Before I cast my vote, I believe it's important for me to ask. Even if you both share the burden of proof, considering the titling of the debate, it would appear to me that Bones possesses the greater burden of proof. Would you both agree with this assessment?
I hope Bones one day learns how his "no new arguments" rule stifles innovative thought. It stifles change and growth in you and competition. In my mind, if you're incapable of generating new ways to beat your opposition but he is, it simply means that he was more creative than you.
On the ropes? You haven't even posted your argument. Although I love to lose debates, if you truly think you have positive and logical insight, I would love for you to make your argument.
I'm not too sure. If you do post it, we will naturally debate it. If you don't, it will free up more of my time to have other debates. Its up to you really? If you're confident in your argument and do want to debate the topic, go for it. If not, i recommend you forfeit.
There's nothing needed to support the philosophy ( in terms of definitions). I gave you an argument for the logical distinction between suffering and pain. I put this despite what any authority figure says. Yet then, showing me a definition where they're considered the same doesn't prove anything, as I directly disagree with them if they think they're the exact same. You must argue with the logic I present for the separation (instead of offering a definition which disagrees but doesn't state why, as there's nothing there that debunks my philosophy). Suffering is part of pain, but suffering is much broader than pain, but I'll shut up and just make my argument.
I wouldn't want to debate him on whether homosexuality is innate or not. I agree with his position, but his reason for why it is genetic is just plain wrong, and his definitions are too narrow to account for all philosophical factors.
pain and suffering are connected but very distinct words. No amount of definitions where you show them overlapping disproves the clear distinction I used with logic. But you will find that out next round.
Definitions tend to reduce truth to confine them to general knowledge, within philosophy the definitions of words is broadened and if they cannot be broadened we make new words. Its funny to me you used these definitions despite me showing wreckage is wrong in his definitions.
I'm unsure what to think of CONS definitions. He claims something has to be innate to be part of one's identity. By that definition, a doctor shouldn't believe being a doctor is part of their identity, since he made a choice to be. It's evident to me that we can add things to our identity and self-a posteriori. PRO conceded way too fast.
You gave him way too much respect, Intelligence, probably just simply intimidated by the way he structures his arguments in a strong fashion.
"Evidently based on what I have previously said, I have demonstrated that suffering is a mental concept and never a physical one. This means suffering occurs due to a fear of hopelessness. Any sane individual when faced with a pascals wager of this sort will choose to believe their suffering has meaning as opposed to it not, if one wishes to live. Therefore for as long as one is believing you ought to agree with my side, unless you wish to live the life of a hypocrite."
for as long as one is living is what i meant to say here, not believing.
LMFAO, this makes it sound like if a man first attacks a woman, yet she retaliates he's now allowed to continue the beating.
Outside of that, i see no problem with men fighting women in self defence, if a woman hits a man she ought to be ready to throw hands. I'm perfectly fine with fighting women if i have too, i lose no sleep over the thought.
Well it is necessary for experience itself or the "perception" of cause and effect happening is necessary for experience and existence itself. This means cause and effect has existed in all parts of the universe at once as cause and effect causes motion itself. Something cannot move without it. Although I'm yet to show something cannot temporarily violate this at any moment and go to its standard state again. There's a few ways I could argue against it though. Its most likely the case that cause and effect must necessarily not be violated, as if something has that opportunity temporarily. There is no reason why it couldn't attain that state permanently (as it violates all laws of thermodynamics). Which would once more, lead to the crashing of the universe. Although right now I'm simply dealing with likelihood's. Nothing a priori. Although I think I've demonstrated its ridiculous and borderline nonsense for the laws to be broken, as long as its not certain I'm yet to prove Hume wrong.
I imagine the answer to this question could lie in mathematics and "nothingness". (mathematics through prediction of the future, and an argument to the impossibility of nothingness to show how silly it is for cause and effect to simply disappear)
I find it odd that we agree we shouldn't drug people to take them to rehab even to save their lives. Yet you believe Chinese military intervention is justified in Taiwan (killing millions) just because of a difference in economic policy, created of their own democratic will? why is it within china's authority to decide for them what they should be able to do, if it shouldn't in the case of the addicted and needy? even if we agreed Chinas economic policy is superior, how do you go from that to making a moral ought to force it on the Taiwanese who don't want it?
