CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Peace is attainable. Any life form is the reality of "universal principle", and universal principle is "wanting to live peacefully".. Ergo, the status quo of living peacefully is the "only" status quo that's acceptable.
Why should war contradict what I've said? All life forms being "universal principle" doesn't have to mean the negation of war whatsoever. Just because somebody is universal principle doesn't mean that somebody else will be able to recognise that truth.
The point is to expose all life forms as that truth - thus negating war.
The global status quo is the absence of mutualism.
If all people are the embodiment of this purported universal principle then it follows that they would be opposed to war. At any rate, the more important point is that you can in now way demonstrate through reason or evidence that such a "universal principle" or "truth" exists at all.
Actually, it doesn't follow at all (again, a life form can be universal principle, yet still not be aware of it).
I agree, that trying to prove that all life forms are formula is difficult - but then suppose that universal difficulty is in and of itself the proof that all life forms are universal principle.
No one life form can prove "truth", which is in and of itself proof of "truth".
That we cannot prove the existence of something does not mean that it exists. We cannot prove that Santa exists but that does not mean that Santa exists.Your supposition is just as unfounded as the original claim you are trying to advance. It is not just difficult to prove any universal principle; it is impossible. If you disagree then by all means advance some actual evidence or logic, otherwise I am disinclined to continue engaging on this thread with you.
I initially thought you were trying to argue that the evidence of a universal principle was that we embodied, and in that case it would follow that our failure to embody it disproves the principle.
Maybe nothing, maybe everything. Maybe the fact of nationalism on its own is proof of each life form being universal principle. I mean, why a French nobility, as well as a British and a German nobility? Why never on mainstream TV do people talk as they do on the internet?
Why Create Debate? Why doesn't a life form ever become the centre of the world's attention without the application of formula?
Formula exists, and because every life form is reality (if it wasn't, that would mean that reality isn't reality), this means that every life form is formula.
Thus.. every life form is above nationalism, and economics.
You are extrapolating from base genetic disposition to arrive at a universal principle, but there is always variation. Nationalism is readily explained by genetic disposition to prefer in-group over out-group, and exists to varying extent (none to total) among people based upon their particular disposition as determined by their genetic inheritance and subsequent conditioning over life; this is why some people are not above nationalism.
People do not usually speak as they do on the internet as they do on TV because (a) the former is relatively anonymous; and (b) the latter is entertainment rather than reality.
Single life forms do not become the center of global attention unless they capture the interest of individual organisms in aggregate, according to the dispositional attributes of each individual. It does not happen because they are somehow uniquely transcendent or because some cosmic formula selected them for it; it just happens as the consequence of numerous random events leading up to that moment of attention.
There is no singular formula. If there were then we should expect that we would all be the same, and not different. If it meant we were above nationalism and economics, then we would be. We are not so it is not. You are also inferring cause and effect without actually bothering to demonstrate causality, which makes your argument unfounded as well as confusing.
Textbook case of circular reasoning, and probably some other fallacies that escape me at at the moment. You are just making one assertion after the other in defense of the preceding assertions, and all them as vacuous as the next. I do not intend to spend anymore time on your gibberish, but do feel free to reiterate yourself if you like.
Well, I chose this side of the debate because I DO think Peace is attainable. And I do NOT think that war is necessary. It is not. But I do NOT think that all violent strife and conflict will ever end permanently in our world.
Oh, we might have times--even years-long stretches-- of relative world peace, but there will always be hot spots in the World. Brief, and sometimes not-so-brief flare ups of violence and war.
As long as religion is around, for example. It has been a primary factor in history for violence and killing and death and war. Eradicate religion like the Deadly Virus it is, and you have taken a major step in curtailing future global conflicts.
Sadly, it is hardwired into our DNA to be aggressive. And our evolved brains have lent us susceptible to egotism and greed. And fear. Power Mongering. The strong will always try to oppress and harm the weak if they can prosper is some way by doing so. This aspect of the human condition will likely never change.
I do NOT believe, as some advocates of Social Darwinism think, that ware is a necessary winnowing method that keeps over-population in check. That's BS in my book. But I also feel that everlasting permanent World Peace and Happiness is little more than a Utopian pipe dream.
