Savant

Sir.Lancelot asked to be banned. I believe he is creating an alt.

I am down to judge if anyone wants.

Another possible solution: I created an alt account to use as insurance against vote bombing. If you want, I would let you win ten times against that one so you can gain back rating.

Update: I have challenged you to said debate.

I recognize that, but it should at least insure against further vote bombs. Lancelot might let you beat him in 4 troll debates to win back rating as a gesture of goodwill, which I think would probably be the simplest solution, though I can't speak authoritatively for either of you.

Thought this might serve as a temporary solution, though it won't work for tied debates.

Until the site owner creates an official fix, I propose that people creating rated debates (from now on) add the following rule:

"Legitimate votes must be cast at least two days before the official voting deadline. After this 'true' deadline, new voters should simply award all seven points to whomever the winner is as insurance against vote bombing. Votes that do not follow this rule should be removed."

Ideologies and parties are not synonymous, and libertarianism is a spectrum, just like socialism. Parties will often have members with a wide range of ideologies that vote together strategically. For example, Bernie Sanders is not a conventional Democrat, but he runs as one because third-party candidates have trouble getting elected. If you want to evaluate the effects of libertarian policy, the only way to do that is via members of the two main parties, since they're the only ones with a chance of getting elected. If you mean, "Have we had any prominent members of the Libertarian party in high US offices?" then the answer is no, as we would expect for any third party. But assuming the Libertarian party is the only group with libertarians is a bit like assuming the United States is the only country with states. The US is not a parliamentary democracy where every voting bloc has its own party.

That's to be expected in a two-party system. Politicians like Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders are completely open about their support of libertarianism and social democracy, respectively.

Same with Sir.Lancelot. His ban expired yesterday.

If your metric for success is getting elected, then you could say the same thing for basically any third party. It's essentially impossible to get elected right now as anything other than a Republican or Democrat. Ronald Reagan was a great leader by your standard because he was successfully elected to the highest office in the US in a landslide. He called himself a libertarian, though it's disputed how close his views actually were to those of most libertarians, and I'm pretty sure he's not someone you would support.

He and Thomas Jefferson are two of the more libertarian presidents we've had, economically speaking, and both are ranked very highly by historians. We've also had highly-ranked libertarians on social issues, such as Lincoln. Name pretty much any mainstream libertarian position, and we've had a well-respected politician who held that position.

I made up this version.

We can still have an answer for hypothetical scenarios. The probability of scenario 1 occurring has little to do with whether we should take action if it does occur.

I'll clarify that no one is on the trolly in Scenario #1, though I don't think it would affect your answer.

I bring it up because harvesting the organs of the dead without consent is illegal in most countries. So a lot of people would probably consider it a more difficult question, even though it's very straightforward from a consequentialist perspective, as you point out.

A trolley is on a track and on its way to hit five workers. Unfortunately, the people are too far away to hear you, so you cannot call to them. As it happens, someone has died, and you are transporting his body. If you throw the corpse on the track, the trolley will stop, but the body will be destroyed. Before he died, this person said not to let his corpse be harmed for any reason. Is it ethically permissible for you to throw his body onto the track?

You are a doctor who deals in organ transplants. A patient has died after adamantly refusing to become an organ donor. However, there is an organ shortage, and if you harvest his organs against his wishes, they can be used to save five people. Is it ethically permissible for you to do this?

I have a feeling that most people will answer yes to scenario 1 and no to scenario 2. In an attempt to reconcile these positions, we might turn to the doctrine of double effect, which holds that we should use people as an end but never as a mere means. But this does not effectively differentiate the two positions. In both scenarios, the dead body is being used as a means rather than an end.

Hence, I see 3 possible solutions:

1) Despite our intuitions, it is not morally permissible to throw the body onto the track.

2) Despite our intuitions, it is morally permissible to harvest the organs of the dead without consent.

3) There is some new moral framework that has not yet been developed, which reconciles the two positions.

jamgiller's debate has about 1 more week

Some people have the opposite problem, lol

Here's a few references I found. Of course, polls don't always agree with each other.

1 2 3 4

I see. When would you like it extended to?

If it's unclear how long the debate will take, I guess I can just leave the date up in the air.

Tagging all other tournament members as well.

If anyone needs to be assigned to a topic, tag me in a comment. I will have subjects for the final round out on Aug 10, unless the deadline needs to be extended for some reason.

If there's anything I'm forgetting or any issues arise, just let me know.

Nice try, Skynet

I don't know about this reality, but the A-theory of time is canon in 1984.

These are two killing options, not "doing X to prevent Y." So you'd be killing 3 people early in their lives or killing a lot of people an hour before they'd otherwise die. Neither is just, but you have to choose.

Now consider another variation:

The human species has reached a new height of power and will survive for millions of years. Every month for 51,000 years, the world government is given a choice between killing three people or infecting all humans and their descendants with a brand new condition that will kill them one hour before they would otherwise die. This effect is cumulative, but if lifespans get too low, children can still be created and cared for by AI machines. If the government never bites the bullet and kills three people, human lifespans will hit one hour permanently after 51,000 years. The other extreme involves killing around 1.8 million people total. How often should the government choose to directly kill three people, if ever?

Another interesting thought experiment, this one a bit more positive:

You are the life fairy, a magical being who can extend lifespans. You can choose any number, denoted as X, and X random people will have their lifespans extended by 20/X years. You can increase the lifespans of billions of people by fractions of a second, increase 1 lifespan by 20 years, or something completely different. Assume that all of these people would appreciate an increased lifespan. What number do you choose, and how does equality factor in?

Interesting. What about causing X/100 amount of pain to 200 people? Or 1,000 people? (vs causing X amount of pain to 1 person.) Does utility ever outweigh equality as a value, in your opinion?

Consider the following two options: (1) Reduce one person's lifespan by 20 years or (2) Reduce two people's lifespans by 10 years each. To me, these seem relatively equivalent. We could value equality, but neither of these people is being treated equally to the rest of the population. In terms of preventing harm to people, both options seem equally bad.

But we could break down the problem even further. Suppose we are given the option to reduce ten people's lifespans by 2 years each, and then a hundred people's lifespans by 73 days each, and so on...we're given the option to reduce 10.5 million people's lifespans by a minute each (these are approximations) and finally the opportunity to reduce the lifespan of everyone on earth by a tenth of a second.

Anything less than 10 milliseconds should be unnoticeable, but 70 billion people having their lives reduced by a hundredth of a second is a greater decrease in lifespan than a single person having their lifespan reduced by 20 years. Unnoticeable does not mean nonexistent—years are just a lot of milliseconds, after all. I think most people would rather inconvenience everyone on earth than bite the bullet and kill one person, but that requires us to determine where the analogy breaks down. When does premature death become an inconvenience rather than a tragedy? If human life is sacred, are milliseconds of a human life sacred?

A utilitarian could argue this recursively: Reducing one person's lifespan by X amount is morally equivalent to reducing the lifespan of 2 people by X/2 amount...after enough iterations, we would have to conclude that reducing one person's lifespan by X amount is morally equivalent to reducing the lifespan of 2^999 people by X/(2^999) amount.

We're also not doing some action X to prevent some outcome Y, so this isn't strictly a question of whether the ends justify the means. We're choosing between two direct harms X and Y and deciding which is worse—should we use utility as a measurement here, or something else?

I realize this breaks the chain, so something will have to be done...

As God, the next person should respond to Reece's post with another caveat.

Response: Ok but you're also God

90% of the African population is killed instantly, fixing the water shortage.

I wish for the ability to reply to my own forum posts.

I believe most Halfers argue that SB should presume the coin to have an equal probability of heads or tails when she wakes up. That's why the issue is considered by many to be unresolved.

I should add that in the game show scenario, if the coin lands on tails (regardless of your guess), you will be brought on the show a second time. But this does not impact your expected revenue right now. In the original SB scenario, earlier guesses do not influence later guesses. Of course, assuming SB has adopted the strategy, she will guess the same thing both times, but this is correlation, not causation. (The strategy has already been adopted.)

The Thirder position is correct, rather counterintuitively. Suppose the coin is flipped 100 times and SB is woken up each time accordingly. The coin will be tails 2/3 of the times she is woken up (on average). Now suppose she is offered $1 for every coin flip she answers correctly (once or both times, depending on the result). A strategy of always guessing "heads" and a strategy of always guessing "tails" both yield $50 on average. Now why is this the case?

A) The expected revenue from guessing heads is (1/3) * $1 (or 33 cents, approx)

B) The expected revenue from guessing tails once assuming the latter strategy is (2/3) * $0.50 (or 33 cents, approx). The lesser monetary value is because she gets $1 after 2 correct guesses, thus yielding an average of $0.50 for each correct guess.

Even with one flip, SB adopts the strategy before she is put to sleep, when the odds of either result are even. When she wakes up, the odds are 2/3 in favor of tails, but the expected revenue that SB will make in that instance of being woken up is the same regardless of the strategy chosen. This follows because SB will be woken up 150 times and earn $50 total, yielding an average of 33 cents approx. per instance regardless of the strategy chosen.

---

Suppose you are placed on a game show and told "We've randomly selected a value 'heads' or 'tails'. Through some obscure selection method, there is a 66% chance that we've selected the latter. If you guess heads correctly, we will give you $100. If you guess tails correctly, we will give you $50." Both selections have the same expected revenue.

You might think that SB is earning the same amount by getting the guess right in the original scenario, but she's not. If the value is tails, she's only getting half the money (on average) right now—she's not ensuring that she guesses tails later by doing so right now, she's already ensured that by choosing the strategy before she was put to sleep.

---

Now suppose that earlier decisions do influence later decisions. SB is told that her second guess won't count, even if she doesn't know it at the time. If her vote counts, she gains the same amount of revenue from heads and tails, and tails is more likely. But guessing heads correctly guarantees a payout, while guessing tails correctly could be inconsequential if this is her second guess. Hence, expected revenue is still equal:

Heads => $1.00 * (1/3) = 33 cents (approx)

Tails => $1.00 (2/3) * (1/2) = 33 cents (approx)

Welcome to the site!

Yes

Saw a lot of YouTube debates. I had some knowledge of debate.org, but I wasn't active on the site. I think DART is probably the best platform for debate at the moment, although it could do with more users.

If you both like writing, you might be interested in a site I made for competitive creative writing. Still in the beta phase, but partly modeled after DART.

Sure, but electing Republicans who complain about the debt is also the will of the people.

That's why it's politically unpopular. But it doesn't need to happen all at once, and the long-term gains outweigh the costs.

Investing is more sustainable than borrowing. It's why universities have endowments.

Norway was the only one I could find, but there could be others. Generally, I think that long-term plans are unpopular in democracies if they come with upfront costs, given that election cycles occur every few years. Norway's executive branch is a monarchy, which might explain why they plan ahead. Of course, there are downsides to that approach. Russia's five-year plan and China's Great Leap Forward both happened under dictators.

Saving is better than borrowing. Investing is better than saving.

A lot of them are. Even then, a home loan is a one-time thing. The US govt keeps borrowing more each year. The fact that the government is still outspending its revenue after 400 years is a huge sign of fiscal irresponsibility. If a significant portion of the budget was invested in index funds, borrowing would be unnecessary. I suppose if we borrowed to invest with a plan to pay off the debt, I could get behind that.

Are you disputing the four examples I linked to, or do you have different criteria for what counts as a default? If you want to continue making payments on time, the US government will have to pay back more than it borrowed, which is why borrowing in the first place is considered fiscally irresponsible.

The US has defaulted on its debt four times. If you want to avoid a fifth, every dollar will need to be repaid with interest.

Youtuber FILMS DEAD BODY, Instantly Regrets It

Party traitors are often seen as a bigger threat than the other party itself. It's why a lot of Republicans support Piers Morgan and Bill Maher for agreeing with them on a few issues. It's also why a lot of Democrats support Mitt Romney. If JK Rowling called herself a Republican, conservatives would despise her, while Democrats would respect her as "one of the good ones."

They can refuse to serve certain products, such as a webpage promoting a gay wedding. They cannot refuse service on the basis of the customer being gay.