Are you socially engineered? That's good, I guess. However, you're not unique, so you don't matter.
Destroying your ability to create your own experience based on your own analysis destroys your ability to shape yourself, others and the world.
It's the same thing as having someone else do the work for you - in this case, however, you're being spoon fed complacency.
Opinions of yours will not matter, for they are not yours - you cannot argue them more than what those who had lead you could provide.
This renders your humanity obsolete - humans live; humans think; humans fight; humans love - you do not live; you do not think; you do not fight; you do not love because you do not live; you do not think and you do not fight.
So you're nothing. Your words are nothing. Your thoughts are nothing. Your actions are nothing. Your desires are nothing. Your lifestyle is worth nothing. Your friends are nothing. Your enemies are nothing. You are the result of never becoming - you cannot be anything without a beginning; there's no beginning to your story, so there's no middle or an end to it either. You are dark matter - you're just "there". Wasting flesh and matter for what? The cowardice in believing others over yourself - then attacking those who address your sheep-mentality, while you let your rulers shear you, but will not for the life of you let people that are trying to save you near you. Why? Because you assume that since shearing doesn't hurt, it's friendly - when truth hurts, it has to be the enemy.
Hello Aerogant (Pro), it is my (Con) pleasure to explore your logic, highlighted in the title of this debate, why Con is “… not unique, so you [Con] don't matter.”
I'll start with the title's imbedded question, “Are you socially engineered?” The answer is NO! Con is not “socially engineered!” The implied Pro's title response to Con is, “That's good, I guess.” Con is pleased that Pro finds my answer “good.”
Con takes issue with Pro, by the fact that Con is genetically “unique.”
Relative to the phrase, “so you [Con] don't matter,” is not true, for Con does matter in this debate; otherwise, Pro will be debating with a wall, an object that cannot generate “words,” or generate “thoughts,” or generate “actions,” or have any “desires,” no “lifestyle,” no “friends,” perhaps, fire may be its “enemy.”
Pro said Con is “dark matter,” this is a false statement. Con, like Pro, gives off radiant infrared energy that is visible with an infrared camera.
With that said, Con accepts this debate, just to find out what Pro's game is. By doing so, Con is looking forward to a learning experience.
Evidence is shown by this in particular: -The implied Pro's title response to Con is, "That's good, I guess." Con is pleased that Pro finds my answer "good." - This is incorrect. When we communicate, we can say yes, while meaning no or vice versa; we can emphasize words; we can allude and imply; we can use inanimate objects as examples for animate object behavior; we can create distinctions; we can use reverse-psychology; we can communicate our point of view, another person's point of view, a dog's point of view or even imagine what it may be like from an ant's point of view. Therefore when I said "That's good", I was alluding to the fact that you think it's good, so I'll say it's "good" simply to get your hopes up and crush them at the same time.
Everything else has been taken literally by you (don't matter; dark matter;). I am a man that is beyond the literal-minded era. When you discuss with me, you will understand the difference between what is a parable and what is practical. Otherwise, you have failed to understand the context of my argument, thus rendering you a liability to our discourse. When I speak, you will understand me like you would while reading someone's literature - the message may be covered in a world of dragons, castles, magical powers, but all of that is really emphasizing what is otherwise a mundane message. So for an example, when someone says a person is a vampire, they do not mean an actual vampire - they mean the person's characteristics are very similar to a vampire - more over, the vampire is a dream symbol; the dream world is a system of subconscious symbols; these symbols represent parts of our reality, therefore if you're going to argue with me, you're going to need to need to learn how to distinguish reality from poetry.
The Burden of Proof (BoP) is on Pro's claim stated in the title, in part, that, “...you're [Con] not unique, so you don't matter.” Con's challenge to Pro, prove your statement. Where is your Burden of Proof that I'm not unique and I don't matter?
You have not addressed your previous literal-minded fallacies. Learn the difference between reality and poetry.
According to Pro, Con is one of all humanity who is “not unique” and one that does not “matter.” On the other hand, and with all due respect to Nikola Tesla, Pro referenced Tesla as “one of the smartest minds” as if Tesla is unique and matters. But how could that be? Tesla, like all humans according to Pro, are "socially engineered ... not unique," and "don't matter."
So why would Pro reference Tesla? He must be unique and does matter, why single Tesla out from all who don't matter? Thank you Tesla, for proving Con's argument, the title of this debate, does not matter.
Con is just like Tesla, “not socially engineered,” therefore, Con is “unique” and Con does “matter.”
The title of this debate asked a question and Con answered. Pro disagrees with Con but failed to present the Burden of Proof (BoP) that Con's answer is a lie or demonstrate otherwise.
Pro also claimed that Con is “not unique” and “don't matter.” Again Pro failed to convince Con by such claim due to the lack of BoP.
Pro feels “we are metaphysical creatures,” where Con understands we are also physical creatures in a physical universe. We are a way for nature to see and experience itself. We enjoy the discovery of the Laws of Nature via the scientific method. Engineers' uses those physical Laws to develop physical infrastructures in technology, food production, and medicine. Even Tesla made contributions to technology and played a part to make Debate.com work. That reality, is not metaphysical. All those who contribute in making this world a better place to live, via improving the standard of living, are all “unique” and do “matter.” Yes, that includes Tesla.
In closing, Con finds Pro “unique,” and also, Pro does “matter.”
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|