The Instigator
shakuntala
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Naysayer
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The main problem with this scholar on DDO is he destroys your "Idols of the mind"

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...
Naysayer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 744 times Debate No: 35585
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

shakuntala

Pro

The main problem with this scholar on DDO is he destroys your "Idols of the mind"

https://en.wikipedia.org...

1 Idols of the Theatre (Idola theatri): This is the following of academic dogma and not asking questions about the world

2 Idols of the Cave (Idola specus): This is due to individuals' personal weaknesses in reasoning due to particular personalities, likes and dislikes.

3Idols of the Tribe (Idola tribus): This is humans' tendency to perceive more order and regularity in systems than truly exists, and is due to people following their preconceived ideas about things

I have seen time and time again no matter how much evidence the scholar presents to back up his points of view you all seem to ignore the evidence and in some cases just resort to ad hominems

this can be explained that when someone attacks a peoples or persons "idols of the mind" - like say Galileo- they go into melt down for it throws their ordered world into chaos -and chaos creates anxiety in people

this scholar upsets your academic dogma upsets your preconceived ideas about things and comes up against your ' personal weaknesses in reasoning due to particular personalities, likes and dislikes.

this scholars ideas are to original you probably have never conceived of such ideas In your education you have just been taught orthodoxy so when someone comes along to shatter your orthodox ideas you just go into melt down

this scholars only problem is he is to original you dont know what to do with these ideas as you have never been taught to think that way they are just to knew you have no guides from your education
so you go into melt down

also you have been taught to accept authority from acknowledge experts

this scholar by not being an accepted authority all
allows you to dismiss him I guarantee if Dawkins or Hawkins or Einstein said these view you would just unquestioningly go along with them
ie you would just go along with Idols of the Theatre (Idola theatri): This is the following of academic dogma and not asking questions about the world

his ideas
Science loses its privileged place at the centre of the universe as a privileged knower- we now have
http://www.debate.org...

Irrationality is no hindrance for something being true
http://www.debate.org...

Are mystical theology and science similar
http://www.debate.org...

Every view ends in meaninglessness
http://www.debate.org...

Godels theorem ends in meaninglessness
http://www.debate.org...

Free verse is not poetry
http://www.debate.org...
Naysayer

Con

I would like to accept the debate regarding [that] scholar (Hereafter referred to as Pro, Shakuntula, my opponent, etc.) presenting a problem on Debate.org and that problem being that he destroys the idols of my (or our) mind.

Given the nature of the discussion, the avoidance of ad hominem attacks will be tricky, but I think that a logical argument can be presented that will step around such and still get the point across.

I am willing to share the burden of proof because I would like to make this debate something of a challenge and as such, I intend to provide reasonable evidence that the problem is not the destruction of my idols, but Pro's poor grammar, poor conduct in debates, and demonstrated narcissistic tendencies that present the main problem to DDO members.

I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Pro

you say
"I would like to accept the debate regarding [that] scholar (Hereafter referred to as Pro, Shakuntula, my opponent, etc.) presenting a problem on Debate.org and that problem being that he destroys the idols of my (or our) mind.

Given the nature of the discussion, the avoidance of ad hominem attacks will be tricky, but I think that a logical argument can be presented that will step around such and still get the point across.

I am willing to share the burden of proof because I would like to make this debate something of a challenge and as such, I intend to provide reasonable evidence that the problem is not the destruction of my idols, but Pro's poor grammar, poor conduct in debates, and demonstrated narcissistic tendencies that present the main problem to DDO members.

I look forward to an interesting debate."

quote
Given the nature of the discussion, the avoidance of ad hominem attacks will be tricky,but I think that a logical argument can be presented that will step around such and still get the point across."

then you just then give a barrage of ad hominem attacks

quote
"but Pro's poor grammar, poor conduct in debates, and demonstrated narcissistic tendencies "

thus proving my point

quote
"I have seen time and time again no matter how much evidence the scholar presents to back up his points of view you all seem to ignore the evidence and in some cases just resort to ad hominems
Naysayer

Con

I stated that it will be tricky to avoid ad hominem attacks given that the discussion is specifically on the problem created by Pro threatening others' views or as it has been theatrically stated "destroying the idols of your mind".

M-W.com defines ad hominem as such:

1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Given that I have not yet begun my arguments, I would like to point out that a challenge to my previous claim is premature. Rest assured I will not be appealing to feelings, but rather the intellect, through cited facts. I will not be attacking the opponent's character, but showing the instances that I believe create problems due to his demonstrated narcissistic tendencies. This does not in any way state that Shakuntala is narcissistic only that this behavior could create issues for other DDO users.

Also, to say that a man convicted of murder is a murderer is not an ad hominem attack. To say that because he is a murderer, one cannot believe a word he says would be.

I have looked through several of Pro's previous debates and I would be dishonest if I didn't say that I noted the arguments he presented in the challenge section from time to time and found them to be rather odd in nature although I didn't attribute any personal concern to them.

It should also be noted that the totality of the time I have been a member of DDO is two weeks.

According to the Debate.Org Orientation sticky provided by the site (http://www.debate.org...), there are very specific rules for allocating points in a debate. Which side of an argument one sides with has very little to do with whom you vote for. In fact, who you agree with does not even award points. The two heaviest weighted objects are who had the most convincing arguements and who had the most reliable sources with three and two points, respectively. Points are also awarded for conduct, spelling, and grammar. Conduct is differentiated by personal insult usage, profanity, and bad sportsmanlike behavior.

