Debating topics

[Chaerophon]

Extensive jargon is ussually a crutch for the learned but noncomprehending .

Is that how you defend your own posting style?

Existentialisnm is a rather simple philosophy(most philosphies are) and can be well explained with mundane words.

Tell that to Nietzsche, Foucault, and Sartre. One of Nietzsche's fringe gripes is that language, as it exists, is a tool not best fitted to the proper elucidation of his philosophy.

What really shows the joke of your first post is - "no such discourse will be acceptable to him or her". This is true. But since we were talking about people in a already in a debate class your point is moot thus your enire first post was meaningless.

And a side note - "egomanical" is not an ethical classification. However the extistentialist will of course reject the notion, as it is a concept that that is only valid if you beleive that a society of individuals exists.

What kind of debate can one have if the proponents of one side of the debate refuse to accept any counter to their ethical perspective on the basis of the fact that they believe the logical foundation of their opponent's arguments to be flawed? Egomania is an ethical classification. There are normative implications running all through the concept in its lay use. Even in its purest, most 'clinical' use, as you've pointed out, one cannot determine 'egomania' without reference to societal classificatory norms; thus it is entirely irrelevant to the existentialist. What use can even such a theoretical 'pure' classification have for an existentialist who believes that the source of his or her transcendence is, in fact, his or her rejection of all other 'originating' discourses and the constraints of society at large? If it is a concept that is "only valid if you believe that a society of individuals exists" then it assumes a normative function even in its 'purest' form, does it not?

While I grasp your larger point in the sense that you still think that it could be a source for debate, I think that the fact that the existentialist outright rejects such comparative, 'rational' classifications means that the classification of such a one as an egomaniac would require the 'pro' side to first unravel the entirety of existentialism's philosophy of transcendence. Good luck.

Since the existentialist defies all norms of societal classification in his or her 'overcoming', they are uncriticizable from 'within' such discourses. In order to debunk their position, one must debunk the rational foundation of their philosophy, which is, at its most basic level, that since the 'science' of metaphysical rationality cannot prove the validity of originating discourses that imbue life/society/morality with inherent meaning, the popular acceptance and imposition of any such discourse is, in fact, a societally induced crutch or constraint. If you can do that, then I would suggest that you start writing right now, because you sir, can change the world. Otherwise, in any such debate, the 'con' side can merely point out that you are operating from within just such a constraining discourse of the 'herd', and without the aid of metaphysical proof (a la the failed exercise of Cartesian rationality), the 'pro' side can get nowhere.