transcendental meditation for prisoners

In this debate, my opponent has given me the burden of negating the topic at hand. The egistemology of psychological episteme previews my view as such, but would be on a double standard if I did not reveal the multitude of realities that the topic may bring to such a state of subjective reality. It must be exposed that to be candid may go opposed to one's staunch beliefs, but for one the enhanced view is revealed.From the institution of this epoch, common-place is the event whilst a regime presides over companions of its own type. To preside brutally with no merit on such an occasion is the height of corruption. It is libidinously driven by one's lust and greed, that could deem thyself as impartial, while the time is prevailing to one's wishes and humanity's objective view on morality and philosophy as to be contradicted! To perform such a further extrusion of one's autonomy is hostile to the sacred principles we hold higher than an individual, but to a collective power to improve the individual in a circular, continous cycle.We do not know. They do not know. It may be just as an esoteric question that presides among the many here on ddo. To reveal the shroud that may appear as larval, we would require a much exspounding push on our fellow beliefs, opening to the gate of uncertainty, unrevelty, and cruelty. Thus, collective movement requires together common and esoteric knowledge, although more of the latter, to complete a full conclusion for which is greater in humanity's struggle verses a view which we see as immoral and unjust. There are countless other states of thought and wisdom to show us, but nonetheless, there are countless other possible preferable states and my opponent cannot know them all. Thus in some way or the other it would be preferable if she looked from a different point of views to contemptly contradict herown. To defend further:Optimate conclusions = a, un-optimate results = xIf not a than xIf not x than aTherefore a, xTherefore not x, aThe very mere concept of this equation to preside over a complacent result, in actuality, fails to entail an all onto-true equivocation, while failing to show the other continously. While we may conceive of beings as having the property of being unkowing, contemplations and actions are not properties at all, as the promise of human greed perverts all options of generosity, to the unbehest of the person themself. More specifically, positivity is not a perfection, thus it does not entail onto-illogical equivocation. So the second premise is viable. Therefore, this concerns holds if anything is real, and holding pure reason, we can hold that statement be held true, thus fulfilling a true equivocation. We can show that the classic onto-omnia argument fails by keeping the erroneous second premise and replacing the first one with: "Utopia is the most perfect ('the greatest') society conceivable." This parallel conclusion is clearly true. Only observation could determine that such things are natural. To withdraw from this invocation, is to help better a kinship with remarkable steadfastness, character, and unfeasible connection. To do so is local, and otherwise is tedious, and abating to the value beliefs of others that may reside upon further avenues as to such.Even if pro was abecedarian to the subject we hold to discuss presently, there is no way to argue positively. Furthermore Problematic Obsequiousness would present an argument against this I would remind my opponent. As values are of the most concerning matter, kinship of one's knowledge would better uphold this subjective view, rather than to be held to abidance by force, and in many occasions, violence to the behest of corresponding sides for little gain, for such a tradeoff to the side.Infinite encompassing plains are clearly probable, which entitles infinite possibilities too this argument. According to deontological theorists hedonistic terms such as intensity, duration, fecundity, effectivety, and likelihood, imply that pleasure can be measured quantitatively.1. (x) (Bx -> Cx)2. Bu3. CuWhere B = possible alternate places, c = cause, u = universe, and x is to remain the variable unabloom by both corresponding sides.Universally quantified statements do not commit one to the existence of classes of alternate plains, whereas existential statements (Such as M-P1) do. Hence P1 and M-P1 are not logically equivalent. This Prima Facie concludes the fact that alternate utilities encompass all plains of existence. It may be held to the moral equivalence if it was so, but alas that is negated as values and views are subjective to a kinship or an individual itself. Further, transcendental meditation has resolved thorughout time to cause painful, and acutely harming effects to the individual, during which the individual is unaware of these effects! It would be intensly immoral to put such people in such a parole with no merit, and utilize resources for something harmful on the contrary of prison's means. [2] I would also like to ask my opponent the following questions. I would also request that she give reasoning to her answers, not just a simple yes or no. No harm, I shall not be uncandid in the following round. Does intrinsic universalizability and the uncategorical imperative theory go hand in hand? Is reality an absolute? Is it possible to disprove a negative? Is it possible to disprove a double negative, assuming all else is in the state of unrehinged equilibrium? Do necessary existences entail maximal loga-logical plains of encompassments? Do alternate fields transfer equally to others in time? Do objective logical facts exist, or rather are they subjective to an individual?Do bodies of force exert unfair forces onto others based on the thought of the regime head? With this, I will close my argument. I hope that my opponent provides a clear response, so we can move on into a useful conclusion of thought.[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://www.suggestibility.org...