Instigator / Pro
13
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#622

Materialism is true

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
0
4

After 4 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
25
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

No information

-->
@Pinkfreud08

thanks very much for the vote.

-->
@RationalMadman

Well, there's a lot of reasons it doesn't follow. You ignored the rule of distribution. There is no logical connectivity between your first two premises, which mean they're non sequiturs (technically, all fallacies are non sequiturs, fun fact) The reason is because there is no middle term that is in both premise 1 and premise 2. Furthermore, the conclusion is only allowed to contain things that were in the first 2 premises, which it didn't. It added things that weren't in the first two. It could have been the case that your conclusion did logically follow, but if that's the case, you did not use the right set of premises. It's not entirely your fault. Categorical syllogisms are extremely specific in usage and most people can't use them properly. They also have limited proving power for this reason. You should have used propositional logic because it would have been much easier. Then you could have done it easily. For example.

1. Physical things can only be proven physically
2. If physical things can only be observed physically, then non physical things can only be proved non physically.
C. non physical things can only be proven non physically.

This is a syllogism constructed using modus ponen and is much easier to do. The important thing here is to either affirm the antecedent (The first half of premise 2). Or negate the Consequent (The second half of premise 2) Don't ever do the opposite or it's a fallacy. When I say affirm or negate. I"m talking about how the first premise relates to the second premise. If I was doing a disjunctive syllogism which use modus tollens instead. I would make the first premise would have to deny the consequent. Sorry if I hurt your feelings about your logic skills. I'm just trying to be honest here.

-->
@RationalMadman

I am both furious and calm right now.

-->
@Type1

The furious and calm part.

-->
@RationalMadman

So what is this special thing beyond human control?

-->
@Type1

As I said, you do not understand yet. Also you didn't realise the third thing isn't about patience, it's something beyond normal human ability to emotionally control.

-->
@RationalMadman

There is a difference between controlling your ass in a strategical and calculated way and being passive and restrained because you spend all day meditating under waterfalls.

-->
@Type1

Elaborate on the 'sometimes' and you will realise where I am going with this.

-->
@RationalMadman

I am not an example, because I can control it when I want to but I don't. Hitler is not an example either because he lacked the specific type of strategical and social intelligence that helps with this. Buddhist monks are sometimes intelligent so IDK where you're going with that.

-->
@Type1

No, it isn't. A good example would be you. If you want an example other than you, look at Hitler. Want more examples that the two skills are completely unlinked?

Alright, Buddhists monks are on the other end of the spectrum. Want more?

-->
@RationalMadman

Intelligence is what allows you to control your impulses and make rational decisions despite having emotions.

-->
@Type1

The ending of that is wrong, it more likely was quite the opposite or really you never achieved that.

Intelligence is overrated though, it's just as important as developing a patient temperament and becoming both furious and calm at once. Until you achieve these things you won't understand why intelligence matters less but once you achieve them, intelligent people will fall to their knees before you and do your bidding in a highly intelligent way or they will lose anyway because you equal them in intelligence or almost equal them and make up for the difference due to those temperamental things and mental capacity to strategise very, very steadily and boring which will drive them to insanity and force them to make dumb moves.

Do not think it is easy to be as disciplined as I am; you will become a psychopath if you tried it too fast. Even becoming patient while still having all the emotions of an impatient madman in tact and living richly and passionately is itself part of the patient journey and puzzle.

The end destination is really death no matter which way you look at it, but fuck the ride is smooth. Fate is the only thing that will always be and Fiora will but Fiora can opt-out (suicide) whereas Fate is the actual 'god-physical' entity that can't kill itself no matter what it tries or does.

-->
@RationalMadman

After that I met the guy that was briefly on CD who was my best friend for years (and my only friend ever other than ones from when I was a little kid) I converted to Islam because of the things he told me. A year later though I was no longer convinced and became brutally agnostic and unsure about everything in life which caused him to stop talking to me. A few months later we talked again and he was agnostic as well, after which we became a pair of pseudo-geniuses combining our intellect into the semblance of full geniusy and we helped each other to figure everything out.

-->
@Type1

Then you did what? Gave up on rational insanity and switched over to irrational pseudo-sanity? Shame on you, man. Don't let science authorities enslave you, look beyond the obvious.

-->
@RationalMadman

When I was about thirteen-fourteeen I believed in an ancient aliens version of Satanism where God was a reptillian archon creature and angels are greys, whereas Satan and demons were the more humanoid Annunaki that created mankind from their own DNA.

-->
@Type1

Neither. She is attracted to concepts and personalities. She is actually sapiosexual among other things. She loathes sex that's why she made it be rape-like for most animals. She loathes humans as a whole and is a very jaded, sadistic being who has suffered under her merciless pimp Fate for what seems like eternity (but isn't, she isn't eternal just the most ancient of all other than fate and fate is the only eternal thing). Fate toys with her; she was originally the only being. Fate synthesised her alone and it drove her insane but things began to alter when it granted her control and creativity that enabled her to control and create all other than herself within some limitations (she isn't omnipotent, only omniscient). Fate had begun to grant her things that enabled her to reverse-engineer fate to make herself an irreplaceable part of it among other things. The 'how' is simple; fate randomised things to a point where the formation could organise the very core randomisation in the first place but it's true; even that is randomised and ultimately fate is controlling its own alteration by her from its original randomisation and coding. As I said, chaos-theory vs determinism is a false dichotomy; it's both.

Yes, she is very good at tricking people into thinking she likes them more than she does. She is far, far closer to Satan than the Christian God's personality.

-->
@RationalMadman

Here are some questions for you that Fiora may have given you some knowledge to answer

Is Fiora bisexual or just into men? My guess is she's bisexual.

Will my rage and impulse still be controlling me when Fiora makes me king? My guess is no.

Will she be turned off when I am making good use of that pussy to craft my algorithms? My guess is again no.

-->
@Type1

Whether or not you delete that comment, she WILL answer you. The answer will be via manipulating fate.

In all seriousness, you may actually win this debate as she appreciates dominant men but she requires them to be both intelligent and patient and you're not necessarily high on those 2 departments on her scaling.

You could be more intelligent, you have the capacity, you let your rage and impulse control you rather than you being the master to harness them and this will end up turning her off, but you do have the dominant streak going for you.

-->
@RationalMadman

Well shit, I'll just do that then. Fiora may I borrow your cunt for a moment?

-->
@Type1

Then it would be severely creative and intricate.

-->
@RationalMadman

But what if I used Fiora's cunt to make the algorithm?

*decode not decide

And then perhaps, yes, we'd have Communism.

-->
@Type1

But it wouldn't, it would who can manipulate the limitations and loopholes of the AI's logic and way of separating truth from fiction and the cycle would begin again except some "good guy Aristocrat" would reveal an algorithm and be the Julian Assange to the top rankers.

The Algorithm he/she would decide and reveal is a step by step method to never ever select a debate that you possibly could lose based on what the AI already "knows" is right according to it's version of truth and reasoning. The Algorithm would also extend into how to present the ideas in the highest marked style for the AI to rank as "strong".

-->
@RationalMadman

It would create an entirely new and better purpose. Instead of being a sport it would genuinely be an endeavor to decide which viewpoint is actually correct.

-->
@Type1

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having the debate in the first place?

-->
@RationalMadman

There would need to be an objective method of deciding the winner that doesn't come down to opinion or allow bullshit to slip through.

-->
@Type1

Working with your "everything is Aristocracy" worldview and extremist way of applying it, I'm curious what you think the solution would be?

Could you design a debate site that defied your concluded attitude of all the top ranking members to the sport of debating?

-->
@RationalMadman

Here's how it works...It is possible to have a relatively high rating and not be a douchebag, and it is possible to have a low one and be a douche bag, but those at the bottom are usually put there for thinking in unpopular ways rather than being wrong and those at the top are always scum and always retarded because the way to get there is by tricking the site majority of idiots into voting for you or genuinely being agreed with by the majority of idiots more often than not.

-->
@Type1

Are all those with low Rating the least douchebags of the site, according to you?

-->
@RationalMadman

I can see it though, numbers don't lie.

-->
@Type1

I'm nowhere near the top of such a pyramid.

-->
@RationalMadman

Prepare to lose your spot at the top of the pyramid of douchebaggery.

-->
@Type1

You win that, hands down.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

He said only the material realm can be physically proven
I said, yes this is true and the immaterial realm of semantics and knowledge is proven true with immaterial but irrefutable proof.

-->
@RationalMadman

I am going to show you how utterly easy it is to be a better douche bag than you'll ever be.

-->
@Type1

I had ignorance of human psychology regarding specifics nuances of persuasion. I don't have stupidity with using my knowledge of said topic.

Now, I have less ignorance. I'll avoid all debates where the Con side requires logic and the Pro side requires physical proof (or vice versa but the vice versa opens Pro up to Kritiks so not necessarily).

This will improve my winrate and actually is a severe ignorance I had that explains nearly all of my losses, bar two or three that I genuinely lost for other reasons.

-->
@RationalMadman

Your stupidity is something to fight against and tame, not be enabled by the very shitty system you benefit from and complain about the second a fair vote slips through the cracks.

-->
@Type1

Your anger is something to fight against and tame, not let completely rule you.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Okay, I know there is no answer to this as I know how logic works but prove me wrong then and please tell me how my C1 doesn't follow from the premises.

-->
@RationalMadman

Look at you, the second you start losing a single debate you start whining about how the system is unfair just because no one believes your baseless retarded claims that there simply must be something beyond the physical. At the end of the day there are more retards then smart people and you will probably get more points but this just goes to show...You literally lie and cheat and distort and call it "superior strategy" and are wrong 99% of the time whereas I am the opposite, and the ONE TIME I start winning fair and square because someone with some fucking brains finally joined the site you whine about it like a little bitch.
This is how you sound:
"Waaaah, but I cheated fair and square!!!"

-->
@RationalMadman

Okay, I'm going to attempt to explain this to you so we can move passed this. I gave my criticisms of both sides and then weighed them. In the end, his argument met the BoP and yours didn't. Your argument doesn't magically meet the burden just because Pro didn't give the exact same criticism as me. Pro convinced me that his argument was true. Nothing in your argument countered this, so even if your syllogisms were perfect, I still would have to vote Pro unless one of your counter arguments debunks the burden that he met.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

You can keep this one up. I know exactly how to get away with abusive cherry picking on this joke of a voting moderation, I just am morally against it as it doesn't help me to create a voting revenge scheme and will make me feel shit on top of dumbing down my actual reasoning skills if I go around doing that.

The voting rules are far too exploitable as they do not necessitate one to explore all the angles, especially of later rebuttals, and also because they enable voters like yourself to do their own debating against points in the debate which defies what a judge is meant to do.

These flaws in the game are part of a larger flaw with humans and how they process reasoning. I will take the brutal L (brutal in rating loss) if need be, not that I have a choice. The choice is that I'll take it and study patterns in what does and doesn't trigger blindness of logic in voters. I have noticed that physical proof and physical evidence is often taken more seriously than logically irrefutable counters. This trend is not just in this debate but led to my wrong loss against oromagi and magicaintreal despite me having an airtight ingenious case in all three scenarios.

This will factor into my future debates and enable me to gamble more boldly with debates where I know I am wrong but I know I have more physical evidence for my side.

-->
@RationalMadman

I haven't even begun to prove my forum thread right. I have something special planned that's going to knock your tits off.

"Good luck on your shall I was endeavour that you accused me of."

Learn proper sentence structure before attempting to condescend to others you half witted hole-haver.

-->
@Type1

I will actually concede something. You have surprised me with how soon you proved your forum thread partially accurate. Let's see if it is true for the other voters. Either way you do have a point in your forum thread and I was proven wrong very fast after you said you'd do so. I'm extremely impressed by you and your mastery of fate, but how long will it last?

-->
@RationalMadman

An immaterial realm is not necessitated to justify jack diddly ding dong. All that is necessitate is the fact that materialism is true and you are arguing for some superstitious notion of bullshit that doesn't exist.

Lack of voting rules? Yeah right. This place is strict. I'll be surprised If I can keep this one up, lol.

Anyway.

I accounted for that. The fact is that no concession he made had any affect on his BOP. Saying some could possible be the case is not a strong enough case to debunk the contrary.

-->
@Type1

So you debate only for wins? Bad results if that's your motive. Good luck on your shallow endeavour that you accused me of.

-->
@RationalMadman

It's not secret but I'm not going to bother now that the debate is over. It's too much work for absolutely no reward.