The Soviets, in the 20's, still had economic decrease due to war, despite prospering to a degree. There is no system that does not generate decrease.
There is no system that never generates decrease. If it is one, then it means it has never been used ever.
As for the comment you quoted and tagged me about, I am pointing out what could the mentalities akin to your objective sense of something that cannot be be standardized cause harm in, as well as how utter irrational you are by claiming that your rap is better without proof. Qualities surely do exist, but without assumptions nothing could be said about whether they are good or bad.
@RM If you think your sense of music is better than people after all, then why would you post a debate instead of a forum or an infographic of why what music is good? If anything, you should at least include reasonings of why your songs are better, which you did not. This is a DEBATE with 3000 characters. Use them wisely.
@Rm At this point your behavior is comparable to conservative transphobes who tells trans people to "learn basic biology". Unlike sex assigned at birth, taste of music can be changed and there is no objectively correct opinion about music.
I request you to give proof of why exactly your taste in rap is better than, for example, someone who is eligible to vote on your debates. Even then, this site resembles a democracy and disallowing people who disagree with you to vote isn't good for such atmosphere of the site.
@RM the purpose of debates is to convince people. Your proof is close to nothing and you are triggered due to someone else having a different taste in music. Unless you have an extensive paragraph dedicated to what is good music and what is bad rap so that people understands and relates to your taste in rap, you have done close to nothing to convince anyone to vote for you.
It is like Lottery and game show, but most people are incompetent and the skills required for it are near useless, and you die if you lose. Close to nobody would do it realistically.
What criteria must be filled in order to count as "perfectly"? I suppose, if you don't give this, it would become a truism as the idea of "cannot be better" is arbitrary and not linked to measurable data unless specified.
Considering the pressure withstanding needed to build an office at the bottom of the deepest trench in the entire world, we might as well just not build one. After all, who would go there? Not only that, it would literally promote risk-taking suicidal events, seeing that eventually the bottom of the trench becomes a sort of tourist attraction, the same way Mount Everest is now.
Going to the moon would, on balance, be much more net beneficial than this, which is negative.
By assuming that the Mandela Effect(as even an arbitrary idea ascending semantics), one must accept that there is a "right" reality and history in the first place, which cannot be proven.
It is Pro's blunder for not exclusively include the Bible as the one true source for this debate. Just because the topic is related to the Bible does not automatically make it an actual source. The debate "Hogwarts is a real place" would definitely be related to Harry Potter, but would they be good sources for saying that yes, Hogwarts is indeed a real place?
"Then we'd never be able to have productive conversations about anything."
If we assume a predefined area of knowledge as true before the debate started, then the story would be different. However, Pro ruled not the Bible as a reliable source, what he should have done.
So... Pro is arguing that Capitalism is both bad for humanity and... capitalism and free market? The latter is literally being endorsed by capitalism itself, regardless if humanity accepts it or not.
"Furthermore, solipsism cannot account for the problem of other minds. It would require a great deal of evidence denial, possibly a denial of all non-purely-rational epistemology in order to preserve a belief in solipsism."
Because denying something that doesn't need to exist in the first place is somehow irrational.
You have the upper hand by the end of round 1. Then you lost it by ad hominem. Do you not understand how silly this is?
Even if you do not care how bad you are performing, you are, technically, setting a bad example to the more users that will come. Keep it up and this site may even become the next DDO.
This is the second time you accepted my debate and forfeited. You are literally able to reply comments whilst the period you can reply to this debate. By conduct prescribed by the rules, you have literally lost.
Maybe rearrange your priorities.
Or maybe you should stop accepting debates you will forfeit in. Waiting 14 days is not fun for either party.
"Were aesthetic beauty not to exist, we as a society perhaps could stop idealizing the fast cars and the luxury mansions and the inhumanly perfect bodies of super models."
The supermodels could have a point, but fast cars and luxury mansions actually have utilities: One transports you fast and the other makes you comfortable. Unless you are open to a debate in which you would prefer a world without time or comfort, in this case I am open.
No. Your stance is that homosexuality is NOT immoral. I get you are trying to tell us that it is neither moral or the inverse of moral, but immoral is defined as not moral, which homosexuality isn’t “moral”.
Well, one definition of the term "immoral" is not moral, and you have basically shown that homosexuality is unrelated to the branch of knowledge regarding what is right and wrong.
“Go around the monkey” implies that the judge of whether the man has gone around or not is the monkey, and the syntax would mean that according to the monkey, either the man walked around or not.
The same applies to the sentence “a man who stayed in Eiffel Tower the entire day has gone around the planet earth”. The earth is the reference of the motion of said man.
Idk why I am back, but saying the man has gone around the monkey is like saying a man just sitting in the same house has gone around the earth. The relative positions of the man from the monkey’s perspective is the same.
"works: does not generate economic decrease."
The Soviets, in the 20's, still had economic decrease due to war, despite prospering to a degree. There is no system that does not generate decrease.
There is no system that never generates decrease. If it is one, then it means it has never been used ever.
@RM
As for the comment you quoted and tagged me about, I am pointing out what could the mentalities akin to your objective sense of something that cannot be be standardized cause harm in, as well as how utter irrational you are by claiming that your rap is better without proof. Qualities surely do exist, but without assumptions nothing could be said about whether they are good or bad.
@RM If you think your sense of music is better than people after all, then why would you post a debate instead of a forum or an infographic of why what music is good? If anything, you should at least include reasonings of why your songs are better, which you did not. This is a DEBATE with 3000 characters. Use them wisely.
@RM No, that does not shift from the fact that you tried to objectify "good" music and "bad" music when there is no fixed standard at all.
@Rm At this point your behavior is comparable to conservative transphobes who tells trans people to "learn basic biology". Unlike sex assigned at birth, taste of music can be changed and there is no objectively correct opinion about music.
I request you to give proof of why exactly your taste in rap is better than, for example, someone who is eligible to vote on your debates. Even then, this site resembles a democracy and disallowing people who disagree with you to vote isn't good for such atmosphere of the site.
@RM the purpose of debates is to convince people. Your proof is close to nothing and you are triggered due to someone else having a different taste in music. Unless you have an extensive paragraph dedicated to what is good music and what is bad rap so that people understands and relates to your taste in rap, you have done close to nothing to convince anyone to vote for you.
It is like Lottery and game show, but most people are incompetent and the skills required for it are near useless, and you die if you lose. Close to nobody would do it realistically.
My tag is red here, yours is green. I am Con, you are not. You have written the whole thing as if I was Pro and you were Con.
I don't know what to say. Maybe thanks for your arguments?
One valid interpretation of the term can possibly lead to a determined loss and we have nothing to do.
Are you sure you are arguing for Pro?
What criteria must be filled in order to count as "perfectly"? I suppose, if you don't give this, it would become a truism as the idea of "cannot be better" is arbitrary and not linked to measurable data unless specified.
Idk if this is really what you mean, but bacteria are deaf and blind in human terms.
Depends on what you consider “exist”. To me, well, there is a place literally called “god”.
So, going to the moon is not a waste of money.
Considering the pressure withstanding needed to build an office at the bottom of the deepest trench in the entire world, we might as well just not build one. After all, who would go there? Not only that, it would literally promote risk-taking suicidal events, seeing that eventually the bottom of the trench becomes a sort of tourist attraction, the same way Mount Everest is now.
Going to the moon would, on balance, be much more net beneficial than this, which is negative.
By assuming that the Mandela Effect(as even an arbitrary idea ascending semantics), one must accept that there is a "right" reality and history in the first place, which cannot be proven.
Someone come here to prove that 0/0=0!
please
What is your take?
I am literally viewing this with my phone in school.
It is Pro's blunder for not exclusively include the Bible as the one true source for this debate. Just because the topic is related to the Bible does not automatically make it an actual source. The debate "Hogwarts is a real place" would definitely be related to Harry Potter, but would they be good sources for saying that yes, Hogwarts is indeed a real place?
"Then we'd never be able to have productive conversations about anything."
If we assume a predefined area of knowledge as true before the debate started, then the story would be different. However, Pro ruled not the Bible as a reliable source, what he should have done.
So... Pro is arguing that Capitalism is both bad for humanity and... capitalism and free market? The latter is literally being endorsed by capitalism itself, regardless if humanity accepts it or not.
Because the bible is not an accurate source nor proven to be so nor accepted to be so.
v0te bump
Fallacy counters:
Drlebronski: 0
Bones: 1(Hasty Generalizations)
/s
Bump
"Furthermore, solipsism cannot account for the problem of other minds. It would require a great deal of evidence denial, possibly a denial of all non-purely-rational epistemology in order to preserve a belief in solipsism."
Because denying something that doesn't need to exist in the first place is somehow irrational.
Well, the small toys are as much of a choking hazard that maybe children will not be affected removing it.
Foundationalism?
You have the upper hand by the end of round 1. Then you lost it by ad hominem. Do you not understand how silly this is?
Even if you do not care how bad you are performing, you are, technically, setting a bad example to the more users that will come. Keep it up and this site may even become the next DDO.
If you are doing trolling debates(instigating), then make sure it is unrated. Please.
You are aiming for trolling behavior. That will grant you a ban after severe damage.
This is the second time you accepted my debate and forfeited. You are literally able to reply comments whilst the period you can reply to this debate. By conduct prescribed by the rules, you have literally lost.
Maybe rearrange your priorities.
Or maybe you should stop accepting debates you will forfeit in. Waiting 14 days is not fun for either party.
Careful. This is rated.
Present-state DDO simulator.
either truism or falsism.
I know that this is the least of our concerns right now, but you copy pasted your R1 argument.
Considering how influential the sonic games are, it would be easy to support it.
You are quoting Pro, aren’t you.
What took you so long?
Dunno how I missed on this, but this looks easy for Con to win.
aaa
bippity boop
Seriously, 3 days left with no votes? Neither I nor fauxlaw want a no-vote tie again.
"Were aesthetic beauty not to exist, we as a society perhaps could stop idealizing the fast cars and the luxury mansions and the inhumanly perfect bodies of super models."
The supermodels could have a point, but fast cars and luxury mansions actually have utilities: One transports you fast and the other makes you comfortable. Unless you are open to a debate in which you would prefer a world without time or comfort, in this case I am open.
No. Your stance is that homosexuality is NOT immoral. I get you are trying to tell us that it is neither moral or the inverse of moral, but immoral is defined as not moral, which homosexuality isn’t “moral”.
Well, one definition of the term "immoral" is not moral, and you have basically shown that homosexuality is unrelated to the branch of knowledge regarding what is right and wrong.
“Go around the monkey” implies that the judge of whether the man has gone around or not is the monkey, and the syntax would mean that according to the monkey, either the man walked around or not.
The same applies to the sentence “a man who stayed in Eiffel Tower the entire day has gone around the planet earth”. The earth is the reference of the motion of said man.
Idk why I am back, but saying the man has gone around the monkey is like saying a man just sitting in the same house has gone around the earth. The relative positions of the man from the monkey’s perspective is the same.
Considering your R2 argument isn't exactly what we call "tiny", I don't know where in the argument you are talking about.
Kingdom of heaven? Why a kingdom? Why not a republic or a state of anarchy?