You make a very good case regarding polytheism, but again, I am not familiar at all with that story. Each group has some bad people in it. Its expected that bad things are done, no matter which side we are talking about. As for justifying Hamas, I will not be doing that for two reasons: I. Its a very sensitive topic, II. If Hamas generally does attack polytheists, then I would rather not be justifying them. But I will have to read more about that reason II. I didnt really think about it in that way because I didnt know that there even are polytheists in Palestine, even tho Yazidism is a bit unclear to me. It is labeled as monotheistic religion, but it does have some elements of polytheism.
Well, I guess you are right about Hamas probably hating polytheists. Again, I am not really aware of examples of polytheists being killed specifically for being polytheists in Palestine. Sure, some muslim countries have very harsh punishments for apostasy (example: converting from islam to polytheism), while some other muslim countries have no punishment for apostasy. I cant really imagine Hamas liking polytheists much, but right now their main enemy is Israel's military. I dont really know whats it like in Palestine because I was never there, but I cant make assumptions on what they would do.
I dont know how Jews treat the polytheists, so I wont be going in that discussion anyway. Christianity, islam and judaism are all against polytheism. The only question is how far each of them go in practice. Polytheism and monotheism are always mutually exclusive.
"Dude you can not be so stupid as to believe that claims are arguments and not the premises behind those claims. I refuse to believe you are literally that stupid, but if you are please kill yourself so you don't accidentally pollute the gene pool at some point"
I said arguments are made out of claims, which is a fact. Damn, you really went all in on that one, didnt you?
"would further imply that you believe October 7, was justified"
I am not going to go around justifying that, because it would upset people and I kinda promised to mods that I would stay away from too sensitive topics.
Sure it does. You can pretend that it doesnt, but clearly, not all topics are equally received. To claim that they are would destroy your argument, because all arguments are technically made out of claims which are also like topics of their own, which then negates your argument of "retarded arguments", as you are saying that there are retarded topics, which then negates what you said at start. People have different levels of tolerance for different topics. When I argued that some women get turned on by being raped, no one cared much because its not really that sensitive topic.
Again, you dont get to determine who is a retard, and if your definition of "retard" is not being well received by others, then that is a very retarded definition, but still, person is better received if those topics are avoided. As for your arguments, making a few random claims here and there doesnt really count as debating. Sure, while I did that way of "debating", no one cared either. But thats not really debating.
Lol sure, as if no person on this site gets upset by sensitive topics. I aint defending anything anymore which will cause mass upset. The fun from that is not worth all the drama that would come later.
"I think a more arguable topic is whether Israel's war crimes are worse than Hamas"
Well, that one is interesting. The numbers certainly dont favor Israel. I mean, 60000 civilians killed by Israel vs 1000 killed by Hamas. But maybe Con could argue something else there.
"I mean when you say that Israel did war crimes you are not saying that a few rogue individuals did it and you are not saying that every single individual did it."
Sorry, but you dont get to determine what I am saying. Not sure why you even convinced yourself that you could do that.
"It would mean that there is a systematic effort to do them that is top down."
That is a very unclear definition, because I dont know what you mean by "systematic effort". If you mean majority, no one is arguing that. If you mean government, clearly not all parts of government think same. If you mean just the leader, then maybe that can be argued, but given that he is already wanted for war crimes, might be an easy win as well.
Although how to define unnecessary is a bit tricky. If I define it as "Not needed for Israel's survival", then that might work. If I define it as "Not needed to win the whole war", then that might work as well.
This is a good topic to debate. Might give it a try. Although my topic would probably just be "Israel has commited war crimes", with war crimes being defined as unnecessary harming of civilians. A bit more simple.
Maybe just copy text from debate to it. Otherwise, it might have difficulty telling what is part of debate and what isnt. As for AI adding new arguments, yeah, I dont know how to fix that. Maybe specifically instruct it not to add own arguments.
ChatGPT takes every claim as true in debate unless it thinks it was negated by some claim? I guess maybe, just maybe, ChatGPT could be a good voter. Not sure if it is possible to introduce AI voter on this site, but it would be kinda fun.
So topic is just white vs black? Well, there is some space to argue there too. What counts as advantage? And do you mean all white people? Some whites are way below some black people, in wealth and everything. Also, black people do have some important advantages, like bigger dick on average and generally higher reproduction rate to replace white people. So yes, there is space to argue.
