I’m undecided as to my precise position but I would say the stance I defended probably closely aligns with whatever it winds up being (I think the stuff on “capability” might have some vulnerabilities and I might explicitly add a clause which values future sentience). I would still hold to some sort of sentience position but perhaps wouldn’t articulate it in the way I have.
Regarding the coma, obviously we don’t want to say someone who’s comatose or who has been temporarily knocked out and is not actively sentient isn’t a person, which is why I add that they are still capable of being sentient. Given they have once been sentient, they have passed the threshold of being a person, hence the continuation of their rights is expected
"You repeatedly implied there is no obligation to sustain another life, which is a bodily autonomy defense by definition. For example:
-“Even with uncertainty, we do not require people to sustain others’ lives at serious cost.”
" you said:
“Even with uncertainty, we do not require people to sustain others’ lives at serious cost.”
Both are in your text, word for word. That is not fabrication"
You were either blatantly wrong or lying. That's all I'm going to say about this situation.
I named myself Bones because I was a huge fan of Jon several years back but now I despise him. I'm interested in the debate but idk who would possibly be able to adjudicate the debate.
Could you tell me which round and under which I typed what you call “word for word” the sentence “Even with uncertainty, we do not require people to sustain others’ lives at serious cost”
I’ve had half a dozen votes casted against me and none of them warranted any moderation. The issue arises only when someone who is clearly unable to adjudicate a debate tries their hand at it and fumbles.
At this point given umbrellas clear agitation and insulting demeanour it’s clear they are just now going to find ad hoc justification for why their vote is correct so there might not be any point of engaging.
Really unfortunate but this vote isn’t up to standard either.
1. Voter claimed I didn’t develop a moral framework thereby ignoring the first 7552 characters of the first round (not to mention subsequent rounds)
2. Usually pro choicers either argue from personhood (the fetus is not a person) or bodily autonomy (it doesn’t matter if the fetus is a person because the mother has bodily autonomy). Voter claimed I argued from bodily autonomy (an argument I detest and never put forth) thereby showing they merely took a guess at what my pro choice argument might have been and was unfortunately mistaken.
3. Voter claimed my rebuttal to FLO was dismissive (suggesting a response was not made) rather than substantive. This ignores a further 7000 characters worth of argumentation.
Note how none of these criticisms pertain to anything substance related (because the voter didn’t provide much in that respect). Instead it regards completely ignoring key sections of the debate (point 1 and 3) and straw manning arguments that were never made in the debate (points 2)
I realise that in the conclusion and else where, I used "pre sentient" to describe my criteria (to describe previously sentient). This is obviously confusing given I use "pre sentient" to also describe beings who have never been sentient. Hopefully this isn't too boggling but I'm sure you'll be able to tell which usage refers to what.
Given both of you have provided some thoughts (especially you Whiteflames), I'm compelled to also drop some pointers.
1. In terms of what Ben did well, the point of social affirmation was one I understood as strong, and hence strategically (and perhaps uncharitably) granted less consideration. I think it's a good point and, under the definition of GAC provided would qualify - however if push came to shove, I would have made the point of showing that even if social affirmation were successful that this is not synonymous with GAC being holistically good.
2. Personally, out of all the studies and arguments I issued, I did not expect the first study to lose as much mileage as it did. Looking back I think this might have been an oversight from me, given the link could have been expanded on more clearly.
3. Whiteflame - one main point you bring up throughout both Ben and I's points (but mainly mine) was that there lacked a quality study which eliminated the extraneous variables. However, as you admit, this is extremely difficult to find because there hasn't been such a study, and also that such a study would be extremely difficult to conduct. (First, you would have to essentially force some gender dysphoric individuals into not seeking gender affirming care. Second, if you found people with gender dysphoria but didn't want to transition and used them as the control, even that wouldn't really work because of the clear symmetry breaker being that one group wants GAC and the other doesn't).
