We are not friends. I do not use that word lightly. I've had too many bad experiences to toss around words with that kind of emotional baggage.
You said something. I disagreed with it. The rules say "Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible." I am treating this debate as if we haven't had any interactions before. If you'd like, we could pretend that a mysterious oracle told me what you said and THAT started an argument between the two of us, virtual strangers.
I'm contending a single point you made in another debate. The fact that you posited this belief in another debate has nothing to do with my contention. I would have contended it even if you said it on your profile bio, a forum post, or on Facebook. Anything I said in another debate is not relevant to the current debate and should not be considered by voters. If you continue to violate the rules about cross-thread contamination, I will request that this debate be deleted by mods.
There are many definitions of "need," however, what I'm mainly concerned with is that "need" is often used in a connotation that isn't entirely accurate to the dictionary definition. It isn't immediately clear by the context of the phrase which definition Pro is using.
"then claimed he never said “fiction is void of truth and wisdom"
If the voters reread the argument, or use Ctrl-F, they will find that fauxlaw is quoting himself here.
1. see comment #12. If you believe in the word of God then you must obey him and not change it.
2. Yes.
3. Yes, but thank you for pointing it out. I didn't notice that I'd just said that.
You can't update the word of God. It's timeless and will be right forever and ever. Anything otherwise would be blasphemy, unless of course you're commanded by God to do so.
"I disagree that the title can't be read as a variation of the thesis.
It is impossible to ban experimenting on animals because animal experimentation is essential to progress."
See, you call the title a variation of the thesis, but then you combine them with a conjunction, which would be redundant if they had the same essential meaning. If the title and thesis both read "It is impossible to ban experimenting on animals because animal experimentation is essential to progress.", that would be a perfectly acceptable claim, though untrue.
While it may be true that animal experimentation is essential to progress, (I haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion), the entire statement is false regardless. It neglects the fact that it is possible for progress to not occur. there have been plenty of times that a civilization had no technological advances of any kind for decades or even centuries at a time, civilizations can even regress. In the case that progress is halted, there is no longer any logical necessity for animal experimentation to exist.
And then there's this:
"Since everyone is aware that Europeans/White People are considered to be the most evil racial group on earth"
I disagree. There are PLENTY of people who would consider Muslims to be the most evil. And furthermore, you can't generalize atrocities committed to call an entire race evil. You can say, oh look, white people killed natives all over the world, and did all of these generally bad things, but if you looked at what Africans did to each other, there are plenty of atrocities committed there. Another example would be the Japanese, who were grossly inhumane towards POWs in WWII, far and beyond more so than the Nazis.
If you look at some of the best things done by humanity, they're also often white. White people were the first to abolish slavery. White people raised standards of living all over the world. I'm not saying that you should take European/American history without a grain (or a lot) of salt, but you have to take the same stance with other groups. The fact that there's more bad stuff about Americans and Europeans in history books is mainly because a. our atrocities were better documented, and b. Europeans and Americans are discussed in way more depth in every way than any other groups.
"Is COVID-19 & Natural Disasters God's Counter Punch For White People's Evil Nature?"
You wouldn't use the word "white" unless you were specifically referencing whites. If you were saying that Covid was a punishment against evil in general, then you wouldn't have used that word. Therefore, you were specifically referencing whites, and claiming (by conjunction of the debate title and your position, Pro) that Covid, etc., are punishments against whites.
Your title claims that "It is impossible to ban experimenting on of animals"
But your argument is that "animal experimentation is essential to progress as a society."
I haven't thought about this so fully that you can't poke all sorts of holes in it. For now, I err on the side of giving them the same moral considerations as anyone else. I'm not convinced that I'm right, but the easiest way to find the truth is to challenge someone else to convince you that you're wrong.
I agree. I do believe, however, in taking a more timeless perspective. That baby may not be very smart now (Though a two-year-old passes many of the same intelligence tests as chimpanzees.) but a newborn grows up into an intelligent person eventually. I value that future intelligence as well.
No, actually. While I place moral weight on the life of animals, I also place moral weight on convenience for humans. Maybe that's an rationalization, though. I would be a lot less comfortable if I ate more intelligent animals like dolphins, apes, or crows. I avoid pork because pigs are fairly intelligent.
Moral weight is kinda hard to define.
Ok, so a human has moral weight. We consider it wrong to kill humans without very good reasons, like saving other lives. My stance is that the same kind of value should be placed on animal lives (though not necessarily to the same degree).
"I object to the air of authority given to these numbers pulled out of thin air. I generally feel that if you can’t use probabilistic tools to shape your feelings of []certainty, you ought not to dignify them by calling them probabilities."
Yudkowsky, Eliezer. Rationality: From AI to Zombies . Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Kindle Edition.
I'd like to apologize for the forfeited rounds. My school blocks this site, and my job has no wifi at all. If we debate again in the future, I would be better able to participate if the debating period is 3 or more days.
"my opponents didn't respond to any of my arguments in my last speech."
"Round 1 - First argument
Round 2 - Second argument, and clash
Round 3 - Summarization, and clash"
My interpretation of this is that there is no direct response (clash) to the other's argument in the first round. It is only stating my own beliefs.
"All numbers that aren't equal to each other will have a number(s) that comes in between."
You made this up. No math textbook has ever listed this as a fact of math that I'm aware of, and I'm pretty good at math.
it's simple. 0.99999... is an irrational number, and 1 is a rational number. 0.99999... is a decimal and 1 is a whole integer. By definition these cannot be the same number as they belong to mutually exclusive categories. I could draw a Venn diagram in Microsoft Paint if that would help you understand the concept.
You could ask him but yeah that's about what I remember.
bump
Holy daredevil, Batman!
We are not friends. I do not use that word lightly. I've had too many bad experiences to toss around words with that kind of emotional baggage.
You said something. I disagreed with it. The rules say "Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible." I am treating this debate as if we haven't had any interactions before. If you'd like, we could pretend that a mysterious oracle told me what you said and THAT started an argument between the two of us, virtual strangers.
I'm contending a single point you made in another debate. The fact that you posited this belief in another debate has nothing to do with my contention. I would have contended it even if you said it on your profile bio, a forum post, or on Facebook. Anything I said in another debate is not relevant to the current debate and should not be considered by voters. If you continue to violate the rules about cross-thread contamination, I will request that this debate be deleted by mods.
I forgot to link my source, it will be included in my next round.
Your response is irrelevant to the topic at hand. A non sequitur.
There are many definitions of "need," however, what I'm mainly concerned with is that "need" is often used in a connotation that isn't entirely accurate to the dictionary definition. It isn't immediately clear by the context of the phrase which definition Pro is using.
"then claimed he never said “fiction is void of truth and wisdom"
If the voters reread the argument, or use Ctrl-F, they will find that fauxlaw is quoting himself here.
"did Pro ever support his quote from a fiction writer, Mark Twain "
What part of irony do you not understand?
Keep in mind that there are unrated debates, so it isn't necessarily going to mess up the leaderboard.
The Earth warms everyday, by 10s of degrees in some places. It largely has to do with various forms of solar radiation.
I have to ask, what is the motivation behind waiving the first and last rounds?
One time I thought I saw a bird flying, but it moved pretty fast, so I'm not sure. To this day, that flying object remains unidentified.
Less than two days remain to vote.
Bumping if anyone's interested.
Note to both Pro and Con:
I think that a study of Mormonism would be a valuable insight on the revision/update of the bible in modern times.
1. see comment #12. If you believe in the word of God then you must obey him and not change it.
2. Yes.
3. Yes, but thank you for pointing it out. I didn't notice that I'd just said that.
"But the word of the LORD endures forever." 1 Peter 1:25
I'm an atheist. That was sarcasm.
You can't update the word of God. It's timeless and will be right forever and ever. Anything otherwise would be blasphemy, unless of course you're commanded by God to do so.
I wouldn't even put them top five.
"dogs are among the smartest non-human animals on earth"
Do you actually believe this?
Define "need." Do you mean "has to or else ____," or what?
I'm fine with the content of the description, but with every word on a separate line, I have to scroll twice as far as usual to read the debates.
On the nature of the debate description: waste of time on your part and mine.
I'm assuming you meant to say Con.
Voting is open.
"I disagree that the title can't be read as a variation of the thesis.
It is impossible to ban experimenting on animals because animal experimentation is essential to progress."
See, you call the title a variation of the thesis, but then you combine them with a conjunction, which would be redundant if they had the same essential meaning. If the title and thesis both read "It is impossible to ban experimenting on animals because animal experimentation is essential to progress.", that would be a perfectly acceptable claim, though untrue.
While it may be true that animal experimentation is essential to progress, (I haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion), the entire statement is false regardless. It neglects the fact that it is possible for progress to not occur. there have been plenty of times that a civilization had no technological advances of any kind for decades or even centuries at a time, civilizations can even regress. In the case that progress is halted, there is no longer any logical necessity for animal experimentation to exist.
And then there's this:
"Since everyone is aware that Europeans/White People are considered to be the most evil racial group on earth"
I disagree. There are PLENTY of people who would consider Muslims to be the most evil. And furthermore, you can't generalize atrocities committed to call an entire race evil. You can say, oh look, white people killed natives all over the world, and did all of these generally bad things, but if you looked at what Africans did to each other, there are plenty of atrocities committed there. Another example would be the Japanese, who were grossly inhumane towards POWs in WWII, far and beyond more so than the Nazis.
If you look at some of the best things done by humanity, they're also often white. White people were the first to abolish slavery. White people raised standards of living all over the world. I'm not saying that you should take European/American history without a grain (or a lot) of salt, but you have to take the same stance with other groups. The fact that there's more bad stuff about Americans and Europeans in history books is mainly because a. our atrocities were better documented, and b. Europeans and Americans are discussed in way more depth in every way than any other groups.
"Is COVID-19 & Natural Disasters God's Counter Punch For White People's Evil Nature?"
You wouldn't use the word "white" unless you were specifically referencing whites. If you were saying that Covid was a punishment against evil in general, then you wouldn't have used that word. Therefore, you were specifically referencing whites, and claiming (by conjunction of the debate title and your position, Pro) that Covid, etc., are punishments against whites.
In the future, have a title that actually matches your argument.
Why would God infect any non-whites if he was specifically punishing whites?
I forgot my source, but here it is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel
Your title claims that "It is impossible to ban experimenting on of animals"
But your argument is that "animal experimentation is essential to progress as a society."
These aren't even close to the same thing.
Gotcha. It's unrated, so no big deal.
Why waive the first and last rounds?
I'm only saying that animals should have a level of moral consideration just like humans do (though not the same level).
How was your vacation?
What if the prisoners were paid?
I haven't thought about this so fully that you can't poke all sorts of holes in it. For now, I err on the side of giving them the same moral considerations as anyone else. I'm not convinced that I'm right, but the easiest way to find the truth is to challenge someone else to convince you that you're wrong.
I agree. I do believe, however, in taking a more timeless perspective. That baby may not be very smart now (Though a two-year-old passes many of the same intelligence tests as chimpanzees.) but a newborn grows up into an intelligent person eventually. I value that future intelligence as well.
Unrated now.
No, actually. While I place moral weight on the life of animals, I also place moral weight on convenience for humans. Maybe that's an rationalization, though. I would be a lot less comfortable if I ate more intelligent animals like dolphins, apes, or crows. I avoid pork because pigs are fairly intelligent.
Moral weight is kinda hard to define.
Ok, so a human has moral weight. We consider it wrong to kill humans without very good reasons, like saving other lives. My stance is that the same kind of value should be placed on animal lives (though not necessarily to the same degree).
I'd be happy to debate you on this topic.
"I object to the air of authority given to these numbers pulled out of thin air. I generally feel that if you can’t use probabilistic tools to shape your feelings of []certainty, you ought not to dignify them by calling them probabilities."
Yudkowsky, Eliezer. Rationality: From AI to Zombies . Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Kindle Edition.
I'd like to apologize for the forfeited rounds. My school blocks this site, and my job has no wifi at all. If we debate again in the future, I would be better able to participate if the debating period is 3 or more days.
"my opponents didn't respond to any of my arguments in my last speech."
"Round 1 - First argument
Round 2 - Second argument, and clash
Round 3 - Summarization, and clash"
My interpretation of this is that there is no direct response (clash) to the other's argument in the first round. It is only stating my own beliefs.
"All numbers that aren't equal to each other will have a number(s) that comes in between."
You made this up. No math textbook has ever listed this as a fact of math that I'm aware of, and I'm pretty good at math.
it's simple. 0.99999... is an irrational number, and 1 is a rational number. 0.99999... is a decimal and 1 is a whole integer. By definition these cannot be the same number as they belong to mutually exclusive categories. I could draw a Venn diagram in Microsoft Paint if that would help you understand the concept.
May I say, in the highest amount of respect possible, that you are possibly the most Slytherin person I know?