EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
520

Donald Trump is Buddha

(PRO)
WINNER!
0 points
(CON)
0 points
Zeeshan MahmudZeeshan Mahmud (PRO)

There are many possible interpretations of the proposition: Donald Trump is Buddha. These are as follows:

1. Donald Trump is Buddha. D from here.
2. Donald Trump is not Buddha.
3. Donald Trump has Buddha nature. One comes from religious background and disagrees with the statement.
4. Donald Trump has Buddha nature. One comes from non-religious background and disagrees with the statement.
5. One believes it is a meaningless statement.
6. One believes it is a meaningless statement, but true.
7. One does not accept the statement on its literal merit ie, it is not possible for an entity "Donald Trump" can be the entity "Buddha".

I shall proceed to argue no matter what is one's stand, the proposition stands.

1. Donald Trump is Buddha. If accepted, we stop here.
2. Donald Trump is not Buddha.

Here if my adversary denies (2) , then the following (3-7) points can be summoned further.
However, I shall demonstrate that without even going into further interpretations, it is sufficient to show that according to dialetheism[1], a person can believe in a proposition as well as its negation. 

Suppose, I am a Zen Buddhist monk. I believe in D. As well as non-D, or ~D employing paraconsistent logic [2]. Now my adversary, may believe in ~D. However, as a practitioner of paraconsistent logic I believe that both D and ~D is true. Therefore, ex falso quodlibet, [3] anything follows and D is true.

I will not deny that my adversary is incorrect. Rather, my paraconsistent logic would be more complete so as to allow possibility of both states.
This can be extrapolated further into many-valued logical system [4], and allow for all of the following statements:
a. D is true.
b. D is false.
c. D is true and D is false
d. Neither D is true nor D is false.

However, it is entirely possible to allow for any of these states, without negating the original proposition, D.

For (3-4), regardless of one's religious background, if one accepts that Buddhahood or Buddha nature is a state that is diametrically opposite to Donald Trump or Donald Trumpness, then one must know a priori what is meant to have "Buddha nature". If one assumes that the state of Buddha hood exists, then one must surely ask "What exactly is meant by Buddhahood?" One can now either present explanations in two forms. i. Buddhahood means inherent goodness, or ii. Buddhahood means 'resembling that qualities of Buddha'.

If i. is assumed, then I will immediately refer to (1) and argue that by paraconsistent logic both "Donald Trump is 'good'" and "Donald Trump is 'not good'" is true, and thus, again, ex falso quodlibet, 'Donald Trump is Buddha' must be true. If one disagrees, then I would further require a definition of 'goodness'. If by 'goodness' we refer to 'righteousness' then we need to have a set of accepted moral values to make further cogent argument.
However, if one understands 'Buddhahood' as 'goodness', then ipso facto by popular tenets of Buddhism, Donald Trump has Buddha nature. As Dalai Lama mentions in the excerpt from the PBS movie:

Every sentient being—even insects—have Buddha nature. The seed of Buddha means consciousness, the cognitive power—the seed of enlightenment. That’s from Buddha’s viewpoint. All these destructive things can be removed from the mind, so therefore there’s no reason to believe some sentient being cannot become Buddha. So every sentient being has that seed. [5]

By having bought into ideals of Buddhism, a priori, one has already taken the bait hook, line and sinker, that 'everyone has Buddha nature'. 

For (5-6), one can denote it as a meaningless semantic. With the option of "open rules" one can even spam in response to my argument with gibberish by hammering random buttons on keyboard or even by not replying. To which the Zen Buddhism monk, would say: "See! I was right." He would explain: "I postulated D; and no matter what my opponent writes it cannot negate the state of D in any possible universe." That is to say, if we imagine our mental landscape of thought or thought-reality, if you allow for the terminology, then if any given thought is possible, then although the negation of such thought is possible, the possibility of the original thought is also possible.

Example: Imagine a blank canvas. You can paint whatever you wish. You can paint Donald Trump in saffron robe in a state of deep meditation. Or Donald Trump in a garb of Buddhist monk with a circle and x crossed out. Point is, the blank canvas leaves open room for all possibility. Both pictures can be deemed as painting. Both statements can be valid, and contradiction can be resolved by paraconsistent logic which a Zen Buddhist monk believes, or rather, internalizes, anyway.

Furthermore, one can construct an equally valid statement affirming why "Buddha is Donald Trump" is a meaningless statement like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" [6]. To which my response would be, a set of symbols, either randomly put or non-randomly put, ie if gibberish or non-gibberish, is as meaningless as the original proposition. Thus the sentence, 'A boy likes cat' carries no more meaning as the anagram 'Backseat Oily'.

This also leads to questions as to the meaning or interpretation from languages. Due to linguistic differences or construct of grammar of any particular language, the meaning or interpretation is always bound to be subjective. For more, see Hopi time controversy [7] or the anomaly of the absence of numerical understanding in Piraha language [8].

Finally, I come to the last point. "Donald Trump" cannot physically be "the Buddha". But, to which, I will inquire if one accepts existence of the Buddha. If one assumes, that "the Buddha" existed, then by virtues of Buddhist principles, then it can be entirely plausible, the Buddha has taken the form of the entity of Donald Trump in this present life through reincarnation as a manifest of avatar to promote evolution of one's Self, or anatta.

Thus, I have shown through i. non-classical logic, ii. the inherent nature of Buddhism, iii. meaning and interpretation of semantics and inconsistencies of language and grammar; as well as iv.  incarnation, it is entirely plausible the statement D is true, or Donald Trump is Buddha.

Source:

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/
[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
[4] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-manyvalued/
[5] http://www.pbs.org/thebuddha/blog/2010/Mar/9/dalai-lama-buddha-nature/
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_time_controversy
[8] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/aug/20/highereducation.research
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

Return To Top | Posted:
2017-06-18 19:15:35
| Speak Round
rippedpantsatberkelyrippedpantsatberkely (CON)
I'm sorry I do not know enough about philosophy to argue this effectively. I thought this was a joke round, so I apologize but I'll concede
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-06-18 21:25:39
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None
Open rules