The Instigator
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Intellectual_Perplexion
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Everyone is playing the game

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,553 times Debate No: 15080
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

Ore_Ele

Con

"The game" in this debate is the common meme mind game. [1]

The first rule of the game is, "Everyone in the world is playing The Game. A person cannot not play The Game; it does not require consent to play and one can never stop playing."

However, the game does not have the authority to make this rule/claim true.

For example. I can say, "all the money in your bank account is now mine." But that does not make it true. Just like saying "everyone is playing the game" does not make it true.

I hope that some takes this challenge to prove that the game is able to force participation.

Thank you.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(mind_game)
Intellectual_Perplexion

Pro

"The game", from a philosophical standpoint, is the realization of self-awareness and human existential obscurity. The game is omnipresent, yet it is not enforced directly, and you only enter the game through intellectual contemplation and self-actualization. Once you start the game, you cannot stop. These people, with exceptional intelligence, regulate the game, and mandate rules. This has been a proven fact throughout history. Examples are the Illuminati, religious leaders, nation leaders, and scientists. They are in the game, and they are the ones who manipulate society to their liking. They prey on the fact that people are not a part of the game and blindly accept the norm. The game's ringleaders are the one who create "objective facts" and decide laws, morality, and large decisions. The game does not force participation, but it is blindly accepted because it provides comfort, "understanding", and satisfaction.
To summarize, the people who enter the game are the ones who mandate reality. It is not an option for those unaware of the game to deny the game. Participation is forced and naturally inherent, but not realized.
To quote Gustave Flaubert, "There is no truth. There is only perception".
Debate Round No. 1
Ore_Ele

Con

I must be honest, I do not understand my opponent's argument. He states that you, "enter the game through intellectual contemplation and self-actualization."

Intellectual contemplation, as Aristotle sees it, is a deep thought on a subject. Often considered meditation and is designed for reaching an epiphany. But as it is used here, it is simply something that is capible of abstract thought and complex reasoning.

Self-actualization can have different meanings, however, based on the later part of my opponent's post, I think he is referring to Goldstien's viewing of it. And that is the ability "to actualize, as much as possible, individual capabilities." In other words, to be the best you can be.

However, no link is made on how doing either of these enters one into "the game." If anything, intellectual contemplation would reveal to individuals (such as it has to myself) that the game has no power to back up its claim "Everyone is playing the game. A person cannot not play The Game; it does not require consent to play and one can never stop playing."

If there is a link between those two, I ask my opponent to spell it out a little more clearly for both myself, and the people that may vote on this.
Intellectual_Perplexion

Pro

Yes, you are correct that intellectual contemplation is a deep thought on a subject - and in this case, the subject of existential and control-based society.
You said "If anything, intellectual contemplation would reveal to individuals (such as it has to myself) that the game has no power to back up its claim":
- The whole point of the game is that it is omnipresent, yet invisible and undetectable. Those who come to the realization that there is indeed a game will undoubtedly realize just how powerful the game is, because it is the governing force for all societies and civilizations.

Let's look at a few dystopian/Orwellian novels to get a better focus on the game:
1. Brave New World - The population is unwittingly indoctrinated and propagated from birth to believe in the superiority of their respective class system, hold complete reverence towards the "State", and to consume unabated because it benefits society. Their entire life is part of the game, and it holds complete power over them, yet they have no idea. In our world, propaganda and brainwashing are not nearly as prevalent, but each country undoubtedly creates their own form of public manipulation. In Brave New World, the protagonist becomes self-aware of the system, and this is what leads to his ultimate demise. Those in power, who control the game, do not want deviation from the game's standards, which are unbeknown to the public, yet omnipotent and omnipresent.
2. A few other good examples are 1984, A Clockwork Orange, Fahrenheit 451, and the Matrix.

The game feeds on unwitting participants, who accept the rules of the game as inherent structure which must be followed. Those who have the intellectual power to see beyond the system of the game are the one's who can see the true power and contrived structure of the society. Nearly every protagonist in dystopian movies/novels face the conundrum of becoming aware of the game, and balancing their desire to expose the game but knowing that doing so will lead to their downfall.

Quite a delicate conundrum.
Debate Round No. 2
Ore_Ele

Con

Your arguement of the game states that it is "omnipresent" and you state that "it is the governing force for all societies and civilizations."

However I must ask how this conclusion is reached, as nothing in the game dictates anything other than the statement that "everyone is playing the game." It makes no rules on overall behavior, nor controls any actions other than the statement of "I lost the game" whenever you think about the game. But still, nothing in the game, nor outside the game actually requires the participant to play. This isn't Jumanji, where if you choose not to play, the actions of the game will come and kill you (thus forcing you to play).

I would also like to point out that the examples of which you've given don't accurately fit "the game" as the game encourages everyone to be aware of the game (thus the verbal statement of "I have lost the game" upon thinking about it), while the examples given (apart from being non-fiction) punished, often through death, individuals that became aware of the game.

But even if we choose to accept your examples, they only further my cause as they show of how it is possible to not be playing the game and step outside of it (though, for many there are extreme consequences of attempting to do that). All in all, it has still not been shown how the game is actually able to control people to make them play. It has not been shown that one cannot simply state "I am not playing the game" and be accurate.
Intellectual_Perplexion

Pro

I lost the game. No, just kidding.

We clearly have differing views on the game; it's importance, it's power, and it's fluidity. You see it as nothing more than a trivial game for fun, where you declare, "I lost the game" whenever you think of it. The game is much more than this, as I have previously stated. You are making a fly out of an elephant, and quite frankly, it is insulting to the true participants and rulers of the game.

Please see my previous arguments for the true roots of The Game.

I bid you adieu.
Debate Round No. 3
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent states "We clearly have differing views on the game."

I'm not sure why this is the case, as seeing as the game was defined in the first round before my opponent even accepted the debate. He has stated that the game is more than just a game, yet has provided no reasoning as to why, nor any evidence to support such a claim. Now, since we are on the last round, the bringing in of any evidence or sources would be extremely poor conduct, as there would be no opportunity to refute it.

All I can say in closing, is that nothing was shown to provide even the slightest indication that the game has any power to make people play, regardless of its impotent rule # 1.

Thank you.
Intellectual_Perplexion

Pro

My opponent has provided no claim for the affirmative, and merely copy-pasted some random clips from wikipedia. Your arguments have been nothing but mind-numbing. I am bored with this.

Clearly the game is much more than some stupid "meme".

My opponent, though well intentioned, is hereby defeated.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Well, another loss for me. :(
Posted by alex0828 5 years ago
alex0828
damn, i lost the game
Posted by Brenavia 6 years ago
Brenavia
I just lost the game...
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Tip for you, Pro: arrogance only works if you have the stuff to back it up. Your bluff was called this time, and you were found wanting.

I have had people like you try to convince me that I am playing the game whether I want to or not. They are usually the same people that tell me I'm being mind-controlled by incorporeal lizard people. Go figure.
Posted by zGodMode 6 years ago
zGodMode
You can't play what doesn't exist.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
If anyone else would like to debate the authority of the game, please shoot me a PM.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
You guys aren't gonna believe this.... BUT I LOST THE GAME AGAIN!
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
I lost the game.
Posted by Amethist17 6 years ago
Amethist17
transcedentilists are not in "the game" or atleast i hope not, threou would be dissapointed if they were.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
OreEle, your baby is playing the game but hasn't lost.... YET!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Ore_EleIntellectual_PerplexionTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's logic is unassailable. Both he and I, at least, are not playing the Game; the resolution is negated. Pro failed to prove any of his rather odd assertions, and he didn't seem interested in trying. He seemed to expect us to take him at his word, a fatal mistake on this site.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Ore_EleIntellectual_PerplexionTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: huh, this was an interesting take on the game. I for one still believe Pro; but through Con's stance Pro doesn't really cover the argument Con is making.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
Ore_EleIntellectual_PerplexionTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con, per last argument, IE boredom, and arguments goes to con as well. Didn't really understand how the pro was trying prove how the game was omni-present, just seemed like there was alot of confusing sentences dancng around the statement, not neccesarily proving anything. The rest is tie.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Ore_EleIntellectual_PerplexionTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needs to put his tinfoil hat on to protect himself from the lizard people.