The Instigator
M0nK3Y
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Thetan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Words

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 173 times Debate No: 92062
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

M0nK3Y

Con

In this document I will outline a deathly virus I theorise exists, called word. It's an abstruse subject, but beyond it's harsh nature is a beautiful philosophy.

The principle of this theory is that words are a virus; that's not to say words cannot be beautiful or coherent, that's saying there is greater beauty and greater coherence beyond them.

For over two-thousand years we have used word-technology, and word-technology has led to other technologies. Word helps us to sustain ourselves and our civilization, but simultaneously, there is disaster.

At one point, I hypothesize that the world was free of words; that even humans were wordless, and during this time, the word-virus was invented. In the end, the last of the wordless humans became infected, and the word-akin, and it's benefactors, dominated the world.

A problem with the word-virus is that it's educated to babies. These babies do not have a choice, and do not know any better. I hypothesize that primitive humans were forced to word-technology by sheer numbers of the word-infected, numbers made up by neglected youth logic.

Another, more technical problem is that forgetting words is an arduous task, especially without any knowledge of the wordless world. Our tongues were trained to talk by our infected families, and then our word-mammal potential was tempered in educational institutes.

We are slaves by the word-virus, where no whips are needed, just the presence of negativity and word-world positivity.

We metaphorically whip ourselves with the counter-argument to an argument we uphold; because of words, negativity is instilled in our brain. All worded-thought is an imaginary word-war. To think harder with words isn't intelligent, it's perseverance, to impress our slavers.

The only free-will of the matter are the wordless aspects.

The potential of a word-mammal, is to create and use technology.

Technology can be helpful or harmful, On the one hand, we have created wind-turbines that can generate free energy, and on the other, we have nuclear missiles that can wipe out any landmass.

Animals hunt, or consume resources; in a world where there are tensions between humans, their prey and their resources, there will be vigilance and there will be indiscretion. Humans will design, and deny the wind-turbine based on want, and design, and use nuclear missiles based on need.

Harmful technology would spur, and so would helpful technology; this is an aspect of the deathly nature of words.

Our sin advances as the word-technology advances, tensions between humans become more complex as time passes.

The current Russian and Western tensions make it near impossible for peaceful resolutions by politic; where only a political winner can stop the impeding World War III. A side will criticize the other on history, behaviour, and more; targeting leaders and reputable people foremost, and neglecting the views of the general population.

History spans for thousands of years, and accepted behaviour has changed over the course of history. An analysis of ancient history with modern behavioural philosophy, is sure to see primitive man as undesirable, and the same goes for certain conduct throughout the ages.

As time passes, we neglect our history with word-technological advancement.

Theoretically, our heads are stuck to the side of a cube, rather than our heads being central and our mind being balanced.

I'm afraid I cannot explain what implications a wordless world would have on the mind, for I've never experienced it. I imagine it would be a more harmonious thought and emotion process.

We are, at this moment in time, standing on the edge of extinction...
Thetan

Pro

I would like to thank Con for such an interesting debate. I will be giving a series of arguments against Con's position.

The Argument of Technology:
Technology exists if and only if words exist.
Con is arguing that words ought not to exist.
Therefore, con is arguing that technology ought not to exist.

"Technology," in this argument is defined as "the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science." Now Con seems to agree with the "Argument of Technology," but replies that technology is a "double edged sword" so to speak. Con says that technology that technology can be either extremely beneficial or extremely harmful; but this isn't an argument against technology. For instance if I were to say, "when you fire that rifle,Johny, be sure the recoil doesn't hit you in the face;" I'm not telling Johny not to fire the rifle, in merely telling him to proceed with caution. The same applies with technology, warning that it had a good and a bad side is not telling someone not to use it. Without technology every thing ever invented and mass produced that has tremendously benefited humanity, and everything that ever will be invented and mass produced that will benefit humanity is nullified. It is Con's burden of proof; Con must prove that humanity is better off without any technology.Technology is as good as the ethical code that it is used with, which brings me to my next argument.

