The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Meditation should be compulsory for all citizen of post-industrialized societies.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 495 times Debate No: 64072
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Firstly I purposely gave this debate an inaccurate title. No person has the right to have authority over another (parents and children excluded), therefore a law stating all people must meditate is wholly wrong. However, education about meditation should be taught in schools as a compulsory and offered to all citizen on a free and leisurely basis. People in post-industrialized societies are suffering from overloaded subconsciousness. Technology has created a symbiotic relationship with the brains of all who use, smart-phones, tablets, laptops, desktop computers. This combined with the perpetually erratic daily encounters people are experiencing is leading to a state of neurosis, characterized by an increasing number of people displaying psychopathic and sociopathic behaviors. The free and unrestricted transmission of information people are receiving is creating a data surplus stored inside the brain. The conscious brain processes a small amount of the information an individual receives whilst the rest is stored in their subconscious. Meditation functions as a biological virtual memory dump, allowing people to become more at peace within themselves and with the people around them. Meditation should be at the core of any post-industrialised/ technologically advanced society, albeit all societies.


I have to disagree with what you are trying to get at with this debate. I do agree that no person has the right to authority over another, but why should there be a law forcing those to meditate? You just contradicted yourself in that statement, when you just said that you shouldn't be forced to do something by others, and then immediately ignore that and say the complete opposite for meditation. Just like with all laws, rights, freedoms, etc., they are all superficial; what the government can give, they can take away.

I know that the government has established these so-called rights and freedoms to each and every citizen, but let's be honest for a second; these rights are violated all the time, whether the government is doing this on purpose or not. Because if rights couldn't be taken away, then why do law enforcement agencies exist? Why do prisons and courts exist? Why do lawyers exist to defend these so-called un-takeable rights for us? If we citizens violate the law or violate other peoples' rights and freedoms, for example, then the government has the right to take it away. But if lawyers are able to successfully defend us then they have technically stripped the government of their rights, see?

There are no such things as rights and freedoms that are natural, permanent, and non-removable from us simply because they are completely man-made and (just like laws) vary from place to place. Besides, I can guarantee that your rights and freedoms are being violated everyday by other people around you, and you probably don't even notice it. Since you won't be checking if they are being violated 24/7, you're most likely not going to report it to the government because you are completely unaware and lack any sort of evidence due to your ignorance. Although these rights and freedoms are guaranteed, they can still be taken away when certain conditions are met.

As for the meditation law itself, I find it to be extremely unnecessary and unfair for students to be forced to take such courses on a daily basis. Why do only students have to take the course? Why not force adults that check with doctors and therapists to meditate as a treatment option also? Why not force adults that were criminals, mentally ill, or in need of rehabilitation as well? Or why even bother to force it? We already have meditation courses that anybody can sign up for, why not just make them free and advertise them like crazy instead?

Technology has made information much more accessible and its convenience has ironically made us even more busy and stressed out from all the usage and data. Although you are correct in that and that people are getting their brains overloaded with information, that does not mean that everybody is like that. While the common person that uses technology may be stressed out and overloaded with data, others like myself (and perhaps even you) are not and have adapted to such a complex life-style. Since you stated that humans become more intelligent with the overload of information, wouldn't meditating make us less intelligent at the risky benefit of being less stresses out as you also stated earlier?

As the old saying goes, survival of the fittest. Those that cannot adapt will simply be crushed by those that have. Seems extremely corrupt and unfair, but I'm afraid that's how our world and the universe) works. I'm not going to go too much into that, as you could debate me on that another time, but let's just say that meditating only makes us stupider according to both of our logical thinking (you also stated it yourself indirectly), which only hinders our ability to survive. Maybe not to physically survive, but definitely in terms of education and work it certainly does. Also, we all live in the modern (actually post-modern, but we'll debate about that another time), times where we must constantly adapt to the new trends and ideas that is brought about in order to survive in society, the work-force, and/or the educational system.

