How do we weight arguments when neither side has framework or weighing system here? 200 character debates are too short for anything. Literally have to add my reasoning there just to weigh.
Again, that is due to conditions which created animals as they are, and humans as humans are now. You wouldnt ever want to be treated like animals are treated, and its not like non-intelligent non-moral deserve to suffer. You are using human morality as an excuse to justify harm. I think thats the opposite of morality.
I will return to our debate, got a bit carried away. But one can debate in comments and in debate now.
"Can you explain that position and provide evidence?"
You agreed there are conditions which stop some humans from being intelligent. If those conditions existed everywhere, no human would be intelligent. So human intelligence depends on the condition that nothing stops it. Also, human intelligence didnt come out of nothing. Animals simply had misfortune that conditions made them as they are now. They shouldnt suffer due to that.
What caused humans to be intelligent is the condition. Doesnt matter what you think the condition is there. Humans are not intelligent on their own now.
Many things fit in such condition. Some humans became intelligent because conditions in the world enabled them to become. Animals didnt choose to be of weak intelligence, just as some humans didnt choose to be more intelligent. Its all due to conditions which enabled intelligence for some.
"where I showed what I meant by worldly conditions by listing possible circumstances"
So if some conditions dont allow a human to ever be intelligent or moral, why would some condition not allowing animal to be intelligent or moral be treated differently?
I never really understood such type of kritiks. If you already agree to definition, then trying to argue against what you agreed is true seems inconsistent. Only if definition is self contradictive (for example, animals being defined as "persons and not persons"), would kritik make sense.
"When I say "will be able to experience" I mean "will be able to experience (in the event that all goes well and they survive)" To put it simply: If a being WOULD understand right vs. wrong or rational thinking if nothing went wrong in their life, then I would count that being as a person."
Thats a different definition now. This is a conditional definition. You are saying "A is person because A would be intelligent if some B didnt happen".
Likewise, animals would be intelligent like humans if conditions allowed them to. So again, if things went wrong for animals to make them less intelligent than average human, then they are still persons like humans who had things go wrong for them are still persons anyway despite those humans never being intelligent or having much morality.
I cant define person as human, because then category "person" doesnt make sense here. It is just another word for human then.
Now, "person" is better defined by characteristics which make a person. Species cannot even be that characteristic, because then person would just be different word for species and would have no any use.
Con agreed to the definition. If he didnt read description, then thats not my fault. Most debates have description which affects actual topic.
Just wait till time runs out. There is no other way to forfeit round. Or if Mall agrees, you can have debate deleted instead. Maybe thats the best way. But as it is now, round can either be posted either wait till time runs out. But you can post completely empty round by typing space instead of letters here. Or just write "i forfeit" in round and post it.
I was never under general anesthesia, and topic seems to confuse the types you want to discuss. But as for people who had surgeries, it actually takes weeks to recover from them, and movements and voice remain different for up to a month or two. Now if thats due to anesthesia or something else or both is a different story.
"If cutting your forehead and bleeding makes you a blood mage, then boxers must be casting spells in every round"
Maybe some boxers are blood mages and box helps them obtain their own blood? But then again, probably difficult to say incantations while getting repeatedly punched in the head.
I cant really blame him for wanting to limit a debate to only one argument which works for him. The usual goal of a debater is to protect his arguments and negate opponent's. Setting up a topic to do that as well seems logical.
Many do need religion to survive, but not muslim religion. That topic would probably be too difficult to even defend. You would have to prove that Islam ensures better survival than any other religion, and for who exactly? Average person?
I dont know whats the deal there. He is not me. And if he says he is, he is still not. Well, actually, I dont care if people think he is really me. I just cant confirm such thing.
I dont know what drives people to all these conclusions, but no, I am not icon, I am not Shila, I am not Mall. Sure, they may be similar to me in some ways, but I cant prevent people from having similarities with me.
I am asking because he is actually using purely AI made arguments in this very debate. If there is no rule preventing voters from rejecting AI made arguments, he is at a disadvantage.
You are going to have to ask mods about the voting issue here. Usually, voters rarely favor ChatGPT arguments. In fact, the use of AI can lead to auto loss every time.
I am curious here, do voters have to accept arguments completely made by AI?
If opponent just posted his arguments, I would have lost there 100% and he would win. I had to forfeit multiple rounds there because I had to sleep.
Just start another debate. Its probably too late for this one now.
@adaptable
I would probably burst into flames if I actually listened to all those songs.
How do we weight arguments when neither side has framework or weighing system here? 200 character debates are too short for anything. Literally have to add my reasoning there just to weigh.
I understand. Maybe would even agree.
Cast one vote maybe? If you want to.
Our battle was legendary!
Expected "Jesus take the wheel"
Much easier to prevent harm if animals are considered persons.
Again, that is due to conditions which created animals as they are, and humans as humans are now. You wouldnt ever want to be treated like animals are treated, and its not like non-intelligent non-moral deserve to suffer. You are using human morality as an excuse to justify harm. I think thats the opposite of morality.
What then would you rather be without: money or love?
I answered both in one comment.
"I much prefer it when debaters work out definition disagreements prior to the debate"
Well, I do say that opponent must agree to definition in description.
"Do you guys want to do the debate"
I will return to our debate, got a bit carried away. But one can debate in comments and in debate now.
"Can you explain that position and provide evidence?"
You agreed there are conditions which stop some humans from being intelligent. If those conditions existed everywhere, no human would be intelligent. So human intelligence depends on the condition that nothing stops it. Also, human intelligence didnt come out of nothing. Animals simply had misfortune that conditions made them as they are now. They shouldnt suffer due to that.
