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

You are not only oversimplifying the complicated and multi-faceted attribute of "intelligence", but also basing a claim on a extremely limited sample of my very specific ability to articulate and debate. You are claiming there is a positive correlation between an idea's simplicity and the intelligence required to comprehend it, while a vast majority of the population would suggest the opposite. I am aware that I am wordier than many people, but do not believe this is the result of having less intelligence than you. In any case, I really don't want to make this a debate about our intelligence " I am a strong believer that the ethos of the debaters should be held independent of what they are arguing. I was not aware I had ever called similarities "meaningless" " only that the analogies you have put forth are not meaning from the perspective of understanding the Universe. Unless you can demonstrate that you do, in fact, understand the Universe better than I do, please do not say that I am ignorant. If I may be so bold, referring to yourself as a genius makes you sound very arrogant and does not lend significant credibility to your claims. If your claims have validity, let them stand for themselves. Your claim of doing "far more thinking than [I'll] ever do [myself]" is, as you might imagine, rather disrespectful and seems ridiculously confident given how little we know of each other. I am not skeptical of the poetic nature of your analogies, only of your belief that your "wisdom" is truly significant, especially to the degree that you think you have license to claim that all of humankind stop having focused/deliberate conversations. The vast majority of asteroids are not composed primarily of calcium. From my perspective, I seem to be drawing far more from reality and doing far more research than you are, so I respectfully request that you yourself research your own analogies; as I've already pointed out, all are quite significantly flawed and have only modest degrees of poetic correctness " you have given me no reason to believe that any are notable examples of a greater understanding of the Universe. I agree that without water there would not be humans. I confess I am a little confused at the purpose of "amoebae" in your claim. Are you saying that the same chemicals critical to a neural activity that makes us feel distinct from animals rely on its production from amoebas? Or that chemicals produced by amoebas in general allow humans to exist? Either way, you take the claim that ((NOT water) implies (NOT human)) and claim it implies ((water) is equivalent to (human)). This is a flawed argument from a simple logic point of view. Not A -> not B does not mean A and B are equivalent. Even poetically I wonder at why one would try to make this connection. I accept there are similarities between how humans behave and phenomenon, merely that they are generally not helpful in understanding the Universe. More specifically, such correlations do not offer a convincing arguments for your original claim (that "off-topic" cannot be logically applied). I have experience awe at the Universe, but did not think my personal feelings implied that I had some greater understanding than the rest of humanity, nor did I think such a feeling granted me license to claim authority over other's conversations. What distinguishes true statements from false statements? I never said that one should complicate what one wants to express, I am only rejecting your (disrespectful) claim that the length of a response correlates negatively with intelligence. You say that "this is no longer about [you]" yet it seems the entirety of your argument is based on trying to build your ethos as a "wise man" and a "genius". I am glad you are willing to leave this behind. You bee-electron analogy was not an amazing way to describe either. Yes, you did indeed say this discussion was about the "grand universe", though I must confess some confusion, because you also claimed it was about whether "off topic" could be logically applied, and you have made no arguments for that. I have (I'd say you were off topic, but that seems a bit like begging the question). Do you understand the basics of the current model of electrons? If so, then you should be able to understand just how tentative your connection between the two is. Alas, would that we could have left your ethos-based arguments behind us. Let us agree on one thing: you brought your ethos into this debate, against my protestations that it was irrelevant. Nobody has talked about you more than yourself. I waited until you were directly insulting me before I put up a tentative defense. Do not make the mistake of believing you are the slighted or wronged party. I do sincerely hope you don not believe that I have abused you. You have yet to make any argument about why your ideas are significant in any way, let alone to the extent that might tie into the original topic. In fact, I would go so far as to say that none of your arguments have been directly aimed at the original topic of this debate. If you just wanted a platform to express your genius, this is not the correct site for you. "[You] don't sit here and complain about the stress my own species puts me through" comes through as a bit false, especially after you complained about being "so tired of seeing the same basic arguments in every site, every person's argument - because people are just that far behind in understand what truly, truly is". I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that "are you that dense" is asking for a comparison of the density of the asteroid and me, because I am certain that someone as wise as you would not sink so low as to continue launching personal attacks at me. No, I am not as dense as an asteroid. Again, you insist that vague similarities between asteroids and kidney stones suggests they are usefully conceived of as one and the same. Again, you have yet to make any argument for this. Incidentally, I believe your figure of 8% is a little off (I think it is closer to 1%; I'd post a source, but that is against your rules for this debate). Please stop insulting me. Thank you for clarifying the place of amoebae in your analogy. I maintain it is false for the same reason used above (that implication does not mean congruency), which you have not refuted. Again, that they are poetically linked is a fairly arbitrary claim and so doesn't seem a valid argument that "off topic" is illogical. Okay. I'm going to try to explain a basic understanding of electrons. They are both particles and waves and we cannot pin down their precise location (have you read about quantum physics? it is fascinating). They do not have emotions. They cannot be frenzied. To apply the concept of color to electrons is a bit ridiculous. Light is made when electrons change energy levels. An electron may change from one level to another and release red light, then go between two different levels and release blue light, and then another interval and release ultraviolet light. Every similarity you pointed to is not true. The similarities between different ethnicities is your best analogy thus far. It has meaningful implications in reality. It is still not an argument that "off-topic cannot logically apply" in this universe. Your answer to my request for a definition for truth, but the most concrete thing I could pull from it was "Truth is the Universe", yet your own analogies have been shown to be extraordinary flawed. In conclusion: You have made no meaningful arguments regarding the original reason for this debate. No analogy is perfect, but yours seem so detached from our understanding of the universe that their truths are not self-evident, and you have not made any concrete arguments, explanations, or even criteria by which they might be deemed meaningful. Furthermore, even if proven, you must demonstrate that these analogies lead us to conclude that "off topic" cannot be applied. I have made arguments for the benefits of "off topic" (remember back to "successful conversation" and "greater understanding" and "predictive power"). In conclusion (and being repetitive): The successfulness of a conversation is determined by the goals those participating have for it. If people desire a conversation that leads to in-depth, meaningful discussion, they must limit the range of their topic. No human can practically apply anything to anything else and expect a productive conversation. If you, reader, believe I have won and that "off topic" is valid, then I can say this: I do apologize that much of this debate has been off topic, but I could not request it on topic without begging the question.