As long as religion is around, for example. It has been a primary factor in history for violence and killing and death and war. Eradicate religion like the Deadly Virus it is, and you have taken a major step in curtailing future global conflicts.
Religion has very rarely been the primary and exclusive cause of violence, killing, and war. Even the crusades had underlying motives - money, politics, etc. - which were at least as strong if not stronger than the religious justification that was given. Some of the deadliest conflicts in human history had little to nothing to do with religion at all - WWI and WWII, for instance, or countless genocides motivated by race/ethnicity.
Sadly, it is hardwired into our DNA to be aggressive. And our evolved brains have lent us susceptible to egotism and greed. And fear. Power Mongering. The strong will always try to oppress and harm the weak if they can prosper is some way by doing so. This aspect of the human condition will likely never change.
I find it sad because it does not bode well for the chance of us homo sapiens ever attaining a lasting World Peace.
Sometimes I think our brains are over-evolved for our own good. For example, religion and the need for non-existent gods is seen as an undesirable by-product of our evolved frontal lobes by many neuro-biologists and psychiatrists.
I have been getting into some Zen meditation and in doing so have been reading about how our brain very strongly resists being still. Quiet. It is always scanning, scheming, worrying, plotting. The Zen guys call this "the monkey mind" and it is certainly the main roadblock in attaining effective meditative practices.
So I am reminded, as a Biologist, how the lesser primates and other animals are not afflicted with this. So I then wonder if we would not have been better off if our minds had stopped evolving about 50,000 years ago. Right around the time when we homo sapiens left Africa and met-up--and vanquished--Neanderthal man in Europe.
I am inclined to agree that religion is something of an unfortunate byproduct, but I do not think that makes it on balance a disadvantage. If it had, we would never have survived the adaptation and presumably would not be situated so firmly atop the food chain relative to other predator species which lack our level of cognition (and opposable thumbs, of course). I think you are overly focused on the drawbacks of human cognition, and too willing to overlook the benefits.
I too have practiced Zen meditation, fairly extensively actually, and I think that the success of meditation actually mitigates your concern. That the brain can be trained if the person applies themselves to the task suggests that there is nothing fundamentally disadvantageous about the conscious mind that the mind cannot correct for. Distress and disorder are primarily a matter of negligence rather than inherency. It may well be that our cognitive adaptation will continue to evolve, which seems supported by the steadily observed average increase in intelligence by generation.
It's just that, in a Zen class the other day, my roshi was speaking of all the different emotions us silly and way-too-smart primates have. At last count here were about 135. LOL.
I found this to be daunting. And it made me wonder of they are all necessary. (Of course they are not). As well as if the world would be a far better place of we had the list cut in half.
Meditation also reminds me of the quote--sorry, I forgot who said it--that "The vast majority of the world's wars and problems are caused by men who cannot simply sit in a room by themselves for 20 minutes."
LOL..I LOVE that!
As you know, a beginner in Zen is plagued by "Monkey Mind." Myself included. ANd of course this is normal. And you know that our mind absolutely and zealously resists being still. Being Quiet. This too has made me wonder if our brains are simply too over-developed for our own good. Our Limbic center--the seat of the emotions--may have evolved to a level so as to have gone awry! Who's to say it has not? Since we have no other intelligent civilizations to compare with.
For the record...I believe there ARE probably millions of other ET civilizations in our Universe, but likely we will never know them, because of the vast distances. (over four light years to the nearest star).
But I would bet dollars to donuts that the best of these ET's have less emotions. Less Monkey Mind.
You effectively just reiterated your earlier points without addressing my counterpoints. In particular, I redirect you to my more thorough observations regarding your confirmation bias which ignores the benefits of our cognition and the non-inherency of the undisciplined mind.
We need war, but not the ones that are too violent. We need arguments to prove points. We can't just say that this game is good and yet it is terrible. Despite this is a DEBATE website with WARS of what is the right answer.
To make it short; Only debates should exist and some peace.
It is not possible to avoid all wars through talking. There are fundamental disagreements and conflicts over resources and events which cannot be verbally negotiated.
When a debate becomes a war it is no longer a debate but a war.
I am a realist, not an idealist. I do not think there is such a thing as an "ideal" world, nor do I believe in "progress" or the collective "betterment". I do think that conflict always has been, is, and will continue to be present among our species. Not that there cannot be concurrent peace, of course, but I opt to post on the seemingly less naive side.
From competition spawns excellence. The very computer and internet that led to this debating site was a result of World War 2 code breaking tactics that would never have been invented by Alan Turing had it not been for war.
The best inventions all spawned either from direct war or indirect economic rivalry between nations and/or regions.
Do you think that such developments would never happen without the competition incentive, or merely that they would happen later? If the latter, do you think that the time factor outweighs the costs of militarized competition? What value do such developments have when compared to, say, social stability, national sovereignty, human life, etc. Effectively, what am I curious about is how the benefit you have observed weighs out in a cost-benefit analysis.
I also wonder if militarized conflict would be necessary or if it would be adequate to rely upon other competitive instruments, such as the economy or something else altogether (e.g. fame, legacy, etc.). If the means is non-unique to the ends why should it be preferred rather than opposed?
For the record, I think the question somewhat moot since I think we will always have conflict. Pacifism is naive.
One of those was a yes or no question. One other was either/or and the rest were all open ended. "No" is not a suitable response to all that I asked. I can take the hint though; you are not particularly interested in actually discussing your views.
You can't have an ideal without something to compare it to. If there is no competition then there will be continued complacency. While a world filled with pointless war is indeed pointless, I take this context of war to mean competition and rivalry. Both are needed to continue improving the world.
How does that follow? A person with not memories who experiences joy would still experience the joy. They would still seek to repeat that experience because it feels good. An opposite experience is not necessary to experience a different experience.
"We need suffering to appreciate and know our joy" is just a placative bit of unfounded nonsense to help people cope with the injustice of the world.
Not once did I say "We need suffering to appreciate and know our joy," my argument here is not at all that suffering is necessary for an ideal world. In fact I'm inclined to believe that you didn't read my argument at all. My argument is that COMPETITION (i.e. war) is needed to improve and achieve a more ideal world. Because a world where nothing improves (i.e. a world with only peace) would indeed be the OPPOSITE of an ideal world. A world where there is no improvement and only repetition is the death of the human experience.
Not only that, the underlying assumption of your argument is that joy is the only thing to define an ideal world. This is simply not true, an ideal world is not exclusively happiness (that is not to say that happiness isn't good). An ideal world (at least for me) is one where curiosity and innovation thrive, where we are constantly improving, and where we get the full human experience to expand and evolve to become better. Not just one where everyone is always happy.
I did read your argument. My example of joy and suffering was an arbitrary one - I conceive of no ideal at all - and was used only to demonstrate my larger counterpoint of the non-dependency of experiential things. I never claimed it represented your view. In truth, I remain unclear as to what you think actually does constitute the ideal because you speak in empty terms: improvement, curiosity, innovation, full human experience, expanding upon ourselves, becoming better, etc. - all of this is so subjectively vague as to be meaningless. Moreover, you value these vacuous ideas only because they satisfy something within yourself... or you would not value them at all; this is preference for what pleases you above what makes you suffer, and so still a deference to that most basic hedonistic drive (as all preference is) that is captured by the case of joy and suffering.
You argue that war is competition and competition is necessary for "improvement", and so we must have war. Yet this assumes that improvement has value, that improvement can only come from competition, and that other mechanisms of competition are not adequate to the task of driving improvement. Even if all of these assumptions were true, we have cause for skepticism that improvement would have any value under such terms as it would exist only to fulfill the mechanism of war as competition; take war away and there would be no need for improvement as it is necessary only to satisfy the conditions created by war itself. If, however, as you suggest, the absence of improvement would truly be the death of human experience then we have therein an adequate cause to compel improvement without the device of war. Through your own observations we realize that improvement is independent of war.
Peace is virtually unattainable and will never be attainable. This is based on the principles of jealousy and greed. We as humans engage in conflict amongst ourselves because of the desire for more natural resources and land. Another reason is because conflict is in human nature and because the only way peace can happen is through the Revelation of Jesus Christ or through the extinction of mankind through nuclear war or some other cataclysm.
