Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1) Are you a social democrat or democratic socialist?
(Basically David Pakman or Kyle Kulinski)
2) What is the thing that triggers or annoys you the most?
(Anything really)
3) Do you think you have confirmation bias?
(Just search up the last two words you'll understand eventually.)
4) What is your favorite game of all time?
(There is a wrong answer and lynching will be involved)
5) What is worse living a mundane 80 year life or living happily for 20 years of your life?
(These are set in stone you can't change that)
6) If you had a child and were forced into a situation where you had to either die or the child dies, which one would you pick?
(I guess there is a right answer but that depends on what you value)
7) Whose death impacted you the most?
(Can be during when the person was dead or after when remembering stuff. Some celebrity if you are not okay with talking about family)
8) What do you think is the worst thing going on right now?
(Any measurement)
9) What do you think is the best thing going on right now?
(Any measurement)
10) Would you rather be financially stable or be in love?
(Love as long as you are financially stable)
11) Do you think equality is an impossible task?
(As in people are given the same circumstances to work with outside Nature)
12) Spider-Man or Batman?
(Sam Raimi Spider-Man or the Christopher Nolan Batman series)
13) If you had a choice to make one property open source which one could it be?
(Basically something like Pokemon to be free so that fans can make better games or something without lawsuits)
14) What was the most important realization you have come to?
(Something like I knew Christianity was dumb or something)
15) Do you think braindeath is death?
(Basically if you brain stops working would you consider that death)
16) Being able to teleport effectively or run effectively?
(Basically Flash or an effective Nightcrawler)
That is it. Might have more but doubtful.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't hold either view, but if i did I would say 'I am proinnocent life but against guilty life'.I also think it's possible to confuse being hypocritial with being inconsistent.
The pro-life is the stance that murdering life is bad. The distinction innocent doesn't matter because every single child can be assigned with that if you don't consider the mother dying during pregnancy worthy of not calling them innocent. It is basically distinction that doesn't distinguish between the unborn.
Another problem I find most people who advocate for the death penalty I think Religious. Why do you want to kill the person when he could've asked for forgiveness for your specific God?
Another problem is that if the law said something was bad then you are okay with it. So lets say if the law said you are guilty for being alive. Then in this scenario you are against life. Examples of this could be Jews in Germany, people sent to the Gulags, Native Americans forced to take pretty much food stamps due to the other Americans killing their source of food.
Created:
-->
@janesix
How is it not?
Created:
Posted in:
Finished my Soul Level 1 playthrough. This is when you use the pyromancer and don't level up the character a single time and beat the game.
Had problems with:
I was trying to go for the pyromancy achievement as in get all pyromancy and was forced to go through BlightTown to get enemy within. That resulted in a lot of deaths committed by the red dogs. I tried to outrun them but couldn't and was forced either deal with them or not have enough time to deal with the 1 time enemy and get the spell.
Ornstein and Smough were a problem. Mainly due to me forcing the openings instead of waiting for both of them to attack so that I can attack them.
Gwyn was awful. For some reason even though in my last playthrough I didn't miss a single parry I somehow couldn't parry Gwyn a single time which resulted in me blocking or rolling out of the attacks. Eventually I did defeat him.
What I didn't kill:
Hydra in the Ash Lake
Gwyndolin
Kalameet
Manus
Currently in my third playthrough in about a month I am trying out a faith build. I am currently at Ornstein and Smough but didn't realize Ornstein had high lighting resistance which meant I needed more damage from my Sunlight Straight Sword. I am currently farming to get enough souls to boost my dexterity so that my casting speed and damage is increased. Last I checked I was doing about I think 111 or 118 in damage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I have changed my mind. Have the debate open to everyone else and if no one else accepts then I will. Sorry about that. I should really stop accepting debates for reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I am guessing you have to challenge me again? Can you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
The way you frame is kinda a difficult to read.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, I am calling you uneducated, and I further assert that you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't see our conversation as being fruitful, because you are simply averse to God. You do not approach this subject reasonably.
It is not reasonable to conclude something exists because your definitions said so not because you have discussed it or arrived at it with evidence. Your the irrational uneducated person having your delusions higher than what can be stated.
You are wrong. But I am not going to convince you of that. Besides, you aren't fun to talk to. You aren't very polite.
You are wrong. I don't need to convince you to state you are wrong. You are boring and started the bad comments first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Just for Mopac's benefit, perhaps instead of discussing the existence of God we could discuss the existence of a cosmic entity that answers prayers, decides of the fate of dead people and gets upset if you kiss some one of the same sex. For convenience we can refer to that entity as Jeremy.
Given his linking definitions I find it difficult he won't do that yet again like with God = Ultimate Reality God = Truth. What is stopping him from doing that again like a mindless theist parroting from his indoctrination?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Fraud?This includes Dr. Franklin's YEETs and his We are all gonna dies! And all of omar2345 posts. Most of them are frauds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I cannot even grasp that.
Can you make what you said simpler?
So me is a space in a universe which is also a space?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What do you mean here?Based on very simple logic we can deduce that even a non-monism cosmos would (does) act EXACTLY like a Monistic cosmos.
We wouldn't know the difference?
Created:
Posted in:
The purpose of a definition is to clarify what is being discussed.
That isn't what you are doing. We are discussing whether or not God exists. Your definitions makes it inherent therefore there is nothing to discuss. That is like me saying God doesn't exist = reality.
The definition I am giving you of God is "The Ultimate Reality" which is in line with what the church teaches. Besides that, it is the definition you will find in Merriam-webster's collegiate dictionary. The Oxford uses "Supreme Being" which means the same thing.
Why are you using ultimate reality? Instead of reality? Are you saying there is more than 1 reality? A reality that God doesn't exist?
Your entire argument is to say that God is something other than this. Thus, you aren't talking ahout the same thing but you act as you are .You have a non-argument.
My argument is that you are not here to discuss instead indoctrinate. If that wasn't clear see your clear not wanting to discuss about whether or not God exists instead stating it is inherent. So basically the discussion ended the moment it started defining the terms.
And it isn't about me being true. It is about God being true, because God is The Truth. You cannot make an argument that The Truth is a lie. That there is no Truth. If you say, "There is no truth", you undermine your own assertion.
Yet again linking definitions together instead of discussing. Can't defend your God so your resort to using definitions to make inherent? Cheap tactic from a person who lacks even a single justification for their belief in God.
Of course you know this, because you admit that reality exists. That is why you must make God something other than God to have an argument. Otherwise, your argument would amount to, "Prove to me that it is true that there is truth! Ha! You can't! I win!".
Reality exists. God doesn't. That can be the case so you must demonstrate how it is God instead of simply stating God = reality.
And even this whole appeal to epistemological nihilism is a cover. It isn't that you don't know, it is that you know better(in your own reasoning). It is something that comes from pride, even though to the undiscerning it might look like humility. "Oh, he doesn't know". But you aren't simply saying "I don't know." You are saying that nobody can know(because you know better). You are also asserting that God doesn't exist.
I am asserting God doesn't exist given the failure of theists giving an argument for God. I am asserting aliens don't exist given the failure of NASA to find them.
So do you know God doesn't exist? Not at all. You don't even know what God is. You are uneducated, and because you are an unteachable know-it-all who can't stand the idea of not being the smartest most well informed person in the room, you in your pride must knock everyone down to your level. You fancy yourself scientific. But I tell you, if you were in. a room of engineers, they would laugh at you for trying to impress them with your nonsense, and tell you to take your know nothing bullshit to the dirty pot smoking drum circle kids by the river, who might actually be impressed if they weren't as arrogant as you are.
An irrational theist who can't defend or even make an argument for the God he believes calls me uneducated? You were indoctrinated into your way of thinking and frankly can't comprehend what I am talking about. Your lack of understanding shows how uneducated you are.
Created:
Posted in:
Explain to me how linking to definitions together makes you true.Explain to me how I can prove a tree to you when you think a rock is a tree.
Explain to me how you think a tree is the same as a plant even though they are different.
Explain to me how someone can be like you. Indoctrination, boredom, stupidity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
"Can a robot be conscious?" We might have to spend time on what 'be conscious' means, but not on what 'de facto' means!
Well I think that question is pretty shite since there is no arbitrary way of stating conscious but hey isn't everything everything arbitrary? So... I don't know where I was going with this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
I think this should start again by clearly laying out what people should do. You have already had to tamper with the topic which does mean you would have to wait for previous voters to re-do their votes. I personally think this is pretty shitty since I can make the claim that you did this to remove the people who wanted something that you didn't want. Sure my claim can be wrong but given what you have done the claim is given more ground due to this.
