It is impossible for a human being not to communicate.

I wish to rechallenge my opponent but this time I will actually check up on the website instead of purely relying on it's pathetic emailing system (yes my notifications for my email and on this site are turned on).

It is impossible for a Human Being NOT to communicate.

Communication is defined as:
1. the act or process of communicating; fact of being communicated
2. the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs
3. something imparted, interchanged, or transmitted
4. a document or message imparting news, views, information, etc.
5. passage, or an opportunity or means of passage, between places

Communication MUST involve two or more people. They do not have to be voiced either. Being silent, having a blank stare, and sitting in a single spot, not visibly moving, is communicating. It shows boredom to another person. It shows disinterest to another person.

It is impossible to NOT communicate to another person. My opponent would have to have the statement "NOT communicating is possible".

First off I would like to point out that my opponent has used an absolute, all I must do to win is prove that one person can, for even the shortest period of time, refrain from communicating. I will do this through a scenario.

1- A lone person in a room where they cannot be observed to any extent cannot communicate.

A lone person communicates to themselves. The two people involved would be sending forth and receiving the information.

You would most likely point out that there aren't two people, but the two people would be one in the same, and as explained they are two people because one sends information and one receives it, if the being is talking to themselves.

A lone person can communicate to themselves.

Since you did not define person, I will take the honour, this is from Merriam-Webster

Person-
Human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes

This definition clearly shows that 1 person = 1 person, not 2, but 1 person, amazing how that works isn't it?

The definition of person isn't sender of info or receiver of info. Talking to yourself is not communication, it is a though process. A person cannot communicate with themselves, as you stated by saying that 2 people are required.

Even if one person could communicate with themselves there are many times that this could not happen, for example during sleep, unconsciousness, or a coma.

I would like the judges that my opponent used an absolute and I need only prove 1 time when a person is not communicating is even remotely possible to win.

I did not define person, but since I am speaking of Human Beings, not person (person is an under-developed definition of Human Being) I will open the definition up to what I speak of.

A Human Being IS a person, but a complicated person. A Human Being is an individual self, even though it is possible that the Human Being can contain a multiple of collective thoughts within one's self. Seeing you are majoring in Communications, you should know that no one comes up with an idea by themselves. Therefore, it is possible to say that the Human Being is not mentally and ideally an individual, but that but physically they are an individual with a multiple collective of thoughts made from influences of the human psyche. Therefore, a Human Being can naturally be more than two people. My position still stands. One Human Being CAN be two different people. And communication can be from the same Human Being.

Also, Mirriam-Webster dictionary is not a good dictionary to reference from. It has been criticized by Herbert Morton for not having good English in it and not having a wide variety of definition to it. So obviously, most definitions are one-sided and simple, where as the subject matter at hand is not simple at all.

CBS also reports that the Mirrian Webster Dictionary includes new "hip" words from modern times. Such as Himbo, and taking out words such as colloquial and corruptness.

My opponents source for definition is not a good source at all.

So to sum it all up:

1. It is impossible not to communicate.
2. Two people/personalities can be in one individual.
3. His only source does not work with the subject at hand.
4. I have provided a clear definition of a Human Being (in which I used things learnt in a communications major, that is HIS specialty for study).

Thank you for the debate.

I don't see how one person can be two people, you say my source is bad, but the examples you gave were irrelevant and you gave no source at all. I'm not entirely certain what your logic is behind this "one person is two people" philosophy and the only way I can think to negate this is to ask the judges to just think it through, are you really communicating with yourself? You aren't sending new information because you already have it, there is no biological explanation for a person communicating with themselves. They may do it on a subhuman level such as within the brain but that is parts of the brain communicating not the person. I guess we will just leave this decision up to the judges as to whether one person is two people or not.

Since my opponents only argument was that we communicate with themselves I will make a list of times when this doesn't happen for those judges who do think one person is really two people, when you are;

-dead
-asleep
-unconscious
-in a coma

A person in any of these states is still a person, but can the alleged two people within them communicate?

Also although it is probably irrelevant, I'm not in college, I'm still in high school.