If china went did decide to invade Taiwan, it would lead to the fall of China as we know it, so thankfully it wont make that silly decision.
May I ask why you think Taiwan belongs to China? Even assuming it is, the people there don't want to be. In the UK, for instance, the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh can cede and leave the United Kingdom whenever they want through a referendum. They have even had these referendums done in the past. Why is China so incessant in not giving these people what they want?
People in china strike a lot of westerners as very "hive - mind" like. Very susceptible to just doing what they're told and not thinking for themselves but only within the boundaries of their cultures.
Did you hear about china threatening military intervention just because Nancy Pelosi was flying to Taiwan? that stuffs wild, the Chinese people need to do something about their government before it gets everyone killed.
Its a joke. In most places, the state can force people to go into rehab with a court order. It clearly isn't that radical, if you take away the drugging part. You have a moral obligation to stop someone from committing suicide (in normative ethical frameworks) if you believe its wrong to watch someone hang themselves, you also ought to believe it wrong to watch and not help a drug addict who will soon kill themselves from their addiction without medical and institutional intervention.
To be honest, Cause and effect doesn't even need to exist for me to still make a strong case against Hume. This debate is a complete wrap in the next round. I'm going to completely scrap my argument from cause and effect. It muddies the waters, the Steelman is coming next round. The argument through synthetic a priori patterns of necessity. From my argument its evident I've made a good argument "cause and effect" has existed up till now and will within my own being till i die, yet I'm still to prove they will remain in the future.
Trying to find a sufficient argument against this philosophy is going to give me PTSD. At least i have 5 days to make some sort of Frankenstein's monster.
That could definitely be the case. I think both sides created the best possible argument they could with what they were given, which is why it is my favourite debate on the site. I don't think there's much either could have improved on in their arguments, although I do see one more chance for Whiteflame to win. It depends if he can see it, though. Whiteflame may feel forced to make a bodily autonomy argument, If he does so, he should avoid analogies and instead use real-world examples.
Public transport is a disaster, I'm sorry. I'm from the UK which is known for public transport and i literally had to stop going to college because of how much of a hassle bus's are.
I feel like we can create an argument through practicality. It would be unreasonable to never have a child go in a car (even if its objectively safer) it would be true we should lock a child in their room if we want maximum physical safety but it would be both damaging to their long term mental health and practical application for everyday living.
Argument against the position you propose:
1. It is impractical to stop a child from ever going in a car, it makes life much harder. Same for all the other things you mentioned.
2. It isn't impractical to say a adult shouldn't have sex with a child and stop them from doing so, as this function holds little in the ways of pragmatic utility for everyday societal functioning, unlike knives, and cars.
Thank you, you too! I highly doubt I will win this debate. After all, it could be said both Kant and Popper failed to truly bring the sledgehammer down on Hume's induction argument. I simply had an interesting philosophical thought in regards to this question and would like to check the veracity of it.
I've come to learn that RM is a very emotionally fragile man who blocks people on the site over the most mundane things. I hope one day he learns he gives others power over him with his childish reactions. He becomes controlled by the person. He lets them dictate his emotional well-being and mental state.
We can agree status matters more if you have bountiful status, but most men don't and its statistically impossible for most men too. This then means your status is secondary for most men.
It seems my vote had too many characters, so ill just copy and paste it here.
I didnt vote because i hadn't read it. I couldn't bring myself to read it even if i wanted too, the topic just doesn't really interest me.
very well.
Before I cast my vote, I believe it's important for me to ask. Even if you both share the burden of proof, considering the titling of the debate, it would appear to me that Bones possesses the greater burden of proof. Would you both agree with this assessment?
I hope Bones one day learns how his "no new arguments" rule stifles innovative thought. It stifles change and growth in you and competition. In my mind, if you're incapable of generating new ways to beat your opposition but he is, it simply means that he was more creative than you.
On the ropes? You haven't even posted your argument. Although I love to lose debates, if you truly think you have positive and logical insight, I would love for you to make your argument.
