The Instigator
TheBlacknight
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

CiRrO's philosophy and teaching ought to be embraced.

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: 8/27/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,399 times Debate No: 5171
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (13)
Votes (8)

 

TheBlacknight

Pro

I don't know CiRrO personally, but I have studied his teachings and I believe that there is truth in what he says. I will outline his basic premises. I would really like to see what another member has to say.

****CiRro's Philosophy****

1) The first absolute moral duty that each member of a society has is to uphold justice, in it's purest form. According to him, a society not built on justice is destined to crumble.

2) Sacrifices are necessary to ensure a greater stability, which in turn leads to a greater good.

3) Conflict should be pushed as a means to strengthen the individual. Strengthening the individual would lead to a stronger society.

4) Peace can never be achieved. It is merely a figment of the human mind to oppose conflict and problems, which are tests of strength. Peace weakens us.

5) Negative emotions should be kept as a private affair, unless it furthers some greater purpose. Emotional struggles help strengthen the inner person, however are sometimes used as ways to get attention, which is a weakness that must be overcome.

6) Power is the ultimate goal. In finding true power, those that are to weak are weeded out.

7) Weakness, if used properly can be a plus for society. Those that are weak and cannot obtain power become pawns in a greater game of chess.

8) There must always be a struggle for power. Absolute power corrupts beyond repair. Power is a goal, however power loses its meaning when only one holds it. Power is not power anymore, it is an individual entity, with no real use.

9) Manipulation is an art that most people see as an evil. Manipulation is not having the ability to control anthers actions. It is the ability to propel events to determine future outcomes.

10) The ultimate goal is truth. Truth comes from conflict. Conflict comes from everyday events that may seem petty. Pettiness is a window into a larger view of the world.

These are not all his teachings, however those are the ones I remember him telling me. (From Xfire). I believe there is truth in what he says. Do you agree?
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I do not know this CiRro, but I take it it is fair to debate based on your summarization of what he holds, the fact of your summary existing being a concession to this assumption.

I should note that a philosophy must be appreciated as a whole, that is, one need not necessarily dispute all of it's component parts to dispute the philosophy, just some of them.

"
2) Sacrifices are necessary to ensure a greater stability, which in turn leads to a greater good."

Sacrifice consists of giving up something one values for something one does not, or something one values for something one values less. It is wholly impossible that any increase of good, i.e. increase of values, can come about by exchanging greater values for lesser values. Nor is such stable, it is dynamic, specifically, dynamically moving toward a complete lack of value (death).

"
3) Conflict should be pushed as a means to strengthen the individual. Strengthening the individual would lead to a stronger society.
"

The type of conflict is not specified, making this a poor teaching to spread in it's current form. Does the fact that seventeen armed FBI agents are on your tail make you stronger? I was under the impression that it made you weaker, and quite likely to die if you resist. A society, of course, cannot have the terms "strength" or "weakness" applied to it, as it is not an entity, only it's constitutent entities can be referred to as strong or weak. Also, as society is an entity, it cannot be a justification for anything. The individual's benefit is a justification in it's own right, insofar as it is true... and the only possible justification.

"
4) Peace can never be achieved. It is merely a figment of the human mind to oppose conflict and problems, which are tests of strength. Peace weakens us."

Surrender to problems, surrender to conflict, means you failed any capacity these had to "Test your strength." The point, though, is not to prove your strength, it is to solve problems, because the solution of problems is the only thing strength is good for. Point 4, in essence, subordinates ends to means and then loses both. And assuming the usual definition of peace, i.e. humans not killing each other, it is eminently possible- if it is within the power of a human being to kill, it is also within his power not to kill.

"

5) Negative emotions should be kept as a private affair, unless it furthers some greater purpose. Emotional struggles help strengthen the inner person, however are sometimes used as ways to get attention, which is a weakness that must be overcome.
"

Emotional struggles do not strengthen people, they weaken people. Everyone who has ever been unable to decide on a course of action has an emotional struggle behind it, often though not necessarily with an intellectual struggle at the base of that. I agree, however, that they should be kept to oneself unless the person you're telling about them offered to help, or caused the problem through use of force.

