The Instigator
warllamas
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
whatisx
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Alan Watts was a great Philosopher

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,171 times Debate No: 12176
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

warllamas

Pro

Alan Watts is a important philosopher because he brought the eastern ways of thought to the west. Though his views did not get rid of the materialistic capitalist mentality of western civilization his message stands as guidance for those of want to wake up from the delusion of are culture. I am not claiming that he is the best philosopher or his philosophy is Utopian, greater than all. I am simply pointing out that Alan Watts view of reality and human desires shows a better perspective of reality than that of the western philosophies and religions.
whatisx

Con

Good day and Thank you for the debate.

Alan Watts supposedly brought eastern ways of thought to the west how he did well my opponent doesn't say. His views did not get rid of the materialistic capitalist mentality of western civilization? why not my opponent does not say. How his message stands as guidance for those who want to wake up from the delusion of our culture well my opponent does not say nor does he say how and why Americans and their culture are a delusion. "I am not claiming that he is the best philosopher." wait hold on please remind me as to what the resolution is? and furthermore how does his views trump western philosophies.

The Pro has the burden of proof he has not cited any sources nor has he proven any of his claims they are merely just that claims being made. For my opponent to win he must indefinitely and beyond reasonable doubt prove all of his claims which are
1. That Alan Watts is an important philosopher.
2. That Alan Watts brought eastern ways of thought to the west.
3. That his views don't or did not rather get rid of materialistic capitalist mentality in western civilization
4. That his message stands as guidance for those who are delusional Americans and then he must prove which Americans are delusional, for one cannot prove (differential) how many red beans there are in a bowl without first counting them.
R1- My opponent claims that he is not claiming that Alan is not the best philosopher or that his philosophy is Utopian and yet he starts a debate with a resolution that say and I quote " Alan Watts is a GREAT philosopher"

conclusion:
My opponent has no case nor any arguments nor any references he contradicts himself and his "argument" of how Alan Watts is great is a logical Fallacy I believe the fallacy is called begs the question where a statement or claim that is made arises questions and not answers.
Therefore the resolution is negated
Debate Round No. 1
warllamas

Pro

I thank my opponent for joining the debate though I think his views are rigid in debate format.

My opponent assumes that I have a burden of prof which requires factual citations and evidence to prove but we are debating a subjective topic you see. Not objective, such as the nature quantum mechanics. This debate resolution is within the realm of subjectivity, my opponent confuses it with objective. Also ironically the debating structure which my opponent instantly clings to is not relevant to this debate, it is a simple way to avoid the substance of the argument. Sure anyone can endlessly point out logical fallacy's and ad hominem's but this simply distracts from the actual debate. Also how this is revealing is that my opponent never states anything in opposition to the resolution this shows this shows either one of two things, either my opponent does not understand the debate, or he does not to argue substance.

Now I think the best way which I can present Watt's views in this context is to show the linear structure of debate which my opponent is using which was created in the west and compare it to the multi- dimensional ways of thought of the east. My opponent claims that whether I am to "win"(Oh yes "win" this debate as this is the whole point rather than to exchange knowledge and question views but the whole aim is to "win") I have to answer and "prove" these statements:

1. That Alan Watts is an important philosopher.
2. That Alan Watts brought eastern ways of thought to the west.
3. That his views don't or did not rather get rid of materialistic capitalist mentality in western civilization
4. That his message stands as guidance for those who are delusional Americans and then he must prove which Americans are delusional, for one cannot prove (differential) how many red beans there are in a bowl without first counting them.

1) Viewers of this debate let me ask you this question when you are talking in your everyday lives about various concepts and ideas is it the first inclination to try to immediately justify the reasons behind every thought and emotion. You see the western mind revolves around this constant description of reality. When someone listens or reads Watts do they then ask whether or not this man and the philosophy which he presents is important? What type of rigid way of thought is this! That people can simply ignore the substance of an idea by equating importance! In other words plancing a value before one has even listened or heard. Limiting these views by blocking it with value how cowardly.

2) Yes, Alan Watts was one of the early proponents of eastern thought in the west and wrote a entire book putting together is a simplified form about Zen Buddhism, Taoism. Just because the majority of Americans do not know who Watts or eastern ways of thought does not mean that that these views where never brought and presented to the west in books, lectures, documentary's etc.

3) Clearly not as this culture is still destroying nature and the world at a rapid pace and forces people to work in awful conditions to produce more to sustain this ever growing industrial society.

4) Oh with ought a question Americans are extremely delusional and I don't even think that is debatable! Again coming back to this idea that everything in reality or in a debate needs scholarly justification and cited evidence. It is something that can not be fully expressed in words, the constant meaningless violence and dehumanization which is being inflicted to every human on this planet. In fact because it is as if the very disease is being felt by those of advocate it. The delusion is not something which can merely be counted and symbolized by a number. You have to feel it and let go of the abstractions and accept reality for what it is. Currently in are industrial age of high civilization, Materialistic Americans love indulging themselves there ego's at the exploitation of others and themselves. It can be felt by the workers in third world countries who toil in the constant mass production. Or the insane rhetoric of those in Bureaucracy to the billions who live under governments and hence forth indoctrinated in schools to repeat the same process over and over again through out countless generations. If humans want to reconnect themselves with the world and reality then they must destroy the ego, for the ego has never existed. It is an image pride that is projected to other people in a society of strangers. Alan Watts talked a lot about 'man and the hoax' which is this game of inflicting suffering on ourselves which we must stop and let go of our ego' s and flow like a pebble flowing down a stream not clinging but living life.
whatisx

Con

great- of major significance or importance- Merriam Websters dictionary.

Rintro- My opponent goes on and on about how this debate is subjective that we are debating a subjective topic but what is so subjective as to whether Alan Watts was a great philosopher or not the way I am debating fits perfectly to the resolution - Alan Watts was a great philosopher-. Let me remind you we are not debating philosophy we are not debating alan watts philosophy we are debating whether he was a great philosopher. So as to whether someone is great or not is neither subjective nor objective but merely one's opinion . Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.- Gandhi

1.R1- My opponent seems confused we are not debating philosophy we are debating as to Alan Watts is great or not.
By the by one can equate importance to an idea. _ Differential- Lets say I have this idea this idea is really good in fact one can say it's great. The idea that I have is one about illegal immigration. My idea if put into action stops all illegal immigrants from crossing over can I not equate importance to this idea? _ Importance is placed on everything we as human beings prioritize almost everything we run our lives by deciding how is this important to my life? What will I get out of it? Lets say somebody has the idea of senior prom for senior citizens and somebody else has the idea to make a relay for life who's is more important or how about when somebody has the idea that he or she might give blood and somebody else has the idea to shoot someone whose is preferable whose is more important? Objective value is placed on almost everything in our lives so when you say an idea's "substance" cannot be ignored by equating importance ummm yes it can.

2.R2- Tell me if Alan Watts was so great how come the majority of Americans do not know who Watts is? This further proves how not Great Alan Watts is.

3.R3- First of all you must explain what his views are before you can make a claim as to whether his views didn't get rid of materialistic capitalist mentality in western civilization.

4.R4- Again you don't provide any evidence that Americans are delusional you don't say which Americans are delusional. My opponent then goes on a rant about how the world isn't fair and how Americans are evil and have this ginormous ego that they must get rid this is irrelevant to the debate the debate is whether or not Alan Watts was a great philosopher

Conclusion:there are no arguments being made simply put my opponent has no case and yes the Pro always has the burden of proof that's a debate basic. Finally if my opponent cannot prove yes prove that Alan Watts was a great philosopher the only logical inference is that he is not or was not a great philosopher.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
warllamas

Pro

Hitler was great philosopher because under my opponents own definition of "great" is how much influence and people follow a certain philosophy, regardless of how it describes reality and morality. The quote from is irrelevant to the debate. Further more my opponent has made no argument what so ever, all he has done is try to refute the same topic endlessly and because he doesn't know who Alan Watt's was he assumes that he was not a great philosopher because again his standards are the amount of people who follow a philosophy and how much influence in society. My opponent says that when debating Watts we should talk about his philosophy because the resolution is "Alan Watts was a great Philosopher" but this is completely relevant for the simple fact that he was a philosopher, it would have been irrelevant for me to talk about his love life, but the philosophy is relevant to this debate. In conclusion my opponent never even attempted to debate and join the debate with out knowing anything about it.
whatisx

Con

Hitler was not a great philosopher he was an idiot you don't try to take over the world by attacking everyone at the same time you take over it by getting everyone to attack each other. The quote is actually very relevant to my argument while I am arguing that no one can be great it is simply a matter of opinion or belief and while you are debating that someone is great mainly alan watts because of your opinion you describe his philosophy as.... well that's just it you don't you also don't argue about much else. You go on and on about absolutely nothing. All my opponent has done is cling to an argument that he cannot litigate and also you don't refute any of my refutations made to your so called arguments. For the record I did join, you however don't have any idea how to make resolutions and you also don't seem to know how to argue.

" his standards are the amount of people who follow philosophy" - opponent. Actually I prefer blonds.

" My opponent that when debating Watts we should talk about his philosophy"
"but this is completely relevant for the simple fact that he was a philosopher," hmmmm a contradiction.

"he doesn't know who Alan Watt's was he assumes that he was not a great philosopher" - opponent
I'm not assuming anything I'm saying that he isn't great and therefore by your argument if one believes someone is great then he is I believe that he isn't and therefore he isn't.

conclusion: I extend all my refutations and assertions made
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by martelmungo 3 years ago
martelmungo
So as to whether someone is great or not is neither subjective nor objective but merely one's opinion

Terrible... subjectivity is an opinion.....

Both sides are idiots but this just made me laugh.
Posted by Ed 6 years ago
Ed
If you've realized that the 'experiencer' is the experience and that there is no separate thinker apart from thought then you'll probably agree with Alan Watts. If you insist that you are a separate self who is disconnected from the rest of life...most likely you'll disagree with Watts.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Everyone has political views. It would seem he would talk about it as a sort of digression. But the way you presented him in this debate, one would think he's a political philosopher like Chomsky as opposed to an existential/metaphysical philosopher like the traditional sense of the word "philosophy."

Thanks for the videos though. I'm glad to hear he does talk of these issues as well.
Posted by warllamas 6 years ago
warllamas
I disagree Alan Watts talked a great deal about social institutions "the art of government is to fill that void after death" Alan Watt was clearly an anarchist and the his philosophy showed that.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"Though his views did not get rid of the materialistic capitalist mentality of western civilization" - Pro

What are you talking about? He never talked politics. I have to of his books and have watched countless lectures from Alan Watts and he doesn't talk politics at all. Furthermore, I wouldn't say Alan Watts had much of a gripe with "materialism" because he's not fond of the idea of a soul either.

I really don't know what you're getting at with this debate, and it seems it will only tarnish his name. Someone being a "great philosopher" is rather subjective. Obviously those who like him will call him great. Those who don't like him won't call him great. I can foresee a bunch of misunderstandings and confusion brought upon by his philosophies.
Posted by Xer 6 years ago
Xer
I said he "sounds" like a wanna-be Buddha. I didn't say he "is" a wanna-be Buddha.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Alan Watts is an authentic philosopher, its just that he was influenced by Eastern thought instead of the other philosophers who had influence from Western thought.

And Nags, you're wrong. His influence comes from other philosophers as well, such as Lao Tzu, Zhuangzi, Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma, etc. Would you call Camus a wannabe Sartre?
Posted by Xer 6 years ago
Xer
He sounds like a wanna-be Buddha.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Sniperjake1994
Point? What's con's position?
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
I don't have a problem with capitalism....

It does some rather important things rather well.

But money's not all-important... and capitalism's not sacred.

If "Capitalism" doesn't accomplish/doesn't allow something I think should happen..... then I'll be for doing something anti-capitalist... like stealing to feed starving people who can't get food for themselves.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
warllamaswhatisxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: burden of proof learn it also the aff didn't really respond to some allegations made by the neg and he didn't really respond to the arguments either
Vote Placed by Ed 6 years ago
Ed
warllamaswhatisxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by TheOrangeOfYonatan 6 years ago
TheOrangeOfYonatan
warllamaswhatisxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by whatisx 6 years ago
whatisx
warllamaswhatisxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
warllamaswhatisxTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Atheistassociate 6 years ago
Atheistassociate
warllamaswhatisxTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04