The Argument of Ethics:
A codified ethical code is created and transmitted from person to person and generation to generation if and only if words exist.
Con is arguing that words ought not to exist.
Therefore, Con is arguing that ethics ought not to exist.
Take religion, just as an example. Without words, religion would not exist; something that over six billion people have. Now even though religion gives many people people purpose, a road to truth, and a moral code; con may argue that humanity would be better off without it. This however would not defeat the argument since my argument encompasses all ethical codes and their transmission. Con is arguing against all ethics, whether secular or not. Con has the burden of proof, Con has to prove that humanity would be better off without an ethical code. Ethics requires that human beings grasp concepts, concepts such as "good," "bad," "right," "wrong," and so forth; which brings me to my next argument.
The Argument of Concept Formation:
All cases of words with meaning are cases of concepts.
Con is arguing that words ought not exist.
Therefore, Con is arguing that concepts ought not to exist in the human mind.
When I say the word "tree," I'm not referring to any specific tree, but rather treeness or the essence of what it means to be a tree; I'm referring to an abstract concept. I quote the great philosopher, Ayn rand. "Concepts and, therefore, language are primarily a tool of cognition"not of communication, as is usually assumed. Communication is merely the consequence, not the cause nor the primary purpose of concept-formation"a crucial consequence, of invaluable importance to men, but still only a consequence. Cognition precedes communication ; the necessary pre-condition of communication is that one have something to communicate. (This is true even of communication among animals, or of communication by grunts and growls among inarticulate men, let alone of communication by means of so complex and exacting a tool as language.) The primary purpose of concepts and of language is to provide man with a system of cognitive classification and organization, which enables him to acquire knowledge on an unlimited scale; this means: to keep order in man"s mind and enable him to think."[1]
It seems Con is arguing that we ought not to form concepts. The burden of proof lies on Con to show why we shouldn't.

Summary: I have given three arguments, The Argument of Technology, The Argument of Ethics and the Argument of Concept Fornation. In order for my opponent to win he must either show why all my arguments are false and then erect arguments of his own, or prove why we shouldn't have any technology, ethics, or concepts.

http://aynrandlexicon.com...
Debate Round No. 1
M0nK3Y

Con

Pro has presented three arguments, I will counter each argument in order.

The argument of technology is easily voided, by the fact that humans and other animals spurred from non-technological means, and by my original premise of the doom that comes with technology. Humans would be more likely to evolve far into the future if technology wasn't around, and my proof is that in the days before technology, our species would have been expected to live much longer.

I have never stated that all technology should be removed, I have stated that words should be removed. Safer, less advanced technology might be necessary to live, and it's possible we would use technology as such in a more nature-friendly world. Less advanced technology would bring about a more advanced natural environment. My evidence is that polluted water is not healthy for humans, whereas pure water is healthy. Technology creates purified water, but also polluted water " I imagine Pro's next argument will be biased to the fact technology can make water pure. My argument against this would be that there was already enough pure water prior to technological advancement, and because of technology, there is more polluted water than there was prior to word-technological advancement.

On the argument of ethics, again, easily dismissed by the fact we can be wise of our society and ethics would still exist, and by the fact humans can find harmony in chaos.

Wisdom comes with experience, and helps us to judge if knowledge is true. and benefits our judgement ability. We are wise mammals, and in a wordless world, we can easily be civilized.

We are not civilized now, especially in the west, words make us less-civilized. Insulting and immature behaviour Is common in the west; our code of ethics just doesn't work.

The burden of proof is on Pro, to prove that the wordless world would be unethical " that we couldn't have civilized, wordless populations.

The concept argument was a bit bizarre for me, we can still formulate concepts with imagery and wordless thought " it's harder to express them, but the expression is unnecessary for survival. In fact, the expression of formulated concepts is only useful to technological and social development.

Thank you for the argument Pro, eagerly awaiting your next.
Thetan

Pro

Unfortunately I don't have time to finish this debate, sorry about that. Con wins.
Debate Round No. 2
Thetan

Pro

Thetan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.