"
6) Power is the ultimate goal. In finding true power, those that are to weak are weeded out.
"
Power, by definition, is the ability to achieve one's goals. It has no meaning apart from some other goal, worthy or not.

"
7) Weakness, if used properly can be a plus for society. Those that are weak and cannot obtain power become pawns in a greater game of chess."

This is never true. One, society as I mentioned earlier can never be the beneficiary of anything. Two, if it is true that such a chess game is desirable, which I do not hold, the existence of an even stronger person to control YOU makes it all the better if you are to be consistent. Three, by definition anything which is beneficial to one's goals is not a weakness.

"
8) There must always be a struggle for power. Absolute power corrupts beyond repair. Power is a goal, however power loses its meaning when only one holds it."

This is an absurd contradiction. One cannot simultaneously advocate "This is a good goal" and "The achievement of this goal is bad." Goals are there to be achieved, not to stay just out of reach of.

"Power is not power anymore"

Horrible metaphysics. A is A and power is power. No matter what. It's known as the Law of Identity, without which the word "philosophy" has no meaning and no value.

"
9) Manipulation is an art that most people see as an evil."

This is not even a philosophical claim, it is a statistical claim. And one wholly without evidence.

"Manipulation is not having the ability to control anthers actions. It is the ability to propel events to determine future outcomes."

And this is a semantical claim, not a philosophical one.

"
10) The ultimate goal is truth. "

Nakedly contradicts:

"
6) Power is the ultimate goal."

Ultimate means there can be only ONE.

By the way, truth cannot be a goal either, because it cannot be worked towards. True is always true, no matter what you do. Knowledge of the truth can be a goal, though it is not the ultimate one. Essentially ultimate goal is a matter of choice: Though everyone who is in this debate has already conceded life as their goal, or they would be dead, and the facts of morality, i.e. how that goal is best achieved, is not so relative.

"Truth comes from conflict."

Truth is a property of propostions, specifically the property that says they describe reality, as opposed to not describing reality. The existence of conflict does not alter it in the slightest.

The essence of the resolution is at hand is whether the philosophy, which Pro believes to belong to CiRro, above described, ought to be embraced. The trouble is, it contains contradictions, and other false claims. Since everyone here is trying to live (otherwise they would be dead, human life, you see, requires constant sustaining effort, both mental and physical), they ought to be careful to obtain knowledge of things, so that they can act on that knowledge and thereby survive. This entails that they ought not embrace such vessels of false claims and contradictions.
Debate Round No. 1
TheBlacknight

Pro

"Sacrifice consists of giving up something one values for something one does not, or something one values for something one values less. It is wholly impossible that any increase of good, i.e. increase of values, can come about by exchanging greater values for lesser values. Nor is such stable, it is dynamic, specifically, dynamically moving toward a complete lack of value (death)."

>> Sacrifices do not always have to be something greater to something less. I will refer to one of CiRro's debates: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. It is necessary to sacrifice one person for the sake of the larger amount of people. If society allows more people to die, then they are not really a stable society. Furthermore it is you who said this: "If you were driving a car and you were going down hill and the breaks went out and you had to chose between hitting a group of people os swerving and hitting one person. I would say yes."

"The type of conflict is not specified, making this a poor teaching to spread in it's current form. Does the fact that seventeen armed FBI agents are on your tail make you stronger? I was under the impression that it made you weaker, and quite likely to die if you resist. A society, of course, cannot have the terms "strength" or "weakness" applied to it, as it is not an entity, only it's constitutent entities can be referred to as strong or weak. Also, as society is an entity, it cannot be a justification for anything. The individual's benefit is a justification in it's own right, insofar as it is true... and the only possible justification."

