Instigator / Pro
8
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4668
Resolved: Diogenes is the wisest philosopher in history.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
2
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,500
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
7
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
When it comes to all the ancient philosophers, Diogenes is the wisest.
Definitions:
Wise- Having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgment.
Philosopher- A person engaged or learned in philosophy, especially as an academic discipline.
Rules:
1. Only constructive arguments in Round 1. No rebuttals. It isn't enough for Con to argue that Diogenes isn't the wisest philosopher. Con will choose their own philosopher (either currently alive or one from history) to contest mine.
Round 1 will be used to highlight qualities about why the chosen figure is the wisest.
2. Forfeits are the loss of a conduct point.
3. On-balance.
4. No Kritiks.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Summary
Diogenes was perhaps one of the most fascinating men in history to live. His eccentricity and unconventional worldviews attracted the attention of some of the most important men and rulers of the time. Plato himself is described as referring to Diogenes as the version of Plato that went insane.
His Astonishing Perceptiveness
- Diogenes’s awareness of people and their mentalities demonstrates his observation skills and makes him an excellent judge of character.
- His understanding of materialism and the wealthy, but having lived as a homeless man gives him the perspective to see life from both points of view.
- Knowledge of social customs and etiquette was profound, but succeeded only by his rudeness and distaste for meaningless rules.
Diogenes knew what drove the rich and materialistic class. He saw no need to live like them and having chosen to live as a homeless man, he developed a level of self-sufficiency that is not otherwise known to more privileged men who live a more civilized life.
Insight Into Human Emotion
- Diogenes knew that possessiveness and obsession were the root causes for human depression.
- Materialistic objects held no objective value in the eyes of Diogenes and it was pointless to assume they did.
Diogenes believed that personal fulfillment and satisfaction could only come through leading a minimalist life where people did not form emotional attachments to fancy-looking objects. This philosophy was based on the belief that, “The things that you own end up owning you.”
Skepticism of Cultural Values
Diogenes didn’t reject social beliefs just for the sake of being different. He didn’t oppose them just because they were thoughts held by the majority. Diogenes had his own set of values that he prioritized and would naturally question social customs & etiquette that didn’t make sense to him.
By always assuming an attitude of questioning everything, he demonstrated his independence. Whereas if he rejected these values because they were held by the majority, he would be considered sheep for the other herd.
Aversion to Authority
Many men in history have feared tyrants so much that they assume appeasing them was the natural human instinct. Diogenes possessed no such fear of authority, as he knew that their title was a social construct and a fabrication of the imagination, not the result of any objective divination or importance.
So his ability to stand up to powerful rulers like Alexander, The Great is likewise a demonstration of an attitude beyond his time. People could make the argument that this was foolish, but foolish implies he was unaware of the potential consequences.
Diogenes knew and understood the possible consequences, but didn’t care. This implies a level of boldness and audacity rarely experienced by other philosophers of similar magnitude of the time, or man in general for that matter.
Con
#2
I am going with René Descartes.
Pro has a lot of baseless assertions. I will list them so Pro can expand on (potentially) proving them in Round 2, I won't prove them wrong yet.
- Diogenes’s awareness of people and their mentalities demonstrates his observation skills and makes him an excellent judge of character.
This is not proven at all.
- His understanding of materialism and the wealthy, but having lived as a homeless man gives him the perspective to see life from both points of view.
This actually seems ironic, something a satirist would say to ridicule the hobo.
- Knowledge of social customs and etiquette was profound, but succeeded only by his rudeness and distaste for meaningless rules.
This implies lack of wisdom, prove otherwise.
- Diogenes knew that possessiveness and obsession were the root causes for human depression.
Prove this baseless assertion.
- Materialistic objects held no objective value in the eyes of Diogenes and it was pointless to assume they did.
Prove that material objects have no value, especially ones that we immediately need but also just materials in general we can trade and use.
personal fulfillment and satisfaction could only come through leading a minimalist life where people did not form emotional attachments to fancy-looking objects.
This is a lie. Material things do matter. To begin with food, medicine and shelter but prove otherwise please.
. Diogenes had his own set of values that he prioritized and would naturally question social customs & etiquette that didn’t make sense to him.
No, I assert he lacked values. Prove otherwise. The only value he had was laziness and not caring about possessions.
Diogenes possessed no such fear of authority, as he knew that their title was a social construct and a fabrication of the imagination, not the result of any objective divination or importance.
Neither do plenty of failures, hobos and people who have no worry about succeeding in life. That is not ad hominem, it's the reality. You're saying he was the wisest of all philosophers solely because he didn't give a damn about anyone or anything. This guy didn't just lack material attachment, he lacked any attachments at all, I don't even think he had a wife or reproduced, nor was he any good to his community. He was a leech who ended up unable to leech as people stopped funding his parasitic lifestyle.
So his ability to stand up to powerful rulers like Alexander, The Great is likewise a demonstration of an attitude beyond his time. People could make the argument that this was foolish, but foolish implies he was unaware of the potential consequences.
He didn't 'stand up' he was a nobody and died pretty irrelevant, people knew him and kept him 'famous' in the same way they knew the fat and/or skinny kid who always comes last in races in PE.
Diogenes knew and understood the possible consequences, but didn’t care. This implies a level of boldness and audacity...
It implies lack of wisdom. That's what it implies. Nothing more, nothing less.
====
BoP framework
Wisdom is defined, in the description as being linked to experience, knowledge and good judgement. Diogenes ended up homeless and a loser. This is not an insult to him, he literally wanted to be that and encouraged others to join him being that. He didn't have much knowledge or good judgement, 'experience' is a pretty irrelevant metric in this debate, surely the one who lived longer isn't automatically wiser.
Descartes had knowledge of science and mathematics, both to professional levels. He had this knowledge on top of his philosophical knowledge and boundary-pushing ideas. His life was a series of good decision-making, he was basically the nerd by nature who ended up living the life most people advise people to live.
He had good grades, good social skills, not that bad looking at all (as in grooming not just natural looks) based on paintings, had a child named Francine, not clear if he got married but he certainly reproduced and was the known father (had a girlfriend, not just a fling).
He was basically lacking in pretty much 0 department even superficially. He lived as an example to follow, not just some hobo pretending to know how to live life.
His philosophy is so complex it's difficult to even write out here as it requires a novel or more to really explore in full.
His major four works were:
The fact he had a child out of wedlock is even explored in the first part. He didn't see the need for marriage, nor did his girlfriend but he understood it was taboo and tried to 'hide' it. He explores this and many other things.
He is the official founder of the solipsist axiom 'I think, therefore I am'.
In fact I may as well just paste this:
- 1. Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences (1637): This 1637 text introduces Descartes' most famous quote, "Je pense, donc je suis" ("I think, therefore I am"). It also provides a basis for methodological skepticism, a technique Descartes would return to in later writings. He begins with skeptical statements about various concepts that most consider to be dogmatic truisms. He then uses logic and rational arguments to establish that, indeed, these concepts and principles are true.
- 2. Meditationes de Prima Philosophia (Meditations on First Philosophy) (1641): This relatively short publication introduced the core of Descartes' philosophy and returns to Descartes' methodological skepticism (sometimes called “Cartesian doubt”). Using both ontological arguments and trademark arguments, Descartes offers a series of proofs to assert the existence of God, humanity, and the self. The text also endures for its introduction of mind-body dualism, also called Cartesian dualism, and what became known as the mind-body problem, which future philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and David Hume debated.
- 3. Principles of Philosophy (1644): This text features the Latin quotation, "Cogito ergo sum," a translation of the French quote, "Je pense, donc je suis," and the English, "I think therefore I am." It expands on the notions of epistemology found in Descartes' Meditations, but its reputation was partially sullied by a number of statements about physics that were later disproved.
- 4. Les Passions de l'âme (The Passions of the Soul) (1649): This work marked Descartes' final philosophical treatise. The text explores the relationship between science and moral philosophy. It also revisits the mind-body dualism (Cartesian dualism) introduced in prior works and presents the concept of "animal spirits," which Descartes believed to control physiological behavior within human beings. He declared that passions attack the soul and compel the body to behave with impropriety. The text submits that understanding passions, and controlling them, is integral to a moral life.
He is so fundamental to philosophy in modern times that not only is the phrase Cartesinism given to a branch (with subbranches) that he founded but his name Descartes led to an adjective Cartesian to refer to his brand of ideas such as dualism and solipsism (and the Cartesian is usually the 'original' among the theories, others being evolved from it).
Round 2
Pro
#3
Wise- Having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgment.
Wisdom
Diogenes is the wisest philosopher, in-spite of his shortcomings.
He is considered the Nietzsche of his era. Pro asserts that Diogenes was a parasite who leeched off of society, but this is false because this goes against Diogenes’s beliefs. He prioritized self-sufficiency beyond everything else.
Charles Darwin is quoted saying this about survival,
- “It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.” 1
Neither strength or intelligence are a creature’s best assets, according to science. It is adaptability.
- “Apparently Diogenes discovered that he had no need for conventional shelter or any other “dainties” from having watched a mouse. The lesson the mouse teaches is that he is capable of adapting himself to any circumstance. This adaptability is the origin of Diogenes’ legendary askēsis, or training.” 2
Diogenes prioritized adaptability above anything else, making his mind truly beyond that of its time. But his unorthodox lifestyle didn’t always mean becoming a primitive survivalist, just that depending on less and living for personal self-fulfillment is better than an ambition for power or a desire for wealth.
There was a method to his madness. Diogenes was one of the early pioneers of a practice called Asceticism.
- “Asceticism, (from Greek askeō: “to exercise,” or “to train”), the practice of the denial of physical or psychological desires in order to attain a spiritual ideal or goal. Hardly any religion has been without at least traces or some features of asceticism.”
Diogenes’s philosophy would later be borrowed into one of the world’s famous religions, Buddhism. The idea that happiness comes from within and by not forming attachments.
Since wisdom deals with experience, good judgment, and knowledge. Let’s talk in depth about the magnitude of Diogenes’s superior gift with persuasion and his profound multi-cultural knowledge that gives him a better understanding of people.:
- “Such auctions typically began by asking where the slave was from to which Diogenes gave his standard reply, that he was from “everywhere”, being a citizen of the world, the original meaning of “cosmopolitan”.”
Cosmopolitan refers to people who have wide international sophistication.
His persuasion shows a deeper level of understanding of reason and people. Having been kidnapped by pirates and starved along with a few other captives to be sold into slavery, he manages to convince his captors to give them more food as it is easier to sell farm animals who have been properly nourished. 4
Relevance & Accomplishments
Descartes was born into wealth and raised into a privileged life, having been groomed to be successful, but Diogenes lived as a nobody and immortalized his beliefs & works with nothing to work with.
Although Descartes is academically inclined. He doesn’t possess the spiritual discipline and savviness of Diogenes and Descartes’s accomplishments are entirely superficial. The relevance of a certain philosopher is by their level of fame and fanbase.
Many scholars probably recognize Descartes by name, but few know what his actual beliefs are or what he stood for. The hallmark of wisdom is when the glory of an idea surpasses the obscure man’s popularity.
Diogenes’s ideas and values are utilized more in religion and literature. He is The Founder of the Cynicism ideology and is worshiped by Stoics alike. 5
Con pushes back on the Wisdom definition, but does not provide an alternative.:
“'experience' is a pretty irrelevant metric in this debate, surely the one who lived longer isn't automatically wiser.”
That’s not what experience means. Just because a man is older than another man doesn’t mean he has more experience. The sum of a man’s character is by what trials he has faced and what lessons he takes away from them.
John Locke, another philosopher who is opposed to Descartes ideologically also acknowledges that human knowledge is established through experience. 6
Con
#4
I have no idea what Pro is even trying at this point. Darwin is not Diogenes, being born privileged doesn't reduce wisdom.
I will now just take note that Pro's entire debate rests on the idea that fighting materialism is inherently the height of wisdom. What Diogenes ultimately taught was to be a loser and I don't just mean being poor. Diogenes basically taught total detachment from all duty and everything like that.
Descartes revolutionised Solipsism and explored many avenues of thought using mathematics even and physics to justify ideas. He was a wise man in how he led his life, nearly universally respected even by those who disagreed with him.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Yes, being born privileged doesn’t mean wisdom. But Con has yet to establish how or why being born privileged makes Descartes wise.
My comparison rests on the fact that Descartes’s intellectual & academic abilities/achievements are distinct from Wisdom. I noted that the following characteristics are what makes Diogenes wiser than Descartes which are now officially dropped arguments by Con. Please note the “on-balance” part of the resolution.:
- Sophistication. His variety of worldly experiences and interacting with people of all kinds gives him perspective into people of all cultures.
- Perspicacity. Awareness of a situation and of all social customs or the values of civilization.
- Persuasion. Being able to make fanboys out of powerful rulers like Alexander The Great, as well as being able to confidently bargain for more food from his kidnappers demonstrates a silver-sharp tongued charisma that most people do not possess.
- Social perception. Diogenes demonstrates a level of social perception that Descartes does not have. Diogenes understands the materialism and greed of the wealthy class, so this means he knows how people of richer status are. Having lived as a bum intentionally, he has experienced life from the perspective of a homeless man so he knows how they think, act, and struggle.
- Self-sufficiency. People do not consider what Diogenes had to put up with. The audacity to willingly self-inflict a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and become a survivalist demonstrates a level of independence and the skills to make a living for oneself without the need of manmade resources.
All these qualities prove that Diogenes has experience, knowledge, and good judgment. The three qualities that define wisdom.
Wise- Having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgment.
Now whether he shows it or not all the time is another matter, but I have clearly proven that he HAS all these qualities.
“What Diogenes ultimately taught was to be a loser and I don't just mean being poor. Diogenes basically taught total detachment from all duty and everything like that.”
Diogenes never encouraged people to live like him. Only to find internal self-fulfillment by living for one’s self. The fact that he decided to become a loser was through choice which doesn’t mean he wasn’t the wisest.
Aristotle himself respected Diogenes and referred to him as the mad Socrates and is quoted as saying the following,
Con
#6
What exactly is knowledge? What exactly is good judgement?
Pro seems to be making some wishy-washy case that every single wiser thing about Descartes somehow lacks to meet the definition, yet not ones has Pro clarified what the definition really means.
Wise- Having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgment.
Knowledge
Descartes is a professional, extremely regarded philosopher and mathematician, he also had pro-level knowledge of physics as he progressed. Diogenes, had no such expertise, his level of 'experience' and 'knowledge' seem to be almost comedic to even qualify as a candidate for this debate, when contrasted to the likes of Descartes.
Diogenes wasn't even Socrates, who was known for knowing that he himself was ignorant as a sort of roundabout 'wisdom' of sorts.
understanding of or information about a subject that you get by experience or study, either known by one person or by people generally:skill in, understanding of, or information about something, which a person gets by experience or study:
What exactly is Pro trying to say that Diogenes has over Descartes in either department here? I am not understanding it when reading Pro's case.
I am genuinely at a loss what I even need to rebuke.
Pro seems to be trying to say that Diogenes was bolder and that he detached more from material things, yet how is this wisdom?
Descartes is actually beyond the typical level of 'wisdom' of most philosophers because he wasn't just some bearded guy who had barely any social skills. He was a very proficient nerd who also got laid and had a child out of wedlock, he then took responsibility and raised the child that he could really have denied was his if he'd wanted to. He basically ticked every box you could tick in how to 'do well' in life. He even has genuinely significant and relevant sub-branches of philosophy dedicated to him as well as an overarching branch that combines them all, called Cartesianism.
Diogenes was not more knowledgable nor skilled in judgment in any verifiable way. Pro has only made the case that Diogenes had less dependence on money but this is not how you define or qualify wisdom. Descartes being wealthier does not in any shape or form make him less wise.
This is also why Pro has to defend Diogenes by admitting what a completely terrible role model he was:
Diogenes never encouraged people to live like him. Only to find internal self-fulfillment by living for one’s self. The fact that he decided to become a loser was through choice which doesn’t mean he wasn’t the wisest.
The philosopher that had most experience, knowledge and good judgement was afraid to encourage others to live a life like he led?
Do I get to say that Descartes didn't tell others to live how he lived? That's also technically true. That has nothing to do with wisdom but needing to bring it up to cover up for the fact that Diogenes was a pretty unworthy role model shows that 'good judgement' at the very least, was not displayable in his lifetime.
Round 4
Pro
#7
It seems Con is confusing being the wisest with being a good role model. Voters must recall that I am appealing to Diogenes being the wiser philosopher of the two, not comparing who the better role model is.
While I have given multiple justifications for Diogenes being the wiser philosopher, Con has disregarded all of them, instead only repeating that he is a homeless bum, as evidence for him being less wise.
So I’ll extend the following arguments dropped by Con.:
- Experience- Diogenes has lived as a homeless man, associated with the rich. He has been around the world and became a part of every culture. So he has met rulers and commoners alike. He was also taught by Anisthenes, one of the great disciples of Socrates.
- Knowledge- Diogenes knows nearly almost all the languages in the world. He is well-educated on cynicism and asceticism. He understands people and humanity on a spiritual level, an understanding and knowledge not possessed by others. Diogenes is also well-versed in nearly all social customs and etiquette, having studied them all.
- Judgment- He is very street-savvy and knows how to obtain an adequate amount of food & water without money or shelter. This demonstrates a level of self-sufficiency not accessible to people of his or Descartes time. Diogenes also understands people and humanity on a spiritual level, so he is a master of psychology and the key to happiness. His level of persuasion also demonstrates peak judgment, since he is able to manipulate a situation where he is the victim to his favor. (Manipulating the pirates and commanding the respect of famous rulers like Alexander The Great.)
Rebuttals
“The philosopher that had most experience, knowledge and good judgement was afraid to encourage others to live a life like he led?Do I get to say that Descartes didn't tell others to live how he lived? That's also technically true. That has nothing to do with wisdom but needing to bring it up to cover up for the fact that Diogenes was a pretty unworthy role model shows that 'good judgement' at the very least, was not displayable in his lifetime.”
Diogenes promoted the idea of living for one’s self. He wasn’t afraid of teaching people to live his life, he just felt no need to. He was a role model to important people like Plato and Alexander The Great, despite not aspiring to be a role model.
He perfected asceticism, he founded cynicism, and he is put on a pedestal by those who follow and practice stoicism.
“What exactly is Pro trying to say that Diogenes has over Descartes in either department here? I am not understanding it when reading Pro's case.I am genuinely at a loss what I even need to rebuke.Pro seems to be trying to say that Diogenes was bolder and that he detached more from material things, yet how is this wisdom?Descartes is actually beyond the typical level of 'wisdom' of most philosophers because he wasn't just some bearded guy who had barely any social skills. He was a very proficient nerd who also got laid and had a child out of wedlock, he then took responsibility and raised the child that he could really have denied was his if he'd wanted to. He basically ticked every box you could tick in how to 'do well' in life. He even has genuinely significant and relevant sub-branches of philosophy dedicated to him as well as an overarching branch that combines them all, called Cartesianism.Diogenes was not more knowledgable nor skilled in judgment in any verifiable way. Pro has only made the case that Diogenes had less dependence on money but this is not how you define or qualify wisdom. Descartes being wealthier does not in any shape or form make him less wise.”
It’s pretty obvious Con didn’t even read my argument from the previous round. Because I never claimed being wealthier makes Descartes less wise, I stated Con needs to demonstrate how he’s more wise. This is my quote here.:
“Yes, being born privileged doesn’t mean wisdom. But Con has yet to establish how or why being born privileged makes Descartes wise.”
Since Con makes no attempt to retort my arguments, I’ll just extend for now.
Now Rene Descartes tries to argue that most knowledge is already present, but John Locke and Descartes argue that the sum of knowledge is through human experience and learning. 1
Con
#8
- Experience- Diogenes has lived as a homeless man, associated with the rich.
Is this 'experience' supposed to remotely suggest wisdom? Descartes experienced being a father, having sex, being an expert at many things and releasing books that even when challenged or proven wrong
- He has been around the world and became a part of every culture.
This is bullshit lol... The guy only travelled Greece. What on Earth is this about?
- So he has met rulers and commoners alike.
This is bullshit. Meeting many people isn't even wisdom, 'experience' doesn't mean meeting many people, it means:
There is nothing about just going to many places and being homeless that imply wisdom, like what is this about how is this a 'dropped argument'?
- He was also taught by Anisthenes, one of the great disciples of Socrates.
So, he was a student, not a wise man or teacher. He perhaps learned from a wise person, is that your argument? What is your argument? Is your argument that he lived by what he was taught? There is nothing here to explain how this links to experience.
- Knowledge- Diogenes knows nearly almost all the languages in the world.
He was around before some cultures and languages even existed.
You are pulling this out of nowhere, where did you get this idea? You are literally making it up and gaslighting me or the audience to think I dropped it. Why should I reply to an unproven lie?
- He is well-educated on cynicism and asceticism.
Okay? Where is your evidence of this? Do we take your word on it? How did he display this knowledge?
- He understands people and humanity on a spiritual level, an understanding and knowledge not possessed by others.
This has not been remotely proven in your entire case. Are you also claiming 'others' is everyone else? Noone else understands people and humanity on a spiritual level? Like what are you even saying? To me you are just writing nonsense and lies.
Diogenes is also well-versed in nearly all social customs and etiquette, having studied them all.
He knew some Greek ones and decided to be a rebel hobo that stood against them instead, which you celebrated him for. Stop lying constantly, please.
Judgment- He is very street-savvy and knows how to obtain an adequate amount of food & water without money or shelter.
Okay? Is this meant to be 'good judgement' or coping with the consequences of terrible judgement? I don't even know if they had money when this guy was around for him to lack it. You are just telling us this.
This demonstrates a level of self-sufficiency not accessible to people of his or Descartes time.
You get people able to live on others' wealth and cope all the time. You even criticised Descartes for being born into wealth and capable of thriving/surviving without needing to earn much himself, make your mind up. Is that wise or not?
Diogenes also understands people and humanity on a spiritual level,
This is something you keep saying with absolutely zero proof or clarification what this 'level' even is or means.
so he is a master of psychology and the key to happiness.
He has 0 education in psychology and you have not proven he was happy or that being happy is the proof of good judgement or wisdom.
His level of persuasion also demonstrates peak judgment, since he is able to manipulate a situation where he is the victim to his favor. (Manipulating the pirates and commanding the respect of famous rulers like Alexander The Great.)
What are you even talking about? Having some minimal social skills is not proof of being so high in good judgement or the wisest philosopher in history at all. It is you who has dropped my case by the way.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Con has dropped my entire case and has therefore conceded all my arguments.
I wanted to assume they were arguing in Good Faith, but it seems they have not shown me that same courtesy.:
“This has not been remotely proven in your entire case. Are you also claiming 'others' is everyone else? Noone else understands people and humanity on a spiritual level? Like what are you even saying? To me you are just writing nonsense and lies.”“He knew some Greek ones and decided to be a rebel hobo that stood against them instead, which you celebrated him for. Stop lying constantly, please.”
This final round, I will extend all my arguments and perhaps take the time to clarify. Let’s begin.:
Rebuttals
“Is this 'experience' supposed to remotely suggest wisdom? Descartes experienced being a father, having sex, being an expert at many things and releasing books that even when challenged or proven wrong”
Con doesn’t go into depth about Descartes’s experience whereas I have shown Diogenes to have developed a strong character through willfully living a hard life and gaining cultural awareness by interacting with people.
“This is bullshit lol... The guy only travelled Greece. What on Earth is this about?”
Diogenes was born in Turkey, moved to Greece, and traveled most of the ancient world.
When he was asked from where he came, he replied, "I am a citizen of the world.” 1
“So, he was a student, not a wise man or teacher. He perhaps learned from a wise person, is that your argument? What is your argument? Is your argument that he lived by what he was taught? There is nothing here to explain how this links to experience.”
…Con, please….
Diogenes began as a student in his youth, studying under Anisthenes. The wisdom imparted onto him from his former mentor would later make him evolve into becoming the wisest man.
“He was around before some cultures and languages even existed.You are pulling this out of nowhere, where did you get this idea? You are literally making it up and gaslighting me or the audience to think I dropped it. Why should I reply to an unproven lie?”
Diogenes was well-versed in most of the languages that existed at that time.
He was a cosmopolitan.
“Diogenes is credited with the first known use of the word "1".”
- 1. : having wide international sophistication. 2
“Okay? Where is your evidence of this? Do we take your word on it? How did he display this knowledge?”
Extending my argument and source from earlier.:
“Diogenes’s ideas and values are utilized more in religion and literature. He is The Founder of the Cynicism ideology and is worshiped by Stoics alike.” 5
“He has 0 education in psychology and you have not proven he was happy or that being happy is the proof of good judgement or wisdom.”
Zero formal education, but a well-developed understanding of psychology nonetheless.
Extend.
Conclusion
I am not convinced Con has done research on this subject, as their responses attempt to undermine the reliability of my research and sources, despite being historically verified. He has not pushed back on any of my points nor have they put any effort to building their own, if only to deny my arguments without reason and accuse me of dishonesty. So I’m unsure exactly how Con plans to win the debate.
Vote Pro!
Sources
- https://iep.utm.edu/diogenes-of-sinope/#H2
- https://laidlawscholars.network/posts/the-one-most-adaptable-to-change-is-the-one-that-survives
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmopolitan
- https://donaldrobertson.name/2013/03/28/the-sale-of-diogenes-the-cynic-by-pirates/
- https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-opposing-arguments-of-rene-descartes-and-john-locke-on-the-origin-of-innate-ideas/
- https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/912728-the-man-who-is-isolated-who-is-unable-to-share
Con
#10
What is my opponent even doing?
How did a 'homeless man who said material things do'nt matter' have the money and resources to travel the world? What a nonsense lie.
Almost certainly forced into exile from Sinope with his father, he had probably already adopted his life of asceticism (Greek askesis, “training”) when he reached Athens. Referred to by Aristotle as a familiar figure there, Diogenes began practicing extreme anti-conventionalism. He made it his mission to “deface the currency,” perhaps meaning “to put false coin out of circulation.” That is, he sought to expose the falsity of most conventional standards and beliefs and to call men back to a simple, natural life.
Pro is quite literally lying and gaslighting you, not just me. Diogenes was exiled and ended up in Athens. He was not some epic rebel, he was not some worldwide traveller. Pro is just lying to you all debate long.
I have nothing left to address.
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:
I wasn't going to vote on this originally. But after the mistreatment, I can't let this slide. Originally, I considered giving the win to Con.
But all things considered,
So RationalMadman vote-bombed my friend and got him banned, then threatened to vote-bomb Devon?
If all of this is true, then what expectation can Rational have to his own immunity from being vote-bombed?
The answer is none.
Wow, I can't believe the gall of people here.
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:
Right off the bat I find pro's case stupid due to the stupidity of Diogenes's philosophy of minimalism. Wealth is a tool and a weapon that can protect and provide for you in life and it is literally just stupid to deliberately choose to be poor. I also find the opinion that having things/obsession is the root cause of depression stupid. Depression can be caused by many things including a mere chemical imbalance.
My initial impression is that Diogenes was an opinionated but very unwise bum.
Pro argues that being an idiot who picks fights with powerful people who can fuck you makes him wise which is absurd but what is even more absurd is making this claim while also overlooking the fact that he probably didn't stand up to them in any meaningful way or he would have been fucked.
I'm also giving sources to Con right off the bat because Pro simply makes unbacked assertions throughout round 1.
Pro attempts to salvage Diogenes from loserdom by claiming he was adaptable but I'm not seeing it. He adapted by being less comfortable and powerful than he could have been if he was truly wise and sought to accumulate fat stacks of paper. Truly wise mother fuckers only care about making money, staying safe and eating well.
I am disgusted by pro's round 2. He goes on to claim that being popular and having "spiritual discipline" makes someone wise. He's blowing a bunch of hot air.
In round 3 he asserts a bunch of things that EVEN IF make Diogenes "wise" to an extent, fall short of making him the wisest mother fucker to ever practice philosophy.
Pro forfeits any hope of winning the debate (if he didn't already) in round 4 by admitting that in his view of wisdom, you can live like a retard and still be wise. The absolute central sign of wisdom is how you live your life and by discounting this he seems like he's just blowing hot air up Diogenes's ass hole. He asserts that he understands humanity on a "spiritual level" but all I see is a hobo with opinions about human nature that didn't win him anything in life but a reputation. The only valid argument is his street-smarts but was he really the most street-wise philosopher and does that alone make him the wisest? No, it doesn't and no he probably wasn't because the man was an idiot for being smarter than average compared to a real genius philosopher.
I am also giving conduct to Con for Pro making up the language thing.
Regarding voting on each others debates:
That I believe you should not, is not some dogmatic commandment from above.
Any vote against each other is likely to reignite drama, so voting on each others debates is needlessly walking on thin ice.
From a moderation perspective, a known grudge makes any reported votes fall under greater scrutiny.
I do not consider you my friend.
You think you are clever or funny with this emotional manipulation but you pivoted from
'RM didnt get me banned, my actions did, blablabla'
To
'I have nothing to be sorry for, I did nothing to have regrets.'
In how few posts and time? 😂
They can indeed both be true at once. Your act is transparent, try a bit harder.
These are some pretty harsh comments to make to somebody you consider your friend.
No wonder you were so confident to go against me with bars that trashy btw, I now get why in the first place you were so lazy throughout it. The votebombs were planned all along.
It's not smooth, it's see-through fakeness. It's cringe to read.
If you were serious about a truce, you'd apologise and have remorse. You are not that good at faking a conscience, you learned to fake the other things but faking the being sorry part didn't come with the package.
You are not my friend and you will never be my friend. You are a person who terrorised me here and is gaslighting me even now about it.
This truce is my first step towards the light.
I appreciate you hearing me out and accepting the alliance, my friend.
You call me an incel autistic loser who is an evil disgusting piece of shit with zero EQ but don't yourself have the first iota of an idea of EQ or taking responsibility for what you did.
I'm not even going to pretend that I hope you see the light and improve yourself, I doubt you ever will.
It's not my fault, so I don't feel bad for you and I don't feel guilty.
But if I agree to give you free Elo, does this mean you will hold up your end of the bargain and agree to a truce?
I genuinely feel towards you what you said in the Slainte goodbye thread btw, the irony was and still is immense.
If you really felt bad for what you did to me, you'd do it regardless. It tells a lot about you that it is 'conditional' on some arbitrary nonsense.
You only want to bait me so your spamvoters can take my rating again. I am not an idiot and you are not a good person.
So just to be clear, you will accept my truce, assuming I do all of that.
You owe me so much rating, pay up. You won't. That's how I know your truce is fake.
Lancelot it's cringe and hilarious to me that you think people fall for your act, not because none do but because you thought I will.
You offer a 'truce' in another thread after making this happen.
If you really want a truce make 4 debates, all rated and aimed at me, with resolutions you can't win and then forfeit like a good boy.
Goodbye. I'm done with this place.
Enjoy
An example that qualifies for Hall of Shame would be your competence as a moderator.
You've been goaded to act based on minimal evidence against my friend here, but have allowed one of the biggest vote-bombers get away with so much shit UNDER YOUR WATCH.
I don't visit this site enough to care what happens to me, but I've seen enough.
Maybe you just have a chronic inability to mod properly. One deliberately bad vote where I make clear I don't care what happens to me seems insignificant to your uselessness as a staff member on this dead platform. Irony is the same vote-bomber you're protecting even pointed it out.
I'd be embarrassed if I were you too.
Barney made a valid point. This shit has gone too far.
What Boba_Tea said is only partially true. Rational has targeted me to grudge-vote and vote-bomb me, but he isn't the reason I got banned. My own actions from personal attacks to name-calling are why it happened.
I'm unsure if the perpetrator(s) are creating all this chaos on my behalf, but I'd like to say I don't need anyone speaking for me or fighting my battles.
The terms proposed by Barney about me and RM not voting on each other's debates are reasonable, but I think the exception should include unless one of us gives permission. RM is a competent voter, when he tries to be. Permission can be given in three ways.:
1. Me or RM directly ask for a vote in the comments section, thus giving permission.
2. We agree openly that it's okay for one of us to vote on the debate, or he or I are chosen to be a judge on the other's debate.
3. Permission is given in DM's.
Violation of this agreement should result in the temporary suspension or termination of mine or RM's voting privileges rather than a ban. Rational may protest to these terms, but no matter how unpleasant they may seem, he has to agree because the alternatives are worse.
Is there any way to restore the lost rating? RM lost a lot because of those votebomb accounts. I am pretty sure site owner can restore it.
I have every righ tto vote on all of Lancelot's debates. If you ban me for it, that is insane.
You never once told me that. Had I not opened this one debate comment I'd have not known that idiotic rule. I don't agree to it. I don't abide by it.
Guess it's a war of attrition, the problem is eventually a small island on the Internet aint worth sailing to anymore.
I hope you enjoy watching the erosion of regular members here debating. There's a reason that over time the top 15 have barely any actually debating.
I have lost enough rating here. I will shut my mouth, let this place rot and you and whiteflame can enjoy the fact you let a vote-corrupting verbal abuser who is literally re-igniting his violations upon his return, get away with it.
He is on your friends lists. When you banned me you said some total BS like you let me get away with shit. You don't. If I did this I'd be permabanned. You are hypocrites with double standards and total and utter negligence here. I am done debating here after my Islamic debate is over.
I warned you, you can think this quitting is fake, it isn't. It's his 'win'. He drove me away from here. Except I know for a fact I am leaving a sinking ship and he's just a thug pirate on it amongst you pirates.
Lancealot got himself banned. Hopefully he did not intend for it to turn out like that but that’s the way it played out, which was a risk he knew or should have known.
RM is not whispering in the ear of the mods for us to do his secret bidding. Of all the people who have trolled RM, I am the most guilty; so please dismiss the notion of him controlling us.
As for the accusation of RM casting a votebomb… A vote you disagree with is not automatically a vote bomb. Vote bombs are classically 7-point BS void of analysis of the debate (e.g., your vote here). Further, even the Old Testament would not condone this behavior even if you were right; one eye for one eye, not two or three (or whatever this campaign against him is up to) for one.
I have seen the vote from RM which /might/ have been retaliatory (still not a votebomb). Had these problems not massively overshadowed it, we in the mod team would have reviewed it in detail. As is, now it just goes without saying that RM and Lancealot should not vote on each others debates for the foreseeable future.
And however bad it may have been, the place to have issues with it would be the comment section of the debate in question… Much like what I’m doing here, I’m keeping it /here/ where you cast a bad vote; instead of following you to some future debate to talk smack about your voting habits on this one (not that you’ll be able to vote again any time soon).
I agree the situation is severe. However, Whiteflame is already already treating it as such.
In mod chat when he mentioned banning someone for a minimum of two weeks for a shitty vote, I wondered how shitty it would have to be… I just read said vote, and OMG that is weekly stupid level shitty, like hall of shame worthy, the type of case that causes special explanations in the rules for what not to do.
When Lancealot had accounts acting in a manner to imply they were possibly colluding, they were quickly ordered not to vote on his debates; when they acted as slave accounts to votebomb in spite of that they and he were banned.
Lancealot is punished for things he seemed to have willfully committed. A rogue agent connected to him is suspect but we aim to give people the benefit of the doubt; plus he’ll already be punished via embarrassment of his friends behavior.
If either of you take your position genuinely serious, please can you talk Whiteflame into taking this situation as severe? This is not funny, this is a fundamental line in the sand you need to be drawing, I can't even believe that still at this stage there is discussion of not clamping down harshly on the 'godfather' of the organised rule-breaking group at work.
This is as asinine as giving a hitman a life sentence with no further investigation or sentencing when it's crystal clear who ordered it and there's a whole pattern of abuse by that individual.
This isn't about me defeating this foolhardy thorn in my side, this is about justice and setting a deterrant example.
If you stand by and don't completely clamp down on this, you will realise exactly what many cultures did when at first they punished only individuals for organised crime. I am not speaking in hyperbole here to you I am telling you with the same fervor and assurance as I told you things on Discord which all proved to come true about Lancelot and how he'd escalate it.
I am telling you all this publicly because there is no point chatting behind anyone's back anymore other than if it's 'insulting' or sensitive information. You need to ban this guy, permanently. That is the one secure way to make it so that then no matter how long he abuses me with alts etc, his raw motive for being here (his account and the fun he can do with a persona) is mitigated. It also serves as a deterrant.
You should and already are discussing ways to mechanically make this unfeasible but that won't help the original issue. I don't know which mod you admire or aspire to be like, perhaps none but I guarantee you this. Nobody, not David, Bsh1, MisterChris, Airmax or Barney (unless he is somehow advocating it) would stand by this and just let it slide on an individual basis.
This is you and your overly literal interpretation of rule enforcement. Right now I wish Wylted was here because there is no way at all he would be okay with this.
So you think I am conspiring against him and sabotaged myself to frame him? Who are you trying to fool here? What did I warn you over a month ago now on Discord?
You can believe what you want.
"I wasn't going to vote on this originally. But after the mistreatment, I can't let this slide. Originally, I considered giving the win to Con.
But all things considered,
So RationalMadman vote-bombed my friend and got him banned, then threatened to vote-bomb Devon?
If all of this is true, then what expectation can Rational have to his own immunity from being vote-bombed?"
Let me tell you what is happening, this is either one individual doing kamikaze shit on behalf of Lancelot across all accounts or he has a Disc server (which he has regardless he's invited people to it) and is spreading shit there and arranging things, probably in private but with that as the 'hub'.
I'm not going to permanently ban Lancelot on a basis that I cannot possibly know for certain. He received a ban commensurate with what we know to have happened - I'm not going to ban him for longer on the basis that other accounts associated with his have exacerbated the situation. I have already banned several accounts that are obviously linked to these efforts, and ban others and restrict voting as necessary to prevent this from happening again.
You need to permanently ban lancelot for inciting and arranging this. Do you not understand this is the literal clear cut case of vote gerrymandering and corruption? He literally is encouraging people to votebomb me.
the only one engaging in votebombs here is you.
Boba_Tea was explicitly warned on this debate and via PM about voting on RM’s debates and has ignored that warning. His voting privileges have been suspended indefinitely while moderation discusses other interventions.
Removed for ineligibility
Boba_Tea
07.19.2023 03:25PM
Pro told me Con concedes, but I can’t see this anywhere in the debate.
Pro argues that Diogenes is the wisest philosopher because of his social perception, spiritual knowledge, deeper understanding of people’s motives, having lived and experienced life as a poor man and inner knowledge of how the rich are.
Con argues Rene Descartes is smarter because he was academically inclined and made many intellectual contributions that are used today. His most notorious being the one he uses for existentialism. (Vaguely referenced.)
Pro and Con focus on details that don’t matter. Pro says Descartes’s achievements are separate from wisdom, but even I buy that from a logical standpoint, Pro needs to make more of a comparison. Con says that Diogenes wasn’t wise because he is a hobo. Pro counters this is irrelevant to whether or not he was wise.
Arguments go to Pro since he actually supported his case whereas Con makes a case but then kinda drops his half-way. I believe sources and legibility stayed consistent, so I rank them both a tie.
But Conduct to Pro because the rules say no rebuttals in Round 1 and Con violates that.
Let me know if either of you have any questions!
Are you asking for a truce or declaring war?
Make. Up. Your. Mind.
It has all gone my way, you have been keeping the site alive when I was busy and fed up. You seem to think my win condition is some immediate rating or you being banned.
We actually could work together but you choose to abuse me and great me like dirt.
That is your flaw and your fault.
You made this war, I do not benefit from prolonged war with anyone, that is pyrrhic even if I win.
I shall simply outstrategise you, you are an impatient bully bound to pick on others in due time, as my absence revealed as you made countless enemies during that time while having a delusion that you are popular.
You are so far from popular here that you need noobs to rescue you, I cannot highlight how that looks without insulting you and new enforcement bans that. Though nothing seems new.
"Lancelot, you can arrange whatever corrupt shit you want to troll me, it tells a lot about you on and off here that you cannot engage honestly in any shape or form to win.
You want war, that is fine.
I will grind wins out eventually, regardless."
Oh pls do.
I love it when people declare war on me.
But FYI, every-time you've made a threat towards me, it has never went your way.
Making empty threats based on weird assumptions won't be any different.
I never gave up at all, my case was untouched by you so I merely attacked your remaining case made up of lies.
Thanks for the vote, but I wasn't being literal when I said Con conceded.
I meant to say he gave up arguing his case, but your RFD already covered that part. It was a mistake for me to say he conceded.
Vote on this please
Lancelot, you can arrange whatever corrupt shit you want to troll me, it tells a lot about you on and off here that you cannot engage honestly in any shape or form to win.
You want war, that is fine.
I will grind wins out eventually, regardless.
Can you show me where I dropped my case at all?
The voter's RFD does not explain where or how Lancelot won the debate, if anything it suggests I won.
Nowhere in your RFD do you explain where I lost the debate, it is actually like you were going to vote for me.
Firstly, please vote on this.
Secondly, can you seriously discipline Lancelot? He told the voter I conceded.
Could you vote on this since Con technically conceded?
Perhaps this debate will interest you?