1) The document introduces rules for a debate on what the Earth will look like in 20 years, asking participants to submit video responses. 2) The rules require responses to think philosophically by making a point, providing an example, and citing evidence. Only video responses are allowed to avoid flame wars. 3) Participants must understand other perspectives before stating their own and can form alliances while avoiding repetition. Respect and dignity toward other opinions is also required. 4) Responses will be judged based on the number of likes received, though the author will check for bias. The debate aims to be thought-provoking rather than antagonistic.

1. Video Battle Responses“A man without reason is a man without a head” -Martin Mirek

2. IntroductionHi Everyone, I would like to invite you to engage in a mass debate as to what YOU, yes you not anyone else believes in regards to the argument presented in this title. In this demo the question on everyones’ mind will what do you think our Earth will look like in 20 years? However, like anything, there are rules, luckily these are fairly simple and create for your own enjoyment. Unfortunately I cannot force anyone to abide by these rules but if you don’t this project we’ll go underground. So, respect those around you who wish to contribute their thoughts as I would not do the same to your project.

3. Rule #1 You Must Think Like a Philosopher; With Pure ReasonPossible concern: How does a philosopher think? Does he or she make stuff up in thin air and expects people to believe it? No, a philosopher is an independent person, he does not allow others to think for him, he is the in control of his thoughts and his perception of reality. As a philosopher I expect all three things to be incorporated in his video response: Point ExampleEvidence of point

4. Rule # 2 Video Responses OnlyI ask of this because I believe commenting back and forth takes away from a much greater experience when it comes to debating. In addition I believe commenting is vulnerable to flame wars which is not what I’m after. Lastly, seeing another face allows one to determine his or her agenda much better, like in poker for example.

5. Rule #3 Seek To Understand, Then Be UnderstoodBefore you can ever argue your case you must first understand where your competitor(s) is coming from before you can reason with him as to why your opinion may be the better choice. Trust me on this one if you just argue your point of view without taking your competitor’s opinion into consideration you’ve already lost the battle

6. Rule #4 Alliances Can Be MadeYou do not necessarily have to argue against one another, you can find like-minded people and join their alliance. The only thing I ask is that you do not repeat what they’re saying as you’re taking up unnecessary time and space on Youtubethat could be allocated for better things

7. Rule #5 Treat Your Competitor With DignityWe all have our beliefs and like anyone we feel strongly about them. In the case that someone has conflicting beliefs due to race, cultural, ethnicity and so forth remind yourself this: we’re all individuals and as individuals there is no reason to conform unless given a proper reason; insulting someone isn’t one of them. Try to reframe from any sort of foul behaviour and in the end we can gain a lot more from everyones’ discipline.

8. Rule #6 Proactive or Reactive Approach, Not Proactive ProactiveProactive or Vice VersaThis is an obvious rule but one we must keep in mind so that we do not get side tracked from the real purpose which is of course debating one another as oppose to “tweeting” our thoughts endlessly as individuals may not care what you did last Tuesday for the humane society as nice as it was. All I asks is for is relevance for the matter at hand so our concentrative force may lead to something of significances.

9. Rule #7 To Like or To Not Like, That Is The QuestionLikes and dislikes will determine the winner of the battle responses. However, like with any of the rules, I ask for your full co-operation which means do not chose your friend’s argument because they’re your friend. I will validate the most like argument for myself and determine for myself whether the likes contain a bias or not. Of course I will explain why I believe there to a bias in another posting. Such biases will eliminate the argument entirely so please vote for what you believe to be true.

10. Final NoteThink of these rules not as restrictions but liberation from the constant blabbering we often find on the web that leads to nothing for society. These rules are also not set in stone as they will be adjusted from time to time. I wish to reinforce once more complete cooperation for a much more pleasant experience. if we all eliminated anger, resentment, discrimination, and other emotions from our argument there’s a lot more to gain than to lose. Just give it a try, try to argue someone’s opinion through understanding where they come from then present your own to correspond to his or her argument. Like I mentioned before this project is in test mode but will continue to receive additional topics in the coming days. The best part about these arguments are there is no winner just gainers. I would like to see this project grow and perhaps submit the most liked ideas to geniuses in the world and provide you the credit and reward. Like Plato always mention “ The unexamined life is not a life worth living”…be as creative as you want with it.

11. Separate demandsI’m looking for a council of philosophers to help determine winners and adjust the rules so please email me at Martin.Mirek@gmail.com and we’ll discuss possible accommodations