>> I'm sorry, I didn't have time to be specific, good thing you asked for clarification. Cirro: "a state of opposition between persons or ideas or interests." Now, lets look at your example. CiRro of course is a big proponent of the law. I would assume that 17 FBI agents are chasing you because you have done something wrong or illegal. However, I would say this does make you stronger. Stronger in wit and body. By running you are getting an exercise, and by running from the Cops, you are learning how to get away from bad situation. Thus, you have made yourself stronger. Furthermore, you say that society cannot be termed as strong or weak. That is specifically why CiRrO is against attempts at making everyone strong. He believes as the point shows, that strengthening the individual first, would lead to a stronger society.

"Surrender to problems, surrender to conflict, means you failed any capacity these had to "Test your strength." The point, though, is not to prove your strength, it is to solve problems, because the solution of problems is the only thing strength is good for. Point 4, in essence, subordinates ends to means and then loses both. And assuming the usual definition of peace, i.e. humans not killing each other, it is eminently possible- if it is within the power of a human being to kill, it is also within his power not to kill."

>> The idea is never to surrender. Either strive and achieve, or strive and fail. You can say that being able to solve problems is a strength. There are many ways to be "strong". Furthermore, peace is not just the end to killing. Peace: a state of harmony or the absence of hostility. CiRrO is trying to say that "peace" can never be truly be achieved, because peace itself is a conflict. It is a conflict opposing conflict. By finding peace, you will only spur apathy, which in time leads to aggressive hostilities. Therefore, peace is just a lingering aggression, waiting to be freed from the agent. Remember, CiRrO is against "aggression" but he admires "assertion"

"Emotional struggles do not strengthen people, they weaken people. Everyone who has ever been unable to decide on a course of action has an emotional struggle behind it, often though not necessarily with an intellectual struggle at the base of that. I agree, however, that they should be kept to oneself unless the person you're telling about them offered to help, or caused the problem through use of force. "

>> Emotional struggles do not strengthen, really? You seem like a smart guy. Emotional struggles if used correctly could lead to effective action to be victorious over conflict. Link this to the peace point. Conflict and struggles that are kept to linger are not good. It is when one triumphs over these conflicts and strengthen themselves to the next level. He specifically pointed out emotions struggles, because those are the ones that tend to lead to irrational action, rather then constructive achievement.

"Power, by definition, is the ability to achieve one's goals. It has no meaning apart from some other goal, worthy or not."

>> Power in and of itself. Definition: one possessing or exercising power, influence or authority. Power essentially is what everyone craves. In doing so, the weak in this world are pushed down by those mightier then they are. That is what leads to a good society. The weak doing what they must, the Strong doing what they must.

"This is never true. One, society as I mentioned earlier can never be the beneficiary of anything. Two, if it is true that such a chess game is desirable, which I do not hold, the existence of an even stronger person to control YOU makes it all the better if you are to be consistent. Three, by definition anything which is beneficial to one's goals is not a weakness."

>> Society is the beneficiary of individuals. As I have brought up, by strengthening the individual society as a whole is strengthened. Furthermore, the "chess game" is a metaphor for power. It is easy to influence the weak to become pawns. Pawns are always necessary. One of CiRrO's favorite quotes: "No game of dejarik can be won without pawns, and this may prove to be a very long game." Pawns only further the inevitable struggle for pwoer, which makes the cycle go round, and round.

"This is an absurd contradiction. One cannot simultaneously advocate "This is a good goal" and "The achievement of this goal is bad." Goals are there to be achieved, not to stay just out of reach of."

>> My opponent doesn't understand. The ROAD to gaining power is good, it makes people strong. However, when one gains power absolutely, it harbors arrogance, apathy, and unwarranted aggression. Therefore, to stop such hindrances to the overall struggle of life, power must be struggles for. Thus, more people are strengthening themselves. It is a cycle again. The struggle is what makes people stronger. You seem to not understand this concept. Of course, the goal will be achieved, but once you devalue that final goal in such ways as apathy, another person will be there is claim it. And so on.

"Horrible metaphysics. A is A and power is power. No matter what. It's known as the Law of Identity, without which the word "philosophy" has no meaning and no value."

