"Resolved: On balance, cell phones pose little health risk."
PRO is arguing that cell phones pose less than or equal to "little" health risk.
Ergo, "no risk" falls under the "little risk" category, and PRO still wins semantically.
Now, if the resolution was "Resolved: On balance, cell phones pose a little health risk."
You would be correct.
In this case, PRO would be arguing that cell phones pose at LEAST a little bit or greater of health risk.
That small addition of the word "a" in the resolution completely flips its meaning. Neat, isn't it?
"Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes."
It's not a surprise people ignore your "setup." It is so vague and meaningless for deciding outcomes that people assume your just being rhetorical. Plus you seem to have no understanding that the resolution is the thing you must prove as instigator.
Are the codes of numbers creating emotions in a digital brain fundamentally any different than the chemical reactions going on in our natural brains?
That's a hard question to answer.
But functionally? If the AI is advanced enough, the emotional simulation accomplishes the same feat as the "real thing." PRO's argument is like saying music recorded through analog is real music, and digital recordings are nothing but simulations of the "real" thing, and therefore not real music. While it is technically true that different methods are used, the same result is achieved with differences too subtle for many to perceive or understand.
Considering we do not understand our own brains as much as PRO would purport, and considering we can not share "feelings" with the AI, while we CAN observe their reactions to stimuli... I'd say if the reactions pass the Turing test consistently, why wouldn't we label them as at least conscious and emotive? I see no evidence to support the conclusion a self-aware, human-like AI is not as conscious or emotive as we are.
History is whatever we make of it. Tell me, is there anything policing historical fact from fiction? How can we be sure anyone said anything we attribute to them? We can make educated assumptions, sure... But in the end, if I want to say Aristotle said "your momma so fat she pulled Jupiter into orbit," can anyone really prove me wrong? Sure, the BoP should be on me, but that does not falsify my claim.
Vsauce video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2jkV4BsN6U
Frankly, I'm pretty sure Mall's only strategy is to avoid giving actual arguments by pretending the resolution doesn't mean what his opponent thinks it means
Here is where he called me a sweatbag and told me to join DART lol. https://www.debate.org/debates/Violent-revolution-is-a-just-response-to-political-oppression/1/
I actually was the same. I started DDO and then quickly released the site was dead. Dr. Franklin was the one to refer me to here because I was a "sweatbag" lol.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:0; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action: Did not justify awarding arguments points to standard.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
The voter's only argument justification was "pro stabs himself in the foot with " except maybe the neolithic era as the brains weren't fully developed..." thus conceding that humans minds change over time and contradict what is objectively moral or not moral." This justification misses the mark of all 3 standards.
Furthermore, the voter has injected their own argumentation into their vote. This is bad voter conduct for obvious reasons.
pro stabs himself in the foot with " except maybe the neolithic era as the brains weren't fully developed..." thus conceding that humans minds change over time and contradict what is objectively moral or not moral. He could've tried being even more resolute that each time has different objective morals (similar to how rock wear and tear can change over time, yet still be objective) and how because morality involved human actions, human should decide what to do in the end.
"Resolved: On balance, cell phones pose little health risk."
PRO is arguing that cell phones pose less than or equal to "little" health risk.
Ergo, "no risk" falls under the "little risk" category, and PRO still wins semantically.
Now, if the resolution was "Resolved: On balance, cell phones pose a little health risk."
You would be correct.
In this case, PRO would be arguing that cell phones pose at LEAST a little bit or greater of health risk.
That small addition of the word "a" in the resolution completely flips its meaning. Neat, isn't it?
I thought it was self-evident... But if it helps, I'll add it.
insignificant.
There. First one wasn't controversial enough apparently. This one should do it.
Hmmm... Maybe I should make this something more controversial, such as "Resolved: On balance, cell phones pose little health risk?"
If you think so, feel free to accept
I’ve seen people make solid health and environmental arguments... Just not convincing enough for me though.
? No. It's not trapping or baiting if they take it of their own free will. If I'm honest, I just love debating 5G topics
I would, but he frankly may be one of the only ones who would take this.
Resurrecting this one... let's see if we have any takers.
"Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes."
It's not a surprise people ignore your "setup." It is so vague and meaningless for deciding outcomes that people assume your just being rhetorical. Plus you seem to have no understanding that the resolution is the thing you must prove as instigator.
It came close to one but with PRO's special pleading it balanced itself out
I'm going to be throwing a big block of text at you soon... Sorry in advance
Are the codes of numbers creating emotions in a digital brain fundamentally any different than the chemical reactions going on in our natural brains?
That's a hard question to answer.
But functionally? If the AI is advanced enough, the emotional simulation accomplishes the same feat as the "real thing." PRO's argument is like saying music recorded through analog is real music, and digital recordings are nothing but simulations of the "real" thing, and therefore not real music. While it is technically true that different methods are used, the same result is achieved with differences too subtle for many to perceive or understand.
Considering we do not understand our own brains as much as PRO would purport, and considering we can not share "feelings" with the AI, while we CAN observe their reactions to stimuli... I'd say if the reactions pass the Turing test consistently, why wouldn't we label them as at least conscious and emotive? I see no evidence to support the conclusion a self-aware, human-like AI is not as conscious or emotive as we are.
bloat bloat thanks 4 da vote
is this a particularly notable cat?
History is whatever we make of it. Tell me, is there anything policing historical fact from fiction? How can we be sure anyone said anything we attribute to them? We can make educated assumptions, sure... But in the end, if I want to say Aristotle said "your momma so fat she pulled Jupiter into orbit," can anyone really prove me wrong? Sure, the BoP should be on me, but that does not falsify my claim.
Vsauce video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2jkV4BsN6U
Aristhotle said anything you want him to say. All you have to do is add quotes and - Aristhotle at the end.
yes
If this guy is a cabbage cannon Ragnar is a tactical nuke
https://pics.me.me/aristotle-aristhotle-me-irl-31556138.png
"If in doubt, don't masturbate, take."
- Aristotle
Accurate
Frankly, I'm pretty sure Mall's only strategy is to avoid giving actual arguments by pretending the resolution doesn't mean what his opponent thinks it means
I have yet to see PRO actually give an argument.
Ooo! Good topic. Welcome to the site
vote bump 2
I have been destined to write this comment
Regardless I've been pretty busy lately lol. We will see what I can scrap together
Good opening!
No forfeiting
I plan on judging this debate before the time expires.
This will be fun to watch
He's referring to the aids crossed will come up with
Welp, ez win for Intel
I mean... depends on her preference I guess
This is unique, have fun!
Thanks for vote and analysis
will it alter the decisions I've made in the past?
Here is where he called me a sweatbag and told me to join DART lol. https://www.debate.org/debates/Violent-revolution-is-a-just-response-to-political-oppression/1/
https://www.debate.org/christopher_best/
Not proud of it but there it is
I actually was the same. I started DDO and then quickly released the site was dead. Dr. Franklin was the one to refer me to here because I was a "sweatbag" lol.
vote bump
vote bump
Once you get addicted to the debating you will never be able to quit... It's like heroin, except less heroic... I'm not funny
much better
Np. Actually, I was working on the vote before you asked me to vote LOL
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:0; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action: Did not justify awarding arguments points to standard.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
The voter's only argument justification was "pro stabs himself in the foot with " except maybe the neolithic era as the brains weren't fully developed..." thus conceding that humans minds change over time and contradict what is objectively moral or not moral." This justification misses the mark of all 3 standards.
Furthermore, the voter has injected their own argumentation into their vote. This is bad voter conduct for obvious reasons.
pro stabs himself in the foot with " except maybe the neolithic era as the brains weren't fully developed..." thus conceding that humans minds change over time and contradict what is objectively moral or not moral. He could've tried being even more resolute that each time has different objective morals (similar to how rock wear and tear can change over time, yet still be objective) and how because morality involved human actions, human should decide what to do in the end.
stop kink shaming me