I've studied the Columbine incident for a while and to be completely honest I am still pondering about what made them so far gone.
It's hard to point towards one concrete reason why as there were hundreds of reasons. Bullying, mental illness, loneliness ETC.
I like to believe the last thing that went through their minds other than bullets was a feeling of regret for their actions and realizing how truly indistinguishable they were from their past selves.
Although that may be a little bit too optimistic on my part.
There is no real footage of the shooting taking place. The closest we have is some muffled audio taking place in the library. The footage you're referring to in question is from a movie called " Zero Day"
Someone from Debate.Org, one of the last long time active users on that site to my knowledge. To my knowledge, dsjpk5 and backwardseden are the only longtime active users still on there. Although I could be wrong.
The debate description specifically cited that the structure to be followed is that R4 is for closing and not for rebuttals which in turn is why I discarded it.
Don't get me wrong things such as mental illness and genes does play a factor in how individuals end up, however you're quite simply committing a complex cause fallacy by acting as if individuals are decided entirely on genes and that the environment doesn't shape them whatsoever.
You're calling leftists on this site radical and unrational when you're the same person making personal attacks for no reason and label all of the top-ranking leftists as "bias"
Which is funny considering these same leftists vote fairly and are free from bias for the most part.
After all wylted crushed me in a debate fair and square and these radical leftists you're trashing on all voted against me. Including orogami and ramshutu.
Not to mention alec who's last time I checked in the top 10 and has been regarded as one of the best debaters on the website.
I've had to cut out some fluff in the debate, namely some quotes and a few redundant sections due to a character limit. I apologize due to this. I also apologize since I didn't have room for new arguments. As I said at the end, I may or may not bring up new arguments. It all depends on the character limit.
I have no idea why you're bringing up previous comments I made when I discarded them in my last comment and admitted I worded it weirdly and then clarified exactly my position.
Secondly, regarding my moral system, this is a clear misrepresentation of my argument.
You provided arguments against my moral system and I rebutted the false analogies you gave.
I have no idea why this is used as an argument against me when you've brought this up in the first place.
And I actually agree, this has nothing to do with the debate and is a waste of time. I already gave clarification on moral systems and provided you the clear instructions in the debate.
I have no clue as to why I need to keep reiterating when you're clearly not listening and are instead going on to make the same false analogies and ask the same questions over and over even though I've already given a rebuttal and answered them. And again these questions are almost irrelevant.
I'll admit, I've worded this a bit weirdly so let me explain how this works.
Moral systems can be 100 % consistent but they generally lead to absurdity.
For instance, I can say my moral system is that any living organism must die, well this moral system is consistent however can be rather absurd.
Moral systems can be consistent, it's dependent on the person.
For instance, if you're a psychopath and an idiot, that moral system would work since it's consistent and in your mind, doesn't lead to absurdity.
Obviously, for the vast majority of people, this moral system doesn't work.
Most moral systems and the people who abide by them are sometimes inconsistent.
In the case of the Bible, the system itself is inconsistent and the inconsistency isn't dependent on the person thus making it overall inconsistent.
My moral system is 100 % consistent in and of itself. Obviously, some people may have different beliefs however this moral system works for me and gives me results I like. However, you still haven't provided me evidence that I am inconsistent since you've used false analogies.
I hope this clarifies that moral systems can be consistent, it's mostly dependent on the person.
Regarding your 1st comment, yes this is essentially my moral system and thought process.
Now onto your 2nd comment,
1. I define consistent as consistent as reasonably possible.
Obviously there is no known 100 % morally consistent system that doesn't lead to absurditiy in some way.
For instance veganism, well there are certain circumstances where I believe eating meat would be permissible, so therefore veganism isn't 100 % consistent.
However this obviously doesn't make it ok in EVERY single context. Finding one exception doesn't make or break the entire system unless it's a huge one.
2. See previous comment, if the moral system works the majority of the time than it's consistent. If it only works in a few scenarios it isn't.
I'll be examining this in my 1st rebuttal and going into detail on this however each moral system has one or two exceptions depending on the person, however generally these don't it.
3. I am discarding the Bible not because of one or two arbitrary scenarios of why it's inconsistent. I'll go into more detail in my first rebuttal however the Bible has huge inconsistencies which I'll bring up soon.
As we will examine later, there is a difference between one or two minor inconsistencies depending on the person and HUGE inconsistencies on the moral system.
Besides this is assuming the scenarios you've brought up prove my system is inconsistent, all of the scenarios you've brought up don't so you still haven't proven my moral system is inconsistent.
" I would argue that a good moral system should hold up to any scenario.....ANY (otherwise, it's not consistent, right?). "
- Firstly, really you found a moral system that is 100 % consistent, that holds up in ANY scenario, ok share it with me.
Secondly, you're conflating consistency with the guidelines the moral system has.
Thirdly, I am not just dismissing them because they're extreme, I am also dismissing them since they are straw-manning the moral system since the scenarios you've brought up so far don't benefit society.
Holocausting jews was very obviously not beneficial to society. Not to mention the fact that it ruins the society since a good portion of Germans disagreed with Hitlers views but were forced to go along with them out of fear.
And again, murdering a portion of the population ruins everyone's commitment to that society since the vast majority of people aren't psychopaths.
A. Depends on the circumstance, generally the government/society decides. Now will their moral system be good for society? Possibly but generally the governments values are beneficial towards society however again context matters and I don't believe the government is perfect. The times where are values align is pure coincidence.
B. If society deemed X to be good but I don't believe it's, I'd consider it to be bad.
For instance many people believe gun control is beneficial to society, I disagree since I don't believe it's.
C. Like B, if Society deemed gun rights as bad I'd disagree since I believe it's important and beneficial towards society.
2A: Moral systems don't take into account context, therefore it depends on the context. Moral systems are mostly meant to be guidelines rather than set in stone rules generally.
Secondly, you're taking me completely out of context. When I meant by giving me results I like I meant by results that line up with my views.
Obviously, I am not a fascist or a psychopath like you're acting like. What I meant is I use moral systems which give me results that line up with my views.
Thirdly this is known as a reductio ad absurdum fallacy since you're reducing my entire moral system down to ignorant levels.
Also, this analogy fails since completely redistributing peoples property no matter what the level would reduce everyone's commitment towards that society.
For instance, one trolley scenario is whether or not you'd harvest the organs from 3 people to save 10 people.
Well according to my views this would be bad since it'd ruin the society since I'm fairly certain people wouldn't show up to hospitals knowing that their organs could be ripped from them at a moments notice.
In this case there would be literally zero incentive to work harder which would thus ruin the society.
I mean is power all you care about in a country? Because if we compare the United States on healthcare and education which are two important areas, it's being destroyed.
1. What I mean by this is that God's morality in most religions is objective morality. If for this debate we assumed God's morality is objective and 100 % correct, no matter how much I provide to you the repulsive nature of the bible, you could just point out that it's objective and 100 % correct anyways.
If we assume it's subjective, there is room to argue that God's subjective morality is incorrect. Hope this clarifies.
2. I mean by a moral system which is a system by which you judge decisions as either morally good, bad, or neutral.
A) The system I use is whether or not the moral system benefits society as a whole and is morally consistent.
A good moral system should be one that's logically consistent and gives me results I like.
In the case of the Bible, I'll mostly be examining how it's immoral based upon basic morality.
While I and you may have different systems, we can agree on most things.
For example, I am sure we can both agree with slavery, the genocide of innocents, and sexism is immoral.
3. Whether or not the morality benefits society and if it's consistent.
lol yeah even though I disliked dsjpk5's views and bias, I always found a liking to his voting style which is why I combined it with a few other voting styles I saw.
I mean can you prove Omar voted for me out of bias? If you want just to confirm his innocence I can send you a screen cap of me messaging him about voting and the following messages. I'll have to blotch out a few names for privacy reasons.
stay young
Israel Is Not A Legitimate State
thanks and yeah I kinda missed doing it too man
lol
Yeah I agree
lol someone reporting a tied vote tho
no problem
Haven't seen a debate on this subject in awhile
Can you please remove my CVB?
I might vote on this later
I've studied the Columbine incident for a while and to be completely honest I am still pondering about what made them so far gone.
It's hard to point towards one concrete reason why as there were hundreds of reasons. Bullying, mental illness, loneliness ETC.
I like to believe the last thing that went through their minds other than bullets was a feeling of regret for their actions and realizing how truly indistinguishable they were from their past selves.
Although that may be a little bit too optimistic on my part.
yeah, long story short I procrastinated.
There is no real footage of the shooting taking place. The closest we have is some muffled audio taking place in the library. The footage you're referring to in question is from a movie called " Zero Day"
Why are you not allowing logical fallacies in the debate? This is rather counter-intuitive to debates.
Also, 3. seems to be incomplete.
Appreciate that you took the time to thoroughly read the entire debate and give a detailed vote as this was a pretty long one.
Do you feel there are any gigantic mistakes I made and/or improvements I could make to make my overall arguments better?
just why
That's irrelevant, users are still required to give a sufficient vote and are still required to be eligible.
Firstly you're ineligible to vote and secondly this RFD is insufficient as it doesn't go into enough detail.
Someone from Debate.Org, one of the last long time active users on that site to my knowledge. To my knowledge, dsjpk5 and backwardseden are the only longtime active users still on there. Although I could be wrong.
FUCK YAH ITS BILLSANDS!
Only 3 days left!
My thoughts exactly.
The debate description specifically cited that the structure to be followed is that R4 is for closing and not for rebuttals which in turn is why I discarded it.
Your story is purely anecdotal and is not well represented by statistical data at all.
Here is statistical data done on the matter by reputable sources that finds how socio economic conditions affect people in terms of crime rates.
https://scienceleadership.org/blog/how_the_environment_effects_criminal_activity
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167329
https://www.correctionsone.com/probation-and-parole/articles/nature-vs-nurture-which-causes-crime-u7qC7V8v1F69l0Y7/
Don't get me wrong things such as mental illness and genes does play a factor in how individuals end up, however you're quite simply committing a complex cause fallacy by acting as if individuals are decided entirely on genes and that the environment doesn't shape them whatsoever.
You're calling leftists on this site radical and unrational when you're the same person making personal attacks for no reason and label all of the top-ranking leftists as "bias"
Which is funny considering these same leftists vote fairly and are free from bias for the most part.
After all wylted crushed me in a debate fair and square and these radical leftists you're trashing on all voted against me. Including orogami and ramshutu.
Not to mention alec who's last time I checked in the top 10 and has been regarded as one of the best debaters on the website.
I have a long debate for you guys to vote on, I'd appreciate a vote and any way I can improve my arguments.
Yeah I'm in bay area California
Only 22 hours left! I'd really like to see your response.
NOTE FOR VOTERS:
I've had to cut out some fluff in the debate, namely some quotes and a few redundant sections due to a character limit. I apologize due to this. I also apologize since I didn't have room for new arguments. As I said at the end, I may or may not bring up new arguments. It all depends on the character limit.
I have no idea why you're bringing up previous comments I made when I discarded them in my last comment and admitted I worded it weirdly and then clarified exactly my position.
Secondly, regarding my moral system, this is a clear misrepresentation of my argument.
You provided arguments against my moral system and I rebutted the false analogies you gave.
I have no idea why this is used as an argument against me when you've brought this up in the first place.
And I actually agree, this has nothing to do with the debate and is a waste of time. I already gave clarification on moral systems and provided you the clear instructions in the debate.
I have no clue as to why I need to keep reiterating when you're clearly not listening and are instead going on to make the same false analogies and ask the same questions over and over even though I've already given a rebuttal and answered them. And again these questions are almost irrelevant.
I'll admit, I've worded this a bit weirdly so let me explain how this works.
Moral systems can be 100 % consistent but they generally lead to absurdity.
For instance, I can say my moral system is that any living organism must die, well this moral system is consistent however can be rather absurd.
Moral systems can be consistent, it's dependent on the person.
For instance, if you're a psychopath and an idiot, that moral system would work since it's consistent and in your mind, doesn't lead to absurdity.
Obviously, for the vast majority of people, this moral system doesn't work.
Most moral systems and the people who abide by them are sometimes inconsistent.
In the case of the Bible, the system itself is inconsistent and the inconsistency isn't dependent on the person thus making it overall inconsistent.
My moral system is 100 % consistent in and of itself. Obviously, some people may have different beliefs however this moral system works for me and gives me results I like. However, you still haven't provided me evidence that I am inconsistent since you've used false analogies.
I hope this clarifies that moral systems can be consistent, it's mostly dependent on the person.
Regarding your 1st comment, yes this is essentially my moral system and thought process.
Now onto your 2nd comment,
1. I define consistent as consistent as reasonably possible.
Obviously there is no known 100 % morally consistent system that doesn't lead to absurditiy in some way.
For instance veganism, well there are certain circumstances where I believe eating meat would be permissible, so therefore veganism isn't 100 % consistent.
However this obviously doesn't make it ok in EVERY single context. Finding one exception doesn't make or break the entire system unless it's a huge one.
2. See previous comment, if the moral system works the majority of the time than it's consistent. If it only works in a few scenarios it isn't.
I'll be examining this in my 1st rebuttal and going into detail on this however each moral system has one or two exceptions depending on the person, however generally these don't it.
3. I am discarding the Bible not because of one or two arbitrary scenarios of why it's inconsistent. I'll go into more detail in my first rebuttal however the Bible has huge inconsistencies which I'll bring up soon.
As we will examine later, there is a difference between one or two minor inconsistencies depending on the person and HUGE inconsistencies on the moral system.
Besides this is assuming the scenarios you've brought up prove my system is inconsistent, all of the scenarios you've brought up don't so you still haven't proven my moral system is inconsistent.
" I would argue that a good moral system should hold up to any scenario.....ANY (otherwise, it's not consistent, right?). "
- Firstly, really you found a moral system that is 100 % consistent, that holds up in ANY scenario, ok share it with me.
Secondly, you're conflating consistency with the guidelines the moral system has.
Thirdly, I am not just dismissing them because they're extreme, I am also dismissing them since they are straw-manning the moral system since the scenarios you've brought up so far don't benefit society.
Regarding your points on MLK, they're irrelevant.
Holocausting jews was very obviously not beneficial to society. Not to mention the fact that it ruins the society since a good portion of Germans disagreed with Hitlers views but were forced to go along with them out of fear.
And again, murdering a portion of the population ruins everyone's commitment to that society since the vast majority of people aren't psychopaths.
A. Depends on the circumstance, generally the government/society decides. Now will their moral system be good for society? Possibly but generally the governments values are beneficial towards society however again context matters and I don't believe the government is perfect. The times where are values align is pure coincidence.
B. If society deemed X to be good but I don't believe it's, I'd consider it to be bad.
For instance many people believe gun control is beneficial to society, I disagree since I don't believe it's.
C. Like B, if Society deemed gun rights as bad I'd disagree since I believe it's important and beneficial towards society.
My moral system is dictated by me.
2A: Moral systems don't take into account context, therefore it depends on the context. Moral systems are mostly meant to be guidelines rather than set in stone rules generally.
Secondly, you're taking me completely out of context. When I meant by giving me results I like I meant by results that line up with my views.
Obviously, I am not a fascist or a psychopath like you're acting like. What I meant is I use moral systems which give me results that line up with my views.
Thirdly this is known as a reductio ad absurdum fallacy since you're reducing my entire moral system down to ignorant levels.
Also, this analogy fails since completely redistributing peoples property no matter what the level would reduce everyone's commitment towards that society.
For instance, one trolley scenario is whether or not you'd harvest the organs from 3 people to save 10 people.
Well according to my views this would be bad since it'd ruin the society since I'm fairly certain people wouldn't show up to hospitals knowing that their organs could be ripped from them at a moments notice.
In this case there would be literally zero incentive to work harder which would thus ruin the society.
I mean is power all you care about in a country? Because if we compare the United States on healthcare and education which are two important areas, it's being destroyed.
1. What I mean by this is that God's morality in most religions is objective morality. If for this debate we assumed God's morality is objective and 100 % correct, no matter how much I provide to you the repulsive nature of the bible, you could just point out that it's objective and 100 % correct anyways.
If we assume it's subjective, there is room to argue that God's subjective morality is incorrect. Hope this clarifies.
2. I mean by a moral system which is a system by which you judge decisions as either morally good, bad, or neutral.
A) The system I use is whether or not the moral system benefits society as a whole and is morally consistent.
A good moral system should be one that's logically consistent and gives me results I like.
In the case of the Bible, I'll mostly be examining how it's immoral based upon basic morality.
While I and you may have different systems, we can agree on most things.
For example, I am sure we can both agree with slavery, the genocide of innocents, and sexism is immoral.
3. Whether or not the morality benefits society and if it's consistent.
What do you mean by inspired? Do you mean by God created civilization and exists?
Face it, you can never quit this site.
RM make up your mind, are you quitting or are you not?
Don't be so down, what a losing streak tells to me is that you aren't just noob sniping.
You're branching out, trying new topics, and taking on more challenging and capable opponents.
If you're losing it's no big deal, I recently just really lost my first debate ever between DDO and DART that wasn't a concession.
Screw-ups happen, what matters is you examine the previous mistakes you made and learn from them.
In my case, I was a bit too cocky and I didn't take my time with my arguments and rushed.
lol yeah even though I disliked dsjpk5's views and bias, I always found a liking to his voting style which is why I combined it with a few other voting styles I saw.
This is a bit too vague, what are the definitions you'll both be using for capitalism and socialism? And who has the BoP?
I was a bit vague so I clarified in the description.
hmmm, I finally lost a debate that wasn't a concession, congrats took almost 24 debates.
I mean what type of bias like friend bias or political bias?
I mean can you prove Omar voted for me out of bias? If you want just to confirm his innocence I can send you a screen cap of me messaging him about voting and the following messages. I'll have to blotch out a few names for privacy reasons.
Oh aright makes sense
I am unable to find the post I was tagged in, what were you saying? Sorry.