I'm not too sure. If you do post it, we will naturally debate it. If you don't, it will free up more of my time to have other debates. Its up to you really? If you're confident in your argument and do want to debate the topic, go for it. If not, i recommend you forfeit.
well that's a lovely mindset to have, good luck! you'll gain something from this debate, win or lose.
Interesting attempt to solve the problem, although i cant see ossa being dumbstruck by that argument, to say the least.
A display of poetry.
There's nothing needed to support the philosophy ( in terms of definitions). I gave you an argument for the logical distinction between suffering and pain. I put this despite what any authority figure says. Yet then, showing me a definition where they're considered the same doesn't prove anything, as I directly disagree with them if they think they're the exact same. You must argue with the logic I present for the separation (instead of offering a definition which disagrees but doesn't state why, as there's nothing there that debunks my philosophy). Suffering is part of pain, but suffering is much broader than pain, but I'll shut up and just make my argument.
I wouldn't want to debate him on whether homosexuality is innate or not. I agree with his position, but his reason for why it is genetic is just plain wrong, and his definitions are too narrow to account for all philosophical factors.
pain and suffering are connected but very distinct words. No amount of definitions where you show them overlapping disproves the clear distinction I used with logic. But you will find that out next round.
Definitions tend to reduce truth to confine them to general knowledge, within philosophy the definitions of words is broadened and if they cannot be broadened we make new words. Its funny to me you used these definitions despite me showing wreckage is wrong in his definitions.
I'm unsure what to think of CONS definitions. He claims something has to be innate to be part of one's identity. By that definition, a doctor shouldn't believe being a doctor is part of their identity, since he made a choice to be. It's evident to me that we can add things to our identity and self-a posteriori. PRO conceded way too fast.
You gave him way too much respect, Intelligence, probably just simply intimidated by the way he structures his arguments in a strong fashion.
"Evidently based on what I have previously said, I have demonstrated that suffering is a mental concept and never a physical one. This means suffering occurs due to a fear of hopelessness. Any sane individual when faced with a pascals wager of this sort will choose to believe their suffering has meaning as opposed to it not, if one wishes to live. Therefore for as long as one is believing you ought to agree with my side, unless you wish to live the life of a hypocrite."
for as long as one is living is what i meant to say here, not believing.
"men are able to hit women if women hit him back"
LMFAO, this makes it sound like if a man first attacks a woman, yet she retaliates he's now allowed to continue the beating.
Outside of that, i see no problem with men fighting women in self defence, if a woman hits a man she ought to be ready to throw hands. I'm perfectly fine with fighting women if i have too, i lose no sleep over the thought.
ONEEE KISS IS ALL IT TAKKKKES
I've never seen rationalmadman take so long to make an argument. Hes on the ropes, he's crumbling under pressure.
hahahaha
same arguments every debate.
thank you. Actually no, my description was more correct than my title.
Well it is necessary for experience itself or the "perception" of cause and effect happening is necessary for experience and existence itself. This means cause and effect has existed in all parts of the universe at once as cause and effect causes motion itself. Something cannot move without it. Although I'm yet to show something cannot temporarily violate this at any moment and go to its standard state again. There's a few ways I could argue against it though. Its most likely the case that cause and effect must necessarily not be violated, as if something has that opportunity temporarily. There is no reason why it couldn't attain that state permanently (as it violates all laws of thermodynamics). Which would once more, lead to the crashing of the universe. Although right now I'm simply dealing with likelihood's. Nothing a priori. Although I think I've demonstrated its ridiculous and borderline nonsense for the laws to be broken, as long as its not certain I'm yet to prove Hume wrong.
I imagine the answer to this question could lie in mathematics and "nothingness". (mathematics through prediction of the future, and an argument to the impossibility of nothingness to show how silly it is for cause and effect to simply disappear)
it doesnt suprise me either. I barely lost the debate, a debate never actually happened. We were talking about two different topics.
There was way too many rounds put in this debate, sadly.
"the drug addict agreed he would go to rehab, he violated this agreement. he didnt go so now we have to force him at gun point"
is a great analogy to what you're saying.
I find it odd that we agree we shouldn't drug people to take them to rehab even to save their lives. Yet you believe Chinese military intervention is justified in Taiwan (killing millions) just because of a difference in economic policy, created of their own democratic will? why is it within china's authority to decide for them what they should be able to do, if it shouldn't in the case of the addicted and needy? even if we agreed Chinas economic policy is superior, how do you go from that to making a moral ought to force it on the Taiwanese who don't want it?
If china went did decide to invade Taiwan, it would lead to the fall of China as we know it, so thankfully it wont make that silly decision.
May I ask why you think Taiwan belongs to China? Even assuming it is, the people there don't want to be. In the UK, for instance, the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh can cede and leave the United Kingdom whenever they want through a referendum. They have even had these referendums done in the past. Why is China so incessant in not giving these people what they want?
People in china strike a lot of westerners as very "hive - mind" like. Very susceptible to just doing what they're told and not thinking for themselves but only within the boundaries of their cultures.
Did you hear about china threatening military intervention just because Nancy Pelosi was flying to Taiwan? that stuffs wild, the Chinese people need to do something about their government before it gets everyone killed.
Its a joke. In most places, the state can force people to go into rehab with a court order. It clearly isn't that radical, if you take away the drugging part. You have a moral obligation to stop someone from committing suicide (in normative ethical frameworks) if you believe its wrong to watch someone hang themselves, you also ought to believe it wrong to watch and not help a drug addict who will soon kill themselves from their addiction without medical and institutional intervention.
Now i just need to create a method through which we can be 100% certain of future events unfolding.
To be honest, Cause and effect doesn't even need to exist for me to still make a strong case against Hume. This debate is a complete wrap in the next round. I'm going to completely scrap my argument from cause and effect. It muddies the waters, the Steelman is coming next round. The argument through synthetic a priori patterns of necessity. From my argument its evident I've made a good argument "cause and effect" has existed up till now and will within my own being till i die, yet I'm still to prove they will remain in the future.
Its been done, potentially. Lets see what CON has to say.
Truly.
2 rounds? lol and you waive the first.
I admire your curiosity mall. You never seem to give up trying to expand your horizons. I wish you well on your journey.
Trying to find a sufficient argument against this philosophy is going to give me PTSD. At least i have 5 days to make some sort of Frankenstein's monster.
I dont care if a forfeited round merits a loss. I'm not here to glorify me ego. I will still make my next round argument.
i suppose thats true.
I think ill pass, good luck though!
What do you want to argue in this debate rayhan? the likelihood of Islam vs atheism?
That could definitely be the case. I think both sides created the best possible argument they could with what they were given, which is why it is my favourite debate on the site. I don't think there's much either could have improved on in their arguments, although I do see one more chance for Whiteflame to win. It depends if he can see it, though. Whiteflame may feel forced to make a bodily autonomy argument, If he does so, he should avoid analogies and instead use real-world examples.
lol i completly forgot about this debate. I'm gonna have to let this round be waived. I'll create an argument in the next one though, sorry kritikal!
Public transport is a disaster, I'm sorry. I'm from the UK which is known for public transport and i literally had to stop going to college because of how much of a hassle bus's are.
I feel like we can create an argument through practicality. It would be unreasonable to never have a child go in a car (even if its objectively safer) it would be true we should lock a child in their room if we want maximum physical safety but it would be both damaging to their long term mental health and practical application for everyday living.
Argument against the position you propose:
1. It is impractical to stop a child from ever going in a car, it makes life much harder. Same for all the other things you mentioned.
2. It isn't impractical to say a adult shouldn't have sex with a child and stop them from doing so, as this function holds little in the ways of pragmatic utility for everyday societal functioning, unlike knives, and cars.
Thank you, you too! I highly doubt I will win this debate. After all, it could be said both Kant and Popper failed to truly bring the sledgehammer down on Hume's induction argument. I simply had an interesting philosophical thought in regards to this question and would like to check the veracity of it.
I've come to learn that RM is a very emotionally fragile man who blocks people on the site over the most mundane things. I hope one day he learns he gives others power over him with his childish reactions. He becomes controlled by the person. He lets them dictate his emotional well-being and mental state.
Should children have the ability to work jobs, like an adult instead of going to school?
"data"
I think you mean very individual specific cases.
We can agree status matters more if you have bountiful status, but most men don't and its statistically impossible for most men too. This then means your status is secondary for most men.