Total posts: 12,563
Trust me guys, if you had people talk shit about you in real life all the time, you would complain too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Everything in the world is either a potato either not a potato.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Only if it is about promoting Trans rights
I am not sure if Putin is trans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
There is a part of a brain which dies in Christian's head, so he thinks Jesus would support dropping bombs on children, hospitals, schools...ect.
I guess Jesus didnt repeat "Thou shall not kill" enough times for it to sink in.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
You have a smartphone, Internet connection and play video games all Day long. You're fucking wealthy.
I guess, but I dont know how long will my wealth last. In the end, I might be forced to sell property to keep up the jobless lifestyle.
I dont have a car, expensive PC or anything expensive. I have reduced my expenses so money I have lasts me for longer time than it would if I bought everything I wanted.
I used to have jobs, but I literally cant work anymore due to horrible back pain which makes my life horrible if I work, because jobs require me to work 9 hours a day, and then spend rest of day in pain.
I am only rich in a sense that I have about 30% of things average person has without having to work 9 hours for it.
I wonder why you complain all the time. Lol.
Well, I guess I shouldnt complain, but still, I feel like I was fucked in life by my parents who ruined my education by forcing me to go to horrible school which I failed badly at. They also gave me horrible childhood by forcing me to be best at school, which is why I developed non-active life style from all the sitting in front of books and computer. Simply, when you spend 6 to 8 hours sitting in school, and another 6 to 8 hours sitting at home, the body stops being active and then working a physical job is much harder. I could list all the ways my parents fucked me, from dad leaving and never coming back or caring, to mother who happened to be control freak and just wanted me to finish high level education so she can brag about it to others. Its all about reputation with her. In the end, it all really collapsed, and over decade spent in schools was just for nothing, no purpose at all. All the jobs I ever had, I could have even if I didnt go to high school, let alone worked hard to get meaningless good grades. I could list more fuck ups by my parents, who I am not even sure if they are even my parents, because we seem to be sharing no any similar characteristics, which is almost impossible if they are really my parents. Of course, my parents still complain that I have no job, but its their fault for destroying me both physically and mentally so that I am unfit to even talk to people in real life, let alone have some job for a long time. It just happens like that when you are raised by retarded parents, they just focus on and push you in only one direction, failing to address any other direction in your life and even preventing you from going in different directions, so you fail everywhere else in life except in that one pointless direction they selected for you.
Created:
The main disagreement was that if all moral opinions are equally unproven, then there cannot be a more proven moral opinion by tautology.
However, as stated before, there are only 2 options. Option 2 is self-negating because if we say that all moral opinions are equally unproven, then that becomes proven truth, therefore it is placed in option 1, proving option 2 false.
Moral opinion X says that all moral opinions are equally unproven = accepted as objective fact
All moral opinions equally unproven = Moral opinion X equally unproven as other moral opinions
This yields a contradiction which can only be resolved in this way:
Moral opinion X says that all moral opinions are equally unproven except moral opinion X = Moral opinion X becomes objective morality
Moral opinion X is simply true because it states objective fact that all other moral opinions are equally unproven, where only moral opinion X is proven by simple observation of other moral opinions.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
People try to disagree with literal tautology.
There are only two options:
1. Some moral opinions are more proven than others (thus, objective morality)
2. All moral opinions are equally unproven
There is no 3rd option. However, both options lead to objective morality.
The 1. obviously says that some moral opinions are closer to truth than others, thus objectively more correct.
The 2. says that all moral opinions are equally unproven, thus equality of proof of moral opinions is objective truth, objective morality.
There is nothing to disagree with in this obvious tautology, and any disagreement presented in this topic is just people failing to understand what tautology is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
It is actually Capitalism that has never been tried by any world power.
It would be very good if we had actual economical freedom. People who have actual economical freedom have it easier to start buisness. Its good if its easier to start a buisness, because buisnesses are basis of economy.
For more on this I highly recommend this Mark Skousen article explaining the business cycle:
Thank you. I will give it a read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
he does tell leaders to temper this when they grab power because of its negative effects which can cause them to lose their heads in revolts
Well, often governments use majority's support to oppress minority. That way, majority is always on side of government. It just depends on how much majority can be brainwashed into doing horrible things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Most Communists are good people, but the ones who use Communism to gain power are bad. Corrupt government is simply no better than Trump, even if it claims to support Communist actions like sharing prosperity among all.
If workers were united, they wouldnt need government. They could then dictate how much they get paid by forcing Capitalist to pay them more.
But government, even if claims to be Communist, wont achieve much other than dictatorship.
Created:
Posted in:
In around 1991, many people thought it was the end of Communism. It was supposed to be ultimate and final victory of free market over state-run economy, the final victory of freedom over government's oppression.
People thought "We did it! Communism will never come back!"
Only few decades later, Communist parties labeled under different names have taken hold of almost every country in the world.
Capitalist democracy has one weakness which Communists realized they can exploit.
Promising people "free" stuff, promising bunch of free stuff in elections is a strategy which simply works because:
1. Masses dont know that "free" stuff isnt free
2. Masses dont know that this is essentially a path to Communism, since every next election more free stuff must be given in order to win elections.
Thus, instead of Communism being defeated in 1991, Communism actually just changed its form into much superior one and spread into all countries.
Communism failed in Soviet Union only to win everywhere else.
The government controlling private lives of citizens and controlling their buisnesses is now present in almost every country in the world.
Countries now have government healthcare, government determining wages, government determining prices, government determining regulations, government determining which buisnesses will succeed by taxing their competition much more, or regulating competition much more.
Communism isnt defeated. Communism is now in USA, Europe, Canada, Japan...ect. The countries which are supposed to be leaders of the world are all run by obvious Communist economy, just slightly less extreme than the one of Soviet Union.
Its the Capitalism which has failed, because despite being an economically far superior system, Communism is politically far superior system.
A capitalist coming to election can say whatever he wants. He will be completely defeated by all the free stuff Communist will promise, and masses with their low IQ prefer to be poorer just so that rich are less richer, they prefer to get some "free stuff" and be poorer just to get the feeling that they are cared for.
Anyone with few working braincells can see that the situation only keeps getting worse, and will get even worse because government has incentive to meddle into everything.
Really, all propaganda was put in place to turn people into idiots who think Communism is only when government owns means of production.
Also, lots of propaganda was put in place to label rich people as some greedy men who enjoy in their private planes while small person suffers.
But what these masses dont see is that now government enjoys personal prosperity and controls private lives while small person suffers even more.
Masses dont know what Communism is, which is great news for Communist parties everywhere, who now only need to rename themselves and then they can implement all the Communist policies all over again like they did in USSR.
People dont realize that they are falling for same nonsense under different name.
Government is supposed to just have military and system to protect property and people.
It is not supposed to manage people's lives. It is not supposed to regulate economy.
It is not supposed to have 34 trillion of debt so it can pay for "free stuff" government "gives" to people.
If free stuff is indeed free for you, then ask yourself why does government have to pay for it using your money?
Its because with increase in prices it just happens to be paid by you indirectly.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thats what usually happens to small countries in free market.
Rich people from other countries first defeat their buisnesses by competition, then offer to buy them to prevent those buisnesses from collapsing.
Sure, selling your land to people from other countries is a bad choice, but its still a choice they made.
Not sure whats there to complain about. People have right to sell their land to rich people from other countries.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, people outside the country can own land inside the country. This is true for almost every country in the world.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
For example if the trend is to have an iPhone they will buy one no matter how expensive it is
Well, to be fair, thats maybe one of the good choices compared to all the Chinese crap released to the market and all the crap smaller companies release lol
For me, next smartphone is either samsung either iphone. I never had iphone, so its kinda tempting. Plus, apple is a large company, which means it has more resources available to make better smartphone.
But even after over 5 years of use of my samsung smartphone, the battery still lasts whole day. Of course, there is some caring on my part, like not charging it over 80% and not letting it fall under 10%, but still, I dont remember my previous smartohones having such battery life.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
The midwit will just parrot the dominant worldview so it's essential for conservatism to become that dominant world view.
I have met many people in life who copy whatever is popular.
Like, you ask them why they think something, and their answer is "Because most people think that" or "Because some authority figure said so."
In my life, I never had the idea to just copy what other people think. I never understood why some people just seek to be copies.
Maybe its some survival trait. Like, logic such as:
I am just like others = I will be accepted by others.
I understand that throughout history, socially different people were often killed or rejected, or punished in some way.
So maybe copying is just the trait which survived in genes passed down through history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Like I said. There is nothing prior to the choice of God deciding to exist
If there is nothing deciding that choice should exist, then choice isnt chosen, thus even God lacks free will.
nothing could cause that choice because nothing existed
That is the point. Choice isnt chosen.
Why also have QM which negates your premises of cause and effect existing at certain levels of reality
As explained before, while not everything needs a cause, free will by tautology needs to choose a choice it cannot choose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You are still getting first cause wrong and this first cause being understood correctly is key for all of this
Not an argument.
God can choose to create himself or not. He transcends space time and the laws of nature
Saying that you can choose still doesnt mean you have free will.
Law of identity (A = A) cannot be negated in any way in this case, because if you say God can abolish the fact that choice can only be a choice, all it would do is negate the choice, thus disprove free will and not negate the case against free will.
To make it simple:
Choice = choice
God abolishing "choice = choice" = "choice =/= choice".
Thus, the only way to abolish law of identity is to abolish choice as a choice.
As long as something which isnt a choice takes part in existence of choice, choice doesnt exist by tautology, since tautology demands that "not choice" cannot take part in choice, by law of identity.
Choice(free will) = Everything is a choice
Thus, anything not being a choice = no free will
We see that there is no logic which can make choice out of things which are not choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You being the program.The computer does not determine the software, the computer executes the software. If you identify as the software, you are the physical determinant. Hence free will
This is circular reasoning. It is equal of saying "if you have free will, you have free will".
You still didnt explain what makes the software.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You do, because there was a single creative force that created the universe and that is apart from the universe.
If I choose my choices, that is infinity regress.
This creative force has split his personality into billions of people and this creative force (God) chooses whatever he wants to and is above the laws of physics.
If anyone chooses his choices, that is infinity regress.
Your brain which could be referred to as the radio can impact randomness
This is circular reasoning. You say that randomness makes choices, but that choices make randomness. Thus, there is still no choice, because the circle isnt chosen.
as shown in double slit experiments. So the creative force using the brain as a radio has free will and it is expressed on the quantum level which impacts the atomic level and has a cascading effect.Â
This is talking about results of if free will existed, not if free will exists.
You could also see platos cave for a theory that can help explain how free will escapes the cause oriented universe
Sadly, it cannot escape anything.
There are only 3 options we know of:
1. Randomness or out of nothing
Randomness is not a choice, since randomness is by definition not chosen. Not chosen is not a choice.
Out of nothing is not a choice either, since one cannot choose what comes out of nothing. If one cannot choose, its not a choice.
2. Having a causeÂ
Cause of choice isnt chosen. Cause of choice isnt a choice. What isnt choice isnt chosen.
3. Being circular, choice causes itself.
This is like saying that cause of choice is a choice, or that "A causes A".
It is divided on two options:
Every choice being a choice of another choice, thus infinity regress.
Or
Just one choice, caused by itself.
Neither of these are choices, since even if choice causes choice or causes itself, you still cannot choose which choice is caused by itself. If you cannot choose which choice is caused by itself, then neither of those two options are choices.
To make it simple, no circle of logic you can come up with can be a choice, as every circle of logic exists independent of choice. Existing independent of choice cannot be a choice.
Not even future choice affecting past solves this, because future choice isnt chosen. What isnt chosen cannot solve this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The randomness of subatomic particles and the I fluency of the mental state which is a state the brain projects onto the physical world allows room for that mental state influenced through the invisible mind
Again, who chooses randomness? Who chooses this "invisible mind"?
Free will is by tautology ability to choose, which is contradictive as not everything can be chosen, thus free will is contradictive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
indefinite states of being and are randomly selected for. The randomness allows for free will
Randomness isnt free will, since randomness cannot be chosen. Free will must allow a choice by tautology.
Its like programming a computer to act according to random dice roll. Thats not free will, as computer doesnt choose dice roll result.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Quantum physics explains how free will is possible and contradicts the laws of causation. For example it says future choices can effect past events
The solution for the problem I mentioned cannot be solved by merely saying choices affect events. Choices are still affected by something even if they affect events. Thus, the problem I mentioned isnt solved as choices are still affected by something.
The only question is how are our choices made. Choices being made doesnt really prove free will. Thus, the question isnt if free will can be proven, since we know it cant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
What makes something science for you?
While actual science doesnt exist since every logical structure suffers from lack of ability to prove all its premises (unless its tautology), what we can say is that there are things we can observe and as long as we assume that we can trust our eyes, that becomes truth for us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When you accept that you are a program being run by your brain, it is not a contradiction to say your free will is part of that program.
Lets see.
Free will = ability to choose
Me being run by my brain = me having no control over what brain I have or what is brain programmed to choose, thus no ability to choose.
Me being run by my brain = no ability to choose.
Simply, if I am programmed, then free will cannot possibly exist since I cannot choose how I am programmed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Quantum physics gets around this. You do get the decision since every possible choice simultaneously happens in multiple worlds and your consciousness just travels to the world where you made your decision and the split off universes have either other pieces of your consciousness or contain philosophical zombies
Thats only if you run under assumption that your choice is uncaused by anything, which violates the basic law of causation, but also doesnt explain how do you control your choice.
To make it simple, choices either have a cause or they dont.
Choice has a cause = cannot choose cause
cannot choose cause = no free will
Choice has a cause = no free will
But if choice doesnt have a cause, then you run into a different problem where you cannot possibly control your choices.
Free will, even when operating under assumption that choices have no cause, just traps itself in another logical problem:
Choices have no cause = choices cannot be controlled or chosen
choices cannot be controlled or chosen = no free will
Choices have no cause = no free will
To make it simple, free will is by definition ability to make a choice without that choice being affected by anything.
But simple logical problem occurs because in order to choose something, you must choose to choose something. In order to choose to choose something, you must choose to choose to choose something.
This simple logical problem goes on to infinity where choice cannot even be made because you can never choose.
Thus, we see that any choice cannot possibly be free will, because free will is by itself a contradiction in terms.
Ability to make a choice doesnt really tell you what is it that is making a choice.
If its non-choice part of you, then you cannot choose that part, thus cannot really control choice.
If choice comes out of nothing, then again you couldnt choose which choice comes out of nothing, thus its not in your control. Its just random decisions not made by anyone.
If you can choose a choice, that leads to infinity regress where choice can never even be made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Under the 100% rejection of genetic determinism comes the 100% rejection of nature as a factor. It can only be environmental.Within that scope they also tend to reject the will (or personal responsibility).
Free will is rejected by both nature and nurture, or any combination of these.
It is simply a contradiction to say that "you have free will, but your choices are made up by your environment you grew up in, or genes which you couldnt choose.".
The idea of free will must reject both nature and nurture in order to survive as a logical thought, which it really cant, since there are many conditions clearly changing people's choices, from education to abuse, to drug use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Liberals believe we are all born equal. Once born we all have equal IQs and work ethics and creativity naturally I'm us and the environment is what impacts those traits. This is the flawed Tabula Rasa theory.
I dont usually see someone using my logic to attack trans people lol
I support trans rights.
I just dont support the idea that lack of equality is bad, since if we accept that, then we will always think we live in bad times since there will always be lack of equality.
Should we all look same, dress same, think same, own same things, be exact copies of each other and have exactly same lives? How far does "we should be equal" go?
Because when person says that we should be equal, one must ask "equal in what?".
If we live in bad society and can never create good society, then that just gives excuse to all bad people to stay bad since good (equality) cannot even be achieved. It also gives everyone something to complain about all the time, all the lack of equality everywhere.
Its simple, when you set goal at equality, anything less than equality becomes bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It is not shameful that postmodern progressives have promoted gender equality to the point where women have equal opportunities in all aspects of society, including sports and leadership roles in organizations like rape crisis centers.
It is not logical that by advocating for equality and inclusivity for all individuals, including transgender people, one would inadvertently create a system that incentivizes men to falsely identify as women for personal gain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
we talk about the relationship between low testosterone and understanding physics
You can recycle testosterone by eating your own cum.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
There aren't that many. But the algorithm funnels this fringe minority into a few spaces where they congregate, reinforce their collective worldview, and create the false impression of their extremely unpopular views being popular. You see this with the "Orthobros" who virtually don't exist offline but believe their tiny movement to be the future of American Christianity.
Even one pedophile view being supported anywhere is too much, let alone 100 comments of support.
The fact that you think pedophiles are all over YouTube suggests you're drawn to pedophile spaces. If you want out of the rabbit hole, just right-click on the offending videos and select "Not interested". Eventually other kinds of content will be suggested instead.
I just need to stop clicking on whatever YouTube recommends me. I dont know why I click on anything YouTube recommends me. It seems that YouTube is just trying to give me most offensive videos and trigger me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
However, Bell's Theorem, developed in 1964, and subsequent experiments, proved Einstein's position incorrect.Â
So this whole is Einstein visit to France and description of the whole process, after his several years of covering waste issues of Bell's Theorem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
ADOL Roy Kerr Nemum spinning rotating and charge blacks.
Created:
Posted in:
The field of quantum gravity is currently undergoing a major paradigm shift. Loop quantum gravity, which was once a leading contender, has recently been shown to be inconsistent with fundamental principles of physics. This has led to a renewed focus on other approaches, such as string theory and the holographic principle.
String theory, which posits that the fundamental constituents of matter are tiny vibrating strings, has been gaining momentum in recent years. One of the most promising developments in string theory is the AdS/CFT correspondence, which relates quantum gravity in a negatively curved spacetime (anti-de Sitter space) to a quantum field theory living on its boundary. This correspondence has profound implications for our understanding of the nature of space, time, and gravity.
Another important development in quantum gravity is the holographic principle, which states that the information content of a region of space is finite and can be encoded on its boundary. This principle has been shown to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and suggests that black holes may not be as destructive as previously thought.
Finally, it is worth mentioning the work of Roy Kerr and Nemum on spinning and charged black holes. Their solutions to Einstein's equations have played a crucial role in our understanding of the properties of black holes and their interactions with matter and radiation.
These are just a few of the exciting developments in the field of quantum gravity. As our understanding of the nature of reality continues to evolve, we can expect to see even more groundbreaking discoveries in the years to come.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
He didn't change the topic
I understand that not everyone on this site is Einstein,
but
If topic is "Equality cannot exist",
I think its very obvious that "We are closer to equality =/= we have equality".
Trying to change goalpost from "Equality" to "Closer to equality" is changing the topic, since those two goalposts arent same.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
My father didn't leave me anything and Trump's father left him $400 million
My father never even gave me anything. I dont even know him. So yeah, I am not like Trump unless someone gives me all those millions to make me equal to Trump.
Created:
Now, since it seems that the only two people attacking the topic are the ones just trying to change topic and attack a strawman, I must attack my own topic because given how this is going, I doubt it will meet serious challenge any time in the future.
To put it simply, the clue was in original post.
Actions can never be equal to all, thus all actions will always lack equality and will always be bad since lack of equality is considered bad.
However, lack of action is equal to all, since lack of action affects everyone equally in a sense that it doesnt affect anyone at all. It is not an action or even existing, thus cannot contain any non-equality. This relates to negative rights theory based on lack of actions.
As much as I hate making arguments against my own topic, it seems that no one else will.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Equality is not an either/or, it's a spectrum.
No, its not a spectrum. Equality either exists or doesnt.
The possibility of perfection is not necessary to determine good from bad.
Irrelevant.
Good is simply that which gets us closer to perfection.
This is false. If goal is equality, then goal will never be achieved. Thus, if equality is good, then equality will never be achieved.
I understand that people here want to change the topic to "Getting closer to equality", but that is still lack of equality, thus bad, plus irrelevant when topic isnt "getting closer to equality".
If 50/50 is perfect, then that provides is with the basis we need to determine that 51/49 is better than 80/20.
If anything that is not 50/50 is bad, then 51/49 is bad. This cannot be denied in any way, unless your goal isnt equality. Thus, "better" doesnt mean "good", contrary to popular belief.
So unless your point is that the inability to achieve perfect equality within our society means it doesn't matter if the top 1% hold 99% of the nation's wealth, then there absolutely is value in continuing to strive for equality regardless of whether we could ever achieve it.
Why would you try to achieve something which logically cannot be achieved?
Whether perfect equality should be the goal is of course an entirely different conversation.
Its not an entirely different conversation. Its literally the topic. But I guess trying to change the topic when you cant attack it in other way is a popular strategy on this forum site.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.
No. If goal is never achieved, then there is no point in having it.
Equality may never be achieved but one can always strive to attain it.
One can, but its pointless because one will never attain it.
That way you are making the world more equal.
There is no "more equal", nor does "more equal" achieve any equality. Things are either equal either not equal.
That should be the goal.
This topic is about equality, not about whatever other goal you want to set or debate.
Not equality = bad
Closer to equality =/= Equality
Closer to equality = Not equality
Closer to equality = bad
Thus, if one holds belief that lack of equality is bad, and coming closer to equality is a lack of equality, then coming closer to equality is bad.
Nothing is perfect but that doesn't mean it can't be better. Don't make better the enemy of perfect.
Sadly, when the goalpost is equality, the only way for it to be better is if equality exists, and since it cannot ever exist, it will never be better.
Created:
There is actually no way for any equality to exist, if you really think about it for longer than 20 seconds.
Thinking of entire huge text to say that equality is good is simply like saying "It would be good if everyone had everything he wants" and writing bunch of nonsense to support said claim.
Sure, it would be good if equality existed, but the fact that it cannot possibly ever exist makes it kinda pointless to want.
Like, some people always have better life than others, better brain structure than others...
Thus, if you say that non-equality is bad, you are saying that everything is bad since no two things in the world are equal.
Thus, this logic follows:
Equality = good
Lack of equality = bad
All people = have lack of equality
All people = bad
There is actually no way to solve this problem, because word "equality" can only happen if all people are equal, and since all people will never be equal, all people will always be bad.
Further, equality morality makes every action bad. For example, if you are helping a homeless person, that is bad because you are not helping equally all homeless people that ever existed.
Thus, to make it simple, equality morality is nonsense, because there is no "goal" in it which you can actually realize.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I always find it funny how many people believe that psychology is a science.
I guess putting the label "science" on any nonsense theory they think of makes it sound somewhat further from nonsense it actually is.
Created:
There are over 100 comments on this video saying things like "girl 12, boy 20", some even openly admitting to being in relationships with people much older than them.
Not sure why YouTube allows people to literally promote pedophilia by calling these relationships "love".
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
They that decided that everything was purposeless and committed suicide, saw purpose in their actions
The true purpose is removing suffering. No one really wants to live in pain for 80 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have enough money lol
I am not going to copy paste this to gofundme.
Created:
Posted in:
Every debate has at least two sides.
Sometimes there are multiple possibilities of one side.
For example, opposite of always doing something is never doing something, but also another opposite of never doing something is sometimes doing something.
There is also under which circumstances, and by how much. For example, opposites of "all" are some, none, half or majority, or any number or amount which is not "all".
Opponent presents his argument, and my job is simply to:
1. Present premises which are opposite of premises used in his arguments, opposite of premises he presented (negations)
2. Present my own arguments supported by new premises (my arguments)
3. Weigh importance of goals (like, why are my goals more important than the one opponent has set).
But I have to say, the idea of both formal and non-formal debate is a bit flawed.
Formal debate lets everyone have equal limited characters, and equal limited rounds.
However, this causes that some arguments cannot be presented, some arguments must be dropped because there is no character space to respond to all.
But I enjoy negating arguments more than I enjoy making them, even tho one must do both.
Non-formal debate has no character limit, but it also doesnt have round limit. However, it is filled with people trying to get last word. It can even last for 20 to 30 rounds. Simply, the bad thing about it is all the spam it enables. Both sides basically go at each other until one side grows tired of responding. Its not really ideal, because the one who gets last word feels like winner even if he isnt really anything close to it. Thus, it becomes more about spamming than about learning anything.
I dont know why I like debating so much. Kinda like computer programming, but instead of commands like if, then, else...ect. you use same logical connections to make and negate argument.
I realized I use hours each day debating about things I dont even care about, just because it feels somewhat good. Sure, there are things I care about, but I dont really find it much interesting to only defend things I support. I feel like things I dont support deserve some attention too.
I like both formal and non-formal debating. Its like some special kind of math average person is clueless about, yet is easily lured into doing by simple opposing view being presented.
Like, no one really cares if you are good at math, and you cant really challenge people to do math. But you can always challenge people to debate because most dont even know that most suck at it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Heh, its not really about amount of attention, but just saying how I feel I guess.
Created:
Posted in:
I know some of you may think that I am bad because I was in prison or because I am registered as a "sex offender".
But thats not why I am bad.
There is a bigger reason why I am bad.
I am bad because I have too much compassion. I am bad like gay Jesus was bad. I simply cannot look at anyone suffering and be happy about it.
Maybe its some disorder, I dont know. I simply always want for everyone to be happy. Thats why I am bad. Its not an advantage to put others first. It really messes up your life, so you are always serving others and their needs instead of yours.
Created: