condeelmaster (PRO)In my opinion there must be a plan for alien subjugation because of the threat aliens could be. Anyway, subjugation shouldn't be the first move at all. We must first use the dialogue, and then, if needed, physical force.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-19 11:26:17
| Speak Round
Mariel33 (CON)I don't think that aliens need to be prepared for; for one thing, I'm convinced that any alien civilisation able to reach Earth would be able to quote this page as part of their reaching out. Either "I don't think that aliens need to be prepared for" or "..subjugation shouldn't be the first move at all" I would expect the alien civilisation in question to be capable of quoting to us on this planet.
If aliens are able to reach us, that has to mean they're able to infinitely reflect us.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-20 01:04:35
| Speak RoundRodrigo Conde: Who said they will reach us? Maybe we reach them (Quoting the topic " aliens we encounter"). In which case your argument would be invalid.....Mariel33: Are you saying that whoever was spacefaring would subjugate whoever they came across, irrespective of who those encountered were? No, it's my argument that no group should subjugate any other group period. Whoever we come across is identical to us, and then we would be showing disrespect to ourselves for subjugating those who are ourselves.Mariel33: In that case no. We shouldn't subjugate, because any who we come across are "In that case no. We shouldn't subjugate, because any who we come across are "In that case no. We shouldn't subjugate, because any who we come across are identical to ourselves.""Rodrigo Conde: First of all, whoever we come across won`t be identical to us. They will be from a different planet, from a different especies, with a different cultural set... that doesn't sound identical to me.Rodrigo Conde: Also, human race has a history of subjugating all the especies different to ourselves : animals, plants, etc. Knowing that it would be logical to think that this will happen again with aliens.Mariel33: Whoever we come across would be you, debating with me on this site. there's nothing more important than mutualism, or mutual acknowledgement, and subjugation is the very opposite of setting an example to follow. Rodrigo Conde: But that's what you get wrong: aliens won't be identical to us, they won't be us. It's a fallacy to say "Whoever we come across would be you". They would be an other thing, another form of existence. And if We have to use the force to guarantee our safety I'm cool with that. Like Alan Watts said "Biological existence is such thet you have to kill to live".Mariel33: How do you know, that aliens won't be identical to us? Can you explain what you mean by another form of existence? If we exist elsewhere, and the alien you is aware that you are them, but they're willing to acknowledge you as them, wouldn't that change your mind to subjugate them? The way I see it, subjugation is only because of intelligence, and the logical conclusion of intelligence isn't subjugation - therefore subjugation has no choice but to be consigned to history. Mariel33: I see where you're coming from, if by aliens you mean not life forms that could be termed as moral agents, but where does one draw the line - even if a life form can't speak, they could still think - would that by your standards warrant no subjugation?Rodrigo Conde: I don't argue against aliens being inteligents forms of life. Nor against their capacity of thinking. What I mean is that they aren't me. Humans are unique and central. I don't feel that aliens are better or worst than us, neither that we are superior, what I believe is that We have to protect our species and our own existence.Rodrigo Conde: As well us that, i don't think that the capacity of feeling and thinking doesn't make humans unable to control that being. If you really thought that controlling other beings with feelings, then you would have died a long time ago. If you eat, if you live in a house, basically if you do what humans do you are using and subjugating forms of life with certain degree of awareness.Rodrigo Conde: *controlling other being with feelings is badMariel33: Why do you regard homo sapiens as unique "and central"? If aliens are able to contemplate, and feel, why shouldn't that render them identical to either you or me? Of course, you're right to point out that living by very definition is to consume other life forms, but perhaps what you fail to realise is that by making the point to me, you're proving the point's invalidity. There is a reason why this issue is being debated, and not just assumed an answer for - if life forms genuinely knew that they were right to subjugate, they would know to never debate it. Mariel33: All life forms are life's meaning, and the meaning of life isn't subjugation - at least when and where it can be avoided. Rodrigo Conde: I don't agree with what you said about "There is a reason why this issue is being debated, and not just assumed an answer for - if life forms genuinely knew that they were right to subjugate, they would know to never debate it." Rodrigo Conde: People debates about thing they genuinely know. We can debate about existence an that doesn't mean we don't exist. It means that we have the ability to argue and question things, but at the end we end up with the same. The different is that if you don't debate you can't know, you just believe. If you question things you have arguments so you can say that you know.Rodrigo Conde: But reducing this a bit: Do you eat meat? Do you eat vegetable? Do you wear clothes? Do you use technology? If you answered yes to any of those you are contributing to the subjugation of life forms. Think about it...Mariel33: True, I do all those things, but why do we eat meat, or use technology - we eat to ensure our ability to upgrade ourselves, and those around us (which is also why we're debating). Every life form has to consume, but the reason why existence wants us to surpass the need to consume other life forms is because if we don't, we're left with an eternal contradiction. Mariel33: If subjugation is eternal, that means that no instance of life forms such as you or I debating the topic of subjugation is ever to consign the topic to history - now, or 100 years from now. I still stand by my previous argument, about the very existence of this debate effectively being its own ruling on the question of subjugation - as much as I may not be able to argue why, it's simply my own standard that compels me to argue such. Mariel33: I can tell any sentient life form they are life's meaning, therefore why should any sentient life form be subject to subjugation?Rodrigo Conde: I believe its the order of life. We are above some things and below others. Rodrigo Conde: And as you said we eat to ensure our ability to upgrade ourselves. In the same many we subjugate others in order to ensure our safety and evolution.Rodrigo Conde: *many=way hahahaMariel33: The idea of hierarchy is a falsehood. As confusing as it may be to say that retroactively, hierarchy would get cancelled, I nevertheless believe it to be the case. Mariel33: You admit that we eat to ensure our ability to improve, but to what end? In my mind, that end is to ceate unification (again, from the point of view of before the fact of history, another contradiction), but what is it in your mind?Mariel33: If we eat to ensure evolution, surely that evolution isn't to ensure the further ability to subjugate? Rodrigo Conde: Well there are lots of aims to our improvement. Knowing, understanding, creating novelty and complexity. I feel that unification isn't a bad end, but it is contradictory with our eating and killing.Rodrigo Conde: Nonetheless, unification has been already achieved as I see it. We are one, the universe is one, one single energy. We are different expressions of the same energy. Why killing others then? The same as when you cut your hair to grow it longer, or you brake the fibers of your muscles working out so they grow bigger and give you more strenghtMariel33: I'm afraid that you have a valid point there. The Universe may well be mere means of improvement. Mariel33: Like I said before however, I am someone who wishes to fight the battle against contradiction, and to do so to me means that anything can be referenced means the existence of contradiction - including subjugation.Mariel33: The Universe can't mean contradiction, because that means it is about opposition - and subjugation will always rightfully be opposed. Rodrigo Conde: But the universe can be contradiction. Actually many Greek and Eastern philosophers believed so. They thought that the Universe was made of contradictions, so that isn't son crazy...Mariel33: The Universe can be contradiction, but it can also not be. I know the truth about referencing, and its ability to reconcile reality. Contradiction doesn't exist, only to know so is to become transcendence.Mariel33: All life forms in the Universe are transcendence, therefore they are not subjugation.Rodrigo Conde: I missed the point of your last argument........Mariel33: All life forms are writer's block, therefore no life form is subjugation.Return To Top | Speak Round
condeelmaster (PRO)Human life must be guaranteed to have safety. In order to do so we have to eliminate all the posible threats to human evolution we encounter. That's why we have to be ready to eliminate a posible alien threat.
I understand the argument that they don't deserve so because their are living being like us. But what we have to remember is that they aren't us. And like we kill animals and plants to survive, we sure need to do the same with aliens. If anyone says "I don't subjugate anything", they are lying. People eat, wear clothes, use technology, have house and furniture, use insecticides, and for the sake of doing so they subjugate plants, animal and other living forms. Humans subjugate in order to survive, and in order to maintain the capacity of improvement. If humans hadn't subjugated others, the whole human kind would have met extinction long ago. Men and women would have died starving and without any sort of evolution.
Remember, we can't permit human extinction and human subjugation just for being cowards.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-22 02:43:33
| Speak RoundMariel33 (CON)If reality is that subjugation is necessary for survival, one has to reject that this being so is meant to continue being so and then to make the original principle into that which gets referenced - thus surpassing it.
Anything that which gets referenced is meant to have its existence cancelled, because reality wants itself to be reconciled. All life forms in the universe are all of the past sentences, and therefore reality wants anything which means the existence of those past sentences to not have to continue to elicit those sentences - thus meaning no life form which is to be subjugated.
Subjugation means referencing, and the source of referencing is meant to be cancelled - referencing means no resolution.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-22 05:25:00
| Speak RoundMariel33: Although it would be unrivalled in challenge, I wonder if it is possible: to cancel the Universe, by giving it to every life form in the Universe? Rodrigo Conde: a little of topic, but it won't because it would mean that we are the universe, every thing would be the universe, thus nothing wrong would happen.Rodrigo Conde: Also, I don't understand the argument of saying that subjugation is referencing(??)Return To Top | Speak Round
condeelmaster (PRO)I think you are falling in the non sequitur fallacy. Your argument is rather illogical and difficult to understand.
"If reality is that subjugation is necessary for survival, one has to reject that this being so is meant to continue being so and then to make the original principle into that which gets referenced - thus surpassing it."
This doesn't follow any logical pattern of reasoning.
I can't understand if your argument is some sort of semantic or semiological statement (because of the reference thing) or maybe another thing. Anyway, I don't see your point. Hope you can expand and explain a bit more next round.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-24 07:29:41
| Speak RoundMariel33 (CON)The purpose of the Universe isn't subjugation. Like many things, subjugation has been part of the history of existence because of condition - and just like many things also, subjugation is for erasure when the condition that provoked its existence has itself been erased.
Purpose is to not reference, but subjugation is symbiotic with referencing - therefore subjugation is anti-purpose.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-24 09:47:55
| Speak RoundRodrigo Conde: can you expand a bit on your argument? because you are using concept not defined with anteriority, like reference and so on...Mariel33: By anteriority, you mean that what I'm talking about hasn't before been utilised, or covered by people in general? Rodrigo Conde: no no, i mean hasn't been covered by youMariel33: I have explained my argument. Subjugation is wrong because it defies resolution. All life forms in the Universe are this debate, which is why subjugation is wrong.Rodrigo Conde: "All life forms in the Universe are this debate" ???? Mariel33: Yes. If all life forms weren't this debate, subjugation couldn't exist - so in light of this, all life forms being this debate deserves to supplant the existence of subjugation. And even if all life forms aren't this debate, giving this debate to all life forms would change reality for the better - ergo no subjugation. Rodrigo Conde: but what is your argument to say that All life forms in the Universe are this debate?? to me it seems none sense but maybe if you explain...Mariel33: I argue it on the basis that anything which exists is only because of everything else. Moreover, even if all life forms in the Universe aren't this debate, that doesn't change the fact that I can vocally tell any life form in the Universe that they are whatever either you or I say. The 1987 film Flowers in the Attic tells me that I'm right to argue such, even though empirically I can't prove that all life forms are this debate. Mariel33: In any case, I still espouse the argument that subjugation is anti-purpose, as in in defiance of resolution.Rodrigo Conde: If you can't empirically prove what you say then what you say is invalid. Besides that, anything that exist only exist because it exist (too much repetition maybe hahha), there's no other reason, just the fact that they exist. Also you can't define just by yourself what exist or what doesn't.Mariel33: The reverse can be argued: you can't empirically prove why subjugation should exist. Any argument you put forward I can argue with - that's why subjugation is wrong, because it can infinitely be argued with. Mariel33: Plus, consider that with all this talk of reference, and of resolution; don't you think that the person on the side of anti-subjugation being the one espousing all of this material at least deserves to be considered the person who is right? What if all life forms spoke about referencing, and resolution, and the purpose of the Universe? Rodrigo Conde: Firstly, subjugation can be empirically proved, actually if you read my argument you will see its empirical bases. Secondly, I think the one who deserves to win the debate is the one with better arguments. Lastly, I feel that the purpose of the Universe is way out of topic, if you want to discuss about that we could do so but in another argument....Rodrigo Conde: another debate, sorryMariel33: Again, all in reverse: subjugation can't be empirically proved, I can say that I'm the one with the better arguments, and thirdly the purpose of the Universe is not out of topic.. Mariel33: If subjugation is valid, that means all life forms in the Universe have to be subjugated - hence why subjugation is wrong. Subjugation couldn't exist without the Universe, which is why the purpose of the Universe is not out of topic. Mariel33: Like I asked before: I'm a life form, who has spoken of resolution and referencing and the purpose of the Universe - don't all life forms in the Universe therefore deserve to be allowed to do the same?Rodrigo Conde: 1) subjugation is empirically proved when you look at all humans' past experiences and see that subjugation is a form of surviving.Rodrigo Conde: 2) if subjugation is valid all things could be subjugated, but only the ones with the capacity(like us) will do so.Rodrigo Conde: 3) Is very arrogant of your part to say you have the better arguments just like thatRodrigo Conde: 4) Not all forms of life deserve the same. All life forms are different and thus they deserve different things. Rodrigo Conde: For example, a fish deserves to live underwater because that's its environment, but a dog don't deserve so because it would die being underwater.Mariel33: There is no arrogance in wanting to self-acknowledge one's intelligence. How do you know that not all life form's deserve the same (as in life forms at the homo sapien level)? Mariel33: Like I said, the side of anti-subjugation is right because it is the side of mutual acknowledgement. Your side isn't. Mariel33: If the alien in question can be expected to reflect people on Earth, or at least even just remotely reflect, no subjugation should be implemented. If by alien you refer to that which is utterly incapable of reflection, like a tiger or a mammal, then of course the argument doesn't apply - but then why the debate?Return To Top | Speak Round
condeelmaster (PRO)We should plan for a subjugation of an alien species we may encounter. There are plenty of arguments in favour of this: the safety of humankind and the nature of biological existence
Safety of humankind
We don't know if the aliens we may encounter are pacific, we don't even know if them exist. However if we start thinking about this when an alien civilization is attacking us, It would be too late. We must have plans so if an alien threat appears, we are ready to defend ourselves.
If we don't do that, we are vulnerable, we are making the possibility of being defeated by aliens more probable.
Nature of biological existence
I understand the sentimental argument of being pacific and not subjugating anyone because no one deserves so. However they are falling in a big contradiction. As I said earlier, We al subjugate others. We subjugate animals and plants, and insects, and etc. If anyone believes that subjugating is wrong, then he/she must be dead by now, because human survival depends on subjugation (explained better in previous rounds).
We subjugate lots of life forms and not because they are inferior. We subjugate them because we need it. It doesn't matter if the aliens are better or worst or equal than us, if their subjugation means human survival, logic mandates to be in favour.
The universe purpose
Firstly, Con didn't give any explanation about what the universe purpose is, how he knows it and why that means that subjugation is anti-purpose. Maybe even the universe hasn't got a purpose.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-26 10:30:50
| Speak RoundMariel33 (CON)The thought that it makes sense to plan for subjugation is any life form in the Universe - and I have to believe that any life form able to traverse the reaches of outer space will be sentient enough to realise that every thought they're able to possess can be imitated in every other life form that is equal to them.
Any life form able to traverse outer space is the above paragraph! Does anyone need to be prepared for who is the above line of rationale? No they're not.
Any life form who is equal to us is infinite awareness as well. Subjugation is not the same as defence, and any life form I were to encounter who had made plans to subjugate me would automatically cause me to question their own integrity as a life form.