I would like this added if you do decide to create this again:
All participants must follow this when answering (The slash represents you pick from either of the two options not both):
1. Yes/No
2. Yes/No
3. Yes/No
4. Yes/No
People can ask for clarification but when the issue has been resolved and does not change the topic drastically your comment and my (bsh1) response will be deleted so that the comments can be directly used to survey the directions the votes are going.
Can you also make the questions simpler?
Example:
1)
Should doxxing protections on this site be given to people who do not use this site?
X is the protection and by stating Yes you are for giving protections to other people and No for not giving them protections.
An example of this could be. omar2345 used dsjpk5 personal information to defame him on DA. If you are yes on this then the moderation team will be removing. If you are not then omar2345 will not have his defamation removed.
2)
Should spam threads be removed?
Link of a spam thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2124/yeet
Saying Yes means you are for removing it and No means you are not for removing it.
3)
Should spam debates be removed?
Link of a spam debate: https://www.debate.org/debates/Convert-Lotus-Notes-to-Outlook-with-eSoftTools-NSF-file-converter-software/1/
(Don't think there is one on DA so I just went on the first page of DDO to find this)
Saying Yes means you are for removing it and No means you are not for removing it.
4)
Should there be a public ban log?
Saying Yes you are for a public ban log. Saying No you are against it.
An example of a public ban log will be: https://pastebin.com/Ukd1F7JC
Everyone must participate or I will send you to the gulags. Joke by the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think whether 'de facto' is the 'technically correct' term for what 3rutal meant isn't worth spending much time on.
What is worth spending time on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
So my burden is to simply pick holes of Christianity not show my own moral system?
I want to make that clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Then how is monism de facto?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Instead of giving proof you just have to believe or accept. Talk about how irrational your views are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Sorry last thing.
Do I need to show my own moral system or do I only show how bad The Bible is as a moral system to follow?
Okay about the things I can challenge you on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Mainly KJV, although other translations will be permissible if needed for further explanation, and we're focusing on the New Testament
Okay.
A rejoinder is essentially a defense of your arguments, I can change the name to that if you want me to
Oh so Round 2 is rebuttals against your position and Round 3 is dedicated to me defending my position right?
No kritiks means don't challenge the topic itself, so like instead of saying it's a bad moral system, saying that there's no such thing as morality in the first place, or saying that Christianity is fake or something like that that challenges the topic itself instead of actually debating the topic
Okay.
Time for arguments 1 week as well.
Don't like what you said here:
Secondly, there is no objective Christian standpoint, and what is truly taught for Christians should really be up for debate as well.
And can you clearly lay out what Pro and Con are doing.
Example:
Pro: Would need to do X
Con: Would need to do X
And state the burden of proof.
I'll accept after that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
First it has to exist right? Yet you can't demonstrate it. Oh well.Quite the contrary, I declare God victorious and your argument even lower than sophistry.
The Ultimate Reality exists. You yourself admit reality exists, so even you believe that there is a way existence is in actuality.
Reality exists. God doesn't exist. Can you comprehend that or am I going to get you lying about my position or change definitions to make God inherent?
Your lack of justification for your belief in God is laughable. I only hope you are a fringe minority theist so that others can actually realize how baseless their positions are so that they can lets say stop stating their dislike over sin like homosexuality etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Sorry had the wrong person as the receiver.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You are talking such nonsense it isn't even worth addressing.
Given up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Axioms are usually reverse-engineered (deduced) from our intuition using logic. Very few systems are built explicitly from the ground up.
Is it in the lines of that?
Rational is a synonym of Logical. (IFF) you believe in cause and effect (THEN) all thoughts and actions are logical consequences of initial conditions.
Logic is a system. Rationale is I think attributing something that relies little on feelings.
Our senses are not intentionally lying to us, they are merely imprecise and incomplete. A good example is the blind men who examine an elephant. [LINK]
Didn't meant deceive as an ill intent. More so something that can be perfect but still rely on our brain which can deceive. I am using deceive as manipulate or not really show everything. I agree with what you said here as in people who are blind can't see observable evidence.
Anything fundamentally separate (external) is undetectable. In order to interact with something, we must have a fundamental similarity to it, that is to say we must be part of the same system.
Solipsism?
De facto Monism is necessarily true.
What is this? Can't find it on Google.
Knowledge is merely data. We do collect data. Whether or not this data is "True" is more of an ontological question.
I consider knowledge to be how we interact with data. Like a theist might say with cause and effect we state God exists. An Atheist might say well then what caused God?
There is nothing to stop individuals from speculating, whether they identify their axioms or not.
Yes.
What is the "it" you are referring to? Are you talking about direct experience versus logical induction/deduction?
It is external surroundings.
I now know that you wrote this and that I have replied to it. This is an example of something that I know.
That know is from knowledge that you consider to be truthful but can't really prove it. Like what I said under what we can do I know not what can get me the actual know. It is mainly used since I can't think of a better word for it.
I trust you will attempt to clarify any misunderstandings.
Yes. I think I did so. Don't really know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Didn't say you should dismiss it.It is not a right wing think tank amd shouldn't be merely dismissed if it was.
Am watching Lion King but posted the link if yoy were interested in looking at it furtger on your own
When you do have the time. I would like a link instead of google.co.uk and saying go find it yourself.
It is a comparison as in you are telling me to search an entire site when you could have just given me a link to something supporting your claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I deleted my comment. Just checked you did.
Sorry for not checking before accusing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It is actually fairtax.org sorry. Your last sentence is incomprehensible to me.
This seems like a right-wing thinktank or something. Is it and can you give a source not an entire site to sieve through? These were my questions if you forgot:
How is your tax proposal more fair than the progressive tax?In what way is it superior?
I was replying to this:
The difference is that the fair tax act has been analyzed by economists and proven to be superior to our current system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Your last sentence is incomprehensible to me.
Replace almost with also.
Is the idea of the UBI to remove the welfare system and only have that?
I check the link.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have stated repeatedly, this is how the church has always understood God. I am not the one using newspeak. But you don't listen very well, and I know you don't because you break my posts into little ADHD chunks when you respond to me.
I only thing I needed to do to prove I don't have ADHD was to quote your entire response. You sure your measurements okay? Guess believing in dumb things leaves your susceptible in other dumb things. Like being a Christian leaves you susceptible thinking you also having knowledge on how to correctly medical examine someone. Argument of ignorance if you didn't understand what you are doing currently.
The Ultimate Reality exists. That is what God is. How is it on me when the only atheist argument is to define God to be something other?
Reality exists. God doesn't. You are defining God to be reality which it isn't. If it was the definitions would be like what you said instead you use the word "Ultimate Reality" as if that makes me wrong. It doesn't. God doesn't exist. Reality doesn't. Is that too much for you to comprehend?
I feel no inadequacy in my position when the opposition to it can only have an argument if they make strawmen. Unless they make a strawman, they have no argument!
Who would have thought an irrational theist would resort to being irrational? You have an unjustified argument for God which is why you argue over definitions inherently leading to God instead of showing evidence because you can't point to it. I wonder why.
The other argument they have is to attack created things such as scriptures and traditions. Tearing down a created thing does not tear down The Uncreated Truth.
Attack? Is that what you call a rebuttal? I can't imagine how you would deal with an actual physical conflict you had to deal with. This is nonsense. I have stuck to God yet you are complaining about things I haven't said.
The point is, there is no argument against God, and denying God is foolish.
We haven't gone past the only argument that matters which is if God exists or not. Your failure to show this shows the lack of knowledge your supposed God gave you to counter said sinners instead maybe just maybe God doesn't exist. You are wrong and don't know what you are talking about. Has that crossed your mind or were you always indoctrinated?
Created:
Example:
Having a pro-life position yet be for the death penalty.
Saying everyone should have equal rights yet not have the same position when it comes to fetuses.
Irrationality defending your side instead of bringing out rational critiques.
1st one was for right wingers.
2nd one was for left wingers.
3rd one is for both sides.
I don't think I am saying too controversial if you aren't the people who personally do this and would like to defend yourself.
There are more but getting the most general points can have the most people understand the context.
I think everyone has been a slave to this but different people have this problem at varying degrees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is the last refuge of know it all dipshits everywhere.
Says the person who changes definitions. Uses a word like "ultimate reality" instead of reality and doesn't provide evidence instead begs the questions by simply using definitions to state God exists not with any evidence or explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
In terms of political tenability one of the nice things about eliminating the income tax in its current form is with that you can also cut out some of the means for the political waste that comes from pandering, manipulation, kick backs, loopholes, and ideological nonsense.
That is if people who did tax avoid when it comes to income tax won't tax avoid on sales tax?
