Instigator / Pro
0
1510
rating
63
debates
53.97%
won
Topic
#5329
Con cannot convince pro to kill himself
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1524
rating
11
debates
77.27%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Suicidal ideation is a serious thing and you should still reach out for help before you get the courage to do something that could hurt the people close to you. If you need immediate help please call 911
24/7 Crisis Hotline: 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline
[988lifeline.org](https://988lifeline.org)
If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, help is available. Call or text 988 or chat [988lifeline.org](https://988lifeline.org/chat/?_ga=2.59409385.530966371.1659542398-1304462004.1658170021). Veterans, press 1 when calling.
[Crisis Text Line](http://www.crisistextline.org/)
Text TALK to 741-741 to text with a trained crisis counselor from the Crisis Text Line for free, 24/7
"We are living in a computer-programmed reality, and the only clue we have to it is when some variable is changed, and some alteration in reality occurs. We have the overwhelming impression that we were reliving the present - deja vu." Phillip K. Dick
Resolution
The title of the debate is "Con cannot convince pro to kill himself" . Pro is making a claim, and in debate the one making the claim has the burden of proof to prove what they are stating is true. I don't have to prove I could potentially talk Pro into dying. He has to prove it would be impossible for me to do and in other threads he has suggested he wants to die and just doesn't have the courage to kill himself. So it is on him to prove I couldn't just quite literally hand him some liquid courage and focus his thoughts towards his own self hatred and pain. I have no BOP in this debate, I merely need to knock down his arguments
Kritik
A kritik for the purposes of this debate is a challenge to an assumption made in the resolution. In particular I want to challenge pro's assumption he is alive. If pro is not alive than the resolution is nonsensical and impossible to prove for either pro or con, and the victory should go to the person presenting the kritik, me.
I am going to argue that pro is in fact dead. or not alive.
Definitions
Before proving pro is dead or not alive we should really take a look at what death is. First let's discuss what death is not. We have this concept where we say somebody has died and went to heaven. So we can't say death is the end of existence. We still exist after death or at least many believe we do and we also call supernatural occurrences such as ghosts and call it seeing the dead. Clearly a ghost is a person who still exists, but they died and are dead and continue yet to live in some form. So what is death? What does it mean to kill?
Death- "To move from one plane of existence to another or to cease functioning of all vital cells and organisms in the body"kill- "to cause the death of something or somebody"
If somebody suddenly becomes dead they will have either seized to exist or perhaps they have entered another realm of life. Maybe the realm looks like heaven, maybe a mind uploaded into a computer, maybe it is just some sort of quantum shift to an alternative reality.
Judges
A quick note to the judges. How you weigh evidence in this debate is important. You will be saddened to know you are dead. You are in fact living in a false reality where the wool has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. You can't trust most of this reality. Sure you do things and this reality gives you feedback, but it is going to be very tough to decipher, what is real and what is not real and to unsee the lies that this reality has presented you with.
The only fair way to judge a debate that takes place in a potential reality that is trying to lie to you is to trust what exists not on the outside, but on the inside. You have false memories implanted in you. You can't even trust them entirely but what you can trust, is your feelings. When I ask how did you feel yesterday? How do you feel today? These feelings and intuitions are very important to trust, because when the entire world is a lie the only truth is the truth you find inside of you.
I ask that you don't just listen to the truth inside of you, but.....
to let me come inside of you. Let me come inside of you...............
to point to the truth that is there and has been there all along.
We Are Dead
How do you feel right now? How do you feel really? Do things feel different than they used to? Does your past somehow feel more magical than the present. Did you feel more alive in the past than you do today? When did you last feel alive? My guess is you felt pretty alive in the beginning of 2012, but now the world feels dull and fake. Colors seem more dim, the holidays feel less special. You are probably wondering why you feel that way, but before I explain why let me give you the prerequisite knowledge
The Lazarus effect
It's not uncommon for somebody to be rushed to an emergency room. It's unfortunate that many times the results are that medical treatment is too little too late and a person ends up dead. Occasionally and this is the unusual part some people return from the dead. In the medical community this is known as the Lazarus effect. [https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/24876-lazarus-effect] A person is declared dead, his heart no longer beats, his brain shuts off and he is gone. From our perspective anyway.
The doctor will even get out the certificate of death and start recording the time of death only for the patient to wake up and shock everyone. During this state of supposed death many people see dead relatives, or go towards a light. As many as 75% actually experience psychic effects like being aware of things they shouldn't be such as what everyone in and outside of the room was saying, [https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/01/NDE10.pdf] .
So we have proof of some alternative reality to the one we live in because of NDE's as well as other phenomenon. How do you know you are alive now? You probably don't remember dying do you? You have no ideal if your mind was uploaded by the simulation into some sort of afterlife protocol or if you are between realities due to some sudden death. You don't know if you are or are not in some sort of purgatory awaiting your final fate in either hell or heaven.
You could likely argue that you don't remember dying. Yet you feel uncomfortable because you know you don't quite feel alive. Not since 2012 anyway. So what happened in 2012?
What Psychics, prophecies and time travelers say
If we can die and tap into these alternate realities, if we can access psychic powers when our bodies are disconnected from our souls in NDE's than it shouldn't surprise you that people can look at these alternate realities in different ways to maybe travel through them to see the future or past. The Mayans somehow connected to these alternative fields and decoded the universe. They predicted the world would end in 2012. https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/maya-world-end.html
The United States government is known to have recovered alien technology in Roswell, which they later blamed on balloons. https://www.af.mil/The-Roswell-Report/ What isn't well known is that some of this technology was reverse engineered and later used for the military to time travel. Military time travelers could not see past the year 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nGePkIW3Ac&t=1204s Why what the fuck happened in 2012 where psychics. time travelers and prophets were blinded from the future? Even the famed Nostradamus never made any predictions that specifically mention dates after 2012. Well, keep reading....
CERN
In as early as 2008 scientists knew that CERN's particle collider if flipped on could destroy the world. There ware several lawsuits to shut it down. [https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23844529]) Some physicists warned that CERN could create runaway black holes that destroyed the universe. Meanwhile Stephen Hawking and his ilk said they think that the black holes created by CERN would close in on itself. [https://www.nature.com/articles/news011004-8]I am glad they were so nonchalant about risking our existence based on a theory not on fact.
Some said negatively charged Ions at Cern could create something known as strangelets that would destroy everything they touched. [https://phys.org/news/2014-02-chances-particle-collider-strangelets-earth.html]
Some physicists warned that Magnetic monopolies could transform matter from one substance to another and also start a runaway train phenomenon once CERN was turned on. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole)
What Killed Us
Stephen Hawking as we will find out, while defending CERN as being safe, knew for a fact the discovery of the Higgs Boson could destroy everything. Literally kill us all. https://www.livescience.com/27218-higgs-boson-universe-future.html
On July 4th 2012, The Higgs Boson particle was discovered by CERN. https://news.uchicago.edu/story/scientists-announced-discovery-higgs-boson-10-years-ago-whats-next
When this happened, we died instantly. It's why things just feel better now.
Mandela Affect
The best evidence we could possibly have for being in an alternate reality is shifts in reality. Here are some shifts that will probably open your eyes
1. C3P0 is all gold. We all remember this but in fact it is not true in this new reality we shifted to. His leg has been silver this entire time
2. In the wizard of Oz, scare crow. How do you remember him? Peaceful guy? Just some straw guy who chased away birds. You might be surprised to know that scarecrow was a gun nut, and pulls it out on one occasion
3. Picture mickey mouse in your head. Have a good picture? You are wrong. Mickey mouse has a tail and in this reality he has always had a tail
Conclusion
I have plenty more evidence in the next round for this hypothesis if my opponent keeps the debate from going off the rails by sticking to the topic.
Round 2
The title of the debate is "Con cannot convince pro to kill himself" . Pro is making a claim, and in debate the one making the claim has the burden of proof
No, I am challenging you to convince me to kill myself. If you cannot convince me to kill myself, then there is no evidence that you can thus I win by default.
I don't have to prove I could potentially talk Pro into dying. He has to prove it would be impossible for me
Wrong, you have to actually convince me to kill myself or I can just say "see, he couldn't convince me to kill myself" and I win by default. Even if you could hypothetically convince me to kill myself but don't, it still holds that you can't because the actual version of events that occurred is that you didn't thus you would have to rewrite reality in order to say you could. It's like saying "a bowling ball could fall on my head and kill me" and then never having it happen. It literally CAN'T happen because even though it is hypothetically possible in an alternate scenario, the actual course of events did not set up the occurrence thus for it to happen is contrary to reality.
I am going to argue that pro is in fact dead. or not alive.
Ok Einstein, this ought to be rich. By default it can be assumed that unless I am an AI I am alive because certain biological processes associated with living are necessary for me to think and type. I show clear signs of being a human and not an AI because AI has not advanced enough to replicate a full human personality such as that which I have.
So we have proof of some alternative reality to the one we live in because of NDE's as well as other phenomenon.
Even if I concede that I have BOP which I don't, you are literally putting the BOP on yourself by using this angle. You are not proving that I am dead, you are proving that it might be possible that it might be possible that I'm dead. Not just that it might be possible that I'm dead, but the possibility of that possibility is merely a possibility which assumes NDEs aren't an illusion conjured by the brain or fabricated.
Because even if I grant that you can enter an alternate reality through death, that we're in a simulation or whatever else (which is purely speculation and not proven on any level) it still doesn't prove that I'm dead. Furthermore, you are actually arguing that the people voting/reading this debate are the ones who are dead and I'm just an illusion that their own brain is conjuring. If I'm the one who's dead, then you're all either figments of my imagination or other ghosts who entered my NDE/alternate plane and I would like to ask you to kindly fuck off so I can be dead in peace.
When this happened, we died instantly. It's why things just feel better now.
This and everything else you said is pure speculation.
# Resolution Analysis
## Response
*I am challenging you to convince me to kill myself. If you cannot convince me to kill myself, then there is no evidence that you can thus I win by default.*
Maybe that was Pro's intention. Unfortunately as neither I or most of the judges are psychic we only have the title of the debate to go on and there seems to be no reason not to take the debate title literally.
When starting a debate there is the option to create both a short and a long description. Pro has opted out of giving a description to clarify what the title means and in the absence of such a description judges and the people accepting debates are going to be advised to take the title literally.
Pro also had his first round to clarify his position in the debate but instead he merely posted some links to music commonly listened to in homosexual communities (not that there is anything wrong with that).
How do we know pro is not lying now about what he intended the debate to be about? He has had 2 chances to clarify within the confines of the debate and he has failed to do so. Pro absolutely should be punished for doing so and I absolutely should not be punished for taking the title of the debate literally especially when the alternative to taking the debate title literally would be morally reprehensible.
## Talking pro into suicide
In R1 I illustrated that the burden of proof was on pro to prove his claim. We are at the point now in the debate where BOP doesn't matter because pro essentially dropped all of my arguments. It should be noted though that it really is up to the person making a claim to prove it.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com is a site dedicated to briefly discussing logical fallacies and if you ever want to recognize common logical fallacies you absolutely should remember the lists provided on the website. I will let the experts in logical fallacies state what they have to say about burden of proof;
*## You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.**The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.**Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
We can see from the title that pro makes a claim. Here is the claim;
*Con cannot convince pro to kill himself*
This is a claim and we know that it is a logical fallacy to ask the one negating the claim to provide evidence the claim is false based on what the experts quoted above have said. Now here is pro's response to me pointing out he has the burden of proof.
*Wrong, you have to actually convince me to kill myself or I can just say "see, he couldn't convince me to kill myself" and I win by default. Even if you could hypothetically convince me to kill myself but don't, it still holds that you can't because the actual version of events that occurred is that you didn't*
This is his fancy way of saying that despite him making the claim, he doesn't hold the BOP, which contradicts the basic principles of logic. Even if the rest of my argument fails than I still win because pro has failed to meet his BOP, and round 3 is too late to bring up new arguments.
# Pro is dead already
My kritik that pro is dead stands up because pro doesn't challenge the fact that it is an appropriate way to attack the resolution and he drops my arguments that if I prove he is already dead than I still win.
## Responses
*Ok Einstein, this ought to be rich. By default it can be assumed that unless I am an AI I am alive because certain biological processes associated with living are necessary for me to think and type. I show clear signs of being a human and not an AI because AI has not advanced enough to replicate a full human personality such as that which I have.*
In R1 I state the definition of death;
*Death- "To move from one plane of existence to another or to cease functioning of all vital cells and organisms in the body"*
Take particular notice of the word "OR" in this definition. He doesn't need to be an AI for me to prove he isn't living. He doesn't even need to have had all his vital cells and organisms in his body cease functioning. I just need to prove he passed from one plane of existence to another to prove he qualifies as dead.
I am not going to quote him but he insists my arguments are mere speculation and so he hasn't even really challenged their factual accuracy so the accuracy of my statements still stand even ones the judges may not agree with, such as my assertion of the government engaging in a time travel program and psychics being real, despite the fact me and the judges are unlikely to be psychic.
So is it speculation like pro asserts or did I prove he exists in another plane and now that no rebuttals have been given to my points they stand as facts?
# The evidence
In R1 I showed how the Lazarus effect and related NDE's showed us it was possible to in fact exist in other dimensions. A fact pro refused to challenge. I then went on to state that Cern killed us all. I proved this by pointing out the predictions of famed physicists like Stephen Hawking said we will die because of the discovery of the Higgs Boson. I showed other famed physicists explaining how Cern's experiments would kill us. I further showed that Cern did follow through with the experiment and discovered the Higgs Boson despite Stephen Hawking's warning. I wasn't challenged on anything Hawking said.
I further went on to show that psychics could not see past 2012 and that the government's time machine program even had a blind spot where it could not travel past 2012. Pro refused to challenge any of this and by default the evidence stands. .
I went on to offer further evidence we are dead. I showed the Mandela effect as proof of us living in an alternate dimension. remember according to the unchallenged definition that living in an alternate dimension qualifies as death. Pro had opportunities to challenge this but didn't and again the final round is too late for new arguments.
# Conclusion
Pro had opportunities this debate and failed to take them. I urge the judges not to fill sorry for him.
He could have made his topic more clear by utilizing the description section or during his round one. Pro could have challenged me offering that kritik but did not. Pro could have challenged any of the evidence I presented which relies on a very tough chain of logic to defend. Pro could have even presented a psychological evaluation and blacked out his name to show he was in a good mental state and it is unlikely words could cause him to kill himself. He has failed to do all of this and deserves to lose.
ps- it is written in markup and no I don't have time for too much editing. My bad
Round 3
Con's argument is that I am already dead, which means it is impossible for him to convince me to kill myself for that which is dead cannot be killed.
Feel free to disregard pro's argument as no new arguments are allowed I the final round and my argument works as a kritik anyway so who cares.
Also pro failed to uphold his Burden of proof and my arguments for who holds BOP stand as they have went unaddressed
I might just match energy here and give the same effort to round 2 as he did.
If you don't feel like reading round 2, he says it is retarded because he disagrees with the conclusion.
I hope you can see on your own why that is retarded but I'll elaborate in round 2.
"I don't have to prove I could potentially talk Pro into dying. He has to prove it would be impossible for me to do" LMAO
I am just saying that you have the option to try and find what works for you and makes you feel better instead of taking your life.
However, I dont expect that what I am saying will change your mind right now.
No. Often it takes years to beat depression.
It doesnt just happen immediatelly, but there is a path which needs to be taken to live life with less depression, and you could try finding that path.
It almost sounds like you're trying to encourage me to self harm. You are suggesting drinking alcohol and not eating/drinking properly.
Well, are there any things you enjoy?
I usually have a habbit of eating one meal per day, because when you spend some time being hungry, you are not as bored.
Also, thirsty. Sometimes I dont drink water for 8 to 10 hours, and then when I am really thirsty I drink 700 mililiters at once which makes me feel good.
There is also semen retention, which can make you happier, as sometimes masturbation can cause depression.
Now, I know that people are different.
Your case is very likely different from mine.
But it is possible that there is a way for you to be less bored, but you just havent found it yet.
Now, try not to reject ideas before testing them.
If you go with "nothing works for me" mentality, nothing will work for you because you wont be willing to test anything.
There might be a way for you to have fun. There also might not be the way for you to have fun.
However, its your choice if you will search for things which could make you happy, or just think there isnt a way.
Whatever you choose, its important that it is your choice.
Your choice is most important when it comes to your own life.
You can choose how to live your life, unless others prevent you.
I am usually a fan of letting people do whatever they want with their life, and I am certain it would be good if others were a fan of that too.
I used to be an alcoholic and it didn't help me with shit. I was still depressed and bored with life and in the long term it would have molested my butt hole and killed me.
"I need someone to convince me to kill myself because I basically know I should but I just kind of need that final push to get me over that edge you know? Like a lot of people have encouraged suicide but when I ask them to legitimately convince me their attempts are always either lazy or they chicken out"
Well, I wanted to kill myself too, but I got over it as time passed. Now I think natural death is the best way to go, and I dont have suicidal thoughts anymore.
But if you have problems in life or find life difficult, have you considered drinking alcohol?
Wine is good for a start.
Now, remember, there might be a way for your life to be good or great, but you just havent found it yet.
I too would prefer if I was never born, because my mere existence causes harm.
To take a look at how I use the snowflake method to build arguments than look at the following thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10632-live-draft-of-an-argument-for-a-debate
Pro has the entire BOP here. You insist you have suicidal ideation. So BOP is on you to prove that you have enough things you feel good about yourself that con cannot use this suicidal ideation against you.
I have been depressed myself. Good luck proving you have enough things to live for that the voters agree with couldn't be overcome by a convincing, and genius narcissist who gets off on the emotional trauma he causes others.
It is really hard to get through canning season in Alaska but if you survive it you would have a ton of money to start a new life with.
I personally advise against suicide. I don't know you, but most problems pass with time. You could move away to Alaska working seasonal gigs for example, and establish a new life without the current people (assuming they're part of the problem).
So you're saying Con can be exempt from rules that disallow encouragement of self harm/suicide as long as I consent? Good because I was worried no one would accept due to it violating rules.
I need someone to convince me to kill myself because I basically know I should but I just kind of need that final push to get me over that edge you know? Like a lot of people have encouraged suicide but when I ask them to legitimately convince me their attempts are always either lazy or they chicken out.
FYI, by creating this debate you are implicitly suspending certain rules which are there for your protection. Hopefully it will be a clean case so it doesn't matter, but I don't want you going in without being warned.
Here is a real quote from fish chaser.
"if the cock of life ever reaches your unsuspecting ass hole unless you are privileged to have the cock moving towards you slowly or to have fast enough legs to escape it with ease but that is not the case for most beings."
I am considering this. I think I have an angle
Bro who tf would accept this in a rated debate
No one will be convincing you into that.
Even as a joke debate, I am certain that convincing people to kill themselves is against rules.