Not going to honor your word then. Ragnar will not enforce it. Alas, I will just have to crush you. Keep acting like a deadbeat. It's working out well for you.
Please honor your offer for debate deletion by giving consent to the moderator. He apparently requires something called "positive consent" (I don't know what that is)
He consented to it 6 days ago and again yesterday in post 18. You've mentioned wishes twice, but people don't control what they want. That's a feeling. People control what they say and what they do. If you make a decision based on what someone wants, then what you're really doing is deciding based on something that isn't within the control of the debaters.
It is the objective intentions of the parties that are binding. It is obvious from the debate description that we did not intend to debate a situation where no air pollution exists. Mutual intentions trump unintended absurdities. Yet, what I foresaw was getting bogged down in a protracted debate over that principle. That's what I didn't want to do. If you really wanted to continue with the debate as it was, then you shouldn't have offered to cancel it. I wanted to debate it with a reformed definition. I waited to see if you would change your mind or I could find a different way to avoid the issue. Neither of those things happened. Then I kindof forgot about the debate and at some point I saw the 1 hour left notification. That's what prompted me to act.
I have offered to debate this issue if the 0.1% threshhold within the air pollution definition was resolved, either by the creation of a new debate or by stipulation within the existing one. The gases in question do not exceed 0.1% and therefore are not pollutants under the definition in the debate description. The concentration is not even half that. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition ) It's as though air pollution does not exist under the definition, and I don't think either of intended to debate that. I proposed pre-industrial revolution concentration levels for the various gases as a revised concentration level, but you rejected this for reasons I do not understand. If you wish to debate this with a sensible threshhold for the concentration levels, I am open to that.
There was valid offer and acceptance for debate cancellation. Your offer was good unless you rescinded it, which you did not. Elapsed time or forfeits are not relevant.
"I will agree to whichever option of the two you offered" - You said you would do something and I relied on that representation. Now you want to back out. Come on dude.
Please cancel debate. The definition for air pollution provides that GHG's are only considered pollutants when their collective concentration exceeds 0.1%. (presumably not counting water vapor) The concentrations have not exceeded 0.1% and aren't projected to for a long time. It makes building a case in good faith overly complicated. I would like to continue this debate with a reformed definition.
TBH I think blacks have disproportionate political power as a race because the black vote is the most unified of all the races. Last election the black vote changed the outcome of pretty much everything.
"the debater influencing the voter to recast the vote in their favor." ; What I actually asked him to do: "vote based on the facts that were alleged in the debate without bias being a dispositive factor"
The debate resolution being false is a truism because a single example of a naturally occurring greenhouse gas (e.g. an animal exhaling CO2 from cellular respiration) will show the resolution to be easily false using the rules of the debate description, which clarify that the debate resolution is referring to "all" air pollution. ("Definitions: Air pollution: Pollutant in the natural atmosphere of Earth [...] counted as pollutants, are GHGs [...] some gasses, typically referenced as “greenhouse gasses,” [GHGs] consisting of carbon dioxide [CO2]")
You voted based on death ratios that were not alleged in the debate. You know that isn't fair. You're now saying that the ratios alleged in the debate with hypothetical full lifeboat usage -100% women saved to 50% men saved - is hard to acept as unjust or unfair. No, that is unjust and unfair and it's easy to see why. Your response makes no sense. When something doesn't make sense it's probably not true. The voting policy requires you to vote based on the facts that were alleged in the debate without bias being a dispositive factor. Do it.
"accommodate all women and children and still accommodate over 50.4% of the men on board" -Pro
"Pro supposes that saving 100% of the women and 100% of the children, while allowing 47% of the men to die is "agreeable"." -Con
"Pro also explained the ratio was only 47-53, contrary to an absurd proportion that con states. Con, I need you to tell me why 3% is unfair." "it seemed “equal” in the sense that women and men both had to die in relatively equal rates" -Your Vote
The survival ratio was a key factor in your vote. Both Pro and Con alleged in the debate was not a lot more imbalanced than you say it was in your vote. I ask you to reconsider your vote in light of the fact that both Pro and Con state in the debate that the ratio is not 47-53. I also stated in round 1 that 74% of women were saved and only 20% of men were. This was not disputed by Pro.
With respect to Giuliani's joke. I don't particularly like Giuliani, but he wasn't talking to her and the joke wasn't terribly sexist and it the environment it was made in bantering environment.
Yes, and how often do we hear feminists advocating for having women be subjected to the selective service act? lol This all came up to me because of the Giuliani joke https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/michelle-wie-west-rudy-giuliani-1130890/ It seemed like a mountain made over a mole hill to me
What brought to the fore for me is a combination of the egalitarian nature of modern feminism being a two way street and the COVID-19 vaccine prioritization debate.
I have edited the debate to make it clear that it's about the Titanic, specifically. This should eliminate a lot of variables so cases can be focused on the particulars of that incident.
That island is probably the only land the RoC has sovereignty over, and it's mostly because the China fears war with the USA or they would have taken over long ago. If I were president I would abandon the RoC, probably negotiate an American acquiescence to a communist takeover of Taiwan in exchange for whatever. The Chinese want it so bad, we should see what it's worth to them. The people of Taiwan are not our people and we don't owe them anything.
Ah, well, we can blame Adam for the deaths of thousands of sinless babies killed by a tsunami. Adam ate the apple, therefore it was justice. God couldn't be bothered to lift a finger. Too bad I'm an atheist, though. If I did believe in God, I'd definitely be joining satan to overthrow God. We need regime change.
There is no evidence that it was used it for any purpose other than the stated one. No, I won't lie, but feel free to continue to believe one. BTW, you have no satisfactory answer to the question, which is why you're not answering it.
I admit that it does not directly support the conclusion that God is evil. That it was misused, no, not really. It shows character that isn't consistent with the idea that God as "an omnibenevolent [...] being", which was a description proferred by whiteflame.
I wouldn't say so. Yet, I don't consider that to be an apt analogy. Say you come across a baby crying on some railroad tracks, and a train is coming. The train can't stop. Nobody else is around. You could save the baby, easily, by removing it from the tracks. Yet, you choose not to intervene. This is what God does, and it is evil.
God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. Nahum 1:2
I had to cut this out due to character limits, but it doesn't have any impact so I'll put it here.
I came across an opinion on Reddit where someone had said something like killing millions of civilians could never be justified and wasn't even a valid opinion. I viewed it as somewhat of a challenge. So, this debate represents an attempt to justify the killing of not just millions of civilians, but over a billion. If there's any wondering, I would do it if I were the king, and all of the arguments I put forth here are ones that I believe in.
I also chose to debate this subject to touch on a lot of issues that are interesting to me, and that I find myself in disagreement with many people about. Issues like nationhood, humanism versus patriotism, sacrifice versus selfishness, collective punishment or responsibility in wartime, the value of justice versus the value of human life, honesty about oneself, and the value of morality. In everyday life, much of that stuff really has no practical impact on any decision. But when we're faced with extreme situations, fundamental philosophical or political disagreements like these are brought to the fore. This hypothetical is one of the most extreme situations imaginable. I'm hoping to bring many of those issues to the table for discussion and debate.
Well, I would say that the observation is sufficient to disprove the premise that happenings require causes, which appeared to be central to your III a.2/a.3 R1 arguments. I mean, here we have observed this happening, that seems to happen within nothing for no discernable reason. And, I think, when we look at quantum mechanics, that is how a lot of it is going. Why do electrons repel other electrons? Why do the strong and weak nuclear forces happen? What causes gravity? We sort of get backed up to the wall where something is happening and there is no apparent explanation for why it is happening. Of the foregoing cases, quantum fluctuation is the most powerful example because it really is something that happens in the middle of nothing.
It was intended more as a rebuttal than as an argument on its own. The purpose of drawing attention to the phenomenon is to open the mind to possibilities it may have dismissed as contrary to common sense. Specifically, one of the premises within the cosmological argument is that happenings require causes when, apparently, that isn't always the case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Not going to honor your word then. Ragnar will not enforce it. Alas, I will just have to crush you. Keep acting like a deadbeat. It's working out well for you.
Please honor your offer for debate deletion by giving consent to the moderator. He apparently requires something called "positive consent" (I don't know what that is)
He consented to it 6 days ago and again yesterday in post 18. You've mentioned wishes twice, but people don't control what they want. That's a feeling. People control what they say and what they do. If you make a decision based on what someone wants, then what you're really doing is deciding based on something that isn't within the control of the debaters.
Ragnar, go ahead and delete the bloody debate.
It is the objective intentions of the parties that are binding. It is obvious from the debate description that we did not intend to debate a situation where no air pollution exists. Mutual intentions trump unintended absurdities. Yet, what I foresaw was getting bogged down in a protracted debate over that principle. That's what I didn't want to do. If you really wanted to continue with the debate as it was, then you shouldn't have offered to cancel it. I wanted to debate it with a reformed definition. I waited to see if you would change your mind or I could find a different way to avoid the issue. Neither of those things happened. Then I kindof forgot about the debate and at some point I saw the 1 hour left notification. That's what prompted me to act.
A stale dated check is still good. There's no stop payment. The guy says pay it. Nothing to talk about really.
I didn't see the problem until I began crafting my arguments and researching the concentration levels of the various gases.
I have offered to debate this issue if the 0.1% threshhold within the air pollution definition was resolved, either by the creation of a new debate or by stipulation within the existing one. The gases in question do not exceed 0.1% and therefore are not pollutants under the definition in the debate description. The concentration is not even half that. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition ) It's as though air pollution does not exist under the definition, and I don't think either of intended to debate that. I proposed pre-industrial revolution concentration levels for the various gases as a revised concentration level, but you rejected this for reasons I do not understand. If you wish to debate this with a sensible threshhold for the concentration levels, I am open to that.
There was valid offer and acceptance for debate cancellation. Your offer was good unless you rescinded it, which you did not. Elapsed time or forfeits are not relevant.
Delete the debate.
"I will agree to whichever option of the two you offered" - You said you would do something and I relied on that representation. Now you want to back out. Come on dude.
Please cancel debate. The definition for air pollution provides that GHG's are only considered pollutants when their collective concentration exceeds 0.1%. (presumably not counting water vapor) The concentrations have not exceeded 0.1% and aren't projected to for a long time. It makes building a case in good faith overly complicated. I would like to continue this debate with a reformed definition.
TBH I think blacks have disproportionate political power as a race because the black vote is the most unified of all the races. Last election the black vote changed the outcome of pretty much everything.
Showing that systemic racism exists and that it's a "significant problem" is not difficult. Is there a TLDR version of how this was lost?
Needs more time for voting probably
Eh, usually you wanna do things when you feel like doing them but who knows if that's gonna happen. Sometimes it does, sometimes it don't.
"the debater influencing the voter to recast the vote in their favor." ; What I actually asked him to do: "vote based on the facts that were alleged in the debate without bias being a dispositive factor"
The debate resolution being false is a truism because a single example of a naturally occurring greenhouse gas (e.g. an animal exhaling CO2 from cellular respiration) will show the resolution to be easily false using the rules of the debate description, which clarify that the debate resolution is referring to "all" air pollution. ("Definitions: Air pollution: Pollutant in the natural atmosphere of Earth [...] counted as pollutants, are GHGs [...] some gasses, typically referenced as “greenhouse gasses,” [GHGs] consisting of carbon dioxide [CO2]")
"Resolution: Air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels Description: All air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels."
Generic generalizations are problematic in debates.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/
Thank you
You voted based on death ratios that were not alleged in the debate. You know that isn't fair. You're now saying that the ratios alleged in the debate with hypothetical full lifeboat usage -100% women saved to 50% men saved - is hard to acept as unjust or unfair. No, that is unjust and unfair and it's easy to see why. Your response makes no sense. When something doesn't make sense it's probably not true. The voting policy requires you to vote based on the facts that were alleged in the debate without bias being a dispositive factor. Do it.
"accommodate all women and children and still accommodate over 50.4% of the men on board" -Pro
"Pro supposes that saving 100% of the women and 100% of the children, while allowing 47% of the men to die is "agreeable"." -Con
"Pro also explained the ratio was only 47-53, contrary to an absurd proportion that con states. Con, I need you to tell me why 3% is unfair." "it seemed “equal” in the sense that women and men both had to die in relatively equal rates" -Your Vote
The survival ratio was a key factor in your vote. Both Pro and Con alleged in the debate was not a lot more imbalanced than you say it was in your vote. I ask you to reconsider your vote in light of the fact that both Pro and Con state in the debate that the ratio is not 47-53. I also stated in round 1 that 74% of women were saved and only 20% of men were. This was not disputed by Pro.
Well I'm sure Ragnar will save us if nobody else does
Oh, it's not objectively related. It's just an internal tangle of thoughts, feelings, experiences and such.
With respect to Giuliani's joke. I don't particularly like Giuliani, but he wasn't talking to her and the joke wasn't terribly sexist and it the environment it was made in bantering environment.
Yes, and how often do we hear feminists advocating for having women be subjected to the selective service act? lol This all came up to me because of the Giuliani joke https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/michelle-wie-west-rudy-giuliani-1130890/ It seemed like a mountain made over a mole hill to me
What brought to the fore for me is a combination of the egalitarian nature of modern feminism being a two way street and the COVID-19 vaccine prioritization debate.
I have edited the debate to make it clear that it's about the Titanic, specifically. This should eliminate a lot of variables so cases can be focused on the particulars of that incident.
There was a ton of fraud in the 2020 election, and it was all coming from Donald Trump.
I enjoy poverty porn because downward comparisons.
I would be willing to take it if the time for arguments was extended to one week at least. I draft many documents and this work keeps me busy.
This is for me, isn’t it
Thanks for getting around to it. I was worried about you.
That island is probably the only land the RoC has sovereignty over, and it's mostly because the China fears war with the USA or they would have taken over long ago. If I were president I would abandon the RoC, probably negotiate an American acquiescence to a communist takeover of Taiwan in exchange for whatever. The Chinese want it so bad, we should see what it's worth to them. The people of Taiwan are not our people and we don't owe them anything.
Classism, heightism, fatism, uglyism, able-ism, age-ism, whateverism, lifes-not-fair-ism, its all a huge problem !
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine
Ah, well, we can blame Adam for the deaths of thousands of sinless babies killed by a tsunami. Adam ate the apple, therefore it was justice. God couldn't be bothered to lift a finger. Too bad I'm an atheist, though. If I did believe in God, I'd definitely be joining satan to overthrow God. We need regime change.
There is no evidence that it was used it for any purpose other than the stated one. No, I won't lie, but feel free to continue to believe one. BTW, you have no satisfactory answer to the question, which is why you're not answering it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami#Impact
If I was God, I would have stopped that. What's his excuse?
I admit that it does not directly support the conclusion that God is evil. That it was misused, no, not really. It shows character that isn't consistent with the idea that God as "an omnibenevolent [...] being", which was a description proferred by whiteflame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami#Impact
If I was God, I would have stopped that. What's his excuse?
I wouldn't say so. Yet, I don't consider that to be an apt analogy. Say you come across a baby crying on some railroad tracks, and a train is coming. The train can't stop. Nobody else is around. You could save the baby, easily, by removing it from the tracks. Yet, you choose not to intervene. This is what God does, and it is evil.
The problem of evil is resolved by taking the position that God is evil.
God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. Nahum 1:2
I had to cut this out due to character limits, but it doesn't have any impact so I'll put it here.
I came across an opinion on Reddit where someone had said something like killing millions of civilians could never be justified and wasn't even a valid opinion. I viewed it as somewhat of a challenge. So, this debate represents an attempt to justify the killing of not just millions of civilians, but over a billion. If there's any wondering, I would do it if I were the king, and all of the arguments I put forth here are ones that I believe in.
I also chose to debate this subject to touch on a lot of issues that are interesting to me, and that I find myself in disagreement with many people about. Issues like nationhood, humanism versus patriotism, sacrifice versus selfishness, collective punishment or responsibility in wartime, the value of justice versus the value of human life, honesty about oneself, and the value of morality. In everyday life, much of that stuff really has no practical impact on any decision. But when we're faced with extreme situations, fundamental philosophical or political disagreements like these are brought to the fore. This hypothetical is one of the most extreme situations imaginable. I'm hoping to bring many of those issues to the table for discussion and debate.
Looking forward to it.
Thank you for the vote. Perhaps in the future another debate like this will happen.
Well, I would say that the observation is sufficient to disprove the premise that happenings require causes, which appeared to be central to your III a.2/a.3 R1 arguments. I mean, here we have observed this happening, that seems to happen within nothing for no discernable reason. And, I think, when we look at quantum mechanics, that is how a lot of it is going. Why do electrons repel other electrons? Why do the strong and weak nuclear forces happen? What causes gravity? We sort of get backed up to the wall where something is happening and there is no apparent explanation for why it is happening. Of the foregoing cases, quantum fluctuation is the most powerful example because it really is something that happens in the middle of nothing.
It was intended more as a rebuttal than as an argument on its own. The purpose of drawing attention to the phenomenon is to open the mind to possibilities it may have dismissed as contrary to common sense. Specifically, one of the premises within the cosmological argument is that happenings require causes when, apparently, that isn't always the case.