Yes, meditation does have its advantages and certainly relieves stress and other things that can prolong our lives, but it also brings many disadvantages also. Besides, as stated earlier, why should only students be forced to take it and not other demographics? And why even force it in the first place if the services could just all become free? Also, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that it's not right to control other people yet you suggest that the governments of developed nations force people to meditate on a daily basis? How do you not realize that rights and freedoms are all superficial and can be taken away under certain circumstances? Meditation should not be forced to be taken daily by students, rather by all age groups and only voluntary and at no financial charge provided by the meditating teachers.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, so i extended to you the opportunity to reread my first three sentences. When you can find the statement which says I propose a law that meditation be compulsory we can then debate on that statement. I wont reply to most of your argument because it seems centered around topics you wish to debate about. If you want to debate legislation, please create your own debate. No ones talking about coercing anyone to meditate, I think that goes counter to what meditation is about. Okay wow, you have really went off on one. Maybe my argument was not clear enough, kind sir I will break it down for you.

1. I propose no law that people must meditate as it no person has the right to have authority over another as this is wholly wrong.
2. Education about meditation should be taught in all schools as compulsory, (the inference which should have been made is primary school as the work load is not as hectic, maybe it can be a unit within religious studies or health education).
3. Meditation education should be offered to all citizen on a free and leisurely basis. (Maybe go and speak with your family doctor and they can put you on a course).

With regard to what you wrote about technology, I don"t see the point you have tried to make, I am right? It is true, not everybody is connected to Facebook or Twitter or Google+ or VK or Youtube or whatever. Can you process all of the information in your newsfeed? How about news networks? or procrastinative web searches or Reddit? Or even Can you with your conscious mind tell me that you do not spend at least an hour a day on one or all of these websites? Can you tell me 5% of what you saw today whilst being online? To maintain your sanity the brain has a filter, but we are human, just as imperfect as it is for me to empty my bowels before I go to sleep at night, our brains are imperfect also and stores information in our subconscious minds to refer to later, even if we don"t want it to. I never said humans become more intelligent with the overload of information, whilst I agree to an extent, you probably inferred burdened.

No actually meditation has the opposite effect and teaches the brain how to better process information. The quietness gives a chance for the brain to create new neural pathways giving you more access to the information which you have taken in. It also promotes emotional intelligence by aiding the recovery of the amygdala from stress and trauma, it thickens the gray matter in areas of the brain associated with self-awareness, it quietens self talk creating a new default mode sort of speak and it boosts focus and resilience. There are many more benefits associated with meditations, I will leave it to you to do your own research.

Okay so now your quoting something from the origin of species. Have you read it? Survival of the fittest is a very small part of that book. I can see the connection your pulling here with stress conducive to innovation, as if we were not stressed and scared of extinction nothing would get done. Maybe to you this world seems extremely corrupt and unfair, that"s more reason for you to take up meditation for 10 minutes a day. i promise your perception will change very quickly. And what other galaxies have you ventured to? Do you know anything about meditation? Honestly?

It seems to me kind sir that you are an expert at arguing against any points that come into your mind.
Take time to reread and consider my initial argument. Meditate on it.
Pardon me for the poor structuring.


I do understand your arguments and topic, but maybe because opponent thought that I didn't due to the wording of my argument. No, I did not purposely make it difficult to understand, mind you. I am assuming that you never understood my arguments regarding rights and freedoms, and have decided to use the "let us debate about said argument another time because I do not understand it and/or how it is relevant to said debate" scape-goat again. That will work this time, but the next time we argue another debate and you use that scape-goat once more, you won't be so lucky to get away with it that easily. In your argument, you said to propose a law to force students to take compulsory courses (which are courses that must be taken for credits and not alternative) on a free and daily basis. If you wanted to point out that you meant to make it an option and not a forced choice, then you should have used different vocabulary such as alternative or elective instead of compulsory. You contradicted yourself yet again by saying past argument is not about forcing people to meditate, then you say it is. It is not me that misunderstands, it is you who misunderstands the definition of compulsory.

