Mark my words, but even if humans cannot perceive aesthetic beauty, we will probably find something in replacement to it that does the same to our brain to when we see aesthetically beautiful things. Aesthetics are built in to some of us and they will find a work-around. If we are to keep removing layers from the world, then what is left of us anymore?
You don't understand communism if you say that unironically. Actual ideal communism doesn't require censorship. Censorship comes as a side effect of people not being fit enough to fully use communism or something.
How is it possible for this debate to have no semantics when there is no real "content" to feed the topic statement with except the topic statement itself?
Not understanding my argument should never be a reason of why my argument doesn’t work unless it is a legibility issue under the S&G. I don’t understand Nobel-prize papers, doesn’t mean they are all nonsense.
Well, just for the moon facing earth we cannot just conclude a round earth. But other things can possibly lead us to conclude that the earth isn’t in fact flat.
Also, if you think my case is confusing, don’t even vote on it. If my argument was SO HARD TO READ that YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT, then at least put the vote on S&G, just because an argument is confusing doesn’t mean it isn’t right. My arguments sound like tweets compared to actual famous works of philosophy when it comes to difficulty of understanding.
Just a reminder, unless I have been lied to all this time, the moon-earth model isn't representative of the man-monkey model. In the moon-earth model, the moon, as the one revolving outside, always faces the earth; and in the man-monkey model, the monkey, as the one rotating inside, always faces the man.
One is inside and one is outside. That is the main difference.
On a side note, even if physics are objective morality still cannot be automatically be proven to be objective, due to that physics are all “is” statements and “is-ought” statements aren’t automatically connected to each other.
It is influenced by personal feelings. Newton’s laws are subjective. We just feel like that it is true. In reality, it is all due to that we see the world in a certain way to make Newton’s conclusions seem true, when in reality there is no actual way to prove that it will apply the next time a force is upon an object. We simply cannot prove it.
No. The fact that maths and science are advancing every single day means that we cannot know that we truly gathered "objective science" no matter how far we are. We used to consider Newton objectively correct, but now we use his theory in support of someone elses' more exact theories, like ones coming from Einstein.
Con either accepted knowing this or accepted without the knowledge of this, in either way bringing up this fact would be devastating for him: If he considered enough, he may have left without accepting.
Though, if he accepted this, there is a chance that he has a counter to it.
I don't know if it is related, but there are gaming schools all across the world. They bring benefits either way.
1. If they get good, they will be able to earn money to degrees in which their parents won't complain
2. If they don't get good, they will turn away from their internet addiction which exposes them to more available traditional learning methods.
The downside is that such types of institutions are rare.
"Drones are still flown....... And they do not consider the ethicality of warfare."
But they consider the ethicality of who they should shoot, where they should go, etc. They may not know why they are here but they always knows what the next right move is for them. That falls into the definition of "ethical".
That said, a remote-control drone is as autonomous as the average volkswagen Golf.
If I made a racist and homophobic comment years ago and I am long from discriminating anybody yet the employer is checking my social media, would that be subject in my ultimate failure of getting this job?
My angle is a 360 no scope(ideally) --- just like a clock.
I know that you aren't getting a lot from what I say here, but here is a hint: My argument, might be similar to fauxlaw's, from what I have read of his.
Stealing is too inefficient as it usually yields used cars that probably have parts too broken to be comfortable to be used. You are at a risk of the car being only borderline drivable if you steal.
However, you can buy a used or even a new car, meant to be driven and probably even comfortable to drive. You have no idea if random people off the streets have the reputation of keeping the car in good condition.
And if car itself is unethical to you, then don’t buy one and don’t steal one. If you would want one, don’t steal. Buy.
I am curious, though, what type of cars is the most ethical to you?
God cannot do something and do nothing at the same time in a way normal humans can comprehend, nor can he do anything unjustified. The definition itself is rigged.
If you do, then use them in your arguments.
Or not. Are you assuming that morals are objective and can be proven/disproven?
You can challenge a debater this debate.
Also, I think you are arguing a truism.
Wow, this is "Show, don't tell" taken to the extreme.
1. The climate exists
2. The climate changes
3. Climate Change exists
Mark my words, but even if humans cannot perceive aesthetic beauty, we will probably find something in replacement to it that does the same to our brain to when we see aesthetically beautiful things. Aesthetics are built in to some of us and they will find a work-around. If we are to keep removing layers from the world, then what is left of us anymore?
Sadly, there is probably no way that Con can win if the BoP is equivalent. The most one can probably go on is that those aren't solid evidences.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/medium/000/031/671/cover1.jpg
>mfw I see your solid evidence
You don't understand communism if you say that unironically. Actual ideal communism doesn't require censorship. Censorship comes as a side effect of people not being fit enough to fully use communism or something.
How is it possible for this debate to have no semantics when there is no real "content" to feed the topic statement with except the topic statement itself?
Not understanding my argument should never be a reason of why my argument doesn’t work unless it is a legibility issue under the S&G. I don’t understand Nobel-prize papers, doesn’t mean they are all nonsense.
I just think that his vote is insufficient.
Well, just for the moon facing earth we cannot just conclude a round earth. But other things can possibly lead us to conclude that the earth isn’t in fact flat.
Also, if you think my case is confusing, don’t even vote on it. If my argument was SO HARD TO READ that YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT, then at least put the vote on S&G, just because an argument is confusing doesn’t mean it isn’t right. My arguments sound like tweets compared to actual famous works of philosophy when it comes to difficulty of understanding.
That is not common sense. Absolute position is a flawed concept according to physics. Please reconsider.
Leave it up to the voters. If I really did something wrong, they will vote in favor of you.
Just a reminder, unless I have been lied to all this time, the moon-earth model isn't representative of the man-monkey model. In the moon-earth model, the moon, as the one revolving outside, always faces the earth; and in the man-monkey model, the monkey, as the one rotating inside, always faces the man.
One is inside and one is outside. That is the main difference.
Nice debate, didn't know why I made it only 2 rounds but thanks regardless.
如果你要研究一个原地旋转的球，他也不能被当做质点.因为如果看成质点，就不能探究他的旋转了。
I would advise not to write long paragraphs like that all the time, it just gives both me and possibly the voters a headache trying to read it.
vote bump
interested?
On a side note, even if physics are objective morality still cannot be automatically be proven to be objective, due to that physics are all “is” statements and “is-ought” statements aren’t automatically connected to each other.
Let's talk about this elsewhere. This debate is about morality and not science.
It is influenced by personal feelings. Newton’s laws are subjective. We just feel like that it is true. In reality, it is all due to that we see the world in a certain way to make Newton’s conclusions seem true, when in reality there is no actual way to prove that it will apply the next time a force is upon an object. We simply cannot prove it.
No. The fact that maths and science are advancing every single day means that we cannot know that we truly gathered "objective science" no matter how far we are. We used to consider Newton objectively correct, but now we use his theory in support of someone elses' more exact theories, like ones coming from Einstein.
Con either accepted knowing this or accepted without the knowledge of this, in either way bringing up this fact would be devastating for him: If he considered enough, he may have left without accepting.
Though, if he accepted this, there is a chance that he has a counter to it.
I don't know if it is related, but there are gaming schools all across the world. They bring benefits either way.
1. If they get good, they will be able to earn money to degrees in which their parents won't complain
2. If they don't get good, they will turn away from their internet addiction which exposes them to more available traditional learning methods.
The downside is that such types of institutions are rare.
How are we still on this after like half of a year after this debate was made?
"Drones are still flown....... And they do not consider the ethicality of warfare."
But they consider the ethicality of who they should shoot, where they should go, etc. They may not know why they are here but they always knows what the next right move is for them. That falls into the definition of "ethical".
That said, a remote-control drone is as autonomous as the average volkswagen Golf.
Well, it seems like I have voted incorrectly. I think it would be just to remove my vote in place for a better one.
Truffles are good for you. Do you incorporate it into your everyday breakfast?
Well, our textbook is literally saying that such conduct is against the constitution so theoretically, even if they do so, they are doing it wrong.
What is correct is correct. What isn’t correct isn’t correct. Massive proofs are needed to prove that China didn’t violate human rights.
So far, evidence points at the Pro side of the debate, and that violating human rights is as wrong to the law as censoring people from saying so.
Why the hiring process? Shouldn’t we seek person social media profiles in order to create a personalized environment for the employee?
If I made a racist and homophobic comment years ago and I am long from discriminating anybody yet the employer is checking my social media, would that be subject in my ultimate failure of getting this job?
You can define all terms to all crazy extents. Terms are just squiggles on a screen. If they don't define you can do it yourself.
You are fast.
Well, he has lost to a 15-year old edgy teenager who has practically no life, so I don't see the point.(obv. extension to joke)
How about steal a copy of GTA online, much cheaper than a car
hydrox cookies are better
Nope. I mean the idea of self-driving cars is ethical, etc.
Not if you construct another trap.
Do I look like I have any idea what you are arguing for? Exactly. This is what debating is.
My angle is a 360 no scope(ideally) --- just like a clock.
I know that you aren't getting a lot from what I say here, but here is a hint: My argument, might be similar to fauxlaw's, from what I have read of his.
Interested?
Stealing is too inefficient as it usually yields used cars that probably have parts too broken to be comfortable to be used. You are at a risk of the car being only borderline drivable if you steal.
However, you can buy a used or even a new car, meant to be driven and probably even comfortable to drive. You have no idea if random people off the streets have the reputation of keeping the car in good condition.
And if car itself is unethical to you, then don’t buy one and don’t steal one. If you would want one, don’t steal. Buy.
I am curious, though, what type of cars is the most ethical to you?
There are more ethical cars to choose from. If you are unhappy, buy a new one.
If you are too poor to do that... then sorry, I do not have the relevant advice, maybe you should seek the rest of the internet.
Interested?
"A person"
God is not a person, supposedly God is the one who created the people and the idea of 'a person'.
"Perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good"
God cannot do something and do nothing at the same time in a way normal humans can comprehend, nor can he do anything unjustified. The definition itself is rigged.
The definition for "bible" is so vague that if you try, there is basically no way you can lose.
Again, do we count the original copies or do new translations count?