The problem I find is what if they buy a house? That is a lot of money and a portion of their money can be spent lawyering up to reduce taxes on the sale. So basically where most tax can be gained the people with money can simply lawyer up like they did with the income tax. If I wanted to push it a step further even with cheap goods or services they can simply buy things in bulk so that they can warrant the use of a lawyer. The problem isn't fixed it just requires people who are able to buy lawyers to tax avoid to simply use different ways to exploit. I thought of this on the stop I can't imagine what a person with money can find when it comes to loopholes in the sales tax.
Just to make sure we having something simple confirmed. What are people with a lot of money good at? Sustaining or increasing that source whether it be increasing how much money they earn or find tax loopholes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It is more fair for the reasons listed on fairtaxact.org and it has been proven to both increase tax revenue while simultaneously reducing everybody's tax burden.
Can you explain by increasing something as in tax revenue it reduces something as in individual tax burden?
Your .org doesn't work.
It also bring us one step closer to a minimum basic income because of the stipend it sends out.
While almost removing welfare that isn't UBI?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Alec is for the abolishment of income tax for a sales tax. His reasoning is this:
They won't because it would be a small amount. It's not like they will bring a lawyer with them to a grocery store to avoid paying a sales tax. They currently don't do that.
And
An income tax discourages income production. A corporate tax discourages making businesses.A sales tax encourages you saving your money.
And
Not everyone pays the income tax, so it's not the same. The rich don't pay income taxes due to loopholes and they have a lot of money. So even if the average American saves 10% of their money, 1% of sales tax raises the same amount of money as a 2% income tax for everyone.
And
They could save the money for retirement if they need it, or they could invest the money to get more of it. This applies to the poor/middle class. The rich earned their money and can use the money for more investment in companies that create jobs that give people wages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The difference is that the fair tax act has been analyzed by economists and proven to be superior to our current system.
How is your tax proposal more fair than the progressive tax?
In what way is it superior?
Also most NASA scientists believe that intelligent life likely exists on other planets, so your belief is the status quo.
Did I ask for proof or what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
What states?Many states in the US have no income tax and they are doing alright.
We care about wage inequality right or do you mean something else with "doing alright"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Secondly, there is no objective Christian standpoint, and what is truly taught for Christians should really be up for debate as well.
And? Can you give me something to work with like we will be using KJV Bible or something. I would like that added so that we avoid confusion when I do bring in quotes.
What is a Rejoinder?
What does no "kritiks" mean?
What do you mean by number 9?
Please change the time for argument to 1 week.
I think that is the list of complaints right now and if met then I'll accept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Any proof?I think aliens probably exist.
How about any proof your tax would work?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Unless there is a person who works for NASA that can prove that aliens don't exist, I would say my belief in aliens is pretty good.Unless there is a mathematician or an economist that can prove why a sales tax instead of an income tax is a bad idea, I would say that my tax plan is pretty good.
That is your argument. If you accept what you said earlier you accept what I said here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Club made one. Ramshutu made one. Mharman made one. Alec made one as well. How much before you move them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Most of the people who say they want a revolution are too cowardly to commit on it.Don't worry, when the people you support politically bring about socialist revolution, they will do the forcing for you, just like they do everywhere they torture and murder my people.
They care, because anything that goes against the "scientific atheism" or state worship of communist society is considered sedition.
"scientific atheism" is the same thing as state worship of community society?
You would be worshiping the state if it was a monarchy so please stop with the hypocrisy.
Maybe the time is coming soon, and you can be comforted to know that those pesky Christians who preach love of The Truth and goodwill towards man are finally silenced.
I dislike Christians. Doesn't mean I want them murdered if they don't start it as in group representatives advocate and commit murder. Doubtful that can occur and since Christians are very different across the world I hardly see anyone to be a representative of every Christian community. I guess it would have to specific like the Pope in Rome advocates and commit violence which I think justifies people who are impacted by it to act in Rome.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think they can be proved by anything more fundamental. An error would be to read to much into them. For example the 'I' proven by the cogito is not 'a bipedal human' and the 'ultmate reality' is not necessarily the Abraahamic God. But I've given trying to get Mopac to acknowledge the latter!
Mopac has really been indoctrinated. Don't think there is a non-force-able way to help him. Not implying I would do something like that because he is not someone I care about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Do I need to be tell you you are not or tell you you are unqualified to speak about the subject?I am not a mathematician or an economist. Despite that, I think my math is accurate. Are you a mathematician or an economist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But is that principle justified?Yeah. Mopac and Descartes both rely on the principle even the appeance of reality requires there must be something rather than nothing.
Created: