The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Oak19
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

see=unlimited intelligence

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
Oak19
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 213 times Debate No: 93433
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

1=1=1=1=1=1=1=1=1(1=1)

difference between nidding a red sweather and a rainbow colored sweather.. is non existent from a perspective of nidding being nidding.. the non existence of a higher level intelligence difference vs uncertainty of perception..
Oak19

Con

I will attempt to make sense of your argument the best I can. I believe you are trying to say that a person is not more or less intelligent then another person. I also think that you are suggesting that the differences we see in intelligence are simply cosmetic. You try to state this by saying that when you knit( I'm going to assume you meant knitting because it sounds similar to nidding and since I cannot find any evidence that's an actual word, I'll stick with that assumption until proven wrong.) a sweater( also assuming you spelled sweater wrong), a person can call it red or rainbow colored but its still a sweater.right? The color or colors of the sweater does not make it any more or less greater then any other sweater. However, that sweater can grow and increase in size without limit as long as the person wishes to make the sweater bigger correct? Its similar to your view on intelligence. in your view no person is born smarter or dumber then another. What I think you believe is that each person starts out with some thread that represents there intelligence, and each person can keep knitting that thread to make there intelligence as big or small as they want correct? You believe that a person's intelligence can grow without limit or in other words is infinite.

Am I right?

Is that what you were trying to say?

btw the summary of this is each person starts out with threads they can use to knit in order to make there intelligence as big as they choose. Therefore its not really a higher level intelligence but really just different stages in the process of knitting your sweater/intelligence.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

you are to stupid to listen to.. cant read what you are saying
Oak19

Con

I would like to point out that my opponent has made no attempt to explain what we are debating and his only rebuttal to that is calling me stupid. What he is saying appeared to be mostly gibberish yet I took the time to translate what he was saying the best I could to give him a chance of having a coherent argument. Even still he refuses to explain if my theory on what the topic of the debate was is correct. As I am the only person making sense in this debate I feel that I should be given the win by default.

Thank you.

OAK
Debate Round No. 2
Oak19

Con

Yep, he has just proved my point.

I look forward to this easy win. thank you.:)

OAK
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
This was a horrible debate, with many bare assertions, and for a troll debate though, Con argued excellently by the short characters. I myself has found it hard to refute vi_spex arguments, because they are too horrible and are unintelligible. But because of Pro's horrible performance, the debate was a horrible debate. I know that vi_spex will never improve, so I wouldn't give any feedback to him, because it is a waste of my time.
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
I'm awarding con the conduct point for pro's blatant ad hominem in the second round. "[Y]ou are to stupid to listen to.. cant (sic) read what you are saying," is neither an argument nor good conduct.

Spelling and grammar also goes to con because Pro did not have a coherent grammatical structure.

"difference between nidding a red sweather and a rainbow colored sweather.. is non existent from a perspective of nidding being nidding.. the non existence of a higher level intelligence difference vs uncertainty of perception.."

Nidding is not a word. Furthermore, this makes absolutely no sense at all. Pro talks about nidding (perhaps he means knitting, but I'm not sure) and then talks about the existence of higher intelligence. This is a non-sequitur.

To be continued
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
well nidding taks intelligence
Posted by Richardsonalj 4 months ago
Richardsonalj
Could you elaborate, in comprehensive english, what you're trying to debate. I'm genuinely confused?
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
or a red and blue sweather vs a rainbow colored sweater
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
hm?
Posted by Briannj17 4 months ago
Briannj17
Answer me
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RonaldTrumpkin 4 months ago
RonaldTrumpkin
vi_spexOak19Tied
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: Pro makes no arguments, is rude and childish.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
vi_spexOak19Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments