Instigator / Pro
Mall's avatar
0
Mall
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#3706

This Novice II individual is obsessed with the topic "Biological reincarnation is real".

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Novice_II
Tags
People
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Novice_II's avatar
1
Novice_II
1893
rating
99
debates
93.43%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

This individual that has the profile name "Novice II" is obsessed with the debate topic I created.

Like an endless vendetta with a score to settle. You can ask am I going to continue creating these topics which are for everyone. Will I continue to redo the same topic as the same individual continues to participate like there's nothing to top it better with the time spent?

I guess it's one way to measure the obsession.

Round 1
Mall's avatar
Mall
Pro
#1
This is all very interesting. I can speculate the reasons behind it whether it's for amusement or for blood lust so to speak trying to rack up numbers.

But in actuality this Novice II character is obsessed with the topic "Biological reincarnation is real". 

I just wanted to make sure so I searched in the Google engine and it describes obsession as a continuous preoccupying of the mind with something on an intrusive level to a troubling extent.

This individual fits all the characteristics. The individual continues to fill their attention or preoccupy their mental state continuing to participate uninvited at an intrusive level making it a problem or trouble for giving others the chance to get a crack at it.

I mean we had a debate once on this topic. The sense of constantly entering it again and again, there is none. 
It's like there's nothing else to do but to wait on this site all day to see when is that topic coming up again to keep grabbing it.

To prove my point just to see what would happen, while this debate is active, I posted the topic up again.

Low and behold who else but the obvious proved my point?

While this debate is active, the individual does what they do like instinct or something. They sign up to contest the topic again.

You already debated it once. I imagine the same individual signed on to this debate to try and explain what I was saying was invalid in that debate.

But not the topic here . The topic is you are something that fits a particular term just by doing what you're doing.

Very interesting behavior on this site.
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
Con
#2
x. Default to con
  • Pro bears the entire burden of proof for his assertion. Con does not require an argument

x.1 Framework
  • Pro defines obsession as "a continuous preoccupying of the mind with something on an intrusive level to a troubling extent." Con accepts this definition. 

z. Objections: who is "Novice II?" 
  • Who is Novice II? The most similar name I could find while looking through the site is my own username, Novice_II. While we have similar names, however, this does not give credence to this non-existent figure. Unicorns and Horses are similar, yet Horses exist and Unicorns do not. As "Novice II" does not exist, this, unfortunately, discards all of pro's arguments as someone who does not exist in reality cannot be obsessed with anything.

I shall, however, make some counters based on this hypothetical case to show that even if this vague imaginary person did exist, pro has not and could not possibly prove the resolution true. 

a. Epistemology

b. Psychology
  • Obsession is a psychological state. We can't trust any random debater to explain and improve our understanding of these psychological conditions, including myself, talk less of someone who loses 76% of his debates. This is why, unlike my opponent, I bother to cite credible sources. We need to consult psychological authorities for matters as such this. The APA for example (American Psychological Association) examines the particulars of obsession. 
n. a persistent thought, idea, image, or impulse that is experienced as intrusive or inappropriate and results in marked anxiety, distress, or discomfort. Obsessions are often described as ego-dystonic in that they are experienced as alien or inconsistent with one’s self and outside one’s control (though this is not necessarily the case in children). Common obsessions include repeated thoughts about contamination, a need to have things in a particular order or sequence, repeated doubts, aggressive or horrific impulses, and sexual imagery. Obsessions can be distinguished from excessive worries about everyday occurrences in that they are not concerned with real-life problems. The response to an obsession is often an effort to ignore or suppress the thought or impulse or to neutralize it by a compulsion. See obsessive-compulsive disorder. —obsessional adj. —obsessive adj.
  • None of the hallmarks of obsession are accounted for or demonstrated by the instigator who wants us to trust him. Pro speaking about mini-thought experiments he did with this imaginary user does not substantiate any form of obsession either. 

c. Propositional burdens
  • Lastly, the resolution states that "this Novice II individual is obsessed with the topic 'Biological reincarnation is real.'" Whoever this made-up person is, pro has to prove that they are currently obsessed with the topic, and his discussions of various thought experiments he played with himself are in reference to the past, not the present. Even if one was to play pro's game for fun none of what he states indicates anything about a current obsession with anything and thus, pro has not demonstrated his burden of proof. 

Conclusion
  • What do we have overarchingly? 
    • First, Novice II does not exist. You can search for the name and nothing will show for it. There is a person named Novice_II, however, just like a horse is not a unicorn, Novice_II is not Novice II and thus pro is arguing about a figment of his imagination. 
    • Pro can not epistemically prove the obsession of anyone without proving that their thoughts are both intrusive and troubling, and he cannot substantiate this, thus, he can not uphold his burden of proof. Nothing he describes even resembles the APA's signs and particulars of obsession. 
    • Lastly, pro only speaks bout things he did in the past with this imaginary person, which does not prove what the resolution demands, current obsession. Thus, pro's entire case can be discarded on these grounds. 

Round 2
Mall's avatar
Mall
Pro
#3
Wow, can't even be honest about what you do.

Getting into technicalities taking the light off what you're doing.

See these people have to always evade and derail the matter at hand because they can't refute it .

This individual knows very well that each time I set up this particular debate topic, they accept it.

You guys can see that. You're on this site . Look up the topic "Biological reincarnation is real". See the "profile name" which does exist , which does exist , see the name, Novice II attached.

I'm going to set it up again just to see what happens.

Will this individual be able to help their inclination?

I'll come out and say it. This individual is intellectually dishonest.

This is why in the scriptural debate, they added to scripture lying on the scripture. I can't think it was just plain error anymore.

They derailed this topic just as in the topic "Biological reincarnation is real". 

They had to change something in order to make it refutable.

People , do not resort to the straw man fallacy.





Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
Con
#4
x. Default to con
  • Pro has dropped all of con's arguments. 

z. Objections: "Novice II" does not exist. 
Wow, can't even be honest about what you do.
  • This debate is not about me. I am "Novice_II," not Noivce II. This debate is over this vague person that does not seem to exist on our website or in reality. 
You guys can see that. You're on this site . Look up the topic "Biological reincarnation is real". See the "profile name" which does exist , which does exist , see the name, Novice II attached.
  • Yes, do so. Unfortunately for pro looking this up reveals the name "Novice_II," not "Novice II." Therefore this only shows a further inability to read the English language. 
I'll come out and say it. This individual is intellectually dishonest.
  • It is unclear as to whether this is in reference to me or the imaginary Novice II, but we should assume the latter given that I am debating in perfectly good faith. 

a. Epistemology
  • Dropped. Extend. 

b. Psychology
  • Dropped. Extend. 

c. Propositional burdens
  • Dropped. Extend. 

    • Now, there is not much to respond to from pro. 
    • However, I think it is peculiar that pro has taken the length to argue on this Novice II character who does not even exist, and claim he is obsessed. Pro even claimed that he "can speculate the reasons," for this thought experiment behavior, but also that the "character is obsessed," as a certainty, contradicting himself in his first few sentences. Can he speculate, or is he sure? Who knows. Regardless, all counterpoints have been effectively dropped and pro has not even shown this person exists. 

Conclusion
  • Once again, all of my arguments were dropped by the instigator who continues to argue about this imaginary person "Novice II."