What caused humans to be intelligent is the condition. Doesnt matter what you think the condition is there. Humans are not intelligent on their own now.
Many things fit in such condition. Some humans became intelligent because conditions in the world enabled them to become. Animals didnt choose to be of weak intelligence, just as some humans didnt choose to be more intelligent. Its all due to conditions which enabled intelligence for some.
"where I showed what I meant by worldly conditions by listing possible circumstances"
So if some conditions dont allow a human to ever be intelligent or moral, why would some condition not allowing animal to be intelligent or moral be treated differently?
I never really understood such type of kritiks. If you already agree to definition, then trying to argue against what you agreed is true seems inconsistent. Only if definition is self contradictive (for example, animals being defined as "persons and not persons"), would kritik make sense.
"Animals are incapable of either of those things in any circumstance"
Because world conditions didnt allow them. So animals are persons.
"if not stopped by worldly circumstances"
"When I say "will be able to experience" I mean "will be able to experience (in the event that all goes well and they survive)" To put it simply: If a being WOULD understand right vs. wrong or rational thinking if nothing went wrong in their life, then I would count that being as a person."
Thats a different definition now. This is a conditional definition. You are saying "A is person because A would be intelligent if some B didnt happen".
Likewise, animals would be intelligent like humans if conditions allowed them to. So again, if things went wrong for animals to make them less intelligent than average human, then they are still persons like humans who had things go wrong for them are still persons anyway despite those humans never being intelligent or having much morality.
"will be able to experience or have experienced one of them at some point in their lives"
So terminally ill 2 year olds and people with low IQ arent persons then, along with almost all mentally ill people there.
"I feel like a more fair/logical definition for a person would be a creature that is capable of rational thinking or understanding right vs wrong."
So babies arent persons? People with dementia arent persons then? People with very low IQ arent persons then?
I cant define person as human, because then category "person" doesnt make sense here. It is just another word for human then.
Now, "person" is better defined by characteristics which make a person. Species cannot even be that characteristic, because then person would just be different word for species and would have no any use.
Con agreed to the definition. If he didnt read description, then thats not my fault. Most debates have description which affects actual topic.
Alright.
How would you define a person here?
I only vote on debates where winner is very obvious. Otherwise, people tend to disagree with my vote.
Just wait till time runs out. There is no other way to forfeit round. Or if Mall agrees, you can have debate deleted instead. Maybe thats the best way. But as it is now, round can either be posted either wait till time runs out. But you can post completely empty round by typing space instead of letters here. Or just write "i forfeit" in round and post it.
Thank you all for taking time to vote on my debates here.
Sure, Trump gives some things there. But I had to argue opposite because I was Con.
"Certainly, that is one of the shortcoming's of this website"
Well, its just the selected topic and definitions, just like in many other debate area.
Maybe if there were only neutral topics selected specifically, like on Modern day debate, that would be different.
But this is a site which simply lets users select topics, and that of course results in trap debates being made.
We could set neutral topics, but who decides what is a neutral topic?
Because only undefined "should" topics could maybe count as neutral in many cases there.
As soon as there is a clear definition, it is usually strongly in favor of either Pro or Con.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090074016300123
I was never under general anesthesia, and topic seems to confuse the types you want to discuss. But as for people who had surgeries, it actually takes weeks to recover from them, and movements and voice remain different for up to a month or two. Now if thats due to anesthesia or something else or both is a different story.
Well, sure, hard life for Pro. But definitions could greatly limit it.
"If cutting your forehead and bleeding makes you a blood mage, then boxers must be casting spells in every round"
Maybe some boxers are blood mages and box helps them obtain their own blood? But then again, probably difficult to say incantations while getting repeatedly punched in the head.
I cant really blame him for wanting to limit a debate to only one argument which works for him. The usual goal of a debater is to protect his arguments and negate opponent's. Setting up a topic to do that as well seems logical.
No offense, but I hate both those types of music. I listen to real strong music, such as "Pol Pot tribute - Look at the owl".
Many do need religion to survive, but not muslim religion. That topic would probably be too difficult to even defend. You would have to prove that Islam ensures better survival than any other religion, and for who exactly? Average person?
It happens.
I dont know whats the deal there. He is not me. And if he says he is, he is still not. Well, actually, I dont care if people think he is really me. I just cant confirm such thing.
Sorry, I promise to make future debates much shorter, sorry >.<
Pro tip: dont rush with too much excitement to create debates here. I definitely fucked myself totally there.
I dont know what drives people to all these conclusions, but no, I am not icon, I am not Shila, I am not Mall. Sure, they may be similar to me in some ways, but I cant prevent people from having similarities with me.
That guy is not my account. I dont know what he said, but thats not me. My only accounts on this site are Best.Korea (banned by request) and this one.
I am asking because he is actually using purely AI made arguments in this very debate. If there is no rule preventing voters from rejecting AI made arguments, he is at a disadvantage.
You are going to have to ask mods about the voting issue here. Usually, voters rarely favor ChatGPT arguments. In fact, the use of AI can lead to auto loss every time.
I am curious here, do voters have to accept arguments completely made by AI?
I dont really plan to be unbeatable here. Just create space for my arguments.
One vote?
Cant tag RM because he blocked me, but he will probably read this, so: RM, vote if you want here.
Interesting, but really not the type of magic I wanted to argue for. We all know magic tricks exist.
Easy vote!
Happy we could talk.