Instigator / Pro
7
1512
rating
13
debates
42.31%
won
Topic
#5781
Parkour, in itself, is not a stupid practice
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
0
Better conduct
1
0
After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Skipper_Sr
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1389
rating
413
debates
44.55%
won
Description
Let's understand our terms:
Parkour - "The practice of moving one's own body as efficiently and quickly as possible through an environment by running, jumping, crawling, and climbing."
Stupid - "Having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense" (Oxford Languages).
Round 1
Pro
#1
Hello Mall,
Parkour is meant to be a useful practice in traveling quickly across rugged or elevated terrain especially in times of danger. This was Frenchman Georges Hébert's intention for running his military troops through obstacles where they had to jump and climb over walls. It was crucial for them to be fit enough to get over, under, or around objects to reach their destination. He wanted his unit to “be strong to be useful” (a quote from himself). Hébert’s utilization of parkour was one of the beginnings of assimilating it into society as a more common practice.
Parkour fundamentally is quite useful. It holds benefits by having practitioners engage in natural bodily movements that are physically demanding and thus create strength and increased health. Human bodies are meant to move when awake much like when an airplane is turned on and then flies in the air. The more the airplane stays in “idle mode” tucked away in a garage, the higher chance it has of its internal parts degrading. The mechanics of the plane are at peak performance when it is in the air following its function. Parkour engages the body in a way that it was designed to be used, which promotes longevity.
Parkour encourages creativity and the application of one’s imagination to their environment. A park becomes a jungle of vaults and flips to conquer. Staircases can be walked down with a handstand. Creativity is a very valuable trait in business and in contributing to society. Creativity is also a characteristic that is linked to intelligence. Another major proponent of all of this is the increased ability to problem-solve that comes from engaging in parkour. If someone is having trouble with a certain parkour feat such as jumping from one curb to another or trying to execute a flurry of movements, they can approach the challenge from a different way and find the answer. Behaviour such as this creative problem-solving is a blessing to communities that benefit greatly from the minds of those who come up with solutions to issues that are not so easily fixed by looking at it from a general perspective.
A Potential Counter
Yes, there are stupid people who practice parkour, and there are people who practice the wrong way and are injured out of foolishness. Someone incorrectly doing parkour has nothing to do with my contention because my contention has to do with the principles of practicing parkour, not the results of poor, foolish training which is a total disgrace to one of the core teachings that parkour promotes which is to gain control and mastery over bodily movements at high speeds and high elevations. Practicing parkour makes one more capable in potentially dangerous situations such as climbing a ladder or running down a rocky hill. People are provided with skills that make them more comfortable and adept with high intensity exercise and precarious circumstances.
Con
#2
Greetings, thank you and thanks to the readers.
"Let's understand our terms:
Parkour - "The practice of moving one's own body as efficiently and quickly as possible through an environment by running, jumping, crawling, and climbing." "
These are the terms.
The topic "Parkour, in itself, is not a stupid practice".
It indeed is stupid to practice this proceeding on thin ice.
This would make the topic statement erroneous as is.
To make it valid, "Parkour, in itself, is not a stupid practice"(sometimes or in some cases).
That is my position. So my position is actually valid.
Another example, having one's body moved by a motor vehicle. There are applicable environments where you do have to proceed more slowly and cautiously.
When it comes to the movement of your body with language, you have to be slow to speak and or communicate.
You can't always be so quick to interrupt, move and talk.
You can't always move so fast in a sport or combative event.
Sometimes you have to delay in the right moments and not move too early by moving too fast.
"Human bodies are meant to move when awake much like when an airplane is turned on and then flies in the air."
Human bodies are always moving even while not being awake. Everything is moving, rebuilding which is not so akin to an airplane. So while we're sleeping, while we're still we're moving and of course a delayed movement to a sluggish movement we're moving.
All of these movements are crucial to organic living bodies. When one of these types of movements is replaced with rapid efficient movement, it would be what you can call stupid to do or practice.
Round 2
Pro
#3
The topic "Parkour, in itself, is not a stupid practice".It indeed is stupid to practice this proceeding on thin ice.
I'm talking about the practice of parkour with regards to its fundamental principles. Jumping on thin ice, let alone doing parkour on that surface, is a stupid thing to do, but that does not mean parkour in itself is stupid. Doing parkour on thin ice is an incorrect use of the practice.
Con's point of applying a specific scenario ignores my contention in its fullness. Parkour, as a practice for what it's meant for, is not stupid.
That is what I mean when I say "Parkour, in itself, is not a stupid practice." Parkour, in its proper function as it was designed to be used, is not stupid.
One can't tie specific situations to my argument that are examples of parkour being misused. It is an act of ignorance to what I originally have said.
To make it valid, "Parkour, in itself, is not a stupid practice"(sometimes or in some cases).
Furthermore, my statement "Parkour, in itself, is not a stupid practice" cannot be addressed in case-to-case scenarios because of how the statement is phrased.
It purposefully detaches itself from specific situations because my statement has to do with the principles and fundamentals of parkour.
I already brought this up in my Potential Counter in Round 1.
Another example, having one's body moved by a motor vehicle. There are applicable environments where you do have to proceed more slowly and cautiously.When it comes to the movement of your body with language, you have to be slow to speak and or communicate.You can't always be so quick to interrupt, move and talk.You can't always move so fast in a sport or combative event.Sometimes you have to delay in the right moments and not move too early by moving too fast.
These are not examples of parkour. See my definition for clarification.
"Human bodies are meant to move when awake much like when an airplane is turned on and then flies in the air."Human bodies are always moving even while not being awake. Everything is moving, rebuilding which is not so akin to an airplane. So while we're sleeping, while we're still we're moving and of course a delayed movement to a sluggish movement we're moving.All of these movements are crucial to organic living bodies. When one of these types of movements is replaced with rapid efficient movement, it would be what you can call stupid to do or practice.
I understand the effect you are explaining. Let me better describe what I mean when I say, "Human bodies are meant to move when awake." Average humans that have a fully able body function well when they take time to be physically active when awake.
Exercise is a great way to carry out this benefit especially when the practitioners are engaging in natural bodily movements that build strength, coordination, and healthy joints.
Specific exercises that achieve this include, but are not limited to, pushing and pulling of the body and natural rotation and connectivity of joints by doing pushups, pull-ups, squats, running, and mountain-climbing.
Natural twisting of the hips is done in running, crawling on hands and feet, climbing, and jumping exercises where ankles, knees, and hips are bent.
Though these movements would be done more strictly and formally and would be more isolated from each other in a gym regime, they are all elements that are combined in precise, purposeful motion in the practice of parkour which is one aspect of its efficiency.
Con
#4
"I'm talking about the practice of parkour with regards to its fundamental principles. Jumping on thin ice, let alone doing parkour on that surface, is a stupid thing to do, but that does not mean parkour in itself is stupid. Doing parkour on thin ice is an incorrect use of the practice."
Here the goalpost is being moved. I'm taking how you're defining the term and applying it. We see it does not work in principle in a given environment and is idiotic. You concede it is stupid so saying it isn't period is fallacious .
"Con's point of applying a specific scenario ignores my contention in its fullness. Parkour, as a practice for what it's meant for, is not stupid."
The opposing side is ignoring to refute my rebuttal because the opposing side concedes to this exception that makes the principle stupid in the particular scenario.
The opposing side stated in the topic that this practice is not stupid period. That's erroneous. Otherwise there'd be no exception.
"That is what I mean when I say "Parkour, in itself, is not a stupid practice." Parkour, in its proper function as it was designed to be used, is not stupid.
One can't tie specific situations to my argument that are examples of parkour being misused. It is an act of ignorance to what I originally have said."
Let us go over what you put in text piece by peace. Your words have to explain what you meant . Otherwise poorly worded and stand guilty of moving the goalpost.
"Parkour - "The practice of moving one's own body as efficiently and quickly as possible through an environment by running, jumping, crawling, and climbing."
