The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

All of Academia is Evil

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
SPF has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,180 times Debate No: 94444
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (0)




In this document, I will present evidence in the form of logic, and prove all of academia is evil.

After prolonged focus on the motion of our eyes, we would learn to acknowledge the routes of their motion subconsciously. In other words, we would become more fluent with the motion of our eyes over time.

Below is a picture of what I'm telling you is to represent a 'tough' illusion, and underneath is a picture that, again, I'm telling you represents the time-lapsed registration of our eye's motion. The imagery is not evidence, it's here to provide clarity.

This is logic. I know, and do not theorize, that we are lopsided mentally; we cannot register, another concept that I'm going to introduce, the 'universal abyss'.

In your argument, you can try to overtake me with words, but not contest me; you can at most present your knowledge in a more advanced worded format.

The 'universal abyss', is another concept - representing what we would learn to know subconsciously in a wordless world.

It's my argument that our 'eyes are crossed ( in all formats )' by academia; that's, like being pinned to a cross, having our eyes crossed, crossed out eyes and whatever else you can think of.

Our focus is, hypothetically, restricted to one side of the 'memory of an abyss', by repetitive bodily motion of primarily the tongue, and our understanding of our tongue's motion.

The resolution is that, hypothetically, we cannot focus on the 'universal abyss', because our 'memory of an abyss' is abstracted. We are educated to focus on a side, or 'wave' of the 'memory of an abyss'.

The beauty of this is that there are so many possible meanings for a single; and we spend our lives focusing on an entity as it progresses rather than trying to focus on the entirety.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SPF 2 years ago
from 1939 - 1955, when he discovered the cure for polio. He never patented the vaccine, saying that "you can't patent the sun". " According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there were only 416 reported cases of polio worldwide in 2013, mostly confined to a handful of Asian and African countries." Furthermore, "More than 15 million people are able to walk today, who would otherwise have been paralysed. An estimated 1.5 million childhood deaths have been prevented..."

b. The vaccine for Hib disease, a disease which children were particularly suceptible to and which often led to a brain disease that was fatal, was discovered by Smith and Porter while they were working at the University of Rochester.

I can produce more examples of crucial vaccines and medicines that were invented by academics, using the vital resources of the institutions where the worked, but for now I think it would be good to look at another sector of academia which is demonstrably not evil.

There will be more contentions to come in round 2. I look forward to seeing M0NK3Y"s arguments in round 2, and I thank him for making this debate possible. Thank you all for your understanding.
Posted by SPF 2 years ago
Before I get to my arguments, i'd like to address a few of the things which Pro has said.
"In your argument, you can try to overtake me with words, but not contest me; you can at most present your knowledge in a more advanced worded format."
Now now, this cockiness is amusing, but let's be clear: Pro can try to overtake my words, and Con certainly can contest Pro.

And now to something more relevant, indeed I think the concept that is central to Pro's argument, the universal abyss.
"The 'universal abyss', is another concept - representing what we would learn to know subconsciously in a wordless world."
Please elaborate on precisely what you mean by the universal abyss. It is an integral part of Pro's argument and it would be in Pro's interest to be very clear about what this is.

"Our focus is, hypothetically, restricted to one side of the 'memory of an abyss', by repetitive bodily motion of primarily the tongue, and our understanding of our tongue's motion."

First of all, what is the "memory of an abyss"? And more importantly, how does "repetitive bodily motion of primarily the tongue" have any effect on the memory of an abyss? Pro, please explain precisely how the tongue's motion can effect our "memory of an abyss." Now, on another note, if our brains have naturally evolved to be lopsided, and if that effects our ability to see the universal abyss, and/or if repititive motion of our tongue is also responsible for a narrow view of the universal abyss, then how can anyone blame academia? Our brain's physical structure is beyond our control, and our tongue motions are also quite ingrained and have nothing to do with what children and young adults learn in school. The examples provided by pro have to do with nature, not nurture.

Contention 1: Medical Academia has found life saving drugs and vaccines.
a. One sector of academia that is not evil is the medical academic sector. Jonas Salk had a fellowship at the University of Michigan
Posted by SPF 2 years ago
First let us look at the resolution. "All of Academia is Evil". This is a very broad stance which Pro has to defend. Now, even though defining the resolution is not Con's job, it'll be defined here to prevent this debate from being too nebulous.
All --
predeterminer, determiner, & pronoun
used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.
the environment or community concerned with the pursuit of research, education, and scholarship.
evil --
profoundly immoral and malevolent.

All of the above definitions come from google. All other words in the resolution are defined in context. Now the two words in the resolution which we must focus on to determine the full extent of Pro's burden of proof are all and evil. All is, as we all know, everything, or as google puts it, "the whole quantity" or "full extent" of what in this case would be a "thing." My opponent has to prove that all of academia is evil. All of it. This means that if I can show that a single sector of academia is not evil, then I win the debate. Note that I don't have to prove that that particular sector of the academic world is good, but rather, not evil. A generous interpretation of "not evil" (generous to my opponent) would be "morally neutral", but in fairness, evil is "profound immorality." Even if you say that we shouldn't rely on Google's definition of evil, it is very clear that evil is not garden variety immorality. It isn't bad. It isn't just wrong. It's evil. You know, not stealing a loaf of bread, but stealing hundreds of millions of dollars. Not puching someone but beating them senseless. Evil. However, since the line between banal immorality and evil can get a little fuzzy, let's be generous to the propostion and say that I have to prove that one sector of academia is morally neutral. It's still a low bar, (but it is more than fair to Pro, given the resolution) and I'll try my best to clear it by along s
Posted by SPF 2 years ago
Hello everybody. I'd like to be clear about what happened in round one. I was on vacation with my family, and there were a couple times when I began writing my arguments and then got distracted. Then today I realized there was only an hour left, so I began writing my arguments for round one on my phone. By the time I finished I saw that there were 19 seconds left, I scrolled down and clicked submit. When I got to the review page I scrolled down again and hit submit. Then I got to a page which said that "The following error occurred, this isn't your turn to debate" or something to that effect. I found out that after that mad dash to the finish -- in which I completed my arguments for the round, I had "forfeited." Maybe I was a few nanoseconds late, maybe even a second or two. Well, I know that it is unorthodox to post arguments in the comment section, but given the situation, I hope you'll understand why I'm going to do that.
Posted by M0nK3Y 2 years ago
The universal abyss is a concept.

The abyss is personal, theoretically, every abyss would be different' but who knows what is possible with the universal abyss and our abyss knowledge.

The universal abyss would be what we are a part of.
Posted by mapleleaf173 2 years ago
Is this "universal abyss" like the Lacanian "Lack" or the "Real"? It seems poorly characterized, at least from the introduction. And if it functions like the Lack or the Real, it seems to be a more universalized problem than simply academia.
Posted by One_Anonymous_Voice 2 years ago
I've looked at a few of your debates on here and have been tempted to take them on via the title. I then go into your actual writing and it turns out to be a bunch of incoherent nonsense.

From you're title I'd expect you to theorise why Academia is evil, eg: "It warps the perspective of those who utilise it, resulting in decreased creativity." where in reality you instead talk about the same Universal Abyss mentioned in most of your debates. A concept which you've barely attempted to explain, even less so explained in a reasonable manner.

I can only assume that you have no other means of writing than that of unrelated gibberish, spouted after four hits of a bong.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
evil is religion
Posted by M0nK3Y 2 years ago
The story is of a war of good light and evil light.

Good light and evil light are dual concepts, The good of the matter is the sensory aspect, and evil is what's against it.

The cover art would be the antagonist in cutting-edge black crossing the calm blue face of protagonist in two places, with dual handguns.

The protagonist's temple and mouth are crossed.

The protagonist's expression is to depict knowledge of the antagonist.

The protagonist must cross the antagonist with forethought " the antagonist is to be depicted wrathful. This shows the antagonist's knowledge of the protagonist.

On the protagonist's expression, because of his knowledge of the antagonist, he is depicted to counter the crossings naturally. The protagonist's eyes are to register the antagonist, and his mouth is to react to the entirety..

He looks focused on the thought of the antagonist, his mouth straightened. A mark on the antagonist's gun draws half a sad expression.

To conclude on the cover art, the visual side has the capacity for a story, fine details of the crossing are symbolic of the cohesive art. It explains the concept, but not the story.
The antagonist, evil light, has harnessed the speed of light, but the technology is for himself. Nature, in turn, becomes abstracted and diseased by the antagonist's power, but some nature is apt enough to fight it.

The speed of light is the theme to all stylistic aspects, and is the source of the super-natural.

The protagonist, good light, is at the forefront of war.

He is not diseased or abstracted, but he is aware of the danger. The protagonist is sad, but his sadness is a mystery.

Magic artists are those who had an alternate reaction to the antagonist's power. A magic artist is stricken by nature, and is immune to evil light. Magic artists are unstable, but great in war...
This debate has 8 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.