[NO DIRECT KRITIK ALLOWED] Out of the DebateArt.Com options, the optimal Life Priority to genuinely stand by (not just 'select') is Power [READ THE DESCRIPTION(S) FOR THE RULES]
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I will just quote the Short Description before proceeding onto other rules:
1. You are not allowed to Kritik the subjectivity of 'Best' but you are allowed to Kritik that 'Power' is even a tangible thing to prioritise.
2. YOU MUST REPRESENT MINIMUM ONE AND MAXIMUM 2 PRIORITIES AS THE ALTERNATIVE.
3. Extending on from Rule 2, you are not permitted to take the stance that aiming for Power is wrong because having a Life Priority is wrong.
4. You cannot stand for 'no information' because this is about actually standing by it, not just selecting it.
5. You cannot simply win by saying 'the best way to aim for power is to deny you aim for it' and then give another example of what to aim for and say 'power comes with this and that's the reason to choose it' unless you can give reasons other than power as to what that gains vs loses. This is about the Life Priority you actually aim for, the one you select can be a lie and maybe even be better chosen to mask that you aim for Power, in order to gain Power here, but that is not relevant to this debate or its permitted angles.
- You will lose that power and be a 'noble' person who gave up what you could have used well because you're submissive by nature or whatever reason it is that you gave it up.
- You will keep that power and your inner traits of being impulsive (as opposed to the previously stated type who is too compulsive) and will abuse that power in many ways, some of which may indeed be to keep that power and help it 'grow'.
The ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way.The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events.
something that is very important and must be dealt with before other things
NOUNmass noun1The fact or condition of being regarded or treated as more important than others.‘the safety of the country takes priority over any other matter’1.1 count noun A thing that is regarded as more important than others.‘housework didn't figure high on her list of priorities’1.2 British The right to proceed before other traffic.‘priority is given to traffic already on the roundabout’
- something that is considered more important than other matters
- the state or fact of being the most important job or aim, compared to other jobs or aims
something that you do or deal with first because it is more important or urgent than other things
- No matter how scientifically, power is understood, the balancing between power-types and the ability to catch onto nuances in the way to conceal you're gaining power vs actively gaining it openly to use it for the purposes you want to (good or not) is entirely contingent on things beyond the quantifiable in any numerical, scientific sense and instead on qualitative concepts of measurement that are 'felt' and refined through experience (as I said, like an art).
- While much of every priority is indeed scientific in how it comes to fruition from the original available resources at hand and how efficiently one uses them, this is doomed to be the worst ever thing to suggest for power because as things evolve (and even at present) not only is there always a handicap amongst some in that they will not have the time to study the science of, lust for or time to delve into the many types of power some of which they may not even perceive are power but on top of this... Those in power rarely will ever want to reveal all the secrets of keeping it but at most, if fame is one of their 'drugs of choice' leave behind a legacy in mystic-seeming advice such as Sun Tzu did with the Art of War that again requires intellect and deep through to decode.
- 1.1 A particular area of science.‘veterinary science’count noun ‘the agricultural sciences’More example sentences
- 1.2 A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.‘the science of criminology’More example sentences
- 1.3archaic Knowledge of any kind.‘his rare science and his practical skill’
So, when discussing priorities, it's true that the term 'prior' which it's based on makes 'before' important to the word but 'before' means many things in the context of real-time application. When you say you need to, for instance, get healthy, and you then go for a run before getting the health, that's 'before' in the most extreme sense where the thing done first is nearly entirely done so as to enable the priority of health to be done at all.
"tying your shoelace, buying the trainer/sneaker, all of it is priorities towards the health but here is the true crux of the matter; let's say you're so emotionally unhealthy with regards to your weight or genuinely that physically weak that going all the way to the store with the quality of trainers/sneakers, by foot, is going to possibly make you collapse or basically make your health net-deteriorate due to the stress of the entire situation.You would probably go by car or even order it online which is against the health and done before the sports footwear has been attained and thus before you even go for the run. It follows, doesn't it, that this can translate into many examples where 'priority' very blatantly doesn't simply mean before/first but rather that all done prior better be done in the name of net-benefit of the top priority and it being about doing the 'most towards it over time' rather than necessarily completing it first.Let's extend that example to be not just running and health but having a relationship with a woman for reasons not just sexual or health-based but to do with the priority of 'family' as you want children with her or 'friendship' (although that isn't a priority available on the list of DA.Com options). What happens is going for that run may not only itself be at a time where the family or friends need you, the energy wasted short-term can exhaust you too much to do things for them later but perhaps equally be complex as it may give you more endurance long-term in time to help them more overall, all being balanced between short-term, long-term and multitudinous 'polarities' of what to prioritise."
"There's art in almost everything too. Art in power is something that's quite simple to explain; the science is never fully revealed or developed and even if it is there's a whole other layer on top of elements of the science that others won't know due to time restraint to study it, memory power or just raw overzealous interest or lack thereof in certain types of power. You cannot be too obsessed with power, you can only be too obsessed with one type of it."
"The workaholic is ignoring power over their own psyche (power over how they handle situations they physically can't control or predict) at the very least as well as probably completely lacking power at home other than maintaining it solely by being the breadwinner, and that's only if they're wiling to share. The point is that there's always art to power as a de facto thing because simply balancing all the types of power itself is impossible to scientifically justify or explain as you can't quantify 'happiness', sure you can in a census but you can't quantify how happy you are as a whole, how sad you are as a whole and how much influence you have as an actual quantity of any currency that isn't artistically comprehended in a qualitative, subjective manner requiring finesse and experience, so on and so forth."
"I will word in more clear terms the two reasons why science is never going to be as useful to any priority, but especially power, as Con is making out:
- No matter how scientifically, power is understood, the balancing between power-types and the ability to catch onto nuances in the way to conceal you're gaining power vs actively gaining it openly to use it for the purposes you want to (good or not) is entirely contingent on things beyond the quantifiable in any numerical, scientific sense and instead on qualitative concepts of measurement that are 'felt' and refined through experience (as I said, like an art)."
- While much of every priority is indeed scientific in how it comes to fruition from the original available resources at hand and how efficiently one uses them, this is doomed to be the worst ever thing to suggest for power because as things evolve (and even at present) not only is there always a handicap amongst some in that they will not have the time to study the science of, lust for or time to delve into the many types of power some of which they may not even perceive are power but on top of this... Those in power rarely will ever want to reveal all the secrets of keeping it but at most, if fame is one of their 'drugs of choice' leave behind a legacy in mystic-seeming advice such as Sun Tzu did with the Art of War that again requires intellect and deep through to decode.Like every human that ever walked the earth, he was a scientist of sorts. He used The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment to develop his strategic knowledge. A great deal of observation has led to a deeper understanding of his strategy using the same methods he did just in a more organized rigorous, repetitive and explanatory manner.
If everyone is equally powerful, then everyone is prioritising power the same but still the ones who actively keep it non-stop as their top priority will be the ones who are most likely to thrive or at the very least not perish the moment anything such as the political landscape, the climate of the physical Earth or just human genes and attitudes in general life change (which includes change in demand vs supply).
"The speed and enthusiasm with which one will maintain constant awareness and prowess that will be hidden in the time where all share power will only matter once the things aforementioned change but when they do, and things do change constantly, is the one who values power and uses science simply as a means of enabling that (or to enable other priorities that end up enabling power) who can thrive or at least not perish in almost all situations."
"Why is thriving in that sense important? Why does it matter that you're never truly unfree relative to most and that you have the most ability and agency to inhibit others' abilities and agencies? Well, it's because it only takes one person to prioritise power in a world where no others do, to take the lead and snowball and slowly others will join in unless all are somehow the exact same psychology but even then it will help in the tiniest way in a sense that no other priority will."
Con has mentioned that priority can mean first in order or fundamental in terms of importance. Just to clarify my view science/knowledge must come first and it is of primary importance when utilizing any other priority.
“In my Round 1 I brought something up that I can't see Con addressing anywhere; If you're the NASA of space science (or let's extend this to being big in a big Pharma company of a particular medicinal venture) you have the most power to lie about what you find or to stop others lying.”
“I also saw no counter to the fact that there's non-science involved in absolutely everything.”
“Con is continually violating the 'don't Kritik that there is a best priority' rule in many ways, but always too soft to qualify as hard breakage.”
“using science is important and at the very least 50% of what you need in forming strategies of gaining and keeping Power but this is the point; science is a means to an end. Power is both a means to an end and an end in itself all at once”
“The two elements to power are (covered in Round 1 definitions)::
You have as much self-agency as possible (meaning everyone and everything else has minimised Pillar 2 over you)
The ability to defy other's Pillar 1 (often by their own volition) either by charm, force or working 'around' them so that in the long-term they can't use Pillar 2 on others.”
Con has begun to bring entirely new Angles in the middle of the debate. Instead of defending their (gender is 'other' now) old points, Con has opted to take brand new angles. Consider this when voting.
I, as Pro, have stuck true to my angles of Power being the only Life Priority of the options available, that is both an end in itself and a means to everything and that all other priorities can undeniably not be done well without power. You see, I have made clear with NASA analogy in space science, and many other references to 'take on the other big bad wolves in the pack' type analogies that power is twofold because it is self-fulfilling and so essential to combat others who prioritise it.
Power also does not have the broad utility Pro is claiming. Again, in our daily lives careers, relationships, hobbies and entertainment when do we need to regularly exert ‘power’ over others. In each instance Pro can mention I have shown how a systematic search for knowledge and knowledge itself are equivalent and more often superior in their priority.
Science completely lacks the ability to deal with situations that aren't quantitative and can only ever help with the entirely physical side of something (and even then only on what the data is known with regards to). As a mentality, science cannot fulfil the one who has it because it is literally nothing but a means to comprehending the quantitative, physical elements of anything and this 'understanding' being a priority means the 'how do I use these physical elements well?' and entirely artistic side of complex things like power, family, career, self-improvement (including how to even 'improve the self' in any scientific way that isn't based on a non-scientific means of pulling oneself towards) and entertainment (this is nearly impossible for science to be prioritised or useful for) as well as unlisted priorities one could have... Science falls short.
If you don't have power socially in the scientific community or workplace where the research is being carried out, you are left as a trampled upon pawn in a game where people twice as cunning as Edison will come, work out what you have to still research but lack the means to and steal it with you having no way out as a ten times as naive Tesla. [https://geekhistory.com/content/nikola-tesla-versus-thomas-edison-and-search-truth]
Con may argue, which is strongly suggested by new points that Con raised in the previous Round, that the way Edison won is money and money is scientific but Tesla still valued power more than most and that's how he even stood a chance. If Tesla had known the right people and paid more attention to what Edison could do with his findings, he'd have played his life and career much better leaving Edison very few ways to use artistic cunning or scientific deduction to outwit Tesla to crack 'the case' when it comes to what Tesla wants to do next with anything like light bulbs and which Edison had the means to achieve faster for less mental-effort.
The more systematic your approach to learning the less mental effort is required so the more characteristically scientific your learning process is the less the mental energy you waste.
Having science as a priority is not even plausible. You cannot prioritise science until you prioritise something non-scientific to use it for. Whether it's 'working out why we are here' 'working out how to make cool racing cars be faster without wasting more energy' the actual reason you look into it and how you use it are all based on emotional urges, be it to uncover something for the sake of it, to get rich as well as well-renowned or to patch a hole in a previous such-motivated scientist's faulty theory/findings and use that for the same purposes as the first 2 motives.
Just because the mind is 'science' according to Con doesn't make it true. The brain is observable scientifically, but it's still to this date entirely magical how and why the entirely non-physical and inexplicable conscious experience (how and why is someone inside our heads looking/hearing out of it? Why isn't it just reality experiencing itself and why do we not just experience it as a passenger but as something which thinks it has free will instinctively no matter how hard it reasons otherwise?). The brain isn't science, the scientific study of it can help you comprehend how it works in a quantitative, known-measuring-method way and nothing more.
Science as a life priority leaves you entirely prey to those who want to lie about the science or those who want to expose you as a liar (and/or frame you as the liar despite you being the honest one). Power is everything from how to ensure the people and research you want to be known as true end up being known that, no matter how corrupt your rivals are, to even spotting that there is corruption in the first place (as naivety is impossible when prioritising Power unless you're only pretending to prioritise it or don't know what Power even is).
Power isn't evil, it's the only way to stop powerful evil after all. Power is neutral morally, what it is is the tool and means by which absolutely everything can be polarised towards in order to measure how good or bad an idea it is for you in a long-term sense as well as how to go about taking on rivals or helping those closest to you in life. Power also is involved with entertainment in many ways. More power you have, the more access you have and more say you may well have into what ends up on your TV or even end up the most influential director/producer of a massive production or greatest mover and shaker in a label so you're both signed and yet freer and beastlier to spread your message and get admire than more underground rappers (I'm referring to Eminem most of all here but Chris Webby and Vinnie Paz are two examples of people who still prioritised power but built differently and were able to control their label entirely by their sheer intellect and willpower in pursuing power).
Con's new angles revolve around science translating to all priorities, but Power is in all of them more so in actual application (not necessarily theory) and you can't end up with enough time on your hands to even enjoy the entertainment or family, let alone any non-work-based scientific pursuit if you don't solidly focus on working and knowing the right people in the workplace to end up with the most agency over your life.
So did you make a new account?
Yeah, I've tried to be clear about that. Also that Pro dropped like 4 of my arguments.
Wait, so are you Titanium?
Well All right.I thought I was going to be more challenged here. I made some ballsy claims which Pro did not contest at all. He just accepted them so I would say his dropped arguments are an issue that would clearly make him lose this debate.
I'll agree I could have developed my position more but Pro seemed to just except my position without resistance.
R3: “From self-development to power to family to art to career (which I assume means more of 'do well' than 'get powerful' or 'get rich' since power is another priority and money isn't an option but neither is specific professions) you don't get power to make them work, you get it to be the most able to prevent corrupt people or even non-corrupt rivals stopping your ability to be happy and still deal with that lesser priority and end up powerful enough emotionally, financially, intellectually and physically (which includes usage of time) to handle your other affairs, always holding Power as the 'compass pole' you need to angle all other ventures towards in order to deal with them efficiently.”
100+ words long sentence, quotes, brackets, quotes in brackets - this is nearly impossible to follow.
R4: “As a mentality, science cannot fulfil the one who has it because it is literally nothing but a means to comprehending the quantitative, physical elements of anything and this 'understanding' being a priority means the 'how do I use these physical elements well?' and entirely artistic side of complex things like power, family, career, self-improvement (including how to even 'improve the self' in any scientific way that isn't based on a non-scientific means of pulling oneself towards) and entertainment (this is nearly impossible for science to be prioritised or useful for) as well as unlisted priorities one could have”
Again: 100 + words and nearly impossible to follow.
These aren’t an exhaustive list, there are literally dozens of other sentences throughout that severely impede my ability to understand pros argument - and effectively render the bulk of his points nearly incomprehensible.
“If you are the biggest wolf in the pack, the most controlling and authoritative in any field (even in your work AND your family, both helping the other life priority get evened out as a burden) then you end up able to not only handle those life priorities better but your highest priority being Power helps you define exactly how much of a drain your family, career, science-research and all other elements of your life must be for you to end up having sufficient agency in your life and on others in your realm of other life priorities, that you end up completely satisfied and able to continue with life as much as you can feasibly 'please yourself' with.”
R1: This sentence contains multiple clauses, is well over 100 words long, and is so overly verbose it is almost unreadable.
“The point is that there's always art to power as a de facto thing because simply balancing all the types of power itself is impossible to scientifically justify or explain as you can't quantify 'happiness', sure you can in a census but you can't quantify how happy you are as a whole, how sad you are as a whole and how much influence you have as an actual quantity of any currency that isn't artistically comprehended in a qualitative, subjective manner requiring finesse and experience, so on and so forth.”
Around 89 words long sentence. Again overly verbose, and grossly impedes the readability.
Note: in R2 there were half a dozen examples I could have chosen that were similar.
Vote Reported: NoodIe // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: I did not in any way concede.
Reason for mod action: This voter may not vote on this debate. The voter should see his PM's for more details.
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct
Reason for mod action: In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, a voter may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards). One still needs to analyze the arguments presented in the debate.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
I'll drop the term 'science' since I'm not in the debate anymore and Pro did not contest my definitions. Humans are the first creature that cannot exist without knowledge. Instinct has been a lot more important for the others but our lives are built on what we learn.
The interesting thing is that this does not, in practice, represent a big departure. We strictly regulate all of our ideas to a narrow focus inadvertently which may have led to our initial survival with religious issues called 'bias' which are pervasive.
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Hume's Guillotine, therefore, Is can't imply ought, therefore, there is no correct life priority of the selected options.
>Reason for Mod Action: No points awarded votes must now explain, based on the content of the vote, why the voter chose not to award points. For more details, see here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Reason for Mod Action: No points awarded votes must now explain, based on the content of the vote, why the voter chose not to award points. For more details, see here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
A basic "science" is needed, such as a grasp of causal physics, but animals can understand that much, so it's hardly fair to say that science is the priority.
Sure, but the statement could be applied to humans in particular and even that is not completely correct. More accurate would be to say that 'in general other priorities are not possible without science for humans'.
I wasn't saying that life priorities are impossible.
Titanium said in the debate, "Other priorities are not possible without science."
I'm saying that you don't need an understanding of the world (i.e. science) to have priorities, and you can definitely get by with only minimal understanding.
Other animals can have priorities. A priority is just what goal you place in importance before others. For instance, a mother lioness might prioritize her babies' safety over her immediate comfort.
Back to your original comment about the impossibility of life priorities. This may bring up disagreement but I'm convinced that humans are the first animal that can have priorities and this to a very limited degree. For other animals they have chosen nothing so nature had the priorities not the animal.
If your standard for human life is 'they found food' I challenge you to find a human who has this single priority. Even in impoverished nations this is clearly a very small hurtle while it can be impossible for a cow who does not even understand that cellulose is what it has been missing from it's diet in captivity.
The difference is that some animals operate on instinct. Humans do not, for the most part, I would not put biological desires as a part of this. Some animals/insects know exactly how to get food at birth. We just have the desire and a natural talent at sucking teets.
I don't see a difference. Science is an understanding of how the world works. A cow does not need to understand how digestion works to have obtainment of food as a priority. It simply feels an urge to eat.
Round 1 you argued to defend your definition without being challenged. Eventually, Con argued that the definitions should be completely general and standard since no usage is specified when you choose a life priority.
Credentials: I read this debate.
Note 'understanding' of science is not in your quote. Some parasites carry out complex routines to enter four different types of animals with zero understanding. They are 99% instinct. While humans learn all habits they become trapped in they are born with them at birth
"Other priorities are not possible without science."
I don't agree. Animals have an urge to feed without an understanding of science.
Plants grow without an understanding, period.
Thanks for your feedback, what are your credentials?
Round one you were stuck in your own head. Con did not follow the same track.
Then you ignore every single Round after my R1 if you think so.
I don't see how Pro addressed Con's definition which claimed that all knowledge and therefore all power is dependent/fundamental to science and earlier in sequence. He did not contest that all knowledge comes from the scientific method making it necessary for any form of power. He did not contest that science creates power and is necessary to maintain it. he did not contest that power is centered by those who lucked out to gain power as opposed to those who pursued it making it unlikely that a pursuit of power will create it making power a poor goal. He did not apply power to quality of life, why many professions would bother when they want to become a surgeon, engineer, artist or scientist. All these operate without a need manipulate others.
Shit, well posting early knowing I was ignoring the site until the last day was excellent strategy. Congrats on that.
Per my previous comments. I'll assume you'd have no reason to know that 'black' deals go down everyday communicating like you insist on. Shady business that.
Ah, wasn't even thinking of that, close to my own practical priority, but I think my arguments would apply to self-development too. With science on the board I don't see much else as being independent or primary.
Personally, I chose self-development.
My claim is essentially that science is learning. No, I don't. Science is extremely broad; that's just why science is the only thing that makes sense but I'm sure RM will not take it lying down. All the others are preference. I see RM's argument for power. If all knowledge were equal then power would make the most sense to argue for. The others could be something you really enjoy more than anything... actually that's not a bad case.
