Looking over this again, I think the main point that I should have emphasized more is the fact that photovoltaics and wind turbines cannot be manufactured without oil and coal. And in their current forms, both photovoltaics and wind turbines require plastics, which are derived from crude oil. If you imagine a world with no coal or oil, the (energy and dollar) cost of producing a photovoltaic and or wind turbine would be significantly increased (and their designs would need to be dramatically modified).
(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]
Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.
(2) Proposed definition: "objective"
Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]
For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":
(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]
(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]
And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]
> "If Elo has no correlation with skill," I disliked this line a lot, as that exact correlation had already been shown.
ELO seems to be a good measure of persistence.
Since noob sniping is apparently not penalized and there seems to be a large number of forfeits from people who lose interest, anyone who grinds as many debates as possible and never forfeits will be rewarded for their effort.
Even highly skilled, highly ranked debaters, like Danielle on the old site seemed to overwhelm their opposition with a Gish Gallop of citations and had the favor of the moderators who were empowered to strike down any votes against them for "insufficient RFV".
I was originally very excited to participate in ranked debates, but I quickly learned that no matter how "logical" and "objective" the voting guidelines were believed to be, the actual judges themselves are incapable of acknowledging their own bias blind spot.
I have proposed that all debates be "self-moderated", that is to say that only the two participants in each debate are allowed to vote.
This way, the goal of the debate is to ACTUALLY CONVINCE YOUR DEBATE PARTNER and not simply make them look silly in order to sway an audience.
It seems like such an insanely simple solution to what many consider "a virtually intractable problem".
"What is currently not true is that God could have saved everything or anything He wanted without an ark, because He did not save everything or anything He wanted without an ark..."
I see. Your own statement here seems to contradict the standard argument that "YHWH" is OMNIPOTENT.
"Yeah, the water would have been mightily diluted from salt water by that much rain, but, who knows? Since God can make an ass talk [Numbers 22:], I suspect He can make fish breath brackish water for an interim period. 300 days? 400? 200?"
Pulling this thread dismantles the entire Noah story.
(IFF) "YHWH" can do anything it wishes (THEN) it could have "saved" everything it wanted or deemed "good" including Noah +family and any animals it wanted to save WITHOUT AN ARK.
(IFF) the police are called for every classroom disturbance (THEN) Ahmed was not discriminated (or islamaphobed) against.
(IFF) the police are called for a very few classroom disturbances (AND) the distribution of those cases is representative of the population of the school (THEN) Ahmed was not discriminated (or islamaphobed) against.
(IFF) the police were only called for Ahmed's classroom disturbance and not for any other classroom disturbance (THEN) Ahmed was discriminated (or islamaphobed) against.
So we agree that endless digits behind a number is just as illogical as endless digits before a number?
Infinite - There is no number so close to infinity such that you can't multiply it by 2 and have a new number larger still. Therefore, there is no closest number to infinity. Is that not what an infinite number supposedly is? Or rather, is that not what 0.9r is? A number infinitely close to 1 but not at 1? Such a number isn't logically possible because it's existence isn't consistent with the foregoing reasoning excluding such a number's existence.
Certainly 0.9r ROUNDS to 1. However, in the "real world" you have to add something to 0.9r in order for it to actually cross the line between 0.9r and 1.
The smaller the increment, the more accurate your result will be, but there is a very real practical limit to how small of an increment can be realistically added.
And so, we end up with a precision problem. Certainly there may be some theoretical "remainder", but if that remainder is beyond our scope of measure, it is de-facto meaningless.
You seem to have failed to properly address Death23's proposed definition of "infinity".
There are recognized situations where "infinity" is treated as a set and you can have two or more "infinities", or even "infinity" + 1.
As a practical matter, anyone could add a... 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 to anyone else's 0.9r and your point of precision would most likely be beyond anyone's practical ability to measure.
For example if I added 0.9r and the very very real number... 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 together, what would the result be?
It would seem to be "1". Therefore the difference between 0.9r and 1.0 is not zero.
Please create this debate and get a judge to agree to moderate and I will join - "I want the topic to be that when science isn't objective, it's pseudo-science. You CON, me PRO." if you are still interested.
Why don't you simply join this debate and argue that "true science" actually "is objective" and all "so-called-science" that fails the test of objectivity is actually "pseudo-science".
This seems like as good a starting point as any.
I'm pretty sure my arguments would be identical in either case.
So, if you take the remainder of 1 - 0.99999(r), lets call it 1/infinityith and you then multiply 1/infinityith by infinity then you end up with a 1 with infinite zeroes behind it. By contrast, if you multiply 0 by infinity you always end up with 0. That's a pretty big difference.
Therefore, 1 =/= 0.99999(r) (without rounding) because 1/infinityith does not equal zero.
Did PRO and CON agree on those definitions?
PRO and CON must agree on their definitions before any debate can proceed.
In 30 seconds - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd1HGmobf5g&list=PLpmLmx2zr10OM14A77GpwxYV6JVrZq6Oj
"It is individuals who are racist. There's a distinct difference, and that is what this debate is about." - -
Ok. So what would you call a system *designed by racists* that does not provide equal outcomes for people of different skin-tones?
Would you call that system "demonstrably biased against people of certain skin-tones"?
Doesn't that sound like hair-splitting?
LOL
Don't forget the constitutional argument - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQUhJTxK5mA
Since I am 99% sure I have no chance of winning, I hope Danielle is fine with self-plagiarism.
Nice.
Looking over this again, I think the main point that I should have emphasized more is the fact that photovoltaics and wind turbines cannot be manufactured without oil and coal. And in their current forms, both photovoltaics and wind turbines require plastics, which are derived from crude oil. If you imagine a world with no coal or oil, the (energy and dollar) cost of producing a photovoltaic and or wind turbine would be significantly increased (and their designs would need to be dramatically modified).
Thank you for your thorough and insightful analysis.
I'm flattered by your attention.
Thank you very much for your candor and participation in this debate.
I've actually learned a great deal of valuable information as a result of your actions.
Would you consider reviewing and casting a vote on this debate?
Would you consider reviewing and casting a vote on this debate?
I disagree.
And furthermore, I guarantee I will give you at least 1 point for participation.
So, if I fail to present an argument that you personally consider convincing, all you have to do to "win" the debate is to NOT grant me any points.
You really can't lose.
This is not some sort of trick.
I'm willing to openly negotiate based any definition you personally prefer.
Feel free to propose your own personally preferred definition of "the methodologies of science".
Feel free to propose your own personally preferred definition of "science".
Feel free to propose your own personally preferred definition of "objective".
(1) Proposed definition: "science"
(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]
Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.
(2) Proposed definition: "objective"
Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]
(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]
For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":
(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]
(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]
And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]
Both.
> "If Elo has no correlation with skill," I disliked this line a lot, as that exact correlation had already been shown.
ELO seems to be a good measure of persistence.
Since noob sniping is apparently not penalized and there seems to be a large number of forfeits from people who lose interest, anyone who grinds as many debates as possible and never forfeits will be rewarded for their effort.
Even highly skilled, highly ranked debaters, like Danielle on the old site seemed to overwhelm their opposition with a Gish Gallop of citations and had the favor of the moderators who were empowered to strike down any votes against them for "insufficient RFV".
Thanks for the mentions.
I was originally very excited to participate in ranked debates, but I quickly learned that no matter how "logical" and "objective" the voting guidelines were believed to be, the actual judges themselves are incapable of acknowledging their own bias blind spot.
I have proposed that all debates be "self-moderated", that is to say that only the two participants in each debate are allowed to vote.
This way, the goal of the debate is to ACTUALLY CONVINCE YOUR DEBATE PARTNER and not simply make them look silly in order to sway an audience.
It seems like such an insanely simple solution to what many consider "a virtually intractable problem".
"What is currently not true is that God could have saved everything or anything He wanted without an ark, because He did not save everything or anything He wanted without an ark..."
I see. Your own statement here seems to contradict the standard argument that "YHWH" is OMNIPOTENT.
Please explain.
"Yeah, the water would have been mightily diluted from salt water by that much rain, but, who knows? Since God can make an ass talk [Numbers 22:], I suspect He can make fish breath brackish water for an interim period. 300 days? 400? 200?"
Pulling this thread dismantles the entire Noah story.
(IFF) "YHWH" can do anything it wishes (THEN) it could have "saved" everything it wanted or deemed "good" including Noah +family and any animals it wanted to save WITHOUT AN ARK.
Round 1 is for ad hominems.
Round 2 is for special pleading and poisoning the well.
Round 3 is for red-herrings.
Round 4 is for declaring victory.
Round 5 is for straw-men and slippery slope arguments.
I've tried your suggestion too many times before and had my efforts struck from the record for not meeting these criteria.
Only PRO and CON [[themselves]] can determine which particular excerpts can be properly considered their respective "Main Arguments".
Per https://www.debateart.com/rules
"This survey must be comprehensive, which is to say that it must survey all or most of the main arguments in the debate..."
So, for the record, can you both please point out to me what you consider to be your Main Arguments from this particular debate.
"The comprehensiveness requirement simply requires you analyze the "main" arguments, of which there are usually 2 to 5 in a debate."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/864?page=4&post_number=79
PRO fails to give even a single example of some moral command (OMF) that might (necessarily) supposedly come from a god.
You also haven't ruled out possible court room bias.
I'm not drawing conclusions, merely presenting hypotheticals in an attempt to highlight the salient variables.
A single self report from another student does not prove discrimination or Islamophobia is conclusively not a factor in Ahmed's case.
I'm not drawing conclusions, merely presenting hypotheticals in an attempt to highlight the salient variables.
(IFF) the police are called for every classroom disturbance (THEN) Ahmed was not discriminated (or islamaphobed) against.
(IFF) the police are called for a very few classroom disturbances (AND) the distribution of those cases is representative of the population of the school (THEN) Ahmed was not discriminated (or islamaphobed) against.
(IFF) the police were only called for Ahmed's classroom disturbance and not for any other classroom disturbance (THEN) Ahmed was discriminated (or islamaphobed) against.
So we agree that endless digits behind a number is just as illogical as endless digits before a number?
Infinite - There is no number so close to infinity such that you can't multiply it by 2 and have a new number larger still. Therefore, there is no closest number to infinity. Is that not what an infinite number supposedly is? Or rather, is that not what 0.9r is? A number infinitely close to 1 but not at 1? Such a number isn't logically possible because it's existence isn't consistent with the foregoing reasoning excluding such a number's existence.
"...the possibility of such a remainder is eliminated by the logical impossibility of infitesimals."
and
The question of how is one direction (of endless digits) more logical than the other?
Ok, I gathered as much from your previous comments.
Can you present any logical reasoning in support of your position?
Why would you think it might be more logical for the zeroes to extend endlessly in one direction, but not in the other direction?
How is one direction more logical than the other?
How is it "more impossible" for "infinity" to be before a number instead of after a number?
When you write a 1, isn't it implied that there is an infinite number of zeroes both before and after the 1?
r0000000000000000001.00000000000000r ?
It appears as if I have lost this debate, however I have gained new insight into my philosophical arguments.
I would still consider that a personal win.
Certainly 0.9r ROUNDS to 1. However, in the "real world" you have to add something to 0.9r in order for it to actually cross the line between 0.9r and 1.
The smaller the increment, the more accurate your result will be, but there is a very real practical limit to how small of an increment can be realistically added.
And so, we end up with a precision problem. Certainly there may be some theoretical "remainder", but if that remainder is beyond our scope of measure, it is de-facto meaningless.
1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009999999r
=/=
0.9r which makes this a precision problem. The difference between 0.9r and 1 is not zero.
You seem to have failed to properly address Death23's proposed definition of "infinity".
There are recognized situations where "infinity" is treated as a set and you can have two or more "infinities", or even "infinity" + 1.
As a practical matter, anyone could add a... 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 to anyone else's 0.9r and your point of precision would most likely be beyond anyone's practical ability to measure.
For example if I added 0.9r and the very very real number... 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 together, what would the result be?
It would seem to be "1". Therefore the difference between 0.9r and 1.0 is not zero.
Please create this debate and get a judge to agree to moderate and I will join - "I want the topic to be that when science isn't objective, it's pseudo-science. You CON, me PRO." if you are still interested.
You seem to misunderstand.
It is impossible for me to win if you decide not to award me any points.
The burden-of-proof is shared equally by both participants.
This might be interesting...
Why don't you simply join this debate and argue that "true science" actually "is objective" and all "so-called-science" that fails the test of objectivity is actually "pseudo-science".
This seems like as good a starting point as any.
I'm pretty sure my arguments would be identical in either case.
With these same proposed definitions?
Please let me know if you would like to make any modifications to these proposed definitions.
Ok, here you go -
So, if you take the remainder of 1 - 0.99999(r), lets call it 1/infinityith and you then multiply 1/infinityith by infinity then you end up with a 1 with infinite zeroes behind it. By contrast, if you multiply 0 by infinity you always end up with 0. That's a pretty big difference.
Therefore, 1 =/= 0.99999(r) (without rounding) because 1/infinityith does not equal zero.