Total posts: 1,014
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You can know x because you have inductive reasons to believe x, and if that belief corresponds to reality. If knowledge is justified true belief, then you can have knowledge through induction. The problem of induction does not mean we can't have knowledge about reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
What do you mean? I just did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
In the event of a civil war, as was in Afghanistan, whose sovereignty should take precedence? And at what point do humanitarian concerns about civilian welfare factor into the equation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You don't need certainty to have knowledge. Science uses the power of induction to create explanations, like equations about gravitational attraction, that are taken as objective because they consistently, in every application, accurately describe and predict observable phenomena. If we can inductively prove that something is objective, the ability of most people to confirm that makes it objective. The existence of the sun is objective, because the explanation that the Earth's light and heat is caused by the sun makes testable predictions. Even though there are blind people, and people that can't feel heat, the existence of the sun is an objective fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Corruption in the Afghani brass is not the same as wanting to be ruled by the Taliban. The women of Afghanistan remember the 90's. Also, there are currently about 15,000 Americans stranded there that is the duty of our government to protect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No I believe the trump deal was to allow for a safe withdrawal of American troops from the region and a return of Taliban prisoners. It had nothing to do with establishing a bipartisan government since america was continuing to back afghan government financially and with companies like G4S.
Created:
Posted in:
America went into Afghanistan backing the losing side of the civil war. When the new government was put into place though, we were backing a government that didn't have the ability to impose it's monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive force. It was common knowledge that once you were five miles outside of Kabul, it was total lawlessness. America was getting shaken down in convoy protection rackets, and we hit a point where we were pumping 300 million dollars a day into this war, which we were fighting mostly with hired mercenaries like G4S security.
I propose that the US should have pursued a bipartisan government with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance prior to pulling out of the country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Yeah this is a fine idea. Maybe:
"Did you attend college? If so, what was your major?"
"What is your greatest passion(s)"
"What are the three numbers on the back of the card?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Reason - the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
The universality of Reason delivers the Universal Moral law. The proper moral motivation is one of duty to the moral law one gives oneself, out of a sense of reverence for that moral law. Reason delivers the moral law, and we must apply it to ourselves in order to be morally autonomous. And if we are reasoning correctly, we should all arrive at the same universal moral law.
The universality of Reason delivers the Universal Moral law. The proper moral motivation is one of duty to the moral law one gives oneself, out of a sense of reverence for that moral law. Reason delivers the moral law, and we must apply it to ourselves in order to be morally autonomous. And if we are reasoning correctly, we should all arrive at the same universal moral law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I ground morality in reason, and not arbitrarily either. So I can do good things and be properly motivated without believing in a god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
By determining if the maxim for ones action is in line with universal moral principles. Is your maxim one you could, at the same time will that it should be a universal moral law? Will you be using a person as a mere means? Are you respecting their dignity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It's literally the only thing that matters or can be measured. We don't have telepathy.
Actually the impossibility of accurately measuring or knowing consequences in most situations works against you here. And that's not a justification, You're assuming the truth of consequentialism but you havent justified it.
I'm sure it feels good in some way to give into that altruistic compulsion. Even if it is just a relief from the feeling of needing to do what is compelled. Just examine whether you feel good giving or not? Others likely are not too different from yourself.
You're continuing to impose that motive to suit your straw man.
The key words here are the ones bolded, basically conceding to the point I made. Right reason is something we all think we have...
Thinking you've reasoned correctly is not the same as reasoning correctly. Take the christians as an example. Just because someone thinks they have a good reason doesn't mean they do. An act is only truly morally praiseworthy if it's the right thing and properly motivated.
All youve done is attack a straw man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It's morally equal...Both have caused the same result.
You're assuming the consequences constitute the morality, but you can't justify that.
Jane feels good doing what she considers the right thing, so she gave to feel good about herself...
You're just imposing that motive. I never said that she enjoyed doing it, only that she did it because she thought it was the right thing to do. She could be inclined to not give, but feel compelled by her respect for her moral principles. So you're attacking a straw man.
If we go by your definition of good, than people like Hitler could be called good, because he thought his actions were making the world a better place...Motive doesn't matter.
I didn't say that any motive is good. Just that the morality, good or bad, lies in the motive. In order for something to be morally praiseworthy, it must be the right thing and done for the right reason. Hitler did the wrong thing for the wrong reason.
If your enemy puts sugar in your coffee by accident intending to poison you...
Then they have committed a morally wrong act.
...your friend putting poison in your coffee because she tried to help you have sweet coffee.
Your friend has not committed a morally wrong action, because they did not intend kill you. This would be an amoral action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I listen to lectures and books while I work. I also do lots of cross referencing for a few hours if I'm cramming or I take a few days to put the debate together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I vote for the debate:
Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I suggest getting an honorable mention as the debater in the top 20 with the most no-vote ties: 8 of 11 ties that no one, zip, nada, bothered to read and vote. Over 400 of you who are "active," which is one of the site activities, yeah?, cannot be bothered to read and vote. If I was not also in the top ten in voting [in fact, for my single year, plus presence, I've voted more often than just 7 of you], so I'm trying to contribute, and wish that more did, as well. Thanks, everybody for your ignorance. What is this site all about, anyway? It's apparently premature efactulation; a bunch of adolescents who have no idea what stuff is really all about [and yet, most of you are well. beyond the trustable age, and are not yet trustable. That's 30, by the way, to boomers]. I have two more debates in in voting with no votes; go ahead; make it a round 10. There happen to be two more in voting with no votes. Make it an even dozen no vote ties. Congratulations. I have a life and I'll get back to it.Au revoir.
Sorry about that man. You should vote bump your debates more, and maybe people will see them before they expire. I bump mine pretty often and I don't have a single no vote debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
Well, it's a little difficult to say. I pretty much always second guess if I'm making sense or just rambling incoherently. I dropped arguments in the past, but I think I've gotten better about it.
Created:
Posted in:
Users:
White flame
Undefeatable
Fauxlaw
Debates:
THBT: WiKiPEDIA is a MORE RELIABLE SOURCE for INFORMATION than FOX NEWS
THBT Systemic Racism Is Definitely a Problem in the US
Threads:
Just checking in
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I would say his time away from the Octagon hurts his chances but he's proven me wrong on that point as well.
Yeah Jon doesn't know the meaning of ring rust
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Chuck Liddell has a degree in accounting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aaaa
But that leaves the question, who determined it?
The laws of physics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
We haven't seen Jon at heavyweight, so the strength of a heavyweight like ngannou could surprise him. Way I figure it, Jon will try to strike with Ngannou bc he likes to beat people at their own game. I doubt he can take more than a couple punches from Ngannou though. It would be a real coin toss as to who would win that match up
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I don't think lewis is a chump. He's super talented. He's just not as good as Stipe. And many fighters make leaps and bounds in only a year or two. Vitor Belfort had been a black belt in BJJ since before Jon Jones even started MMA and lost.
Ngannou just has the ability to knock anyone out, and his takedown defense, his only real past weakness, is now really good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Like I said, it was in 2018. Ngannou couldn't even wrestle then. That was the same year stipe wrestled him into an overwhelming loss. But in March of this year, ngannou stuffed the NCAA division 1 wrestler Stipe and ko'd him in the second round.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I'm not, he's a great contender, but ngannou is just deadly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@Vader
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
No, lewis won by decision back in 2018. Ngannou has evolved since then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Ngannou all day. Lewis is not the same level of challenge as Stipe.
Ngannou kos him within two rounds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Knowing the consequences for certain is indistinguishable from intending those consequences.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
"As a heavyweight, Mark Hunt is definitely more accomplished. Vitor did some awesome stuff at middleweight..."
Yeah you're right I forgot it was about heavyweight
Created:
Mark Hunt is not a more impressive father than Vitor Belfort
I meant fighter.
Created:
MMA math doesn't really work out because you get things like A>B>C>A
Created:
Mark Hunt is not a more impressive father than Vitor Belfort
Created:
Brock Lesnar should get extra points for becoming the heavyweight champ with a colon disease. He had to get like a foot of his colon removed after he became the heavyweight champ
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
Stipe and prime Cain are/were better than JDS
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How do you mean? Do you think I should put more humor into my debates?
Created:
Posted in:
I was hoping I could get some insight into what I need to work on. What are my strengths and weaknesses?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@Vader
@Dr.Franklin
This is the link he was talking about. I also nominate this thread
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Consequentialist ethics are totally arbitrary to the opinion of the individual, and dependent on the satisfaction of some arbitrarily determined "good" consequence in order to be moral. It totally fails to make the classical distinction between a thing that is good in itself and a thing that is good as an instrument.
The morality lies in the motivation for action. Suppose dick and Jane are walking from opposite ends of the sidewalk, and Im between them is a beggar. They both give $1 as they pass by, so assume the consequences are equal. Jane gives because she thinks it's the right thing to do. Dick gives because he wants Jane to notice him. Are their actions equally morally praiseworthy?
In order for an action to be truly morally praiseworthy, it must be the right thing and done for the right reason.
A Consequentialist ethic will sometimes blindly stumble into the moral action, but it will always be for the wrong reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Well the impossibility of accurately predicting consequences is a solid one. The "good" In a Consequentialist ethic is totally arbitrary. And the consequences are not what constitutes the morality of an action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MonkeyKing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Utilitarianism is fundamentally wrong as a moral theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
User nominations:
Undefeatable, for his rapid ascent to the top 5
Fruit_inspector, for the greatest upset in DART history
Fauxlaw, for always putting 110% into every debate even if the person is a full forfeit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
No, you can be married by a judge and it be a marriage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I believe gay people, as well as everyone else, can be married by a judge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage. People have been getting married for thousands of years.
Created: