The Instigator
Scyrone
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
repete21
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

It is impossible for a human being not to communicate.

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: 5/14/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,713 times Debate No: 4038
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (9)

 

Scyrone

Pro

I wish to rechallenge my opponent but this time I will actually check up on the website instead of purely relying on it's pathetic emailing system (yes my notifications for my email and on this site are turned on).

It is impossible for a Human Being NOT to communicate.

Communication is defined as:
1. the act or process of communicating; fact of being communicated
2. the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs
3. something imparted, interchanged, or transmitted
4. a document or message imparting news, views, information, etc.
5. passage, or an opportunity or means of passage, between places

Communication MUST involve two or more people. They do not have to be voiced either. Being silent, having a blank stare, and sitting in a single spot, not visibly moving, is communicating. It shows boredom to another person. It shows disinterest to another person.

It is impossible to NOT communicate to another person. My opponent would have to have the statement "NOT communicating is possible".
repete21

Con

First off I would like to point out that my opponent has used an absolute, all I must do to win is prove that one person can, for even the shortest period of time, refrain from communicating. I will do this through a scenario.

1- A lone person in a room where they cannot be observed to any extent cannot communicate.
Debate Round No. 1
Scyrone

Pro

A lone person communicates to themselves. The two people involved would be sending forth and receiving the information.

You would most likely point out that there aren't two people, but the two people would be one in the same, and as explained they are two people because one sends information and one receives it, if the being is talking to themselves.

A lone person can communicate to themselves.
repete21

Con

Since you did not define person, I will take the honour, this is from Merriam-Webster

Person-
Human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes

This definition clearly shows that 1 person = 1 person, not 2, but 1 person, amazing how that works isn't it?

The definition of person isn't sender of info or receiver of info. Talking to yourself is not communication, it is a though process. A person cannot communicate with themselves, as you stated by saying that 2 people are required.

Even if one person could communicate with themselves there are many times that this could not happen, for example during sleep, unconsciousness, or a coma.

I would like the judges that my opponent used an absolute and I need only prove 1 time when a person is not communicating is even remotely possible to win.
Debate Round No. 2
Scyrone

Pro

I did not define person, but since I am speaking of Human Beings, not person (person is an under-developed definition of Human Being) I will open the definition up to what I speak of.

A Human Being IS a person, but a complicated person. A Human Being is an individual self, even though it is possible that the Human Being can contain a multiple of collective thoughts within one's self. Seeing you are majoring in Communications, you should know that no one comes up with an idea by themselves. Therefore, it is possible to say that the Human Being is not mentally and ideally an individual, but that but physically they are an individual with a multiple collective of thoughts made from influences of the human psyche. Therefore, a Human Being can naturally be more than two people. My position still stands. One Human Being CAN be two different people. And communication can be from the same Human Being.

Also, Mirriam-Webster dictionary is not a good dictionary to reference from. It has been criticized by Herbert Morton for not having good English in it and not having a wide variety of definition to it. So obviously, most definitions are one-sided and simple, where as the subject matter at hand is not simple at all.

CBS also reports that the Mirrian Webster Dictionary includes new "hip" words from modern times. Such as Himbo, and taking out words such as colloquial and corruptness.

My opponents source for definition is not a good source at all.

So to sum it all up:

1. It is impossible not to communicate.
2. Two people/personalities can be in one individual.
3. His only source does not work with the subject at hand.
4. I have provided a clear definition of a Human Being (in which I used things learnt in a communications major, that is HIS specialty for study).

Thank you for the debate.
repete21

Con

I don't see how one person can be two people, you say my source is bad, but the examples you gave were irrelevant and you gave no source at all. I'm not entirely certain what your logic is behind this "one person is two people" philosophy and the only way I can think to negate this is to ask the judges to just think it through, are you really communicating with yourself? You aren't sending new information because you already have it, there is no biological explanation for a person communicating with themselves. They may do it on a subhuman level such as within the brain but that is parts of the brain communicating not the person. I guess we will just leave this decision up to the judges as to whether one person is two people or not.

Since my opponents only argument was that we communicate with themselves I will make a list of times when this doesn't happen for those judges who do think one person is really two people, when you are;

-dead
-asleep
-unconscious
-in a coma

A person in any of these states is still a person, but can the alleged two people within them communicate?

Also although it is probably irrelevant, I'm not in college, I'm still in high school.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by intj22 7 years ago
intj22
Con simply stipulated that communication must be between two people when the definition itself which he quoted never mentions this requirement. Pro should have called him on this. Pro could also have argued that Con believes in God and therefore there is always communication going on since God is omniscient.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
I'm not going to bother voting on this debate, however I do think it is very possible to communicate with oneself. I spend a large portion of my day thinking through ideas and coming to new conclusions, I think this would be a form of communication.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
No one should have responed or commented on this debate.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
With being a major, you have easier access to learning the various communication theories. In fact, many of these theories a mandated into your own bank of knowledge via classes.
Posted by repete21 8 years ago
repete21
FYI I'm in highschool, I haven't declared a major yet, don't see how that would have changed things anyway though.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Not quite the argument I was expecting. With what I had in mind, you can argue that a dead man communicates.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Scyronerepete21Tied
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 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 Scyrone 7 years ago
Scyrone
Scyronerepete21Tied
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 sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Scyronerepete21Tied
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 intj22 7 years ago
intj22
Scyronerepete21Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Scyronerepete21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Bravo453 8 years ago
Bravo453
Scyronerepete21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Scyronerepete21Tied
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 CP 8 years ago
CP
Scyronerepete21Tied
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 repete21 8 years ago
repete21
Scyronerepete21Tied
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