I may look at others for an option but I would pick science first and power second in the context of a debate.
If everything is scientific, than a life priority of "science" is non-specific. You can't support it in any way. Crime is scientific, but so is law enforcement. See the problem? By supporting science and claiming that every learned process is scientific, you support nothing.
You're thinking of a lab. Every form of experimentation that fits the description is by definition science. Science is the method used to learn at the fundamental level that is all. They did not call it science but an ape that could talk was not just talk. It was probably an early development to point and grunt. How was this accomplish this? he observed the natural world and tested various methods to get people to focus on the same area he was. It's a simple task but it still involved intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic (even rudimentary such as guess and check), experimentation and observation.
I can't remember when the scientific method was formalized but find a way of learning that does not meet these basic features. This is why early uses of the word just used science as a synonym for knowledge.
Complex animals use the exact same skills to learn for the most part. They have no concept of language so no they do not call it science. You can argue there is instinct at some point. Many insects appear to instinctively do complex tasks but learning is the scientific process. It's only more formalized and organized in a lab.
There have been modern constructs of language and ideas for longer than there has been scientific experimentation. Blackmail is older than the scientific method.
You can say that all these things are developed scientifically, whether motor skills or politics, but I disagree. Animals develop motor skills without any conception of science. Just because we can use science to understand learning doesn't mean that learning itself is scientific. A rock is not scientific, but I can understand it using science.
Well, in context I was referring to power you could gain. I mention that a lot of power is provided by luck. Assuming equal luck power that you can gain is all created by science.
Blackmail: language and all ideas stem from a the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. There is simply no other way to identify something new. Even guess and check or other random experiments and observations combine to form all knowledge. Do you think Helen Keller understood blackmail being def and blind without language?
She probably did but perhaps slower than those who can stand on the observations of the past. She would learn by testing different options until she could say, scream until she got a food she liked. It took a process of observation, test, repeat. She likely screamed several times before she realized her family would get agitated and through trial and error realized how she could use their discomfort to her advantage.
To even use your brute strength example. A a baby uses a scientific process to learn to move, walk pick up objects. Their would be no power for a baby's mind inside a muscular man. He would not be able to stand much less walk until a long process of observation and experimentation.
Hmmm, k now I see it's pretty simple.
"Power is also created by [science] in every way."
This isn't entirely true. I would argue that brute strength isn't provided by science, or at least not the understanding and application of scientific knowledge. Moreover, there are forms of political power that were not developed by science, such as blackmail.
Mind so blown... still 'the king' though. I mean you're not Elvis.
That's pretty amazing gotta tell you but the lists was how you do it how fun!.. I mean creepy as fk that you bother... then amazing again! I post odd manic and get the playlists in 4 hours that is fking amazing... Can't believe it's that easy for you. I Seriously, just thought I was high... as fk the first time but you've got the time on your hands after all. Is this a reddit thing?! Ugh... jealous right now so jealous. No way I could pull that off.
Well good thoughts. I think a lot of your arguments apply to my case as you've suggested of the basic case I put forward. I'll post my argument later I'm exhausted so I need to look at it again.
All right all right. Champagne cocaine gasoline and everything in between.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
Okay, good luck with that.
Yes, I will back science which is vary much in character for me.
Now I want to back art and entertainment as well since you just dropped that as a challenge.
I promise you, if she takes that approach it will backfire brutally. Nonetheless, I doubt she will as she's likely to back science.
Art, and entertainment are already options listed for the life priority category, and it seems that that's all life really is!!!
I would explain why that is not only true but that the alternative priorities are even more futile than power in such a reality. Do you see rule 2 of my debate?
I would argue that "power" is a social construction that doesn't actually exist in nature, and "power" is really only influence. One could also argue that we are potentially living in a predetermined experience, and power, or influence, are only illusions. But hey, that's just my two cents!
RM does not believe in free will.
Are you an advocate of free will?? If so that's a topic I'd like to debate.
After Type1's round one 'argument' I was not sure why I bothered to join the site but your legitimate response, to such a casual topic, has made me conlude that I'll have a lot of fun on this site.
That said, my science position will trounce your power position ;) get ready.