all of that sounds correct as far as what is naturally able to be done. I'd argue they lived longer though because their blood was mixed with nephilm blood.
Start by going to YouTube and watching Aubrey DeGreys Ted talk. It doesn't matter which Ted talk but one is linked in the second comment on this debate. He clearly explains escape velocity. After that here is one website https://www.fightaging.org/
I would also look at something called "CRsociety" if that website is still online and go find some lectures by ray kurzweil on his law of accelerating returns.
The CRsociety if I remember has hundreds of studies listed many monkey studies, mice studies etc.
If you want to attempt radical life extension think the following things
1. Fasting (cr gets mildly better results but is torture and will make you physically weak)
2. HIIT exercise 3 days combined with 2 days of weight lifting full body minimum.
3. Regular and aggressive health checkups to catch things in the earlier possible stages.
I would also at some point debate a fellow Christian who would see pursuing radical life extension as anti-christian. I would be welcoming of a jew wanting to debate it as well because the arguments usually come down to a perceived order by God to keep life below 120 years old after the flood.
I appreciate that. I want to prove radical life extension is possible and then go into the ethics of it. I feel like I will have to do the debate again, even if I win it because the argument can be more digestible. For example just paring the debate down to the part about escape velocity and describing escape velocity in the description and then spending several words explaining why it is likely to occur before 2045
I think your argument was zero bad governments exist but both your points are incorrect.
The Nazis got most of their weapons in the beer hall putsch through armories.
They disarmed 6 million Jews and killed them. Maybe it would have been 3 million if they could offer armed resistance, but that also misses the point that a lot of armed citizens could simply move to the country and unless you are going to send a war time military after them it would be pretty easy for them to live in peace.
Your other point about their enemy nations is beside the point as well. It only mitigates the effectiveness of an armed population not eliminates is and in America for example if 10% of citizens picked up arms against the government any allies of the rebels would have 30 million additional guns on their side.
None of that matters though, because your premises isn't that armed citizenry can't be effective against a tyrannical government. Your premises was that zero bad governments so or ever will exist.
I was curious about how you would handle it. Me personally if I through our a point like that it would be to just make my opponent waste space, now it looks like you are claiming you would waste space as well by instead of supporting your premise that bad governments don't exist you will throw out red herrings.
Those red herrings may be arguments against the 2nd amendment, but they don't support the premise and of "no bad governments exist" . It seems like you would be better off just immediately arguing that point you made in the last post, instead of waiting for them to disprove your premise.
They advocate for a level of coercion while also claiming to maintain the "non-aggression principle." That is where the hypocrisy lies, and I state as much in my opening argument."
The Non aggression principle isn't hypocritical. The term used to describe the concept can be misleading, but essentially it means that it is unethical to take life, liberty or property with the exception that it is reasonable to do so when it comes to defending the negative rights of yourself or others.
Some may say, well what about taxation for police that is violating the NAP, but something they don't consider is that you can get high tax compliance and make it voluntary by taking it at the point of sale for example. Or you can have a minarchist state where those who want police protection can pool their resources to receive it, which is another form of voluntary taxation.
The NAP isn't some Buddhist mantra though where people are expected to not defend themselves from aggression
I don't plan on reading the debate. I have no opinion.
I did see your question to libertarians. The state exists to secure natural law. Negative rights essentially, and so the coercion of the state is seen as a necessary evil to secure the negative rights.
Positive rights cannot be precisely defended without choosing winners and losers so is generally thought to be bad.
The issue with libertarianism is essentially 3 things.
1. Technically a libertarian society could lead to society as it is. A bunch of people getting together and buying the American land and deciding they will turn the land over to anyone residing in the land under the condition they can implement the same exact governance we have now. What happened there perfectly aligns with libertarian philosophy
2. Protecting negative rights get tricky when you start getting into the nitty gritty. Noise complaints for example are treated like a trespassing of sound, but it can get absurd and make it so any sound your neighbor makes, even loud snoring can be a type of trespassing and don't even get me started on how neighbors photons of lights are technically trespassing as well.
3. The ideology is unbending. For example. If aliens were to invade the planet and say the only way to save the planet is if 75% of people joined the military. Well according to libertarian philosophy we would have to die if we were one short of the 75% instead of having the government just force one person to do it to save millions of lives.
The philosophy is not contradictory at all, it just isn't practical and objection number one is a huge issue as well
One of the reasons I gave a full week is so we can both do a lot of research. I also spend most of my time studying these ideals not expressing them, so I need to figure out how to express them properly which takes a while to figure out
I think Aubrey Degray asked MIT to write a paper to criticize SENS for extending lifespan and to debunk his optimism. It might be worth looking at that paper to formulate some good rebuttals.
The lengthening of life expectancy from 40 to 80 can be attributed to things like reduced infant mortality to a large extent.
Escape velocity is a very specific concept created by Dr. Aubrey Degray. It is some future point where natural lifespan is extending one year for every year we exist. Lifespan currently is maxed out at about 120 calorie restriction could potentially push that to 130. The "SENS" research being done currently looks to develop ways to erase damage caused by cells to extend human lifespan past it's natural limits. What I am saying is the things in the past that extended lifespan such as lower infant mortality are not going to be the things in the future that extend it. Even 1000 years ago we had some 100 year olds walking around. The future advances I would need to prove likely to happen, will focus not on extending life expectancy with technologies that extend natural life span. Again natural lifespan being something that caps out at about 120 years of age
I am more than willing to clarify my position in the comments if it will get me a better debate. My goal isn't to win, so much as it is to test whether I am right. Sometimes I debate to win. This isn't one of those times
I am more than willing to clarify my position in the comments if it will get me a better debate. My goal isn't to win, so much as it is to test whether I am right. Sometimes I debate to win. This isn't one of those times
I believe I linked to studies showing the effects of different lifestyle choices on life expectancy or at least articles that cite those studies.
If the average life expectancy of a smoker is 70 and a non smoker 77 than it is fair to say cutting smoking adds 7 years to your life. This does of course drop off as you get older due to the law of diminishing returns. I mentioned my smoking alcoholic relatives died at 70 from drinking and smoking too much. If smoking took 7 years off of their life's and my genetics are identical to theirs, I believe it fair to say I added 7 years to my life
There are a ton of cognitive biases which meet that definition and I wouldn't call them fallacies, but if that is the definition you are using than obviously in a debate it is our jobs to show the voters the errors of reasoning both sides make
Start with Ted talk I listed in the second comment. After that go see if you can find kurzweil talking about his law of accelerating returns. Because when it comes time to, assuming I get the opportunity than I am expanding my arguments using those people as my main guides depending on which arguments need to be expanded more.
This is not looking good, I am half way done with writing my round and I am already at 15,000 characters. I am going to act like I have unlimited characters and write the whole thing before revising it, but I think the biggest issue is I have 30 citations taking up a ton of space. Sometimes I forget that debating is not really a good place for really complex arguments
you trying to gish gallop me bro?
75 bullet points.
all of that sounds correct as far as what is naturally able to be done. I'd argue they lived longer though because their blood was mixed with nephilm blood.
If you want a book get "ending aging" also by Aubrey DeGrey and Michael Rae.
Start by going to YouTube and watching Aubrey DeGreys Ted talk. It doesn't matter which Ted talk but one is linked in the second comment on this debate. He clearly explains escape velocity. After that here is one website https://www.fightaging.org/
I would also look at something called "CRsociety" if that website is still online and go find some lectures by ray kurzweil on his law of accelerating returns.
The CRsociety if I remember has hundreds of studies listed many monkey studies, mice studies etc.
If you want to attempt radical life extension think the following things
1. Fasting (cr gets mildly better results but is torture and will make you physically weak)
2. HIIT exercise 3 days combined with 2 days of weight lifting full body minimum.
3. Regular and aggressive health checkups to catch things in the earlier possible stages.
I would also at some point debate a fellow Christian who would see pursuing radical life extension as anti-christian. I would be welcoming of a jew wanting to debate it as well because the arguments usually come down to a perceived order by God to keep life below 120 years old after the flood.
I appreciate that. I want to prove radical life extension is possible and then go into the ethics of it. I feel like I will have to do the debate again, even if I win it because the argument can be more digestible. For example just paring the debate down to the part about escape velocity and describing escape velocity in the description and then spending several words explaining why it is likely to occur before 2045
I think I get your strategy now
I think your argument was zero bad governments exist but both your points are incorrect.
The Nazis got most of their weapons in the beer hall putsch through armories.
They disarmed 6 million Jews and killed them. Maybe it would have been 3 million if they could offer armed resistance, but that also misses the point that a lot of armed citizens could simply move to the country and unless you are going to send a war time military after them it would be pretty easy for them to live in peace.
Your other point about their enemy nations is beside the point as well. It only mitigates the effectiveness of an armed population not eliminates is and in America for example if 10% of citizens picked up arms against the government any allies of the rebels would have 30 million additional guns on their side.
None of that matters though, because your premises isn't that armed citizenry can't be effective against a tyrannical government. Your premises was that zero bad governments so or ever will exist.
I was curious about how you would handle it. Me personally if I through our a point like that it would be to just make my opponent waste space, now it looks like you are claiming you would waste space as well by instead of supporting your premise that bad governments don't exist you will throw out red herrings.
Those red herrings may be arguments against the 2nd amendment, but they don't support the premise and of "no bad governments exist" . It seems like you would be better off just immediately arguing that point you made in the last post, instead of waiting for them to disprove your premise.
They advocate for a level of coercion while also claiming to maintain the "non-aggression principle." That is where the hypocrisy lies, and I state as much in my opening argument."
The Non aggression principle isn't hypocritical. The term used to describe the concept can be misleading, but essentially it means that it is unethical to take life, liberty or property with the exception that it is reasonable to do so when it comes to defending the negative rights of yourself or others.
Some may say, well what about taxation for police that is violating the NAP, but something they don't consider is that you can get high tax compliance and make it voluntary by taking it at the point of sale for example. Or you can have a minarchist state where those who want police protection can pool their resources to receive it, which is another form of voluntary taxation.
The NAP isn't some Buddhist mantra though where people are expected to not defend themselves from aggression
So if he brought up Nazi Germany as a harmful state would you drop the argument or defend your stance?
This is a stupid debate it's literally in chapter one of Genesis
I don't plan on reading the debate. I have no opinion.
I did see your question to libertarians. The state exists to secure natural law. Negative rights essentially, and so the coercion of the state is seen as a necessary evil to secure the negative rights.
Positive rights cannot be precisely defended without choosing winners and losers so is generally thought to be bad.
The issue with libertarianism is essentially 3 things.
1. Technically a libertarian society could lead to society as it is. A bunch of people getting together and buying the American land and deciding they will turn the land over to anyone residing in the land under the condition they can implement the same exact governance we have now. What happened there perfectly aligns with libertarian philosophy
2. Protecting negative rights get tricky when you start getting into the nitty gritty. Noise complaints for example are treated like a trespassing of sound, but it can get absurd and make it so any sound your neighbor makes, even loud snoring can be a type of trespassing and don't even get me started on how neighbors photons of lights are technically trespassing as well.
3. The ideology is unbending. For example. If aliens were to invade the planet and say the only way to save the planet is if 75% of people joined the military. Well according to libertarian philosophy we would have to die if we were one short of the 75% instead of having the government just force one person to do it to save millions of lives.
The philosophy is not contradictory at all, it just isn't practical and objection number one is a huge issue as well
He made the comment 3 minutes after your vote is up. I would ignore it. That isn't enough time to really digest what you said and mull it over
He did pull a jan 6
I obviously would have just PMed that to him if this were some illuminati conspiracy or something
RM you were the only person who read that who didn't have the common sense to see it was a joke.
The rules are implying situations that aren't extremely obvious jokes or kidding.
