Total posts: 318
Posted in:
Atheists are very frustrated that some people could possibly disagree with them. It terrifies them that some people are capable of being fine with uncertainty.
Created:
Posted in:
Going to college is only worth it for gender studies. If you're looking to be a doctor you're best off going to culinary school for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I would disagree with you on objective morality being uncertain and also on the idea that god almost certainly doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- You know newborns that speak in complete sentences? Wow. I would like to hear about that.
I would love to comment on it too!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You compose the debate, please.
Created:
Posted in:
Let it be known to everyone here with eyes to see and minds to read: Oromagi has made some very bold claims. First he said reincarnation is falsifiable, then he moves the goalpost to continuously saying how unlikely it is despite me cutting off an arm and a leg, giving him all the advantages he could hope for in this debate, yet he still refuses despite being so sure of its unlikelihood. If you're so sure, come and sweep the floor with me like you do with the other 99% you debate. It should be easy. Come get your free win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Oromagi. I've said i will argue reincarnation is very likely correct. I've said i will have that burden of proof. Do you want to do it? i have the entire burden of proof.
- false.
Well then you've been doing it wrong, as all your debates assume a million axioms before the discussion can even begin. What form of "truth seeking" is that?
f you're capable of showing bigfoot is nonsense (through modern technology) shouldn't you be capable of doing the same with reincarnation?
- Yes. Take a survey of all the newborn babies who can speak in complete sentences. As long as that number remains zero, reincarnation is almost certainly false.
We can see if this argument stands or not in our actual debate? if you don't want to do it, that's fine. Just say so.
- People are stubborn about their biases. Most people very deliberately believe things without evidence
Wittgenstein would say that simply means they have axioms which were never questioned, so even if you win the debate and they realise they lost. They don't change their mind as a consequence of having an underlying belief which necessitates their current one. All you actually point out is the fact you never find complete truth in any of your debates, as peoples axioms come out unfazed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
If you're capable of showing bigfoot is nonsense (through modern technology) shouldn't you be capable of doing the same with reincarnation? the point of debating is not to get surefire 100% indisputable proof (most of the time). Barely anyone changes their minds from debates, the idea of it is to add more nuance into things and create synthesis between two conflicting ideas to find a new shared resolution. To then debate things where surefire proof is not possible but then be against this debate for the exact same reason feels contradictory to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Didnt you just recently have a debate on bigfoots existence? someone could simply same all the current evidence has failed to detect him but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. We can definitely debate likelihoods and come to a shared conclusion on if its a ridiculous idea to have (like believing in unicorns and dragons).I noticed that you consider yourself a catholic? is that just for aesthetic purposes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Switch soul to consciousness and i will carry the full burden of proving there is no sufficient reason to believe consciousness dies at death and that reincarnation is possible. Will that be good enough?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
What was wrong with it? everything which was wrong with it i will edit. I will even take away most of your burden of proof if need be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Just use the waybackmachine, he did win it. Although bluesteel strikes me as someone who was likely male who enjoyed pretending to be a woman on the internet to fulfill some sort of fetish of his.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
There's a very big difference between saying something is falsifiable and arguing we shouldn't believe something without evidence. Although I'm sure you will soon find there is some evidence to reincarnation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I love that oromagi. You said you think reincarnation is easily falsifiable (obviously noticing I've been interested in debating the topic lately) but when i ask for it you switched up xD
-
If reincarnation is so falsifiable i think you have an imperative to prove it to people such as myself who are may be ignorant to the facts that you've experienced. I think it would be a shame for me to walk around the rest of my life living a lie. Its better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie. Do you want to do the reincarnation debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
oh? fascinating. I didnt think you would be ok debating philosophy with me. Lets open up the debate then. Do you want me to open it or would you prefer yourself to do it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
May i have the opportunity to debate you, sir?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Sorry but humans aren't very nice creatures, especially pre modern civilization. If you feel too upset to have a discussion on a nasty aspect of human psychology, feel free to log out.
Where did I hint I'm upset? stockholmn syndrome is actually considered a form of PTSD which is why stockholm syndrome is not in the DSM-5. this essentially means women who do have stockholmn syndrome are traumatised, its not the same as a consensual relationship not formed through murder, force and coercion. This simply means (most girls) who are self respecting wont actually like rape outside of weird dominance fantasies. To argue loving someone due to PTSD and trauma is real love like any other is evidently unjustifiable as one is based on fear and delusion, not real love.
It's not rape if it's consensual -- that's the whole point. The female mind justifies the new change in power. Besides, what do you think is preferable? Fight the conquerors, or just give in and be taken care of?
