The Game of Opposites

[Aaron]

I was thinking that it might be interesting to practice a form of debate whereby, rather than defending your actual position, you defend the opposite of it. For instance if you actually believed that apples should only be used for baking pies, you would take the position that everyone should be able to use apples for whatever reason they wanted.

 

In Ancient times and modern middle schools, this form of debate was practiced because it allows others to understand the position of their opponent, but it also clarifies the nature of their own beliefs and ideas, which is never a bad thing.

 

In this particular thread I propose that someone post a topic for debate, then open it for others to debate. The thing to remember is that you should not be defending your own position, but rather the opposite of that position. If you want to state your actual opinion at the beginning, feel free to do so, but I would recommend putting it in brackets so that it's not confused with your actual argument for the opposition.

 

Anyways, I thought it might be a good exercise. I'm not particularly fond of the idea of starting it off, but I will be happy to join in. I would recommend that we start with a relatively minor topic, rather than jump straight in D.O., Tao, etc.

 

Aaron

Edited June 7, 2011 by Twinner

[Sloppy Zhang]

[Actors and celebrities get paid too much money for contributing absolutely nothing to society other than stupidity, which is more like adding a negative]

 

Actors and celebrities provide wonderful entertainment for all of us saps. They deserve the billions they get for doing no real work, because, you know, standing in front of a camera and having sex with lots of people and coming from a rich family is really hard work. They had to get lots of good karma in a past life to be born into the one they have now!

Edited June 7, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Aaron]

[Actors and celebrities get paid too much money for contributing absolutely nothing to society other than stupidity, which is more like adding a negative]

 

Actors and celebrities provide wonderful entertainment for all of us saps. They deserve the billions they get for doing no real work, because, you know, standing in front of a camera and having sex with lots of people and coming from a rich family is really hard work. They had to get lots of good karma in a past life to be born into the one they have now!

 

Hmm... I was hoping for a more compelling argument, without the sarcasm. I should have added, try not to be sarcastic. Also I was hoping for a more site oriented topic, something to do with Eastern Studies or philosophy, but so be it... I'm sure one will pop up when it's time.

 

Aaron

[zerostao]

Hmm... I was hoping for a more compelling argument, without the sarcasm. I should have added, try not to be sarcastic. Also I was hoping for a more site oriented topic, something to do with Eastern Studies or philosophy, but so be it... I'm sure one will pop up when it's time.

 

Aaron

Aaron,

 

if it is just for debating practice, why would it have to be serious?

anyways i disqualify myself as i am all about the unity of opposites.

but this thread of yours is a cool idea.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Hmm... I was hoping for a more compelling argument, without the sarcasm. I should have added, try not to be sarcastic. Also I was hoping for a more site oriented topic, something to do with Eastern Studies or philosophy, but so be it... I'm sure one will pop up when it's time.

 

Well I had something more serious in mind, then I read this:

 

I would recommend that we start with a relatively minor topic, rather than jump straight in D.O., Tao, etc.

 

Know what you want twinner

 

I was going to do something like suicide, but since you want it to be eastern studies and philosophy, I don't know. I'm not very academic when it comes to either of those subjects. I tend not to take an academic approach to things I'm actually interested in, which in turn makes it not very suitable for a formal or otherwise structured debate.

 

Have fun.

[Aaron]

Aaron,

 

if it is just for debating practice, why would it have to be serious?

anyways i disqualify myself as i am all about the unity of opposites.

but this thread of yours is a cool idea.

 

Well it's more than just debating practice ZT, it's also learning to get in touch with the other side, understanding both points of view. After all if one looks at a topic, such as suicide, we have to look at both sides of the debate to understand it completely. Those that view life as sacred may oppose the idea of suicide, but there is also the idea that life can be sacred and suicide still allowable and permissible, but to understand exactly why, you must examine the subject, because in the end the subject is the foundation of the examination, not just the opposite extremes that one decides is important.

 

It has a little to do with truth as well. When one begins to be able to debate things from both sides, they begin to understand that truth is arbitrary, but simply learning this in an intellectual capacity rarely works, sometimes it requires practice to fully understand it. That's why the Buddhist of ancient India were keen on this type of debate and also why middle school debate coaches still practice it.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Well I had something more serious in mind, then I read this:

 

 

 

Know what you want twinner

 

I was going to do something like suicide, but since you want it to be eastern studies and philosophy, I don't know. I'm not very academic when it comes to either of those subjects. I tend not to take an academic approach to things I'm actually interested in, which in turn makes it not very suitable for a formal or otherwise structured debate.

 

Have fun.

 

Hello Zhang,

 

I think suicide is very much a topic of Eastern traditions. I don't think it's a particularly epic topic either, rather it's a good topic to start off with. I will take the side of anti-suicide, since I am actually pro-suicide. Also I would very much like this to be something that transcends academics. We don't need to sit around with points and cross points, but rather discuss things in a colloquial manner, touching on the points as we see it, common and down to earth. With that in mind, I am more than willing to start this off.

 

Life is an experience that cannot be quantified by mere moments, but rather the entirety of the experience. That will be the focus of my argument, the idea that I believe will eventually persuade you to agree that suicide in any context is wrong. The experience that makes up life is special. We as human beings especially experience life in a unique manner that very few other species can understand. The notion that life should simply be valued by the quality of our current experience is the basis for which many would advocate suicide, that if one is currently suffering, that one should have the right to end that suffering, but one must also look at this idea and ask, why is the transient state more important than the overall experience?

 

Why should one who is currently experiencing sadness or illness be expected to see the full value of their life with any kind of logical assessment? In fact they cannot be expected to and rather will see the value of that moment of their life that seems to overwhelm everything else. Allowing someone to commit suicide simply because they are sad or ill robs them of their essential right to life, to liberty, because death is not liberty in the end, not a liberty that anyone can prove to be of value. If one sees death as a logical solution to the end of their suffering, this in itself points to an inability to examine the value of life, simply because they are not examining the complete experience.

 

In fact one would ask, if life's value is based on our current state or the state by which we will be expected to live, then why should we not allow infanticide or numerous other types of euthanasia as a means of easing suffering before it begins? The answer is of course that by doing so we are setting ourselves up as the supreme authority, claiming knowledge of our purpose and meaning, an authority that we do not have, nor have any right to claim. In fact we as human beings are fallible and this fallibility does not just extend to intellect, but also morality. If we are fallible in this regard, then how can we begin to believe that we have the ability to make a decision of our own about someone else's life, or that we should have the ability to decide whether or not someone should live or die based on their circumstances?

 

If suicide is permissible, then what is to stop us from handing out pills to homeless people or the depressed? If it's permissible then what is to stop us from allowing disenfranchised teenagers the option at school? Why don't we set up rooms in high schools around the country where a saddened teenager can go and end it all, if they so choose? No need for permission slips, rather they just need to sign a form and be done with it? Why? Because we understand that the experience that occurs during one's life are transient, that what we experience now, isn't the entirety of that experience. That we cannot say a diamond has no value, simply because it has a flaw. In fact it is these flaws that give life value, and without them we can never see the beauty that life possesses.

 

 

Aaron

Edited June 7, 2011 by Twinner

[Todd]

I like this idea. I'm not going to do it as an exercise here now, but I will strongly consider using it in future debates/discussions.

 

I think it will have a great effect of loosening tightness.

[Aaron]

I like this idea. I'm not going to do it as an exercise here now, but I will strongly consider using it in future debates/discussions.

 

I think it will have a great effect of loosening tightness.

 

Hello Todd,

 

I'm sure it will definitely help loosen the tightness. I haven't used this method in years, but I have begun to use it, even if only for self reflection in an attempt to understand what I might be missing. Of course that's the gist of this exercise, being willing to admit you might be wrong and that the other sides point of view has some validity.

 

Aaron

[Birch]

Mr Slopp. Celebrity opinion is more important than anyone else's for several reasons:

 

- reaches more people

- is sexier (more people want it)

- they have more ca$h to fulfill their opinions (even if no-one wants their opinion, they still want ca4h)

[Seth Ananda]

Ralis vs Vajra?

[Seth Ananda]

Ralis vs Vajra?

 

 

I cant believe no one found that Funny! lol

[Birch]

It's because it's already funny

[Harmonious Emptiness]

alright alright. I think I got one.

 

Being a part of "the system" can help one in their attainment of Buddha like qualities such as compassion, serenity, and wisdom.

 

It gives them many opportunities to (destroy) strengthen their serenity, (must eat the dogs that try to eat you) strengthen their compassion, and (fight influx of material values) apply wisdom to many situations.

 

so the next person is supposed to support my real point of view/not theirs?

[Otis]

alright alright. I think I got one.

 

Being a part of "the system" can help one in their attainment of Buddha like qualities such as compassion, serenity, and wisdom.

 

It gives them many opportunities to (destroy) strengthen their serenity, (must eat the dogs that try to eat you) strengthen their compassion, and (fight influx of material values) apply wisdom to many situations.

 

so the next person is supposed to support my real point of view/not theirs?

My (opposite) argument:

 

I disagree. The "system" is a toxic environment, that is designed by profiteers and politicians to rob your power. Because it is rotten to the core, no growth can take place there, and one must escape into solitude (preferably into some non-American, non-European country) and find a guru, as soon as possible.

 

Only through solitude and/or an environment of great peace, can we find ourselves and achieve liberation.

 

(note: this exercise is so very )

[doc benway]

I was thinking that it might be interesting to practice a form of debate whereby, rather than defending your actual position, you defend the opposite of it. For instance if you actually believed that apples should only be used for baking pies, you would take the position that everyone should be able to use apples for whatever reason they wanted.

 

In Ancient times and modern middle schools, this form of debate was practiced because it allows others to understand the position of their opponent, but it also clarifies the nature of their own beliefs and ideas, which is never a bad thing.

 

In this particular thread I propose that someone post a topic for debate, then open it for others to debate. The thing to remember is that you should not be defending your own position, but rather the opposite of that position. If you want to state your actual opinion at the beginning, feel free to do so, but I would recommend putting it in brackets so that it's not confused with your actual argument for the opposition.

 

Anyways, I thought it might be a good exercise. I'm not particularly fond of the idea of starting it off, but I will be happy to join in. I would recommend that we start with a relatively minor topic, rather than jump straight in D.O., Tao, etc.

 

Aaron

I just did it in the Dao vs Brahman thread!

And after thinking my thoughts and doing some (very minimal) research, I think I believe my argument!

[doc benway]

 

alright alright. I think I got one.

 

Being a part of "the system" can help one in their attainment of Buddha like qualities such as compassion, serenity, and wisdom.

 

It gives them many opportunities to (destroy) strengthen their serenity, (must eat the dogs that try to eat you) strengthen their compassion, and (fight influx of material values) apply wisdom to many situations.

 

so the next person is supposed to support my real point of view/not theirs?

 

My (opposite) argument:

 

I disagree. The "system" is a toxic environment, that is designed by profiteers and politicians to rob your power. Because it is rotten to the core, no growth can take place there, and one must escape into solitude (preferably into some non-American, non-European country) and find a guru, as soon as possible.

 

Only through solitude and/or an environment of great peace, can we find ourselves and achieve liberation.

 

(note: this exercise is so very )

Now what happens?

[Aaron]

I just did it in the Dao vs Brahman thread!

And after thinking my thoughts and doing some (very minimal) research, I think I believe my argument!

 

You nearly have me convinced.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Now what happens?

 

I would recommend that we expand on the argument. Which to me seems to be, "Can one be a part of society and still be able to attain the qualities of high virtues such as compassion, serenity, and wisdom? Or does the attainment of these qualities only come from seclusion and separation from society?"

 

I think this is a great topic by the way. I'm on the fence about it, so I will have to hear a few more arguments before I'm willing to throw my weight one way or the other.

 

Again, if you want to join in, think of which side you agree with and then take the opposite side and defend that position as best as you can.

 

Aaron

Edited June 9, 2011 by Twinner

[zerostao]

i always skipped debate class i know it shows, right?!

but if i were to debate an idea or issue i think it is only right

to fully examine the opposite side before i made any statement.

so i have already gained some value from this thread. thanks.

 

i found this from jung

"true opposites are never incommensurables; if they were they could never unite."

[Otis]

Here goes my opposite argument:

 

One can know the true nature of reality, through direct intuition. The scientific method is fine, for wrestling tiny details, but true spiritual knowledge can bypass things like repeatability, rigorous testing, etc. This is not just belief I'm talking about here; this surpasses belief and viewpoint, and goes straight to a deeper space. It is like a sudden window opens up, and reveals the hidden truth. How do I know? Because I heard it from my original mind, and it's never wrong. How do I know that? Because I heard it in an out-of-body-experience, and its never wrong. How do I know that? Because every word that arises from my OBE is in complete agreement with (my understanding of) the words of the Buddha. How do I know that my understanding of the Buddha's words are correct? Because when I read those words, there is an icy chill of recognition that goes through my spine, and I am suddenly transported into the collective mind, I feel larger than I have ever felt before, and I see that part of the Buddha is alive in me, so I see what he sees. How do I know that these assertions are true? Because when I am one with the universe, everything is clear, and the scales fall away. (Etc. ad infinitum).

 

 

 

 

(Anyone with an opposite opposite view want to challenge my ironclad argument?)

[zerostao]

Here goes my opposite argument:

 

One can know the true nature of reality, through direct intuition. The scientific method is fine, for wrestling tiny details, but true spiritual knowledge can bypass things like repeatability, rigorous testing, etc. This is not just belief I'm talking about here; this surpasses belief and viewpoint, and goes straight to a deeper space. It is like a sudden window opens up, and reveals the hidden truth. How do I know? Because I heard it from my original mind, and it's never wrong. How do I know that? Because I heard it in an out-of-body-experience, and its never wrong. How do I know that? Because every word that arises from my OBE is in complete agreement with (my understanding of) the words of the Buddha. How do I know that my understanding of the Buddha's words are correct? Because when I read those words, there is an icy chill of recognition that goes through my spine, and I am suddenly transported into the collective mind, I feel larger than I have ever felt before, and I see that part of the Buddha is alive in me, so I see what he sees. How do I know that these assertions are true? Because when I am one with the universe, everything is clear, and the scales fall away. (Etc. ad infinitum).

 

 

 

 

(Anyone with an opposite opposite view want to challenge my ironclad argument?)

Otis!

i do hold the opposite opposite view. but only if we take Buddha out of the premise.

as i am not qualified to speak about or of Buddha. but if you can expand your premise

and include any mystic approach to this- your opposite view that intuition gives a better insight than scientific method. then i shall play.

[Otis]

Otis!

i do hold the opposite opposite view. but only if we take Buddha out of the premise.

as i am not qualified to speak about or of Buddha. but if you can expand your premise

and include any mystic approach to this- your opposite view that intuition gives a better insight than scientific method. then i shall play.

Hee hee. I have a hard time expanding it, because none of it makes any sense to me. That's the tricky bit about this exercise! I made a bunch of assertions above, but no argument, because I can't think of an argument that works.

 

BTW, I only threw Buddha in there, to "kitchen sink" my assertions. So feel free to just tear apart what I wrote, ignoring the Buddha bit.

 

Or start me off with a pro-"knowledge of Truth" argument, and I'll do my best to defend it.

[zerostao]

my opposite view in response to Otis' opposite view.

obviously only a scientist using the scientific method(especially ones from the western world) could be expected to define the one absolute truth.

after all the scientist's senses are keener, his brain faculty far superior,

his experience and thoughts about his experiences certainly have a higher quality than anyone else's. even if they are philosophers or from any spiritual group.

i wont even mention poets or artists as they are obviously inferior to the scientific mind.

to think that someone could catch even a brief glimpse of some spiritual truth

by listening to their own inner thoughts , or mind, or even a collected conscious

is quite absurd. how can one trust themself anyways? unless they are a scientist!

besides scientist never hold any personal bias that would cloud their vision.

edit> oops sorry about the edit but i would like to add that it is certain that discerning the one absolute truth or the many truths is well within the capabilities of the scientific method.

Edited June 10, 2011 by zerostao

[Aaron]

edit> oops sorry about the edit but i would like to add that it is certain that discerning the one absolute truth or the many truths is well within the capabilities of the scientific method.

 

 

I liked this comment the most. Very well said.

 

Aaron