The Instigator
Brewmaster
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
McBain
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

I think Hummus is delicious

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: 4/13/2009 Category: News
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,002 times Debate No: 7832
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

Brewmaster

Pro

So I'm sitting here at my desk, and suddenly I'm struck with a thought. I'm eating pretzels with Hummus, and suddenly I realize that I freakin love hummus. It's delicious. Or at least, I think that it is.

However, I find that I am often wrong when I have thoughts. My brain simply isn't capable of processing an idea that complicated. Therefore I ask you to attempt to prove that I do not think hummus is delicious, and I will argue as best I can, and in the end I'll have a better idea of whether I actually like it. Thank you.

Oh, definition time. Hummus: is a Levantine Arab dip or spread made from cooked, mashed chickpeas, blended with tahini, olive oil, lemon juice, salt and garlic. It is a popular food in various local forms throughout the Middle Eastern world. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
McBain

Con

Thanks to my fellow foodie for such a delicious debate opportunity.

By delicious however, I am not referring to hummus of course!

The resolution "I think hummus is delicious" can be negated one of two ways.
1: I can try to disprove or discredit your capacity to think
2: I can prove that hummus is not delicious. (Or in layman's terms... IT SUCKS!)

#1 - First of all arguing that you think you have some opinion is an entirely subjective issue, one which is very difficult to disprove. However by saying "I find that I am often wrong when I have thoughts," provides strong evidence that you are not only wrong when you think, but you are wrong OFTEN. This means that it must be a regular occurrence an more often than not, your thoughts deceive you. Also, for an idea such as whether you think something tastes good or not to be too complicated for your mind to comprehend, that would put your level of intelligence near the bottom rungs of the phylogenetic tree.

#2 - Second I will prove that hummus is not in fact delicious. First off, it has the consistency of cat barf. Hummus is made of simple ingredients such as tahini (sesame seeds ground into paste), lemon juice, salt and garlic. Those are all flavorings used to spice up the main ingredient which is chick peas. I'm sorry but chick peas just plain suck! They taste like wet cardboard and are about as pleasant to eat. Unfortunately, even when seasoned and mashed into barf, it still tastes like wet cardboard, only with a little lemon juice thrown in the mix. (Maybe the root cause of the cardboard being wet) All in all, that adds up to a very unpleasant eating experience. Lemony cardboard cat barf. That about sums up the appeal of hummus. MMMM... TASTY!

Hopefully you can now see the error in your claim. Hummus is not delicious, nor do you think it is. Hummus just plain makes me want to barf.

(On a side note, I actually love hummus myself. After that compelling argument, I think I'll go have me some.)

(On another note I also love to eat barf. It tastes sooooooooo good.)
Debate Round No. 1
Brewmaster

Pro

An interesting rebuttal my friend, I am sure. Or at least I think I'm sure. I'm not sure.

You say that you can disprove that I think hummus is delicious by proving that it is not delicious. This simply isn't true. You may indeed prove that it is not objectively delicious, but I can still be deceived into think that it is. Therefore, your second argument is void, but it very neatly brings us to your main argument, which is much more potent.

My ability to think is in much greater question. You say that hummus may not be delicious. How can we know this? Well, by two ways. Primarily, we gain this knowledge through our senses. When I eat hummus, I taste the delicious chick peas and spices. I feel the smooth yet varied texture. I smell the potent tang of garlic. However, knowledge gathered by the senses can be called into doubt. Often do our senses deceive us. Place a straight stick in water, and it appears to our vision that the stick becomes bent, yet it has not. Ask yourself, how many times have you thought you heard, smelled, or seen something that you did not? Thus, senses alone cannot be accepted as a viable means for either proving or disproving the deliciousness of hummus.

Fortunate then that the primary focus of this debate has the word "think" in it, as this is a debate which must exist primarily in the mind.

****************************

Descartes proved his own existence through the process of being "a thinking thing" by means of the logical paradox that it is impossible to think that you are thinking, but not actually be thinking. Perhaps more aptly he ought to have said "I think I think, therefore I think I am." Can we be totally sure that we are a thinking thing? As I sit here my heart beats, my lungs fill with air and then expel it, my body temperature regulates itself, my eyes blink, and yet I do not think about any of these things for them to happen. It is rote process, instinct, habit, and chemical process which keeps me alive. Therefore, and speaking directly to your point that I lack the capacity to think, how do I know that I think hummus is delicious? Is it not entirely feasible that I am merely a FUNCTIONING thing rather than a thinking thing, and that the delicious qualities of hummus are a residual effect of an essential hummus-ness?

This actually raises the nebulous question of what actually is thought? You are thinking about reading this, forming opinions in your head (like what the f*** is this guy talking about), and probably frowning. How much of what you're actually doing is a conscious thought out process though? Most functioning in life is merely a programmed action in response to previously observed sensory phenomena. Your opinions, likes and dislikes, all follow suit from what you've experienced giving pleasure or pain in the past, and your actions follow automatically. However, I am not saying that independent thought can not or does not exist. It is simply a question of to what degree. Perhaps I will allow this particular train of thought where it is for right now, in deference to allow my colleague to pick it up at his leisure. Or not.

********************************

More precisely to the point, the conceptual notion of "hummus being delicious" has passed through my brain. I could not have written it to begin with if the idea had never existed within me. I need not even enjoy the taste of hummus (although I believe I do) for the statement that "I think hummus is delicious" to be true by cognitive necessity. This is of course assuming that I actually do think, which is still in some doubt, or if you can make a case that the thoughts in my head are not actually my own. Good luck mon ami.
McBain

Con

Due to time constraints I'm going to have to post my argument in the comments section. I apologize to the readers, please don't hold it against me. Thanks to Brewmaster for his understanding.
Debate Round No. 2
Brewmaster

Pro

Since I know nobody is going to bother reading comments, I will post McBain's second argument here. Please do not hold his tardiness against him, as the only reason it was not posted in time is because we were at a bar...eating hummus.

McBain wrote:

I am glad that we are both in agreement that taste and whether hummus is in fact delicious or not is a subjective matter. This narrows the stipulations for whether you think hummus is delicious down to the matter of thought.

You bring up Descartes' logical paradox of Cogito Ergo Sum ( I think, therefore I am) and disprove that for me quite nicely. However you bring up the point as to whether or not there is the POSSIBILITY that you may be a part of a reactive functioning thing that operates automatically due to some kind of hummus consumption complex. If that is a possibility, there also must the POSSIBILITY that your pre-defined hummus consumption function, and your whole existence for that matter is a construct of some other force.

Who's to say what you are thinking or doing isn't part of somebody else's reality? Why I just thought of all this hypothetically while reading and constructing arguments, and your hummus consumption or thoughts have all been part of that scenario. Who's to say that your entire existence, thoughts and arguments in this debate aren't part of some fantasy I conjured up in my mind? I could just be making you think that hummus is delicious even though it is not because I have intentionally made you think so. Even if you are just a functioning thing without thought, you could still be a construct of my own imagination and reality.

To take another step back for that matter, who's to say that both of us, our thoughts and this entire debate, aren't a scenario imagined by some person, thing, or consciousness OTHER than us? For that matter, this guy could just be a thought of somebody else, who would be imagining that some guy is imagining that we are having this debate. All that being said, maybe we don't actually exist or think at all. Maybe we are just fiction.

******************************************
End McBain
******************************************

I would love to continue an argument along these lines, but unfortunately for the topic at hand you really haven't progressed anything. What you propose is that it is possible that my thoughts are not actually mine because you can imagine a scenario in which they would not be. However, you provide no proof, or even a logical progression of thought toward this end. Instead, you simply posit that because we can have some degree of doubt, my thoughts are not my own (and therefore I do not think that hummus is delicious). This statement leads us necessarily into a realm of total skepticism. Total skepticism has three major criticisms that I would like to briefly address.

1.) Most practically, if we assume a precedent of doubting anything which may possibly be imagined to be false, then we cannot function in our daily existence. I have no motivation to go to sleep tonight, because I can doubt that the world will exist when I wake up. If I actually give this idea enough credence to act upon it, I will oversleep and miss work. Pragmatically, your claim flawed.

2.) Radical skepticism destroys the possibility for argument, which is most relevant to this site. Absolutely any position you take can be refuted by positing a hypothetical scenario in which your claims are false, however unlikely it may be. I can make this claim boldly because you have sought to use the denyability of thought as your thesis, however the total reality of personal subjective thought is arguably the most irrefutable of Descartes metaphysical claims. Philosophically, your claim is flawed.

3.) Most important of all, you are attempting to prove something in the positive sense. Because you have cause to doubt my claim is not actually evidence of the truism of your own claim. For example, if I claim that it is always sunny outside, and you counter this claim by saying that sometimes it rains, you cannot also that that it always rains. Negative examples do not give rise to proof positive. Completely, your claim is flawed.

For my own part, the only further evidence that I can give of my claim that I do indeed think that hummus is delicious is that I ate a whole tub of it yesterday after work. Nobody forced me to, and I had plenty of other things to choose from. Although to be fair, I did also eat a bunch of salsa.

Please, if you think that the Universe is expanding into an infinite substance which is both something and also nothing, like an inflating balloon, please vote PRO.
McBain

Con

"I would love to continue an argument along these lines, but unfortunately for the topic at hand you really haven't progressed anything. What you propose is that it is possible that my thoughts are not actually mine because you can imagine a scenario in which they would not be. However, you provide no proof, or even a logical progression of thought toward this end. Instead, you simply posit that because we can have some degree of doubt, my thoughts are not my own (and therefore I do not think that hummus is delicious). This statement leads us necessarily into a realm of total skepticism. Total skepticism has three major criticisms that I would like to briefly address."

What I proposed was merely a scenario where your thoughts may indeed not be your own. To address your second point, what Descartes really says with "I think therefore I am," is that it is paradoxical to think without thinking. Why limit it at just that however? When a topic such as thought is so subjective, why not bring other subjective material into play? Skepticism is a very necessary evil when dealing with subjective subjects.

"1.) Most practically, if we assume a precedent of doubting anything which may possibly be imagined to be false, then we cannot function in our daily existence. I have no motivation to go to sleep tonight, because I can doubt that the world will exist when I wake up. If I actually give this idea enough credence to act upon it, I will oversleep and miss work. Pragmatically, your claim flawed."

Saying that "doubting anything which may possibly be imagined to be false" is somewhat of a contradictory statement if you look at it closely. However, assuming you meant assuming a precedent of doubting anything which may be possibly imagined, I would argue just the opposite of your statement. Doubting anything which may be possibly be imagined is necessary to our daily existence. If we were to go through life never doubting anything, we would be living in a constant state of total ignorance. Doubt is what allows different viewpoints to exist, and is one of the key factors in the scientific process.

"2.) Radical skepticism destroys the possibility for argument, which is most relevant to this site. Absolutely any position you take can be refuted by positing a hypothetical scenario in which your claims are false, however unlikely it may be. I can make this claim boldly because you have sought to use the denyability of thought as your thesis, however the total reality of personal subjective thought is arguably the most irrefutable of Descartes metaphysical claims. Philosophically, your claim is flawed."

Not only did I address this argument earlier in this my response this round, but I approached this debate from two angles, not just one. I would say that my arguments still hold strong, and that both practically and philosophically hummus is likened to cat barf.

"3.) Most important of all, you are attempting to prove something in the positive sense. Because you have cause to doubt my claim is not actually evidence of the truism of your own claim. For example, if I claim that it is always sunny outside, and you counter this claim by saying that sometimes it rains, you cannot also that that it always rains. Negative examples do not give rise to proof positive. Completely, your claim is flawed."

Because I have cause to doubt your claim is indeed not actual evidence of the truism of my claim, but that works as a double edged sword. Because you have cause to believe YOUR claim, does not indeed provide actual evidence of the truism of your own claim either. That is a problem with subjective topics. (which I might note for the readers, you agree that thought is a subjective matter) You come down on me for not providing proof to a subjective matter, well I'll turn that right back at you because you are rowing the same boat with me there.

"For my own part, the only further evidence that I can give of my claim that I do indeed think that hummus is delicious is that I ate a whole tub of it yesterday after work. Nobody forced me to, and I had plenty of other things to choose from. Although to be fair, I did also eat a bunch of salsa."

This is a perfect example of my previous point. You say you ate a tub of hummus out of free will, but I say to you good sir... PROVE IT!

"Please, if you think that the Universe is expanding into an infinite substance which is both something and also nothing, like an inflating balloon, please vote PRO."
(I don't see how this is relevant to the debate)

Please, if you think that the Universe is an expanding unicycle tire which is both forward and backwards like a purple monkey dishwasher, please vote CON!

Also, I once again thank my opponent for his gracious understanding of my time commitments. I love him dearly, unlike hummus which hates you all so very much. *CAT BARF*
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
"To take another step back for that matter, who's to say that both of us, our thoughts and this entire debate, aren't a scenario imagined by some person, thing, or consciousness OTHER than us?"

Rats! I've been discovered!
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
It's just far easier and more logical to believe in your own thoughts. There's still the possibility that your thoughts aren't yours.

Get some holy water for those Cartesian demons. In fact, Oxy Clean will get rid of them in a jiffy.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"But who's to say that your consciousness isn't a construct of some other consciousness?"

How would that work? Though I think I sorta know what you mean. In that case however, it's still the same. No matter the origin or form of your true physical form, or how your consciousness came about, you can still take safety in your own thoughts. Descarte's demon can't get you there.
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
Your consciousness is for sure. But who's to say that your consciousness isn't a construct of some other consciousness? Maybe a higher dimensional being, or some imagination. You can't prove that it is exclusively your own. Nor can Cogito.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"But who's to say that your thoughts are your own? Cogito merely confirms existence due to a logical paradox."

Cogito confirms MY existence, so yes those thoughts are my own. While I may not be a human being thinking, but instead a brain in a vat thinking, my consciousness is still thinking. So whatever form my physical body may be in, one thing is for sure - my consciousness.
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
I'm not arguing that as wrong skeptic. But who's to say that your thoughts are your own? Cogito merely confirms existence due to a logical paradox.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
The*

hooray for petty spelling corrections!
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
There mere instance you doubt you exist is the moment you have confirmed your existence with Cogito Ergo Sum.
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
Says saam's account is no longer active. Did she make an account just for that comment and then delete it? Or did that comment cause the deletion of her account?
Posted by saamanthagrl 7 years ago
saamanthagrl
I loveeeeee hummus
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by iholland95 4 years ago
iholland95
BrewmasterMcBainTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: hummas is yummy. I completely agree. It is great with Pita bread
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
BrewmasterMcBainTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00