Magic is a Waste of Time

My opponent, PoeJoe, is a real life person. He actually exists. If anyone wants to debate me on the issue, private message or email me to let me know. I will decline. Magic is my hobby. I collect and read more books on the subject than any other. PoeJoe (PJ from now on) knows very, very little on the subject. He most likely doesn't even really care much about the subject. But, knowing that I do, he is trying to provoke me into debating him. My fault, really. I told him I would try to avoid debating. My resolution is crap, apparently. I am a new user, but I don't actually debate much, so I can't be called a "debater" much less a good one. PJ's description of me is wrong. I don't have a clear head; I ramble and correct myself after I write. I rarely think things through; I'm impulsive. That said, I do seem to have a knack for getting people to think I'm smarter than I am. I don't "study" psychology in my free time. To perform magic effectively and well, one must learn a lot about human behavior, words and their effects, and timing, among other things. Basically, psychology is important to magic. Magic was important to psychology's genesis, but I'll get to that later. I won't give you a good psychology debate. Honestly, I don't know enough to debate the matter. Barely enough to use it as a tool for analysis. It's true. I am ignorant. I don't consider myself stupid, though. I just don't know much about most things. That said (and I say "that said" a lot), I know enough about magic to argue against PJ on the subject. 1. All deceptions are bad. PJ probably intended this first point to be an inside joke and doesn't actually take it seriously himself (same can probably be said of the whole debate). An English teacher of ours ( though being older, I had her a year before PJ) discussed the subject in her class. A definition of deception should be made clear before seriously debating this point. Lets assume it is to give misinformation or withhold information from another. Before this definition become necessary, though, I would like to point out that audiences know that when they see a magic show or trick, that they are going to be deceived. They just don't know where and what the specific deceptions are. PJ is inelegantly trying to use a psychological technique I introduced him to a couple days ago. Association. He gave us a story where deception is used in a harmful and, by most standards, 'bad' way. Then he associated this to magic to give it a bad taste in our mouth. Imagine a different situation. A couple young people are a bit stressed out from work. They are tired and bored of their day-to-day life. They come across a good magician (1 in 10) and watched his act. Seeing things that they know shouldn't be possible opens up their minds and brightens their day. They know in the back of their minds that deception was used, but walk away feeling enchanted and GOOD anyways. They don't care about the method or trick. They cherished their signed card and memories for decades. The above actually happens quite a lot in entertainment magic. Restaurant workers frequently meet people who recall the wonder of a magic trick they saw years before- and without any negative feelings, either. That said, some people do use deceptions parallel to those used by magicians in ways that are counterproductive or even malevolent- stealing from people who don't know better. Even in the magic community, there is controversy and dislike towards such things. When PJ and I agree on a clear definition of deception, we can argue different points. 2. No useful purpose. PJ again uses association to his advantage here. He links common professions to their obvious functions and uses the fact that people are generally ignorant on magic to confuse people of it's function. Actually, it's odd that PJ includes "art" as a useful thing. To many professionals, magic is an art. Like many arts, when done non-artistically, it becomes a craft, but that applies to all arts. Because there is the 'craft' aspect of magic, many magicians become proficient or even expert at many fields outside of magic. (Paul Curry, a very famous magician was also a mathematician who created several well known paradoxes. Lennart Green, another brilliant magician, is also known for his erudition on maths. He applies his expertise to magic to create new magic concepts.) Personally, I am learning a few things about psychology and communication through my interest in magic. Notice that PJ basically states that he doesn't know what magicians do, therefore they don't do anything. I don't have fallacies memorized, but that kind of argument probably has a nifty Latin label somewhere. Many sciences had their genesis in ancient magic. Medicine men who used magick herbs and techniques paved the way for modern medicine. Chemistry obviously has it's ancestry in alchemy. Study of psychology has a strong background in 'Psychic readings', another branch of magic. There is a quote somewhere of the magic of "today" being the sciences of tomorrow. Magicians utilize and produce new ideas (paradoxes, tools, etc.) to produce their effects. From the seeds of magic, many sciences an technologies grow. 3. Magic as a word. Sure, why not. I really don't care about magic as a word. That said, you are somewhat wrong. When people use magic in some of the contexts you provided, they were merely using figurative language. Hyperbole allow people to get a better understanding of the other people experiences more easily. It's a tool of communication, and I really don't care about it. Conclusion. Magic may be a waste of time for you, but it's not for me. It depends on the person, like many things that are considered to waste time.