I challenge Cyrene

I challenge Cyrene on whether selfless acts exist or not.

( I will be supporting that selfless actions do not exist.)

My premise goes as the following:

  1. I believe all people are psychological egoists.
  2. All actions are guided by selfishness or self preservation.
  3. Calling certain actions selfless are merely mis-interpretations or smoke screens through that of fascination of a more deeper ulterior compulsion within people.

I will need judges should the challenge be accepted. ( Any volunteers?)

The challenge is accepted if only because I have made a thread destroying your very notion.

I can be a judge on this one, because I am truly undecided on whether there are such things as “selfish” or “selflessness”…

I would like to be schooled on this and this is the perfect opportunity.

I see.


You gotta wait until the challenge actually starts! :unamused:


Cyrene while I do appreciate your posts in this thread please save your energy for the exact debate thread as this thread is merely one of invitation and gathering.

( Realunoriginal I accept to have you as a judge if noone else objects.)

Cyrene who do you want as a judge?

( There will be a total of three judges so I will let Cyrene pick the other two.)

I accepted the challenge, I thought that was the begining. :blush:

No problem. We just need to have a agreement of sorts built up in this thread before we procede.

You two need to setup 3 judges (or whatever) and some rules/guidelines first, otherwise the judges have nothing to judge.

It’s usually 6 posts total (3 for Joker, 3 for you) where you each make your case. There’s normally a word limit so that way you can’t do a 1,000,000 word essay in one post though.

I removed my statements, I accepted, should it start in another thread?

I’ll take anyone who knows that a gene (not an organism) is the unit of selection which natural selection works from. If the judges don’t know that, they aren’t in a position to judge anything. As in, a judge that believes in group selectionism, or individual organism selection, would be judging from faulty, wrong, incorrect criteria.

I haven’t heard you ever deny the gene-centered view of evolution, Joker, so it shouldn’t be a problem correct?

Its demonstratably true that natural selection selects from genes, which is why, ,we’ve seen some insect species almost die out, as genes beneficial to females on X chromosome spread through a species, but oh no, they’re nonbeneficial to males, but the genes still spread throughout the population, because even though they’re dying out in males, they’re twice as likely to find themselves in a female host, and thus the gene, spreads like wildfire anyway. Eliminating almost all males of the species.

If evolution worked off the organism level, we wouldn’t see this.

So any judge that understands modern biology (well i shouldn’t say modern, this knowledge is over 35 years old) but anyone who understands that.

Yes it does have to start in another thread.

( You also need to pick two other judges.) :wink:

[b]Subject of debate: On whether selfless actions exist or not.

5 participants: 2 competitors. 3 judges.

Advocated by Joker (competitor)

Opposed by Cyrene (competitor)

Primary judge and referree: Realunoriginal Intervenes if feels necessary.

Secondary Judge permitted by Cyrene: ( Not yet chosen.)

Secondary Judge permitted by Cyrene: ( Not yet chosen.)

6 consecutive posts- in the sequence: Cyrene,Joker, next round (repeat sequence).

2 posts per round, 3 rounds.

No more than 10 pictures posted throughout the 6 posts.

Round 1: Opening statements. No word limit. Judges ideate that each post demonstrates between 3 and 10 individual ideas (a matter of penalty, not disqualification). No discourse between competitors (no quoting competitor). Judges consider the strength of opening statement.

Round 2: Discourse between competitors (quoting competitor now permitted). Judges ideate a 3000 word maximum (a matter of penalty, not disqualification). Judges consider the insight and politeness of discourse, as well as work toward concensus.

Round 3: Closing statements. No discourse between competitors (quoting competitor no longer permitted). Judges ideate a 3000 word maximum (a matter of penalty, not disqualification). Judges consider completion of subject through closing.[/b]

You actually only need an odd number of judge. Though I do like my own rules setup. :smiley:

I was told that another debate can’t start until me and Joker have completed. I’m also guessing that if you wind up with everything together, as well as the others, then it’ll be on a first-come first-serve basis (theirs). Right now they were first but they don’t have it all together yet.

I was too lazy to create any new ones. =P~


Sounds alright with me.

( Besides all this time will give Cyrene a decent amount of time for making their initial post.)

( Joker doesn’t like going first for his obvious slacker persona.)

THeres nothing remotely objective with picking our own judges.

Though I would not be pleased with a random assortment of people from a site that regularly has people posting about psychic cats, ghosts, devils, demons, etc.

Judges should be picked on the basis that they are clear thinkers and can objectively judge a post.But, i guess any random people would do.

Cyrene - please stick to the point here. If I hear another word about psychic cats or ghosts here you’ll be in line 'til Hell freezes over. Or at least 'til Heck does.

This thread is to be used to get your debate together. If you are going to use it to insult people, I’ll lock the thread.

I hope that’s clear. I have to read all this - please don’t waste my time.

You can do this with just one judge, if you like.

I suggest 3 judges.

I don’t want to be singularly defaulted to the “success” or “win” of an argument between Joker and Cyrene. That’d just be pretty stupid on my part. :laughing:


Then again, I wouldn’t really mind! So, actually anything is fine by me. :evilfun:

I’ll judge it if you guys want. And Cyrene, I think Xun knows a good bit about modern biology if I’m not mistaken.