>> lol, you take things way to much at face value. Power is not power because it has been corrupted. When one corrupts power, it losses its meaning.

"And this is a semantical claim, not a philosophical one."

>> I do not disagree.

<>

>> You only claim one contradiction, when I accidentally used the word absolute twice. Furthermore, I Believe my above reasons should have cleared any up.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
>> Sacrifices do not always have to be something greater to something less. I will refer to one of CiRro's debates: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. It is necessary to sacrifice one person for the sake of the larger amount of people. If society allows more people to die, then they are not really a stable society. Furthermore it is you who said this: "If you were driving a car and you were going down hill and the breaks went out and you had to chose between hitting a group of people os swerving and hitting one person. I would say yes.""

First off, you misquoted me. I never said that, I quoted it and then argued against it. I would say no in your example, because, I repeat: The group of people who you would hit if you did nothing are the ones in the trafficked part of the road, whereas the one you have to swerve to hit is the one in an untrafficked part of the road or on the sidewalk, i.e. the first group ACCEPTED the risk of being hit by you given these circumstances, the second person did not.

If you are that lax about quoting people, I wonder what you

It is not established as morally permissible to kill one supposed "innocent" to save more innocents, because one, all the examples people have given to me have been groups who are not innocent of making choices that implicitly accept the possibility of their death in that circumstance, against individuals who are innocent of it.

Furthermore, neither the one innocent person nor the many innocent people are of PRIMARY value in this situation to you. Only you are of primary value to you. By actively participating in a killing of a known innocent individual for a supposed innocent group, you ensure that any innocent who is likely to find themselves the minority in any such situation and notices you knows you have actively declared war upon their existence. They will seek to kill you. You are at risk of sacrificing your own life, the highest possible value available to you, without which you can have no other values- for a bunch of strangers? That, is a greater value for a lesser value.

"
>> I'm sorry, I didn't have time to be specific, good thing you asked for clarification. Cirro: "a state of opposition between persons or ideas or interests." Now, lets look at your example. CiRro of course is a big proponent of the law. I would assume that 17 FBI agents are chasing you because you have done something wrong or illegal. However, I would say this does make you stronger. Stronger in wit and body."

Strength is the ability to achieve your goals. Whatever your goals may be, in almost all situations being chased by people who want to kill you is harmful to your goals, where eliminating such people would be helpful to them.

The more people work against your goals, the less likely you are to achieve them. Thus, the less strong you are when you consider the whole of the strength measures available.

"{Furthermore, you say that society cannot be termed as strong or weak. That is specifically why CiRrO is against attempts at making everyone strong. He believes as the point shows, that strengthening the individual first, would lead to a stronger society."

Contradiction. You both accept that society cannot be termed as strong- and then outline what you will do to make it strong.

"
>> The idea is never to surrender. "

By stating you will never win, i.e. never defeat those who are not at peace with you, you have ALREADY surrendered.

". CiRrO is trying to say that "peace" can never be truly be achieved, because peace itself is a conflict. It is a conflict opposing conflict."
It's not a conflict if the conflict it opposes has already given up. A state of opposition can only exist if there is actually something left to oppose.

"By finding peace, you will only spur apathy, which in time leads to aggressive hostilities. "
How on earth does peace spur apathy? Peace means you can do basically whatever it iss you wanted to do back when there was a conflict over it, because those who wanted to stop you are dead or the equivalent. Apathy tends to be a defense mechanism of the DISENFRANCHISED- not those who have already won.

"
>> Emotional struggles do not strengthen, really? You seem like a smart guy. Emotional struggles if used correctly could lead to effective action to be victorious over conflict."

Emotional struggles, by definitions, are conflicts between one's emotions, i.e., the inability to choose between them, and therefore to choose between effective actions. A SPECIFIC emotional struggle may strengthen you by preparing you for further emotional struggles, but the FACT of emotional struggles by definition weakens you. And if you think they have an "Effective use," it is no longer a struggle, because you've already made up your mind about it :D.

">> Power in and of itself. Definition: one possessing or exercising power, influence or authority"

Listing synonyms is a terrible way to define things. Especially when one of those synonyms is the word itself. :D

"The weak doing what they must, the Strong doing what they must. "
Anyone who "must" do something is not strong. All of those you describe are weak, for they are unable to choose what they achieve. If you MUST do x, you are impotent in regards to x, i.e. it is not subject to your choice.

"
>> Society is the beneficiary of individuals."

As I said, society is not an entity. It cannot be the beneficiary of ANYTHING, because it has no ability in and of itself to determine what a benefit is.
Individuals are the beneficiaries of society, specifically the facts of trade. Not the other way around.

"Pawns are always necessary. "

Human pawns are not necessary if you are "strong" in and of yourself. If you have the ability to achieve your goals, you do not need to control someone else and force them to achieve them for you.

"
>> My opponent doesn't understand. The ROAD to gaining power is good, it makes people strong. However, when one gains power absolutely, it harbors arrogance, apathy, and unwarranted aggression."

A road to anything, by definition, can only be judged in value by where it leads and how well it gets there.. If you happen to go along the road to power to "gain strength" and then make a detour just before the destination, as you seem to be advocating, you are in fact following a different road, the road to this "Strength" you speak of, which simply happens to be near the road to power.

"
>> lol, you take things way to much at face value."

In philosophy, everything had better be reducible to something that can be taken at face value, or it has no meaning at all.

"Power is not power because it has been corrupted."

This is a meaningless statement. To give it the meaning you were attempting to, it would have to go like this:

"What ONCE was power, is not power anymore, because it has been corrupted."

Precision! Precision!

And then you have to prove the corruption of course, i.e. prove that achieving a thing corrupts it, which is an absurdity all its own, if the corruption is inevitable, then the thing is inherently corrupt and always was, it just wasn't evident.
Debate Round No. 2
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Hey all you guys in here.

Come join us over at the temporary debate.org forum. Right now we're using a subdomain, but DebateF.com will work soon.

http://debateelite.bbspoint.com...
Posted by TheBlacknight 8 years ago
TheBlacknight
He probably doesn't know what xfire is.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Hmm, I can easily answer that question. No. He is merely an SWBF2 friend that I have had for about a year now. We talk on Xfire.
Posted by Zero 8 years ago
Zero
BlackKnight, you wouldn't happen to actually be CiRrO would you? Aside from the fact that CiRro is the only one making responses in the comments, I gotta say that you just coming to this website (having participated in no other debates mind you) just to post about CiRro is a wee bit suspect even for a laid back dreamer such as myself.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
lol, he changed his avatar, to a Revanchist follower.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Excuse me, I must correct my above spelling of a certain word, "propositions." The quoted version in this comment is the correct spelling, not the one in my Round One argument.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Then again, I don't know him well enough to conclude that he would reject these. I have a pretty good feeling that he would, but I'm not completely sure.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I like reading Ragnar's opinions on society and how it should be shaped. Since he will inevitably read this debate and comment, I insist that he go first.

But if you want to hear one of the contradictions which I've spotted, very well.

The first insinuates that justice must be upheld by every individual, but 4th insinuates that peace is a weakness and should be thrown out. Since the very purpose of justice is to insure peace, this philosophy violates the law of non- contradiction. Ergo, I am left to believe that either the BlackKnight hasn't provided the correct description or this hasn't been thought out fully and thus is a contradiction.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
And indeed you are correct, he somewhat paraphrased.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Hmm, we should have a discussion, me and you logic on my teachings, without the work of this....follower.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
TheBlacknightRagnar_RahlTied
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 Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
TheBlacknightRagnar_RahlTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
TheBlacknightRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
TheBlacknightRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
TheBlacknightRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
TheBlacknightRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Zero 8 years ago
Zero
TheBlacknightRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
TheBlacknightRagnar_RahlTied
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