The Instigator
Aerogant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ajabi
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

This is what ALL rules should look like, instead of robotic format:

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Ajabi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,499 times Debate No: 59103
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Aerogant

Pro

An example for philosophy forums I wrote:

"When discussing your ideas, we insist that you express your emotions (happy or angry) so that we can work with these ideas on a personal level. However, it is important that we discuss ideas over identities; embracing identities while discussing ideas. Think with your mind; color your words with your heart. The people here understand that we all need to express these emotions... it's a natural side of humanity. We would never want to prevent anyone from being themselves, because a few bad eggs don't want to behave either way. It is okay to describe people how you see them (if they act like a child, go ahead and describe it; we do not see tautology in expression). This is what you feel emotionally; as a forum of philosophy & people, we are well aware that all ideas are shaped by our identities, and so, we would never impede on expression of any kind. We are not going to pretend we know you through our rules (whether you recently lost your children, or never faced a hardship in your life) so we are here to respect those of you that aren't as settled as others... we understand that some of you may have recently served our country and may not be chemically balanced, yet possess great ideas behind that yet to be controlled passion people should not fear, but embrace. All we ask of you, is to be honest with yourself and others. We are here to strengthen minds, whether it be by idea, or identity. Philosophy is the heart of each person, and with each heart, we see a rose that is beautiful, and bloody. Here, we recognize that your ideas are created by you and your monster. Like the ocean, there is a surface and a dark side - flow, and so will our forums follow - fear, and these forums will go nowhere. We shape these forums; we shape our ideas; we shape this Universe. Speak harshly; speak honestly. Do not speak harmlessly; do not speak dishonestly. We show our great thinking potential by becoming more than the forums - by being free, and expressing who we are as Man!"
--

Now, let's apply this to every robotic contract and rule system in human history. Which is better? I say down with psychopathy - let personality rise!
Ajabi

Con

I thank Aerogant for starting this debate. In modern days this has become a popular issue and I hope that this allows us to reach a rational conclusion. I do ask one favor though, that my opponent use paragraphs next time. Also I remind everyone that the burden of proof rests entirely on my opponent.

With that I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Aerogant

Pro

I would much rather not tell someone to use paragraphs, as I have learned from reading the works of many geniuses that the human mind struggles to break itself into pieces (it's why geniuses are well known for either writing a very small statement to writing a long-winded statement), when so many ideas come in which seem irrelevant to the untrained mind. I'd rather tell someone to write an actual argument so I know what to argue for my turn in the debate, as you have provided nothing for me to argue against which is far more troublesome than accepting someone's "body" of thoughts.
Ajabi

Con

I am sorry I did not realize I was debating Hegel himself, or are you more of a Heidegger? In any case I used the first round for acceptance because you did not lay out an argument, only your position. I believed that to balance the rounds, and make it fair upon you I should use it for acceptance. I am quite disheartened that you never present an argument in the second round either. Also I asked politely if you could use paragraphs, reading your verbiage becomes much easier. I am sorry the above will be the only slight conduct violation I commit.

Now to start up, I believe that some analysis on the onus is in order. The maxim reads such: 'semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.' The best translation is: the burden necessarily lies on them who should lay charges/claims. Here my opponent is making the positive claim, for he claims that all rules should be written in a literary manner. It is his burden, and his burden alone to prove this claim. The resolution does not say on balance, or probably, or comparatively it states a de facto maxim. This proposition must now be upheld by the proposition. Even if all my points are refuted unless my opponent gives irrefutable positive analysis, I win.

I will not begin my analysis of my Aerogant's "case". In the first round he posts a paragraph where he gives an example of the sort of format he wants to see rules. I do not understand if this is an example, or the argument itself? In any case so long as it is only an example, it is meaningless without a supporting argument. If it is an argument, it is horribly phrased. The first point that I can understand is that humans are creatures which enjoy expressing themselves, and they should express themselves unconditionally and in all cases, even cases where laws are concerned. The simple refutation that I can provide is that humans need to be rational in certain cases. I do not see how my opponent shows the necessity of being expressive everywhere, without this supporting argument his statement is mist. If a rapist feels he wants to express himself by raping someone should he? No, humans are emotional, but the reason that they are difference from animals is because they have a superior rational faculty of the mind.

The next argument is about being who you are. I do not get why there is an absolute necessity to be such in legal terms. Should we base the court systems on emotion? Decide who goes to jail on who gave the better speech? Who cried more? No, we should not. Humans can express themselves in a variety of ways, by giving speeches. by writing, by singing et cetera. In the matter of law however the rules should be precise and should not be vague because the wording may be the difference between life and death for a defendant.

The next round provides no argument, so I have nothing to rebut.

