Instigator / Pro
6
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Topic
#637

[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]

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
26,500
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1476
rating
2
debates
25.0%
won
Description

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.

-->
@NoodIe

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.

gasp

-->
@NoodIe

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.

-->
@NoodIe

*******************************************************************
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.

*******************************************************************

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 1 point to pro for conduct

RFD: Concession

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

*******************************************************************

-->
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

*******************************************************************
>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
************************************************************************

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
>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.

-->
@K_Michael

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'.

-->
@NoodIe

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.

-->
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@NoodIe

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.

-->
@K_Michael

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

-->
@Titanium

"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.

-->
@NoodIe

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.

Comment debate.

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.

-->
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@Titanium

Personally, I chose self-development.

-->
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@Titanium

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.

-->
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@Titanium

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.

-->
@K_Michael

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.

-->
@Titanium

"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.

-->
@RationalMadman

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.

-->
@RationalMadman

All right all right. Champagne cocaine gasoline and everything in between.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

-->
@Titanium

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.

-->
@Pilot

I promise you, if she takes that approach it will backfire brutally. Nonetheless, I doubt she will as she's likely to back science.

-->
@RationalMadman

Art, and entertainment are already options listed for the life priority category, and it seems that that's all life really is!!!

-->
@Pilot

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!

-->
@Titanium

RM does not believe in free will.

-->
@RationalMadman

Are you an advocate of free will?? If so that's a topic I'd like to debate.

-->
@RationalMadman

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.