The Instigator
Leftii
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jibby_page
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

No Idea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,096 times Debate No: 18679
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

Leftii

Pro

I would like to thank my opposition for accepting this pointless debate

I have no idea what I am going to be arguing about...

Im slightly bored and slightly crazy.

Vote Pro!!!
Jibby_page

Con

Have an idea.

An idea can change your life.
It can change the life of others

For the good, hopefully
If it's for the bad, someone else is sure to come up with an idea which counters yours.

An idea can inspire.
An idea can spark a revolutionary fire.

An idea makes you think.
An idea can make others think.

Without thinking there would be no ideas.
Without ideas there would be no thinking.
And thinking is what makes us different from other creatures.

An idea makes you believe.
An idea can make others believe in you.

An idea could be the answer to a problem.
An idea could be the precursor of a solution.

So, if you have no idea,
You better get one.
Debate Round No. 1
Leftii

Pro

I suppose I should argue against con's pointless argument with a pointless argument. Here goes..

Con here states a) thinking is what makes us different from other creatures and b) the word 'can' several times.
He also suggests throughout his argument that c) an idea is a good thing.

a) Thinking may separate us literally from other creatures, however, in the modern world where technicality is becoming ever more important, unfortunately for your ideas, technically, the fact that we cannot breed with the other creatures, where our offspring is able to breed, is what separates us from other creatures. That we can think and have intellectual ideas is a mere property of our species, not a definition.

b) Although I foresee the counterargument to this argument, it may be worth mentioning it. The word "can", though suggesting potential, has no necessity to mean 'does'.

c) The ideal/perfect universe would have no need for ideas, or even creatures. The ideal universe is an eternal bliss and nothing else. An infinitely 'good' universe, being infinite, overwhelms all other possible universes in terms of how 'good' they are. Therefore, the it is better for to have no need for ideas than to have ideas.
Jibby_page

Con

My arguments, straight up.



"Thinking may separate us literally from other creatures, however, in the modern world where technicality is becoming ever more important, unfortunately for your ideas, technically, the fact that we cannot breed with the other creatures, where our offspring is able to breed, is what separates us from other creatures. That we can think and have intellectual ideas is a mere property of our species, not a definition."


If you notice closely, my opinion of 'thinking' being the difference between us , the human race, and all other forms of life was said along with two lines inter-relating the concepts of an idea and the process of thinking itself. So naturally, it would follow that what I meant was that the difference arises due to a combination of these two concepts. While you may be focussing on the possibility of interbreeding as a major difference, it has nothing to do with how we have attained the position of the most intelligent creature on planet Earth. This 'difference' in intellectual capabilities is what holds greatest importance and not whether it is possible to obtain a freak of a monster by crossing a human with a hippopotamus.
Also you say something really freaky about our offspring being able to breed with animals but not us. Anyhow it comes across that way.


b) Although I foresee the counterargument to this argument, it may be worth mentioning it. The word "can", though suggesting potential, has no necessity to mean 'does'.

Yeah. My counter argument for this argument is pretty simple. 'Can' is definitely a precursor of 'does', and that makes this argument tilt in my favor. Because if there's a 'can' there are all the chances of it becoming a 'does'. But if there's no 'can', or worse, if there's a 'can't', chances of a transformation to 'does' bleaken, and fizzle out tragically. Also, I'd like to point out, the word 'may' used in this very point by my opponent also suggests potential, but in the context he's used it, does it?

c) The ideal/perfect universe would have no need for ideas, or even creatures. The ideal universe is an eternal bliss and nothing else. An infinitely 'good' universe, being infinite, overwhelms all other possible universes in terms of how 'good' they are. Therefore, the it is better for to have no need for ideas than to have ideas.

I agree totally with your views on an ideal universe and how the idea of an idea would be redundant in it (though if in an ideal universe myself, I would still encourage ideas of the creative sense; I would write, I would play my guitar). But your claim that it is better to have no need for ideas than to have ideas is a load of bull, as our world, as we know it, is nowhere close to ideal/perfect. So till it is, we better keep thinking. And we better keep coming up with ideas.

The floor is yours Pro.



Debate Round No. 2
Leftii

Pro

a) Different species are defined by which animals they can breed with, for example, a human cannot breed with a hippopotamus. However, separate species that breed interdependently are defined as separate species by the principal that their offspring are unable to breed, for example, a donkey and a horse can breed to produce a mule, but the mule is unable to produce offspring of its own. What con believes defines the difference between species is their abilities. However, this is a mere property of the species. I am merely reinforcing my former argument and if con wishes to prevent the development of this argument he may not put forward a counterargument.

b) I agree that it was a poor former argument, though worth the mention, and con's counterargument is accurate.

c) My argument is not that our world could be better with no ideas, but that the best possible world would be without ideas. Con's former argument is that ideas are good, not that ideas are an improvement in an imperfect world.