Since you were dumb enough (no offense though) to break down your argument, then I will break down the definition of compulsory and how it counters your arguments and explain how other terms such as elective and alternative could have helped strengthen your argument instead of weakening it:

Compulsory (com"pul"so"ry):

required by law or a rule; obligatory.
"compulsory military service"

involving or exercising compulsion; coercive.
"the abuse of compulsory powers"

[source: Google/Oxford Dictionary]

As compulsory actually means being required or forced, you are actually unknowingly arguing that a law should be proposed by you to the government to enforce all students to be required to take meditation on a daily basis at a free financial price, or run the risk of failing said course and not earning enough credits or grades to either succeed through elementary, middle, high-school; college or university. Now you are claiming that you never meant to say it that way as nobody should be forced to take meditation, yet you contradict yourself by saying that they should be required by the educational systems to take those courses. Should you have used other words that meant the exact opposite of compulsory, then I would be certainly misunderstood your arguments and I should be the one to blame for all the confusion. Below are definitions of alternative and elective, terms that you should have used and the educational systems use for courses that are not mandatory or required to take whether students like it or not:

Alternative (al"ter"na"tive):


(of one or more things) available as another possibility.
"the various alternative methods for resolving disputes"

(of two things) mutually exclusive.
"the facts fit two alternative scenarios"

of or relating to behavior that is considered unconventional and is often seen as a challenge to traditional norms.
"an alternative lifestyle"

noun: alternative; plural noun: alternatives

one of two or more available possibilities.
"audiocassettes are an interesting alternative to reading"

Elective (e"lec"tive):


related to or working by means of election.
"an elective democracy"
"he had never held elective office"
(of a body or position) possessing or giving the power to elect.

(of a course of study) chosen by the student rather than compulsory.
(of surgical or medical treatment) chosen by the patient rather than urgently necessary.

noun: elective; plural noun: electives

an optional course of study.
"up to half the credits in many public high schools are electives"

[source: Google/Oxford Dictionary]

Now that I have explained to you the true definition of compulsory, you should now understand that your arguments have confused you to misunderstand my rebuttals, and not vice versa. If you have used alternative, elective, or other synonyms, then this debate would have been more likely in your favor, however; since you used the opposite term that you intended to use when making said argument, you have failed to to make an effective debate and now the odds of me winning have increased. Please do try to use the terms mentioned above instead of compulsory next time though.

With your regard to what you wrote about technology to rebuttal my arguments refuting yours of technology, I have never made any references to social networking or video sharing sites every in my past rebuttals. Perhaps in my other debates, but certainly not in this debate. No, I cannot remember all of the information that I read or watch on such sites, but I certainly can process it all, as it is not as complex as something you would see in a scholarly or post-secondary educational site (except for this site, I give you that.) I do not spend my time on the computer surfing the web every single day, but when I do, I do spend at least 3 hours or more on the web. I am able to tell you approximately 20% of what I saw today online, as I haven't been online for that long and since the human brain can only remember up to 20% of events that occur in a single day; if you want me to tell you more, then I can't because I am not a genius with an IQ of over 150, so I can't and won't.

Maybe you can't process information as much as I can, but I certainly can process alot of information much faster and much more than the average human, mainly because I play video games, search up random things on the internet, and I have the strange (but natural) ability to read several times faster than the average human. You won't believe what I said, but it is true if you did "study" me doing these acts under strict laboratory conditions. I read so fast compared to the average joe that they may think I am not even reading at all and just skimming through the pages. Maybe it's because I spend my time always gaming, internet surfing, and reading books; as in reading novels with several hundred pages in one sitting like it was nothing and becoming a bookworm as a result, or maybe it is because I am an android that came from the future to destroy this time-line and create countless paradoxes to defeat my enemies in my time in the distant future.

While I do admit that this does apply to things I learn in school and other things, that is mostly because, like you, I am human and will filter it to prevent myself from getting head-aches and stress (not losing my sanity), and I am not very interested in learning said things, mainly school. Also, since I have limited photographic memory that is only slightly better than the average human (but still pales in comparison to those with great photographic memory), I also filter information as you said. You never said that humans can become more intelligent through overload of information, but I said it directly and you said it indirectly (that's how I made such a conclusion after all), so my inferences are not burdened with proof. And for the record, go search it up yourself as you have told me to search up the benefits of meditation.

As for the actual benefits of mediation itself, opponent states that it can actually make one more intelligent as it clears the mind of stress, annoyances, trauma, and the like. Yet according to the benefits and your poor wording again, your arguments are invalid (no, Batman is not with me, don't be stressed out). You say that it does improve intelligence, but according to the actual mental benefits and your wording, it actually does not improve intelligence; rather, it simply clears the mind of any distractions that poison it, so that the mind will be able to focus better and allows the self to become better at processing information now that the mind isn't clogged up with such "toxins". So you finally admit your mistakes after the end of the argument? Maybe it is you that needs it...
Debate Round No. 2


Dear sir con,

I applaud your ability to react.
You have raised some interesting points. Firstly, as the simplifier that I am, I will now chronologically narrate the points you attempted to raise in your text against my argument and rebut when appropriate.

You attempted to save face. You never understood my argument. You demonstrated this by talking around and misinterpreting a fairly straight-forward vernacular which was presented to you, and now you offer an explanation which seems very "he said, she said".

You further attempted to save face. As I said, I never wanted to enter the debate you wished to coax about law and civil liberties. I speak from my knowledge based on the country I have been raised. In my country we have delegations and directorates, these are powers given to government agencies or organisation to implement bi-laws, these allow more issues to be dealt with on the local level. Within Education, there are set compulsory subjects of maths, English, science, health and religion. Within all subjects are units and within the subject of health, meditation can be added to the unit of mental health. I recognize my mistake was being vague, I assumed this system of education was more-or-less universal. Also saying i wished to "scape-goat" is another attempt at you trying to save face as you attempt to justify your argument not holding any water.

Throughout your text you appear to be trying to assert intellectual dominance likened to you attempting to save and bolster your fragile ego, from and against, a realization of its inadequacy at another"s expense, it is a very dark portrait you are painting for your self. One self which cannot accept its limitations or triumph over its insecurities and seeks to lessen the esteem of whom it feels is smaller than, or threatened by. The dark night of the soul is quantifiable by observation. Beware of this in your future.

Due to your pedantic episode of defining words that did not need defining, I poured a coffee, took a seat, lit a cigarette and was faced with an interlude of neurosis, swinging back and fourth loosing all control over my anchor into reality, pondering my own meager existence. I kicked my cat. I asked the cat, "Should I be allowed to live let alone reproduce my self if i can"t even distinguish between the correct usage of synonyms?", Then I realized that i had no cat and the realization dawned on me that the cat was an apparition of my self. Compulsory may not be the most suitable of words, although it is still completely comprehensible when taken into context. Also, pardon my rudimentary structuring and tongue as I do not place too much importance on things which offer me very little gratification. I"d rather have sex with my girlfriend who speaks five languages and screams for god in a variety of expressions every single time. See i"m a gamer too.

Your argument is based on rewording my argument to interpret the way you wish others to perceive it. You also went through a long process of attacking my debating competence along with my intellect whilst endeavoring to make yours seem infallible. Good luck with that.


Diagram illustrating a thicker grey area in the brain after meditation over a period of time.
Cullen. L, T,"Scientists find that meditation not only reduces stress but also reshapes the brain",

Nagourney. E, "Effects: When Mindful Awareness Goes to Your Head", New York Times., Nov 22, 2005.

Shapiro. L, S, Ph.D., & Walsh, R, M.D., Ph.D. "An analysis of recent meditation research and suggestions for future directions". The Humanistic Psychologist., Volume 31, Issue 2-3, 2003, pages 86-114


Shrek_sDrecKid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 1 year ago
Shame that nobody voted...
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 1 year ago
Even if people voted, I guess it would have still been a tie...
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 1 year ago
I had to fix my laptop because the screen broke over the weekend; sorry for not debating. I would have pwned you anyways, so I'll let you have free-bee and win this debate. Otherwise, I would have won this debate, but we all have our own real lives right?
No votes have been placed for this debate.