Off-Topic cannot logically apply to a multi-faceted Universe that contains multi-faceted creatures.

First some definitions: Off topic: "not relevant to the subject in question". relevant: "closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand" Second, a brief redefinition of your argument (if you'll permit me): "Off-topic cannot rationally be applied, as our universe is multifaceted and completely interconnected". I redefine this to "rationally" rather than "logically" because I feel it is a more accurate description of your argument. If not, please explain how you would apply formal logic (and what your assumptions are) to determine if the term "off topic" can or cannot be applied. Anyway, here it goes: First and foremost, tying the argument "everything is connected" to your claim seems to over-complicate what "off topic" means. Certainly "everything" is not "closely connected" to everything else (while a butterfly may cause a storm in millennium, it would be futile to discuss the two together and expect to come to a more accurate conclusion about whether an ancient butterfly caused a current storm or whether a current storm implies an ancient butterfly). Nor is "everything" appropriate (if the purpose of discussion is to actually produce a tangible idea, rather than exchange words that fail to improve our knowledge or even realistically describe the world). My opponent might counter that "the subject in question" is "everything". To which I could only reply that the discussion of "everything" is physically impossible, both in terms of physical communication and mental conceptualization. And any reasonable criteria for a "successful" conversation/debate must bear this in mind. By the limitations of our feeble minds, any discussion of worth must be restricted to specific subjects. For instance, if a "successful" conversation results in a more accurate understanding of the universe, we can hardly discuss theories of quantum mechanics and the orbit of Jupiter and expect to derive greater understanding of either from the other. The only context in which Pro's argument seems reasonable is one in which the goal is to marvel at the complexity of the universe " and certainly this has some appeal (though again, talking about things so distantly connected we cannot comprehend their connection seems, again, counter-productive). Ultimately though, I think the truth is closer to this: the successfulness of a conversation is determined by the goals those participating have for it. In this context the answer of this debate seems clear: if people desire a conversation that leads to in-depth, meaningful discussion, they must limit the range of their topic. Pro's anecdote suggests that these children are quite frankly not interested in drawing analogies between racing and life. That they are morally or ethically bound to participate in such a discussion is absurd and their frustration at someone for deliberately undermining their attempt to have a "successful" conversation (e.g. pass the time, enjoy themselves, grow closer, discuss the ascetics of race cars, etc.) is certainly understandable. To specifically look at some of my opponent's points: "The spiral, alone, is proof that nothing can be off-topic, for all things lead to an ultimatum; a cosmic hierarchy of elements and properties which make everything so." I do not understand how the Fibonacci Sequence suggests that everything is connected. That we often classify using a hierarchy does not suggest that any two topics are relevant enough to discuss simultaneously. "Life is not about petty small talk - it's about escaping our negligent ways to pursue things greater than ourselves." While this seems fairly admirable, it seems dismissive to suggest that life isn't about small talk " on the contrary, I would suggest that our connections with other people are of great significance and that small talk is an effective tool to build meaningful connections with others. I enjoy a philosophical or academic discussion as much as anyone " and, indeed, am fairly miserable at small talk, but nonetheless feel I cannot discount its importance. "Great minds think of ideas; average minds think of events; small minds think of people. Small talk, is self-evident by its name, yet billions are caught up in doing it, in spite of it treating our reality like the Sims." It is worth noting that "Sims" is a "sim"-ulation of our society, so if there are similarities, it is hardly surprising. Even accepting your un-cited quote "Great minds... of people" as true, I don't believe that eliminating these "superficial" discussions would really be of benefit to mankind. "To say something is Off-Topic, is to deny exploration and cross-referential intuition." If poorly done, yes. If well done it can actually allow the discussion to explore things more meaningfully (e.g. non-sequitars are detrimental to discussions), and at the same time prune out discussion that is pragmatically irrelevant. "Thus Off-Topic defeats itself, as it, itself, is Off-Topic; Irrelevant; Deterrent towards the Universe and its Oneness. The great say 'Oneness'; the ungrateful say 'Off-Topic' " "Off-topic" is not off topic in many scenarios. If the purpose of a discussion is to develop and market a new computer chip, the rising pitch of bird chirps will be only detrimental to the discussion. Declaring it "off-topic" in such a scenario is very much ON topic, as it is contributing to a successful discussion.