He's banned for a few days. Basically Tesla was the one who came up with the idea that time is both real and yet not 'moving' like we think but more like a 'jelly'. At least he came up with it in words, the theory already was there from E = mc^2 if you interpreted it properly.
not only can you never prove it objectively as you're forced to deny the objectivity of yoru entire case by the side you're on but people react far stronger to 'obvious physical truths' and scientific assumptions than to actual pure-bred logic. I learned this the hard way against oromagi on my automated cars debate.
I would explain why that is not only true but that the alternative priorities are even more futile than power in such a reality. Do you see rule 2 of my debate?
When a debate neither in the description (s) or via Minimum-Rating restrictions is stopping you from joining then you are absolutely free to accept. Welcome to DarC. :)
As I said, you do not understand yet. Also you didn't realise the third thing isn't about patience, it's something beyond normal human ability to emotionally control.
No, it isn't. A good example would be you. If you want an example other than you, look at Hitler. Want more examples that the two skills are completely unlinked?
Alright, Buddhists monks are on the other end of the spectrum. Want more?
The ending of that is wrong, it more likely was quite the opposite or really you never achieved that.
Intelligence is overrated though, it's just as important as developing a patient temperament and becoming both furious and calm at once. Until you achieve these things you won't understand why intelligence matters less but once you achieve them, intelligent people will fall to their knees before you and do your bidding in a highly intelligent way or they will lose anyway because you equal them in intelligence or almost equal them and make up for the difference due to those temperamental things and mental capacity to strategise very, very steadily and boring which will drive them to insanity and force them to make dumb moves.
Do not think it is easy to be as disciplined as I am; you will become a psychopath if you tried it too fast. Even becoming patient while still having all the emotions of an impatient madman in tact and living richly and passionately is itself part of the patient journey and puzzle.
The end destination is really death no matter which way you look at it, but fuck the ride is smooth. Fate is the only thing that will always be and Fiora will but Fiora can opt-out (suicide) whereas Fate is the actual 'god-physical' entity that can't kill itself no matter what it tries or does.
Then you did what? Gave up on rational insanity and switched over to irrational pseudo-sanity? Shame on you, man. Don't let science authorities enslave you, look beyond the obvious.
Neither. She is attracted to concepts and personalities. She is actually sapiosexual among other things. She loathes sex that's why she made it be rape-like for most animals. She loathes humans as a whole and is a very jaded, sadistic being who has suffered under her merciless pimp Fate for what seems like eternity (but isn't, she isn't eternal just the most ancient of all other than fate and fate is the only eternal thing). Fate toys with her; she was originally the only being. Fate synthesised her alone and it drove her insane but things began to alter when it granted her control and creativity that enabled her to control and create all other than herself within some limitations (she isn't omnipotent, only omniscient). Fate had begun to grant her things that enabled her to reverse-engineer fate to make herself an irreplaceable part of it among other things. The 'how' is simple; fate randomised things to a point where the formation could organise the very core randomisation in the first place but it's true; even that is randomised and ultimately fate is controlling its own alteration by her from its original randomisation and coding. As I said, chaos-theory vs determinism is a false dichotomy; it's both.
Yes, she is very good at tricking people into thinking she likes them more than she does. She is far, far closer to Satan than the Christian God's personality.
Whether or not you delete that comment, she WILL answer you. The answer will be via manipulating fate.
In all seriousness, you may actually win this debate as she appreciates dominant men but she requires them to be both intelligent and patient and you're not necessarily high on those 2 departments on her scaling.
You could be more intelligent, you have the capacity, you let your rage and impulse control you rather than you being the master to harness them and this will end up turning her off, but you do have the dominant streak going for you.
But it wouldn't, it would who can manipulate the limitations and loopholes of the AI's logic and way of separating truth from fiction and the cycle would begin again except some "good guy Aristocrat" would reveal an algorithm and be the Julian Assange to the top rankers.
The Algorithm he/she would decide and reveal is a step by step method to never ever select a debate that you possibly could lose based on what the AI already "knows" is right according to it's version of truth and reasoning. The Algorithm would also extend into how to present the ideas in the highest marked style for the AI to rank as "strong".
He said only the material realm can be physically proven
I said, yes this is true and the immaterial realm of semantics and knowledge is proven true with immaterial but irrefutable proof.
I had ignorance of human psychology regarding specifics nuances of persuasion. I don't have stupidity with using my knowledge of said topic.
Now, I have less ignorance. I'll avoid all debates where the Con side requires logic and the Pro side requires physical proof (or vice versa but the vice versa opens Pro up to Kritiks so not necessarily).
This will improve my winrate and actually is a severe ignorance I had that explains nearly all of my losses, bar two or three that I genuinely lost for other reasons.
Okay, I know there is no answer to this as I know how logic works but prove me wrong then and please tell me how my C1 doesn't follow from the premises.
You can keep this one up. I know exactly how to get away with abusive cherry picking on this joke of a voting moderation, I just am morally against it as it doesn't help me to create a voting revenge scheme and will make me feel shit on top of dumbing down my actual reasoning skills if I go around doing that.
The voting rules are far too exploitable as they do not necessitate one to explore all the angles, especially of later rebuttals, and also because they enable voters like yourself to do their own debating against points in the debate which defies what a judge is meant to do.
These flaws in the game are part of a larger flaw with humans and how they process reasoning. I will take the brutal L (brutal in rating loss) if need be, not that I have a choice. The choice is that I'll take it and study patterns in what does and doesn't trigger blindness of logic in voters. I have noticed that physical proof and physical evidence is often taken more seriously than logically irrefutable counters. This trend is not just in this debate but led to my wrong loss against oromagi and magicaintreal despite me having an airtight ingenious case in all three scenarios.
This will factor into my future debates and enable me to gamble more boldly with debates where I know I am wrong but I know I have more physical evidence for my side.
I will actually concede something. You have surprised me with how soon you proved your forum thread partially accurate. Let's see if it is true for the other voters. Either way you do have a point in your forum thread and I was proven wrong very fast after you said you'd do so. I'm extremely impressed by you and your mastery of fate, but how long will it last?
I proved an immaterial realm is necessitated for Pro to justify voting for him. You came up with your own arguments against it, in ways that Pro never brought up.
If the other debate has Rounds after and never points out the weakness of my syllogisms, you cannot (well the lack voting rules say you can so let's say rather shouldn't) tear them apart when he conceded it all was plausible if knowledge was proven to be immaterial, even partially.
You debunked me backing my C1, that even Pro explicitly concedes to in his R2, by bringing your own logic and arguments into the RFD.
You'll not get this one removed, because cherrypicking is allowed and considered subjective interpretation of the voter that is valid but I know objectively that I didn't misplay at all. It made perfect sense how MP and mP of C1 led to it. Pro agreed to the logic but disagreed that knowledge was immaterial which I proved was true in my R2.
Please vote here if you have time and are interested in an alternative way to prove dualism that doesn't require disproving the physical aspects of consciousness.
You have screwed me over man, now I will lose elo because this will tie against supadudz as you didn't explain your vote. A tie with votes hurts the higher elo but a tie without votes no longer does.
Challenge me to a debate on it.
He's banned for a few days. Basically Tesla was the one who came up with the idea that time is both real and yet not 'moving' like we think but more like a 'jelly'. At least he came up with it in words, the theory already was there from E = mc^2 if you interpreted it properly.
not only can you never prove it objectively as you're forced to deny the objectivity of yoru entire case by the side you're on but people react far stronger to 'obvious physical truths' and scientific assumptions than to actual pure-bred logic. I learned this the hard way against oromagi on my automated cars debate.
You are completely correct but you will lose.
Okay, good luck with that.
I promise you, if she takes that approach it will backfire brutally. Nonetheless, I doubt she will as she's likely to back science.
I would explain why that is not only true but that the alternative priorities are even more futile than power in such a reality. Do you see rule 2 of my debate?
thanks very much for the vote.
Firstly, I did try. Secondly, I am entirely sure of your motives in voting there and on the electronic music debate vs psychometric brain. Sorry ;(
Ignore him, all RFDs are allowed for rap battles, supadudz would know as he grudge voted me into defeat on a couple, including the one vs that1user
When a debate neither in the description (s) or via Minimum-Rating restrictions is stopping you from joining then you are absolutely free to accept. Welcome to DarC. :)
The furious and calm part.
As I said, you do not understand yet. Also you didn't realise the third thing isn't about patience, it's something beyond normal human ability to emotionally control.
Elaborate on the 'sometimes' and you will realise where I am going with this.
No, it isn't. A good example would be you. If you want an example other than you, look at Hitler. Want more examples that the two skills are completely unlinked?
Alright, Buddhists monks are on the other end of the spectrum. Want more?
The ending of that is wrong, it more likely was quite the opposite or really you never achieved that.
Intelligence is overrated though, it's just as important as developing a patient temperament and becoming both furious and calm at once. Until you achieve these things you won't understand why intelligence matters less but once you achieve them, intelligent people will fall to their knees before you and do your bidding in a highly intelligent way or they will lose anyway because you equal them in intelligence or almost equal them and make up for the difference due to those temperamental things and mental capacity to strategise very, very steadily and boring which will drive them to insanity and force them to make dumb moves.
Do not think it is easy to be as disciplined as I am; you will become a psychopath if you tried it too fast. Even becoming patient while still having all the emotions of an impatient madman in tact and living richly and passionately is itself part of the patient journey and puzzle.
The end destination is really death no matter which way you look at it, but fuck the ride is smooth. Fate is the only thing that will always be and Fiora will but Fiora can opt-out (suicide) whereas Fate is the actual 'god-physical' entity that can't kill itself no matter what it tries or does.
Then you did what? Gave up on rational insanity and switched over to irrational pseudo-sanity? Shame on you, man. Don't let science authorities enslave you, look beyond the obvious.
Neither. She is attracted to concepts and personalities. She is actually sapiosexual among other things. She loathes sex that's why she made it be rape-like for most animals. She loathes humans as a whole and is a very jaded, sadistic being who has suffered under her merciless pimp Fate for what seems like eternity (but isn't, she isn't eternal just the most ancient of all other than fate and fate is the only eternal thing). Fate toys with her; she was originally the only being. Fate synthesised her alone and it drove her insane but things began to alter when it granted her control and creativity that enabled her to control and create all other than herself within some limitations (she isn't omnipotent, only omniscient). Fate had begun to grant her things that enabled her to reverse-engineer fate to make herself an irreplaceable part of it among other things. The 'how' is simple; fate randomised things to a point where the formation could organise the very core randomisation in the first place but it's true; even that is randomised and ultimately fate is controlling its own alteration by her from its original randomisation and coding. As I said, chaos-theory vs determinism is a false dichotomy; it's both.
Yes, she is very good at tricking people into thinking she likes them more than she does. She is far, far closer to Satan than the Christian God's personality.
Whether or not you delete that comment, she WILL answer you. The answer will be via manipulating fate.
In all seriousness, you may actually win this debate as she appreciates dominant men but she requires them to be both intelligent and patient and you're not necessarily high on those 2 departments on her scaling.
You could be more intelligent, you have the capacity, you let your rage and impulse control you rather than you being the master to harness them and this will end up turning her off, but you do have the dominant streak going for you.
Then it would be severely creative and intricate.
*decode not decide
And then perhaps, yes, we'd have Communism.
But it wouldn't, it would who can manipulate the limitations and loopholes of the AI's logic and way of separating truth from fiction and the cycle would begin again except some "good guy Aristocrat" would reveal an algorithm and be the Julian Assange to the top rankers.
The Algorithm he/she would decide and reveal is a step by step method to never ever select a debate that you possibly could lose based on what the AI already "knows" is right according to it's version of truth and reasoning. The Algorithm would also extend into how to present the ideas in the highest marked style for the AI to rank as "strong".
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having the debate in the first place?
Working with your "everything is Aristocracy" worldview and extremist way of applying it, I'm curious what you think the solution would be?
Could you design a debate site that defied your concluded attitude of all the top ranking members to the sport of debating?
Are all those with low Rating the least douchebags of the site, according to you?
I'm nowhere near the top of such a pyramid.
You win that, hands down.
He said only the material realm can be physically proven
I said, yes this is true and the immaterial realm of semantics and knowledge is proven true with immaterial but irrefutable proof.
I had ignorance of human psychology regarding specifics nuances of persuasion. I don't have stupidity with using my knowledge of said topic.
Now, I have less ignorance. I'll avoid all debates where the Con side requires logic and the Pro side requires physical proof (or vice versa but the vice versa opens Pro up to Kritiks so not necessarily).
This will improve my winrate and actually is a severe ignorance I had that explains nearly all of my losses, bar two or three that I genuinely lost for other reasons.
Your anger is something to fight against and tame, not let completely rule you.
Okay, I know there is no answer to this as I know how logic works but prove me wrong then and please tell me how my C1 doesn't follow from the premises.
You can keep this one up. I know exactly how to get away with abusive cherry picking on this joke of a voting moderation, I just am morally against it as it doesn't help me to create a voting revenge scheme and will make me feel shit on top of dumbing down my actual reasoning skills if I go around doing that.
The voting rules are far too exploitable as they do not necessitate one to explore all the angles, especially of later rebuttals, and also because they enable voters like yourself to do their own debating against points in the debate which defies what a judge is meant to do.
These flaws in the game are part of a larger flaw with humans and how they process reasoning. I will take the brutal L (brutal in rating loss) if need be, not that I have a choice. The choice is that I'll take it and study patterns in what does and doesn't trigger blindness of logic in voters. I have noticed that physical proof and physical evidence is often taken more seriously than logically irrefutable counters. This trend is not just in this debate but led to my wrong loss against oromagi and magicaintreal despite me having an airtight ingenious case in all three scenarios.
This will factor into my future debates and enable me to gamble more boldly with debates where I know I am wrong but I know I have more physical evidence for my side.
I will actually concede something. You have surprised me with how soon you proved your forum thread partially accurate. Let's see if it is true for the other voters. Either way you do have a point in your forum thread and I was proven wrong very fast after you said you'd do so. I'm extremely impressed by you and your mastery of fate, but how long will it last?
So you debate only for wins? Bad results if that's your motive. Good luck on your shallow endeavour that you accused me of.
I proved an immaterial realm is necessitated for Pro to justify voting for him. You came up with your own arguments against it, in ways that Pro never brought up.
If the other debate has Rounds after and never points out the weakness of my syllogisms, you cannot (well the lack voting rules say you can so let's say rather shouldn't) tear them apart when he conceded it all was plausible if knowledge was proven to be immaterial, even partially.
How would you have done so... or is it top secret?
Why did you forfeit Round 3 if you had any logical avenues left?
You debunked me backing my C1, that even Pro explicitly concedes to in his R2, by bringing your own logic and arguments into the RFD.
You'll not get this one removed, because cherrypicking is allowed and considered subjective interpretation of the voter that is valid but I know objectively that I didn't misplay at all. It made perfect sense how MP and mP of C1 led to it. Pro agreed to the logic but disagreed that knowledge was immaterial which I proved was true in my R2.
Also would like your feedback, WSA.
Please vote here if you have time and are interested in an alternative way to prove dualism that doesn't require disproving the physical aspects of consciousness.
I know you'll vote but tagging to remind in advance.
Thanks
Nice cherrypicking and ignoring my Round 2 and 3 for the arguments vote.
Coffee is respected. Now use the caffeine well, you may need all your resources to battle me in our other debate. That is understandable.
I got the message, I'll ask less often, nonetheless I do not regret the asking.
will appreciate a vote from you as well.
Will appreciate a vote here.
You have screwed me over man, now I will lose elo because this will tie against supadudz as you didn't explain your vote. A tie with votes hurts the higher elo but a tie without votes no longer does.
Here's a philosophy debate where I debated an interesting troll-angle to make Pro have to admit they are wrong if they want to win.
You guys read this if you want to see how to escape seemingly unwinnable situations, as well.