wrong if the resolution was "I wrote a cool book" to question whether the book was "cool". What else would be quesitoned? Whether the book was written at all would seem to be the only other point of discussion, in such a resolution. I'm not entirely sure Pro knows what a debate is. All other categories seemed equal enough, though I am a skosh tempted to award conduct to Con, as well, considering Pro's quite literal non sense, but that seems almost a bit too much. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Aerogant9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, as Instigator, has the burden of providing a clear resolution. The resolution should be a declarative sentence that is true or false. No only didn't Pro write a clear resolution, it's hard to find anything like a resolution in the challenge. Maybe the resolution is that "Mushrooms are like fingers." If that were the resolution, the evidence is too thin to support anything beyond the most casual idea of something being "like" something. Con didn't have to do much in the debate other than to point out that Pro had not met any reasonable burden of proof. I think Con should have pointed out that Pro did not have a clear resolution. I give S&G to Con on the grounds that Pro was disorganized and sometimes incoherent.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Aerogant9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Brutal lack of evidence for brutality. BTW Pro -- there's a difference between appearing and being insightful. Grandiose statements are the former.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 3 years ago
Phoenix61397
Aerogant9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's opening argument really wasn't an argument, so the only thing to be argued was the resolution. Con proved the research not to be brutal, and therefore wins.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Aerogant9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never defended the brutality of the research, and tried to reinterpret the resolution. More effort is needed.