Instigator / Pro
6
1706
rating
561
debates
68.09%
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
Tags
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.
Round 1
Pro
#1
All my life, I have heard people telling me power corrupts. They tell me to avoid it, that authority is something only used well when not used to help you stay in that position of authority or climb further up the food-chain and all this other romantic and idealistic fairytale-morality that really doesn't help you when you grow up.
It's not that people in authority can't be corrupt and not that those in power can't be brutally morally-altered more negatively once in power than prior to it but rather that both come down to the person themselves and not the power. If you're a person who is terrible at handling power, you either proceed in one of two ways:
- 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'.
On the other hand, if you are good at handling power (which, if it's your life priority you either are or are more likely a type-2 than a type-1 of those bad at handling it) you will end up having this happen to you:
3. You end up taking over the system or being high enough in it to influence those who do and can twist and turn it to improve its efficiency, which will include properly rewarding and fairly punishing those on even the lowest end of it.
People who are against 'power' are usually either against it because they see it as inevitably corrupting (turning all into type-2's) or because they see power as only a necessary evil and instead would rather a world where we all were equal.
I will first define 'power' before I explore why it is necessary and the brutal truth of the world and the concept of 'all humans are equal' being fallacious to assume or even want to be true.
The kind of Power in this debate is going to be a combination of 2 definitions on Oxford Dictionaries:
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.
No, the first definition isn't anti-free-will it is about the parts of will that we can use within our 'conscious' range of control and how we go about ensuring that our self, as an active agent (AKA dynamic variable) in the equation of 'life' or the 'world' can influence others at the sake of their power or others' power for both our sakes and keep in control of events and behaviours of those around us both/either directly and/or indirectly as is necessary and optimal.
The scientific method, which is one priority, is nothing more than a joke if not combined with and used to help with power. If you're an authority like NASA and tell people the Earth is Round, you get to define that truth and laugh anyone who doubts your images and videos out of the room. You can argue that they should not prioritise Power because if they do it's simply their inferior ability at science and seeking the truth that leads them to need it but it is very scientific to study game-theory[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gametheory.asp] and analyse the economics, psychology, political landscape and all else that goes along with that in order to maintain your power and ensure you control and influence the science more than anyone else in the field (or near-as-possible to their influence, if 'more' is unattainable as a goal). This basically is the same logic that applies to all other life priorities selected. 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.
Even if you are the most selfless being on the planet, you cannot serve others nearly as well when you're relatively powerless as you can when you have the power to not serve them but choose to rationally do so in such a method and to such a degree that you still maintain enough power for you to stay 'in power' by the end of it.
Con
#2
Pro hesitated slightly when constructing his argument when he inadvertently pointed to my problem with the resolution and the best reason to object to it. Power is Myopic while science is universal. While power is a brute force science can describe how to gain that power, then it can make entertainment you can enjoy on the weekend, the doritos you take a break from work to enjoy or the back scratcher you just ‘had’ to purchase the other day.
Maybe Stan isn’t you cup of tea but perhaps you thought fight club was an intimately impactful movie. Both were produced in modern media, just one thing science has produced. It’s broad because it’s a strategy to find truth that adapts and develops over time. Among virtually everything you do today, eat a peach, drive your car, post or view a podcast… all of this is produced by science. Power is also created by it in every way.
Science is a strategy to build up information while power is a way to dominate others and how the fk would you do that? With science.
Pro’s resolution expresses the same limited view. An optimal life is built with power? I could say the same about about art or entertainment. It’s personal preference to express this and that’s the fundamental point Pro can make here. He likes
Pro likes power… well I like pizza. How do we disagree and then decide who’s right… science is a strategy to identify truth while power is a force people exert on others. Obviously science could get you that, Nuclear bombs for instance, but it could also tell you why you should not use them. Ethics. It could change how you feel about the futility of life. Psychology.
Pro has put forward an arbitrary opinion forward and this is not an argument. Objectively science is more beneficial than Power since it typically produces that anyways.
Round 2
Pro
#3
^ This image is with some doxxing info blanked out or whatever out of respect of future privacy of the user and this debate staying up.
Con had her chance, did she not? No definition of priority has been provided. In fact, there are no definitions provided by her, so far.
