Well I can use induction to verify confidence in the claim that there are minds other than my own. Does that mean epistemic certainty? Of course not. But does it describe the phenomenon of other actors we don't have control over in a testable, parsimonious way? Yes.
I asked for no solipsism because it is more annoying than anything ever. I also, anticipated a potential solipsist that doesn't care how I feel and so I added "probably" so that we can weigh what model is more reliable. We are assuming reality is real lol
Inductive "certainty" is never absolute knowledge. We can only say that one model is a likely explanation since there will likely be updates to it in the future, and all good models of reality are potentially falsifiable.
Yes, it is rude to falsley claim the opponent conceded, but it is actually warranting a conduct point if a debater forfeits a round. I don't think the former is more justified deducting a conduct point than the latter.
It's a victory that isn't worthwhile to the victor. In the end, they accomplished their objective and occupied the hill, but their losses made it not worthwhile.
Well there are the tangible rewards of occupied territory, or political domination of a region. Or even the ability to treat one's own wounded and retrieve one's own dead.
Stalingrad was brutal. Have you ever heard of Tanya Savicheva? She was a russian child who recorded the date and times of her family's deaths in her Diary, all the way down to the last one, her mother:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5735-response-to-pga-2-0
Yeah it's definitely not all
I would if I wasn't afraid of her awesome powers
Pfffft
Yes then that is not solipsist argument, but it sounds unfalsifiable
If the logical conclusion of that model is "the self is all that can be known to exist" then it is a solipsist argument.
Well I can use induction to verify confidence in the claim that there are minds other than my own. Does that mean epistemic certainty? Of course not. But does it describe the phenomenon of other actors we don't have control over in a testable, parsimonious way? Yes.
Even if a professional scientist backed the hypothesis, there are outliers to every dataset, and it would still have no facts.
You're good lol
I asked for no solipsism because it is more annoying than anything ever. I also, anticipated a potential solipsist that doesn't care how I feel and so I added "probably" so that we can weigh what model is more reliable. We are assuming reality is real lol
Yes that is solipsism.
Well thank you for your comments.
I can remove the probably if you really insist, but it's actually more specific to say probably.
Inductive "certainty" is never absolute knowledge. We can only say that one model is a likely explanation since there will likely be updates to it in the future, and all good models of reality are potentially falsifiable.
Thank you, fixed.
It's the flat earth hypothesis. It has no factual grounding to be called a theory.
Lol yeah it's just a joke
Yeah that's what I mean, those living close, regardless of where their power comes from, would have to move.
Can't make a simulation argument? Then what am I supposed to call the projections on the dome you fools call "sun" and "moon"
Not really a choice if the town is nuclear powered, cause if it melts down, even if you chose solar panels, you're gonna have to move
Yes, it is rude to falsley claim the opponent conceded, but it is actually warranting a conduct point if a debater forfeits a round. I don't think the former is more justified deducting a conduct point than the latter.
It makes no sense to give conduct to the debater that forfeited a round.
Well it looks like your opponent isn't going to try, so if you can defend even one argument you'll probably win.
I don't think there is any evidence that the israelites were enslaved in egypt like the bible says.
Yes, I feel prepared to address any issue you have with those theories. After our Big Bang debate, maybe we'll argue Evolution in a formal debate.
this will be interesting
I foresee a series of debates in our future.
No problem
Why forfeit? You said you had a good argument
Interested ?
Modern liberalism oftentimes aligns with socialist economics, that's all I'm saying.
He may not, but modern liberalism is very close to socialism.
Idk what kind of liberalism he's talking about, he didn't specify. But I think that there's always liberalism implicit in socialism is his resolve
Maybe modern liberalism. But not classical liberalism.
Well, even if he defined alien as "israelites alien to Egypt" he'd get rekt
Hard to kritik with 100 characters
Of course it's true. It was on tv.
Fool, earth mice are merely the puppets of the illuminati.
Illuminati has pyramid symbol. Coincidence?
That's what I'm saying lol
100 characters?
Yeah np
It's a victory that isn't worthwhile to the victor. In the end, they accomplished their objective and occupied the hill, but their losses made it not worthwhile.
That is called a pyrrhic victory. But still a victory.
In ancient greece, one tangible way of knowing you won was when the routed side requests permission to retrieve their dead.
Well there are the tangible rewards of occupied territory, or political domination of a region. Or even the ability to treat one's own wounded and retrieve one's own dead.
Winning battles in general
On a "lighter" note, if you like war stories, you should read "Across the Fence" by John S. Meyer, or "Storm of Steel" by Ernst Junger.
Yeah you ain't kiddin'
haha, you can use examples from history as you'd like. I mean, most of human history hasn't had guns.
Stalingrad was brutal. Have you ever heard of Tanya Savicheva? She was a russian child who recorded the date and times of her family's deaths in her Diary, all the way down to the last one, her mother:
"Mama on May 13th at 7:30 in the morning, 1942
The Savichevs are dead
Everyone is dead
Only Tanya is left"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Savicheva