Well All right.I thought I was going to be more challenged here. I made some ballsy claims which Pro did not contest at all. He just accepted them so I would say his dropped arguments are an issue that would clearly make him lose this debate.
I'll agree I could have developed my position more but Pro seemed to just except my position without resistance.
I'll drop the term 'science' since I'm not in the debate anymore and Pro did not contest my definitions. Humans are the first creature that cannot exist without knowledge. Instinct has been a lot more important for the others but our lives are built on what we learn.
The interesting thing is that this does not, in practice, represent a big departure. We strictly regulate all of our ideas to a narrow focus inadvertently which may have led to our initial survival with religious issues called 'bias' which are pervasive.
Sure, but the statement could be applied to humans in particular and even that is not completely correct. More accurate would be to say that 'in general other priorities are not possible without science for humans'.
Back to your original comment about the impossibility of life priorities. This may bring up disagreement but I'm convinced that humans are the first animal that can have priorities and this to a very limited degree. For other animals they have chosen nothing so nature had the priorities not the animal.
If your standard for human life is 'they found food' I challenge you to find a human who has this single priority. Even in impoverished nations this is clearly a very small hurtle while it can be impossible for a cow who does not even understand that cellulose is what it has been missing from it's diet in captivity.
The difference is that some animals operate on instinct. Humans do not, for the most part, I would not put biological desires as a part of this. Some animals/insects know exactly how to get food at birth. We just have the desire and a natural talent at sucking teets.
Round 1 you argued to defend your definition without being challenged. Eventually, Con argued that the definitions should be completely general and standard since no usage is specified when you choose a life priority.
Note 'understanding' of science is not in your quote. Some parasites carry out complex routines to enter four different types of animals with zero understanding. They are 99% instinct. While humans learn all habits they become trapped in they are born with them at birth
I don't see how Pro addressed Con's definition which claimed that all knowledge and therefore all power is dependent/fundamental to science and earlier in sequence. He did not contest that all knowledge comes from the scientific method making it necessary for any form of power. He did not contest that science creates power and is necessary to maintain it. he did not contest that power is centered by those who lucked out to gain power as opposed to those who pursued it making it unlikely that a pursuit of power will create it making power a poor goal. He did not apply power to quality of life, why many professions would bother when they want to become a surgeon, engineer, artist or scientist. All these operate without a need manipulate others.
@Rm guessing he does not enjoy associating with you.
Essentially your challenging me to research a band to find the best songs they have written when you are already confident enough to take the Pro side that they are not the better band... Unfortunately I have not heard of either. Music seems a little too much fluff for my taste. What is the category?
good logic on both sides. I stand by my vote decision. Bse Vote descision ev3r announced.
Yeah, I've tried to be clear about that. Also that Pro dropped like 4 of my arguments.
Well All right.I thought I was going to be more challenged here. I made some ballsy claims which Pro did not contest at all. He just accepted them so I would say his dropped arguments are an issue that would clearly make him lose this debate.
I'll agree I could have developed my position more but Pro seemed to just except my position without resistance.
I'll drop the term 'science' since I'm not in the debate anymore and Pro did not contest my definitions. Humans are the first creature that cannot exist without knowledge. Instinct has been a lot more important for the others but our lives are built on what we learn.
The interesting thing is that this does not, in practice, represent a big departure. We strictly regulate all of our ideas to a narrow focus inadvertently which may have led to our initial survival with religious issues called 'bias' which are pervasive.
Sure, but the statement could be applied to humans in particular and even that is not completely correct. More accurate would be to say that 'in general other priorities are not possible without science for humans'.
Back to your original comment about the impossibility of life priorities. This may bring up disagreement but I'm convinced that humans are the first animal that can have priorities and this to a very limited degree. For other animals they have chosen nothing so nature had the priorities not the animal.
If your standard for human life is 'they found food' I challenge you to find a human who has this single priority. Even in impoverished nations this is clearly a very small hurtle while it can be impossible for a cow who does not even understand that cellulose is what it has been missing from it's diet in captivity.
The difference is that some animals operate on instinct. Humans do not, for the most part, I would not put biological desires as a part of this. Some animals/insects know exactly how to get food at birth. We just have the desire and a natural talent at sucking teets.
Round 1 you argued to defend your definition without being challenged. Eventually, Con argued that the definitions should be completely general and standard since no usage is specified when you choose a life priority.
Credentials: I read this debate.
Note 'understanding' of science is not in your quote. Some parasites carry out complex routines to enter four different types of animals with zero understanding. They are 99% instinct. While humans learn all habits they become trapped in they are born with them at birth
I haven't and have no idea what EDM means. I listened to both musicians you mentioned. How much research is required to enter into this debate?
Round one you were stuck in your own head. Con did not follow the same track.
I don't see how Pro addressed Con's definition which claimed that all knowledge and therefore all power is dependent/fundamental to science and earlier in sequence. He did not contest that all knowledge comes from the scientific method making it necessary for any form of power. He did not contest that science creates power and is necessary to maintain it. he did not contest that power is centered by those who lucked out to gain power as opposed to those who pursued it making it unlikely that a pursuit of power will create it making power a poor goal. He did not apply power to quality of life, why many professions would bother when they want to become a surgeon, engineer, artist or scientist. All these operate without a need manipulate others.
Comment debate.
@Rm guessing he does not enjoy associating with you.
Essentially your challenging me to research a band to find the best songs they have written when you are already confident enough to take the Pro side that they are not the better band... Unfortunately I have not heard of either. Music seems a little too much fluff for my taste. What is the category?