To be fair, Jesus is acknowledged both historically and biblically as a real figure who died on the cross. Therefore, most people do not believe he was non-existent. However, there is a distinction between the Biblical Jesus and the Historical Jesus, as they are not considered the same entity. Bible Jesus is the one described as the son of God, died for our sins, etc. History Jesus is just a man who lived in Palestine, opposed Roman Rule, gained a following, gave moral teachings, and was eventually executed under suspicion of planning to overthrow Roman rule.
One could argue that the Jesus depicted in the Bible was not crucified as he represents a fictionalized version of the actual Jesus, whose divine paternity cannot be substantiated. But your topic is just about Jesus being crucified in general, which is undisputed.
You did not mean gifted to mean high IQ. Stop lying. I am done talking to you about this. You proved in your own words that you are not complying with the criteria. You keep insulting me. And then you even refuse to listen to the Mods after both of them have told you to stop. What part of, "I will no longer talk to you, so wait for the mods to determine this matter," do you not understand? Frankly, I was told that if you did not stop your insults on my IQ other steps would be taken. So it amazes me that they haven't done so at this point since not listening to the mods is disrespectful to them as well.
Here he goes again mocking my IQ. You told him multiple times to stop and he still will not listen. This exactly what I said he would do. he's really trying to push me into saying things I will regret in response. But unlike him, I respect the rules of this platform and what the mods say. Who the fuck is he to tell me I am "gifted"?
To be honest, I am done with this conversation with him. In fact I said that multiple times. All he does is insult and double-talk. And I've had it with his mockery of MY IQ and his presumption of my disabilities. He is not going to listen or follow the rules. I am much happier just to wait for your final decision on this matter. He wants to be toxic, and I am not going to be a part of it.
You can't make a video supposedly giving a thoughtful answer and then let it be known in the comments section that you aren't complying with the rules. it was especially low of you with how you handled it. There could have been so many ways this never got to this point.
You could have A:
Never comment letting me know you aren't voting based on the given criteria. At this point, I would not have said anything as White Flame made it clear that videos were acceptable.
You could have B:
Treated me with respect and heard the points I was making, and we could have come to a mutual understanding. You would have been aware of what Criteria votes are based on and not your misinterpretation such as, "Who won." And I would have been satisfied with an apology and a correction of the vote to still give Con the vote but with a better reason behind it.
And C: we could have mutually agreed to disagree and let the mods handle the determination.
But did you go with ANY of these options? No, you just proceeded to argue pointlessly and ignore anything I had to say, and when I kept pointing out that what you say is either outside the rules or not making sense, you insulted my IQ level. And even now when I am talking to SOMEONE ELSE to explain my side, you proceed to be vulgar and insult me again. There are just no redeeming qualities in you for me to respect you, as you do not respect me.
>How stupid does a person have to be to not understand there are different levels of shitty and I was forced to choose between a turd sandwich vs douche.
This my point: all you have is insults. I brining up facts based on what YOU said. And you proceed to be insultive and go on an unrelated rant to avoid the points I am making. I am not playing that game.
>If the best possible argument is a 10 and bad arguments are any number below 6 than I can say an argument that ranks 3 is shitty but still superior to one that ranks 1. You are simultaneously bitching that I called you stupid, while simultaneously not realizing that both sides of an argument can be bad. This is not something that would confuse most people with a 3 digit IQ.
Okay here you are ignoring what the mods said and insulting my IQ again, which you were told not to do. It's a simple concept. If you are supposed to vote based on a criterion. Then you go by the basis of that criteria. You did not do as you said you voted based on who, "Won," not who made the convicting argument. or better sources or better conduct. What part of that is hard to understand?
>Wow you are still too evil to watch the video and know what I said. I have no ideal how you plan to win the next debate while refusing to watch videos
If you did something like, I don't know, PAY ATTENTION. You would know that your video is irrelevant. No matter what you may have said in your video. The fact does not change that you said, and I quote you:
"The vote is based on who won, not on my personal opinion. I don't have to be convinced to change my opinion on a topic just because the side who won, disagrees with me."
"Con's arguments for abortion equalling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments."
Both comments prove you aren't voting on the criteria.
Then here is where you double talk:
"Pro went after red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments."
"Providing a rebuttal for an irrelevant red herring is stupid. You could have agreed with him and it wouldn't make you any less likely to lose. If he said the best color was purple I could see you falling for that red herring and randomly arguing against it"
So first statement is I never addressed Cons arguments. Then you change your claim to say that I DID address Cons arguments and its BECAUSE I did in fact do so that it was irrelevant and stupid of me to do.
Make up your mind. Did I not respond to Con's points, which is why you said I only went after, "red hearing" or did I indeed do so and its because I did that you think "Providing a rebuttal for an irrelevant herring is stupid"?
To be honest with you bro. The whole reason this comment section turned into a flame war was because WyIted admitted that he wasn't voting within the farmwork of the criteria. He said that your argument was "Shitty and wrong" But gave you the better argument vote because he claimed I, "dropped very promising arguments early that the supreme court decides what is considered constitutional " (which wasn't true). And I supposedly, "chased red herrings" (which he changed his story about several times.) Then he admitted being voting not on the topic at all, but rather on the definition of slavery (which wasn't the topic) and then he proceeded to lie by misquoting me (which I also proved in the comments). Then he claimed that he is supposed to vote based on who, "Won" rather than who made the more convincing argument (again voting outside of the criteria). And then when I kept exposing him for lying, he grew frustrated and called me a retard.
At that point, the conversation devolved into me critiquing him for mocking my intelligence and him trying to justify his behavior. The only point I tried to get across to this whole stupid argument was that he admitted to not voting by the Criteria. And rather than just saying, "Okay, I get your point, I will cast a vote that reflects why Con made the better argument," as any normal person would do. he kept lying, insulting, and arguing. Mind you, he KEPT arguing after I said I was done talking about it.
His video might have been something else. But his comments prove he did not follow the rules, and he has been doing everything he can to ignore or avoid that fact. and that is the source of my frustration. Votes should be by the Criteria or not at all.
I would advise looking over the debate and after reading it, to vote based on the criteria, Your vote as well as your opinion would be much appreciated.
Also, I wanted to point out that this one last thing. I only took issue with his vote. After he admitted in the comments that his reasoning was not based on the craiteria in which is vote was based and the comments prove that. Not just the video.
