Dogs are smarter than people
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 10 votes and with 40 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
The resolution is that "dogs are smarter than people" not that all dogs are or even that most dogs are smarter than most people. Therefor if dogs are smarter than any people I win as long as it's kept plural. There are retarded humans who are literal vegetables and don't comprehend anything, they can't even speak, understand speech or wipe their own ass. There are dogs who comprehend language more than them, can do more than them in general and who show more complex thinking and problem solving skills.
I reject that premise, however i will say that all humans are smarter than dogs in spiritual understanding, supernatural comprehension and awareness of black holes.
"hums to myself"
oh well. I was looking forward to explaining how humans recognize black holes.
i need some ground rules regarding paganism debate, are referring to paganism in its modern interpretation? or paganism as far as not Regarding the God of israel? Pre muhammad or during/post muhammad worship?
you ever played planescape torment? intresting game that asks "What is the nature of man?"
And if you are a gambler, i consider myself High stakes.
Well I don't know why I would mention denial of the self. You already conceded the existence of the self and the external.
Furthermore, My first Premise is the cognito so it would be bad faith arguing on my part.
I'm aware of my BoP. I don't know what you mean by disallowed. Could you elaborate?
Be aware that I am allowed to appeal to probability to an extent. Induction is valid logic and there are literally things precedented to be consistently induced 100% of the time like gravity for instance. So I reject what I call pseudo skeptical claims that "we can never know X" Because some things can be known absolutely. .
Tautologies for instance are quite knowable because we define them and we can tailor them to reality. Even if reality was wrong. Our tautology would still be true of our abstraction of reality.
Theories when mapped to completely induce a logical set, are also tautologies. So these are the foundations by which I build my BoP.
If you do take the 'even the self isn't knowable' angle in the next Round, just know that it's not at all easy to word or end up not biting your own tail in the process of negating everything as knowable.
The primary reason I accepted the debate was you were Pro to 'False' meaning the middle-ground is Con's alternate path to victory which you're disallowed to take and that would be how I'd defeat you unless you truly truly worded it very very well there may be a way to avoid that but I'm not going to reveal it to you.
As for determinism, I'm not in the mood to tug on that particular thread at the moment. Maybe later. I've spent too much time arguing it with Omar
to your first statement.... Fair enough
I suppose gambling is one way to go. Although I would say that you'll never have a good standard by which to judge reality and will necessarily lead yourself to more false beliefs.
I would say that using a thought process that actually gets you to reality will be tried and tested and will guarantee you a better foundation even if it is false. But at least you tacitly accept reality. Far be it from me to shake you from that. To quote Matt Dillahunty.
"If you tell me that you're going to go murder people if you don't go to church, then I want your ass in church."
Solipsism is one step too far, I am actually a Nihilist who believes even the self isn't knowable. I will not explain my logic there until our debate is over as it's severely intricate and difficult to debate against and is a complete flip on your angle in that debate.
The difference between us is that I don't need to know something to believe it. I gamble on the truth. So I believe you're real enough, probably simulated and that I can't escape the simulation and may as well enjoy my time and therefore consider you real so I don't end up in an asylum or prison (or killed by my stupid decisions that ignored this reality, simulated or not).
I am also a Determinist, absolutely so yes.
Oh dear. Don't tell me you're a determinist as well.
That is easy to negate, it was us who domesticated them and if we have no free will to resist their charm they have no free will to trick us with in the first place.
How about saying they're smart because they Con us into taking care of them and never work while we feed them and let them hump things.
Among the many semantic trolling methods you could use to win this debate,the best would be 'smartphone' version of 'smart' turning the opponent's arguments completely against them as well as saying 'they are more alert to smells and Con is saying that because humans are smarter in other ways that it makes them smarter whereas I say all ways of being smarter are valid and not mutually exclusive'.
There's 2 other paths to take given 'quick wit' and 'sharp' being very situational etc.