You never show where its consensual without a threat of death, rape, abuse or social ostracization. The wiki you link itself says this is why stockholm may exist biologically.
-
Regardless of if its natural or right doesn't mean its unavoidable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Let's get to the chest beating. I don't really care what anyone thinks about me, I'm here to have fun primarily, the rising of rating is a joke to me. Look at how paralysed in fear most of the top dogs are. Shaking cowards, afraid to step wrong, terrified, permanent thin ice vibes.
Facts. Most of the highest Elo debaters have about 1 challenging debate a year.
Created:
Posted in:
You must be a very lost individual, Avery. I hope you find some truth which can lighten your heart from such odd beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
It would appear to me to actually be a self report. All you really actually told me is you don't have a robust moral philosophy and a deplorable moral compass if you're capable of falling in love with someone who murders your husband. Even if it were the case that this did exist in human female psychology, it will act as a disposition (epigenetics) rather than a sure fire thing. I think it would be unjustified nonsense to also say all women would like this, just like not all men would rape in a war scenario. Although, all of this stuff is exceptionally reductionist. You point out how men who conquered others places married the women there, you never offer information on consent to such marriages, or on if they willingly chose to have children with them, etc. I see you've made one correct analysis with a whole lot of guesswork (probably based on self reflection based on how it would be for you).
Created:
Posted in:
i probably spend about 10 minutes reading my opponents argument and about 30 making my own. I rarely proofread and when i do i do it super sloppily. Sometimes ill see if i can dissect my discussion partners position more thoroughly, then ill take 15-20 minutes to give them a fleshed out response, but that's very rare.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
But this isn't rape. The woman will likely be thrilled to have a strong winner want to mate with her.
is this a troll? or are you really saying most women would be happy if their husbands got literally were killed in a fight for a chance to mate with Eddie hall?
Created:
Posted in:
Theunexaminedlife rawdogs anyone on DDO (my philosophy teacher).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I respect that! i think you have the best attitude to debating (when it comes to participating) but I'm quite like you in that I'm quick to lose interest in a debate or simply give up even if I could put forward a good argument. I see this as a flaw in myself as well if I were to judge my quality as a debater. I think a balance needs to be struck where you interact with those the others wont (due to their uncertainty) but at the same time not dropping your debates in quality even if it gets poor votes or a lack of votes altogether. Although i dont necessarily think you're lazy like i am. I think you just have so many debates. I'm just lazy half of the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
DId you even read any of your sources? dont just read the title. Second gen black immigrants do BETTER than their parents in the article article you provided.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
showing/proving men can be better than women
Sus.....very sus....
Created:
Posted in:
I think different debaters are best at different things.
In terms of versatility i would probably say rationalmadman is the best (he will discuss almost anything and at least make a decent argument if hes motivated). I get those same vibes from whiteflame too, he just doesn't debate very often.
-
I think oromagi is a great debater, he's also just a farmer who debates nonsense for elo. He never actually pushes himself on topics that may not have a clear obvious victor.
-
I think Novice is a great debater, i think he just needs more time to climb the leaderboard and have more debates. Although he appears to be taking a somewhat oromagi root and is simply farming (at least currently).
-
I haven't read enough of barneys debates to have an opinion on him yet. Ramshutu pops off in the forums but doesn't debate anymore, so i have no view on him. Although id rate him highly.
-
I think Bones has potential to be the best on the site, he just 1. doesn't debate enough and 2. seems to have very specific things which he wants to debate. He lacks in versatility, Although i think he's smart enough to overcome this. I also think his friend ossa has the same potential as bones (from what I've read of him).
Although, currently i think whiteflame is the best debater on the site. Rationalmadmans quality just drops too much in some of his debates for my liking. Quality over quantity.
That being said almost everyone on this site talks about nonsense. You all debate the most pointless topics. only 1 in 10 debates seem to not be talking about hunter bidens laptop or other silly things like if north korea is better than America.
And i am statistically the second worst (active) debater on the site behind mall.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Well, you're calling me deprived there, shila. Once more, are you not projecting that you could of had more as a child?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Sounds like you're projecting you're lack of care you felt in the household, Shila.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
All of these, once more, are unconstitutional. Unconstitutional things happen, it doesn't make them consistent. They may believe their position consistent, (obviously) they may even believe its consistent with the constitution if they believe the fetus possesses bodily autonomy, (like bones) but I've shown it is logically inconsistent to give bodily autonomy to the fetus. They just haven't caught onto this yet, just like they haven't caught onto the fact its wrong, (unconstitutional) to put fluoride in their water even if its better for the populace. There's lots of debate and interpretation which goes into the implementation of laws (especially surrounding what is acceptable based on the constitution).