4. Regarding my logical incongruity point, it was basically an original thought I had, hence, a lot of the links were pretty sketchy, but still I think it's a line of reasoning worth investigating. For instance, you mentioned "within those subsequent years after 2010, a substantial number of those suicides came from those who received GAC". I agree that I am unable to show a clear causal linkage between the two, but I think the argument grants cumulative reasons to suspect something is afoot - it seems fishy that absent an explanation, why this claim of morality when denying transgender individuals treatment does not seem to be ameliorated when a thousand fold increase in such treatment is provided.
Agreed. Just to put it in really plain english, the evidential problem of evil basically just points around in reality and asks "why is this occurring". The logical problem of evil doesn't rely on evidence and looks more into the properties of God - it sees that given his traits, you can basically be certain that anything God wants he will get, and so the world as it is now must be what he wants, because if it wasn't, he could just change it.
That would then get into the distinction between the logical and evidential problem of evil. Whilst you are right that the logical problem of evil would have to discount God necessarily, that is not the case for the evidential problem. If we take the evidential perspective on the holocaust, then you could possibly deny that evil is afoot, though that would be extremely dubious. However, if we use the logical problem of evil, as I elaborated below, it would be possible only if you throw out the entire concept of "evil" - given Gods tri-omni properties, all things which are actual are as he wishes they are obtained, and because his will arbitrates benevolence, there is no such thing as evil at all.
Ultimately I have two hypothesis to consider - the first is that the holocaust is necessary for obtaining some future good which outweighs the initial evil, which we haven't yet experienced and must still patiently wait for, or the holocaust was simply an instance of gratuitous evil. Whilst there is no inherent contradiction, it seems too implausible to take the first example.
1. Philosophical zombies
Although this could resolve the POE, it would be a huge concession which I doubt any serious theist would make. The mass deception itself would call into question the benevolence of God.
2. Supernatural forces
I take it that the tri-omni God is one who can actualise any state of affair which they desire, and so the fact that such demons exist would have to be because God sought for it to be so. You can consider this in the following syllogism:
p1. Evil is defined as a contradiction to god’s nature/sin and ought not be done
p2. Then it follows that evil is that of which OUGHT not be done
p3. God allows all things to occur
p4. These things that occur are purposeful (it’s according to God’s plan)
p5. Given that these things occur purposefully, as they are in accord with God’s plan, these things ought to occur
C: There is no evil (P4 precludes evil which is defined in P2)
3. Butterfly effect
If we take this to be an explanation, then you would be forced to conceded that the holocaust is actually an all things considered good. I would be weary to do this, and would first question why the holocaust was necessary in obtaining certain goods two million years into the future, and how it is that God couldn't just have brought about the good without the gratuitous suffering.
Since you are so gracious as to tell me the things you did wrong, I'll give a two (because unlike you I actually have sounds argument and don't rely on spamming) word of advise.
1. Try a little harder to hide your incompetency by spreading out your copy and pasted sources, as opposed to blitzkrieging them in the last round.
In the first round, you provided 6 sources for your arguments. In the second round, you provided 0 new sources for your arguments (two in the meta debate analysis). In the third and final round, you provided 18 new sources to the substantive of your argument (not even new rebuttal sources, but completely new, [akin to a first round] bearing new arguments). I know the only way you can win is by spamming things you haven't read in the very final round (so then I'm forced to make a closing statement, defend my arguments, rebut your arguments, and address your new sources) but maybe try a little more to hide it (compare this to my third round, in which there is not one single new study introduced).
2. Actually address your oppositions arguments. Another interesting observation of your bad faith - building on the statistics above (you introducing 6 sources in the first round, 0 new in the second and 18 in the last round) what makes your blitzkrieging even more blatant is the fact that whenever a response is issued to your source, you instantly abandon it. For example, in the first round, you made the following substantive claims.
i. With supervision, these reversible drugs safeley and effectively delay a child's development until they are ready.
ii. There is an extremely low prevalence (<1%) of regret in transgender patients after gender affirming surgery.
iii. Gender affirming hormone therapy was consistently found to reduce depressive symptoms and psychological distress.
iv. 73% less likely to experience suicidality when compared to youths who did not receive gender-affirming interventions.
**Every** single one of these are addressed in my second round (check rebuttals 1, 2, 3), where your manipulation of sources, mischaracterising and simple ineptitude is made apparent. After I address your studies, how many of them do you defend? Zero. In this debate, you have not one single time defended a source once. Sure, you defend the claims, by blitzkrieging different sources to prove your point, but not once do you come back and attack my critique of your sources. That is to say, by the third round, every single source you introduced in your first round was abandoned by you. Essentially, the entire debate was a dance, where you brought up a source, I shot it down, and you bring up a new one, thereby implicitly admitting that the sources shot down were truly dead.
Usually, it is in bad faith to mount additional clarifications of your arguments for it might sway the potential voters, though to be fair, being bad faith has never of concern to you. Of course, all of your claims are absolutely and unequivocally incorrect.
1. You made the egregious claim that puberty blockers were "reversible drugs that can safely and effectively delay a child's development until they are ready". I disputed this with seven sources (two of which referred to bone density). You responded by asserting that bone density is not effected in those post pubescent consumers of hormone therapy which is absolutely irrelevant to your initial claim pertaining to children (you of course also ignore the 5 other sources I provided.
2. This is completely irrelevant. I've made this point like 4 times (all of which you've ignored) but GAC is something which effects your **entire life**, and you are making an inference based on a survey (funny that you have to stoop to online responses) which only requires you to have had **some** treatment for two years. So the conditional you are proposing is IF GAC produces happy online respondents within 2 years, THEN GAC is an effective **lifetime** treatment.
3. You absolutely did make this claim. Crying about transphobia being on the rise in your introduction is absolutely a way of poisoning the well, preemptively shielding the undeniable decrease in transgender mental health decrease with untested extraneous variables.
4. I'm not sure if you're actually stupid or you seriously do not understand what I am saying. It seems as though you have not actually read the section which I quoted clearly, highlighting so as to aid you away from your confusion. The line you cited explains what they ought not do, and then **immediately following**, the writer claims "to be responsive to some of the letter writers’ interest" follower by an explanation of what they decided to do, which is "creat(ing) a matched group of individuals with a gender incongruence diagnosis who have not received surgery... found no significant difference in the prevalence of treatment for mood disorders and no significant difference in the prevalence of hospitalization after suicide attempt". I won't be surprised if you're not following, so to dumb it down, the authors said "let's not do this thing", and then "since people have said let's not do this thing, I'll do this other thing" concluding with "this other thing seems to find that GAC doesn't help".
5. This was one of your stupidest moments in the debate. You said "the third study of his measures psychiatric morbidity in general, not gender dysphoria specifically like CON is insinuating" which is absolutely stupid - if you even cared to look at the second line of the study, you would see it said their entire purpose was "to investigate psychiatric morbidity before and after sex reassignment surgery". I don't really care what inference you are trying to make - the fact is, I used this study, to support the notion that transitioning does **not** help, which if it is shown that "no significant difference in psychiatric morbidity or mortality was found between male to female and female to male" is absolutely sound.
Well that was a long time ago and as much as one may not want to admit, Novice has improved exponentially. Furthermore, the topic of Derick is far more on-sided than the debate regarding institutional racism as a whole. All I'm saying is, it'll be an interesting matchup for the both of you.
We are one and one, the only right way to resolve this is a third debate ;)
It would be good to see what you had in mind anyways, even if it is incomplete.
I’m undecided as to my precise position but I would say the stance I defended probably closely aligns with whatever it winds up being (I think the stuff on “capability” might have some vulnerabilities and I might explicitly add a clause which values future sentience). I would still hold to some sort of sentience position but perhaps wouldn’t articulate it in the way I have.
Regarding the coma, obviously we don’t want to say someone who’s comatose or who has been temporarily knocked out and is not actively sentient isn’t a person, which is why I add that they are still capable of being sentient. Given they have once been sentient, they have passed the threshold of being a person, hence the continuation of their rights is expected
I'm surprised you used the right "too" there.
💀💀💀
Surely this is going to get to a point where it’s just blatantly targeted voting.
😭😭😭
Third times the charm?
Great, hopefully having read the debate you can arbitrate umbrella's vote.
Don't forget to vote!
Votes like these are what make so few competent debaters participate on this site.
You don't have a bone of urgency in your body and I love it.
