I will save my detailed opinions for the voting tab, but victory or failure for you is entirely dependent on Novice's ability to play the definition's game. It's not the angle I would've come at this from, but I suppose we'll have to see how it goes.
The people who don't want to examine their habits and beliefs, no matter how clearly harmful they may be and no matter how much scientific evidence against them there is, are usually the same people who like to complain at the notion that they may have an advantage over other people.
I won't get into the fetishization of hardship that is rife in American and a lot of other western culture, but I will say:
"They're lucky black people are looking for equality and not revenge."
I'm not sure what the implication with your second paragraph is, but taking the rest in good faith, I think what you're saying is fairly heartwarming! I wouldn't say that it's due to genetics, but rather I would say it's due to a shared culture, collection of experiences, and feelings. Nevertheless, it's undeniable that I would not be the same person if I wasn't LGBTQ+; it's the reason I am today.
While I may experience a lot less hardship if I were cishet, realistically, to not be LGBTQ+ is not a decision I would make nor is it a decision I could make.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I can't say if you're right or wrong either since we're talking hypotheticals. I do my best work with high character counts, that's for sure.
Honestly, I probably wouldn't even take this debate. The resolution envisions a hypothetical world where LGBTQ+ people didn't exist, not removing all LGBTQ+ people from existence in our world. Would that world be 'better off'? Well, probably. A lot of people would have much easier lives. I'd probably choose to not be LGBTQ+ if I could, but I was never really given that option.
Fundamentally, this debate says nothing about the real world because LGBTQ+ people do exist. I still scoff at this debate nonetheless because, whether it's with race or sexuality or what have you, it's always the oppressing group portraying the oppressed group as an inconvenience and an annoyance that makes life harder. Resolutions like this are almost always made by someone who wishes we didn't exist, and so they fantasize about a world where we don't.
I'd like to thank you for a good debate! I enjoyed it. Even though I may have employed some non-intuitive interpretations of the resolution that you could argue (and I did argue) are technically true, I hope they did not bother you too much.
I personally do not agree with the position I am arguing for, and I believe that it is a hard position to hold, but I did my best and I hope that I was a capable opponent for you!
Wish half the people who voted in the primaries looked at the polls of Bernie vs Trump. I would've donated to Bernie if I could've. It wouldn't have made a difference, but that man was the first US politician to give me any hope.
I feel like every time we have this debate nobody brings up how 0.99..., no matter how many 9's come after the decimal, multiplied by 9 will never equal 9. It will always equal 8 with a certain amount of 9's after the decimal ending with a 1. Like, we're proving the assumption of 0.99... = 1 by using the assumption 8.99...1 =9
This debate needs clarification. One cannot choose to not be LGBTQ. If the resolution is that cishet people are better off on average, that's a truism (they're identical in all-but not having to face discrimination, which is a gigantic positive). If the resolution is that a person shouldn't come out as LGBTQ and should live their live as though they were cishet regardless of what they know themselves to be, then we have a debate on our hands.
Yeah, a little, since it's impossible to make constructive arguments for my case, but I hope that by stating that I can't really do much it will convince voters to give me some leeway.
My best guess is that they don't want to be the first to speak so that they have the chance to do more rebuttals and/or because they don't want to lay the groundwork.
I've flagged ADreamOfLiberty's vote for review. Per the code of conduct's guidelines on voting, it does not seem to me that the gap between the quantity and quality of sources on both sides differ sufficiently for pro to be awarded points for better sources. Furthermore, I see no reason that con acted in a way that was excessively abusive (as is necessary to award conduct points according to the CoC) such that they deserve to be penalized.
Coerce speech how? Coerce speech so that people don't say slurs? I don't see the problem with this. Again, just because it doesn't offend you personally doesn't mean it's okay. Someone asking to not be called words that have been used to oppress and degrade them for centuries doesn't mean they have thin skin; people have the right to not want to be called derogatory terms and to think you're a bad person if you continue to do so/don't believe in that right.
If using a term that is symbolic of a millennia of oppression against a group of people hurts some members of that group, that's not their fault. If you don't believe that hurting people unnecessarily is a bad thing because you find kindness an inconvenience, I don't know what to say.
Good for you. Just because it doesn't hurt you doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong for being hurt by it. Even if it doesn't hurt you, that doesn't mean it's not a bad thing.
I'm a trans lesbian and that term doesn't bother me; doesn't mean it's okay. Claiming to formerly be a member of the LGBTQ+ community doesn't give you validity points here.
The intention of the debate is very clearly that the instigator wanted to debate the existence of a deity. If we were to go with the interpretation that I should be arguing why not believe in the existence of a deity (and thus pro argues for the existence of a deity), it contradicts the title.
When I first read the debate I mentioned, I literally sat down with post-it notes for about an hour trying to figure out what was happening lmao. That's how I figured out the rebuttal that I said in my previous comment.
Yes, I did indeed read through one of the debates from the quality debates section (the beginning arguments at least) and I disagree that it is equal to 1. The one with TNBinc, to be specific.
The mathematical proof that pro provided in said debate involved performing mathematical operations on a number that is infinite in length, and if you've seen the infamous "Proof That 1=2", the critical flaw of which is that you must divide by 0, it is much the same. Your opponent attempts to prove it with the following
x= 0.99r
10x=9.99r
10x=9+0.99r
9x=9
x=1
However, since x is equal to 0.99r, and 9x means you are multiplying it 9 times, what do we see when we multiply 9x9 or 0.99999x9? What we see is that the final digit, no matter how many decimals you add, must be 1. This obviously can't be the case with a number of infinite length, as there cannot meaningfully be an end to it, and thus we see a clear demonstration that the mathematics of real numbers aren't applicable.
Another way of thinking about it is that when you multiply 0.99x9 and get 8.91, you can get the result by multiplying 0.99x10-0.99 . When you multiply by 10, you effectively move the decimal point one number backwards, and all numbers are multiplied by 10 and become 1 denomination (I guess would be the word?) higher (a thousandth becomes a hundredth, a hundredth becomes a tenth, etc...) and in this case we get 9.9. Let's place a zero where the hundredth that's now a tenth used to be and get 9.90. Doing multiplication this way (multiplying by 9 by multiplying by 10 and then subtracting a multiple of 1) shows the problem: the 0.99 should always have one more non-zero number that is a decimal than the 9.9, which is impossible if the 9s continue infinitely for both values.
Also just the common sense approach. 1+0.999r does not equal 2. It doesn't have a value of 1, the number is lower than 1, it is literally a decimal between 0 & 1, and so for practical purposes we can round it, but it's not equal.
Of course, it would seem much of mathematics disagrees with me, but that's how I'd argue it, at least.
I know that 0.99r has been done, but the way that I would argue it is completely different than the way it was argued. Performing mathematical operations on inifities is irrational, which was what the proof rested on.
I mentioned unions despite how broad it was just to see your general confidence in the topic. Something like "all workers ought to be unionized" or something like that. I'd be pro in that scenario.
Maybe something like "COVID-19 Vaccines Shouldn't Be Patented" (like how Pfizer-BioNTech own the intellectual property of the vaccine).
I apologize for failing to follow the structure and presuming you were shotgunning in the first round because I forgot about said structure. I hope that doesn't impact the debate too much.
Of course I would agree that cars and houses both have a function that need to be served. Unfortunately, due to my time constraints, I wasn't able to flesh this point out nearly as much as I wanted to (and I intend to in my next speech if I get the chance), but almost nobody ever really needs to go from 0-100mph in under 10 seconds or to go 200mph. When it comes to houses, having a bigger house serves a function up until a point. Idealizing a mansion that is needlessly large and decadent for the sake of it's aesthetic beauty would seem to me to be wasteful.
A world without comfort would be an interesting debate, but I fear it's far too weighted on the side of whoever debates for the existence of comfort. If we could come up with something similar/fairer, I'd be willing!
Well, I mean, I'm a lesbian, but were I straight, I suppose so. If he had a good personality and this was a world where aesthetic beauty did not exist.
I'm not claiming that aesthetic beauty doesn't matter, only that a world where it does not exist is preferential.
I apologize, but I'm a bit confused on what you're saying. You're describing FPTP, yes, and the alternative I'm proposing is AV, but it was never meant to concern only voting on debates. Could you clarify?
This is what Marjorie Taylor Greene's twitter sounds like
I will save my detailed opinions for the voting tab, but victory or failure for you is entirely dependent on Novice's ability to play the definition's game. It's not the angle I would've come at this from, but I suppose we'll have to see how it goes.
The people who don't want to examine their habits and beliefs, no matter how clearly harmful they may be and no matter how much scientific evidence against them there is, are usually the same people who like to complain at the notion that they may have an advantage over other people.
I won't get into the fetishization of hardship that is rife in American and a lot of other western culture, but I will say:
"They're lucky black people are looking for equality and not revenge."
I'm not sure what the implication with your second paragraph is, but taking the rest in good faith, I think what you're saying is fairly heartwarming! I wouldn't say that it's due to genetics, but rather I would say it's due to a shared culture, collection of experiences, and feelings. Nevertheless, it's undeniable that I would not be the same person if I wasn't LGBTQ+; it's the reason I am today.
While I may experience a lot less hardship if I were cishet, realistically, to not be LGBTQ+ is not a decision I would make nor is it a decision I could make.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I can't say if you're right or wrong either since we're talking hypotheticals. I do my best work with high character counts, that's for sure.
Honestly, I probably wouldn't even take this debate. The resolution envisions a hypothetical world where LGBTQ+ people didn't exist, not removing all LGBTQ+ people from existence in our world. Would that world be 'better off'? Well, probably. A lot of people would have much easier lives. I'd probably choose to not be LGBTQ+ if I could, but I was never really given that option.
Fundamentally, this debate says nothing about the real world because LGBTQ+ people do exist. I still scoff at this debate nonetheless because, whether it's with race or sexuality or what have you, it's always the oppressing group portraying the oppressed group as an inconvenience and an annoyance that makes life harder. Resolutions like this are almost always made by someone who wishes we didn't exist, and so they fantasize about a world where we don't.
RMM beat me to it lmao
Maybe sometime soon.
I'd like to thank you for a good debate! I enjoyed it. Even though I may have employed some non-intuitive interpretations of the resolution that you could argue (and I did argue) are technically true, I hope they did not bother you too much.
I personally do not agree with the position I am arguing for, and I believe that it is a hard position to hold, but I did my best and I hope that I was a capable opponent for you!
Wish half the people who voted in the primaries looked at the polls of Bernie vs Trump. I would've donated to Bernie if I could've. It wouldn't have made a difference, but that man was the first US politician to give me any hope.
I feel like every time we have this debate nobody brings up how 0.99..., no matter how many 9's come after the decimal, multiplied by 9 will never equal 9. It will always equal 8 with a certain amount of 9's after the decimal ending with a 1. Like, we're proving the assumption of 0.99... = 1 by using the assumption 8.99...1 =9
I don't expect to win this debate, but I think it'll be fun!
Holy shit, RMM! You sniped this literally the minute I posted it lmao
Okay? Have fun debating a truism lmao
This debate needs clarification. One cannot choose to not be LGBTQ. If the resolution is that cishet people are better off on average, that's a truism (they're identical in all-but not having to face discrimination, which is a gigantic positive). If the resolution is that a person shouldn't come out as LGBTQ and should live their live as though they were cishet regardless of what they know themselves to be, then we have a debate on our hands.
Yeah, a little, since it's impossible to make constructive arguments for my case, but I hope that by stating that I can't really do much it will convince voters to give me some leeway.
My best guess is that they don't want to be the first to speak so that they have the chance to do more rebuttals and/or because they don't want to lay the groundwork.
This man always lets con go first
I've flagged ADreamOfLiberty's vote for review. Per the code of conduct's guidelines on voting, it does not seem to me that the gap between the quantity and quality of sources on both sides differ sufficiently for pro to be awarded points for better sources. Furthermore, I see no reason that con acted in a way that was excessively abusive (as is necessary to award conduct points according to the CoC) such that they deserve to be penalized.
Coerce speech how? Coerce speech so that people don't say slurs? I don't see the problem with this. Again, just because it doesn't offend you personally doesn't mean it's okay. Someone asking to not be called words that have been used to oppress and degrade them for centuries doesn't mean they have thin skin; people have the right to not want to be called derogatory terms and to think you're a bad person if you continue to do so/don't believe in that right.
If using a term that is symbolic of a millennia of oppression against a group of people hurts some members of that group, that's not their fault. If you don't believe that hurting people unnecessarily is a bad thing because you find kindness an inconvenience, I don't know what to say.
Good for you. Just because it doesn't hurt you doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong for being hurt by it. Even if it doesn't hurt you, that doesn't mean it's not a bad thing.
I'm a trans lesbian and that term doesn't bother me; doesn't mean it's okay. Claiming to formerly be a member of the LGBTQ+ community doesn't give you validity points here.
The 1st amendment protects you from the government, not from being a bad person.
Those who say "___ need to grow thicker skins" often lack empathy toward groups they are not apart of.
y'know I can't lie: It would be funny as hell if they did this shit for the whole debate
Yeah! I'd be interested in doing that some time.
The intention of the debate is very clearly that the instigator wanted to debate the existence of a deity. If we were to go with the interpretation that I should be arguing why not believe in the existence of a deity (and thus pro argues for the existence of a deity), it contradicts the title.
Define 'proper context'
Haha, yeah, I suppose so. It's just something I was given in a debate tournament once.
I'm very surprised I won this, but it is still one of the most interesting debate topics I've ever seen.
Ahhh shit. Here we go again.
I apologize for the forfeit. With school starting I just lost track of time.
Perhaps I skimmed through the debate a little too quickly lmao
A shame, truly. There have been a few times I've seen votes and thought "Well. They're just wrong."
While I presume you're referring to 0.99r = 1, I did present other options as well.
Oh, and also I forgot to add:
When I first read the debate I mentioned, I literally sat down with post-it notes for about an hour trying to figure out what was happening lmao. That's how I figured out the rebuttal that I said in my previous comment.
Yes, I did indeed read through one of the debates from the quality debates section (the beginning arguments at least) and I disagree that it is equal to 1. The one with TNBinc, to be specific.
The mathematical proof that pro provided in said debate involved performing mathematical operations on a number that is infinite in length, and if you've seen the infamous "Proof That 1=2", the critical flaw of which is that you must divide by 0, it is much the same. Your opponent attempts to prove it with the following
x= 0.99r
10x=9.99r
10x=9+0.99r
9x=9
x=1
However, since x is equal to 0.99r, and 9x means you are multiplying it 9 times, what do we see when we multiply 9x9 or 0.99999x9? What we see is that the final digit, no matter how many decimals you add, must be 1. This obviously can't be the case with a number of infinite length, as there cannot meaningfully be an end to it, and thus we see a clear demonstration that the mathematics of real numbers aren't applicable.
Another way of thinking about it is that when you multiply 0.99x9 and get 8.91, you can get the result by multiplying 0.99x10-0.99 . When you multiply by 10, you effectively move the decimal point one number backwards, and all numbers are multiplied by 10 and become 1 denomination (I guess would be the word?) higher (a thousandth becomes a hundredth, a hundredth becomes a tenth, etc...) and in this case we get 9.9. Let's place a zero where the hundredth that's now a tenth used to be and get 9.90. Doing multiplication this way (multiplying by 9 by multiplying by 10 and then subtracting a multiple of 1) shows the problem: the 0.99 should always have one more non-zero number that is a decimal than the 9.9, which is impossible if the 9s continue infinitely for both values.
Also just the common sense approach. 1+0.999r does not equal 2. It doesn't have a value of 1, the number is lower than 1, it is literally a decimal between 0 & 1, and so for practical purposes we can round it, but it's not equal.
Of course, it would seem much of mathematics disagrees with me, but that's how I'd argue it, at least.
I know that 0.99r has been done, but the way that I would argue it is completely different than the way it was argued. Performing mathematical operations on inifities is irrational, which was what the proof rested on.
I mentioned unions despite how broad it was just to see your general confidence in the topic. Something like "all workers ought to be unionized" or something like that. I'd be pro in that scenario.
Maybe something like "COVID-19 Vaccines Shouldn't Be Patented" (like how Pfizer-BioNTech own the intellectual property of the vaccine).
Maybe something about unions? 0.9999r equals 1?
I apologize for failing to follow the structure and presuming you were shotgunning in the first round because I forgot about said structure. I hope that doesn't impact the debate too much.
It would seem I did. That's my mistake, it slipped my mind since it's not something I'm accustomed to.
Citations:
1. https://www.ganintegrity.com/portal/country-profiles/china-corruption-report/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_China
3. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_China
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs#Genocide_of_Uyghurs_in_Xinjiang
7. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Renewable_energy_statistics
8. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
9. https://www.lifewire.com/5g-vs-4g-4156322#5g-works-differently-than-4g
Of course I would agree that cars and houses both have a function that need to be served. Unfortunately, due to my time constraints, I wasn't able to flesh this point out nearly as much as I wanted to (and I intend to in my next speech if I get the chance), but almost nobody ever really needs to go from 0-100mph in under 10 seconds or to go 200mph. When it comes to houses, having a bigger house serves a function up until a point. Idealizing a mansion that is needlessly large and decadent for the sake of it's aesthetic beauty would seem to me to be wasteful.
A world without comfort would be an interesting debate, but I fear it's far too weighted on the side of whoever debates for the existence of comfort. If we could come up with something similar/fairer, I'd be willing!
Well, I mean, I'm a lesbian, but were I straight, I suppose so. If he had a good personality and this was a world where aesthetic beauty did not exist.
I'm not claiming that aesthetic beauty doesn't matter, only that a world where it does not exist is preferential.
I mismanaged my time SO badly on this one. I'll make up for it in the next one, I promise
So, to oversimplify, the resolution effectively is about proving if free will or determinism makes more sense?
Very well. I look forward to what you have to say!
I apologize, but I'm a bit confused on what you're saying. You're describing FPTP, yes, and the alternative I'm proposing is AV, but it was never meant to concern only voting on debates. Could you clarify?
I intend to discuss the credibility of the translations of the bible extensively >:3c
I wouldn't think about my opponent too much. They're not worth the effort, haha.
Nah. I think I'll procrastinate on this like I do with most of my debates tbh.
My goodness! R0???
Just what have I gotten myself into...
I'm climate chamge????????????????????????? (NOT CLICKBAIT)
This debate is a bruh moment from con
At what point are you just trolling