I believe sometime recently RM won a debate with the "How do we know anything exists" argument. By accepting the entirety of the BoP, I imagine that argument would be *wildly* effective. I would add some sort of clarification that philosophical arguments of the "Brain in a Vat" variety are not to be accepted.
Fine, I will discuss this after the debate is over so that the opponent doesn't find arguments in what I'm saying.
And it is unwise to tell voters what can and cannot constitute a RFD. If you'd have referred to my profile, you'd have seen by judging paradigm. Good luck on your debate.
We shall see.
I believe sometime recently RM won a debate with the "How do we know anything exists" argument. By accepting the entirety of the BoP, I imagine that argument would be *wildly* effective. I would add some sort of clarification that philosophical arguments of the "Brain in a Vat" variety are not to be accepted.
Fine, I will discuss this after the debate is over so that the opponent doesn't find arguments in what I'm saying.
And it is unwise to tell voters what can and cannot constitute a RFD. If you'd have referred to my profile, you'd have seen by judging paradigm. Good luck on your debate.
What?
Are you saying that you don't like people glossing over the specifics of how a thought experiment would physically come about?
Taking what is primarily an ethical thought experiment and arguing about the technicalities of time travel sort of misses the point, no?