I never called your intelligence into question until you called me retarded and presumed to know what level of the spectrum I am at. I only pointed out that you were admitting to voting outside of the criteria that was required and you escalated it from there.
Right, means lower IQ. Meaning you are claiming I am mentally stupid, and you do not know WHY that's offensive to me? And I am the "Intellectually disabled" one? Dude. You cannot be so stupid as to not understand why being called retarded is hurtful. What would I prefer? How about respect? Being treated like a human being? Any of that make sense to you?! Is that a SIMPLE enough concept for you?!
You know nothing about me or my disabilities. You are just trying to be offensive while at the same time pleading ignorance and saying you meant nothing by it to goad me into an immature fight. You are not getting it. You insulted me with a highly offensive word wanting to upset me and you succeeded. And your reward is that I do not wish to talk to you anymore.
I think the real question is that who is the real, "retard" here? Is it me? the Highly autistic man who took the time to learn and understand my disabilities so that I can adapt and overcome said disabilities to the point that a know-nothing like yourself can't even tell without me spelling it out for you. Or is it you since you both can't play by the rules, and when called out on it, give a million different in-coherent stories to justify said toxic behavior, and you go around calling people names because you have the maturity of a five-year-old?
Think about that before you want to call anyone else, "Retarded." You can keep messaging if you want, but I am no longer replying or listening.
For the last time, this debate is over. I am a highly functional autistic man, sir. I do not have the time nor patience to listen to you try to justify offending me by mocking the conditions that I had since birth by miscategorizing them as a mental disability that affects one's intelligence such as retardation. The fact you see, "nothing wrong" with calling someone an offensive word for disabled people, who by the way do not fit under the derogatory term known as retarded, shows just how deplorable your character truly is.
I have nothing further to add to you, sir, except you should be ashamed of your disgraceful ignorant self.
>but he said that mothers do work for the benefit of their unborn child without pay. You never contradicted that working for others for no pay and being forced to do so is slavery.
That is a lie, when said that, I responded with and I quote. " Firstly, the government does not reimburse her, and this does not constitute slavery. To be considered slavery, one must be owned by another, and a state does not own a woman simply because she is pregnant. They merely determine the legality of the medical procedure of abortion. And not the 13th Amendment doesn't make anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. You have gone to great lengths to try to establish a connection that simply does not legally exist or apply on the matter of abortion because forced-kept pregnancies are not lawfully considered as slavery."
I did not say, ""People don't mean abortion when they say slavery".
Debate is over, you are a liar, and you did not adhere to the rules. I have informed the mods and will inform them of your attacks on me. good day.
>Providing a rebuttal for an irrelevant red herring is stupid. You could have agreed with him and it wouldn't make you any less likely to lose. If he said the best color was purple I could see you falling for that red herring and randomly arguing against it
Why would I agree? Con's entire point was to say that Abortion has been legal for over 250 years. I, someone who is saying the opposite, can't agree with that point. Now you're digging a deeper hole for yourself. First, you said Con's arguments were shity but you gave it to him because I did not address his arguments. Now you're saying that just addressing a point was
stupid.
>Your rebuttals failed, and you have not watched my video to figure out why, so that is your problem. Slavery is relevant because both pro and con agreed it was unconstitutional
Oh, they failed now did they. You keep changing your story. First it was that I did not address Cons arguments. Then it was that addressing Con's points at all, which you call "red herring" was stupid. And now you say my rebuttals failed in an argument you said you do not agree with.
>You seem to be forgetting that the better argument can be shitty as though less shitty than the worst argument.
Again, the criteria asks, "Better argument" Not, "Shity argument," For you to vote within the rules. you have either vote and explain how one side made the better argument to you and thats why you voted for them. What you said so far was that I made promising arguments and in contrast Con made bad ones but you voted for them anyway. Now your saying the opposite and the Con made the less "shity argument." clearly define who made the better argument or admit that your not convinced by either and do not vote.
>After the early part of the debate you hinted at the correct arguments to defeat con, particularly by briefly mentioning that judges determine the constitutionality of something, not the document itself. Even with Barney trying to avoid addressing this argument you just didn't pick up on the fact you had the seeds of a positive argument that could defeat him and make no mistake you needed a positive argument to win in order to win the debate given the burden split.
Again, you are demonstrating that you did not fully understand the arguments. My argument was the Abortion was not Constitutional because the Constitution did not include it and recent Supreme Court cases ruled in favor of that view. Con argued that Abortion was a legal practice for 250 years and that the supreme court is ruled by cultists who hate women, later on we argued over the rights women had and wither abortion is slavery or not.
As far as positive arguments go, I made plenty and can quote them if challenged. Point is, your not complying with the rules and your vote is unfair and should be revoked.
Do you see why I am taking such an issue with this? Not only does his reasoning not comply with the rules, but his understanding is based on false assumptions. He thinks he is supposed to vote on who won, not the criteria it is supposed to be on. He admits that his vote is based on something completely off-topic and is now showing he doesn't understand how rebuttals work.
>The vote is based on who won, not on my personal opinion. I don't have to be convinced to change my opinion on a topic just because the side who won, disagrees with me.
No, the person who won is decided by the amount of votes they get at the end. The vote itself is supposed based on what the voter thought based on the Criteria provided. Meaning you have to vote based on the questions I outlined. No one "wins" until the vote ends.
>The debate is about whether abortion is constitutional or not. It is irrelevant what people in 1820 thought.
Uh, that may be what the topic is about. But the point I made about the law of 1820 is a counterargument to Con's claim that abortion was not illegal for 250 years. See, you do not even properly evolute the argument before you decide.
>I had Snoop Dog read your arguments to me and I heard your rebuttals. What I was looking at is how slavery was defined. You didn't present a legal definition of slavery which had you done so, would have debunked him. You let him get away with a lot. I think it should reveal a lot to you that I disagree vehemently with his side and still was not biased enough to vote in your favor. I would recommend watching my whole video, but at least the last 10 minutes or so and then learning from it.
First of all, you don't know snoop Dog. Secondly, you just said that the topic is about abortion and its constitutional presence or lack their off. NOW, you are saying that your vote is based on how slavery was defined, which is both not the topic and a point you yourself said was, "Stupid and wrong." I clearly rebuttaled Abortion of slavery being the same withe abortion serveral times. This just confirms you are not voteing fairly.
Also to make it clear. I do not care if Wylted voted against me itself. Only that the vote complies with the rules. And while I understand that the subjective nature of what convinces a person can vary. I do not believe that it is subjective to give a reason for WHY you vote for either side and that vote has to be explained. Nor is it subjective on what Criteria you base that vote on.
But when someone says, "Con's arguments for abortion equaling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments." Okay, so that means, that at no point you found Con's argument convincing. and that is the better argument the Criteria vote is meant to be based on.
I mean this reasoning is equal to saying, "Pro made a very good argument for why purple cannot be blue, and Con did not make a good argument for why purple is blue, but I am going to side with Con anyway."
That's not what the better argument vote is for. If WyIted believes Con made the better argument, then he should say so. In contrast, he said the opposite.
And lastly on a personal note. I don't get Wylted's claim of me dropping promising arguments. Since my argument did not change during the entire debate.
Understood. But I think that WyIted's comment is very alarming because he just proved he's not voting based on the criteria. Cause saying that Con made and unconvincing argument and then saying hes still voting for his favor anyway is a blatant disregard for the rules.
Firstly, you should put that in your vote. secondly, what you said was vague and makes no sense. You admit that the argument Con made was, "Wong and stupid" in other words did not convince you, which is what the better argument is supposed to be about. Yet, you still vote for Con because I went for red herrings instead of addressing Con's arguments.
By the way, claiming that I did not address the cons arguments is false. When he said Abortion was a traditional legal practice for over 250 years. I countered with sources proving that anti-abortion laws had existed since 1820. When Con tried saying that A woman can be sent to jail for the rest of her life for abortion, I pointed out that only applied to a specific state.
Most damming of all, when Con tried saying abortion was slavery thanks to the 13th Amendment, I quoted and referenced several sources debunking this very idea.
Overall, the problem I have with what you said is that you are going against the rules. You are supposed to vote based on 5 categories. 1. Who presented the better argument? 2. Who provided better sources? 3. who wrote better, and 4. Who provided better conduct?
In contrast, you made a YouTube video, that doesn't explain anything to those who don't follow the link, including the moderators. And have now admitted that Con's argument did not convince you, but you voted against me anyway. If neither side convinced you, then you should not vote at all.
@whiteflame Now that we have heard what WyIted said, I believe his vote should be stricken since he has made it clear his not voting based on the criteria.
I have a question, So, WyIted likes to make YouTube videos to explain when he votes. And while I have no problem with the videos, he makes himself. Should he not also have to write out his official reasoning for his vote so the Moderators can better be informed of the basis since all he provides is a link? I am just asking because we as the participants have no way of knowing if you moderators reviewed the video to see if his reasoning or way of decoding the vote complies with the rules of the site. Just a question.
I actually agree with this statement. The First Amendment makes no mention of hate speech, and despite the efforts made by states to create hate speech laws, the Constitutional right to say what we want is indeed unlimited.
I take several issues with your argument. First, your argument hinges on the belief that everything, including the Universe, has a beginning, but Modern science debunks that. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter, also known as energy, cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the universe has no beginning because there was never a time when matter did not exist. Thus, saying the universe has a beginning is false.
The second issue is that while your logic works to a degree. There is nothing empirical about it. It all hinges on conditions and speculation rather than theory and observation.
Well, my view is that Pro is making the stronger argument. Con's position is supposed to be against the idea that immorality would be good. Yet, they talk good things about it, saying that it makes someone wise, gives them experience, and they are superhuman. The only pushback they give is over theoretical rhetoric that has nothing to do with morality.
Pro, on the other hand, keeps their argument completely within the context of the subject. And brings up excellent points, such as these terms are vague and can easily be seen as an argument for immortality, not immorality. They make a particularly good point about the subjective nature of desire, the inability to predict others, and the stark difference between the real world and the imagined and how it works. However, I disagree that immorality is only achievable in science.
Furthermore, your reasoning is flawed by assuming that it's impossible to run out of time, resulting in an automatic forfeit of a round. I was unable to write anything because time ran out. Common sense dictates that a person's willingness to engage in a debate up to the final round indicates a clear interest in continuing the debate. Therefore, it should be evident that not stating my continued interest does not equate to an intentional forfeit in the last round.
This does not change the fact that there has been no forfeiture. Forfeiture occurs when a party fails to participate for multiple rounds, or sometimes for an entire round, or if they explicitly state their concession. In contrast, I have actively participated in the debate up until the final round. Your vote does not comply with the rules. It is evident that I have put forward numerous arguments which you have overlooked, and you have not explained what my opponent said that convinced you to vote in their favor. Please cast your vote again in the proper manner, considering the arguments presented by all sides throughout the debate, and provide a genuine reason for your decision, or I will have to report this to the moderators as it is clearly unfair.
I have several objections to your vote. First, you claim that I "missed" the point of the debate without providing any details. This is particularly troubling to me as I presented multiple arguments demonstrating why Christianity is an irrational belief, using the definition of irrationality, the subjective definition provided by Con, and by delineating the distinction between faith-based ideologies and those founded on reason. Therefore, stating that I "missed the point of the debate" is entirely unfounded since you did not offer any explanation or examples.
You also say that I made counters that didn't "work in the context of the argument." How? for example, Pro made the argument
"Now, let me ask you some questions. Where did that initial atom come from? And if there is no god, why and how did it suddenly expand into a universe? Not just a mess of scattered elements. A universe with rules, life, and probably most impressively, human intellect. How could a random atom that was just kind of existing one day independently create such an organized universe? How did DNA evolve in such a way it created conscious thought? DNA is like a language, and you need a writer for that. "So, we can see, that there is indeed evidence for the existence of God. This evidence claims that a god exists rational."
In response, I pointed out that the first law of thermodynamics disproves the notion that a deity created the universe. This rebuttal is not only contextually appropriate but also remained largely uncontested by Pro, who simply retorted, "That violates the first law of thermodynamics," without providing any sources to support their claim. Please explain how that is out of context.
And then you say that Pro refuted everything I said, which is false. For example, Pro had no answer to the first law of thermodynamics, the medical improbability of Jesus coming back to life, and he even conceded that point by agreeing it was impossible. So, again, saying that Pro refuted everything I said is false.
On the sources vote. You say that Pro provided more and better sources. Explain that to me. Pro gave a total of 15 sources. of those 15, all but 3/4 are biasedly Christian. Meanwhile, I provided a total of 11 sources. Which rage from the scientific method of understanding, the law of thermodynamics, clinical death vs actual death, incest, genetic birth defects, statistical analysis of newborn dying every year, the definition of rationality and faith etc. So, not only are my sources more diverse, but they hold more academic credibility.
Lastly, you made it blatantly obvious that you wanted to give Conduct to Pro on principle bur didn't because the rules do not allow rather than because of an actual review of our conducts. I find that very biased and unprofessional.
>choose to agree to disagree with you. Just because science cannot prove a school of thought does not mean it does not exist. Likewise, it does not mean if science cannot be proven, then spiritual science is inaccurate.
Firstly, that's a fallacy. A school of thought indeed requires logic, but logic alone does not equate to truth. It is also sophistry to claim that something can be real without proof. Evidence is necessary to substantiate the truth. Without the ability to prove existence or provide observable data to support a theory, one cannot declare their beliefs as possible, let alone true.
Secondly, the concept of "spiritual science" does not exist. Science relies on observable, testable, and proven studies of the world and its natural phenomena. In contrast, spirituality often draws from personal belief and folklore. Science does not accept what it cannot observe.
>I argue for being spiritual beings and not human beings, for people have been conditioned to only think of themselves as human, forgetting they were first spiritual. Do you not ever wonder why we refer to dead bodies as the 'body of [name]"? Why don't we say that is [name] in the coffin?
There are numerous issues with your statement. Firstly, upon what scientific evidence, grounded in physics or biology, do you base your audacious claim that people are not human? Genetics and even the most fundamental principles of biology refute this unscientific assertion. Secondly, I repeat my question: on what EMPIRICAL evidence do you base your assertion that humans were spiritual beings before being human, which you also claim they are not?
Regarding your question, it's a matter of simple logic. To be recognized as an individual, one requires a name for identification purposes. Without it, it would be unclear who is being referred to in conversations or research. Your argument appears to be, "Humans are not born with identification, therefore they must be spiritual." However, the flaw in this reasoning is that the absence of an inherent identity at birth has no bearing on whether individuals can be classified as human. You would need to somehow discrete thousands of years worth of study on both human anatomy and basic biology for your arguments to make sense.
> humans scientifically defined as homo sapiens species of genus homo. The spirit is nameless yet it is the very breath in us that makes the human body move. We referred to people of whom I am among people.
Your description of science is inaccurate. While humans are classified as Homo sapiens, there's no scientific proof of a spirit. Additionally, air isn't the sole necessity for breathing. Our ability to move is due to evolved limbs that need daily nutritional intake from calories, providing energy for daily activities.
Thus far, I perceive the initial argument presented by the proponent as rather unconvincing. Their exposition and primary contention seem to simply suggest that "Since we are born nameless, attend school, and become conditioned, we are not humans but rather ethereal beings." The reasoning is tenuous at most, and there is a lack of substantive evidence to back this claim.
Moreover, Con can straightforwardly demonstrate using biological science that humans are physical entities with a distinct biological process for development and progression throughout our lifespan. This differs from the notion of spiritual forms as depicted in numerous spiritual belief systems.
I recognize that responding to each point individually isn't always the most effective strategy. However, failing to address everything your opponent mentions may come off as an admission or could be misconstrued as conceding points by omission. That is why we are both going line for line as you said.
My aim was not to solicit advice but rather to hear your opinion on our recent arguments, as I enjoyed your perspective. I am sure, though, that although the primary focus of the debate should be on whether women have a constitutional right to abortion rather than the 13th Amendment, it will be quite challenging for the opposition to legally establish any relevance of the 13th Amendment to the issue of abortion. Nevertheless, I find the debate engaging and hope you share in the enjoyment.
Your description of GPT could benefit from some clarification. GPT is indeed a language model and a form of artificial intelligence. It is designed to assist with a variety of tasks, from refining language to researching information, which may necessitate the use of a database. However, AI's predictability can vary, and GPT's capacity to assist is contingent upon the specific type being referenced, making it inappropriate to generalize across all models.
>The problem is that since ChatGPT is entirely reliant upon a database of pre-existing human thought on the internet, now, with people using ChatGPT more than they are thinking for themselves and publishing on the internet, there is no way for the pool of information available to ChatGPT to expand.
Firstly, it's often perceived that many people do not think independently. Before the advent of AI, individuals tended to accept information presented to them on the internet without much scrutiny. Chat GPT is considered more reliable for sourcing information because it seeks out the most credible sources available. Essentially, it filters out misleading and biased articles to provide those with established credibility.
Secondly, the assertion that the "pool of information available to chatGPT" does not grow is incorrect. Each time someone uses an AI to ask a question, the AI retrieves the answer. In simpler terms, the more questions an AI is asked, the more it learns. Therefore, the pool of information available to chatGPT is essentially limited only by its users. However, the effectiveness of the responses indeed depends on the model being utilized.
>The argument of this post is that people are outsourcing their computational power to what humanity already knows as a species is consuming.
The statement seems to imply that humans possess all the knowledge that AI has, which I believe is not accurate. AI has the potential to be more capable and knowledgeable in certain subjects than humans. While it's true that AI learns from human input, the learning curve for humans to master a subject spans years. In contrast, AI can be programmed with the collective knowledge accumulated over generations, instantly or during its training phase. The extent of an AI's capabilities hinges on the volume of information it is designed to access and its retention capacity. Imagine an entity like Albert Einstein but with the innate ability to comprehend physics immediately after its inception.
I think you just lack awareness on the subject of AI.
To be fair, Jesus is acknowledged both historically and biblically as a real figure who died on the cross. Therefore, most people do not believe he was non-existent. However, there is a distinction between the Biblical Jesus and the Historical Jesus, as they are not considered the same entity. Bible Jesus is the one described as the son of God, died for our sins, etc. History Jesus is just a man who lived in Palestine, opposed Roman Rule, gained a following, gave moral teachings, and was eventually executed under suspicion of planning to overthrow Roman rule.
One could argue that the Jesus depicted in the Bible was not crucified as he represents a fictionalized version of the actual Jesus, whose divine paternity cannot be substantiated. But your topic is just about Jesus being crucified in general, which is undisputed.
You see the issue? Double talks.
"Well PM me those reasons if you can because I can only think of 3 and none seem likely.
1. He is not very bright
2. He is a non native english speaker"
Followed by
"Maybe he is gifted but an outlier"
Spent this entire time calling me intellectually challenged even after being warned to stop then its going to claim he called my IQ high.
You did not mean gifted to mean high IQ. Stop lying. I am done talking to you about this. You proved in your own words that you are not complying with the criteria. You keep insulting me. And then you even refuse to listen to the Mods after both of them have told you to stop. What part of, "I will no longer talk to you, so wait for the mods to determine this matter," do you not understand? Frankly, I was told that if you did not stop your insults on my IQ other steps would be taken. So it amazes me that they haven't done so at this point since not listening to the mods is disrespectful to them as well.
Here he goes again mocking my IQ. You told him multiple times to stop and he still will not listen. This exactly what I said he would do. he's really trying to push me into saying things I will regret in response. But unlike him, I respect the rules of this platform and what the mods say. Who the fuck is he to tell me I am "gifted"?
To be honest, I am done with this conversation with him. In fact I said that multiple times. All he does is insult and double-talk. And I've had it with his mockery of MY IQ and his presumption of my disabilities. He is not going to listen or follow the rules. I am much happier just to wait for your final decision on this matter. He wants to be toxic, and I am not going to be a part of it.
You can't make a video supposedly giving a thoughtful answer and then let it be known in the comments section that you aren't complying with the rules. it was especially low of you with how you handled it. There could have been so many ways this never got to this point.
You could have A:
Never comment letting me know you aren't voting based on the given criteria. At this point, I would not have said anything as White Flame made it clear that videos were acceptable.
You could have B:
Treated me with respect and heard the points I was making, and we could have come to a mutual understanding. You would have been aware of what Criteria votes are based on and not your misinterpretation such as, "Who won." And I would have been satisfied with an apology and a correction of the vote to still give Con the vote but with a better reason behind it.
And C: we could have mutually agreed to disagree and let the mods handle the determination.
But did you go with ANY of these options? No, you just proceeded to argue pointlessly and ignore anything I had to say, and when I kept pointing out that what you say is either outside the rules or not making sense, you insulted my IQ level. And even now when I am talking to SOMEONE ELSE to explain my side, you proceed to be vulgar and insult me again. There are just no redeeming qualities in you for me to respect you, as you do not respect me.
>How stupid does a person have to be to not understand there are different levels of shitty and I was forced to choose between a turd sandwich vs douche.
This my point: all you have is insults. I brining up facts based on what YOU said. And you proceed to be insultive and go on an unrelated rant to avoid the points I am making. I am not playing that game.
>If the best possible argument is a 10 and bad arguments are any number below 6 than I can say an argument that ranks 3 is shitty but still superior to one that ranks 1. You are simultaneously bitching that I called you stupid, while simultaneously not realizing that both sides of an argument can be bad. This is not something that would confuse most people with a 3 digit IQ.
Okay here you are ignoring what the mods said and insulting my IQ again, which you were told not to do. It's a simple concept. If you are supposed to vote based on a criterion. Then you go by the basis of that criteria. You did not do as you said you voted based on who, "Won," not who made the convicting argument. or better sources or better conduct. What part of that is hard to understand?
>Wow you are still too evil to watch the video and know what I said. I have no ideal how you plan to win the next debate while refusing to watch videos
If you did something like, I don't know, PAY ATTENTION. You would know that your video is irrelevant. No matter what you may have said in your video. The fact does not change that you said, and I quote you:
"The vote is based on who won, not on my personal opinion. I don't have to be convinced to change my opinion on a topic just because the side who won, disagrees with me."
"Con's arguments for abortion equalling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments."
Both comments prove you aren't voting on the criteria.
Then here is where you double talk:
"Pro went after red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments."
"Providing a rebuttal for an irrelevant red herring is stupid. You could have agreed with him and it wouldn't make you any less likely to lose. If he said the best color was purple I could see you falling for that red herring and randomly arguing against it"
So first statement is I never addressed Cons arguments. Then you change your claim to say that I DID address Cons arguments and its BECAUSE I did in fact do so that it was irrelevant and stupid of me to do.
Make up your mind. Did I not respond to Con's points, which is why you said I only went after, "red hearing" or did I indeed do so and its because I did that you think "Providing a rebuttal for an irrelevant herring is stupid"?
To be honest with you bro. The whole reason this comment section turned into a flame war was because WyIted admitted that he wasn't voting within the farmwork of the criteria. He said that your argument was "Shitty and wrong" But gave you the better argument vote because he claimed I, "dropped very promising arguments early that the supreme court decides what is considered constitutional " (which wasn't true). And I supposedly, "chased red herrings" (which he changed his story about several times.) Then he admitted being voting not on the topic at all, but rather on the definition of slavery (which wasn't the topic) and then he proceeded to lie by misquoting me (which I also proved in the comments). Then he claimed that he is supposed to vote based on who, "Won" rather than who made the more convincing argument (again voting outside of the criteria). And then when I kept exposing him for lying, he grew frustrated and called me a retard.
At that point, the conversation devolved into me critiquing him for mocking my intelligence and him trying to justify his behavior. The only point I tried to get across to this whole stupid argument was that he admitted to not voting by the Criteria. And rather than just saying, "Okay, I get your point, I will cast a vote that reflects why Con made the better argument," as any normal person would do. he kept lying, insulting, and arguing. Mind you, he KEPT arguing after I said I was done talking about it.
His video might have been something else. But his comments prove he did not follow the rules, and he has been doing everything he can to ignore or avoid that fact. and that is the source of my frustration. Votes should be by the Criteria or not at all.
I would advise looking over the debate and after reading it, to vote based on the criteria, Your vote as well as your opinion would be much appreciated.
okay sounds good.
Also, I wanted to point out that this one last thing. I only took issue with his vote. After he admitted in the comments that his reasoning was not based on the craiteria in which is vote was based and the comments prove that. Not just the video.
understood.
I never called your intelligence into question until you called me retarded and presumed to know what level of the spectrum I am at. I only pointed out that you were admitting to voting outside of the criteria that was required and you escalated it from there.
Now he is calling me a hypocrite.
I fully agree with you.
goodbye.
Right, means lower IQ. Meaning you are claiming I am mentally stupid, and you do not know WHY that's offensive to me? And I am the "Intellectually disabled" one? Dude. You cannot be so stupid as to not understand why being called retarded is hurtful. What would I prefer? How about respect? Being treated like a human being? Any of that make sense to you?! Is that a SIMPLE enough concept for you?!
You know nothing about me or my disabilities. You are just trying to be offensive while at the same time pleading ignorance and saying you meant nothing by it to goad me into an immature fight. You are not getting it. You insulted me with a highly offensive word wanting to upset me and you succeeded. And your reward is that I do not wish to talk to you anymore.
I think the real question is that who is the real, "retard" here? Is it me? the Highly autistic man who took the time to learn and understand my disabilities so that I can adapt and overcome said disabilities to the point that a know-nothing like yourself can't even tell without me spelling it out for you. Or is it you since you both can't play by the rules, and when called out on it, give a million different in-coherent stories to justify said toxic behavior, and you go around calling people names because you have the maturity of a five-year-old?
Think about that before you want to call anyone else, "Retarded." You can keep messaging if you want, but I am no longer replying or listening.
For the last time, this debate is over. I am a highly functional autistic man, sir. I do not have the time nor patience to listen to you try to justify offending me by mocking the conditions that I had since birth by miscategorizing them as a mental disability that affects one's intelligence such as retardation. The fact you see, "nothing wrong" with calling someone an offensive word for disabled people, who by the way do not fit under the derogatory term known as retarded, shows just how deplorable your character truly is.
I have nothing further to add to you, sir, except you should be ashamed of your disgraceful ignorant self.
The term retard is highly offensive, and I am not engaging with you on this subject anymore, The mods will decide. once again, good day.
>but he said that mothers do work for the benefit of their unborn child without pay. You never contradicted that working for others for no pay and being forced to do so is slavery.
That is a lie, when said that, I responded with and I quote. " Firstly, the government does not reimburse her, and this does not constitute slavery. To be considered slavery, one must be owned by another, and a state does not own a woman simply because she is pregnant. They merely determine the legality of the medical procedure of abortion. And not the 13th Amendment doesn't make anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. You have gone to great lengths to try to establish a connection that simply does not legally exist or apply on the matter of abortion because forced-kept pregnancies are not lawfully considered as slavery."
I did not say, ""People don't mean abortion when they say slavery".
Debate is over, you are a liar, and you did not adhere to the rules. I have informed the mods and will inform them of your attacks on me. good day.
Oh, going to call me a retard, are you? Don't even worry about it. I'll let the moderators decide on this, so we do not have to worry about it.
>Providing a rebuttal for an irrelevant red herring is stupid. You could have agreed with him and it wouldn't make you any less likely to lose. If he said the best color was purple I could see you falling for that red herring and randomly arguing against it
Why would I agree? Con's entire point was to say that Abortion has been legal for over 250 years. I, someone who is saying the opposite, can't agree with that point. Now you're digging a deeper hole for yourself. First, you said Con's arguments were shity but you gave it to him because I did not address his arguments. Now you're saying that just addressing a point was
stupid.
>Your rebuttals failed, and you have not watched my video to figure out why, so that is your problem. Slavery is relevant because both pro and con agreed it was unconstitutional
Oh, they failed now did they. You keep changing your story. First it was that I did not address Cons arguments. Then it was that addressing Con's points at all, which you call "red herring" was stupid. And now you say my rebuttals failed in an argument you said you do not agree with.
>You seem to be forgetting that the better argument can be shitty as though less shitty than the worst argument.
Again, the criteria asks, "Better argument" Not, "Shity argument," For you to vote within the rules. you have either vote and explain how one side made the better argument to you and thats why you voted for them. What you said so far was that I made promising arguments and in contrast Con made bad ones but you voted for them anyway. Now your saying the opposite and the Con made the less "shity argument." clearly define who made the better argument or admit that your not convinced by either and do not vote.
>After the early part of the debate you hinted at the correct arguments to defeat con, particularly by briefly mentioning that judges determine the constitutionality of something, not the document itself. Even with Barney trying to avoid addressing this argument you just didn't pick up on the fact you had the seeds of a positive argument that could defeat him and make no mistake you needed a positive argument to win in order to win the debate given the burden split.
Again, you are demonstrating that you did not fully understand the arguments. My argument was the Abortion was not Constitutional because the Constitution did not include it and recent Supreme Court cases ruled in favor of that view. Con argued that Abortion was a legal practice for 250 years and that the supreme court is ruled by cultists who hate women, later on we argued over the rights women had and wither abortion is slavery or not.
As far as positive arguments go, I made plenty and can quote them if challenged. Point is, your not complying with the rules and your vote is unfair and should be revoked.
Do you see why I am taking such an issue with this? Not only does his reasoning not comply with the rules, but his understanding is based on false assumptions. He thinks he is supposed to vote on who won, not the criteria it is supposed to be on. He admits that his vote is based on something completely off-topic and is now showing he doesn't understand how rebuttals work.
>The vote is based on who won, not on my personal opinion. I don't have to be convinced to change my opinion on a topic just because the side who won, disagrees with me.
No, the person who won is decided by the amount of votes they get at the end. The vote itself is supposed based on what the voter thought based on the Criteria provided. Meaning you have to vote based on the questions I outlined. No one "wins" until the vote ends.
>The debate is about whether abortion is constitutional or not. It is irrelevant what people in 1820 thought.
Uh, that may be what the topic is about. But the point I made about the law of 1820 is a counterargument to Con's claim that abortion was not illegal for 250 years. See, you do not even properly evolute the argument before you decide.
>I had Snoop Dog read your arguments to me and I heard your rebuttals. What I was looking at is how slavery was defined. You didn't present a legal definition of slavery which had you done so, would have debunked him. You let him get away with a lot. I think it should reveal a lot to you that I disagree vehemently with his side and still was not biased enough to vote in your favor. I would recommend watching my whole video, but at least the last 10 minutes or so and then learning from it.
First of all, you don't know snoop Dog. Secondly, you just said that the topic is about abortion and its constitutional presence or lack their off. NOW, you are saying that your vote is based on how slavery was defined, which is both not the topic and a point you yourself said was, "Stupid and wrong." I clearly rebuttaled Abortion of slavery being the same withe abortion serveral times. This just confirms you are not voteing fairly.
Also to make it clear. I do not care if Wylted voted against me itself. Only that the vote complies with the rules. And while I understand that the subjective nature of what convinces a person can vary. I do not believe that it is subjective to give a reason for WHY you vote for either side and that vote has to be explained. Nor is it subjective on what Criteria you base that vote on.
But when someone says, "Con's arguments for abortion equaling slavery were stupid and wrong but ultimately stand as pro went for red herrings as opposed to adequately addressing con's arguments." Okay, so that means, that at no point you found Con's argument convincing. and that is the better argument the Criteria vote is meant to be based on.
I mean this reasoning is equal to saying, "Pro made a very good argument for why purple cannot be blue, and Con did not make a good argument for why purple is blue, but I am going to side with Con anyway."
That's not what the better argument vote is for. If WyIted believes Con made the better argument, then he should say so. In contrast, he said the opposite.
And lastly on a personal note. I don't get Wylted's claim of me dropping promising arguments. Since my argument did not change during the entire debate.
Understood. But I think that WyIted's comment is very alarming because he just proved he's not voting based on the criteria. Cause saying that Con made and unconvincing argument and then saying hes still voting for his favor anyway is a blatant disregard for the rules.
Firstly, you should put that in your vote. secondly, what you said was vague and makes no sense. You admit that the argument Con made was, "Wong and stupid" in other words did not convince you, which is what the better argument is supposed to be about. Yet, you still vote for Con because I went for red herrings instead of addressing Con's arguments.
By the way, claiming that I did not address the cons arguments is false. When he said Abortion was a traditional legal practice for over 250 years. I countered with sources proving that anti-abortion laws had existed since 1820. When Con tried saying that A woman can be sent to jail for the rest of her life for abortion, I pointed out that only applied to a specific state.
Most damming of all, when Con tried saying abortion was slavery thanks to the 13th Amendment, I quoted and referenced several sources debunking this very idea.
Overall, the problem I have with what you said is that you are going against the rules. You are supposed to vote based on 5 categories. 1. Who presented the better argument? 2. Who provided better sources? 3. who wrote better, and 4. Who provided better conduct?
In contrast, you made a YouTube video, that doesn't explain anything to those who don't follow the link, including the moderators. And have now admitted that Con's argument did not convince you, but you voted against me anyway. If neither side convinced you, then you should not vote at all.
@whiteflame Now that we have heard what WyIted said, I believe his vote should be stricken since he has made it clear his not voting based on the criteria.
Also you asked us to remind you to vote if you did not this weekend.
I have a question, So, WyIted likes to make YouTube videos to explain when he votes. And while I have no problem with the videos, he makes himself. Should he not also have to write out his official reasoning for his vote so the Moderators can better be informed of the basis since all he provides is a link? I am just asking because we as the participants have no way of knowing if you moderators reviewed the video to see if his reasoning or way of decoding the vote complies with the rules of the site. Just a question.
I actually agree with this statement. The First Amendment makes no mention of hate speech, and despite the efforts made by states to create hate speech laws, the Constitutional right to say what we want is indeed unlimited.
I take several issues with your argument. First, your argument hinges on the belief that everything, including the Universe, has a beginning, but Modern science debunks that. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter, also known as energy, cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the universe has no beginning because there was never a time when matter did not exist. Thus, saying the universe has a beginning is false.
The second issue is that while your logic works to a degree. There is nothing empirical about it. It all hinges on conditions and speculation rather than theory and observation.
Well, my view is that Pro is making the stronger argument. Con's position is supposed to be against the idea that immorality would be good. Yet, they talk good things about it, saying that it makes someone wise, gives them experience, and they are superhuman. The only pushback they give is over theoretical rhetoric that has nothing to do with morality.
Pro, on the other hand, keeps their argument completely within the context of the subject. And brings up excellent points, such as these terms are vague and can easily be seen as an argument for immortality, not immorality. They make a particularly good point about the subjective nature of desire, the inability to predict others, and the stark difference between the real world and the imagined and how it works. However, I disagree that immorality is only achievable in science.
Furthermore, your reasoning is flawed by assuming that it's impossible to run out of time, resulting in an automatic forfeit of a round. I was unable to write anything because time ran out. Common sense dictates that a person's willingness to engage in a debate up to the final round indicates a clear interest in continuing the debate. Therefore, it should be evident that not stating my continued interest does not equate to an intentional forfeit in the last round.
This does not change the fact that there has been no forfeiture. Forfeiture occurs when a party fails to participate for multiple rounds, or sometimes for an entire round, or if they explicitly state their concession. In contrast, I have actively participated in the debate up until the final round. Your vote does not comply with the rules. It is evident that I have put forward numerous arguments which you have overlooked, and you have not explained what my opponent said that convinced you to vote in their favor. Please cast your vote again in the proper manner, considering the arguments presented by all sides throughout the debate, and provide a genuine reason for your decision, or I will have to report this to the moderators as it is clearly unfair.
Missing one round is not a fioriture.
In the future, please give people ample characters to work with. Four hundred and fifty words is too short.
I have several objections to your vote. First, you claim that I "missed" the point of the debate without providing any details. This is particularly troubling to me as I presented multiple arguments demonstrating why Christianity is an irrational belief, using the definition of irrationality, the subjective definition provided by Con, and by delineating the distinction between faith-based ideologies and those founded on reason. Therefore, stating that I "missed the point of the debate" is entirely unfounded since you did not offer any explanation or examples.
You also say that I made counters that didn't "work in the context of the argument." How? for example, Pro made the argument
"Now, let me ask you some questions. Where did that initial atom come from? And if there is no god, why and how did it suddenly expand into a universe? Not just a mess of scattered elements. A universe with rules, life, and probably most impressively, human intellect. How could a random atom that was just kind of existing one day independently create such an organized universe? How did DNA evolve in such a way it created conscious thought? DNA is like a language, and you need a writer for that. "So, we can see, that there is indeed evidence for the existence of God. This evidence claims that a god exists rational."
In response, I pointed out that the first law of thermodynamics disproves the notion that a deity created the universe. This rebuttal is not only contextually appropriate but also remained largely uncontested by Pro, who simply retorted, "That violates the first law of thermodynamics," without providing any sources to support their claim. Please explain how that is out of context.
And then you say that Pro refuted everything I said, which is false. For example, Pro had no answer to the first law of thermodynamics, the medical improbability of Jesus coming back to life, and he even conceded that point by agreeing it was impossible. So, again, saying that Pro refuted everything I said is false.
On the sources vote. You say that Pro provided more and better sources. Explain that to me. Pro gave a total of 15 sources. of those 15, all but 3/4 are biasedly Christian. Meanwhile, I provided a total of 11 sources. Which rage from the scientific method of understanding, the law of thermodynamics, clinical death vs actual death, incest, genetic birth defects, statistical analysis of newborn dying every year, the definition of rationality and faith etc. So, not only are my sources more diverse, but they hold more academic credibility.
Lastly, you made it blatantly obvious that you wanted to give Conduct to Pro on principle bur didn't because the rules do not allow rather than because of an actual review of our conducts. I find that very biased and unprofessional.
Yeah you should vote now.
>choose to agree to disagree with you. Just because science cannot prove a school of thought does not mean it does not exist. Likewise, it does not mean if science cannot be proven, then spiritual science is inaccurate.
Firstly, that's a fallacy. A school of thought indeed requires logic, but logic alone does not equate to truth. It is also sophistry to claim that something can be real without proof. Evidence is necessary to substantiate the truth. Without the ability to prove existence or provide observable data to support a theory, one cannot declare their beliefs as possible, let alone true.
Secondly, the concept of "spiritual science" does not exist. Science relies on observable, testable, and proven studies of the world and its natural phenomena. In contrast, spirituality often draws from personal belief and folklore. Science does not accept what it cannot observe.
>I argue for being spiritual beings and not human beings, for people have been conditioned to only think of themselves as human, forgetting they were first spiritual. Do you not ever wonder why we refer to dead bodies as the 'body of [name]"? Why don't we say that is [name] in the coffin?
There are numerous issues with your statement. Firstly, upon what scientific evidence, grounded in physics or biology, do you base your audacious claim that people are not human? Genetics and even the most fundamental principles of biology refute this unscientific assertion. Secondly, I repeat my question: on what EMPIRICAL evidence do you base your assertion that humans were spiritual beings before being human, which you also claim they are not?
Regarding your question, it's a matter of simple logic. To be recognized as an individual, one requires a name for identification purposes. Without it, it would be unclear who is being referred to in conversations or research. Your argument appears to be, "Humans are not born with identification, therefore they must be spiritual." However, the flaw in this reasoning is that the absence of an inherent identity at birth has no bearing on whether individuals can be classified as human. You would need to somehow discrete thousands of years worth of study on both human anatomy and basic biology for your arguments to make sense.
I'm not going to lie. that comment was comedy gold.
> humans scientifically defined as homo sapiens species of genus homo. The spirit is nameless yet it is the very breath in us that makes the human body move. We referred to people of whom I am among people.
Your description of science is inaccurate. While humans are classified as Homo sapiens, there's no scientific proof of a spirit. Additionally, air isn't the sole necessity for breathing. Our ability to move is due to evolved limbs that need daily nutritional intake from calories, providing energy for daily activities.
Thus far, I perceive the initial argument presented by the proponent as rather unconvincing. Their exposition and primary contention seem to simply suggest that "Since we are born nameless, attend school, and become conditioned, we are not humans but rather ethereal beings." The reasoning is tenuous at most, and there is a lack of substantive evidence to back this claim.
Moreover, Con can straightforwardly demonstrate using biological science that humans are physical entities with a distinct biological process for development and progression throughout our lifespan. This differs from the notion of spiritual forms as depicted in numerous spiritual belief systems.
I recognize that responding to each point individually isn't always the most effective strategy. However, failing to address everything your opponent mentions may come off as an admission or could be misconstrued as conceding points by omission. That is why we are both going line for line as you said.
My aim was not to solicit advice but rather to hear your opinion on our recent arguments, as I enjoyed your perspective. I am sure, though, that although the primary focus of the debate should be on whether women have a constitutional right to abortion rather than the 13th Amendment, it will be quite challenging for the opposition to legally establish any relevance of the 13th Amendment to the issue of abortion. Nevertheless, I find the debate engaging and hope you share in the enjoyment.
Your description of GPT could benefit from some clarification. GPT is indeed a language model and a form of artificial intelligence. It is designed to assist with a variety of tasks, from refining language to researching information, which may necessitate the use of a database. However, AI's predictability can vary, and GPT's capacity to assist is contingent upon the specific type being referenced, making it inappropriate to generalize across all models.
>The problem is that since ChatGPT is entirely reliant upon a database of pre-existing human thought on the internet, now, with people using ChatGPT more than they are thinking for themselves and publishing on the internet, there is no way for the pool of information available to ChatGPT to expand.
Firstly, it's often perceived that many people do not think independently. Before the advent of AI, individuals tended to accept information presented to them on the internet without much scrutiny. Chat GPT is considered more reliable for sourcing information because it seeks out the most credible sources available. Essentially, it filters out misleading and biased articles to provide those with established credibility.
Secondly, the assertion that the "pool of information available to chatGPT" does not grow is incorrect. Each time someone uses an AI to ask a question, the AI retrieves the answer. In simpler terms, the more questions an AI is asked, the more it learns. Therefore, the pool of information available to chatGPT is essentially limited only by its users. However, the effectiveness of the responses indeed depends on the model being utilized.
>The argument of this post is that people are outsourcing their computational power to what humanity already knows as a species is consuming.
The statement seems to imply that humans possess all the knowledge that AI has, which I believe is not accurate. AI has the potential to be more capable and knowledgeable in certain subjects than humans. While it's true that AI learns from human input, the learning curve for humans to master a subject spans years. In contrast, AI can be programmed with the collective knowledge accumulated over generations, instantly or during its training phase. The extent of an AI's capabilities hinges on the volume of information it is designed to access and its retention capacity. Imagine an entity like Albert Einstein but with the innate ability to comprehend physics immediately after its inception.
I think you just lack awareness on the subject of AI.
This is not something most people are going to accept because the topic is too confusing.
Could you please take down my vote? I would like to reevaluate it,
thank you for telling me I will take down my vote and reevoulate.