I am happy as long as there is any. On my previous account, I had like 150 debates without any votes. But I guess it would be better if vote wasnt a tie, because thats same result as no votes 🤔
Unless you get messages from God, it is a good doctrine since scripture is said to have divine inspiration and to be a word of God, where words of people arent exactly words of God.
Serious debate is all about definitions, but if you want something else here, then fine. I just dont see how is it possible to argue this with no agreed definition. Its about as technical as it gets.
This depends completely on definition of "wet". If it is "covered with water", then its yes in some cases, no in other cases. Really, cant debate this without a definition.
"A married couple with a nude profile picture for example (yes, this happened)."
Lol
To be fair, images and videos arent exactly protected by free speech, not even in USA. Free speech usually protects words and text. Now if censorship includes censoring more than just words and text, such as images, then I guess in that case, censorship can be justified.
Spam bots are different, I guess. If someone posts 1000 comments in 5 minutes in one place, he is effectively censoring everyone else by making the site impossible to use. Its kinda like when in conversation, person shouts and doesnt let anyone else talk.
You make a very good case regarding polytheism, but again, I am not familiar at all with that story. Each group has some bad people in it. Its expected that bad things are done, no matter which side we are talking about. As for justifying Hamas, I will not be doing that for two reasons: I. Its a very sensitive topic, II. If Hamas generally does attack polytheists, then I would rather not be justifying them. But I will have to read more about that reason II. I didnt really think about it in that way because I didnt know that there even are polytheists in Palestine, even tho Yazidism is a bit unclear to me. It is labeled as monotheistic religion, but it does have some elements of polytheism.
Well, I guess you are right about Hamas probably hating polytheists. Again, I am not really aware of examples of polytheists being killed specifically for being polytheists in Palestine. Sure, some muslim countries have very harsh punishments for apostasy (example: converting from islam to polytheism), while some other muslim countries have no punishment for apostasy. I cant really imagine Hamas liking polytheists much, but right now their main enemy is Israel's military. I dont really know whats it like in Palestine because I was never there, but I cant make assumptions on what they would do.
I dont know how Jews treat the polytheists, so I wont be going in that discussion anyway. Christianity, islam and judaism are all against polytheism. The only question is how far each of them go in practice. Polytheism and monotheism are always mutually exclusive.
"As you are clearly a polytheist, I should remind you that Hamas and their followers, and allies throw polytheists off buildings."
Thanks for reminding me.
"Dude you can not be so stupid as to believe that claims are arguments and not the premises behind those claims. I refuse to believe you are literally that stupid, but if you are please kill yourself so you don't accidentally pollute the gene pool at some point"
I said arguments are made out of claims, which is a fact. Damn, you really went all in on that one, didnt you?
"would further imply that you believe October 7, was justified"
I am not going to go around justifying that, because it would upset people and I kinda promised to mods that I would stay away from too sensitive topics.
"It doesn't matter what topics are avoided"
Sure it does. You can pretend that it doesnt, but clearly, not all topics are equally received. To claim that they are would destroy your argument, because all arguments are technically made out of claims which are also like topics of their own, which then negates your argument of "retarded arguments", as you are saying that there are retarded topics, which then negates what you said at start. People have different levels of tolerance for different topics. When I argued that some women get turned on by being raped, no one cared much because its not really that sensitive topic.
Again, you dont get to determine who is a retard, and if your definition of "retard" is not being well received by others, then that is a very retarded definition, but still, person is better received if those topics are avoided. As for your arguments, making a few random claims here and there doesnt really count as debating. Sure, while I did that way of "debating", no one cared either. But thats not really debating.
Lol sure, as if no person on this site gets upset by sensitive topics. I aint defending anything anymore which will cause mass upset. The fun from that is not worth all the drama that would come later.
Con's profile photo is cute. Its difficult to vote against that.
Nah, it will trigger people.
Vote? Easy.
"So Israeli has killed 7 times more civilians than Hamas did, and injured much more civilians."
It was a typo here. Its 70 times, not 7 times.
"I think a more arguable topic is whether Israel's war crimes are worse than Hamas"
Well, that one is interesting. The numbers certainly dont favor Israel. I mean, 60000 civilians killed by Israel vs 1000 killed by Hamas. But maybe Con could argue something else there.
"I mean when you say that Israel did war crimes you are not saying that a few rogue individuals did it and you are not saying that every single individual did it."
Sorry, but you dont get to determine what I am saying. Not sure why you even convinced yourself that you could do that.
"It would mean that there is a systematic effort to do them that is top down."
That is a very unclear definition, because I dont know what you mean by "systematic effort". If you mean majority, no one is arguing that. If you mean government, clearly not all parts of government think same. If you mean just the leader, then maybe that can be argued, but given that he is already wanted for war crimes, might be an easy win as well.
"It's impossible to argue the Con side."
Well, I am open for suggestions.
"It's a bullshit definition that you would qualify a few rogue soldiers going rogue is enough to say "Israel" did war crimes."
Well, no one is arguing that everyone in Israel commits war crimes, so really, the only thing thats left is "some".
Really looking forward to arguments like "There are no civilians in Palestine".
I am also tempted to debate that Hamas's attacks on Israel are justified, but that might trigger some people lol
Although how to define unnecessary is a bit tricky. If I define it as "Not needed for Israel's survival", then that might work. If I define it as "Not needed to win the whole war", then that might work as well.
This is a good topic to debate. Might give it a try. Although my topic would probably just be "Israel has commited war crimes", with war crimes being defined as unnecessary harming of civilians. A bit more simple.
Maybe just copy text from debate to it. Otherwise, it might have difficulty telling what is part of debate and what isnt. As for AI adding new arguments, yeah, I dont know how to fix that. Maybe specifically instruct it not to add own arguments.
ChatGPT takes every claim as true in debate unless it thinks it was negated by some claim? I guess maybe, just maybe, ChatGPT could be a good voter. Not sure if it is possible to introduce AI voter on this site, but it would be kinda fun.
Its a trap!
"I tried having ChatGPT do a breakdown on this debate"
You didnt have to bother that much, but thanks for voting.
I like you. You are fighty. You know, this site has forum too. Most of the debates happen there I think.
So topic is just white vs black? Well, there is some space to argue there too. What counts as advantage? And do you mean all white people? Some whites are way below some black people, in wealth and everything. Also, black people do have some important advantages, like bigger dick on average and generally higher reproduction rate to replace white people. So yes, there is space to argue.
"Meaning whites have an unfair advantage over non whites"
Are white people superior to asian people? Or does this topic just limits itself to white vs black?
I would accept, but I cant.
Cast a tie breaking vote? Pretty please? 😭
I am happy as long as there is any. On my previous account, I had like 150 debates without any votes. But I guess it would be better if vote wasnt a tie, because thats same result as no votes 🤔
Thats it from me. This was a very fun debate!
I dont think those games are made specifically only for degenerates. Other people can play too.
"That's because you're an atheist materialist nihilist communist antinatalist pessimist satanist abortionist who needs Jesus."
How can you be both Satanist and atheist? Oh I get it. All atheists are secretly Satanists 😉😉
Well, I did set character limit too high in this debate. This is probably too much text for me and for voters.
Unless you get messages from God, it is a good doctrine since scripture is said to have divine inspiration and to be a word of God, where words of people arent exactly words of God.
Okay 😅
I dont vote, sorry. But given that your opponent forfeited, someone else will probably vote.
Serious debate is all about definitions, but if you want something else here, then fine. I just dont see how is it possible to argue this with no agreed definition. Its about as technical as it gets.
This depends completely on definition of "wet". If it is "covered with water", then its yes in some cases, no in other cases. Really, cant debate this without a definition.
"A married couple with a nude profile picture for example (yes, this happened)."
Lol
To be fair, images and videos arent exactly protected by free speech, not even in USA. Free speech usually protects words and text. Now if censorship includes censoring more than just words and text, such as images, then I guess in that case, censorship can be justified.
Spam bots are different, I guess. If someone posts 1000 comments in 5 minutes in one place, he is effectively censoring everyone else by making the site impossible to use. Its kinda like when in conversation, person shouts and doesnt let anyone else talk.
Thanks for the vote!
Yeah, I did focus too much on definitions lol
I kinda like it. Might even use it in my other debates.
Anyway, I lost interest in whatever this is. It started as fun, but now its kinda boring.
"So once you are disproven you will move the goalposts"
You dont have to disprove all those arguments. No one is forcing you. But then will they be... not disproved? ☹
Thanks for the vote!
Dea vult!
I am just here to express my views. If it makes me a celebrity, so be it.
Vote? Just one? 😅