It shouldn't look as complicated as you had written it. You're overcomplicating it, you're also explaining stuff in your own interpretation that doesn't seem so stable, it is limited interpretation of the context.
The topic of the debate is not about "The theory of everything", it speaks of TDVP (Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm)… which is a theoretical framework that aims to provide a holistic and multidimensional understanding of reality.
These doctrines are internally consistent, though they rely on elements of mystery and faith that transcend purely logical analysis, meaning that the trinity is rather more complex and it is established through faith. I assure you, Christ is the truth and the way.
My favourite part was when he said "I don't know what he said and I don't think he knows what he said either" to Sleepy joe. (Joe didn't have the eagle in him in that moment, by the way)
> "Either you don't know what xenophobia means or you are just lying at this point."
Forget about it, there's no point in arguing with you. Look at who I'm supporting here (Who is Con). I will no longer respond to anymore comments mentioning me coming from you.
I'm going to reply tomorrow to #69, I'll make sure to help you understand how free will exists and change your perspective completely from tomorrow, if I had the time.
That marvelling point of mine creates a rigid dichotomy between my clarification and your arguments that plagues your nonsense and allows it to fall; however clarifies and supports in making it more logical but more dependant on my clarification. Also there are way more illogical points in your arguments, I just can't be assed arguing more on this foolish debate. This is why I barely come on this website any more, the denial of cooperation is significantly great and there is some ridiculous sense of "brain proudness" here among some that is very apparent yet ridiculous each time it is considered.
"There's a significant role of genetics and environmental factors that shape our behavior. Our genes influence our predispositions and tendencies, while our upbringing, education, and social environment also contribute to our decision-making processes, all of which are beyond our conscious control."
Bro really thinks that just because our genes influences our "predispositions" and "tendencies" while our upbringing... blah blah blah are beyond our conscious control, "therefore this means that it is a point that does aid in proving that free will is an illusion 🤓", it's not like these elements give us the conscious control, Right? It's not like these genes aids us in having the allowance to have the ability to make conscious decisions, or give us conscious control, or have the contribution of aiding in the development of our conscious control.
Please, stop reasoning. (This way)
Your points are directed in the complete opposition of free will being had as not an illusion. You may think that it does not exist, because it is an illusion (may be your thought) and because it is not of existence (again may be your thought).
Just because you misunderstand Con's explanation it doesn't mean you should vote the opposing side seemingly providing evidence in order to prove that his argument is logical, because THE TOTALITY OF CON'S ARGUMENT IS NOT LOGICAL because IT HAS MIXED LOGICAL FALLACIES.
Bro really thinks I'm xenophobe when I'm supporting Con here who is American, that is incredibly foolish to assume that I'm xenophobe. Also, I don't like the voting against Con when most here don't comprehend Con's explanations, they act upon their incomprehension and mainly their misunderstanding of Con's explanation. It is ABSURD.
> "@LogicalDebater01 needs to have their vote removed and investigated, as their reasoning for their vote violates the rules, and they have been extremely rude to me. They claim that because I am an American, I have low intellect and can't argue logically. Xenophobic behaviour should not be tolerated."
I am not Xenophobe.
No, I am not claiming that you have low intellect, I simply mentioned that you don't understand much stuff in a correct or in a logical way, this simply implies your behavioural responses as in our situation here that has been going on within this page overall. However, I do have beef with the way you reply to me with an attempt of being offensive (that I shall ignore and consider a remark of your beef with me) in which I find simply not important at all.
I do recommend finding solutions to enhance your brain power, we have many ways, including nootropic methods (drug stimulation), electric devices (electric brain stimulation), and working memory exercises.
>"Here you go, being absurd again. Your definition of "yaping" is subjective and ultimately irrelevant. All that tells us is that you didn't bother evaluating the Pros argument when you made the vote, which is against the guidelines when voting. Pro also never went off-topic. So, that's just a lie you made."
Accusing me of "Lying" putting me in the "liar" position and more on making me look absurd when the whole statement you made is making me hysterically laugh about how ABSOLUTELY foolish and mega-minded absurd it is, this makes your people look very ridiculous, please stop this treachery. It is not my issue that you can't see how they went off-topic and how Pro is not illogical, you're simply protecting him because you don't wish to grant yourself the consideration of being incapable of comprehending how Con's points and/or arguments are more logical than Pro's points/arguments.
> "This statement is yet another fallacy. The proponent has provided ample evidence to logically support their argument. The reasoning behind your vote contradicts itself; initially, you opposed the proponent because "adding sources is unreliable," yet now you claim they did not provide sufficient support for their argument. This demonstrates a clear bias and a double standard."
It is not a fallacy because you think it's a fallacy due to how Pro had provided "evidence" as if you think it is the only way to logically support an argument and not how much sense it makes, believe it or not, even in the way you observe it, the sources themselves as you say "evidence" themselves are actually not even logical enough to support his own arguments nor ideas when dealing with proving that free will is an illusion. That's a two-way "Get-Debunked" strike, either way you choose, you are going to end up in the same spot which is "Get-Debunked" L.O.L.
> "You seem to be contradicting yourself. It's not consistent to claim that someone went "off topic" and then assert that 80% of their information is useless. They are either off-topic with no relevant information, or they are on topic, and you believe 80% of their information is useless, which is irrelevant if you haven't demonstrated how any of their information is without value."
The inconsistency is not Pro providing 80% of their information within their debates, it is the provided 80% of their information within their debates and they are basically useless, however this is different from determining whether if it is relevant or not, set aside, the information provided is actually irrelevant, not that it's because it's useless but also because it is useless. I've not whatsoever mentioned that their information is relevant, I have continuously mentioned that it is irrelevant when dealing with proving that free will is an illusion, whatever they had provided within the 80% information is completely irrelevant to proving that free will is an illusion.
You are absolutely misunderstanding me and you seem heavily insulted by my words when they are there to support you in growing better, despite starting beef with you.
Excuse me, I am no Xenophobe and do not assume that I am one. I simply think that "you" don't understand much stuff correctly or in a logical way. (keyword here is "you") Since you inaccurately pointed out what I have said and based your reason on the part where it's "unreadable" is ridiculous, it's like talking about hamsters when we are meant to talk about cockroaches.
> "Furthermore, your argument is not pertinent. You seem to imply that citing sources is unreliable, which is illogical; such reasoning would suggest that empirical evidence is unreliable in debate, which is untrue."
False, in this situation or this specific debate, I recommended all not to rely on the sources as provided but rather the arguments made, even if they contain sources. To focus on the argument being made instead of focusing on the sources given within the arguments as an overall. Philosophical debates are rather a matter of convincing points that allow the others to be responsive to debates being made with more reasonable or logical premises made within each philosophical debates. Philosophical debates are rather much more different from any other debates due to the abstract nature of philosophy and how complex it is. The similarity it shares however with any other debates are how convincing their arguments are, since philosophy is more abstract, it is then more in opposition to what is real. Focusing on the reasoning made within the arguments are much more necessary when dealing with philosophical debates.
> "Your standard of logic is, "Go against anyone's sources, yell personal attacks at anyone who disagrees, and be a xenophobe." Your understanding of logic is different from what the world understands logic to be. Your moral ethics also seem to be lacking. Again, Pro provided empirical evidence, while Con did not. Empiricism defeats logic."
You're just having personal beef with me at this point because you think I'm a xenophobe, also that is not my logic because you totally didn't fail to read properly. Now you're just simply listing your own nonsense which is "Empiricism defeats logic", which is quite absurd really because that is just not logical in other situations and is far too generic, what is this insanity?
> "Continuing to mock my intelligence only undermines your argument further. The reality is that you are aligning with the opposition on illogical grounds and paradoxically criticizing the proposition for providing evidence to support their argument, which is nonsensical."
I recommended psychiatrist for finding solutions, I am simply supporting you, because psychiatrist also work in psychic wards and psychic wards have these devices that are very useful for correcting brain power to a certain magnitude that should be higher than the current brain power one has, considering that there are technological devices that are believed to be capable of correcting brain power magnitudes.
> "I'm starting to believe you may not understand how arguments function. Professionals using information supported by sources is a standard strategy in debates. Indeed, it creates a much stronger argument than merely employing logic, as logic by itself does not constitute evidence. Therefore, it is indeed wise to use information in a debate; without it, there is no debate."
Professionals are not the case here, it is the individual here having the wrong of using those sources to apply in proving that free will is an illusion-- hence it is false because the sources are too weak to prove such materials, or rather not logical enough. Again, no one should depend on sources because they are not to be relied on within philosophical debates. A basis is however different.
I hope that my writings did not melt your brain, forgive me if I used too many complicated phrases and methods to explain the situation to you.
Yes, I can say that because I have taken multiple professional IQ tests, including from psychologists with the license to do so. Any IQ "measured" above 145 + is considered pseudoscientific and immeasurable. My IQ is above 145 IQ, but I am not going to say how much it is exactly as measured.
Also, In the abstract sense, Determinism shouldn't be the only quantity that is involved in having free will to be, or that free will is caused by. It includes both determinism and indeterminism to conclude free will or to have it functioning or existing, but not as an illusion. (It would illogical to conclude that it is either based on determinism or indeterminism) Again, Determinism being there does not restrict Free will to exist.
Furthermore,
"Pro’s entire argument is a mix of logical fallacies: a combination of presupposing determinism without establishing determinism as a fact, confirmation bias, and attempts to “define” free will out of existence." (said Con)
My interpretation and opinion based on reason: True, it contains logical fallacies, though not all of them are logical fallacies, but sure there are way too many logical fallacies in Pro's argument when dealing with the proving of Free will as an illusion.
No need to explain how, its' clear.
Furthermore,
"The attempt to define Free Will out of existence is naïve at best, understanding wholes in terms of their parts is what science does, but that certainly does not mean the wholes disappear. Pro is working with a definition of free will as requiring an immaterial soul and consequently focuses on providing evidence that our minds are physical, which is not in dispute. This argument is logically equivalent to arguing that since organic chemistry has determined that that living organisms are made up of non-living material, that life doesn’t exist, or inferring that because the colour green has been explained by science as merely a particular wavelength of light within the visible spectrum of the electromagnetic field, so therefore the colour green is an illusion. These are not valid arguments."
My interpretation and opinion based on Reason: Yes, that is what Pro's arguments somewhat mostly look like. Bro is confusing "mind" for "brain". (Again no need to explain if someone reads what Pro has actually said in response to proving that free will is an illusion, when clearly that is extremely absurd)
And so on...
"Pro’s argument is self-refuting, if as Pro asserts, our beliefs, and reasoning processes are determined, our responses are predetermined, and consequently, Pro’s conclusion undermines the very reasoning process he is using to justify it. A predetermined event is neither “true” nor “false” because for a person to know something to be true, it is necessary that they are free to choose to accept it as true. Justification requires some degree of cognitive freedom, some ability to have control over your deliberation, over what you do or do not accept based on evidence, but determinism makes the requisite freedom impossible. Pro’s is attempting to put forth a convincing argument while asserting that it is impossible to be convinced and maintaining that his conclusion cannot be rationally held." (said Con)
- My interpretation and opinion based on Reason: This is the exact problem here with Pro, Pro's base is targeted on "Determinism" and that it is somewhat looking like the only element in shaping "free will", which is not valid nor logical as I've mentioned within my explanations here. However, Con doesn't seem like that he's only basing Free Will on Determinism, nor is he basing it on Indeterminism. However, Pro repetitively assumes absurd ideas about Con's situation here when he's not exactly making Pro held up as an object of Ridicule, but actually he points out how Pro ineffectively "explains" the concept of "free will" being "deterministic" therefore "an illusion because it's presupposed and was always bound to happen" then kicks in ridiculously quantum mechanics of time and how it is planned out to be as they think it is planned out to be. However, this is not clear and it is sounding absolutely absurd so he holds a logical point in assuming that you're attempting to put forth a convincing argument while asserting that it is impossible to be convinced and maintaining that your own conclusion cannot be rationally held or be subject to criticism as if you hold the whole mighty brain power of the universe in your own thick skull that can barely understand the exchange of information that Con's giving throughout his arguments.
I believe, I've explained enough and furthermore explanation should be clear to how Pro's arguments are observationally nonsensical, it is too absurd to even be called sophistry because of how many illogical points their arguments have had. Perhaps it was convincing enough for those who had agreed with him and voted for him, but the sophistry lies within the situation of those who have been fooled by the points he hath made.
So far, Con's arguments on how subjective Free will is and how it revolves around experiential reality is pretty much valid, it seems reasonable and logical from how he's arguing it, though it may take more time for others to understand.
Con says
"The existence of free will is the self-evident default state, Pro wants to deny the experiential reality of every waking moment and challenge the validity of every moral and legal system found in every known time and place where humans have ever existed, by no more than arbitrarily proclaiming our experiential reality to be an illusion while presupposing the failed doctrine of determinism. The denial of the self-evident truth of free will is an extraordinary claim, such a claim requires an extraordinary argument backed up by extraordinary evidence."
My interpretation and opinion based on reason: Alright here he's showing his beef with determinism, but most importantly, since you seemingly "want to deny the moral and legal system found in every known time and place where humans have ever existed, by no more than arbitrarily proclaiming our experiential reality to be an illusion", I think I agree on this matter because you don't seem to understand ethics and morality in general, morality and ethics are generally derivations of different human natures(considering that morality is different for everyone despite the agreement from multiple human natures), these are simply planned out by the senses, or are simply having "sensory receptors" that help plan out morality (where sensory receptors have also aided in the development of ethics) (where it is interconnected with the senses), morality is simply logical to use when also distributing the questionable rationality of your status here because of how denying free will plays part within moral and legal systems (that are simply agreed on being valid by many). The senses also relate to "experiential reality" where "experiential reality" is "the things we know from direct experience"; that includes the senses (sensory receptors). Sure free will relates to the brain, however, free will does not derive from the brain only, nor the peripheral nervous system. Any abilities are circumstantially dependant, including the ability for an individual to make their own choices.
Over there, con claims that free will is always a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality, since experiential reality includes the senses, and the senses are interconnected within the formation of free will (based on any choice or recognition we make that is upbringing from our free will), so it is logical to conclude that free will is a part of our experiential reality, however I am sceptical of it being a significant part of our experiential reality, since the significant part would simply be "experience" alongside "knowledge"; the senses of "experience" having to have undergone events through their own sense-related experiences as in the overall practical contact of someone with events. So on, he seems to make more sense on this part, but I disagree on the part he mentioned that free will is always a significant part of our experiential reality (because it is seemingly irrelevant within what "experiential reality" is, that is as if I was to be using semantics, though, in actuality the senses are mainly the core of experiential reality, or the very beginning of it). The interconnectedness of senses within Free will shouldn't be concluded as the basis of free will, since free will is the ability to make choices, not the interconnectedness (also semantics). In example, Experiential reality is demonstrated in this scenario:
Person A and Person B tries out a dessert called "Crème Caramel"
Person A: This dessert tastes like "AXVD"!
Person B: This dessert tastes like "BXADI"!
Where Person A recalls a food that he experientially thinks is tasting like a food called "AXVD" that he had from within his own experience (or is the closest to tasting like "AXVD" in his own experience)
Where Person B recalls a food that he experientially thinks is tasting like a food called "BXADI" that he had from within his own experience (or is the closest to tasting like "BXADI" in his own experience)
Both of them have a common reaction to it in that scenario, though they both experience something relatively similar and/or in relation to the concepts in experientialism, presuming that Con here used Experientialism in his own arguments (he seems to be a fan of Subjectivism, but I agree with Subjectivism to some extent), in this case however, Con used the subjective materials very efficiently in order to deal with the arguments as handed, that is by packing more logic when refuting Pro's arguments, whereas Pro's arguments where less efficient in disproving Con's arguments because they had less packing of logic.
Let's observe Con's arguments for the sake of your understanding:
Round 2, con says
"The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is always a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality, hence it is self-evident"
My interpretation and opinion based on reason: Sure, I can agree with the idea that free will is self-evident to us in general due to the observation that we make day-to-day in our own life such as watching a baby willingly grab a bottle of milk that their mother had willingly given under their own actions as supported by their own choice as well as free will. To imply that there is no free will or choice (or the ability of choice) involved and that they play no part is simply foolishness and absurdness and simply a denial of the current situation.
then Con says
" To deny Free Will by designating our experience of reality an illusion is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, this eliminates induction as valid, which is the foundational basis of science and scientific knowledge, leaving us with nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world."
My interpretation and opinion based on reason: "To deny free will by designating our experience of reality" is "necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence"
And is this true? Let's observe.
Empirical evidence is "the information obtained through observation and documentation of certain behavior and patterns or through an experiment."
We have many experiments within the scientific studies, and Sidewalker claims that if we deny free will by designating our experience of reality an illusion then it is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, but is this true? Well, philosophically his claim is similarly in truth with some aspects of the philosophy of free will. Scientifically it is unclear, however his points are more logically valid throughout his arguments when compared to Pro's arguments that are seemingly foolish and long for unnecessary flawed reasons.
Neither side possesses an accurate explanation for proving that free will is scientifically an illusion or that it is an illusion, but Con here argues the opposite but he also packs more logical sense.
Furthermore,
You fucking pajeet. Did everything I write slide across your mind that fast and you instantly submitted yourself to the idea of "randomness" when i mentioned that there is indeterminism involved in Quantum Decoherence? Where did I even conform to the idea of "Randomness" in my argument? Free will is not established by randomness, randomness is only part of the big picture. The interplay is very complex, but it surely does involve randomness and randomness is also very relevant when discussing free will on that scale of information (which is quantum), because it deals with quantum mechanics and the atomic mechanism of "quantum decoherence". Randomness is relevant to Quantum Decoherence, what is irrelevant is your argument for proving that free will is an illusion.
Colloquially, a person averagely gets recommendation from doctors sayings, this averagely occurs in our day to day life whenever someone visits a doctor. Here's a fucking common scenario:
Doctor: "Sir, these are the medications on the paper that I told you to get from the pharmacy that is located within this hospital. Make sure you don't mix them up."
Patient: "Okay doctor. I go take this paper that you wrote the medications on to the nearby pharmacy that is located within this hospital."
Patient: "Sir, do you have these medications? I need you to give them to me because my doctor said to get them."
Pharmacist: "Okay sure, here are the medications."
Clearly the pharmacist does not give a shit to the argument from authority made there, the truth is, doctors possess authority over these contexts and they are allowed to gain any advantage over these matters because they have the materials to do so. However this scenario is still an argument from authority.
Also, My IQ is not of the low IQ population because my intelligence is immeasurable; my intelligence is within the ranges that are limited to being measured by scientific means because there are no psychometric tools to measure intelligence in those such ranges that are of the "extrapolated"(even if there is, it would be either experimental or inaccurately measuring it), therefore it becomes pseudoscientific to measure my intelligence.
However, for Sidewalker's situation, his observations seem clear and understands that there is something about the randomness that connects to the ideal concept of "free will", that there has to be something organizing it's operation. I don't think he agreed to the idea that randomness is what causes free will. You're simply having a big buttfuck of misunderstanding his arguments.
Understand that he granted you many chances within the arguments as well, yet you failed to prove anything, I believe your arguments are very childish and mediocre. What's more funny is that you don't realize this and how you don't seem to see how all of this randomness and information about quantum decoherence relates to the outcome of "free will" in the real world (within the abstract sense). These are purely abstract information about the world, it's no more than that unless if a proportion is being excluded or considered as an outlier.
I am also going to ignore your stupid semantics that you make "free will is not this but is that", continuously whatever term you use of "is" is simply subject to criticism while being based on your denial of existence seemingly illustrating your insanity of the situation.
What was brought up by you actually seems to support Con's arguments more, so thank you for that (I am also aiming for con here, because he makes the most logical sense, and your logic is purely flawed).
What's irrelevant is your argument for proving that free will is an illusion. (it's like pretty shit for trying to prove free will is an illusion, hence irrelevant)
Surprisingly, Sidewalker understand the deep-root connections between determinism and indeterminism in relation to "free will". He seems very well-interpreted.
What's funny is that most of the norms in this population, the very low IQ or average IQ people misunderstand the concept of "Argument from Authority" on a very great scale of stupidity.
If you told someone that doctors tell us to stay healthy because they know what's good for you, you would understand that doctors are the ones who tell you that staying healthy is good just because they know so. It's incredibly funny how many people agree with this concept, even though it seems like an argument from authority if one observes so, it is an argument of authority that is widely accepted by many people who can't even understand combinatorial mathematics; many people whom are very foolish and stupid.
I believe that the concept of "Appeal to Authority" is widely misunderstood as well as the way of how one perceives an argument of authority to be. it would be very surprising if I told you the person in my argument as mentioned should've been "Fengzhi Wu" not Isaac Newton because Isaac Newton can never catch up to Fenghzi wu's level on any universe (he's an idiot compared to him), But what's surprising is that, the way I used that was not an Argument from Authority fallacy, because the topic is intrinsically in relation to the person as mentioned.
If you thoroughly understand the context behind Fengzhi Wu and The belief of a creator/God, then you would understand how they intertwine and relate to each other within the given arguments I have given.
More over, I believe you have a misunderstanding of Con's argument. You might think that he was the one who mentioned Determinism but if you observe his arguments, you could then clearly see that sidewalker was indicating that you were the one who was bringing up the concept of "determinism" (within an if statement) as you had mentioned "Quantum decoherence". Not to dwell into this debate too much, but Quantum decoherence is not all deterministic, the surface level of quantum decoherence shows the classical behaviour or mechanical behaviour by the most means, but not all means. Quantum decoherence still involves the remnants of non-deterministic comportments; as caused by the interplays between the universe and the entity of the universe that underlies within, as well as out-within, in collaboration to the outer of within.
Analogously, it is like the idea that you still have the ability to make choices... even under situations that are not under your control but rather above, just like how Quantum decoherence shows that even under the nature of where indeterministic (indeterministic behaviour in this case is in place of situations not under your control but rather above; showing that the transition from quantum behaviour shifts or rather moves into classical behaviour, where quantum behaviour is within the nature of indeterministic behaviour (showing that the place where the situation is not under control (implying that there is randomness therefore there is no "control" in the sense we observe from classical behaviour)) and that classical behaviour is within the nature of deterministic behaviour.
What's ridiculous is me explaining this to you when obviously determinism also relates to free will, how can you make free will without having the choice to do it? Wouldn't the choice imply determinism itself? Are choices not deterministic or rather a base that hath become deterministic due to the choice that one has made in a situation? Clearly, choices involve determinism; This however does not mean that the determinism restricts the individuals free will to make the choices.
Move your hand and you are acting with determinism conclusively assisted by indeterminism, as these quantities still relate to each other in a more generic viewpoint.
Also, for #40, take the part where I wrote "I believe that Pro has been doing not so much so far, except explain basic baby concepts from physics, biology, and psychology in a very short and simplistic " as a great sarcastic joke, just in case if anyone doesn't notice, it's the complete opposite of that.
First of all, you are American and I don't think you understand much stuff correctly or in a logical way. I did not write that "listing sources should be considered UNREADABLE", I wrote "UNRELIABLE" at that last part. Please learn how to read and if you have cognitive issues with lacking the brain power to read, then I recommend going to a psychiatrist for finding solutions on how to solve your lack of brain power.
The essence of how debates function is how convincing arguments are, and if you disagree with this then you pretty much lack the ability to understand it's purpose. I believe Con is a very intelligent individual that most people can not understand; he seems apparent and quite gifted in my observation; his reasoning throughout his debates are very well conducted and packs more logic than the reasoning done by Pro throughout their rounds. Your inability to comprehend Con shows your lack of brain power, and you don't seem to understand the points illustrated in Con's viewpoint. Also it's probably just you who hardly comprehends Con.
I believe that Pro has been doing not so much so far, except explain basic baby concepts from physics, biology, and psychology in a very short and simplistic but very non-smart way due to how he uses those information in order to gain advantage in the debate (which is obviously a delusion of his). He spends so much time yapping in order to add details but not add any good reason to his arguments so far. Your inability to see how they've went ("strayed" is not a word I used nor would use for this situation) off topic is quite ridiculous.
Also, Pro's citations to support his arguments are quite absurd and ridiculous, because they're not enough to provide a sustainable argument that is logically sounding in order to prove that free will is an illusion, all he did was just cite less-abstract studies that require more investigation and are still being debated within the realms of philosophy. Pro went off topic because illustratively he has 80% of information that is useless for proving that free will is an illusion in his arguments (arguments of which are absurd).
I would like you not to tell me your desires and falsely put me in the accusation of "misrepresentation" of the debate, because I've already seen it all and I cringed very much observing Pro's arguments.
Why is 80% of your arguments a mnemonic device for recalling the ABC's of the bottom echelon general knowledge of the intellectual primary grounds (For undergraduates)?
To be honest, most of what you've mentioned in your arguments are taught in middle school in North Korean schools, or other more traditional-like Chinese school
I would call most of your arguments a bunch of yappery; they don't seem like convincing nor reasonable arguments (more specifically, they don't seem like logical arguments).
Pro appears to be describing the situation more than Con. It is not wise to determine that morality is both subjective and objective, but, it is wise to consider that morality contains subjective and objective parts within itself.
However, Pro in a particular way was more descriptive and much closer (in a way) to the consideration where morality contains subjective and objective as parts of "Morality" amongst other parts that are outliers in the 'valley of consideration'.
It is not logical to determine something that has both subjective and objective parts to it to be deemed as "subjective".
It is not logical to determine something that has both subjective and objective parts to it to be deemed as "objective".
The constitutes do not equal either parts and that is generally due to the inherent complexity of that something, especially morality.
Here's a highlight to see considered objective parts of "Morality": "From a behavioral perspective, the study of morality is necessarily the study of behavior, including the contexts in which it occurs and the environmental events of which it is a function. Analysis in this framework may allow the successful identification of the variables that control moral behavior, and, ultimately, the development of cultural practices to increase its occurrence." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501430/
". Everyone already k own that boil is when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat after a while." #7 (In reply to the user WYLTED 's comment that can not be currently mentioned due to not being online currently)
If by this part of the comment you mean "Everyone already knows that boil is when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat after a while"
then I'd disagree. Boil by Oxford definitions as a verb means "(with reference to a liquid) reach or cause to reach the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor" and this definition gives off a different idea from this part of the comment that you have written.
A boil can be defined as "reach to reach the temperate at which it bubbles and turns to vapor" if you're referring to a liquid, especially when you're referring to water since it is a liquid.
This, however, can only be imagined as temperature not involving time in order to boil but rather to have time to boil temperature(This isn't exactly relevant to having the definition of boil, but it is an explanation).
It is not when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat for a while. It is when the water reaches the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor (which doesn't exactly state the time or such, because when defining "boil" as a verb in the Oxford definition mentioning the period is not necessary).
Even the definition of boil as a noun "the temperature at which a liquid bubbles and turns to vapor" also does not mention the period within. It's just not exactly necessary to have within this definition, perhaps you may be confusing something else for "boil" which is why as a result, you weren't referring to the definition "boil" and you may be referring to something else. I presume is because of sociolinguistic reasons in general, those sociolinguistic reasons can include.. people who set that definition to be, and it's probably because of how those people consider the definition of "boil" as well as how they consider its origins that are generally considered by people. This general consideration can have those professionals who have professions that also include "temperature" in relevance, especially the professionals who have thermodynamics as a profession, especially the professionals who have chemistry as a profession.
I'm providing this clarification because it is important to recognize the difference between things, especially words. Mistaking the recognition of the difference of a thing will improperly deliver your means and expressively "ruin the equation and force you to start the equation again". Not only that, but it will bring upon misconceptions when using the word "boil" incorrectly or unsuitably.
I believe that the term "ranking" should've been used in the description instead of the term "rank" because it fits the definitions much better and flow better when in comparison. The word "Highest" is already a word that also indicates relevancy to the word "comparison" and that is because if "highest" is used as a superlative adjective as defined by "great, or greater than normal, in quantity, size, or intensity." then the word is used when compared to things or objects in space and time due to the fact that superlative adjectives are also used to describe an object which is at the upper or lower limit of a quality (the tallest, the smallest, the fastest, the highest). Superlative adjectives are used in sentences where a subject is compared to a group of objects.
"The game isn't a form of the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason, it's merely a display of that and perhaps exercise that can stimulate the brain for that."
I don't think that the game is only a display of the ability to learn, understand, and make judgements or have opinions that are based on reason, but rather a game of skill and experience. Chess is primarily a display of skill and experience.
Only because a considerable reason is not found in evidence, does not mean that there is no reason to believe in God. Reason does not only come from evidence.
Unnecessary, the argument of mine at last is no longer necessary to reply to or argue against, it's already been filled in and it's pretty much provided in explicit information.
In fact, how is "Jesus is God" a verbatim anyways? I can not find "Jesus is God" anywhere in the bible, so judging it based on "in exactly the same words as were used originally." oxford definitions, "Jesus is God", had not been found by me in the bible. If "Jesus is God" in exactly the same words as were used originally, then why I can't I find the exact same words as they were used originally in the bible itself? It's just ridiculous.
What is the cancer my eyes are seeing in votes?
Very versatile.
The debate is mainly for Con to prove that TDVP is not very versatile in explaining numerous facets of reality.
It shouldn't look as complicated as you had written it. You're overcomplicating it, you're also explaining stuff in your own interpretation that doesn't seem so stable, it is limited interpretation of the context.
#2
That depends on who accepts it and who does not accept it. I believe this shouldn't be too hard to debate, it's got a pretty fun and simple topic.
The topic of the debate is not about "The theory of everything", it speaks of TDVP (Triadic Dimensional-Distinction Vortical Paradigm)… which is a theoretical framework that aims to provide a holistic and multidimensional understanding of reality.
These doctrines are internally consistent, though they rely on elements of mystery and faith that transcend purely logical analysis, meaning that the trinity is rather more complex and it is established through faith. I assure you, Christ is the truth and the way.
I'm cooking, hold on.
This has to be a meme debate.
My favourite part was when he said "I don't know what he said and I don't think he knows what he said either" to Sleepy joe. (Joe didn't have the eagle in him in that moment, by the way)
Debate's renewed. Everyone is free to participate now.
Also, free will is defined as an ability so, just like any other ability, free will has its own limits. Remember that free will is not limitless.
I already spoke about this with a moderator, I agreed upon their conditions.
Was this the face you made when you wrote "Thx con, lets begin..." in italic form?
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/895794182111233156/
Or was it this?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/19365001@N00/239868693/
Maybe this?
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/cat--54395107992443241/
This?
https://emojiisland.com/products/smirk-cat-iphone-emoji-jpg
> "Either you don't know what xenophobia means or you are just lying at this point."
Forget about it, there's no point in arguing with you. Look at who I'm supporting here (Who is Con). I will no longer respond to anymore comments mentioning me coming from you.
I'm going to reply tomorrow to #69, I'll make sure to help you understand how free will exists and change your perspective completely from tomorrow, if I had the time.
That marvelling point of mine creates a rigid dichotomy between my clarification and your arguments that plagues your nonsense and allows it to fall; however clarifies and supports in making it more logical but more dependant on my clarification. Also there are way more illogical points in your arguments, I just can't be assed arguing more on this foolish debate. This is why I barely come on this website any more, the denial of cooperation is significantly great and there is some ridiculous sense of "brain proudness" here among some that is very apparent yet ridiculous each time it is considered.
You are literally thinking backwards.
"There's a significant role of genetics and environmental factors that shape our behavior. Our genes influence our predispositions and tendencies, while our upbringing, education, and social environment also contribute to our decision-making processes, all of which are beyond our conscious control."
Bro really thinks that just because our genes influences our "predispositions" and "tendencies" while our upbringing... blah blah blah are beyond our conscious control, "therefore this means that it is a point that does aid in proving that free will is an illusion 🤓", it's not like these elements give us the conscious control, Right? It's not like these genes aids us in having the allowance to have the ability to make conscious decisions, or give us conscious control, or have the contribution of aiding in the development of our conscious control.
Please, stop reasoning. (This way)
Your points are directed in the complete opposition of free will being had as not an illusion. You may think that it does not exist, because it is an illusion (may be your thought) and because it is not of existence (again may be your thought).
Pro has mixed logical fallacies in his arguments, it is ABSURD to assume that the totality of Pro's arguments are "LOGICAL".
Just because you misunderstand Con's explanation it doesn't mean you should vote the opposing side seemingly providing evidence in order to prove that his argument is logical, because THE TOTALITY OF CON'S ARGUMENT IS NOT LOGICAL because IT HAS MIXED LOGICAL FALLACIES.
Bro really thinks I'm xenophobe when I'm supporting Con here who is American, that is incredibly foolish to assume that I'm xenophobe. Also, I don't like the voting against Con when most here don't comprehend Con's explanations, they act upon their incomprehension and mainly their misunderstanding of Con's explanation. It is ABSURD.
> "@LogicalDebater01 needs to have their vote removed and investigated, as their reasoning for their vote violates the rules, and they have been extremely rude to me. They claim that because I am an American, I have low intellect and can't argue logically. Xenophobic behaviour should not be tolerated."
I am not Xenophobe.
No, I am not claiming that you have low intellect, I simply mentioned that you don't understand much stuff in a correct or in a logical way, this simply implies your behavioural responses as in our situation here that has been going on within this page overall. However, I do have beef with the way you reply to me with an attempt of being offensive (that I shall ignore and consider a remark of your beef with me) in which I find simply not important at all.
I do recommend finding solutions to enhance your brain power, we have many ways, including nootropic methods (drug stimulation), electric devices (electric brain stimulation), and working memory exercises.
>"Here you go, being absurd again. Your definition of "yaping" is subjective and ultimately irrelevant. All that tells us is that you didn't bother evaluating the Pros argument when you made the vote, which is against the guidelines when voting. Pro also never went off-topic. So, that's just a lie you made."
Accusing me of "Lying" putting me in the "liar" position and more on making me look absurd when the whole statement you made is making me hysterically laugh about how ABSOLUTELY foolish and mega-minded absurd it is, this makes your people look very ridiculous, please stop this treachery. It is not my issue that you can't see how they went off-topic and how Pro is not illogical, you're simply protecting him because you don't wish to grant yourself the consideration of being incapable of comprehending how Con's points and/or arguments are more logical than Pro's points/arguments.
> "This statement is yet another fallacy. The proponent has provided ample evidence to logically support their argument. The reasoning behind your vote contradicts itself; initially, you opposed the proponent because "adding sources is unreliable," yet now you claim they did not provide sufficient support for their argument. This demonstrates a clear bias and a double standard."
It is not a fallacy because you think it's a fallacy due to how Pro had provided "evidence" as if you think it is the only way to logically support an argument and not how much sense it makes, believe it or not, even in the way you observe it, the sources themselves as you say "evidence" themselves are actually not even logical enough to support his own arguments nor ideas when dealing with proving that free will is an illusion. That's a two-way "Get-Debunked" strike, either way you choose, you are going to end up in the same spot which is "Get-Debunked" L.O.L.
> "You seem to be contradicting yourself. It's not consistent to claim that someone went "off topic" and then assert that 80% of their information is useless. They are either off-topic with no relevant information, or they are on topic, and you believe 80% of their information is useless, which is irrelevant if you haven't demonstrated how any of their information is without value."
The inconsistency is not Pro providing 80% of their information within their debates, it is the provided 80% of their information within their debates and they are basically useless, however this is different from determining whether if it is relevant or not, set aside, the information provided is actually irrelevant, not that it's because it's useless but also because it is useless. I've not whatsoever mentioned that their information is relevant, I have continuously mentioned that it is irrelevant when dealing with proving that free will is an illusion, whatever they had provided within the 80% information is completely irrelevant to proving that free will is an illusion.
You are absolutely misunderstanding me and you seem heavily insulted by my words when they are there to support you in growing better, despite starting beef with you.
#55
Excuse me, I am no Xenophobe and do not assume that I am one. I simply think that "you" don't understand much stuff correctly or in a logical way. (keyword here is "you") Since you inaccurately pointed out what I have said and based your reason on the part where it's "unreadable" is ridiculous, it's like talking about hamsters when we are meant to talk about cockroaches.
> "Furthermore, your argument is not pertinent. You seem to imply that citing sources is unreliable, which is illogical; such reasoning would suggest that empirical evidence is unreliable in debate, which is untrue."
False, in this situation or this specific debate, I recommended all not to rely on the sources as provided but rather the arguments made, even if they contain sources. To focus on the argument being made instead of focusing on the sources given within the arguments as an overall. Philosophical debates are rather a matter of convincing points that allow the others to be responsive to debates being made with more reasonable or logical premises made within each philosophical debates. Philosophical debates are rather much more different from any other debates due to the abstract nature of philosophy and how complex it is. The similarity it shares however with any other debates are how convincing their arguments are, since philosophy is more abstract, it is then more in opposition to what is real. Focusing on the reasoning made within the arguments are much more necessary when dealing with philosophical debates.
> "Your standard of logic is, "Go against anyone's sources, yell personal attacks at anyone who disagrees, and be a xenophobe." Your understanding of logic is different from what the world understands logic to be. Your moral ethics also seem to be lacking. Again, Pro provided empirical evidence, while Con did not. Empiricism defeats logic."
You're just having personal beef with me at this point because you think I'm a xenophobe, also that is not my logic because you totally didn't fail to read properly. Now you're just simply listing your own nonsense which is "Empiricism defeats logic", which is quite absurd really because that is just not logical in other situations and is far too generic, what is this insanity?
> "Continuing to mock my intelligence only undermines your argument further. The reality is that you are aligning with the opposition on illogical grounds and paradoxically criticizing the proposition for providing evidence to support their argument, which is nonsensical."
I recommended psychiatrist for finding solutions, I am simply supporting you, because psychiatrist also work in psychic wards and psychic wards have these devices that are very useful for correcting brain power to a certain magnitude that should be higher than the current brain power one has, considering that there are technological devices that are believed to be capable of correcting brain power magnitudes.
> "I'm starting to believe you may not understand how arguments function. Professionals using information supported by sources is a standard strategy in debates. Indeed, it creates a much stronger argument than merely employing logic, as logic by itself does not constitute evidence. Therefore, it is indeed wise to use information in a debate; without it, there is no debate."
Professionals are not the case here, it is the individual here having the wrong of using those sources to apply in proving that free will is an illusion-- hence it is false because the sources are too weak to prove such materials, or rather not logical enough. Again, no one should depend on sources because they are not to be relied on within philosophical debates. A basis is however different.
I hope that my writings did not melt your brain, forgive me if I used too many complicated phrases and methods to explain the situation to you.
Yes, I can say that because I have taken multiple professional IQ tests, including from psychologists with the license to do so. Any IQ "measured" above 145 + is considered pseudoscientific and immeasurable. My IQ is above 145 IQ, but I am not going to say how much it is exactly as measured.
Also, In the abstract sense, Determinism shouldn't be the only quantity that is involved in having free will to be, or that free will is caused by. It includes both determinism and indeterminism to conclude free will or to have it functioning or existing, but not as an illusion. (It would illogical to conclude that it is either based on determinism or indeterminism) Again, Determinism being there does not restrict Free will to exist.
Furthermore,
"Pro’s entire argument is a mix of logical fallacies: a combination of presupposing determinism without establishing determinism as a fact, confirmation bias, and attempts to “define” free will out of existence." (said Con)
My interpretation and opinion based on reason: True, it contains logical fallacies, though not all of them are logical fallacies, but sure there are way too many logical fallacies in Pro's argument when dealing with the proving of Free will as an illusion.
No need to explain how, its' clear.
Furthermore,
"The attempt to define Free Will out of existence is naïve at best, understanding wholes in terms of their parts is what science does, but that certainly does not mean the wholes disappear. Pro is working with a definition of free will as requiring an immaterial soul and consequently focuses on providing evidence that our minds are physical, which is not in dispute. This argument is logically equivalent to arguing that since organic chemistry has determined that that living organisms are made up of non-living material, that life doesn’t exist, or inferring that because the colour green has been explained by science as merely a particular wavelength of light within the visible spectrum of the electromagnetic field, so therefore the colour green is an illusion. These are not valid arguments."
My interpretation and opinion based on Reason: Yes, that is what Pro's arguments somewhat mostly look like. Bro is confusing "mind" for "brain". (Again no need to explain if someone reads what Pro has actually said in response to proving that free will is an illusion, when clearly that is extremely absurd)
And so on...
"Pro’s argument is self-refuting, if as Pro asserts, our beliefs, and reasoning processes are determined, our responses are predetermined, and consequently, Pro’s conclusion undermines the very reasoning process he is using to justify it. A predetermined event is neither “true” nor “false” because for a person to know something to be true, it is necessary that they are free to choose to accept it as true. Justification requires some degree of cognitive freedom, some ability to have control over your deliberation, over what you do or do not accept based on evidence, but determinism makes the requisite freedom impossible. Pro’s is attempting to put forth a convincing argument while asserting that it is impossible to be convinced and maintaining that his conclusion cannot be rationally held." (said Con)
- My interpretation and opinion based on Reason: This is the exact problem here with Pro, Pro's base is targeted on "Determinism" and that it is somewhat looking like the only element in shaping "free will", which is not valid nor logical as I've mentioned within my explanations here. However, Con doesn't seem like that he's only basing Free Will on Determinism, nor is he basing it on Indeterminism. However, Pro repetitively assumes absurd ideas about Con's situation here when he's not exactly making Pro held up as an object of Ridicule, but actually he points out how Pro ineffectively "explains" the concept of "free will" being "deterministic" therefore "an illusion because it's presupposed and was always bound to happen" then kicks in ridiculously quantum mechanics of time and how it is planned out to be as they think it is planned out to be. However, this is not clear and it is sounding absolutely absurd so he holds a logical point in assuming that you're attempting to put forth a convincing argument while asserting that it is impossible to be convinced and maintaining that your own conclusion cannot be rationally held or be subject to criticism as if you hold the whole mighty brain power of the universe in your own thick skull that can barely understand the exchange of information that Con's giving throughout his arguments.
I believe, I've explained enough and furthermore explanation should be clear to how Pro's arguments are observationally nonsensical, it is too absurd to even be called sophistry because of how many illogical points their arguments have had. Perhaps it was convincing enough for those who had agreed with him and voted for him, but the sophistry lies within the situation of those who have been fooled by the points he hath made.
So far, Con's arguments on how subjective Free will is and how it revolves around experiential reality is pretty much valid, it seems reasonable and logical from how he's arguing it, though it may take more time for others to understand.
Con says
"The existence of free will is the self-evident default state, Pro wants to deny the experiential reality of every waking moment and challenge the validity of every moral and legal system found in every known time and place where humans have ever existed, by no more than arbitrarily proclaiming our experiential reality to be an illusion while presupposing the failed doctrine of determinism. The denial of the self-evident truth of free will is an extraordinary claim, such a claim requires an extraordinary argument backed up by extraordinary evidence."
My interpretation and opinion based on reason: Alright here he's showing his beef with determinism, but most importantly, since you seemingly "want to deny the moral and legal system found in every known time and place where humans have ever existed, by no more than arbitrarily proclaiming our experiential reality to be an illusion", I think I agree on this matter because you don't seem to understand ethics and morality in general, morality and ethics are generally derivations of different human natures(considering that morality is different for everyone despite the agreement from multiple human natures), these are simply planned out by the senses, or are simply having "sensory receptors" that help plan out morality (where sensory receptors have also aided in the development of ethics) (where it is interconnected with the senses), morality is simply logical to use when also distributing the questionable rationality of your status here because of how denying free will plays part within moral and legal systems (that are simply agreed on being valid by many). The senses also relate to "experiential reality" where "experiential reality" is "the things we know from direct experience"; that includes the senses (sensory receptors). Sure free will relates to the brain, however, free will does not derive from the brain only, nor the peripheral nervous system. Any abilities are circumstantially dependant, including the ability for an individual to make their own choices.
Over there, con claims that free will is always a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality, since experiential reality includes the senses, and the senses are interconnected within the formation of free will (based on any choice or recognition we make that is upbringing from our free will), so it is logical to conclude that free will is a part of our experiential reality, however I am sceptical of it being a significant part of our experiential reality, since the significant part would simply be "experience" alongside "knowledge"; the senses of "experience" having to have undergone events through their own sense-related experiences as in the overall practical contact of someone with events. So on, he seems to make more sense on this part, but I disagree on the part he mentioned that free will is always a significant part of our experiential reality (because it is seemingly irrelevant within what "experiential reality" is, that is as if I was to be using semantics, though, in actuality the senses are mainly the core of experiential reality, or the very beginning of it). The interconnectedness of senses within Free will shouldn't be concluded as the basis of free will, since free will is the ability to make choices, not the interconnectedness (also semantics). In example, Experiential reality is demonstrated in this scenario:
Person A and Person B tries out a dessert called "Crème Caramel"
Person A: This dessert tastes like "AXVD"!
Person B: This dessert tastes like "BXADI"!
Where Person A recalls a food that he experientially thinks is tasting like a food called "AXVD" that he had from within his own experience (or is the closest to tasting like "AXVD" in his own experience)
Where Person B recalls a food that he experientially thinks is tasting like a food called "BXADI" that he had from within his own experience (or is the closest to tasting like "BXADI" in his own experience)
Both of them have a common reaction to it in that scenario, though they both experience something relatively similar and/or in relation to the concepts in experientialism, presuming that Con here used Experientialism in his own arguments (he seems to be a fan of Subjectivism, but I agree with Subjectivism to some extent), in this case however, Con used the subjective materials very efficiently in order to deal with the arguments as handed, that is by packing more logic when refuting Pro's arguments, whereas Pro's arguments where less efficient in disproving Con's arguments because they had less packing of logic.
Let's observe Con's arguments for the sake of your understanding:
Round 2, con says
"The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is always a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality, hence it is self-evident"
My interpretation and opinion based on reason: Sure, I can agree with the idea that free will is self-evident to us in general due to the observation that we make day-to-day in our own life such as watching a baby willingly grab a bottle of milk that their mother had willingly given under their own actions as supported by their own choice as well as free will. To imply that there is no free will or choice (or the ability of choice) involved and that they play no part is simply foolishness and absurdness and simply a denial of the current situation.
then Con says
" To deny Free Will by designating our experience of reality an illusion is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, this eliminates induction as valid, which is the foundational basis of science and scientific knowledge, leaving us with nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world."
My interpretation and opinion based on reason: "To deny free will by designating our experience of reality" is "necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence"
And is this true? Let's observe.
Empirical evidence is "the information obtained through observation and documentation of certain behavior and patterns or through an experiment."
We have many experiments within the scientific studies, and Sidewalker claims that if we deny free will by designating our experience of reality an illusion then it is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, but is this true? Well, philosophically his claim is similarly in truth with some aspects of the philosophy of free will. Scientifically it is unclear, however his points are more logically valid throughout his arguments when compared to Pro's arguments that are seemingly foolish and long for unnecessary flawed reasons.
Neither side possesses an accurate explanation for proving that free will is scientifically an illusion or that it is an illusion, but Con here argues the opposite but he also packs more logical sense.
Furthermore,
(In the most respectable sense)
You fucking pajeet. Did everything I write slide across your mind that fast and you instantly submitted yourself to the idea of "randomness" when i mentioned that there is indeterminism involved in Quantum Decoherence? Where did I even conform to the idea of "Randomness" in my argument? Free will is not established by randomness, randomness is only part of the big picture. The interplay is very complex, but it surely does involve randomness and randomness is also very relevant when discussing free will on that scale of information (which is quantum), because it deals with quantum mechanics and the atomic mechanism of "quantum decoherence". Randomness is relevant to Quantum Decoherence, what is irrelevant is your argument for proving that free will is an illusion.
Colloquially, a person averagely gets recommendation from doctors sayings, this averagely occurs in our day to day life whenever someone visits a doctor. Here's a fucking common scenario:
Doctor: "Sir, these are the medications on the paper that I told you to get from the pharmacy that is located within this hospital. Make sure you don't mix them up."
Patient: "Okay doctor. I go take this paper that you wrote the medications on to the nearby pharmacy that is located within this hospital."
Patient: "Sir, do you have these medications? I need you to give them to me because my doctor said to get them."
Pharmacist: "Okay sure, here are the medications."
Clearly the pharmacist does not give a shit to the argument from authority made there, the truth is, doctors possess authority over these contexts and they are allowed to gain any advantage over these matters because they have the materials to do so. However this scenario is still an argument from authority.
Also, My IQ is not of the low IQ population because my intelligence is immeasurable; my intelligence is within the ranges that are limited to being measured by scientific means because there are no psychometric tools to measure intelligence in those such ranges that are of the "extrapolated"(even if there is, it would be either experimental or inaccurately measuring it), therefore it becomes pseudoscientific to measure my intelligence.
However, for Sidewalker's situation, his observations seem clear and understands that there is something about the randomness that connects to the ideal concept of "free will", that there has to be something organizing it's operation. I don't think he agreed to the idea that randomness is what causes free will. You're simply having a big buttfuck of misunderstanding his arguments.
Understand that he granted you many chances within the arguments as well, yet you failed to prove anything, I believe your arguments are very childish and mediocre. What's more funny is that you don't realize this and how you don't seem to see how all of this randomness and information about quantum decoherence relates to the outcome of "free will" in the real world (within the abstract sense). These are purely abstract information about the world, it's no more than that unless if a proportion is being excluded or considered as an outlier.
I am also going to ignore your stupid semantics that you make "free will is not this but is that", continuously whatever term you use of "is" is simply subject to criticism while being based on your denial of existence seemingly illustrating your insanity of the situation.
What was brought up by you actually seems to support Con's arguments more, so thank you for that (I am also aiming for con here, because he makes the most logical sense, and your logic is purely flawed).
What's irrelevant is your argument for proving that free will is an illusion. (it's like pretty shit for trying to prove free will is an illusion, hence irrelevant)
Surprisingly, Sidewalker understand the deep-root connections between determinism and indeterminism in relation to "free will". He seems very well-interpreted.
What's funny is that most of the norms in this population, the very low IQ or average IQ people misunderstand the concept of "Argument from Authority" on a very great scale of stupidity.
If you told someone that doctors tell us to stay healthy because they know what's good for you, you would understand that doctors are the ones who tell you that staying healthy is good just because they know so. It's incredibly funny how many people agree with this concept, even though it seems like an argument from authority if one observes so, it is an argument of authority that is widely accepted by many people who can't even understand combinatorial mathematics; many people whom are very foolish and stupid.
I believe that the concept of "Appeal to Authority" is widely misunderstood as well as the way of how one perceives an argument of authority to be. it would be very surprising if I told you the person in my argument as mentioned should've been "Fengzhi Wu" not Isaac Newton because Isaac Newton can never catch up to Fenghzi wu's level on any universe (he's an idiot compared to him), But what's surprising is that, the way I used that was not an Argument from Authority fallacy, because the topic is intrinsically in relation to the person as mentioned.
If you thoroughly understand the context behind Fengzhi Wu and The belief of a creator/God, then you would understand how they intertwine and relate to each other within the given arguments I have given.
More over, I believe you have a misunderstanding of Con's argument. You might think that he was the one who mentioned Determinism but if you observe his arguments, you could then clearly see that sidewalker was indicating that you were the one who was bringing up the concept of "determinism" (within an if statement) as you had mentioned "Quantum decoherence". Not to dwell into this debate too much, but Quantum decoherence is not all deterministic, the surface level of quantum decoherence shows the classical behaviour or mechanical behaviour by the most means, but not all means. Quantum decoherence still involves the remnants of non-deterministic comportments; as caused by the interplays between the universe and the entity of the universe that underlies within, as well as out-within, in collaboration to the outer of within.
Analogously, it is like the idea that you still have the ability to make choices... even under situations that are not under your control but rather above, just like how Quantum decoherence shows that even under the nature of where indeterministic (indeterministic behaviour in this case is in place of situations not under your control but rather above; showing that the transition from quantum behaviour shifts or rather moves into classical behaviour, where quantum behaviour is within the nature of indeterministic behaviour (showing that the place where the situation is not under control (implying that there is randomness therefore there is no "control" in the sense we observe from classical behaviour)) and that classical behaviour is within the nature of deterministic behaviour.
What's ridiculous is me explaining this to you when obviously determinism also relates to free will, how can you make free will without having the choice to do it? Wouldn't the choice imply determinism itself? Are choices not deterministic or rather a base that hath become deterministic due to the choice that one has made in a situation? Clearly, choices involve determinism; This however does not mean that the determinism restricts the individuals free will to make the choices.
Move your hand and you are acting with determinism conclusively assisted by indeterminism, as these quantities still relate to each other in a more generic viewpoint.
Also, for #40, take the part where I wrote "I believe that Pro has been doing not so much so far, except explain basic baby concepts from physics, biology, and psychology in a very short and simplistic " as a great sarcastic joke, just in case if anyone doesn't notice, it's the complete opposite of that.
I understand the struggle Con had when debating Pro, it honestly seems like a pollution to any man with greater common sense.
First of all, you are American and I don't think you understand much stuff correctly or in a logical way. I did not write that "listing sources should be considered UNREADABLE", I wrote "UNRELIABLE" at that last part. Please learn how to read and if you have cognitive issues with lacking the brain power to read, then I recommend going to a psychiatrist for finding solutions on how to solve your lack of brain power.
The essence of how debates function is how convincing arguments are, and if you disagree with this then you pretty much lack the ability to understand it's purpose. I believe Con is a very intelligent individual that most people can not understand; he seems apparent and quite gifted in my observation; his reasoning throughout his debates are very well conducted and packs more logic than the reasoning done by Pro throughout their rounds. Your inability to comprehend Con shows your lack of brain power, and you don't seem to understand the points illustrated in Con's viewpoint. Also it's probably just you who hardly comprehends Con.
I believe that Pro has been doing not so much so far, except explain basic baby concepts from physics, biology, and psychology in a very short and simplistic but very non-smart way due to how he uses those information in order to gain advantage in the debate (which is obviously a delusion of his). He spends so much time yapping in order to add details but not add any good reason to his arguments so far. Your inability to see how they've went ("strayed" is not a word I used nor would use for this situation) off topic is quite ridiculous.
Also, Pro's citations to support his arguments are quite absurd and ridiculous, because they're not enough to provide a sustainable argument that is logically sounding in order to prove that free will is an illusion, all he did was just cite less-abstract studies that require more investigation and are still being debated within the realms of philosophy. Pro went off topic because illustratively he has 80% of information that is useless for proving that free will is an illusion in his arguments (arguments of which are absurd).
I would like you not to tell me your desires and falsely put me in the accusation of "misrepresentation" of the debate, because I've already seen it all and I cringed very much observing Pro's arguments.
Why is 80% of your arguments a mnemonic device for recalling the ABC's of the bottom echelon general knowledge of the intellectual primary grounds (For undergraduates)?
To be honest, most of what you've mentioned in your arguments are taught in middle school in North Korean schools, or other more traditional-like Chinese school
I would call most of your arguments a bunch of yappery; they don't seem like convincing nor reasonable arguments (more specifically, they don't seem like logical arguments).
Problem?
Best.Korea is fun to have around. His humour definitely has supported those who are under extreme stress. Best.Korea radiates potential.
Pro appears to be describing the situation more than Con. It is not wise to determine that morality is both subjective and objective, but, it is wise to consider that morality contains subjective and objective parts within itself.
However, Pro in a particular way was more descriptive and much closer (in a way) to the consideration where morality contains subjective and objective as parts of "Morality" amongst other parts that are outliers in the 'valley of consideration'.
It is not logical to determine something that has both subjective and objective parts to it to be deemed as "subjective".
It is not logical to determine something that has both subjective and objective parts to it to be deemed as "objective".
The constitutes do not equal either parts and that is generally due to the inherent complexity of that something, especially morality.
Here's a highlight to see considered objective parts of "Morality": "From a behavioral perspective, the study of morality is necessarily the study of behavior, including the contexts in which it occurs and the environmental events of which it is a function. Analysis in this framework may allow the successful identification of the variables that control moral behavior, and, ultimately, the development of cultural practices to increase its occurrence." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501430/
". Everyone already k own that boil is when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat after a while." #7 (In reply to the user WYLTED 's comment that can not be currently mentioned due to not being online currently)
If by this part of the comment you mean "Everyone already knows that boil is when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat after a while"
then I'd disagree. Boil by Oxford definitions as a verb means "(with reference to a liquid) reach or cause to reach the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor" and this definition gives off a different idea from this part of the comment that you have written.
A boil can be defined as "reach to reach the temperate at which it bubbles and turns to vapor" if you're referring to a liquid, especially when you're referring to water since it is a liquid.
This, however, can only be imagined as temperature not involving time in order to boil but rather to have time to boil temperature(This isn't exactly relevant to having the definition of boil, but it is an explanation).
It is not when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat for a while. It is when the water reaches the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor (which doesn't exactly state the time or such, because when defining "boil" as a verb in the Oxford definition mentioning the period is not necessary).
Even the definition of boil as a noun "the temperature at which a liquid bubbles and turns to vapor" also does not mention the period within. It's just not exactly necessary to have within this definition, perhaps you may be confusing something else for "boil" which is why as a result, you weren't referring to the definition "boil" and you may be referring to something else. I presume is because of sociolinguistic reasons in general, those sociolinguistic reasons can include.. people who set that definition to be, and it's probably because of how those people consider the definition of "boil" as well as how they consider its origins that are generally considered by people. This general consideration can have those professionals who have professions that also include "temperature" in relevance, especially the professionals who have thermodynamics as a profession, especially the professionals who have chemistry as a profession.
I'm providing this clarification because it is important to recognize the difference between things, especially words. Mistaking the recognition of the difference of a thing will improperly deliver your means and expressively "ruin the equation and force you to start the equation again". Not only that, but it will bring upon misconceptions when using the word "boil" incorrectly or unsuitably.
I believe that the term "ranking" should've been used in the description instead of the term "rank" because it fits the definitions much better and flow better when in comparison. The word "Highest" is already a word that also indicates relevancy to the word "comparison" and that is because if "highest" is used as a superlative adjective as defined by "great, or greater than normal, in quantity, size, or intensity." then the word is used when compared to things or objects in space and time due to the fact that superlative adjectives are also used to describe an object which is at the upper or lower limit of a quality (the tallest, the smallest, the fastest, the highest). Superlative adjectives are used in sentences where a subject is compared to a group of objects.
"The game isn't a form of the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason, it's merely a display of that and perhaps exercise that can stimulate the brain for that."
I don't think that the game is only a display of the ability to learn, understand, and make judgements or have opinions that are based on reason, but rather a game of skill and experience. Chess is primarily a display of skill and experience.
Only because a considerable reason is not found in evidence, does not mean that there is no reason to believe in God. Reason does not only come from evidence.
Unnecessary, the argument of mine at last is no longer necessary to reply to or argue against, it's already been filled in and it's pretty much provided in explicit information.
In fact, how is "Jesus is God" a verbatim anyways? I can not find "Jesus is God" anywhere in the bible, so judging it based on "in exactly the same words as were used originally." oxford definitions, "Jesus is God", had not been found by me in the bible. If "Jesus is God" in exactly the same words as were used originally, then why I can't I find the exact same words as they were used originally in the bible itself? It's just ridiculous.
" My stove IS gas."
Here you are equalizing two different phases of matter, plus, when was that ever used originally? How is this a verbatim?
FYI, your arguments contain some ridiculous crap.
Yeah, I couldn't make it to the last round.