We can agree that when you said -
"You repeatedly implied there is no obligation to sustain another life, which is a bodily autonomy defense by definition. For example:
-“Even with uncertainty, we do not require people to sustain others’ lives at serious cost.”
" you said:
“Even with uncertainty, we do not require people to sustain others’ lives at serious cost.”
Both are in your text, word for word. That is not fabrication"
You were either blatantly wrong or lying. That's all I'm going to say about this situation.
I named myself Bones because I was a huge fan of Jon several years back but now I despise him. I'm interested in the debate but idk who would possibly be able to adjudicate the debate.
Could you tell me which round and under which I typed what you call “word for word” the sentence “Even with uncertainty, we do not require people to sustain others’ lives at serious cost”
Great so the jumbled summary and made up quotes should be enough to get the vote thrown out.
I’ve had half a dozen votes casted against me and none of them warranted any moderation. The issue arises only when someone who is clearly unable to adjudicate a debate tries their hand at it and fumbles.
At this point given umbrellas clear agitation and insulting demeanour it’s clear they are just now going to find ad hoc justification for why their vote is correct so there might not be any point of engaging.
Thanks Barney. Umbrella would you like to give some clarifications on the points I raised in my below comment?
Really unfortunate but this vote isn’t up to standard either.
1. Voter claimed I didn’t develop a moral framework thereby ignoring the first 7552 characters of the first round (not to mention subsequent rounds)
2. Usually pro choicers either argue from personhood (the fetus is not a person) or bodily autonomy (it doesn’t matter if the fetus is a person because the mother has bodily autonomy). Voter claimed I argued from bodily autonomy (an argument I detest and never put forth) thereby showing they merely took a guess at what my pro choice argument might have been and was unfortunately mistaken.
3. Voter claimed my rebuttal to FLO was dismissive (suggesting a response was not made) rather than substantive. This ignores a further 7000 characters worth of argumentation.
Note how none of these criticisms pertain to anything substance related (because the voter didn’t provide much in that respect). Instead it regards completely ignoring key sections of the debate (point 1 and 3) and straw manning arguments that were never made in the debate (points 2)
Seeing as you don’t know the difference between subjective and objective I’m not sure you’re the best candidate to vote here.
Yeah that’s right. You should definitely look into voting.
Rage bait votes use to be believable
All wrapped up - I think you'll enjoy this one a lot.
I realise that in the conclusion and else where, I used "pre sentient" to describe my criteria (to describe previously sentient). This is obviously confusing given I use "pre sentient" to also describe beings who have never been sentient. Hopefully this isn't too boggling but I'm sure you'll be able to tell which usage refers to what.
Oops
Actually, would one week argument time be possible? If not that should be alright but I would prefer it.
My schedule is a bit up in the air right now but I should be able to accept this at latest within two weeks. The definitions and burden are both good.
You should get an award for the number of votes you churn out.
I'll give voting a go but I had a look and it's a bit messy to adjudicate so I'll see what I can do.
Given both of you have provided some thoughts (especially you Whiteflames), I'm compelled to also drop some pointers.
1. In terms of what Ben did well, the point of social affirmation was one I understood as strong, and hence strategically (and perhaps uncharitably) granted less consideration. I think it's a good point and, under the definition of GAC provided would qualify - however if push came to shove, I would have made the point of showing that even if social affirmation were successful that this is not synonymous with GAC being holistically good.
2. Personally, out of all the studies and arguments I issued, I did not expect the first study to lose as much mileage as it did. Looking back I think this might have been an oversight from me, given the link could have been expanded on more clearly.
3. Whiteflame - one main point you bring up throughout both Ben and I's points (but mainly mine) was that there lacked a quality study which eliminated the extraneous variables. However, as you admit, this is extremely difficult to find because there hasn't been such a study, and also that such a study would be extremely difficult to conduct. (First, you would have to essentially force some gender dysphoric individuals into not seeking gender affirming care. Second, if you found people with gender dysphoria but didn't want to transition and used them as the control, even that wouldn't really work because of the clear symmetry breaker being that one group wants GAC and the other doesn't).
4. Regarding my logical incongruity point, it was basically an original thought I had, hence, a lot of the links were pretty sketchy, but still I think it's a line of reasoning worth investigating. For instance, you mentioned "within those subsequent years after 2010, a substantial number of those suicides came from those who received GAC". I agree that I am unable to show a clear causal linkage between the two, but I think the argument grants cumulative reasons to suspect something is afoot - it seems fishy that absent an explanation, why this claim of morality when denying transgender individuals treatment does not seem to be ameliorated when a thousand fold increase in such treatment is provided.
Thank you all very much.
Thank you Ben, it was an intense debate and we both held our own.
Agreed. Just to put it in really plain english, the evidential problem of evil basically just points around in reality and asks "why is this occurring". The logical problem of evil doesn't rely on evidence and looks more into the properties of God - it sees that given his traits, you can basically be certain that anything God wants he will get, and so the world as it is now must be what he wants, because if it wasn't, he could just change it.
That would then get into the distinction between the logical and evidential problem of evil. Whilst you are right that the logical problem of evil would have to discount God necessarily, that is not the case for the evidential problem. If we take the evidential perspective on the holocaust, then you could possibly deny that evil is afoot, though that would be extremely dubious. However, if we use the logical problem of evil, as I elaborated below, it would be possible only if you throw out the entire concept of "evil" - given Gods tri-omni properties, all things which are actual are as he wishes they are obtained, and because his will arbitrates benevolence, there is no such thing as evil at all.
Ultimately I have two hypothesis to consider - the first is that the holocaust is necessary for obtaining some future good which outweighs the initial evil, which we haven't yet experienced and must still patiently wait for, or the holocaust was simply an instance of gratuitous evil. Whilst there is no inherent contradiction, it seems too implausible to take the first example.
Guarantee HOF.
1. Philosophical zombies
Although this could resolve the POE, it would be a huge concession which I doubt any serious theist would make. The mass deception itself would call into question the benevolence of God.
2. Supernatural forces
I take it that the tri-omni God is one who can actualise any state of affair which they desire, and so the fact that such demons exist would have to be because God sought for it to be so. You can consider this in the following syllogism:
p1. Evil is defined as a contradiction to god’s nature/sin and ought not be done
p2. Then it follows that evil is that of which OUGHT not be done
p3. God allows all things to occur
p4. These things that occur are purposeful (it’s according to God’s plan)
p5. Given that these things occur purposefully, as they are in accord with God’s plan, these things ought to occur
C: There is no evil (P4 precludes evil which is defined in P2)
3. Butterfly effect
If we take this to be an explanation, then you would be forced to conceded that the holocaust is actually an all things considered good. I would be weary to do this, and would first question why the holocaust was necessary in obtaining certain goods two million years into the future, and how it is that God couldn't just have brought about the good without the gratuitous suffering.
I think I've exhausted my interest in God debates, though if you want I could outline some new and better ideas I have with regards to the poe.
Hopefully you have some time to cast a vote, or at least give the two of us your general thoughts.
Citing Israels twitter account as evidence of Israels' moral high ground is a crazy tactic.
If you say so
Since you are so gracious as to tell me the things you did wrong, I'll give a two (because unlike you I actually have sounds argument and don't rely on spamming) word of advise.
1. Try a little harder to hide your incompetency by spreading out your copy and pasted sources, as opposed to blitzkrieging them in the last round.
In the first round, you provided 6 sources for your arguments. In the second round, you provided 0 new sources for your arguments (two in the meta debate analysis). In the third and final round, you provided 18 new sources to the substantive of your argument (not even new rebuttal sources, but completely new, [akin to a first round] bearing new arguments). I know the only way you can win is by spamming things you haven't read in the very final round (so then I'm forced to make a closing statement, defend my arguments, rebut your arguments, and address your new sources) but maybe try a little more to hide it (compare this to my third round, in which there is not one single new study introduced).
2. Actually address your oppositions arguments. Another interesting observation of your bad faith - building on the statistics above (you introducing 6 sources in the first round, 0 new in the second and 18 in the last round) what makes your blitzkrieging even more blatant is the fact that whenever a response is issued to your source, you instantly abandon it. For example, in the first round, you made the following substantive claims.
i. With supervision, these reversible drugs safeley and effectively delay a child's development until they are ready.
ii. There is an extremely low prevalence (<1%) of regret in transgender patients after gender affirming surgery.
iii. Gender affirming hormone therapy was consistently found to reduce depressive symptoms and psychological distress.
iv. 73% less likely to experience suicidality when compared to youths who did not receive gender-affirming interventions.
**Every** single one of these are addressed in my second round (check rebuttals 1, 2, 3), where your manipulation of sources, mischaracterising and simple ineptitude is made apparent. After I address your studies, how many of them do you defend? Zero. In this debate, you have not one single time defended a source once. Sure, you defend the claims, by blitzkrieging different sources to prove your point, but not once do you come back and attack my critique of your sources. That is to say, by the third round, every single source you introduced in your first round was abandoned by you. Essentially, the entire debate was a dance, where you brought up a source, I shot it down, and you bring up a new one, thereby implicitly admitting that the sources shot down were truly dead.
Try harder Benjamin
Usually, it is in bad faith to mount additional clarifications of your arguments for it might sway the potential voters, though to be fair, being bad faith has never of concern to you. Of course, all of your claims are absolutely and unequivocally incorrect.
1. You made the egregious claim that puberty blockers were "reversible drugs that can safely and effectively delay a child's development until they are ready". I disputed this with seven sources (two of which referred to bone density). You responded by asserting that bone density is not effected in those post pubescent consumers of hormone therapy which is absolutely irrelevant to your initial claim pertaining to children (you of course also ignore the 5 other sources I provided.
2. This is completely irrelevant. I've made this point like 4 times (all of which you've ignored) but GAC is something which effects your **entire life**, and you are making an inference based on a survey (funny that you have to stoop to online responses) which only requires you to have had **some** treatment for two years. So the conditional you are proposing is IF GAC produces happy online respondents within 2 years, THEN GAC is an effective **lifetime** treatment.
3. You absolutely did make this claim. Crying about transphobia being on the rise in your introduction is absolutely a way of poisoning the well, preemptively shielding the undeniable decrease in transgender mental health decrease with untested extraneous variables.
4. I'm not sure if you're actually stupid or you seriously do not understand what I am saying. It seems as though you have not actually read the section which I quoted clearly, highlighting so as to aid you away from your confusion. The line you cited explains what they ought not do, and then **immediately following**, the writer claims "to be responsive to some of the letter writers’ interest" follower by an explanation of what they decided to do, which is "creat(ing) a matched group of individuals with a gender incongruence diagnosis who have not received surgery... found no significant difference in the prevalence of treatment for mood disorders and no significant difference in the prevalence of hospitalization after suicide attempt". I won't be surprised if you're not following, so to dumb it down, the authors said "let's not do this thing", and then "since people have said let's not do this thing, I'll do this other thing" concluding with "this other thing seems to find that GAC doesn't help".
5. This was one of your stupidest moments in the debate. You said "the third study of his measures psychiatric morbidity in general, not gender dysphoria specifically like CON is insinuating" which is absolutely stupid - if you even cared to look at the second line of the study, you would see it said their entire purpose was "to investigate psychiatric morbidity before and after sex reassignment surgery". I don't really care what inference you are trying to make - the fact is, I used this study, to support the notion that transitioning does **not** help, which if it is shown that "no significant difference in psychiatric morbidity or mortality was found between male to female and female to male" is absolutely sound.
Make it three rounds and 5000 characters and I'll accept. Also, change the wording to "homosexuality is not moral".
lmao why do these dumb fuck debates as opposed to doing an actual academic topic where your intellects are at clash.
lmao why do these dumb fuck debates as opposed to doing an actual academic topic where your intellects are at clash.
Well that was a long time ago and as much as one may not want to admit, Novice has improved exponentially. Furthermore, the topic of Derick is far more on-sided than the debate regarding institutional racism as a whole. All I'm saying is, it'll be an interesting matchup for the both of you.
You two should really push the as of late lacking quality of debates outside of its current state by debating this topic.
Still want to do the abortion debate where we defend our actual beliefs, or have you realised that formal debating is a wee bit out of your capacity?