I now understand both sides, and have given up my one sided stance that abortion is definately immoral. Even if I am wrong, I have grown more rationall and see things more nuanced.
Don't worry about efficiency. I have lots of experience. After a few tries I am sure a car I steal will be usable, and the other ones I can give to my friends. The most ethical car must be either the go-kart or the Gangster car. You know what, imma go and steal a tank. It would grant safety and the belts don't ever deflate.
Arguments: PRO'S arguments were sufficient to convince one that the Christian (read Biblical) God could not exist, or at least hardly so. CON'S argument, at best, disproved the impossibility of God, but never the improbability.
Sources: Equal
Legibility: Equal
Conduct: PRO, since CON failed to provide the requested positive case as well as multiple times moving the goalpost by re-defining God to have different properties than the classical Christian God
(Not gonna give point though, as this was not directly a conduct violation)
PRO exposes CONS hypocrisy in admitting the Bible as inaccurate yet still building his argument on a literal/semantically interpretation of certain passages. He also mentions CON'S lack of positive case.
"realise the difference between proving God is not illogical, and proving that he is objectively real."
PRO goes on to rebuke CON'S arguments one after one, and I am convinced by most of these rebuttals. I laugh when I see the extremely thin text his arguments include. The only rebuttal of CON I didn't agree with was the problem of evil. PRO has no authority to claim what God's "love" means, especially after debunking the Bible's accuracy and it being written by God. Therefore, he does not prove that unnecesary suffering existing contradicts God being the creator.
"In stating "God, being omnipotent", you are making the assumption that God exists."
Yes, the floor is made of floor. But this assumption is a valid one to make against PRO'S arguments which also assumes qualities of God. On that note, PRO fails to disqualify CON'S rebuttal against the omnipotence paradox.
I am convinced that though the BoP lies on theists initially, the debate BoP falls on mainly PRO.
CON does not rebutt the B-theory of time. He instead goes into the Hebrew details and tries to claim the Biblical God only created the Earth, not the universe. Waiting to see if PRO will bring up passages of God creating everything there is.
CON correctly emphasises God not having any handicap such as not existing, due to his properties. He does however not defend or use the ontological argument.
CON continues to build his argument on a non-biblical version of God, one that possibly is only one of many and only created Earth. He also asserts humans become gods and many other strange theories. I strongly condemn this tactics since basically every Christian ever would disagree with CON, making his view non-representative of "the CHRISTIAN God". Likewise, I condemn CONs attempt at using Darwin to justify animal suffering.
CON correctly rebuts PRO'S "omnipotence paradox" by refering to free will as a way God COULD do something he doesn't want to do, but without needing to do it.
CON admits the Bible to not be infallible, and proposes other scriptures be from God, or the Bible not from God, thus putting further distance between his view of God and the regular Christian.
Honestly, at this point the God CON defends and the Christian God aren't exactly the same. For this reason, CON is in danger of conceding without knowing it.
However, CON rebuts the problem of evil but rejecting the assumption that "only good could exist in a world God created".
Sorry for my short vote. I am on holiday, and though my phone allows for me to easily READ the entire debate, writing a lengthy vote is hard.
Vote part 1:
I am convinced by PRO that his framework and definitions are correct. Meaning I agree theists have the BoP. However, the BoP is still shared in the debate.
PRO'S anti-kalam argument was convincing in showing that A-time is false, but didn't quite manage to prove the universe is likely uncaused. That is because he provides no absolute foundation for there being no logical laws or time (quantified progression) outside of the universe.
PRO'S anti-ontological argument fully convinces me that the ontological argument is absurd, since he shows that one can easily prove a non-existing God with said arguments logic, which is absurd. Really put a smile on my face too.
PRO'S anti-fine-tuning argument fails to convince me, as it necessarily assumes God came into being. No evidence was provided to support that assumption.
Animal suffering was proven by PRO to necessarily be caused by God if he created earth, and he uses this modified problem of evil to challenge the existence of a loving God like the one Christianity teaches.
PRO'S omnipotence paradox seems to assume that if God didn't do something he didn't want to do, it was because he couldn't do something he didn't do. In other words, he ignores the Christian doctrine of free will as a property of God and later humans. This argument fails to convince anyone with knowledge of the topic "Christian God", me included.
Bible inaccuracies is brought up by PRO, to show what exactly? Even if the Bible was written by humans, that does not help PRO'S case regarding God's existence.
There are different types of utilitarian ethics. The moral duty towards the maximized benefit of humanity is still a moral duty. Regardless, to use merely "relying on utilitarianism" as an argument for something being immoral does not make much sense. Especially in the case of self-driving cars, wherein no human action is responsible for the result, meaning normal morality can't apply. Only the utilitarian benefits/cons of self-driving cars are relevant to the debate. If self-driving cars make car accidents fewer, then it is of course moral to save lives by allowing self-driving cars.
If the universe is not infinite, then there is only a finite amount of information (aka knowledge) it could contain or would be necessary to describe it. I am afraid you are going to pull some trick in order to push the line out of fininity. Like, create information loops, or paradoxes, which make the body of "potential" knowledge infinite.
It was the Blitzkrieg, a strategy of combined and coordinated efforts by all branches of the military using radio, that made Germany able to defeat Poland, France and later the Soviet Union --- and this strategy was created in Germany and no comparable winning strategy existed for any of its enemies. This strategy was only rendered ineffective once the eastern front halted and became prolonged. France did not even have effective radio communication at the start of the war, and their tactics were outdated, that's why they lost.
Thank you. Your argument was also better than expected (and fortunately for both of us, you argued for the same side I predicted by reading the description)
So quick to change your mind. First the German army is weak and only defeated France by luck, but then suddenly its strong, to the point were invading the USSR is a good move. Make up your mind. Also,If you read my r1 argument, you would see that the reason Moscow was not taken was because Hitler halted the marching armies At a crucial point, giving the Soviets time to adapt and reinforce, and making it so that the war would last through the winter. Germany would have taken Moscow and probably won ww2 had Hitler not done this.
Nearly all of Germany's losses in ww2 were against the USSR. Sure, they weren't exactly accepting of each other, but the USSR surely would not have entered the war on the side of the capitalist allies had Hitler not decided to invade it. Moreover, attacking the USSR made the fear of loosing trade a self-fullfilling prophesy, and to not invade the soviet union would have made it far more unlikely for the trade sanctions to occur (given that war instantly destroys trade lines)
Yes, they knew about Al-Qaida activity in the USA. However, they did not know that a plane would crash into Twin Towers 9/11 2001 --- lest they would have warned the US in detail. You make an error in calling a "warning about the imminent danger", "foreknowledge about the specifics of that danger". You do realize that Israel had no way of having "foreknowledge" about the attack, as they were not collaborating with Al-Qaida (lest you have evidence to the contrary). Israel has been fighting terrorism as well, and has a lot more experience than the US, and that is why their "warning" was quicker and more accurate than that of the USA, but that doesn't mean that Israel knew about 9/11 before it happened --- it only means they were trying to figure out what was going on.
Oh, my mistake. I meant to write "practically conceded", as it was the implication of your statement, not your statement itself, that concedes the resolution correct.
Vote bump
Thank you for voting. I will learn from your feedback.
Care to vote?
vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Thanks you too.
I promise I will give you a run for your money.
I now understand both sides, and have given up my one sided stance that abortion is definately immoral. Even if I am wrong, I have grown more rationall and see things more nuanced.
I look forward to voting on this debate
It seems like this topic was too obscure and vague for voters to vote. Though it was fun as long as it lasted.
Don't worry about efficiency. I have lots of experience. After a few tries I am sure a car I steal will be usable, and the other ones I can give to my friends. The most ethical car must be either the go-kart or the Gangster car. You know what, imma go and steal a tank. It would grant safety and the belts don't ever deflate.
Which new car model should I steal? Ethics is really important to me, and I would not want an immoral car.
My own car is unethical.
Thank you for voting
Thank you for voting
A better method might have been...nuking military installations. Same show of power, fewer losses, less unethical method.
Vote bump
Thank you for voting.
Thank you for voting
Vote conclusion:
Arguments: PRO'S arguments were sufficient to convince one that the Christian (read Biblical) God could not exist, or at least hardly so. CON'S argument, at best, disproved the impossibility of God, but never the improbability.
Sources: Equal
Legibility: Equal
Conduct: PRO, since CON failed to provide the requested positive case as well as multiple times moving the goalpost by re-defining God to have different properties than the classical Christian God
(Not gonna give point though, as this was not directly a conduct violation)
Vote part 3:
PRO exposes CONS hypocrisy in admitting the Bible as inaccurate yet still building his argument on a literal/semantically interpretation of certain passages. He also mentions CON'S lack of positive case.
"realise the difference between proving God is not illogical, and proving that he is objectively real."
PRO goes on to rebuke CON'S arguments one after one, and I am convinced by most of these rebuttals. I laugh when I see the extremely thin text his arguments include. The only rebuttal of CON I didn't agree with was the problem of evil. PRO has no authority to claim what God's "love" means, especially after debunking the Bible's accuracy and it being written by God. Therefore, he does not prove that unnecesary suffering existing contradicts God being the creator.
"In stating "God, being omnipotent", you are making the assumption that God exists."
Yes, the floor is made of floor. But this assumption is a valid one to make against PRO'S arguments which also assumes qualities of God. On that note, PRO fails to disqualify CON'S rebuttal against the omnipotence paradox.
Vote part 2:
I am convinced that though the BoP lies on theists initially, the debate BoP falls on mainly PRO.
CON does not rebutt the B-theory of time. He instead goes into the Hebrew details and tries to claim the Biblical God only created the Earth, not the universe. Waiting to see if PRO will bring up passages of God creating everything there is.
CON correctly emphasises God not having any handicap such as not existing, due to his properties. He does however not defend or use the ontological argument.
CON continues to build his argument on a non-biblical version of God, one that possibly is only one of many and only created Earth. He also asserts humans become gods and many other strange theories. I strongly condemn this tactics since basically every Christian ever would disagree with CON, making his view non-representative of "the CHRISTIAN God". Likewise, I condemn CONs attempt at using Darwin to justify animal suffering.
CON correctly rebuts PRO'S "omnipotence paradox" by refering to free will as a way God COULD do something he doesn't want to do, but without needing to do it.
CON admits the Bible to not be infallible, and proposes other scriptures be from God, or the Bible not from God, thus putting further distance between his view of God and the regular Christian.
Honestly, at this point the God CON defends and the Christian God aren't exactly the same. For this reason, CON is in danger of conceding without knowing it.
However, CON rebuts the problem of evil but rejecting the assumption that "only good could exist in a world God created".
Sorry for my short vote. I am on holiday, and though my phone allows for me to easily READ the entire debate, writing a lengthy vote is hard.
Vote part 1:
I am convinced by PRO that his framework and definitions are correct. Meaning I agree theists have the BoP. However, the BoP is still shared in the debate.
PRO'S anti-kalam argument was convincing in showing that A-time is false, but didn't quite manage to prove the universe is likely uncaused. That is because he provides no absolute foundation for there being no logical laws or time (quantified progression) outside of the universe.
PRO'S anti-ontological argument fully convinces me that the ontological argument is absurd, since he shows that one can easily prove a non-existing God with said arguments logic, which is absurd. Really put a smile on my face too.
PRO'S anti-fine-tuning argument fails to convince me, as it necessarily assumes God came into being. No evidence was provided to support that assumption.
Animal suffering was proven by PRO to necessarily be caused by God if he created earth, and he uses this modified problem of evil to challenge the existence of a loving God like the one Christianity teaches.
PRO'S omnipotence paradox seems to assume that if God didn't do something he didn't want to do, it was because he couldn't do something he didn't do. In other words, he ignores the Christian doctrine of free will as a property of God and later humans. This argument fails to convince anyone with knowledge of the topic "Christian God", me included.
Bible inaccuracies is brought up by PRO, to show what exactly? Even if the Bible was written by humans, that does not help PRO'S case regarding God's existence.
Any of you able and willing to vote?
I ought to manage.
Interesting.
What was funny, though, was the fact that you were on a whole other level of tryharding; while Mall simply were noob
In R2, your response to a single sentence be like: "I'm gonna end this man's whole career".
You literally wrote an entire essay to answer a question.
Cool debate, I enjoyed reading it.
Exactly.
It's funny how a single sentence can be more convincing and clear than basically an entire essay.
Heizenbergs Uncertainty princible enters the chat.
Reopening is the PRO gamer move guitar is gonna make.
What do you think?
There are different types of utilitarian ethics. The moral duty towards the maximized benefit of humanity is still a moral duty. Regardless, to use merely "relying on utilitarianism" as an argument for something being immoral does not make much sense. Especially in the case of self-driving cars, wherein no human action is responsible for the result, meaning normal morality can't apply. Only the utilitarian benefits/cons of self-driving cars are relevant to the debate. If self-driving cars make car accidents fewer, then it is of course moral to save lives by allowing self-driving cars.
It's OK, I won't be making good arguments either
OTHER DEBATES: Utilitarianism vs Kantian ethics, which is preferable
Deadfire: Self-driving cars are unethical because they really on utilitarianism
He is basically saying that utilitarian ethics is unethical
If the universe is not infinite, then there is only a finite amount of information (aka knowledge) it could contain or would be necessary to describe it. I am afraid you are going to pull some trick in order to push the line out of fininity. Like, create information loops, or paradoxes, which make the body of "potential" knowledge infinite.
It was the Blitzkrieg, a strategy of combined and coordinated efforts by all branches of the military using radio, that made Germany able to defeat Poland, France and later the Soviet Union --- and this strategy was created in Germany and no comparable winning strategy existed for any of its enemies. This strategy was only rendered ineffective once the eastern front halted and became prolonged. France did not even have effective radio communication at the start of the war, and their tactics were outdated, that's why they lost.
Thank you. Your argument was also better than expected (and fortunately for both of us, you argued for the same side I predicted by reading the description)
So quick to change your mind. First the German army is weak and only defeated France by luck, but then suddenly its strong, to the point were invading the USSR is a good move. Make up your mind. Also,If you read my r1 argument, you would see that the reason Moscow was not taken was because Hitler halted the marching armies At a crucial point, giving the Soviets time to adapt and reinforce, and making it so that the war would last through the winter. Germany would have taken Moscow and probably won ww2 had Hitler not done this.
Nearly all of Germany's losses in ww2 were against the USSR. Sure, they weren't exactly accepting of each other, but the USSR surely would not have entered the war on the side of the capitalist allies had Hitler not decided to invade it. Moreover, attacking the USSR made the fear of loosing trade a self-fullfilling prophesy, and to not invade the soviet union would have made it far more unlikely for the trade sanctions to occur (given that war instantly destroys trade lines)
Do you agree that Germany would have won wow had Hitler made wiser decissions- such as not attacking their ally USSR?0
Yes, they knew about Al-Qaida activity in the USA. However, they did not know that a plane would crash into Twin Towers 9/11 2001 --- lest they would have warned the US in detail. You make an error in calling a "warning about the imminent danger", "foreknowledge about the specifics of that danger". You do realize that Israel had no way of having "foreknowledge" about the attack, as they were not collaborating with Al-Qaida (lest you have evidence to the contrary). Israel has been fighting terrorism as well, and has a lot more experience than the US, and that is why their "warning" was quicker and more accurate than that of the USA, but that doesn't mean that Israel knew about 9/11 before it happened --- it only means they were trying to figure out what was going on.
What do you mean? I adressed both of your arguments, if they can be called arguments.
Oh, my mistake. I meant to write "practically conceded", as it was the implication of your statement, not your statement itself, that concedes the resolution correct.
I know
Sorry for the semantical approach i took. You asked for it though, and I can't continue losing to you for all eternity.
You did well; it was a close one
Thank you for voting. We really appreciate your effort.