This is a practice of moving the body through an environment. That is all that is said along those other words. Now if you meant more than that, you didn't speak it. You said "through an environment".
You didn't specify beyond that. You left it as broad as that. Now if you stated a specification, it be different.
So as you say "through an environment" , which environment?
Well, a place with thin ice is an environment . Really case closed right there .
"Furthermore, my statement "Parkour, in itself, is not a stupid practice" cannot be addressed in case-to-case scenarios because of how the statement is phrased.
It purposefully detaches itself from specific situations because my statement has to do with the principles and fundamentals of parkour."
I just did have it addressed with a particular case you conceded.
Right, it's detached from specifics which makes it broad which makes it vastly applicable.
For example so you can get what you did, here goes.
I say freedom is good and not neutral and not stupid for the sake of parallel detail.
Freedom in and of itself ok. So you figure regardless of the environment, place, circumstance, it's good.
If I'm a prisoner that tells this to the prison warden, the warden and the government and the justice system is going to acknowledge that it is absolute stupidity to give me freedom and it would not be good. I was put away for the good.
So just as that example, you were just as not judicial with your language.
"These are not examples of parkour. See my definition for clarification. "
Saying is not proving. You have to demonstrate these examples wouldn't apply.
"I understand the effect you are explaining. Let me better describe what I mean when I say, "Human bodies are meant to move when awake." Average humans that have a fully able body function well when they take time to be physically active when awake.
I understand what you're saying and it is stupid to always be active like you're saying. I have not gotten a rebuttal from you to prove otherwise. There are instances including sleep where it would be asinine and stupid to be active and moving as efficiently as possible.
Again it is not stupid to live in combination of these things. But it is however to try to apply one thing to something whereby it is inapplicable.
Round 4
Pro
#7
"I'm talking about the practice of parkour with regards to its fundamental principles. Jumping on thin ice, let alone doing parkour on that surface, is a stupid thing to do, but that does not mean parkour in itself is stupid. Doing parkour on thin ice is an incorrect use of the practice."Here the goalpost is being moved. I'm taking how you're defining the term and applying it. We see it does not work in principle in a given environment and is idiotic. You concede it is stupid so saying it isn't period is fallacious .
I do not think you are applying the definition properly.
My definition of parkour involves efficient movement, and we would agree that running and jumping is not efficient in the thin ice environment; so I do not see how your example belongs here then.
"Parkour - "The practice of moving one's own body as efficiently and quickly as possible through an environment by running, jumping, crawling, and climbing."This is a practice of moving the body through an environment. That is all that is said along those other words. Now if you meant more than that, you didn't speak it. You said "through an environment".You didn't specify beyond that. You left it as broad as that. Now if you stated a specification, it be different.So as you say "through an environment" , which environment?Well, a place with thin ice is an environment . Really case closed right there .
You provide my exact definition, but then you leave out the context of it. My definition of parkour is not just "the practice of moving the body through an environment."
You read the definition, right? Parkour involves the utmost efficiency.
If you apply parkour to a situation where it is not efficient, then the mode of movement is not parkour now, is it?
This purposeful act of leaving out the necessity of efficiency in parkour is an attempt to strawman my argument so that your "thin ice" point now becomes valid.
I have shown otherwise in my explanation that running and jumping on thin ice is not parkour because the mode of movement is not efficient in that circumstance.
"These are not examples of parkour. See my definition for clarification. "Saying is not proving. You have to demonstrate these examples wouldn't apply.
Tell me how these are examples of parkour since you brought them up in the first place.
"I understand the effect you are explaining. Let me better describe what I mean when I say, "Human bodies are meant to move when awake." Average humans that have a fully able body function well when they take time to be physically active when awake.I understand what you're saying and it is stupid to always be active like you're saying. I have not gotten a rebuttal from you to prove otherwise. There are instances including sleep where it would be asinine and stupid to be active and moving as efficiently as possible.Again it is not stupid to live in combination of these things. But it is however to try to apply one thing to something whereby it is inapplicable.