A quick glance over the opening statements of Pro shows a dearth of grammar usage. I will be the first to admit that I get in a hurry at times and make mistakes in punctuation and grammar. I do not expect a pass to be given to me in a moment of voting. If I have bad grammar or my spelling offends a voter, I expect them to vote accordingly. My opponent, however, seems to have no regard for grammar at all. Capitalization, punctuation, paragraph formation are all missing from his arguments.

Grammar matters on this site and to ignore that fact is to lose points in a debate.

Also, there is the matter of conduct. In the third round of this debate: http://www.debate.org..., Pro begins to point to sexual hang ups as the reason the opposing person would not debate. This is a personal attack and ignores the fact that the debate was started under false pretenses (Is this erotic poem scary?), which his opposition continues to state even though Pro ignored it. He then proceeds to start a seperate debate in the comments section to defend his actions., showing his bad sportsmanlike behavior.

Shockingly, Pro then attempts to recover himself by starting this debate: http://www.debate.org..., making a personal vendetta out of losing a poorly formed debate.

Conduct is what differentiates a debate from an argument. It's also the discipline required to appeal to logic and reason, the purpose of debate. If his assertions that his main problem on this site were true that he is simply destroying our mind gods, his conduct should demonstrate a concise line of thinking and insults would be absent.

Finally I will point out, in his opening statement, Pro makes several assumptions about other members. He reasons that someone would get angry at a challenge to Galileo because it challenges their thinking. He dismisses any opposition to his self admitted rare thinking as some sort of loyalty to a contrived academic system that for all intents and purposes brainwashes people into accepting one line of thought without being open to any other reasoning, particularly his own.

Pro implies that this closed minded thinking is nearly all inclusive. There is a huge conspiracy of education across many nations and continents focused on one site with the intent of shutting out "dangerous" views that challenge the status quo and only he himself stands alone to fight it.

This isn't an argument. This is demonstrated narcissism.

The symptoms of narcissim are listed here: http://www.mayoclinic.com...
  1. Believing that you're better than others
  2. Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
  3. Exaggerating your achievements or talents
  4. Expecting constant praise and admiration
  5. Believing that you're special and acting accordingly
  6. Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
  7. Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
  8. Taking advantage of others
  9. Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
  10. Being jealous of others
  11. Believing that others are jealous of you
  12. Trouble keeping healthy relationships
  13. Setting unrealistic goals
  14. Being easily hurt and rejected
  15. Having a fragile self-esteem
  16. Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional
I cannot speak to the status of Pro's relationships. I suppose only he himself can witness to whether he feels hurt or jealous of others on DDO. I have not seen demonstrations of unrealistic goals. However, just in the opening statment, I find his belief of his superiority to the majority of DDO members, his exaggerated ability to destroy our gods of the mind, his frustration at not being recognized as such, his insulting behavior that he attributes to others' insignifiance, his disdain for others' views, and his apparent display of objectivity covering a significantly frustrated person. I submit that all of this is directly related to his fragile self esteem that he does not understand why others do not take his word as truth despite the orthodoxy and accepted thought that he rails against.

This manner of thinking is particularly unreasonable given the subjective nature of most of his debates, which seem to focus around music quality and philosophy. To accept his ideas, which he admits are at best revolutionary, based soley on his statement is an absurd expectation.

In my short time here, I have found the collective natures of forum posters and debaters to be distinct and individual. The term herding cats comes to mind. There are reasoned philosophers and flagrant trolls. There are objective and subjective personalities. There are religious and atheist and even atheist that for the sake of a debate will assume a god just to join in the debate. To make an assertion that they have all united to shut down one individuals views is less than credible.

I sympathize with Pro's frustration that he feels his views are not being shown. It has been said that the common link between all of your dissatisfying relationships is you. Perhaps it's not an attempt to shut out one voice, but that voice's inability to communicate in an effective, respectful manner.

I do not believe that the main problem with Pro is his destroying of our mind gods. I think in a debate setting, the more serious problem is a lack of proper grammar, a lack of proper conduct, and his demonstrated narcissistic tendencies.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Pro

you say
"I do not believe that the main problem with Pro is his destroying of our mind gods. I think in a debate setting, the more serious problem is a lack of proper grammar, a lack of proper conduct, and his demonstrated narcissistic tendencies."

you have presented your views well
I must concede the debate to con

but I will say
truth has nothing to do with grammar conduct narcissistic tendencies
if Einstein had all three of these characteristics his views would still have merit

truth is not gauged by English teachers or psychologists or moralists
true is truth even if presented in in inappropriate ways

if Eistein wrote on his first paper
"The theory of relativaty"
if you criticize him for bad spelling -fine
but to say his theory is not true based on bad spelling
and further
not even to go on reading his paper makes that person nothing but a fool

but as I say con has proven his point
so con wins
Naysayer

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and for his integrity in conceding when he considered himself beaten.

I hope to see him around in the future. I cannot argue with his statements regarding truth.

It has been resolved that the main problem with [that] scholar is not that he destroys our mind gods but his poor grammar, poor conduct, and demonstrated narcissistic tendencies.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 4 years ago
ModusTollens
shakuntalaNaysayerTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: concession