This is too easy for pro. You should make it a video game character, bc of course a guy who can carry Eifel towers worth of gold could kill a human in a fight.
Yeah I felt really bad that I messed up on my second round. Because this was the debate that I was very excited about. I saw one of these wars coming, but I still don't know if I could have convinced the voters that it would turn into a world war
It's really okay bro. I made a mistake, and the debate can just move forward. I don't really want to restart it because I've potentially got a lot of busy stuff to do here in the near future. I'm just sorry that you don't get to write your final rebuttals. We can just write our closings and let the judges have at it
Sorry about the typo. The sentence: "The growing strength of the nations surrounding China, it’s historical tendency to lash out against threats, and the juxtaposed commitments of the Chinese and Taiwanese governments to Taiwanese independence."
should've ended with"...is reason to foresee Chinese aggression."
Ah man, I am so sorry for missing the deadline. I really thought I could squeeze this argument in this week, But I guess not. I'm willing to continue this debate if you are, or you can just have the w, and I'll recreate this debate, it's up to you.
The only context in which I can see possibly justifying a moral duty for a soldier to kill would be in a just war. Otherwise, I can't say that soldiers have a moral duty to kill. That's a different form of duty.
"I'm pointing out that "respect for ones duty" is NOT a reward itself."
Yeah, sure. Respect doesn't have to be rewarding. Acting morally doesn't have to be rewarding.
"The feeling you get when you either self-recognize or when others recognize you for "respecting ones duty" that feeling of "I am a good person" that good feeling is the reward function."
The reward doesn't constitute the morality.
"A lot of people throughout history have used "respect for ones duty" to get people to do all kinds of atrocious things."
Okay? You asserted that there is no motivation besides feeling good to do ones moral duty, and I gave the example of respect for ones duty to the moral law as a defeater. Also, I'm calling on the motivation of respect for ones duty to act morally, so it makes no sense to say that's the same as calling on someone's respect for their perceived duty to do something immoral. I don't think we have a duty to act immorally.
"Nope. A debate requires technical definitions. A debate resolution must be logically-coherent."
Which it is.
"If you check the definition of "truth" you'll find that it requires correlation with "fact" and "fact" must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary."
Truth is a property of sentences. We can know that all bachelor's are unmarried without meeting bachelor's and asking them.
"This is indistinguishable from moral impulse and or moral intuition and or moral preference and or PURE UNFETTERED OPINION."
Nope. Just because you define right as moral opinion does not mean that is correct. I gave a non-opinion based, right action in the debate.
"Does this inverse definition of "RIGHT" leave any room for morally neutral actions and or motives ?"
Yes, and I gave an example of an amoral motive in the debate.
A reward function is a core reinforcement mechanism."
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that respect for ones duty isn't motivated by reward, or that it isn't grounds for granting points in the debate?
How much do you need defined to know what we're talking about? Just use the normal, applicable definitions, that's what you should assume.
Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
Right: morally good, justified, or acceptable.
Wrong: unjust, dishonest, or immoral
I debated this with seldiora
My side gets easier to argue with each passing day
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/26/russia-reasserts-right-to-use-nuclear-weapons-in-ukraine-putin
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/03/23/if-russia-uses-wmd-ukraine-fallout-could-trigger-nato-response-key-lawmaker-says.html
This is too easy for pro. You should make it a video game character, bc of course a guy who can carry Eifel towers worth of gold could kill a human in a fight.
Yeah I felt really bad that I messed up on my second round. Because this was the debate that I was very excited about. I saw one of these wars coming, but I still don't know if I could have convinced the voters that it would turn into a world war
Are you referring to infantry units? Because a combat unit could include fighter squadrons, anti aircraft gunners, sailors, etc.
Because no rounds were forfeited
I think you're looking at the required rating. It's a 10k character limit.
Sorry, but I just don't have the time right now to retype my argument
It's really okay bro. I made a mistake, and the debate can just move forward. I don't really want to restart it because I've potentially got a lot of busy stuff to do here in the near future. I'm just sorry that you don't get to write your final rebuttals. We can just write our closings and let the judges have at it
Feel free to continue as usual. I'll just take the conduct point. I mainly wanted you to know that it was an accident.
Woops
Oh man, I clicked the publish button and confirmed, but I guess I forgot to press it again in the review debate page.
All good, I don't sweat it
Sorry about the typo. The sentence: "The growing strength of the nations surrounding China, it’s historical tendency to lash out against threats, and the juxtaposed commitments of the Chinese and Taiwanese governments to Taiwanese independence."
should've ended with"...is reason to foresee Chinese aggression."
Haha, don't worry, I'll get it posted in time
That was a fun debate. I love combat sports and I gathered a lot of great material for that debate.
Yeah absolutely me too. This is a topic I've given some thought to, so I'll make sure I don't forget.
Ah man, I am so sorry for missing the deadline. I really thought I could squeeze this argument in this week, But I guess not. I'm willing to continue this debate if you are, or you can just have the w, and I'll recreate this debate, it's up to you.
Go right ahead
Thank you for voting
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Do what?
I really think you should've given arguments to pro, since I conceded the debate.
Thank you for voting
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
The only context in which I can see possibly justifying a moral duty for a soldier to kill would be in a just war. Otherwise, I can't say that soldiers have a moral duty to kill. That's a different form of duty.
"I'm pointing out that "respect for ones duty" is NOT a reward itself."
Yeah, sure. Respect doesn't have to be rewarding. Acting morally doesn't have to be rewarding.
"The feeling you get when you either self-recognize or when others recognize you for "respecting ones duty" that feeling of "I am a good person" that good feeling is the reward function."
The reward doesn't constitute the morality.
"A lot of people throughout history have used "respect for ones duty" to get people to do all kinds of atrocious things."
Okay? You asserted that there is no motivation besides feeling good to do ones moral duty, and I gave the example of respect for ones duty to the moral law as a defeater. Also, I'm calling on the motivation of respect for ones duty to act morally, so it makes no sense to say that's the same as calling on someone's respect for their perceived duty to do something immoral. I don't think we have a duty to act immorally.
"Nope. A debate requires technical definitions. A debate resolution must be logically-coherent."
Which it is.
"If you check the definition of "truth" you'll find that it requires correlation with "fact" and "fact" must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary."
Truth is a property of sentences. We can know that all bachelor's are unmarried without meeting bachelor's and asking them.
"This is indistinguishable from moral impulse and or moral intuition and or moral preference and or PURE UNFETTERED OPINION."
Nope. Just because you define right as moral opinion does not mean that is correct. I gave a non-opinion based, right action in the debate.
"Does this inverse definition of "RIGHT" leave any room for morally neutral actions and or motives ?"
Yes, and I gave an example of an amoral motive in the debate.
"'What do you mean by reward function?'
A reward function is a core reinforcement mechanism."
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that respect for ones duty isn't motivated by reward, or that it isn't grounds for granting points in the debate?
How much do you need defined to know what we're talking about? Just use the normal, applicable definitions, that's what you should assume.
Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
Right: morally good, justified, or acceptable.
Wrong: unjust, dishonest, or immoral
What do you mean by reward function?
I defined moral law in the description, and Intel defined universal in r1
What terms are you referring to?
Vote bump
respect for ones duty
In the dick and Jane example, I never said it made her feel good. You're painting that motive onto her, so the criticism doesn't apply.
Happiness isn't intrinsically good
Can do
Please consider voting
Vote bump
My original draft got deleted, so I had to rewrite it as best I could this morning.