I am fairly sure that the definition of 'priority' is going to become a central part of this debate. Con is clearly much more focused on this type of definition of 'priority':
something that is very important and must be dealt with before other things
The problem with this definition, although by the well-renowned Cambridge, is that I strongly believe (in fact I know and will prove) that this definition of priority doesn't fit with how priorities are applied nor with the other definitions unless 'before' means so long as rushing it doesn't hamper its later development. See, you can do the higher priority thing first and screw yourself over for not having done lesser build-block and safeguard priorities for it and this is precisely why this definition is clearly poorly worded and out of context.
If we look at Oxford Dictionaries, it is very clear what 'before' actually means and why 'before' or 'first' is being used in a very faulty context in that definition by Cambridge:
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’
In support of this definition, is Cambridge's other set of definitions for 'priority':
- 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
As well as this extended wording of the first definition that allows much more flexibility in what 'before' and 'first' means in the context of the term 'priority':
something that you do or deal with first because it is more important or urgent than other things
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.
Con's case is that science is involved in everything, but science is only used in terms of understanding how to physically handle the thing. So the physical elements of producing art vs the cost of the materials for it, cost of renting the 'space' (online or a real-life room) to store it and perform it in and such. Yeah, you need science with power as well, knowing psychology, economics and such but it is quite amusing that the one backing science brought up art as the 'it's even used in art' when art is almost the entire way to bring down her case.
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.
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
#4
Science:
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
‘the world of science and technology’
More example sentences Synonyms
- 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’
At its root science is all knowledge as per 3. All knowledge is created by 1. The systematic study of the world and broadly more specialized knowledge per 2. Science is the single and primary strategy to learn everything you know and is all knowledge thereby both a strategy to achieve all knowledge and all knowledge itself.
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.
Sure but how is power the ultimate priority or end result in the same way that health is? The net benefits of power come after and are part of a progression toward goals like resources, territory and expansion. Science as a strategy to attain all knowledge and therefore all ultimate benefits. Power is a particular strategy to achieve a goal achieved by the pursuit of knowledge and the scientific method is the strategy to attain it and the other examples are in the same vein.
"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."
when we are talking about priorities and both definitions both the definitions apply and the given context matters. Pro did not specify definitions in his resolution so standard dictionary definitions should be assumed for the voter. For instance, in life you must learn a thing before you can do it. It is also the most important to build on earlier knowledge to gain the new which makes it supremely important. All objects of power and strategies for achieving power are created by science. Science proceeds power and it is supremely important to create/utilize power. Scientific knowledge is all knowledge and the strategy to attain it. The same methods that were used to create the first axe made steel alloys.
Without science you would drool and starve. With it you have a gun. You, tested, observed and understood the natural world to clean, care for and use it. The first time you learn object permanence. That objects are still there when you cannot see them you used intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. When you create art you are committing an act of science, you test observe and experiment with your brush strokes. Art being an example here not an additional life priority.
A good life is an act of the dominant strategy that incorporates the best scientific knowledge available from strategies to create, maintain and extend power/art/name it to any other aspect of your life.
You did not realize what the world is or what an object is.
"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."
There is a little art and power in everything but science createst them both and without science you would have no knowledge of neither. It is the single strategy to gain any knowledge you’ve gained since it both created it and was the strategy to consume it ie the knowledge of how to learn better. We stand on shoulders of giants and have the knowledge of it with your hand in any moment.
I’m still not committing art to another optimal life priority but I will respond to Pro if he continues.
"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."
Pro’s example does not make sense. I must utilize the tools of science to understand my own mind on a daily basis. Power does not improve your mental state. Knowledge does. I must ask questions, run mental tests/experiments I have done so many times, before I understand my mood is poor and realize that I am letting a particular Item at work bother me. How do I calm down? I use my tools of observation and experiment. My understanding of cognitive science to understand the structure of the mind. I don’t slouch because through observation and experiment of my body I understand that this is produced by doubt and can create doubt.
"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)."
You’re just leaning into an assertion that getting power could be done without knowledge since it is the strategy to attain knowledge needed to gain power and use that power. If there is a nuclear bomb in a room full of barefoot savages it would do nothing for them. A large body of scientific knowledge created it and is needed to activate it.
- 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.
Those who have power most often have it due to ancestry or accidents of history. This is power more broadly not a single life strategy. In these cases it was due to having knowledge and therefore power. Trace power due to the roots of Europe and you find accidents of steel and pack animals. If two people start at an equal position only strategies to create or the existence of knowledge can get you power and all strategies and values so it is both of primary importance and earlier in sequence.
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).
You cannot just incorporate luck into your life priority. Given the few that are born and lucky enough to have power you will have a few with greater knowledge and those without. Those with greater knowledge will not want to reveal it to those without knowledge because they have prioritized knowledge as an advantage in this case. They will utilize there greater knowledge to leverage there power/tools/resources etc to better advantage.
"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."
No, it is those with the knowledge of power of the infinite varying forms along with other tools that can utilize to achieve other goals.
"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."
But again the knowledge science provides has the greater utility while power is only a single tool of many to achieve goals. You are is just a picturing labroom science. Again all knowledge, the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment along with all particularly complex fields of inquiry encompass science. Every strategy effectively learned is done so through empirical study. Idiots have nothing. Those with knowledge can create/use power and those without it simply cannot.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Alright I am gonna make this very clear and concise.
At this point, Con has not explained what makes science a priority other than to solely enable other priorities to occur with physical efficiency. If you analyse my explanation of power is not only a means to other priorities but also an end in itself, this is one of the most stark ways that my case annihilates theirs (they have altered their gender to 'Other' so I am not sure what pronoun to use other than 'theirs').
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.
This simple concept, it seems, Con is continually handling by saying 'but that requires science' and yet in the Round just prior to this Con agrees with me that even if Power were all science (which it isn't), those in Power actively will try and prevent you realising how to gain that Power with only a few 'white knights' wanting to leave a legacy will write down their wisdom and methods behind their 'madness' or 'genius' as opposed to just the end results of it. I also saw no counter to the fact that there's non-science involved in absolutely everything. 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. Science will help with the measurable sides of it but you can't measure many things quantitatively or outside of one's head with tough calls being made in every single walk of life, especially that of the Power-focused.
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. Con doesn't seem to actually deny Power is objective to aim for, instead Con is Kritiking that it's objectively possible to justify aiming for it as all such justification would require science to study and conclude it. It is important to note that pure logic is closer linked to mathematics than science but I will concede that applying logic to this debate is scientific at first, that's the skeletal structure on which a case is built. Nonetheless, my wording and the way I organise points (especially as this isn't a clear contention-by-contention styled conflict) is severely artistic and Sun Tzu-esque.
I agree with Con that 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, making it the all encompassing commonality in every situation (even where you know next to nothing and are thrown into a dog-eat-dog scenario imagine a Gladiator pit where you know very little about your opponents). We'd need science to first remotely figure things out and built some formation by turning pure maths and game theory into the applied economics (which is scientific) and physics (think 'how to fight in the Gladiator pit', taking account of sunlight and sweat being lost from one's body etc) to begin building a strategy but this is where the science begins to surrender to art and creative thinking that all revolves around Power.
The two elements to power are (covered in Round 1 definitions)::
Pillar 1
You have as much self-agency as possible (meaning everyone and everything else has minimised Pillar 2 over you)
Pillar 2
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.
This is in all walks of life and is something that can help achieve itself more. You can do Pillar 1 more, with Pillar 2 being strong and Pillar 2 absolutely requires Pillar 1 to be handled first (what good is being powerful over others when you answer to someone else, regardless? You'd only be serving their agenda in the long run but in the short-term sense of sacrificing Pillar 1 for 2, then there's again nuances and finesse to such balance that surpass science in how to measure it or know exactly where to conclude the 'balance' is).
Con
#6
I’ll break out and clarify my position since it seems the instigator has ignored many of my arguments offered and therefore they remain uncontested and relevant standing without being refuted by my opponent.
Science is the foundation of other priorities and the path to any goal
Other priorities are not possible without science. Without accurate knowledge of the world around us we cannot prioritize anything else. This is true at the personal level as we observe and experiment what actions and thoughts are most effective when seeking a goal. The more this effort is organized and intentional (systematic) the more benefit we will receive. It is also true at the macro scale ie knowledge obtained in formal scientific fields. If you want to understand how the world around you works check out social economics. If you’d like to improve your thinking take a look at cognitive behavioral therapy/science.
Other priorities are misguided without science. At a macro scale it made nuclear bombs and fire arms and only a systematic study of strategy and ethics could tell you when and where you should use them. You may have an eye on a good career but an attitude of continuous learning and initial planning and research will get you there.
All productive/systematic learning utilizes the scientific method
Even basic learning utilizes this. Pro has not been able to refute that even basic knowledge fits the core definition of science. I used the example of object permanence. Babies are not born with the knowledge that objects still exist when they cannot sense them. This is why peekaboo is such an effective game with them. They must learn through observation and experimentation that objects exist when they exit their field of view.
The earliest discoveries we all made were the same. Consider early attempts at repeating language. We are taught this but must observe what is happening around us, run early experiments with our vocal chords and finally arrive at a systematic study of various words when we have an epiphany… these sounds reference objects, later we learn they reference mental states etc and the first power word we have. No.
I’ll make a note here that I am making a distinction between productive and unproductive learning. An abusive parent may, for instance, convince a child that they are worthless by repeating this and emphasizing every fact that confirms this. This could be refuted, surely they are average at least and of infinite value to themselves. A process of learning could confirm this.
Bias (confirmation being the worst) plagues most everyone and causes us to learn things that are not true. This is a poor application of science and the more systematic/intentional you can be the more you are likely to arrive at conclusions that are correct.
At the fundamental level, all true knowledge is discovered with an effective application of science.
Knowledge itself is synonymous with science
This is per the most basic use of the word as knowledge of any kind per usage 3. All knowledge we have is based on a process of experimentation and observation, the more systematic the better. These basic tools lead to the most basic of knowledge. I’ll elaborate on this perhaps next round but Pro has not responded yet.
It is also true that this is one of a few primary definition, all definitions would apply since the priorities do not list a specific usage (words do not mean anything, they are defined by usage imo). Knowledge and acquiring knowledge in an effective way are encompassed in this life priority.
Science is first in sequence and fundamental to utilizing all priorities
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.
The instigator concedes that science is often power but it has even more utility
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)::
Pillar 1
You have as much self-agency as possible (meaning everyone and everything else has minimised Pillar 2 over you)
Pillar 2
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.”
Round 4
Pro
#7
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.
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.
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.
Con
#8
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.
Not that it’s relevant, as Pro had two rounds and 60,000 characters to respond and did not limit new arguments to specific rounds, but I spent the last round expanding on arguments I already presented the previous round.
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.
Pro has now conceded that science is two fold in a similar way stating that knowledge in a specific field can be used to combat science in the same area from enemy states and so argues essentially that both science and power are both a means and an end leaving no room to prioritize power or science on this point. Power is not a means to everything but only to some specific goals. He has failed to show how power has a broad utility as I have shown that science does.
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.
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.
These are simply assertions presented without evidence. Pro has not presented a case against the transparent truth that all knowledge is gained in a systematic way using observation and experiment of the physical world. Who wins or loses a battle is a rather large experiment of several tactics pitted against others and systematic study of these observations leads to increased knowledge of tactics.
Each painting, poem, fight with a spouse, missed promotion, struggle connecting with a child and blockbuster flop at the theater are all experiments. As artists, entertainers, parents, workers, directors etc we can only learn through a systematic study of all observations in events leading to more knowledge in a given field and therefore an improved experience and skill results. Pro still has not rebutted that all effective learning fits exactly into the definition of science making all productive human activity dependent on the scientific method.
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]
Pro is again pointing to specific instances where power is most useful presenting a myopic option to prioritize. I have not stated that power cannot be useful such as the financial capital available to Elon musk or Edison’s cunning. Both would have done nothing without their genius in scientific knowledge that allowed them to use power effectively. In each example Power was useful for opportunity only but prior knowledge in science both gave them that power and allowed them to use it effectively making scientific knowledge fundamental above the incidental and temporarily useful power.
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.
I wasn’t going to point out that power does come sometimes from scientific inquiry (more often chance opportunity) since power was involved but yes, advanced knowledge arrived at through experiments and observations undoubtedly earned both these men financial power so it was again fundamental and comes before in sequence. There are many reasons why AC power that Edison supported is just better for long term transfer of electrical work as opposed to DC. DC works better in many smaller appliances and not utilized at a large scale. It was ultimately just a more useful method as identified in experimentation.
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.
https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-is-DC-used-instead-of-AC-for-long-distance-electric-power-lines-Is-DC-becoming-more-common-now-What-are-its-advantages-and-disadvantages
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.
Here Pro just asserts that science is only useful in a limited scope and that prioritizing this basic learning function along with the knowledge subsumed under the term is implausible and fails to address my arguments to the contrary.
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.
This is a non-sequitur/irrelevant. Methods of thinking can be more efficient ie more characteristically scientific. The brain itself is not and I don’t even know what it would mean to claim the mind itself is science and there is no evidence of anything ‘magical’. As an aside, I disagree that humans have libertarian free will as Pro seems to suggest and we do experience it as a passenger when our focus is on our thoughts and not consumed by them like a surfer under a wave. Con concedes that learning how the brain works is identified by science and this is exactly why the more focused field of cognitive science has so much to contribute to other fields of study like positive psychology (basically self help more highly systematized). Again, how is any of this applicable?
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).
I’ll concede that power is not evil and is useful in a much more limited set of circumstances than science. It is unsettling that Pro would emphasize power in so many ways above accurate knowledge.
He emphasizes asserting your will as a default rather than seeking to understand if you are correct as the priority. Power without knowledge has often accomplished a lot of evil.
How is everything polarized and how are rivals more effectively taken down by power as opposed to knowledge? Again, I am not seeing how this is relevant or how power is more important to entertainment than the raw talent obtained in experiment after experiment as an artist in order to refine your craft. Get your poor talent out there and you would be nowhere. Power can contribute to increased success sometimes and to gain it you must repeat attempts at power systematically observe the result and learn to do better. You’re coming up with a wash here when comparing the priorities in this particular instance.
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.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Take the win or the loss, depends on the mood of the voters when they wave their fingers over their keyboards.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
To win this resolution, pro needs to give me good reasons as to why power is the life priority I should prioritize, and make a reasonable case as to why it is more important to prioritize over each other.
Pros point appears lost in a sea of words in his opening round - which appear more like an opening monologue from a film than a debate.
Out of the entire first round, pros argument appears to be that no matter who you are, or what your goal is: you can’t achieve your goals without power.
Cons counter appears to be that science - or specifically in the context he uses it - the ability to gain or acquire true knowledge - is most important as it is the best and most viable method of achieving your aim.
Out of the two, cons position seems far more nebulous - this is based on a less intuitive interpretation of science a priority - that it applies to acquiring and utilizing knowledge itself. Pros a bit more intuitive.
Essentially though - both sides really fall down on the same points, the only objective reason either side gives is that their priority enables you to achieve your overall goals.
There’s a lot of going around in circles here, and my main issue with cons position is that while I believe he is right that many scientific discoveries and weapons assist with the acquisition of power, Cons argument felt as if either the benefits from science were being used synonymously with science as a priority (by this I mean “guns” are provided by science - and can give you power, but con doesn’t explain how focusing on science can realistically allow me to get a gun), or that the acquisition of knowledge is used synonymously with science: which feels like too much of a stretch.
Because of this, I felt that pros approach was much more intuitive, and plausible - even though much of the case appeared irrelevant - together with con falling short in the overall warrant and not doing enough to convince me : arguments to pro.
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
S&G to con. Cons argument were readily understandable, and didn’t suffer from any major issues.
Pro on the other hand frequently relied upon overly long and obtuse sentences that were practically unreadable. The length of some sentences was often so large, changed context, and contained so many clauses that a reasonable could not be expected to follow the meaning or information contained therein.
This, in combination with pros inherent verbosity made large swathes of his debate argument seem nonsensical and incoherent.
As a result: S&G to con. (Examples in comments from: https://www.debateart.com/debates/637?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=58)
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
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
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
*******************************************************************
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.
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.
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.