No Idea

a) Although con has not used the word 'technically', nor 'define', as in my latter argument, I again argue that my opponent has used the word "creates", in this sense defined as 'technically defines'. I can only ask con to review his opponent's arguments more carefully: "We can only assume and conclude from this that formulation of ideas is what technically defines, or as con put it, creates, the difference between our species and every other species. "Alright Pro. Imagine a world where human beings could not think to an effective level at all. We would never have come up with language, something considered to be the stepping stone to our success. We would never have come up with inventions, fire being the first and arguably, the most crucial. We would never have begun living in a civilised manner, clothed, in proper homes, with basic amneties; would have never bothered beyond food and sheter, would never have bothered about our education, leave alone our childrens' education. We would never have any creative pursuit which we could achieve perfection in. Come to think of it, we would never have had this very debate. Take away all these things, and what do you have? An animal version of you and I, unintelligible, living only to fill its tummy, having a net contribution of zero to the bigger picture? And why? Because it would be unable to think, unable come up with ideas. Hence, my claim of ideas 'creating' the difference is, in my humble eyes, as good as it can get. c) Con here states: "Naturally it follows that in an imperfect world having people thinking and coming up with ideas, mental faculties will be intact for longer, than in a 'perfect' world, where people have done away with thinking, leaving their mental abilities to deteriorate with the passing of time", wholly contradicting my earlier argument: "The ideal/perfect universe would have no need for ideas, or even creatures". A perfect world has no need for people or any creatures, and therefore "amnesia" or "mental disorders in general" are unable to exist without a host. May I remind con once again that this debate is not focused on ideas' improvement to our world, but on the greatness of a universe with ideas in ratio to the greatness of a universe without ideasWhat Pro's argument has portrayed an ideal and a perfect world as, is a deserted, desolate and uninhabited universe, so enamored by the idea of 'perfection', that it has done away with all forms of life. Fine, but a rational, almost greedy thinker like me, in such a case will ask, who's going to avail that perfection? I mean, what's the whole point of perfection, if there's no one to experience it? I must say, a not a very well thought out argument. Also, the idea of a perfect world 'without people or creatures' paints an 'I am Legend' kind of a picture in my mind. And though that world had in it, Will Smith and his canine, it still wasn't anywhere close to perfect, let alone awesome. As far as the debate being about, how Pro puts it, "not ideas' improvement to our world, but on the greatness of a universe with ideas in ratio to the greatness of a universe without ideas", for me, and for any realist, who does not share a passion for unreal fantasy, the debate would be about the only world we know, ours. I would also like to point out, as it is the last round, that Pro could have refuted my ideas regarding amnesia and mental problems by questioning their existence in a supposedly perfect universe. (How could amnesia exist if everything was perfect, right? ). But as he did not, my gamble paid of. My argument stands unrefuted. Thank you all for your time.