#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Are people in the United States people in the United States?
They are
Side Score: 33
|
 |
They aren't
Side Score: 33
|
|
There is nothing illogical about what I've said - I'm just expressing a higher level of logic. Any person is life's meaning (assuming it exists), and because nationalism isn't life's meaning, by default this means that any person isn't a person in the United States. Of course, you're free to claim that your logic is better than mine - and then I'm free to reply that it isn't, and so on and so forth. Side: They aren't
There is nothing illogical about what I've said - I'm just expressing a higher level of logic. Sure you are. Any person is life's meaning (assuming it exists), and because nationalism isn't life's meaning, by default this means that any person isn't a person in the United States. A person being in the United States has nothing to do with life's meaning. It solely addresses life's location. Of course, you're free to claim that your logic is better than mine - and then I'm free to reply that it isn't, and so on and so forth. I am also free to say that 2+2=5. That doesn't mean what I say is right. Side: They are
The United States existing has "everything" to do with life's meaning. The existence of any nation means the existence of violence and war (and who the hell is going to argue that war and violence are why the universe exists?). As for that last sentence.. You can apply that to any human being making any argument on the planet - but would you? Please don't keep quoting me, it's a form of personal attack (and personal attacks is implemented when one knows they've lost the debate). Side: They aren't
The United States existing has "everything" to do with life's meaning. Make up your mind. Does it have nothing to do with it, or everything? As for that last sentence.. You can apply that to any human being making any argument on the planet - but would you? Yes. Please don't keep quoting me, it's a form of personal attack (and personal attacks is implemented when one knows they've lost the debate). If quoting you is a personal attack doesn't that mean what you said is ridiculous? Side: They are
As I said, nationalism exists, but it is not the reason for existence (anything which can be referenced in the first place isn't the reason for existence - including anything which either I say to you or you say to me). And no, me pointing out the needless behaviour of you quoting me does not mean that what I say is ridiculous - everything I've said isn't ridiculous, though of course (again) you're free to disagree, and then I'm free to disagree, and so on and so forth. Side: They aren't
As I said, nationalism exists, but it is not the reason for existence (anything which can be referenced in the first place isn't the reason for existence - including anything which either I say to you or you say to me). Let me just cut to the chase. I don't know why you are bringing up existence. You can be a person in the United States without it having anything to do with life's meaning. And no, me pointing out the needless behaviour of you quoting me does not mean that what I say is ridiculous But, if quoting you is a personal attack that means that your quote was bad, right? It wasn't that you pointed out that I quote you it was that you considered seeing your own words on the screen as a personal attack. Side: They are
No, me pointing out the needless behaviour of you quoting me isn't me just not liking seeing my own words on the screen, it's just me recognising the validity of pointing out another person's needless behaviour. Anything which can be referenced isn't the meaning of existence (and this "highest level of logic" is in and of itself just cause to bring up any topic - however out of the blue, or grand). If nationalism is life's meaning, that means that negativity is life's meaning (and I'll never be convinced by anyone that negativity is life's meaning). Side: They aren't
3
points
1
point
under what premise are you suggesting that nationalism is not the meaning of existence? quoting is very useful, as it precisely references the section of an argument you are replying to. clears up a lot of confusion and is easier than something like "in the 8th line starting at the 3rd word and ending at... starting again at...". quoting also denies you the opportunity of editing in or out words in your argument to change its meaning or cover up holes. there really isn't any need to take offence over quoting and i'm confused as to how you are. i see nothing possibly offensive about quoting unless it highlights some sort of error or insult. Side: They are
1
point
People don't need to quote in order to make their point no, but as i said, it is very helpful in identification and greatly helps prevent misunderstandings. i just don't understand your irrational dislike towards quoting. As for a premise, I'm not going to keep on saying it here as to do so contradicts my saying it. keep on saying it keep on saying it? i very much doubt it was ever mentioned. it doesn't make your conclusions very valid to me if you wont mention or don't have a mutual premise to draw conclusions from also, i have no idea what to do so contradicts my saying it. means here. the way i interpret it makes no sense to me. i can't be sure you're as intelligent as you pretend to be when you only try to be cryptic. surely you can find a sequence of words suited to convey your enlightening meaning rather than pompousness? Side: They aren't
1
point
There doesn't need to be a premise - what I've just said is as spectacular as it gets. No human being can know reality's ultimate truth (or if one even exists); however, what is unequivocal, is that assuming one exists reality's ultimate truth is something which doesn't encompass anything which includes dissent (which is what nationalism does include). Anti-nationalism includes dissent too, I know, but then that just means that neither nationalism or anti-nationalism are reality's ultimate truth. Side: They aren't
1
point
1
point
If dissent is the meaning of life, That's not what I said. I asked why the meaning of life couldn't "include" dissent. that means that contradiction is the meaning of life - contradiction isn't the meaning of life, but the means of life. And how can you definitively say it isn't both? Perhaps the sort contradiction is the meaning of life. Side: They are
1
point
1
point
from the quoters point of view it is absolute that what was quoted is what was written. but yes, perhaps it could become murky for a third party with no way to tell whether something was edited. although not perfect, one solution is to vote on the argument you reply to, to ensure it can't be edited Side: They aren't
Again, I am not referring to you pointing out that I am doing something needlessly. I am saying that pointing out it is a personal attack makes no sense. So, you say that nationalism is not the meaning of life, then you give an argument that starts discussing if nationalism is the meaning of life. Now that we have established that nationalism isn't the meaning of life, how do we make the jump that everyone in the world is in America? Side: They are
1
point
1
point
That if reality has no meaning, accounting for contradiction becomes impossible.. What do you mean? I don't know nor can I verify any of this, but I just can't see how believing that life has no meaning is any good. Can one only hold beliefs that are "good"? Can the universe only exist in ways that are "good"? Side: They are
Why is Ellie Cornell Ellie Cornell, if she's this website? (That can be my very last post on this debate - to repeat, if everything I've said isn't part of the means to transcendence, at least in some way, then I "sincerely" can't imagine what on earth can be) Debate ended. Side: They aren't
1
point
2
points
If I'm crazy, then reality's crazy.. That requires the assumption that you represent reality, as opposed to simply existing within it. You aren't. No individual is. The ability to judge something is dependent on one's knowledge of it (you know nothing about me). That isn't true either. Or rather, the second part isn't. My judgement of you is based on the entirety of your participation on this website. By looking at the comments you make (the way you conduct and represent yourself in this community), I judged that you are, in at least a joking sense, crazy. I believe that claim is supported by debate topics like "Should the BBC air it: the truth that Guy Fawkes was able to contemplate Super Mario?", "Should CNN air it: the truth, that Anne Boleyn was able to contemplate a basketball court?", and the almost all of the rest of them, as well as comments like "Does that then mean that all human beings should be "people in the United States" - all human beings can be people in the United States?A = A", "There is nothing illogical about what I've said - I'm just expressing a higher level of logic.", and my personal favorite, "What you say is logical, but I'm on a different wavelength.". Side: They are
Nothing I've written negates transcendence. I spammed 3,000 people earlier this year, on YouTube, telling them all that they deserved free housing.. I'm sure that that behaviour is more transcendent than your needlessly having quoted me again and again on this site. Side: They aren't
I told people that they deserved free housing (which technically wasn't true - people deserve to be told that they deserve housing, but any life form must be involved in the making of their habitat).. This doesn't make me a saint, but, it does show me to be a transcendent (which is enough). Side: They aren't
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
|