"I understand what you're saying and it is stupid to always be active like you're saying." I never mentioned that humans should always be active.
Is it possible to do parkour while sleeping?
If it is not, then my definition does not apply to that state-of-being because parkour while sleeping is then impossible.
Furthermore, mentioning sleep would then be completely irrelevant if parkour cannot be practiced while sleeping.
Also, is trying to do parkour while trying to sleep an efficient practice? Efficiency is intrinsic to parkour.
It seems like we agree here, in some sense at least.
You bring up examples of parkour being misused, but if it is misuse, then I do not believe the practice is parkour anymore.
For example, if you stab someone with a pencil, are you using the pencil for what is was designed for?
The writing tool is removed of its intended function for the length of time in which it is misused.
No one would be right in defining a pencil as a device that is meant to pierce people's bodies in self-defense because this is not the function of the pencil.
Similarly, to misuse parkour is to no longer be practicing parkour but to rather fail at doing so.
Additionally, to misuse parkour is a corruption of the practice, and the perverse action that is then being executed can't very well be the same thing as parkour in its proper state.
"Furthermore, my statement "Parkour, in itself, is not a stupid practice" cannot be addressed in case-to-case scenarios because of how the statement is phrased.It purposefully detaches itself from specific situations because my statement has to do with the principles and fundamentals of parkour."I just did have it addressed with a particular case you conceded.Right, it's detached from specifics which makes it broad which makes it vastly applicable.For example so you can get what you did, here goes.I say freedom is good and not neutral and not stupid for the sake of parallel detail.Freedom in and of itself ok. So you figure regardless of the environment, place, circumstance, it's good.If I'm a prisoner that tells this to the prison warden, the warden and the government and the justice system is going to acknowledge that it is absolute stupidity to give me freedom and it would not be good. I was put away for the good.So just as that example, you were just as not judicial with your language.
Is the concept of freedom no longer good because prisoners exist? People are arrested because they do wrong and are punished for it.
This is an exercise of protecting the freedom of the civilian and enforcing the law that upholds our freedom.
Yes, it would be stupid to let convicts go willy-nilly without reason because the authorities have a duty to uphold the law that proclaims and maintains our freedom.
Police forces obeying the wrongful commands of prisoners is not freedom. It is a case of anarchy--the absence of law.
This act would trump on the freedoms of citizens that are guaranteed by the government system.
Also, is one not given certain freedoms even while in prison?
Even in this example of yours I have shown how freedom is good, so it does not further your point.
Con
#8
"My definition of parkour involves efficient movement, and we would agree that running and jumping is not efficient in the thin ice environment; so I do not see how your example belongs here then. "
Well I've explained my case. You won't see it now while you're in a debate with the wall of defenses up.
"You provide my exact definition, but then you leave out the context of it. My definition of parkour is not just "the practice of moving the body through an environment."
The context was broad . Do you really not get that?
You did not specify an environment. So to say this act is not stupid without specifying a context is fallacious. As I can find environments where it is.
I don't know how much clearer can this get .
"You read the definition, right? Parkour involves the utmost efficiency.
If you apply parkour to a situation where it is not efficient, then the mode of movement is not parkour now, is it? "
No. To be direct.
However, the act requires moving your body efficiently. You can move the body efficiently and it still be stupid. Do you see how?
Let's go back to my example of being on ice. I can move fast on ice. It be stupid to do it. I can still move fast. I'm not arguing about whether you can or not. I'm arguing whether it is stupid or not according to the topic and the broad way you put it.
You obviously needed a definition more specific than what you gave.
You can move efficiently in a lot of things and it be foolish, see. Talking fast, moving your body in a mobile vehicle fast and it still be idiotic, stupid, asinine, whatever.
"This purposeful act of leaving out the necessity of efficiency in parkour is an attempt to strawman my argument so that your "thin ice" point now becomes valid.
I have shown otherwise in my explanation that running and jumping on thin ice is not parkour because the mode of movement is not efficient in that circumstance."
Yes it is. You moved efficiently to your demise. Your definition of the term is as general as just moving fast . See, the problem is the lack of adaptability. You don't hold one type of movement as the be all end all with the "not a stupid practice" with a period after it.
Just like there's no be all end all driving speed. You have to adjust to each situation. We can draw up multiple scenarios together moving fast/driving/riding fast . Just because you can, it doesn't make the quick movement not stupid or sensible.
Bruce Lee expressed this very principle and he ought to know being a master of speed. His invention of Gung fu I believe required much patience, times of delay which is not quick movement to intercept movement from one directed towards another.
He said be formless and shameless. He didn't say be all end all of crashing water. He said water can flow or crash. You be fluent and not be stale in one condition because holding one condition as not fallacious in and of itself will lead you to be stale instead of flowing as running water. With running water you're continuously moving from one adaptation to another.
You take shape, use adaptability, form yourself to anything as water in the form of a cup, teapot, bottle.
Your definition and principle of this thing is lacking that much insightfulness.
"Tell me how these are examples of parkour since you brought them up in the first place. "
"Let's go back to my example of being on ice. I can move fast on easy. It be stupid to do it. I can still move fast. "
"You can move efficiently in a lot of things and it be foolish, see. Talking fast, moving your body in a mobile vehicle fast"
"We can draw up multiple scenarios together moving fast/driving/riding fast ."
Your term is about moving efficiently through an environment, right.
Well there you go. Environments on ice, on the road, in a social conversational personal communicative event, where efficiency of movement is applicable, moveable, possible.
" I never mentioned that humans should always be active.
Is it possible to do parkour while sleeping?"
I didn't say you said while sleeping. I said "like you're saying."
You said:
"Human bodies are meant to move when awake"
Then you go on to make a false equivalency of an analogy to further expound on movement. Your entire point is concerning movement, movement, movement.
My counter is non movement , non efficient movement as well as intermittent movement in tandem.
"Furthermore, mentioning sleep would then be completely irrelevant if parkour cannot be practiced while sleeping.
Also, is trying to do parkour while trying to sleep an efficient practice? Efficiency is intrinsic to parkour.
It seems like we agree here, in some sense at least."
We agree that this practice you're talking about is stupid sometimes to be doing because sometimes you do have to sleep so that builds my case. The first round you built up a big case about movement and things moving and we're meant to move. But it is stupid to miss sleep because my body is meant to mobilize.
"For example, if you stab someone with a pencil, are you using the pencil for what is was designed for?
The writing tool is removed of its intended function for the length of time in which it is misused.
No one would be right in defining a pencil as a device that is meant to pierce people's bodies in self-defense because this is not the function of the pencil. "
You're not being consistent with your own definition. You're making these ad hoc specifications. You should of just left out the definition so you couldn't be held to it and just stuck to only forming arguments and building explanations alone there.
"Similarly, to misuse parkour is to no longer be practicing parkour but to rather fail at doing so.
Additionally, to misuse parkour is a corruption of the practice, and the perverse action that is then being executed can't very well be the same thing as parkour in its proper state. "
The proper use is according to the definition which applies to what I've said.
"Is the concept of freedom no longer good because prisoners exist?
Even in this example of yours I have shown how freedom is good, so it does not further your point."
What did I say freedom was in that example ?
I said it was good, not neutral, not stupid. You're not focused here.
You just regurgitated what I said about freedom and that was supposed to take away from what I said.
If freedom was good period, everybody would be let out of prison like if this act of moving efficiently period is not stupid, everybody would be let out of not doing at times to doing it at all times.
I rest my case.
Round 5
Pro
#9
"You provide my exact definition, but then you leave out the context of it. My definition of parkour is not just "the practice of moving the body through an environment."The context was broad . Do you really not get that?You did not specify an environment. So to say this act is not stupid without specifying a context is fallacious. As I can find environments where it is.I don't know how much clearer can this get .
Environments were not specified, but I disagree with you that it is fallacious for me to say parkour is not stupid.
One reason is that parkour is not simply an "act" as you say. Parkour is a practice, an art form, a way of living.
It is not as simple as the act of punching or clapping one's hands together in which one can find specific situations where those actions are stupid.
The second reason is that the context of certain applicable environments were implied by the actions and movements that are listed in my definition of parkour.
I don't think my definition is vague, and one can ascertain what environments are possible for parkour by knowing what parkour is and what movements are used as I have previously listed.
"You read the definition, right? Parkour involves the utmost efficiency.If you apply parkour to a situation where it is not efficient, then the mode of movement is not parkour now, is it? "No. To be direct.However, the act requires moving your body efficiently. You can move the body efficiently and it still be stupid. Do you see how?Let's go back to my example of being on ice. I can move fast on ice. It be stupid to do it. I can still move fast. I'm not arguing about whether you can or not. I'm arguing whether it is stupid or not according to the topic and the broad way you put it.You obviously needed a definition more specific than what you gave.You can move efficiently in a lot of things and it be foolish, see. Talking fast, moving your body in a mobile vehicle fast and it still be idiotic, stupid, asinine, whatever.
With regards to your ice example, you have yet to explain how doing parkour on ice is in fact stupid.
How is this different or stupid in a different way from doing parkour on concrete or grass?
More context needs to be provided if we are to accurately assess what is meant by doing parkour on thin ice.
I assumed that the argument from you was that doing parkour on thin ice to go from one side of the surface to another side was stupid.
I have already explained how this attempt isn't actually parkour, because it's inefficient, but I will give an example where parkour is actually being utilized on thin ice.
With respect to the definition of parkour, the only way parkour can be used on thin ice is by efficient movement to reach an end result.
What if the purpose was to fall through the ice as quickly as possible by "parkouring" from the environment of the surface of the ice to below the ice in the water?
If this purpose was achieved successfully, then was parkour not the smart choice to reach the intended result?
If the end result is what is most desired and valued, then isn't using the best and efficient means of achieving the desire a smart choice?
Parkour is then smart to do on thin ice, not stupid.
I have now given proper context to doing parkour on thin ice.
"Furthermore, mentioning sleep would then be completely irrelevant if parkour cannot be practiced while sleeping.Also, is trying to do parkour while trying to sleep an efficient practice? Efficiency is intrinsic to parkour.It seems like we agree here, in some sense at least."We agree that this practice you're talking about is stupid sometimes to be doing because sometimes you do have to sleep so that builds my case. The first round you built up a big case about movement and things moving and we're meant to move. But it is stupid to miss sleep because my body is meant to mobilize.
Maybe I didn't explain well the section you're referring to and/or it wasn't helpful, but let's go back to my original contention: Parkour, in itself, is not stupid.
You have not explained how it is possible to do parkour while sleeping.
If it is impossible to do parkour in a certain situation, then the action of parkour in that situation cannot be assessed for stupidity or rashness or wisdom or any other quality of thought-processing since it literally can never happen.
"This purposeful act of leaving out the necessity of efficiency in parkour is an attempt to strawman my argument so that your "thin ice" point now becomes valid.I have shown otherwise in my explanation that running and jumping on thin ice is not parkour because the mode of movement is not efficient in that circumstance."Yes it is. You moved efficiently to your demise. Your definition of the term is as general as just moving fast . See, the problem is the lack of adaptability. You don't hold one type of movement as the be all end all with the "not a stupid practice" with a period after it.Just like there's no be all end all driving speed. You have to adjust to each situation. We can draw up multiple scenarios together moving fast/driving/riding fast . Just because you can, it doesn't make the quick movement not stupid or sensible.Bruce Lee expressed this very principle and he ought to know being a master of speed. His invention of Gung fu I believe required much patience, times of delay which is not quick movement to intercept movement from one directed towards another.He said be formless and shameless. He didn't say be all end all of crashing water. He said water can flow or crash. You be fluent and not be stale in one condition because holding one condition as not fallacious in and of itself will lead you to be stale instead of flowing as running water. With running water you're continuously moving from one adaptation to another.You take shape, use adaptability, form yourself to anything as water in the form of a cup, teapot, bottle.
