The Instigator
Sidex
Pro (for)
The Contender
batman01
Con (against)

I am the one of the smartest people alive

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
batman01 has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 157 times Debate No: 97330
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

Sidex

Pro

Please forgive my apparent lack of education. Being educational does not mean you are smart. It can imply that you are smart. My argument for being smart is being right. If his argument is wrong, then prove me wrong. If this is true, then I was able to come up with this theory while you were not, proving that I'm smarter than you. If you know any information, any data, or any facts based on reason and logic, then I beg of you to let me hear it. I will always reserve the right to change my mind.

I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new information based on reason and logic.

I will create a logic step attempting to prove the objectivity of morality.
I have been searching for truth my entire life. I guess I'm just a kid trying to find his way in the world. I have always been trying to find the answer to "When should we act on what we know and don't know?" This is a question in which the answer implies why we do things, in addition to what we should and should not do. Much of my argument will be based on inductive reasoning.

Humanity will become extinct, whether it's tomorrow or the at end of time. Wouldn't an ultimate goal of anyone who is logical be to push that specific point of time into the future as much as possible?

The Objectivity of Morality:

What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do.
"The sole meaning of life is serving Humanity." -Leo Tolstoy
It is right to follow the sole meaning of life.
The only way to serve Humanity is maintaining its existence.
Therefore, it is right for Humanity to survive.
Thus it is wrong for Humanity to become extinct.
You should not maliciously or apathetically end humanity.

I would also put forth the laws of causality. Everything that is literally happening right now has a literal reason in which to why it happened. Thus, if we accept that there will be a point in time or at the end of time that humanity will become no more, then it would imply that every action we take now until then would cause such an event.

Isn't the right thing to do for every logical person is to try not to come to that point in time? This conceptual thinking solidifies the purpose of any educational institution. This does not imply, however, that every educational institution is conducive to maintaining humanity's survival.

I assure you there is much further discussion needed for this topic. Please understand that you should probably not debate if you can't suppress your ego. Hopefully, your ego would allow the possibility that Man hasn't discovered this until now, thus implying that the reason why this was discovered, in accordance to causality, was all the knowledge that humanity has learned so far has finally made this result. I also need full credit, regardless of how inelegant I am. I do need help creating a passable argument in which the world can accept.

1. If you objectify anything, then it is objective. If it is not objective, then it was not objectified. You can attempt to objectify a person by their looks, however, if the reason why is subjective, then you have in fact given your opinion. The only way you can truly objectify a person by their looks is to give a reason in regards to body features in relation to one another based on the Golden Ratio.

2. Wouldn't an ultimate certain credential for doing good be that humanity should continue to exist?

3. As I said in my first argument, EVERY action that we take from this moment on would ultimately lead to the continued existence of humanity or end it. I'm pretty sure this is the butterfly effect. To use, will a person taking the cookie be conducive to ending humanity or not? That can't be answered entirely, however, if we turn this around and ask how will humanity end, then we can ask how does that happen? Then we can ask how that previous happening happened and continue that chain of events to the point when he stole the cookie. Since that implies an arbitrarily high number questions, the most efficient way of making it to the end is lumping them all together creating a variable in which you can use in an equation to define morality.

4. Objectification is the process of making every question into true or false, yes or no, or like a how a computer operates, zeros and ones.

5. When does "being right/correct" become invalidated? This logic has determined that it's invalidated when there is no one left to answer it.

6. We have been dependent for so long for religion to answer our moral questions. Religion is a necessary institution for humanity, for it gives a shortcut explanation of why we do things. In my opinion, any religion that leads to the end of humanity is wrong. I argue that since "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son," John 3:16, why would he tell anyone to end it? Even though I cannot say for certain other religions realize the same thing about their deities, I'm assuming that since most people aren't trying to kill each other is because they are aware that forming groups with a common ideology will help fortify institutions thus helping humanity continue to exist. The fact of the matter is that this hypothesis is not mutually exclusive to religion. One can even begin to say that killing in the name of God is wrong. Also keep in mind that there can be groups or individuals within the religion that may share a difference of opinion with the mass majority of the population of said religion.

7. If one man said the Earth is round and presented evidence as such, but millions of people said it was flat with their own rationale, which side would be morally correct and which should be morally correct?

8. This theorem(yes it needs work) can be implemented in forming a government that can respect everyone's belief if that belief is contingent on furthering the existence of Mankind. It is right to follow the laws government has instituted based on the argument the keeping peace can lead to a healthy exchange of ideas which can be proven to be conducive to Humanity's continued survival.
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
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sidex 2 weeks ago
Sidex
oh wait, maybe not, i have to read some more his work to accurately say that.
Posted by Sidex 2 weeks ago
Sidex
Actually, to be fair to him, he would have been smart enough if he knew what we know now.
Posted by Sidex 2 weeks ago
Sidex
This could be the most important philosophical question that Socrates himself could not solve.
Posted by Sidex 2 weeks ago
Sidex
I also may have a lot of confidence, but we are all equal. I may disagree with your opinion, but I won't ever think that I'm more than equal to you. I am ok with my confidence, and I hope maybe you can be happy for me that I finally found my calling. You have my sympathies if it makes you guys insecure, but because of the severity of the implications of this theorem, I am TRYING to be aggressive to get this known............I am trying to be somebody that I don't want to be. It's for the world guys. This will save lives.
Posted by Sidex 2 weeks ago
Sidex
*me, I keep freaking skipping words It really sucks not being able to type fast.
Posted by Sidex 2 weeks ago
Sidex
*out, Well that was kind of you to say nevik. thanks for calling smart and brilliant. For recognizing that, I'm sure you have to be very intelligent yourself. However, if I am wrong, can you please tell me how?
Posted by Sidex 2 weeks ago
Sidex
I am smarter than you because I have figured an "unsolvable" philosophical question.
Posted by Nivek 2 weeks ago
Nivek
Of course you're smart and brilliant ;) Don't ever doubt yourself. Only the foolish would dare entertain lesser beings ;) You're the greatest!
Posted by Sidex 2 weeks ago
Sidex
Oh, all you have to do is give a morality argument in which this doesn't apply and then I'm wrong. Easy Peasy
Posted by Sidex 2 weeks ago
Sidex
You guys seem to be missing something here. It's long-winded because I'm trying not to have useless debates over and over again. Essentially, I am making an argument that EVERYONE has never seen before. I would also like to argue because everyone has never seen this before, it would indicate most people are incapable of understanding to its fullest extent. To prove something like this in philosophy, it's not enough to say 2+2 is 4. You also have to prove that 2+2 is not every other number. This whole thing implies a new meaning of life guys. I'm being thorough and confident so that people can talk about this. You can't talk about this in school where most intellectuals congregate. Yes, ironic that the institution that promotes reason and logic has banned speaking about an argument based on reason and logic that inherently solidifies its survival.
This debate has 4 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.