Reason. Anti-reason. Safety. Emotional nuance. All these things are any in the Universe who can wonder and ask what exists elsewhere in the Universe. And while I realise that it can register as a fallacy, to make the argument that aliens don't need to be prepared for on the basis that what we are is what they are, fallacy in and of itself means intelligence.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-26 12:43:07
| Speak RoundMariel33: Irrespective of the arguments for and against subjugation, the issue of subjugation is now defunct because of this debate. The intelligence of the either the anti-subjugation side or the pro-subjugation side of the debate doesn't equate to the act of the existence of this debate. Mariel33: (When I said act, I meant fact). Any alien civilisation will know the truth of what I've just said, and therefore will be aware that other alien civilisations who have created debates such as this will be aware that they're aware of the true meaning of intelligence. Mariel33: Because of the prior two posts, any aliens to be encountered in the Universe don't need to be feared. condeelmaster: You are think of a very specific type of alien. The big possibility that they aren't like that at all exists and is quite probable, at least more probable than what you state.condeelmaster: so your argument is invalidMariel33: Then the context of the question is too vague. What is the exact context? And can you elaborate on specific type of alien?Mariel33: From the perspective that the alien in question is us, or like us, my arguments are all valid. If people from Earth need to find another planet, but that planet is only inhabitated by life forms such as mammals, there would be no subjugation anyway because we would have the resources and technology to protect ourselves. Mariel33: What do you mean exactly, by an alien?condeelmaster: According to the Cambridge dictionary an alien is "a ​creature from a different ​planet"condeelmaster: The context of the question is not vague but based in what we really know. And the only thing we know is that the possibility of intelligent life in other planet exist. We can't predict if they are like us(although it is statistically difficult) or not, or what their intelligence level is, or any other characteristic of theirsMariel33: Based on your answer, I don't feel that it would be right to roam outer space in the intent to subjugate other life forms; as I said in one of the original posts, to behave as such would be self-disrespectful.Mariel33: Purpose of the Universe or not, treating others the way one wants to be treated is simply too sane and obvious a principle of life. Mariel33: Thanks for the debate. condeelmaster: " treating others the way one wants to be treated is simply too sane and obvious" if you apply this to aliens then I must assume you apply this to animals and plants, so you want to be eaten, killed, used as clothes, etc.condeelmaster: thanks for showing your contradictions.Return To Top | Speak Round
Mariel33 (CON)I have no more arguments to make. My opponent isn't going to change his mind, therefore it is pointless to argue further.
I stand by all arguments I have already made.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-28 13:56:41
| Speak Roundcondeelmaster (PRO)First I have to teach Con something about debates. The point of the debate is convincing the judges, not your opponent. Even if you achieve to change my mind, I won't admit it because that would be conceding the debate. Ergo, It is not pointless to argue further.
I don't have any new arguments, neither I can rebut because Con didn't proposed any argument last round. Then, I will make a summary of all my arguments to conclude the debate.
- We must guarantee the safety of human kind ,thus any alien threat should be eliminated. Having a plan for this is logical.
- Subjugation is part of the biological existence. Men subjugates others everyday to survive, and so do the animals, plants, and others forms of life. Then, is understandable to subjugate aliens.
- We don't know how aliens will be. So all the arguments of Con about how aliens are equal to us are rather invalid.
Really pleased to have this debate. Good luck to my opponent.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-29 01:08:06
| Speak Round
Judge: lannan13
Judge: Ketuvim
Good luck. Both your and my arguments were strong.Posted 2016-01-29 10:14:43
hahaha ok lets wait for the judging then.... Posted 2016-01-29 09:00:44
You can choose to interpret my comments as arrogant, but I'm free to disagree. And I said "some of the best" - and I sincerely believe in what I said. Posted 2016-01-29 06:18:38
Arrogant: "characterized by a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement".
If you say your arguments were "the best arguments that could've been made" you fall under this definition.Posted 2016-01-29 05:15:59
Overall, the debate was a tough topic to argue over. I acknowledge both myself and my opponent's arguments. Posted 2016-01-29 04:51:27
I don't feel that my saying what I said was egocentric and arrogant (I'll never use those words against anyone). I said "thanks for the debate" - it would've been nice to have heard the same in return.Posted 2016-01-29 04:28:48
I can say that my arguments were good, but saying they were the best possible is rather egocentric and arrogant.Posted 2016-01-29 03:38:52
The arguments I made were great arguments - I don't see why I shouldn't acknowledge that to myself. Feel free to acknowledge your own arguments if you wish. Posted 2016-01-29 03:14:39
Come on! "the best anti-subjugation arguments that could've been made"!!!??? Be a little more humble. Posted 2016-01-29 01:16:54
Come on! "the best anti-subjugation arguments that could've been made"!!!??? Be a little more humble. Posted 2016-01-29 01:16:49
I'm pleased with the arguments that I made on this debate. I think they were some of the best anti-subjugation arguments that could've been made. Posted 2016-01-28 23:09:34