The problem with autism is they have a hard time picking up on humor and other subtleties which means they aren't fit for positions of power
I am obviously joking. Stop being a spaz
CVB incoming Don't worry
Just reading that I am supposed to reward you. Unfortunately this topic is not interesting to me
I like the debate title "faith is a cope"
Lol,
I was wondering if that was what you were doing. I have used something similar
Why didn't you give some rebuttals that round 2?
"Government good. Sir.Lancelot has no example of a harmful state. States provide security and equality, and armed citizens stand in the way of that."
Correct zero examples of a bad government or a good government turning bad exist. Chack mate.
Dude normally I would not comment but why even after that argument LOL.
Are you guys still active?
I get it now
Explain what you are trying to debate
Explain what you are trying to debate
One of the reasons I gave a full week is so we can both do a lot of research. I also spend most of my time studying these ideals not expressing them, so I need to figure out how to express them properly which takes a while to figure out
I appreciate that. The possibility of life extension is something I want to prove before I move onto debates about the ethics of it, etc.
I don't want you to struggle with Google searches. It is supposed to be DeGrey but my phone keeps autocorrecting it
I think this link leads to it. https://www.technologyreview.com/2005/02/01/231686/do-you-want-to-live-forever/
I didn't fully vet it though
I think Aubrey Degray asked MIT to write a paper to criticize SENS for extending lifespan and to debunk his optimism. It might be worth looking at that paper to formulate some good rebuttals.
The lengthening of life expectancy from 40 to 80 can be attributed to things like reduced infant mortality to a large extent.
Escape velocity is a very specific concept created by Dr. Aubrey Degray. It is some future point where natural lifespan is extending one year for every year we exist. Lifespan currently is maxed out at about 120 calorie restriction could potentially push that to 130. The "SENS" research being done currently looks to develop ways to erase damage caused by cells to extend human lifespan past it's natural limits. What I am saying is the things in the past that extended lifespan such as lower infant mortality are not going to be the things in the future that extend it. Even 1000 years ago we had some 100 year olds walking around. The future advances I would need to prove likely to happen, will focus not on extending life expectancy with technologies that extend natural life span. Again natural lifespan being something that caps out at about 120 years of age
I am more than willing to clarify my position in the comments if it will get me a better debate. My goal isn't to win, so much as it is to test whether I am right. Sometimes I debate to win. This isn't one of those times
I am more than willing to clarify my position in the comments if it will get me a better debate. My goal isn't to win, so much as it is to test whether I am right. Sometimes I debate to win. This isn't one of those times
I believe I linked to studies showing the effects of different lifestyle choices on life expectancy or at least articles that cite those studies.
If the average life expectancy of a smoker is 70 and a non smoker 77 than it is fair to say cutting smoking adds 7 years to your life. This does of course drop off as you get older due to the law of diminishing returns. I mentioned my smoking alcoholic relatives died at 70 from drinking and smoking too much. If smoking took 7 years off of their life's and my genetics are identical to theirs, I believe it fair to say I added 7 years to my life
There are a ton of cognitive biases which meet that definition and I wouldn't call them fallacies, but if that is the definition you are using than obviously in a debate it is our jobs to show the voters the errors of reasoning both sides make
Start with Ted talk I listed in the second comment. After that go see if you can find kurzweil talking about his law of accelerating returns. Because when it comes time to, assuming I get the opportunity than I am expanding my arguments using those people as my main guides depending on which arguments need to be expanded more.
If you think you saw fallacies I would recommend making sure you understand the arguments before wasting an entire round embarrassing yourself.
Logical fallacy anyway, I don't care about the rest
Name one fallacy.
.............
unfortunately for that argument I think I would have needed to provide some evidence, I am an astronaut and I didn't save my W2s from that job
Good luck, I can't wait to see your response
You have enough room to debate this on equal ground with me that you won't need to get fancy.
i think 10k is enough to be a good debate, but not so much as to bore the hell out of voters
This is not looking good, I am half way done with writing my round and I am already at 15,000 characters. I am going to act like I have unlimited characters and write the whole thing before revising it, but I think the biggest issue is I have 30 citations taking up a ton of space. Sometimes I forget that debating is not really a good place for really complex arguments