Sometimes to go fast, one must first go slow--some of that above does make sense.
I would say parkour trains one to be adaptable.
If you can't change the environment, you must change how you interact with it. This is something parkour teaches.
Closing Statements
I do not believe Con has succeeded in showing my contention to be wrong.
I do not believe Con has succeeded in showing my contention to be wrong.
All that is needed is for one example of how parkour is stupid to be explained.
Con says that some movements or course of actions or proceedings can be stupid and efficient at the same time but does not explain how and just says that "they are."
My opponent tried to say that Con's thin ice example was shown to be a demonstration of stupidity and efficiency co-existing in one action, but, in a general summary question, how can achieving an end result efficiently be stupid when the purpose was fulfilled properly?
That is actually effective and intelligent.
Con cuts my definition of parkour down to just "moving quickly" when it is advantageous to do so in Con's arguments, but this is ignoring the full definition and parkour should not and is not rightly viewed this way.
This is a sly, erroneous appropriation of my definition of parkour.
Some examples that were said to be valid for Con's argument that parkour is stupid were not shown to be so. For instance, when Con was talking about doing parkour while sleeping.
I have appreciated the discourse, and I anticipate the final thoughts of my opponent.
Con
#10
"Environments were not specified, but I disagree with you that it is fallacious for me to say parkour is not stupid.
One reason is that parkour is not simply an "act" as you say. Parkour is a practice, an art form, a way of living.
It is not as simple as the act of punching or clapping one's hands together in which one can find specific situations where those actions are stupid. "
Same difference. My point still stands with an act or acts.
"The second reason is that the context of certain applicable environments were implied by the actions and movements that are listed in my definition of parkour.
I don't think my definition is vague, and one can ascertain what environments are possible for parkour by knowing what parkour is and what movements are used as I have previously listed. "
No implications necessary. Going by your exact words, it fits the scenarios I mentioned making the "way of life" stupid in those particular scenarios. The topic to make it fallacy free, the word "sometimes" would have to be added. I came right along and contradicted it. So which one is it? Is it stupid or not? Well it is sometimes.
"With regards to your ice example, you have yet to explain how doing parkour on ice is in fact stupid.
How is this different or stupid in a different way from doing parkour on concrete or grass?
More context needs to be provided if we are to accurately assess what is meant by doing parkour on thin ice. "
Why do I have to explain when you already agreed? Did you not agree because you already know why it is stupid on ice?
Your statement : "Jumping on thin ice, let alone doing parkour on that surface, is a stupid thing to do"
You already concede that this act "way of life" is stupid in this environment. The other environments may or may not ground stupidity depending on knowing what you're doing or not, no pun intended.
"I assumed that the argument from you was that doing parkour on thin ice to go from one side of the surface to another side was stupid.
I have already explained how this attempt isn't actually parkour, because it's inefficient, but I will give an example where parkour is actually being utilized on thin ice. "
That's what I'm talking about. Doing this act on thin ice. Unless you're prepared to swim, moving fast and efficiently will do opposite of continuing to move as the mobile creature you are.
"With respect to the definition of parkour, the only way parkour can be used on thin ice is by efficient movement to reach an end result.
What if the purpose was to fall through the ice as quickly as possible by "parkouring" from the environment of the surface of the ice to below the ice in the water?
If this purpose was achieved successfully, then was parkour not the smart choice to reach the intended result?
If the end result is what is most desired and valued, then isn't using the best and efficient means of achieving the desire a smart choice?
Parkour is then smart to do on thin ice, not stupid.
I have now given proper context to doing parkour on thin ice. "
Then the whole situation changes when the purpose was not that. Leaving that act stupid again which circles back around to sometimes it is not stupid like I said.
You are giving ad hoc details to the initial definition. "The practice of moving one's own body as efficiently and quickly as possible through an environment by running, jumping, crawling, and climbing."
It does not say "end result" in this definition. You're throwing in this additive now with all these addendums and purpose and desire and value. Your definition was strictly movement. See you can't help but making all these specifications now because it's more logical. But that was my case this whole exchange.
You can say implications all you want. If you didn't specifically state to the letter, everything else you claim you intended to mean or thought or assumed which is wrong, don't assume, but perhaps expected somebody to think while reading this definition is just an unfalsiable claim or non verifiable claim.
"Maybe I didn't explain well the section you're referring to and/or it wasn't helpful, but let's go back to my original contention: Parkour, in itself, is not stupid.
You have not explained how it is possible to do parkour while sleeping.
If it is impossible to do parkour in a certain situation, then the action of parkour in that situation cannot be assessed for stupidity or rashness or wisdom or any other quality of thought-processing since it literally can never happen. "
I'm going to put it this way if it was not clear enough before. May be you have to read what I said 3 or 4 times. It is stupid to do this act you're talking about instead of sleeping. Not during sleep. It is stupid to do when you're supposed to be sleeping in an environment for sleep.
"Sometimes to go fast, one must first go slow--some of that above does make sense.
I would say parkour trains one to be adaptable.
If you can't change the environment, you must change how you interact with it. This is something parkour teaches. "
More ad hoc pleading. You even indirectly admit this by conveying you didn't explain very well in the first round. Now in hindsight after the fact, what you're saying now could have been your initial argumentative points. However, the definition you chose left you with no room to argue much different in any event.
"I do not believe Con has succeeded in showing my contention to be wrong.
All that is needed is for one example of how parkour is stupid to be explained.
Con says that some movements or course of actions or proceedings can be stupid and efficient at the same time but does not explain how and just says that "they are."
My opponent tried to say that Con's thin ice example was shown to be a demonstration of stupidity and efficiency co-existing in one action, but, in a general summary question, how can achieving an end result efficiently be stupid when the purpose was fulfilled properly?
That is actually effective and intelligent. "
Your statement : "Jumping on thin ice, let alone doing parkour on that surface, is a stupid thing to do"
Last time I checked, jumping is moving one's body efficiently in an environment .
Your definition: "The practice of moving one's own body as efficiently and quickly as possible through an environment by running, jumping, crawling, and climbing."
You got the word jumping right in there. Then you agree that it is stupid to do through an environment I mentioned.
"Con cuts my definition of parkour down to just "moving quickly" when it is advantageous to do so in Con's arguments, but this is ignoring the full definition and parkour should not and is not rightly viewed this way.
This is a sly, erroneous appropriation of my definition of parkour. "
I reiterate: Your statement : "Jumping on thin ice, let alone doing parkour on that surface, is a stupid thing to do"
Last time I checked, jumping is moving one's body efficiently in an environment .
Your definition: "The practice of moving one's own body as efficiently and quickly as possible through an environment by running, jumping, crawling, and climbing."
You got the word jumping right in there. Then you agree that it is stupid to do through an environment I mentioned.
Where did I cut anything out? I'm not cutting anything from this. I'm cutting any and everything you're adding to this because it is not your original position.
You arguing that I'm cutting your ad hoc representations out really. Cutting at your original position would make your case way worse. It's already invalid and weak based on what was given as is. What you gave was already insufficient. I don't need to reduce it down from there. That's getting greedy.
"Some examples that were said to be valid for Con's argument that parkour is stupid were not shown to be so. For instance, when Con was talking about doing parkour while sleeping."
No where did I say doing this act while sleeping. The opposing side has not quoted where I made the statement because I never stated it. A lot of ad hoc , moving the goalpost tactics from the opposing side during this debate .
Definitely tighten up definitions on the opposing side's part towards the future.
Again , the opposing side has conceded the statement : "Jumping on thin ice, let alone doing parkour on that surface, is a stupid thing to do"
I conclude there as case closed.
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’m sorry Mall, but I simply could not understand your argument. Pro was much more logical and just made more sense overall.
Not only is this act that the opposing side was arguing for in some cases is stupid, individuals on here are stupid enough not to even see that .
"I rest my case and accept the opposing forfeit ."
It was a forfeit to the round, not the debate.
I rest my case.