The Instigator
Aerogant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KhalifV
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

None of these debates are "real debates", just self-appointed guffaws without sense of self-discipli

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 6 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,491 times Debate No: 60222
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (53)
Votes (6)

 

Aerogant

Pro

Rules: There is no such thing as BOP, Source, Resolution, Tautology or Answer in a debate that involves a truly intelligent specimen that treats knowledge more than a toy or tool to prove one's self.

Argument: None of these "debates" are actual debates. Just because there is an argument between two monkeys flinging their back door rejections at each other, does not mean it's a proper debate. Debates, genuinely structured debates, do not involve monkeys wearing monocles; does not involve bludgeoning a brain with biased sources; does not involve arguing subjectivity; does not involve the mentally immature - period.

Religions - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

Conspiracy theories - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

Birth control; Abortion; Rape - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

Rap battles; troll battles - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

Human soul; spirituality; OBE; special power - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

Gods; ghosts; aliens; other creatures that only exist in our heads - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

The poor; the rich; the middle class - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

The republicans; the democrats; the president; the people - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

The selfish; the altruism - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

The Universe the human experience - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

The same sex fetish; the alternate sex fetish; the alternate object fetish; kids fetish; animals fetish - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

Big problems; small problems; unseen problems; seen problems - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

Poetry, music and art; business, machines and systems - same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate.

I'm just tired of it all - it's like nobody understands how to be omni-reverent anymore in this god forsaken world. All these things cannot be argued because all of these things are individual elements within the human mind that can or cannot be experienced by the person. All of these things are the result of our own brain splitting itself apart in two forms: Machine & Man. The primates do not realize how they are playing tug o' war with the best of both worlds, that both are consequential depending on the circumstances. Nobody seems to know how to analyze everything at once, instead choosing parts of the world to shoot limited analytic lasers at, because nobody understands how to take everything and place it all into one box - everything has to be in all these boxes, when everything is connected for the Universe's sake!
KhalifV

Con

I'm not sure if pro is a troll or insane

Semantics and The Resolution:

Pro lists the rules as follows:"There is no such thing as BOP, Source, Resolution, Tautology or Answer in a debate that involves a truly intelligent specimen that treats knowledge more than a toy or tool to prove one's self."

Now this is either trying to bridge the gap because pro is aware of his poor debating skills or he does not know what a debate is.

A debate is defined as follows:"a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints".
A resolution is what's being debated, if there's no resolution, there is no debate. A BoP is extremely vital to any intellectual discussion.

" In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena "

If there is no BoP or Noll Hypothesis, then one will end up believing mutually contradictory claims.

Sources are important, because it let's one know that a participant is not pulling data out of thin air. Plus the chances are that in most debates on this site, neither participant has a PhD in the subject, so sources get the viewpoint of someone with authority.

The Resolution is that none of the debates pro listed are real debates.
Well per the definition of debate, if ANY of the debates mentioned in pro's first round, involve a public question, with two opposing view points, the resolution is negated.

Let's take the debate: " Gods; ghosts; aliens; other creatures that only exist in our heads "

One can either be Pro or Con for god's existence, or the existence of ghosts or aliens.
By definition this is a "real debate". Now if it's a meaningful debate is a differen't subject.

Also the proposition that X is X but not a real X is incoherent.
How can something be a debate but not a real debate?

By law of identity X is X.
By law of non-contradiction X can't be true and false.
By law of excluded middle, either X is true or X is false.

So a debate is necessarily a real debate, if it is a debate.
So basically I win, pro literally can not meet the BoP.
On Pro Being A Jerk: Pro's reasoning is as follows:
"same back and forth issues; same sources; same misunderstanding; same suspecting; same question begging; same ignorance; same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room, but comes onto a matrix of information, built by intelligence, to spread their ignorance just because they want to argue with another primate."

Well he has offered no justification for these assertions.
"Same sources" ? Obviously not, if they were the same sources, everyone would have the same position.
"Same misunderstanding"? No, then everyone would be on the same side, but incorrect.
"Same question begging?"
Begging the question is..:


    1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
    1. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.


Example:
    1. Bill: "God must exist."
      Jill: "How do you know."
      Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
      Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
      Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."


BoP is on Pro to show that all of these beg the question.

"Same ignorance"?
Once again, everyone would have the same position.
Also,you have not justified that it is ignorance.

"same typical case of a human being that does not spend at least an hour to think to themselves in a dark room"
How is this germane to the debate?
Also, how can you know?

Conclusion:
Any debate is a real debate, so the resolution is negated
Vote Con.

[1] http://www.nizkor.org...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Aerogant

Pro

There are philosophical debates... Are you that dense?

Keep on copying and pasting nonsense and thinking you even read it word by word, rather than nitpicking what you want because you cannot express your own thoughts without regurgitating information from other places as you do not have the brain capacity to formulate information into something grander than what you are provided alone!

Sources are not important, especially when you're discussing with a genius that will blow every single primal aspect of you out of the water, whether you realize it or not. I am more intelligent than you'll ever be, hence why I know sources confuse the brain with bias and old information that was written at X date, when all thoughts being formed then should be accurate to the date during the discussion and only should the past be brought up in order to reflect the present rather than to bring something into the present as all things now, are more important than what was then!

You sound like a monkey wearing a monocle with the way you question the semantics of the argument. "Well, if X does not fit X, then X is incoherent and formally unjustified.", yes I can speak monkey just like you. Maybe you should be more poetic, meaningful and start thinking with your brain and personality, rather than your machine and pyschopathy.

There's no such thing as a real debate - why? This Universe is an unfinished design - there can be no personal answers, which means by basing your conclusions off of sources built on literal-thinking as you literally think yourself, you are destroying the fundamentals of philosophy and the power of questioning, why? You cannot seem to fathom the possibility that you know nothing and your ego needs to die once and for all, so self-humility can finally take your arrogant place and accept that this Universe > You; these ideas > You; these possibilities > You; your feelings mean nothing to the facts; your emotions mean nothing to the universal evidence. Get your head out of your existential butt hole, and wake up you primate. You're still in the red sound wave - why don't you start travelling across the sound waves to reach ascension, or are you too much of a parrot to do that for yourself? I thought so, Parrot.
KhalifV

Con

Pro's whole second is an Ad hominem and a red herring.
He has not said anything regarding the resolution.

I am taking this as a concession.

Also, I actually have a genius IQ.
You , on the other hand have a tenuous grasp on debating a philosophy.


Debate Round No. 2
Aerogant

Pro

If you call a resolution copying and pasting definitions and then making redundant examples like "If X doesn't mean Y to me, then X has nothing to do with Y - to me...", then you really need stop microwaving that brain of yourself; the UV lights have finally managed to mutate your brain cells to the point everything you say is equivalent to a Frankenstein's creature speaking.

You do not have a genius IQ - you're not even close to genius. You don't use your brain - you just recycle pointless information on the internet as if you were making some sort of position when you are not making anything out of these petty examples you made out of the work of a tautology. Geniuses do not resort to tautologies - nor do they respond with nothing except their own accusations; a real genius would have explained themselves in a better way instead of sounding like every other mindless politician.

Also, IQ is the lowest form of measurement for intelligence - you can't measure genius! Most geniuses of our time didn't even have that high of an IQ, so perhaps you should get your priorities straight instead of nitpicking everything and then saying "I have a genius IQ, even though I do everything that a genius does not do".
KhalifV

Con

An IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence.
To be considered a genius one must have an IQ over 140.

BoP unfulfilled, vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
So far, my vote goes to con.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
don't take so much effort against this guy, KhalifV. He ain't gonna do anything substantial.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Is that supposed to be a question?

And If I am a bear, I wanna be a grizzly bear!
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
That's why you bare ignorance, negligence, arrogance and interference,

while I bare intelligence, diligence, awareness and Universal reference?
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Well I'm just letting you know that while "society" may or may not be going to hell, I'm not.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
I have a religion too, it's called action.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
I have a religion I firmly believe in. My afterlife is known (in my eyes)
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
I pity you for while you sit here trolling geniuses on the internet, all societies are going to hell - Man is getting out of hand, and one day this world will be covered in ashes, blood and the tears of many that have lost their lives because people like you don't see it before it happens and don't try to prevent it, then when it finally does, you want people to carry your sorry excuse of a life.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
I wasn't alluding to a mathematical phenomenon. I was trying to do basic addition, in which I carelessly made a mistake.

You however, came to my rescue and proved I that no matter if I seem to fail, you will always prove me right.

Thumbs up for you
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
You had no intentions to elude to a mathematical phenomenon when you sarcastically attempted to mock me through your delusional understanding of this reality you take for granted.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Codedlogic
AerogantKhalifVTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an enormous amount of assertions but, when challenged by Con, completely failed to demonstrate a single point. Its amazing how since Pro is such a "genius" they could so thoroughly have their ass handed to them in this debate. Spectacular example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Vote Placed by macaztec 2 years ago
macaztec
AerogantKhalifVTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con effectively refuted the statements of Pro. Pro was quite rude.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
AerogantKhalifVTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Waste of my time to read this, Pro made no arguments to support this "non-debate" making this DEBATE itself is a contradiction.
Vote Placed by saboosa 2 years ago
saboosa
AerogantKhalifVTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was very rude to con
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
AerogantKhalifVTied
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: Pro was rude, and offered no evidence, logic, or sources to support his claims. Con did, but was not rude.
Vote Placed by jackh4mm3r 2 years ago
jackh4mm3r
AerogantKhalifVTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro not only chose not to fulfill BoP, but tried to say there is none, a clear case of being against the same process that led to the computer/mobile device Pro argued with. Also, did not address arguments but merely insulted Con; if this was meant to be a troll debate, it could have at least have been entertaining to see Pro's points. If Pro really is a genius, it is most obviously not in the realm of debating. No sources point, sadly, to Con since no sources were used, but otherwise all points to Con.