Debate Round Forfeited
M0nK3Y has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||6 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||346 times||Debate No:||94633|
Debate Rounds (5)
I accept the debate and wish my opponent good luck.
I thank my opponent for allowing me to accept this debate and in this debate I shall be showing how humans do not communicate through a language the Universe understands, or something of that matter.
Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. Let me give you an example. Say you're walking down the street and you see a homeless man begging for change. You give the man change. You feel good knowing that now he has money to get some food into his stomach, but Freud has agrued that this was only done, because you want to save the genes of the human race and you want it to continue. Also that you now get a feel good feeling and if you didn't you would feel guilty and ashamed. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted.
"I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think." 
Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy. 
“one, the postulate of human greed by which each man insists upon his own private use of common property; the other, the postulate of natural reason, by which each man strives to avoid violent death ."
We can see here above that simply we go to avoid death and we all know that one of the leading fears is death. Why do we fear death? What will happen to our families when we die? How will I be remembered? Could I have done better? What's next? Am I going to heaven or hell? These are all questions that we ponder when it comes to the afterlife. We simply fear the unknown.
The amount of selfishness the human expierences show that they only care about themselves and what they do. Communiciation is impossible as there is no need to communicate due to the selfish evil nature of humanity as they only take, steal, and pillage. There is nothing that they need nor care for.
The last section of this debate here is that of Tabula Rasa. Tabula Rasa is the philosophy that is one is born with a blank slate. The individual is born without knowledge, expierence, or even a code of ethics. The reason this aspect is harmful towards the resolution is another aspect that Hobbes had hammared on. With this blank slate, the individual can been manipulate, pratically brainwashed to believe certain idea or certain view point in society. This aspect shows that humans are nothing more than puppets in soceity controlled by puppetiers. There cannot be communication since humanity has been brainwashed repetively from birth to believe certain aspects to the point where they are unable to voice their own actual voices in communications, since they obey a different master and have no actual opinions of their own.
3. De Cive, Epistle Dedicatory
I will address Con's first argument. Con's sources are, a psychoanalysis from Sigmund Freud, and another from Thomas Hobbes. The sources are similar and I will contest them together.
Con, if the resolution of my opening argument is true, human sense of reality is abstracted. The evidence that supports my resolution needs to be countered, not dismissed. However, I will accept a sub-argument.
Our sense of reality is abstracted ( in reference to the majority of humanity ), therefore, humans will be evil; they will rape and pillage, they will appear wasteful to more resourceful humans.
I argue, Con, that this is not set in stone, and the thought that it is set in stone, is submission to the abstracted sense of reality, and whatever entity supports it.
Further, to emphasize that this argument is a sub-argument, humans being evil wouldn't void universal communication, and universal communication continues nonetheless.
In other words, a majority of low intelligence humans, do not void the higher intelligence human's resolutions.
For example, a heartbeat stimulates thought. To voice that your thoughts are great without your heartbeat, is incorrect. In our societies there are many people who claim to have great minds and pay no respect to their heartbeat. The heart and mind communicate, but a majority forget; the truth of the matter is forgotten, but prevails.
To continue this sub-argument, onto Tabula Rasa, I disagree with the term 'slate', and would replace it with 'human'. Humans are born as blank humans, which automatically indicts a new born as a pursuer of a humane knowledge. Parental figures ( including educators ), can help or hinder ( manipulation, falsehood ) this pursuit.
The new born will, over time, understand itself, and is capable of realizing it was manipulated. Although, in circumstances like the present day, this realization may be abstruse; some may even deny the harsh truth because it's uncomfortable...
To conclude on Tabula Rasa, and my argument this round, humans a powerful organism and they can distinguish between truth and falsehood given enough evidence; the argument against this is that we're weak and stupid, which I dismiss as submission to an abstracted sense or reality.
In this debate, it is generally the instigater's role in the debate to outline the terms and definitions of the debate. In both rounds 1 and 2 he had the chance to do so and declined. He attempted to give it a shot in the comments section, but has failed to actually clearly outline the resolution. As a result, we are debating a fluid debate. This pratice is Atopical, showing that it harms the aspect of the debate due to the neglect of Pro to do so which would allow him to change the resolution to meet whatever arguments he see's fit and use it to negate arguments. In each an every debate, the terms and resolution are paramount. This violation is a priori meaning that it comes first before any and all debate arguments and should be considered the only one in this debate. This is ultamately a voting issue due to teh issue that my opponent has caused and due to the unclarity of it, it harms the purpose of the debate and is a clear violation and should warrent a clear ballot in Negation just from it alone. Ignore all and everything else.
My opponent states that we should focus on the heartbeat. This too, is still evil. We'd have to see that if it stimulates the thought, and the thoughts and humans are generally evil, then the heart is not only evil, but corrupt. There can be no actual communication if everyone is selfish and evil, in it for themselves.
Here my opponent is simply refuting the name. It really doesn't matter here and is just a Red Herring, through it out of the debate. My opponent never actually shows how of why the child will realize that it was manipulated. As a result, my argument stands. Extend it across.
I will judge the debate as my victory based on Con's submission.
To argue against Con is to engage in back to back sub-arguments, and to complete the sub-arguments in full will spur an opinion-based vote, rather than a vote based on the debaters. In other words, Con calls out for voters to win the debate for him but cannot debate me himself.
Con has lost because he submits to my argument.
Whatever the course of this debate, it doesn't void my clear victory.
Con has a few more chances to counter and I will respond if that's the case; if he doesn't counter, I won this debate in Round 3. Any intelligent person agrees.
Thank you and I urge a ballot in Negation.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.