Also, I would like to encourage con to keep the debate formal.
Jibby_page

Con

Different species are defined by which animals they can breed with, for example, a human cannot breed with a hippopotamus. However, separate species that breed interdependently are defined as separate species by the principal that their offspring are unable to breed, for example, a donkey and a horse can breed to produce a mule, but the mule is unable to produce offspring of its own. What con believes defines the difference between species is their abilities. However, this is a mere property of the species. I am merely reinforcing my former argument and if con wishes to prevent the development of this argument he may not put forward a counterargument.

I would like to make it really clear that I am not trying to deny this difference of breeding capabilities between man and beast my opponent's argument is so vehemently trying to prove time and again. I am merely pointing out that, in terms of the position on the evolutionary ladder, the fact that we humans can think logically, leading to formulation of ideas is what creates the difference between us and rest of the species. As this is a debate on ideas, the word 'difference' was always meant to imply a disparity in intellectual capablities between man and beast, not any other disparity per se.


I agree that it was a poor former argument, though worth the mention, and con's counterargument is accurate.

Voters take note.

My argument is not that our world could be better with no ideas, but that the best possible world would be without ideas. Con's former argument is that ideas are good, not that ideas are an improvement in an imperfect world.

I have never said anything about ideas being 'good', as such; but let us assume that my description of their advantages brands them as something 'good'. And by virtue of being good, they spread goodness in this world. How? Goodness by inspiring, changing lives (I did use the word 'good' here, though that was for the quality of resultant life), revoltionizing, stimuating thinking and by solving problems, all, which seem to promise improvement in our world, which is imperfect, no doubt. So my argument is pretty much saying that ideas are an improvement, disproving Pro's claim that it's not.
Also, I'd like to add this. I don't see where Pro's argument is getting at by saying that the best possible world would be without ideas. Has Pro seen such a world? And even if he has, he continues to live in ours. Is trying to attain perfection by giving up something which would actually help us attain it, the right approach? It's like saying "Roger Federer never practices as he is perfect. So in order to get perfect, I won't practice." Get my point?

Also, I would like to encourage con to keep the debate formal.

Point duly noted and accepted.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Leftii

Pro

a) As my opponent has repeated, "the fact that we humans can think logically, leading to formulation of ideas is what creates the difference between us and rest of the species", we can only assume and conclude from this that formulation of ideas is what technically defines, or as con put it, creates, the difference between our species and every other species. However, that technical definition between species is not of properties but of the technical definition between species. My tautology is only to confirm to my opponent the difference between definition and property. If con were to state, "Ideas are a property in which humans have and all other species lack or are unable to formulate", his argument would be valid and accurate. However, what technically defines, or creates, the difference between our species and every other species is not speaking of properties, as con suggests, but of definition.

c) This debate is not about the difference between our world with ideas and our world without ideas, may con be reminded, but whether 'a' universe with ideas is better than a universe without ideas. My opponent is, despite this, only applying this argument to our world. I am not denying that ideas are an improvement to our world, but that they are a perfection in an ideal universe, and therefore a universe without ideas, on average, is infinitely better than than a universe with ideas. In conclusion, a lack of ideas is better, on average, than ideas.
Jibby_page

Con

a) As my opponent has repeated, "the fact that we humans can think logically, leading to formulation of ideas is what creates the difference between us and rest of the species", we can only assume and conclude from this that formulation of ideas is what technically defines, or as con put it, creates, the difference between our species and every other species. However, that technical definition between species is not of properties but of the technical definition between species. My tautology is only to confirm to my opponent the difference between definition and property. If con were to state, "Ideas are a property in which humans have and all other species lack or are unable to formulate", his argument would be valid and accurate. However, what technically defines, or creates, the difference between our species and every other species is not speaking of properties, as con suggests, but of definition.

In my defence, in none of my arguments have I ever used the word 'technically'. I have never 'defined' an idea as how Pro has projected it. My use of the word 'difference' is in a broad sense, not going into technical details about how we are unlike the rest. Think of it this way; if intelligent life from outer space were to land on planet Earth, the first difference they would notice between humans and the beasts would be that we think, formulate ideas and thereby communicate with each other on an effective level which has benefitted us, putting us above all forms of life . The possibility of interbreeding and any other difference would take longer to discover. Hence, my argument stands unrefuted.

c) This debate is not about the difference between our world with ideas and our world without ideas, may con be reminded, but whether 'a' universe with ideas is better than a universe without ideas. My opponent is, despite this, only applying this argument to our world. I am not denying that ideas are an improvement to our world, but that they are a perfection in an ideal universe, and therefore a universe without ideas, on average, is infinitely better than than a universe with ideas. In conclusion, a lack of ideas is better, on average, than ideas.

At this stage, I would like to bring to the attention of my opponent,certain facts aimed at showing how the lack of ideas in a world can prove to be terribly detrimental. Thinking and stimulating the mental processes of the brain have shown to be definitely helpful in preventing amnesia[1] and keeping away mental disorders in general[2]. In simple language, the more you use your brain, the longer it will last you. Naturally it follows that in an imperfect world having people thinking and coming up with ideas, mental faculties will be intact for longer, than in a 'perfect' world, where people have done away with thinking, leaving their mental abilities to deteriorate with the passing of time. My argument, in this case also, holds good.

Your turn Pro.
Good luck.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Leftii

Pro

a) Although con has not used the word 'technically', nor 'define', as in my latter argument, I again argue that my opponent has used the word "creates", in this sense defined as 'technically defines'. I can only ask con to review his opponent's arguments more carefully: "We can only assume and conclude from this that formulation of ideas is what technically defines, or as con put it, creates, the difference between our species and every other species."

c) Con here states: "Naturally it follows that in an imperfect world having people thinking and coming up with ideas, mental faculties will be intact for longer, than in a 'perfect' world, where people have done away with thinking, leaving their mental abilities to deteriorate with the passing of time", wholly contradicting my earlier argument: "The ideal/perfect universe would have no need for ideas, or even creatures". A perfect world has no need for people or any creatures, and therefore "amnesia" or "mental disorders in general" are unable to exist without a host. May I remind con once again that this debate is not focused on ideas' improvement to our world, but on the greatness of a universe with ideas in ratio to the greatness of a universe without ideas. I shall here use simple maths to clarify to con the focus of the debate:

(Infinity [the greatness of a perfect universe with no ideas] + The sum of greatness of all possible universes without ideas [low in comparison to with ideas])/The number of all different possible universes without ideas = Infinity
(The sum of the greatness of all possible universes with ideas [an undoubtedly finite number])/The number of all different possible universes with ideas = A finite number.
Therefore, the average universe without ideas is infinitely greater than the average universe with ideas.
Therefore having no idea is better than having an idea.
Here, greater means better as opposed to larger.

Again, I ask con to review my arguments more carefully.

Con's sources, popular as they are, are unreliable, where any person is able to post information with sources of unknown reliability, thus producing unstable (and therefore unreliable) information. However, my information is purely from the fundaments of the debate itself, the most reliable possible source, due to its unconditional necessity to the debate.
Jibby_page

Con

a) Although con has not used the word 'technically', nor 'define', as in my latter argument, I again argue that my opponent has used the word "creates", in this sense defined as 'technically defines'. I can only ask con to review his opponent's arguments more carefully: "We can only assume and conclude from this that formulation of ideas is what technically defines, or as con put it, creates, the difference between our species and every other species."

Alright Pro. Imagine a world where human beings could not think to an effective level at all. We would never have come up with language, something considered to be the stepping stone to our success. We would never have come up with inventions, fire being the first and arguably, the most crucial. We would never have begun living in a civilised manner, clothed, in proper homes, with basic amneties; would have never bothered beyond food and sheter, would never have bothered about our education, leave alone our childrens' education. We would never have any creative pursuit which we could achieve perfection in. Come to think of it, we would never have had this very debate. Take away all these things, and what do you have? An animal version of you and I, unintelligible, living only to fill its tummy, having a net contribution of zero to the bigger picture? And why? Because it would be unable to think, unable come up with ideas. Hence, my claim of ideas 'creating' the difference is, in my humble eyes, as good as it can get.


c) Con here states: "Naturally it follows that in an imperfect world having people thinking and coming up with ideas, mental faculties will be intact for longer, than in a 'perfect' world, where people have done away with thinking, leaving their mental abilities to deteriorate with the passing of time", wholly contradicting my earlier argument: "The ideal/perfect universe would have no need for ideas, or even creatures". A perfect world has no need for people or any creatures, and therefore "amnesia" or "mental disorders in general" are unable to exist without a host. May I remind con once again that this debate is not focused on ideas' improvement to our world, but on the greatness of a universe with ideas in ratio to the greatness of a universe without ideas

What Pro's argument has portrayed an ideal and a perfect world as, is a deserted, desolate and uninhabited universe, so enamored by the idea of 'perfection', that it has done away with all forms of life. Fine, but a rational, almost greedy thinker like me, in such a case will ask, who's going to avail that perfection? I mean, what's the whole point of perfection, if there's no one to experience it? I must say, a not a very well thought out argument. Also, the idea of a perfect world 'without people or creatures' paints an 'I am Legend' kind of a picture in my mind. And though that world had in it, Will Smith and his canine, it still wasn't anywhere close to perfect, let alone awesome.
As far as the debate being about, how Pro puts it, "not ideas' improvement to our world, but on the greatness of a universe with ideas in ratio to the greatness of a universe without ideas", for me, and for any realist, who does not share a passion for unreal fantasy, the debate would be about the only world we know, ours.

I would also like to point out, as it is the last round, that Pro could have refuted my ideas regarding amnesia and mental problems by questioning their existence in a supposedly perfect universe.(How could amnesia exist if everything was perfect, right?). But as he did not, my gamble paid of. My argument stands unrefuted.

Thank you all for your time.
Vote Con


Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leftii 3 years ago
Leftii
F-16_Fighting_Falcon: "then demanded Con to "keep the debate formal" but I am not so sure starting a debate with no assertion is "formal"." The past is the past, the present is the present. No shame in being slightly crazy.
Posted by Leftii 3 years ago
Leftii
However, modern defenitions stand for perfect to mean infinitely good. Words are only defines by those who read them. Also, if I were to replace every "perfect" with "infinitely good", my arguments would therefore stand corrected.
Posted by Friedman 3 years ago
Friedman
The meaning of the word perfect as it comes to us from the Greek is complete. A universe with nothing in it to experience it would not be complete, but would be, what looks complete, unbegun. A perfect universe is at the end of a long process that completed it. An infinite universe on the other hand is very different. Infinity is not a representation of stasis, but is the conclusion we draw from a certain kind of motion. The set of real numbers is not infinite because it has infinity at the end, but because it has no end. The idea of an infintely perfect universe is impossible unless the end of all things is their continuance.
These ideas are intersting. Thank you.
Posted by Leftii 3 years ago
Leftii
Pretty much :d
Posted by Jibby_page 3 years ago
Jibby_page
Hmm..so you were really standing up for your cause :)
Posted by Leftii 3 years ago
Leftii
Your description of me as clueless, uninformed and ignorant is perfect, by the way.
Posted by Leftii 3 years ago
Leftii
Hey, I'm only trying to gain votes :D. No harsh feelings.
Posted by Leftii 3 years ago
Leftii
Also, con argues that a) ideas have been the evolutionary step in creating our species and b) no one is to experience the perfection. Both, I agree with, but both avoid the fact and focus of the debate.

Although ideas are what created our species formerly, they are not what creates the difference between humans and other species, as was the subject on which this sub-debate was originally focused on.

Although no one can experience the perfection, it is perfection nonetheless, and moreover better than imperfections such as our universe. What con may argue against this is that it cannot be perfection without experience of it. However, this paradox suggests that perfection is imperfection. Con agrees that a perfect universe lacks creatures to experience it, but would now state that a perfect universe is only perfect with a creature to experience it.
Posted by Jibby_page 3 years ago
Jibby_page
It's over dude..relax
Posted by Leftii 3 years ago
Leftii
Cons gamble has not paid off, as I here stated, "A perfect world has no need for people or any creatures, and therefore "amnesia" or "mental disorders in general" are unable to exist without a host." With creatures in any possible world, there is no perfection, therefore mental disorders can possibly exist. There was no need to mention the fact that imperfection of mental disorders disallows them from existing in a perfect universe, where I had already proved their disallowance of existing in a perfect universe with the disallowance of creatures existing in a perfect universe.

Once again, I ask con to review my arguments more thoroughly.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
LeftiiJibby_pageTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Wierd Debate. Neither side wins.
Vote Placed by waylon.fairbanks 3 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
LeftiiJibby_pageTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Weird debate... Con was more interesting, and argued more thoroughly. Conduct goes to Con because Pro made a totally pointless debate, then demanded Con to "keep the debate formal" but I am not so sure starting a debate with no assertion is "formal".