I will however provide (because of the debate level) one positive argument: that ambiguity may cause great harm. Lets start with a case: Raffles v. Wichelhaus, one which is known to nearly every law student. Now this case involved the buyer buying cotton which was to be imported from India. The cotton was to be brought to England via a ship named 'Peerless'. Now there are two ships with that name, one was to bring the cargo in October, the other in December. The buyer thought his cargo was to come in the October ship, the manager thought the December one was being mentioned.[1] This was a small ambiguity, but it caused so much hassle and mess. It led to a lengthy trial and great amounts of money was wasted. This because of a simple ambiguity in one clause. Now imagine the contract had been written like this:
Of the ship it carries thee,
works of yarn less evolved,
being upon the moon of ere,
shall I deliver unto your arms.

Not only was that horrible poetry from my side, should this have been the contract I am sure that a hundred different interpretations could be made, that means that a court would spend years trying to figure out what this meant. Defendant lawyers would contextualize everything, and the world would go to chaos.

Therefore for these reasons I negate the resolution. The resolution collapses miserably.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://idiom.ucsd.edu...
[3]http://www.legalmatch.com...
[4]http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com...
[5]https://www.google.com.pk...

Faithfully Yours,
Ajab.
Debate Round No. 2
Aerogant

Pro

Oh, I did make an argument: "Which is better?". It's far smaller than the rest of the passage, so I don't blame you for not having a trained brain to pick out the pin from the haystack. Wait, on second thought... You not only missed what was severed from the huge passage that had a "?" right next to it, you also failed to provide an argument regardless, as you are excusing your failures as someone who tries to debate, but comes off as someone who is merely a primate wearing a monocle. I would make fun of you more by saying "I do say", but you haven't said anything to begin with, so that joke wouldn't get by - along with everything else.

I am quite disheartened that you really think you can condescend me with your cheeky psychopathy, friend. I can speak as if I love you and care about you, like "I'm sorry, I do not mean to offend you, but you are a waste of space." See? It's easy. Why is it easy? It's because it's what children do, when they are too scared to get in their enemy's face to say what they really want to say. Do you need a pacifier? It wouldn't make a difference, since all you do is suck it up.

Here's my argument: Immutable laws are the work of cowards who don't understand how to live life, as this planet is not for us to make our homes in it, hence storms do not care about our homes or us. This world is forever changing - psychopathy never changes. It creates its own Utopia based entirely on a sick disease that plagues our minds, taking away our emotions and feelings towards ourselves and others. Humans are not gears or machines, just because they can be, doesn't mean that this stage of humanity is an advanced stage - it's a regressed stage, as in humanity become machine when it loses its humanity, thus saying that all psychopaths that treat anything like a machine for power and control, are coward because of what I wrote:

"He who wants power, does not have any; he who does not seek power, has it all."
Ajabi

Con

You know what? I am going to report you, you are racist. There is enough bigotry against my species, and we do not need any more from you.


We are a proud species, and I would appreciate you not making fun of my family like that. You truly are disgusting. The first half of your argument, Mr. Heidegger/Hegel is simply a rally of insults against me and my kind. What do I care? I have opposobale thumbs too you know. Would it not have been nice if you could use your brain to actually write down this imaginary argument that you gave.

Now I also did not happen to see your imaginary counter-rebuttals and therefore my argument stands. I mentioned an extremely famous case where I informed you that ambiguity may cause great legal, and practical loss. I talked about how you must give an argument to show that humans necessarily need to express themselves everywhere, you did not answer this. Which reminds me, do humans not have a neo-cortex? I believe they do, then why is it that I am more rational than you are? I mean that means to be rational is a fundamental part of human nature, and that when humans express themselves, they should also express themselves in rational forms. No answer.

I believe that answers everything other than the psychopathic accusations. You caught me, take care because I will come and do nasty stuff to you. I don't like arrogant people.

'Para bellum'

Faithfully Yours,

Debate Round No. 3
Aerogant

Pro

Your intimidation only makes a fool out of yourself, as I never used race as an argument. I was solely calling you a monkey strictly based entirely on how they are a stage below human based on your actions and your thought patterns, not this foolish idea that somehow your culture or skin has any significant relation to what you are capable and incapable of. That's absolutely absurd for you to assume of me. Clearly you were already ready to pull that card when you would lose the debate anyways. Your "I'm better than you because I can puff up like a puffer fish" attitude is not the same as my "I have worked very hard to get where I am" attitude. So go ahead an threaten me, because I walk the talk - you threatening me is missing the point entirely. You do know that wall wars and violence are the cause of stupidity and envy, yes? Why don't you start acting like you do, instead of trying to sound like you're some gang member that has inside sources to get me, as if I really cared and as if you getting to me would have any relevance to my ideas. If you couldn't change me before, let alone understand anything I have said thus far, then threatening me is just your way of saying "I'm angry I was out-spoken by another man that clearly knows more than I do about life, which is why I am the one that sent threats, while I just accused him of making threats; why am I such a hypocrite - oh yeah, because I'm confused and deranged as is."

It's very simple. It's all regression. You do not understand regression or progression because you're a psychopath. You don't feel - you assess information like a machine because you probably had a father or mother that treated you like coal instead of a beautiful gem with great potential. So no matter what you argue, you will continue to not use your heart to understand this argument. Arguing emotion with a psychopath is like arguing religion with a scientist. They do not care - no matter how important it is on top of precision and information. It's best to speak with our minds; and color our words with our hearts - something you don't do, since you sound like a binary monkey wearing a monocle that looks down on anyone because their ego can feed third world countries. You should let loose, instead of always bottling up all that anger inside you from living in a tough life. At least I can understand your life and why you may not be the best of people right now. I don't look down on people, I have hope for even the darkest of individuals, as I know that all fear and monsters within us are simply misunderstood friends.

So again, I will repeat it: "He who wants power, does not have any; he who does not seek power, has it all."

But do know that in spite of our differences in how we feel this world we stand in, there is always room for difference in our hearts.
Ajabi

Con

I will keep this short. That was meant as a joke, since you called me a primate with a monocle I acted as if I was one, and I asked you to stop calling the primates lesser evolved. For a person who likes expression so much, you surely are humorously constipated.

I will however remind my voters this. The onus was upon the Proposition, and other than a few misguided insults and obnoxious comments he has provided no argument. In fact he has also not tackled my arguments about how ambiguity in a clause can cause great distress, and a great many legal issues.

Pace Aerogant,
Faithfully Yours,
Ajab.
Debate Round No. 4
Aerogant

Pro

Oh, I know what a joke is - what you wrote was not a joke... at least you're extremely terrible at being funny. First of all, if you're going to make a joke, don't make stupid statements like "I hate arrogant people", secondly refrain from anthropomorphizing your humor to that of a hateful and deluded individual, as you have said "reported", without any hint of sarcasm or lighthearted jolly. Then you proceed to somewhat try to be funny by role-playing the monkey, but you really were just throwing lighters in one hands and gasoline another the whole time.

That said, are you really going to make up excuses about why "political" writing should trump personality? We are people, we have personalities; we have ideas, ideas can either stay an idea with no reformation towards human capacity, or it can be nurtured and taken care of by its advocate. As a child, we dreamed when we were always being either upset or happy in our life, we did not compress our emotions and cause ourselves to become numb and falsely convinced that we are doing life right by denying our feelings after they started to get to the point they hurt us and ate away at us in a society that does not want you to be "you", but some simulation of their cold policies based on machine-like manners that have no regard for the very reason why we exist with a heart and mind; have a brain that can produce endless possibilities, just so all of this can be wasted by our pride and arrogance.

You can argue me all you want, friend. But you will lose more than an argument by doing so. There's a reason why business people are not trusted and hated throughout eternity, while the greatest of our men stood against all odds, all blind men, to change things for the better; for the sheer sense that they never - NEVER - denied their feelings no matter how big they got... They faced those feelings and they built an entire future after a prologue of sheer darkness, pain and obstruction from everyone else that did not face their consequences like they did.
Ajabi

Con

I extend all contentions from my original round considering of legal issues and how ambiguity causes problems. I refuse to engage this man anymore.

I thank the voters for going through the pain to read this, and I remind them that my opponent had the complete burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
"I am sorry I did not realize I was debating Hegel himself" ... LMAO, that was too funny!
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Derp, BOP, when the entire idea of psychopathy and politics never presented its own BOP. You are all idiots that allow corruption to snake at your feet - you will all deserve what is coming for you beneath the threshold of your limited happiness and comfort! There will be wars coming - you will all be the head of its mount, as you carried these issues for far too long and the most depressing part of it all, is that none of you even realize the damage you are causing by playing these political games with actual ideas that truly shape us and the world we all share in our individual minds.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Elixir,

Emotion is humanity when it is alive. To ask whether or not people care for emotions, morals or any form of non-psychopathy, answers itself.

This is not a game - this is life. People die - people experience pain.
Posted by elixir 2 years ago
elixir
What if someone does not want to get emotional with things? There are a small minority of people who see arguments, debates and conflicts as nothing more than a game. Your paragraph, for example, could have made them puke.
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
Is this debate about the format of rules, or is it about letting people be emotional in forums?
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
I sincerely apologize....I still don't get it.

We should right laws (i.e Bill of Rights, State legislature, etc.) in what format?

I must be dumb and/or philosophically challenged, I just don't get it :/
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Aerogant is saying that we should write all our laws, rues, etc. in the format that he exemplified in his first round argument instead of the way we write them now.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
I'm sorry, what is the premise here?
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Very interesting; I've never thought of this before.
I agree and disagree with you; I'm not sure whether I should accept this.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
AerogantAjabiTied
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 did not meet his burden of proof, and pushed primate thing way beyond joke.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
AerogantAjabiTied
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: Pro did not fulfill the bop at all.. this debate got a little tense, but what do you expect?