The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

Can You Take This With A Grain Of Salt? Why So? And Why Not?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,608 times Debate No: 59534
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (3)




In my entire life, I never treated anything with more than a grain of salt, as a whole, as a finished product and/or design. When I see people, I don't see flesh and solid bodies - I see and feel essence. I am not spiritual, but some may as well call me the strongest of spiritualists. I am not literal, but some may as well call me the strongest of literalists. I do not smoke pot, but some may as well call me the second coming of Deepak.

When I read books, I don't read page by page - I open one page one day, read it. Another day, I read another page that is not subsequent to the former page. In the end, I make more sense out of the book as I did, than I would have if I read page by page. Why? The same way I experience life - it's not page by page; it's moment by moment.

So I ask of you today a question: Can you take my journey as a philosopher and a thinker with a grain of salt without getting too caught up in one of the ideas I have written which touched you personally and emotionally? This is a long read, so be sure to clear your schedule - that is, if you aren't already free.

- The Many Things I Wrote That I Do Not Urge You To Read Word By Word, But Moment By Moment -

Small minds desecrate other people's work to express themselves.

I try so very hard not to step on your small mind; but it's growing difficult. If only I could say the same for it.

Lest I was free from people abusing the butterfly effect, I wouldn't have to stand by thorns and the blood of these pricks hoping for the transparent emotions people refuse to consult to turn into physical manifestations that cause tidal waves with sorrow, fire to our homes with anger and reigning acid when being eaten alive.

Your weakness became my strength; I did not find arrogance with it; I found genius, passion and reason.

I like you;

You are the reason why great minds exist. Without you sporting those troubles without facing them yourself, the way of the genius would not be accessible to those that are prepared for it.

When you live life nearly correct and on point - after developing yourself through diligent practices and trials over the years - the concept of wrong tends to be the thing that replaces the horrors of your past.


I am nothing. I make you feel like nothing. In turn, I become everything!


Let's just sum this up, shall we? People are willing to believe ghosts, goblins and gods over my mutual suggestions. People are willing to accuse me of hubris, intentional or not, over politicians, business top dogs and parents that abuse their parental guidance. Well, there's something mighty wrong about this; I suspect social engineering is where it all starts. But that's just my arrogant and non-believable consensus.


I am against any leader, as the Universe is a "Uni", not a "Solo". Life is an orchestra, within other orchestras on different scales. No brain possesses all answers - however, every brain possesses all points for answers to arise. We know nothing - we cannot lead, command or supersede nature. We are bounded, as anyone else, to our emotions, feelings, chemicals, thoughts and limited experiences. We can only do so much to become gods unto ourselves, to understand as much as we can, to be a good man, a good influence, a good example. All power, settlement, need for control, leadership, and so on, is the result of regression - the result of stopping the life, the change, the becoming. Life is not about building utopias - life is about accepting the only universe. Everything we do, say, think is based on the influences of the Universe - nothing we do, is our own, based on free will, or this sense of "I". It is all replicating the Universe, piece by piece, note by note, moment by moment. The Universe, throughout itself, exists as a whole, and in pieces, as one, and all. A leader would be cheating life; playing god; cause all to go awry; and leave everything that should be sought.

I work with the roots of human incompetence - I do not pick countries to criticize. Everyone has something about them that encourages this hell we created. Including the two of us. We all have done harm; haven't done enough; done too much, and too little. It's best to always see ourselves as weak, needing of practice and summary, and better evaluation over our sentience and experience. Than to always play warrior, act big and bad, to handle everything without a sweat. Opposition is needed in life for it to expand, which is why dark matter and ignorance attack all opposition, by swallowing it whole, until finally the dark matter realized it's going nowhere, so it expands into the beautiful Universe it is now.

I learned much more from those that argued with me, than those that agreed with me. (a friend of mine read this, so they reworded it, which I thought was worth reading in another form: "soothsayers blind you to the crevices and ravines, while people who challenge you will atleast make you aware of the dangers on your path". Wisdom is like water - it's everywhere; in every shape.


There's a reason why galaxies devour other galaxies, like Man devours other Man.

There's a reason why a planet's core produces electromagnetic waves of energy in colors, as does the human body.

There's a reason why the human mind's neurons are shaped like the Universe; the human eye is shaped like the nebula, and the birth of a galaxy; the human experience is shaped by photo receptors which were formed before the birth of stars, billions of years ago.

There's a reason why ignorance and dark matter behave in the same way - that the human mind's entire process is cross-referential towards the behavioral patterns of space.

Your mind hasn't broken out of its circle. It will forever push away everything. It cannot create. It cannot become. It cannot change. It is still dark matter, or for humans, ignorance.

The Universe starts with dark matter - the humans start with ignorance. Both can become, create and expand into something far more, if they break free from the vicious cycle.


Honesty disagrees and agrees inevitably. Dishonesty always agrees - always disagrees. When you call out dishonesty for always disagreeing or agreeing, it makes up a general opposite to compensate. Which further proves they are only here to rationalize, not reason.

Hence why they HAVE to call us dismissers, while THEY call them themselves open-minded. The dishonest HAVE to see the worst in what they do not agree with, which is a form of fear, hatred and negligence. They are playing the anti-anti-antagonist. Am I the only one that sees this? You cannot argue with them with reason - you have to argue with them with illusion of your own, that alludes to realism.

In other words, make up better stories than they do. It's the only way to defeat this. When you argue with intelligence, you beat intelligence with better intelligence. When you argue with ignorance, you beat them with better ignorance, which is the anti-anti-intellect.

In order for stupid people to see their stupidity, they have to come across stupidity far beyond their own. The reason why they aren't reacting to Science the same way, is because they know that Science is more intelligent than they are - but that's not how you cure ignorance; it's how you encourage ignorance (much like a jealous sibling won't learn from the already intelligent, but learn when they make their own mistakes or witness others doing things they even knew weren't good). In order to cure ignorance, you must place greater ignorance next to it, so it rises. This is why ignorance seems to be infinite - it is required so everyone can reach their intellectual pinnacle.

Humans are nightmare weavers; they distort reality through fear and ignorance. It was not the color pigment that caused racism - it was the fear of indifference - the fear of being a part of something bigger than themselves.


What is I, you ask?

Well, I is a question, of course! I is like a strand of hair; when you perceive something to be a part of your life, you do not only see it as such, but you begin to find yourself becoming everything you pull towards yourself. When the strand of hair is severed, we disown it, just like we disown anything in spite of how much we melded ourselves and it together.

It's not a state, nor is it a function. It's a distinction, that is like any other distinction; it's not real, but it helps us communicate in ways that can be taken as a form of an answer. It allows us to identify what "is", but that's really where it all comes down to: what is, "is"?

Think of the I as an air pocket in a cosmic sea. It separates itself within the sea, creating its own boundary that captures everything, but the sea. When you pop the bubble, which is a metaphor many use to describe people's secular states of reality, the host of said bubble will snap back to the cosmic sea. In other words, we are a species of hubris. We fill our lungs with air; and our lives with arrogance. We try to make life smaller for us to handle, but we only push the whole world away, making it larger than it really is. The I is the result of filling holes we have nothing to plug up with, without realizing that the Universe, itself, is consisted of holes and space so things can move and flow as they do. By creating and conforming to an I, you are creating a bubble that is smaller than the sea, where you will never grow or expand. You will merely be entrapping yourself and allowing any force to inevitably come upon your bubble, which will cause it to pop. The entire idea of I, is the idea of separating ourselves from the Universe and claiming a very small state of reality based on our very transient emotions and desires. The I is a disease, that should be let go of. It is the encouragement of regression. It's the self that never could be - that never could grow. Life is not about defining ourselves or it - it's about becoming. You can't define an unfinished design! Nor can you define yourself!


Pro has set up this debate and asked "Can You Take This With A Grain Of Salt? Why So? And Why Not?"

As stated in the comments, which i verified beforehand, this is the closest thing to a resolution:

Pro (in comments):"You look for a resolution, when I strictly set this question up to make people think about how counter-intuitive it is to search for an "answer", over an "understanding" that is mutual, transient and relative like the flash of lightning."

Pro has claimed he has not affirmed a resolution.

I will allow him to make a claim and affirm it next round.

If he does not: I will make a claim: "If Con posts "I Win" anywhere in the final round, Con is to be declared the winner and receive all voting points."

To answer the question stated in the title: You CAN take the large incoherent post with a grain of salt because the human mind can have its own opinions on anything.

Debate Round No. 1


Debates do not have to have resolution, to be questioned. This is something many, many fellow men do not understand, which is why I brought it into sight.

You cannot affirm a resolution, but you can affirm a question. Sometimes a situation does not need to be resolved, but understood.

You are very focused on the trivial things I designed this debate to take down. I speficially asked if can you take it all with a grain of salt, without resorting to personal or emotional responses. This means that opinions are not the point - being able to form a consensus without emotion and reaction, but reason and evidence after reading a series of completely different moments written.



: a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something

A debate has two opposing sides. Which means there must be a resolution that one side affirming, that the other has to counter.

take something with a pinch (or grain) of salt:

Regard something as exaggerated; believe only part of something

Exaggeration is a subjective term.
ex·ag·ger·ate: to think of or describe something as larger or greater than it really is

How much larger, or greater? How much more or less?

You are asking a question based on as idiom that, in itself, uses a personal or emotional response (or opinion)

Therefore you have contradicted your premise by asking for an opinionated outlook (take with grain of salt), on a non-opininoated stance.

"This means that opinions are not the point - being able to form a consensus without emotion and reaction, but reason and evidence after reading a series of completely different moments written."

Are you asking me to make a point not using emotion? The sky is blue. That is not emotional or personally based, that is scientfically based by the combination of gasses in the air vs. how they reflect light that comes from the sun.

I do not believe Pro is making any sort of points towards a general topic, but is simply thinking out loud. Therefore I affirm the resolution I stated in the previous round. "If con posts "I Win" anywhere in the final round, Con is to be declared the winner and receive all voting points."
Debate Round No. 2


That is my point - a debate is two-sided in a uni-directional Universe, with a tool that is not two-sided, but uni-sided. This is not political - this is critical.

What is the "sky"? All I see is "space". What is "here"? Again, all I see is "space".

I am challenging people in a clever manner. If you cannot see that, why are you a Con?


Plese define: "that" "point" "two-sided" "uni-directional" "universe" "tool" "political" "critical" "clever"

All of my points went unrefuted from the last round about the contradiction Pro is making with his question.

You are not debating. This post belongs in a forum, and you have chosen to put it in teh debate section. As you have no stated a claim/premise/resolution I have.

"If con posts "I Win" anywhere in the final round, Con is to be declared the winner and receive all voting points."
Debate Round No. 3


I'm not going to define it, because that's the point. You don't understand that the definition of debate is proving my point. We live in a free world that doesn't have direction - it's all growing from every side from the core. The dictionary should be renamed to "distinctionary". That's how bad perception and understanding is today. Labels are a liability to our ability to analyze and understand this entire Universe. You are proving it by not understanding that you're caught up over the trivial things I have long destroyed and reprimanded years ago. It holds you back. It keeps you from experiencing life for what it is - not the small box you placed it in.

I am debating by debating against those that debate without understanding how to open their mind about what "debate" truly is in the sense of the Universe, not in the sense you were taught. The entire term "debate" is wrong and refutable; you arguing the term "debate" is making you lose the debate, that you never understood in the first place because my debate isn't political - it's critical!


I agree this is a freel world to make your own choices.

However, you have opened an account and created a debate, on a debate website. You have not defined debate, I have.

You have no chosen a topic of discussion, which is your duty as the creator of this debate. Your free will drew you tot his website, which is for debates. Debates have structure, meaning you have to follow the standards of a debate to particiapte in a debate.

You have chose no topic of discussion, no reasoning, and no sense to a debate.

The debate is simply lost by you. You have chosen to forfeit your right of the creator of this debate to a meaningful topic of discussion in which two people argue two sides.

Clearly vote for Con.


"If con posts "I Win" anywhere in the final round, Con is to be declared the winner and receive all voting points."

Debate Round No. 4


I don't have to define debate, as I simply asked "Can you take this with a grain of salt?" (I also specifically shut down emotional and personal responses, which you clearly did not read in Round 2, thus telling all of us that you are a terrible Con; that you do not deserve to win simply by "I Win", because you resorted to a haudy, gaudy tautology.

Anyone smart enough will know, if they agree, they can use the comment section - if they disagree, they can use the con section or the comment section.

I am debating, again, the notion of being able to take in information without taking it personal and emotional, as I wrote many things that were irrelevant from each other, however is it possible to read all of that and bring it all together not as a resolution, but as a different understanding over this Universe from the many pieces of different thoughts and responses. So basically, I'm asking if people can step into a room, while blind folded, have 10 people talk around them, and use their brain to make sense out of the bits and pieces of information at once, rather than trying to form one single consensus.


Pro has stated how "as I wrote many things that were irrelevant from each other"

claiming he is just stating random ideas.

I Win

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aerogant 7 years ago
No, it cannot be sarcasm when it's a legitimate response built entirely on what came to my mind, which I typed; I did not mean it, but I did mean it in another way, as per those that think voting without understanding what they are voting on was ever inconsequential. Though, I do commend you for being able to recall things like that, but there's much more than just words when I write them. I apply whole meanings in every word, which is why everything I write is poetic, metaphoric, idiom-like and universal.

Fungus is a basic form of life - to say it's not the Universe because it has no brain, or looks like the Universe's hair ball, is defeating the purpose of understanding that you can tell a lot more about the Universe by analyzing a blade grass, than analyzing, say, some heavy topic that is politically up front, or that perhaps maybe what we feel and believe.

I used the Universe to describe it, as your question opened up new windows for me to think about, since fungi is not something I have really thought about. But now that I am, I guarantee you that some day later, I will have walls of text to bring fungi on a much higher level of appearance and importance, as I have done for consciousness, this universe, arrogance, ignorance, psychopathy, personality and humanity. I just require the idea; the seed, so I can plant it so it can grow. Thank you for that, all though it was quite inadvertent, altogether.

Analyzing the dog is Science - Making a story that alludes to realism, is speaking with the Univferse. In every poem, in every book, in every mind of a great man, they have always knew how to speak to us deeply by using language of the Universe, rather than themselves.

Science is labeling the Universe - the Universe is the Universe. Also, Science is the child of philosophy, so keep that in mind that questions have given birth to a non-questionable system that helps us understand how everything works.
Posted by Domr 7 years ago
" I can tell you that I don't live life being random and trying to be cute or sarcastic."
^^this is your from an earlier comment.

Do you care to explain how you contradicted yourself by saying you're not sarcastic, and then use sarcasm?

You simply stated fungus can grow on anything. That's not the universe, its actually incorrect. There are many places of extreme temperature, or other conditions that prevent that life. Therefore it is not all the same.

You did not use the universe to describe fungus, you used science to describe it.

A dog licking it self is science. Its biology. the anatomy of the dog, how that anatomy allows it to move and lick itself. hows its nature and instinct make it clean itself.

Science is descriptive. The Universe can describe anything.

Yet you said this was not the universe.

So we have two options. Either science is the universe, and any comparison can be made, as I have proven with my dog licking itself...

Or science is NOT the universe and you have no demonstrated why fungus grows under my toenail 'using the universe'

In both're pretty much full of Sh1+.
Posted by Aerogant 7 years ago
Then ask it properly next time.

Fungus grows anywhere it wants to, provided the conditions; and because of that, it means that life is potentially everywhere. Amoebas live inside of us, only because we contain water. To ask one's self if the human body was based off of water for amoebas specifically for them to live, while everything else was built around that design plan, rather than the human body containing water on one hand and amoebas forming through it, would prove my theory that life is not being - it's the result of being. That fungi grows on us, because we are not special, so we host the cosmic world (this planet) within a host (bacteria) within a host (amoeba), within a system (this Universe).

So if fungi can grow on a rock, on food, on people's bodies themselves, then clearly the answer is that the human body is no more porous and structured differently than every other basic projection of the Universe, such as coral, bone material, jelly, plasma, rocks and sponges.

When I called someone a minion, I was joking around as I was merely repeating the cheesy phrase that you hear a lot in entertainment services.
Posted by Domr 7 years ago
I am asking you how the world works....why does fungus grow under my toenail. This is science. Science is descriptive. The universe can DESCRIBE anything.

So please, using the universe, describe this.

While you're at stated you are not better than any other person....while this is true, please explain this quote in an earlier comment:

"Yes, my minions. Vote me as the loser; that's exactly my resolution"

You are calling those who vote against you minion, which is an underling, someone who does something for you.
Posted by Aerogant 7 years ago
Your questions are distinctions, not descriptions. Religion is a distinction - Science is a a description. You need to understand how complicated Mankind made this world to understand where I stand.

Nothing is "personal" - that's just what we say based upon the experience. We know nothing of what we feel, or why we are here - yet we own it and claim it, without any proof or control over the shadow play created y the Universe, that proves in itself that life is not about being defined - you cannot define an unfinished design or yourself.


Ask better questions. Those things you asked come from your small reality that is distinctive, not descriptive. You just say X, without definition - I need definition, because the Universe defines itself. If you asked me questions about how the world works - not how you see the world, maybe you'd get universal answers.
Posted by Domr 7 years ago
So i would like you to "use the universe" and answer my previous questions. Explain why these things are so 'using the universe'?

If you have such a higher order of thinking (yet are not superior to others) and this deep understanding of the universe, and EVERYTHING can be described by the universe, I need to know the answers to my questions.

Unless you are just talking in circles, trying to sound like a philosophy major, when really you have no idea what your talking about
Posted by Domr 7 years ago
I know exactly what to say, you are avoiding the question. you said "when you use the Universe, there's nothing in life you cannot describe, because everything is the Universe;"

"nothing in life you cannot describe"

life involves personal feelings and images. So if you can't explain this, my only option is to think your full of it
Posted by Aerogant 7 years ago
Your questions prove that you don't know where to begin to understand where it's the Universe speaks - and just you speaking.

That's not how the Universe speaks, as these are personal feelings and images. As someone that doesn't consciously work with life now, but subconsciously, I can tell you that I don't live life being random and trying to be cute or sarcastic. I always felt that people that resort to these things, as I do remember when I was like that, was because I didn't know what to really say - I really had nothing to say, so I said the smallest and cutest things, like mice - blind mice.
Posted by Domr 7 years ago
Ok so the universe can describe anything?
("when you use the Universe, there's nothing in life you cannot describe, because everything is the Universe;")

ok, Mr. Universe...why is my poop green sometimes? Why does it burn when I pee? What is the reason for the fungus beneath my toenail? Why do I feel the urge to shave my whole body, smother myself in syrup and pretend I am a waffle?

Please universe, explain?
Posted by Aerogant 7 years ago
Because a dog licking itself is not the Universe, the inner space, the outer space, the planets, the stars, the black holes or every other magnificent product of the Universe where the Universe is formed from - not where it goes from which it came. When you see a dog, you can create metaphors and describe only so much by analyzing the dog - when you use the Universe, there's nothing in life you cannot describe, because everything is the Universe; everything is connected and defined by contrasting everything around every object and person.

For an example, if I told someone how the dog chasing its tail is like someone chases fruitless endeavors, they won't react with an awe if I were to tell them that the planet's core produces the same array of electromagnetic wave of colors and energy that the human body produces, because the former is mundane; the latter is profound.

You said "smaller scale" - that's the point.

Having an upper hand doesn't mean I am superior, as I am clearly making this about the Universe, not myself. I have clearly referred to it as the Universe, instead of "god" that judges everyone because I said so on the behalf of said "god". I do not speak for it - it speaks for me. I eliminated my ego years ago; I am the last person to accuse of being pretentious, when I sacrificed my self and my desires to achieve the state I am at right now. I'm merely a god unto myself; a pawn unto others.

I have not been chosen - think of the human body as a transmitter. If the transmitter does not rid itself of potential clogging, it will experience difficulties picking up information. A cleaned up transmitter can pick up information fluently. All you have to do is clear your mind, open yourself up to the Universe, and you will experience the Universe's language as I have, or others, like Einstein and Tesla.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 7 years ago
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 should have defined words he used when asked so. Pro made too many statements not relevant to the debate(what it was supposed to be about). Con has made good arguments to support his point in his Round 2.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Comprehensibility? Null. Con had sources.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 7 years ago
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: this debate was very confusing, but as far as I'm concerned, pro didn't manage to uphold the resolution.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.