Created:
Posted in:
I've seen one of my friends actually get angry and go on a rant to me about the evils of god, simply over the fact we walked past a family where the mother was reading the bible to her child.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Bullshit. Many atheists hate the concept of god itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
People literally did human sacrifices for their polytheist Gods. To argue they wouldn't die for them is a bit silly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
"instead of what it should look like"
You will always end up being a hypocrite in some form, if you don't agree with my abortion position. Unless you literally don't believe in ANY human rights. I've said it before and ill say it again, is it intersubjective? sure, does that mean anyone will reasonably disagree with my position once it been outlined without them being a hypocrite? i definitely don't think so. You cannot have bodily autonomy rights without having a right to life and vice versa. To argue they can exist separately necessitates you into a contradictory position.
-
Have you even read the Griswold case, 3RU7AL? it literally agrees with me and says married couples has a right to use contraceptives in a married relationship....and as I've previously said, constitutional rights are always accidently not followed (these end up getting solved in the future) as is the case with contraceptives (as they were new at the time).
"UUUGH, ACTUALLLLY, HUMAN RIGHTS ARE A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!" yeah, we all know that. That still doesn't mean you wont be a hypocrite, as we all subjectively have expectations in how we ought to be treated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I've already explained, not all atheists. Its within my very first post. Im strictly talking about atheists which dont just deny god but put likelihoods on his existence, etc. Everyone on this post, must be dumb and blind or simply being dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I cant be bothered explaining, just know there's a reason why idealists exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You seem to want to break down every axiom, asking questions when grounds get pushed on something you're defending like "what is science anyways" or "what is is". It strikes me as very ridiculous.
-
Our social contract with society and the state and other peoples in our society says (dictated through democracy) that we ought to have rights to privacy and property. If someone doesn't like that, they should either move to a country without human rights or advocate for the abolishment of them.
Created:
Posted in:
Whether you're male or female depends on your gametes, so an XX male is still a male if he has male sex cells. If you have a propensity to produce both female and male gametes you're intersex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
ok, well within the current framework of how modern western society works. My position wins, unless you argue to completely roll back of human rights, my position will remain more consistent as long as property laws exist. You have to go ultimate skeptic (destroying all presumed axioms) to have a "critique" against me. I could say the exact same thing about anything, from rape to murder. Its a none argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
That was a non argument. Nothing you said actually debunked anything i said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It could very well be that the universe is Stochastic and not deterministic. I touch on it in my own free will debate. There's also just very little evidence from neuroscience to suggest we don't have free will. Determinism is a loser ideology. It makes you into a loser, believing in determinism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you even read my full comment? i was simply asking for opinions on what some one else has said. Not that i endorse it or see it as correct.
Created:
Interesting nonetheless, thank you for bringing it to my attention. It definitely gives me more to contemplate on the subject.
Created:
-->
@Bones
I see, I'm unsure how loose this is, there is only a mention of hand billing in the actual article. It also says that this form of protest is only acceptable if it doesn't "disrupt business" or physically interfere with shoppers, that sounds vague to me, especially the "disrupt business" requirement.
The ruling in Fashion Valley arguably affects only boycott campaigns and peaceful handbilling in public forums such as shopping centres. Moreover, the Fashion Valley holding also arguably leaves in place lower-court holdings in California that have held that stand-alone business entities, such as grocery stores, do not have to permit on their premises the boycott activities that have been found to be valid in a large shopping mall, or public forums such as the Fashion Valley Mall.
However, even "public forum" private property owners, it would appear, can still prohibit certain activities that physically interfere with the conduct of business on their private property, including disruptive fundraising activities. Further, such property owners can adopt regulations that reasonably control the time(s) of such activities, the place where the activities take place, and the manner in which such activities are carried out. A reasonable deposit or bond could perhaps also be required of the outside group. Such regulations should not regulate the "content" or "viewpoint" of the speech or writing (e.g., handbill) absent a "compelling interest" that is narrowly drawn to meet that end
it feels exceptionally open to interpretation, and seems it may only really apply to leaflets! On top of that, if the article itself is correct that this may only apply to boycotting. Even this then only applies to shopping malls but not singular private entities (like a Walmart), it seems to only apply to a conglomerate of private entities (such as a shopping mall) as pointed out by the article itself. How much does that apply to hate speech on twitter.com and their terms of service? Is someone really boycotting when someone says Jews are evil and control the world? There is still too much ambiguity for me to be certain of anything.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Many things happen in America which are considered unconstitutional, to use an example: fluoride in American water is actually against the constitution, but it can sometimes happen anyways. This law you linked was actually shutdown by the supreme court. One day fluoride will also have to be taken out of American tap water.
Created: