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

My Profound Explanation On Animal And Man Hunt!

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 558 times Debate No: 60357
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Rules: There is no such thing as BOP, Source, Resolution, Tautology or Answer in a debate that involves a more philosophical approach, rather than a political approach, (by using these terms, or their synonymous forms, you have thus forfeited this discussion), as this debate still can go ways in, but will not do well in answering itself. It deals with something that is on a grand level, which can only be figured out so much before you start realizing that you have to look for more pieces before you continue on locating the correlations between the universal paradigms (e.g bees behaving like electrons), therefore it would be best to discuss this on a powerful level of analysis, instead of a petty level of answer-ability. There is no such thing as "First round for acceptance, when there's a button that has the word "Accept" prior to it, thus this is to say I am a real thinker, not a sheep that follows ludicrous rules like this one. Feel free to express yourself as a thinker, as this is not about points - this is about "points", real points, the type that isn't a virtual affair. Nothing on this site means anything, when it's founded upon trolls and nitwits that +1 each other; this debate is about using our brain, our heart and our mind together to ask bigger questions than we did before, without wanting an answer; without complicating what is most certainly simple. If you accept this debate, you are saying you will take this as a philosopher, not a good-for-nothing politician which begs the question and places the burden of proof on someone that makes consensuses, not statements - this is to say that politicians are already intellectually illiterate, hence they place the BOP on a question and a consensus, rather than baseless claims and answers - all the while ignoring the words "philosophical", "philosophy" and "philosopher".

Argument: It's to reflect on how they have yet to hunt their inner animal down. Do you know why some hunt their own men? It's because they lost their humanity; they are hunting it down in a different way - there's an interplay between subconscious issues and conscious issues / conscious actions and subconscious actions - one taking over for the other.

When the physical body is dying, the metaphysical part of the body takes over hence why we dream right before death and experience mirages in the middle of a desert or paranoia causes you to hallucinate.

When the metaphysical body is dying, we become psychopaths, but in that psychopathy, we are still acting and facing issues that foreshadow our hidden character physically, which is the metaphysical; the emotion, the drive, the personality and the color, by draining the life out of everything on the outside to compensate for the life they had lost on the inside.

This is to say: If you can't survive on the inside, you will shelter yourself from it by living on the outside. If you can't survive on the outside, you will shelter yourself from it by living on the inside.


To tell the truth, I really don't understand what your point is.
What do you mean by BOP?
What does "hunting animals/ men" have to do with "hunting one's inner animals/ men" ( whatever that means) ?
There's no such thing as "death" . Reincarnation makes sense- "death" doesn't.
Scientist say that matter/ energy can't be created or destroyed.
Where were you & what were you doing before the physical body was born/ conceived?
Where will you be & what will you be doing after the body is no longer operating?
"Life is real, life is earnest
but the grave is not the goal.
From dust thou art, to dust returneth
was not spoken of the soul. "
Bees, of course, don't behave like electrons.
Quantum Physicians apparently state that particles don't exist-
"Reality" (?) is a Smear or Interference Pattern of Probabilities (the Multiverse) .
Debate Round No. 1


Burden of Proof is basically this system which was built for a purpose at one time, but no longer has any value in a world full of politically correct zombies that no longer understand the difference between what is a lie and what is a truth, so in today's era, if you're going to use BOP in either case, you might as well play chess with a pigeon because in today's era, people do not think for themselves and will bore your head in with "sources" that came out of their selfless arse.

The subconscious and the conscious experience are an interplay between genuine matter and imaginary matter. Might I advise you study Riemann's Hypothesis, as this formula states that the Universe is consisted of imaginary numbers that replicate themselves likened to real numbers. This explains why we have an imagination and a reality that both seem very real to our experience. It also explains why ignorance and fear seem to never end.

Reincarnation does not occur via life/death - it occurs via physical/metaphysical. When we sleep, we enter the metaphysical world, which is us experiencing reincarnation over night. When we die, we do not reincarnate - we die and the energy that stayed in our bodies like electricity stays in a light bulb will leave and return to the Universe.

There's no "I" - only "Information". Ideas come to us; we do not come to them. We know nothing - we have access to a tool that is connected to everything. This is not our experience - this is the Universe's experience.

Electrons and bees behave the same way while serving different purposes. The Universe has a self-similarity design. You clearly do not know what you're talking about hence the beginning "I don't understand" response.

There's no multi-verse - there's only multi-versions. You're discussing with a genius. I'd suggest you to leave. You are too young and irresponsibly foolish to be discussing something at this caliber with a "I don't understand" to top it all off. Then you go off on wild tangents without a remote understanding of the Universe. How embarrassing.


If you're a genius, I'm a duck- & I'm no duck.
You sound like you have Severe Paranoia.
Claiming that Burden of Proof is crazy is utterly ridiculous.
You obviously have no understanding of what you're writing about.
Riemann's Hypothesis has to do with complex mathematics, not the Universe,
& is apparently a theory that hasn't been proved.
There obviously can't be any square root of -1 That's why "numbers" like that are called Imaginary Numbers.
I won't argue with your statement that you know nothing.
Your statement that I'm young & foolish is interesting-
How old is Vajrasattva?
How foolish?
How old & foolish am I really?
Debate Round No. 2


You're a sitting duck at this point.

Accusation based on deflecting their own ignorance.

No genius needs a BoP for themselves - they only need a BoP for others. Why? BoP is only for idiots - even then, it's very inaccurate because if the receiver cannot understand the evidence, then whence cometh the evidence?

You're projecting again.

The Universe has to do with mathematics, therefore it has to do with Riemann's Hypothesis.

And yet, they are still numbers, as imaginary as they are, being infinite as any other genuine number.


Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

What matters about age, when all light comes from the darkest parts of the Universe?

It's a range from inevitable to infinite.

Stupidity is not a state - it's a result.


You'd better point your gun/ finger somewhere else- I'm no sitting duck.
You won't find any Imaginary Numbers in the Universe- there isn't any square root of -1.
Albert Einstein stated that the universe is finite but unbounded, &
L. Ron Hubbard stated that Absolutes have to be considered logically unobtainable.
There's no such thing as an infinite series of numbers.
Light obviously doesn't come from the darkest part of the universe.
If there ever had been a Big Bang, it would probably have been the Brightest thing ever.
Stupidity would be a Lack of Intelligence, which is Impossible.
I'm not projecting- you are.
If you reject BOP, how can you ever win this argument?
Debate Round No. 3


You are a sitting suck. You're on quack.

Then what is imagination? What is fear? What is all the things that seem like they exist? But exist no more than a fractal state?

The Universe is limited, but unbounded because of the imagination. When you have yet to make a choice, the whole Universe is ahead of you - make but one choice, you'll limit yourself to a very narrow strip of the Universe.

Infinity in itself is finitely explanatory.

Light indeed does, I'm afraid you have given me all the evidence I need to prove your idiocy.

It's like the stages of human consciousness; dark > light

You have a lack of many things, not just intelligence.

You're the one projecting, hence you're the one who does not understand the Universe, hence you said yourself that light does not come from the darkest of origins within the Universe.

I have knowledge - evidence is the showing of that knowledge. Not all knowledge can be shown, as not all knowledge can be taught, but internally taught by the observer.


You're not going to find Imagination in the MEST universe any more than you'd find Imaginary Numbers.
You're nuts.
Debate Round No. 4


Actually, I never said this. I'm referring to the idea that imagination contains imaginary units. The Universe contains genuine and imaginative matter which explains why it would have to do this, hence there's a contrast to everything. What is the contrast to reality? Imagination. Therefore you're too stupid to understand any of this. Leave this place you scoundrel.


You keep insisting that the Universe contains Imaginary items, which it doesn't.

Leaving aside the fact that I'm not stupid, a scoundrel, etc. ,
your ad hominem attacks are apparently considered logical fallacies.

You're not only no genius, you're nuts.

The opposite of Reality isn't Imagination, it's Unreality- Lies, Falsehoods, Wrongness,

like your arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
bladerunner voted the guy who didn't understand anything to begin with who is a conspiracy theorist. Good job bladerunner, you're the reason why people vote in people like Obama - you don't have a brain to vote.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
I totally understand, bro. If I took the debate, it would merely be a conversation about the facts. I hope some elo beggar takes it, but they have not the courage most likely.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was initiated by Pro, and was nonsense from the beginning. He had no resolution (and negated the notion of even having one), and he negated BoP. He can't complain if he loses, then, as he didn't really present an argument for anything substantive. I was tempted to null this, but I feel the problems of this debate stemmed from Pro's decisions on this debate. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.