Единственное преимущество устного спора заключается в том, что можно перебивать собеседника. Очевидно, что это не способствует настоящему аргументированному обсуждению и играет на руку тому, кто лучше кричит, а не тому, кто прав.
"Scrooge makes the ghost vanish by concealing the apparition in a container."
Admittedly it's been 4 or 5 years since I read it, but what? Which ghost does he do this to?
Under certain circumstances, yes. Personally, if I was convicted for life without parole and no hope of my conviction being overturned by new evidence (let's say I'm guilty with video evidence of the crime), then I would rather have the death sentence then spend decades in prison. There are a lot of problems with the US prison system in general, so if life in prison was improved from how it currently stands, then I would likely reconsider.
As it stands, there are fates worse than death that I would prefer to avoid if I have a choice.
What do you mean by understanding? It is common knowledge that when you flip a light switch, the light will turn on, barring unusual circumstances such as a broken bulb or a power outage. However, relatively few people fully understand the mechanics of HOW the light switch delivers electricity to the bulb, why the electricity makes it glow, how the electricity reaches your house, etc.
That said, is my knowledge of how a light switch causes a light to turn on, a blind BELIEF? I'm not taking anyone's word for it, I have observed it myself. You could show a medieval peasant a lightbulb and they would understand that the switch causes light, but has never heard the word electricity, much less an explanation.
If you knowingly have sex with someone without telling them you have HIV, then there is not informed consent. If you have told them and they still want to have sex with you, then that is informed consent and everything is fine.
"The presence of consent predominantly affects the case, and the person who has transmitted the disease may not be found guilty. Several states have specific laws that let people with an active STD status knowingly indulge in sexual or physical contact with a person without the fear of prosecution, provided they tell their partner about the STD status."
https://www.levineblit.com/blog/what-stds-can-you-sue-for-everything-explained/
1. Hanlon's Razor. Even if men and women are equal in today's society doesn't mean that the feminists *know* that.
2. Feminism is a incredibly broad and diverse movement that doesn't have universal beliefs or goals. There are subgroups such as TERFs, tradfems, anracho-feminists, etc.
There's nothing to debate. RM's work IS copyrighted. Whether or not Wylted's cribbing constitutes fair use is a totally different question and not one that I'm qualified to answer, or particularly interested in discussing. Whether or not voters consider this plagiarism to the extent as defined in the Voting Policy is up to them. I haven't decided either way as yet, and may not even vote at all.
RM's lyrics are unquestionably covered by US copyright law as intellectual property, the instant that the "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device," is created.
Out of curiosity, would you have awarded more arguments to me if the BoP had been on Pro? Trying to calibrate how effective my usual strategy is, largely rebuttals.
Thank you for the vote. It was very insightful to see how you evaluate arguments. Not sure how those two links got broken, but I can try to find the sources again if you are curious.
I would suggest, rather than the words " by all causes other than any form of spontaneous miscarriage, birth, or delivery procedure" substitute "intentionally resulting in the death of the fetus."
They amount to about the same, though I will note that some late term abortions do involve labor induction, which might be confused with delivery procedure.
I find it very intellectually dishonest to use an AI in a debate without specifying in the description. Your opponent accepted the debate against YOU, not some text transformer owned by a billion dollar corporation.
I have no interest in this debate topic. Also I disagree that a voter can make an informed decision without prior knowledge on boxing. A textual explanation is insufficient to do anything but the most superficial analysis of each participants fighting history, rather than a definitive case on how each would prepare for and approach the fight.
It seems like the argument around the meaning of knowledge is a crux of our two positions. I agree that no truly 100% certainty can be reached, but I don't find this an obstacle to reaching true beliefs. We haven't actually done any tests to see if 1+1=2 in every case, because that would imply being able to run the calculation at any moment in space and time under any conditions. That being said, no one is worrying that when we begin interstellar travel this rule will suddenly fall apart at a sufficient distance from Earth.
Testing omnipotence/omniscience is much more complicated than 1+1, being subject to the rule 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' If an entity like I proposed did something that would require omnipotence (breaking the laws of physics), the reason we would need multiple tests would be to question our understanding of physics. When the gold foil experiment suggested that the atom had a different composition than we previously thought, the atomic model wasn't overturned over night. Multiple people worked to replicate the results, come up with explanations of the results, and devise other experiments to test their new theories (hypotheses). From a historical standpoint, there is a higher probability that an apparent violation of physics is a result of a flaw in our model rather than there being some supernatural phenomenon.
The last point on being the creator of the universe, is definitely the trickiest. Maybe a cosmologist could tell you a way to. Normally I would say that in order to prove it was the Creator, the entity would need to be able to describe the conditions in sufficient detail to fit our best models, or even better. Unfortunately we already established them to be omniscient. There is no difference in the knowledge of an omniscient entity who DID create the universe and one who didn't.
Why do you exclude Plan B from other abortive procedures? It functions by preventing a fertilized egg or developing blastocyst from implanting in the uterine wall. So if the rights of an embryo begin at conception, this is just as much murder as any other form of terminating a pregnancy.
The concept of eternal punishment for non-believers is not unique to Islam, it is an idea presented by many religions, and like Islam, some say that rejecting their religion is automatically eternal damnation. Even modern concepts such as Roko's basilisk leverage this strategy, which is very simply a THREAT OF INFINITE VIOLENCE. The fact that multiple religions employ this tactic makes it suddenly an incredibly difficult decision, where you must gamble with the possibility of your immortal soul.
https://giphy.com/gifs/sf9usCEvitius
"Weak, very weak point, What has something that you do not even believe in got to do with this? If you don't believe in it, you can't make this point because for you, it does not exist."-You
" If Con doesn't believe in the Muslim reality of hell, then he concedes this point. " -Also you
The idea that any finite action on Earth can result in literally INFINITE punishment is an untenable position.
I'm glad you didn't completely ghost! I'll be going over your argument when I have time between real life and my two other debates. I'm not sure if you noticed when you created the debate, but there are a number of parameters you can change, including time for each round. 3-7 days is pretty typical and allows you to more easily accommodate unforeseen delays.
In my family, (I am the middle child of 9) the second oldest had very similar levels of responsibility, especially because he was the oldest male, so many farm-related duties could not be accomplished by the oldest. As the rest of us grew up, responsibility has naturally distributed itself to each's ability as they grow into them. I am the youngest too have left the home, and my next sibling down is 4 years older than the next sibling, so he will bear a larger responsibility than I did for the next few years.
Whose concerns? The average citizen vs politician vs climate scientist all have very different views, which are often more influenced by political affiliations than any "current evidence" as you put it.
I will almost definitely accept if you clarify this, barring some nebulous category like "anyone who believes in climate change."
As many times I have requested Ryan Reynolds to show himself - he did not. So the conclusion is that I cannot validate the existence of Ryan Reynolds.
you need to specify the claim
Единственное преимущество устного спора заключается в том, что можно перебивать собеседника. Очевидно, что это не способствует настоящему аргументированному обсуждению и играет на руку тому, кто лучше кричит, а не тому, кто прав.
"the chances of the universe creating itself are unknowingly [sic] low"
this followed by a hard number. Which is it?
"There's only one valid biblical interpretation. "
Yes. That it is false.
The obvious answer is that piracy is economically and morally superior in most circumstances.
☠️
I remember him asking to put his cap on to cover the light, but not putting him in a container.
"Scrooge makes the ghost vanish by concealing the apparition in a container."
Admittedly it's been 4 or 5 years since I read it, but what? Which ghost does he do this to?
The audio cuts in that video are painful to listen to.
"OpenAI released the chatbot Chat GPT (Generative Predictive Text)"
That's not what GPT stands for, it's Generative Pre-trained Transformer.
Conflating inability to disprove God's existence as proof of God's existence.
I wasn't sure what aff means. Is it short for affirmative?
aff?
I actually stumbled across a dead debate site a couple days ago.
http://www.lettucedebate.com/
I can probably do so tomorrow.
Under certain circumstances, yes. Personally, if I was convicted for life without parole and no hope of my conviction being overturned by new evidence (let's say I'm guilty with video evidence of the crime), then I would rather have the death sentence then spend decades in prison. There are a lot of problems with the US prison system in general, so if life in prison was improved from how it currently stands, then I would likely reconsider.
As it stands, there are fates worse than death that I would prefer to avoid if I have a choice.
What do you mean by understanding? It is common knowledge that when you flip a light switch, the light will turn on, barring unusual circumstances such as a broken bulb or a power outage. However, relatively few people fully understand the mechanics of HOW the light switch delivers electricity to the bulb, why the electricity makes it glow, how the electricity reaches your house, etc.
That said, is my knowledge of how a light switch causes a light to turn on, a blind BELIEF? I'm not taking anyone's word for it, I have observed it myself. You could show a medieval peasant a lightbulb and they would understand that the switch causes light, but has never heard the word electricity, much less an explanation.
jsyk, A/C is actually much more expensive than heating.
Hopefully not spoiling Con's argument, but darkness doesn't exist.
If you knowingly have sex with someone without telling them you have HIV, then there is not informed consent. If you have told them and they still want to have sex with you, then that is informed consent and everything is fine.
"The presence of consent predominantly affects the case, and the person who has transmitted the disease may not be found guilty. Several states have specific laws that let people with an active STD status knowingly indulge in sexual or physical contact with a person without the fear of prosecution, provided they tell their partner about the STD status."
https://www.levineblit.com/blog/what-stds-can-you-sue-for-everything-explained/
1. Hanlon's Razor. Even if men and women are equal in today's society doesn't mean that the feminists *know* that.
2. Feminism is a incredibly broad and diverse movement that doesn't have universal beliefs or goals. There are subgroups such as TERFs, tradfems, anracho-feminists, etc.
There's nothing to debate. RM's work IS copyrighted. Whether or not Wylted's cribbing constitutes fair use is a totally different question and not one that I'm qualified to answer, or particularly interested in discussing. Whether or not voters consider this plagiarism to the extent as defined in the Voting Policy is up to them. I haven't decided either way as yet, and may not even vote at all.
RM's lyrics are unquestionably covered by US copyright law as intellectual property, the instant that the "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device," is created.
https://imgur.com/a/5wdZt0M
Identical twins have identical chromosomes, do they have to share their single unique piece of humanity?
Out of curiosity, would you have awarded more arguments to me if the BoP had been on Pro? Trying to calibrate how effective my usual strategy is, largely rebuttals.
Thank you for the vote. It was very insightful to see how you evaluate arguments. Not sure how those two links got broken, but I can try to find the sources again if you are curious.
Voting is open.
I would suggest, rather than the words " by all causes other than any form of spontaneous miscarriage, birth, or delivery procedure" substitute "intentionally resulting in the death of the fetus."
They amount to about the same, though I will note that some late term abortions do involve labor induction, which might be confused with delivery procedure.
It's a lie. Plain and simple.
But you don't feel bad presenting its work as your own?
For now.
I find it very intellectually dishonest to use an AI in a debate without specifying in the description. Your opponent accepted the debate against YOU, not some text transformer owned by a billion dollar corporation.
I have no interest in this debate topic. Also I disagree that a voter can make an informed decision without prior knowledge on boxing. A textual explanation is insufficient to do anything but the most superficial analysis of each participants fighting history, rather than a definitive case on how each would prepare for and approach the fight.
Both participants have been online within the last 48 hours. Sometimes a forfeiture is just a forfeiture.
It seems like the argument around the meaning of knowledge is a crux of our two positions. I agree that no truly 100% certainty can be reached, but I don't find this an obstacle to reaching true beliefs. We haven't actually done any tests to see if 1+1=2 in every case, because that would imply being able to run the calculation at any moment in space and time under any conditions. That being said, no one is worrying that when we begin interstellar travel this rule will suddenly fall apart at a sufficient distance from Earth.
Testing omnipotence/omniscience is much more complicated than 1+1, being subject to the rule 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' If an entity like I proposed did something that would require omnipotence (breaking the laws of physics), the reason we would need multiple tests would be to question our understanding of physics. When the gold foil experiment suggested that the atom had a different composition than we previously thought, the atomic model wasn't overturned over night. Multiple people worked to replicate the results, come up with explanations of the results, and devise other experiments to test their new theories (hypotheses). From a historical standpoint, there is a higher probability that an apparent violation of physics is a result of a flaw in our model rather than there being some supernatural phenomenon.
The last point on being the creator of the universe, is definitely the trickiest. Maybe a cosmologist could tell you a way to. Normally I would say that in order to prove it was the Creator, the entity would need to be able to describe the conditions in sufficient detail to fit our best models, or even better. Unfortunately we already established them to be omniscient. There is no difference in the knowledge of an omniscient entity who DID create the universe and one who didn't.
Roman Catholics oppose contraceptives, but from what I understand don't consider it murder, just a subversion of the purpose of sex in God's plan.
lol I misread the description as saying Plan B does not count as abortion. Carry on.
Why do you exclude Plan B from other abortive procedures? It functions by preventing a fertilized egg or developing blastocyst from implanting in the uterine wall. So if the rights of an embryo begin at conception, this is just as much murder as any other form of terminating a pregnancy.
The concept of eternal punishment for non-believers is not unique to Islam, it is an idea presented by many religions, and like Islam, some say that rejecting their religion is automatically eternal damnation. Even modern concepts such as Roko's basilisk leverage this strategy, which is very simply a THREAT OF INFINITE VIOLENCE. The fact that multiple religions employ this tactic makes it suddenly an incredibly difficult decision, where you must gamble with the possibility of your immortal soul.
https://giphy.com/gifs/sf9usCEvitius
"Weak, very weak point, What has something that you do not even believe in got to do with this? If you don't believe in it, you can't make this point because for you, it does not exist."-You
" If Con doesn't believe in the Muslim reality of hell, then he concedes this point. " -Also you
The idea that any finite action on Earth can result in literally INFINITE punishment is an untenable position.
cool they were banned
I'm glad you didn't completely ghost! I'll be going over your argument when I have time between real life and my two other debates. I'm not sure if you noticed when you created the debate, but there are a number of parameters you can change, including time for each round. 3-7 days is pretty typical and allows you to more easily accommodate unforeseen delays.
Finally, asking the real questions.
In my family, (I am the middle child of 9) the second oldest had very similar levels of responsibility, especially because he was the oldest male, so many farm-related duties could not be accomplished by the oldest. As the rest of us grew up, responsibility has naturally distributed itself to each's ability as they grow into them. I am the youngest too have left the home, and my next sibling down is 4 years older than the next sibling, so he will bear a larger responsibility than I did for the next few years.
I would like a definition for 'deity' to be established in the first round, just to avoid No True Scotsman fallacies later on.
I got donowalled?
Whose concerns? The average citizen vs politician vs climate scientist all have very different views, which are often more influenced by political affiliations than any "current evidence" as you put it.
I will almost definitely accept if you clarify this, barring some nebulous category like "anyone who believes in climate change."
lol I fucking quote the voting policy and it gets reported? Were they too lazy to check or just bad at math?