Total posts: 14,582
-->
@PGA2.0
You see, you can't be consistent in your thinking once you say words in context have no meaning, and words do not convey a specific meaning.
We have similar experiences and therefore understand similar words similarly.
My point is that even though we have similar understandings of some words, that doesn't mean that the MEANING of those words is "set-in-stone" (as you seem to believe).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
When with Him, what we know in part, we will know in full.
Knowing half of something is often significantly more dangerous than knowing nothing.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
That is why God has given us a standard that we may know the difference, so we don't get hurt.Why did God make so many painful and dangerous things?Everything was 'very good' until Adam sinned.
Somebody should talk to that boy's parents.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Why does God kill off one parent and leave the other to raise their children alone?
I'm pretty certain that an all-powerful, all-knowing god could have insured each and every human is guaranteed a mother AND a father if that was TRULY their intention.
THE FACT that many children grow up without two loving parents pretty much PROVES that an all-powerful, all-knowing god designed it exactly that way "for a reason".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, what is ideal, the best?I'M BEGGING YOU TO TELL ME.You already know yet choose to ignore the best - the biblical God.
Oh, right, the biblical God who orders their followers to slaughter the children of non-believers.
That's your ideal-best-perfect-unchanging-universal-true-north-pole?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I find it much more practical to hone my rhetorical skill with the aim of convincing my opponent.Under the assumption they agree with a discussion format and are willing to have their mind changed.
Not at all.
Imagine you have a disagreement with one of your own parents and or siblings (in-real-life).
Are you better served by insulting them and making them look stupid in order to get them to shut-up (like in a typical debate)?
Or are you perhaps better served by COVINCING THEM with rhetorical skill.
Highly unlikely. Biden V Trump is a clear example at the peak of debating.
Your example simply highlights the PROBLEM with a "traditional-style" debate.
If that was changed to Biden having to persuade Trump,
AND, Trump having to persuade Biden...
...the entire time would be spent trying to but we both know he is clueless or deliberately misleading people so Biden is wasting his time.
And how is that outcome materially different, I mean, how is this an example of the "superiority" of "traditional-style" debate??
By every possible measure, a "traditional-style" debate is demonstrably WORSE than a "self-moderated" debate.
(IFF) you told Trump and Biden and the Audience that ONLY the participants could award points to each other (presumably on common-ground) and the "moderator" was simply there to keep time (THEN) the audience could much more easily judge who was a better NEGOTIATOR (incidentally a crucial skill in state-craft, also known as DIPLOMACY which just happens to be one of the PRIMARY jobs of so-called politicians).
In your "nightmare" scenario, perhaps Biden would grant a point to Trump for something they agree about, perhaps like, oh, let's say getting China to protect American intellectual property or something. And then Trump gives ZERO points to Biden.
The media isn't going to focus on "the win for Trump". They're going to focus on the point of agreement, and the fact that Biden appeared to be a more honest and open debater.
Some outlets might declare, "Biden is a weak compromiser who pandered to Trump". But they're obviously going to say stuff like that REGARDLESS OF THE DEBATE FORMAT. AND even then, it's going to be difficult for them to completely avoid talking about THE POINT.
Some outlets might declare, "Trump WINS DEBATE 1 to zip" but they're not going to have much of a story unless they talk about THE POINT and WHY it was granted. I think Trump supporters would be seriously confused by this because they seem to imagine that there is ZERO OVERLAP between the policies of the two candidates.
And I would consider that a MAJOR IMPROVEMENT over the current system that simply promotes mindless spectacle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That's why I proposed the 1/1/1 ranking system.I am guessing debater 1 gets 1, debater 2 gets 1 and the audience gets 1.
Your SMD (self-moderated-debate) ranking (1/1/1) would show under your username and could be set as a qualifier to accept a debate.
The first number would be the number of points you've given other players (points, not "wins").
The second number would be the number of points you've received from other players (points, not "wins").
The third number would be the number of self-moderated-debates you've participated in.
The ratios of these numbers would also yield some insight into the overall skill and open-mindedness of the individual player.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
What happens when reason is used to override reality?
Logic never contradicts reality.
It only contradicts your OPINIONS about reality.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If logic contradicts experience, is it really logical?
Science often contradicts "common sense".
If "common sense" was reliable, we wouldn't even need logic or science at all.
Created:
'Undeniable Pattern of Fraud': MIT Analysis Shows 69,000 Trump Votes Flipped to Biden in Michigan Amidst Contradictory Fact-Checker 'Facts', Michigan Lawsuit With Dominion Whistleblower & More
When the Antrim County Elections Commissioner in Michigan announced that a "tabulating software glitch" had counted 6,000 Trump votes for Biden amidst a flurry of other statistical anomalies in Michigan and other swing states, observers began to speculate that that the "glitch" was actually a feature of this Dominion Voting Systems software being used in 47 additional Michigan counties. Considering the fact that hidden programs used to flip the vote for a chosen candidate have not only existed for decades, but are easy to both create (only 100 lines of code) and upload onto electronic voting machines while remaining virtually undetectable, such a scenario is entirely possible. And given that another glitch in another Michigan county resulting with the very same outcome in a County Commissioner race, erroneously flipping Republican votes to the Democrat opponent causing a now-reversed election upset, it does seem mighty coincidental that multiple such 'glitches' all causing 'errors' that flip R votes to D is certainly highly suspect. And let's not forget Dominion's ties to the Clinton Foundation and a number of other establishment Democrat insiders, posing a number of obvious conflicts of interest.
14 minute youtube link - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F_g-eKY1QI
I GUESS THE REAL QUESTION IS, DO YOU PREFER "STABILITY" OR THE TRUTH?
WE'VE HAD OVER 20 YEARS TO FIX THE EMBARASSINGLY BAD VOTING MACHINES IN THE UNITED STATES.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Maybe but in a debate a person's interest should be convincing the audience so your question is irrelevant to what a debate is about.
I find it much more practical to hone my rhetorical skill with the aim of convincing my opponent.
If my opponent is convinced, the audience will overwhelmingly be convinced as well (double-win).
ALSO, most "real-life" debates are 1-on-1 without an audience, and if the majority of your practice involves pandering to an audience, you will find yourself at a distinct disadvantage in these critical "real-life" debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Does self-moderate mean you can vote for yourself?
You can "vote for yourself" indirectly by not voting for your opponent.
If neither side grants any points, the debate ends in a tie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes but in order to measure if someone is telling a truth you need to know what is going on inside their mind. Without it a discussion depending on convincing the otherside is not good grounds to measure a debate because we have no way in reading people's minds.
That's why I proposed the 1/1/1 ranking system.
That way you could tell instantly if someone NEVER grants any points to their opponent.
The ranking system itself would incentivize some level of cooperation, otherwise you might find yourself with nobody willing to debate.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
All one has to do is observe how so many people have used reason to place themselves into an epistemological black hole. Even becoming solipsists. When you get to the point to where all action must be reasoned out or understood logically, it can put a very real freeze on a person.
This is all very lovely and interesting, but it seems to side-step the subject.
Is "free will" logically coherent?
You seem to be suggesting that it doesn't need to be logically coherent.
And I would agree with you, "free will" is merely an emotion.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Certainly [some] people feel like they have no control over their actions.
Of course. But what I'm looking for is LOGICAL NECESSITY.
I would say that for one to deny that they have choice is maladaptive.
I would say that for one to deny LOGIC is maladaptive.
I believe that people can reprogram their minds.
I agree, but the (prerequisite) DESIRE to "reprogram" their minds is not "uncaused" (by previously existing events).
We "feel free" when we can fulfil our desires, but we do not intentionally choose our desires (we are slaves to our impulses).
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The experience of having choice.
So, just the feeling you get?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
How would you personally define "free will"?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Why is that your definition of "free"? Indistinguishable from random?
Free of determinism.
Free of influence.
Free of predictability.
Free of history.
Even a little bit free.
Say an action is 1% FREE of influence. That 1% is still indistinguishable from random and incompatible with WILL. The part of your actions that are FREE cannot be influenced by "your will".
This renders your FREEDOM counterproductive (unpredictable, out of your control).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
This seems slightly coercive.You have a will, and you are aware of the consequences. Are you interested in what is best, or will any standard do?
You can freely choose to go to any restaurant you wish.
However, if you go to one I don't like, I will beat you with a baseball bat.
But don't let that FACT interfere with your free-decision-making.
Just pick the one you like best.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Hell is the absence of God's presence where any evil goes.
Wait.
What happened to "omnipresent"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I have admitted the thought of being the only one is absurd.
Which Church flavor do you subscribe to?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
...ement. Because of one police officer's wrongful act, the whole police service was demonized, defunded in many locations, and the country had a huge price to pay. Mass violent mobs of anarchists descended on cities destroying private property and inflicting harm on these communities' resid...
When your neighbor's children run naked in the streets breaking things, who do you blame?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
(IFF) you have a strong survival instinct (AND) hope for a better future (THEN) you will do anything in your power to protect yourself (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your family and loved ones (as it serves priority #1) (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your property (as it serves priorities #1 and #2) (AND) if you are convinced that priorities #1, #2, and #3 are secure, ONLY THEN are you capable of truly free COOPERATION with others (otherwise you are COERCED).Where did you get those ideas from? Is it the norm??? Perhaps with the Christian framework?
Do you agree that this is a universal and unchanging moral framework?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
One thing is impossible to prove that there is no LOCHNESSBIGFOOTSPACEALIENS.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I am not assuming that god did not create the universe, that is not my burden to prove,
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Because God is love. Injustice concerns Him.
I've seen Christians do this before, but I still can't figure it out,
LOVE =/= PUNISHMENT
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
What you think deep down so often reflects and directs your actions.
Now you're starting to sound like Napoleon Hill.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Words have the power of life and death. Some have a harmful effect on others. They can be used in destroying people through bullying them. They can tear down a positive image and replace it with a negative one. I believe in speaking my mind, but if someone is bullying, there is a point where enough is enough. Some things need to be said, but it should be gentleness and respect where possible. Directness is one of my faults.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You fix this "problem" with ONE RULE, "NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS".
And no "enforcement" mechanism is needed except for you to tell them, "NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS".
It's shockingly effective.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
There is an invitation there, by God. Thus it is not a want of something that should not belong to us, but something designed for our good by God. God is for a better relationship with humanity, but it must be through His set means because that means is sufficient to meet God's standard - His righteousness. There is nothing wrong with restoring a broken relationship, but it is a two-way street. It must be the desire of both parties.
So, it's "greed" to want some things, but not "greed" to want other things? How do you know which is which?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you going to stand up for what is right is the question?
What does The Bible prescribe for "defamation of character"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A discussion is talking to one another at the very basic level. I guess you can say the "Debates" section is for debates and the "Forum" section is for discussions but from my point of view forums become a circle jerk or a pseudo debate section.
Do you think it would be fair to say that you have zero interest in convincing your debate partner?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I can lie and say I wasn't convinced even the slightest and we have no way in measuring a person's thoughts.
A judge can lie and say they are unbiased when in-fact they are emotionally (implicitly) predisposed to one position (and or participant) over the other. Have you ever encountered a truly "unbiased" judge?
Based strictly on your proposed, "measure of a person's thoughts", both debate styles appear to be equal.
With perhaps some advantage to "self-moderated" because each participant would likely be expected to be biased toward themselves, (which denies any unfair advantage to either side) which would make a WIN exceptionally challenging and therefore exceptionally valuable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JRob
Accuses CON of introducing material outside the scope of the resolution. [I find this particular bit to be moot. The “black ghetto” point can be discarded, certainly, but the education point, point about corporations, etc, still stand. The bit about AU/ANT was by way of explaining a point - dismissal of the analogy alone doesn’t address the point it was explaining - expert acknowledgement of an issue.]
Thorough and fair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JRob
CON: Please stop declaring that you’ve won. In all aspects, this is up to the voting collective, and the cheeky jabs at PRO fall on unappreciative eyes. “Tsk, tsk tsk.” “…that’s why PRO’s arguments fail…” “Through the ignorance of PRO…”. I considered giving PRO the conduct point.
I agree. A rush to declare victory and implicit ad hominem attacks qualify as poor conduct.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Not only this, I have offered to give you the reasons why the biblical God is reasonable to believe, whereas other belief systems are not.
Let's skip ahead.
GOD is a real-true-fact and The Bible is 100% real-true-fact, now what?
What does this mean to me in a real-life-practical-everyday scenario?
Don't worship other gods? No problem.
Don't manufacture idols? No problem.
Don't say "YHWH"? No problem.
Don't work on Saturday? Jesus canceled this one, we should actually make this "the 9 commandments". No problem.
Honor thy parents? No problem.
Don't murder? No problem.
Don't adulterate? No problem.
Don't steal? No problem.
Don't perjure yourself? No problem.
Don't desire stuff? I already find it practical to focus on contentment, so, no problem.
What else?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I gave you a reference to the Ten Commandments when you asked before for a chart.
#1, the "commandments" are not FACTS. The "commandments" are statements of DOGMA.
#2, even (IFF) we accepted the "commandments" as 100% "true" (AND) we tried to follow them to the letter (THEN) we still end up with a ridiculous number of loop-holes and unanswered (perhaps unanswerable) legal (and moral) questions
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Therefore, "morality" must be based on facts.I agree. Now, who sets these moral facts in motion? It must be a necessary being. Morality is a mindful thing.
Nobody "sets facts".
FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.
This means they are always VERIFIABLE.
No "appeal to authority" needed.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Some label or call that framework moral conventions or moral norms. With such conventions or norms where two countries or two individuals oppose each other, then who is right? What then is the actual case?
THE BIBLE DOESN'T SOLVE THIS "PROBLEM".
IF TWO PEOPLE THINK THE BIBLE SUPPORTS THEIR CLAIM, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHO IS "CORRECT"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I would agree a possible reason was that the HUMAN had a trigger mechanism built into its design, so it instinctively responded, or that response became a habit based on experience. Survival.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I am asking you to present what you think is necessary for objective moral values.
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
Created:
-->
@Username
Sure? My point about Christianity and morality was clearly about moral nihilism.
Just so we're clear, "moral nihilism" =/= "subjective morality"
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Desire prioritization certainly can be said to imply choice.
Not really.
The "outcome" of a "decision point" (like a cross-roads) is simply a MEASURE of which DESIRE is stronger.
It's like a cage-match for your emotions (even your thoughts are unwitting slaves, sycophants to your subconscious goals).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I have taken a lot of time and effort to answer every post you have sent me in detail,
And I greatly appreciate your tenacity.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you really and truly strive to "love thine enemy" as Jesus instructed?I do, yet I fall short like everyone other than Jesus. I realize I can never measure up to the perfect Messiah.
In light of this specific teaching, do you support your nation's military?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How do you know which Christian is correct?First, you have to understand there is a correct interpretation. Then you have to pay attention to hermeneutics and exegesis.
Does your understanding of "a correct interpretation" match up with any established doctrine, or is your "a correct interpretation" a "fresh-new-illumination" of "The Word"?
Created:
-->
@Username
You can do things without a moral reason to do them. . .
Are you conflating "nihilist" with "moral-nihilist"?
Created:
-->
@Username
What possible motive would a nihilist have for speaking to someone?Because they want to?
Why would a nihilist, who by definition has no motive, "want" to speak to someone?
A nihilist recognizes no "meaning" and therefore has no motive.
To a nihilist, all things are "meaningless".
This quite logically leads us to conclude they don't understand (and or recognize and or acknowledge) the "meaning" of words.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The truth of the matter is that Betty is actually 98 years old and has grey hair.
I know Betty personally and they do not appear to be anywhere near 98 years old, and they do not have any visible grey hair.
A FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.
(IFF) someone tells you their name is "Betty" (AND) that person tells you they are "98 years old" (AND) that person appears to have naturally grey hair on their head (THEN) you know EXACTLY ONE FACT ABOUT THEM (namely, you can empirically demonstrate that at least some of the hair on their head appears to be naturally grey at least on the side that you were able to observe in the lighting conditions available at the time the data was gathered).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
There has to be a fixed reference for truth.
There must be a "fixed reference" (EXPLICIT PRIMARY AXIOMS) for "truth" (TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENTS).
Created: