I require no mercy. I will not tolerate disrespect. I am a rational entity of humanity.
Debate: Good luck, fight well, may the truth win out.
Philosophy allows for full inclusion of all entities(people). It focus on the moral and ethical aspects of the human condition. It does not prescribe solution, it allows for solution to become evident. Proper learning and understanding, by the individual, results in better cognitive ability (as most learning does), the ability to consider different life views and how to relate to them.
Religion excludes non-members. It focuses on doctrine, divined from the will of a more powerful entity and focuses that doctrine on its members. I negates other points of view, it asserts truth without evidence. Proper learning and understanding, by the individual, results in better cognitive ability (as most learning does), the ability to further divine doctrine and a need to negate different life views.
While the above statements are unsupported and carefully constructed, they contain no criticism/judgement and can be seen from an individual human point of view to show distinct difference.
All matters concerning entities(people) are common this statement on the surface is ridiculous!
The purpose of words is to communicate.
Words do not create, destroy or otherwise act therefore they are not sentient(human) entities.
All word are categorised
Some words are definitions and it is these words I address.
The purpose of definition is to separate common entities, the act of doing so is the root of this debate.
The rational mind has to consider that while a common understanding defines the need for words. Words themselves are not commonly understood.
Each individual carries their own dictionary which not accessible to another individual. I content that most words in this dictionary have not been “written” by consultation with a real dictionary. They are however “written” by the individuals interaction with other individuals (who have their own personal dictionary).
Therefore I conclude:
1. The very fact that two words have been written and stated do be entirely separate is a true fact.
2. While you may say I have lured my contender in a trap and have used a dirty tactic to do, you would be seriously misunderstanding me. Any judgement made by readers/voters are a product of that misunderstanding and for that I claim that reader/voter is making themselves ENTIRELY separate.
3. I contend sufficient prof was offered very early on to substantiate “a common understanding” (i.e. from an individual’s personal dictionary my statement.
To my opponent, thank very much for standing up to me!
Challenge to all entities (every person in the world - ALL):
I Saxon Hammer (VE) WILL become the best debater the world has ever seen.
If YOU challenge me!
For if you win I gain skill and wisdom.
If I win then I gain confidence and wisdom.
I will be come stronger no matter the outcome
Challenge: You are PRO - “Just 1 advert is EVIL” - I am CON
Return To Top | Posted: