The scientific method is a construction by people. But the findings of that method aren't dependent on the personal feelings of the people employing the method.
Well, the scientific enterprise and the findings of science are pretty fundamentally different in the context of this topic. I would be willing to accept a debate titled "the findings of science are not objective." But the methodologies necessitate humans to enact them to arrive at objective conclusions.
Look man, I'm just trying to help you and I'm not accusing you of being deliberately dishonest. The people on here are getting a little miffed about this obscure method of having to pry the debate meaning from you when everyone else just puts It up available to anyone immediately. This is just a particularly provocative title, and there is just no way to interpret the resolve other than, "if (white) people are better than non-(white) people, then it's alright to act on that."
The point is that you could just put the descriptors in the description. But instead of just arguing the resolve and it's descriptive constituents, we have to go on an adventure to pry the hidden double meaning of your phrasing before the debate, otherwise we are going to attack the obvious interpretation of the resolve, and you'll be like, "but you're not reading into it enough." But really, you just weren't upfront about your side from the start.
literally every aspect of the title of the resolve can only be interpreted to mean that white people are better than non-white people and others nothing wrong with believing and acting on that
And the description doesn't help to clarify because the description always says ask questions before accepting. but why would you make it so that we have to relearn definitions of a ton of words we already know before we can have a debate with you about the resolve.
im tempted but i have kind of been piling them on. if no one has accepted within a few days i might.
Cool, thank you
Vote bump. C'mon guys don't let this end in a no vote tie
It's kind of funny how everyone on this site is like an angry dog on a leash
My favorite is, "most lives matter."
misterchris is on the leaderboard. he argued for some YEC stuff before
Dang a FF??
Patience
Vote bump
Finally someone took this debate. I'm excited to see how this one turns out
Vote bump
Thanks guys for taking off all the pressure of crafting a good argument
Yeah I chose this topic expressly because it's a super fair topic that can have reasonable arguments on both sides
Vote bump
Patience, young grasshopper
vote bump
of course, i spell check the whole thing, only to miss my typo in the first line lol
Yeah I think I'm gonna pass on this one. Sorry for all the questions.
Makes me think of dolphins
Vote bump
Haha, it's totally cool man. Just thought I'd give you first crack
Lol Me too
I meant to say the "Theory of evolution" in premise 4. My bad.
Ikr, it's really dissapointing
Ah man, RIP David. This was a good one
Yeah that's not where I was gonna take it lol. I mean that the theory is a factual descriptor of why there is biodiversity
I'm gonna think about it for a day or two and if no one else accepts it, I probably will
Interested? I made this bc of your conversation in a forum post lol. If not I understand, no pressure
That's why simply saying "science" isn't objective is just a bit too broad
The scientific method is a construction by people. But the findings of that method aren't dependent on the personal feelings of the people employing the method.
Well, the scientific enterprise and the findings of science are pretty fundamentally different in the context of this topic. I would be willing to accept a debate titled "the findings of science are not objective." But the methodologies necessitate humans to enact them to arrive at objective conclusions.
The broadness comes from the definition of the word science meaning different things here not from the word objective
Mmm, seems a little too broad
↓↓↓
I'm interested but are you saying that the scientific enterprise doesn't exist without humans , or that the findings of science aren't objective?
vote bump
Vote bump
You're good man I just appreciate the argument
Yup yup 😊
thank you for your time, really. Even if the outcome is a little disappointing.
Thanks guys
Bump
Bump. Please vote. We worked hard on this one
But without my AR-15 how am I going to keep the king of England from waltzing into my house and doing whatever he wants
Look man, I'm just trying to help you and I'm not accusing you of being deliberately dishonest. The people on here are getting a little miffed about this obscure method of having to pry the debate meaning from you when everyone else just puts It up available to anyone immediately. This is just a particularly provocative title, and there is just no way to interpret the resolve other than, "if (white) people are better than non-(white) people, then it's alright to act on that."
The point is that you could just put the descriptors in the description. But instead of just arguing the resolve and it's descriptive constituents, we have to go on an adventure to pry the hidden double meaning of your phrasing before the debate, otherwise we are going to attack the obvious interpretation of the resolve, and you'll be like, "but you're not reading into it enough." But really, you just weren't upfront about your side from the start.
I appreciate it really. I hope someone votes aswell
There is*
literally every aspect of the title of the resolve can only be interpreted to mean that white people are better than non-white people and others nothing wrong with believing and acting on that
And the description doesn't help to clarify because the description always says ask questions before accepting. but why would you make it so that we have to relearn definitions of a ton of words we already know before we can have a debate with you about the resolve.