First of all, don't bring up debates in comments, that's what the debate is for.
Second of all, I apologize for the forfeit, I was dealing with IRL stuff and didn't have the motivation nor actual care to debate. I do now and you will be getting my rebuttal sometime tomorrow.
Guys I really appreciate the vote, but I also have like two other debates with no votes, I-I won this at a Concession, guys there's no need, I just don't want the other ones to end up ties. lmao.
I'll look into indeterminism further then, thank you for your criticism, I'll try to be more exact in my wording, a big problem was lack of space for most of the debate, but I'll still look to expounding it. Seeing you are fairly informed up on the debate, would you consider voting, though I would have to remind you (Not because I feel you would, but to be nonbiased) that you regard Undefeatable's arguments through what is brought up here.
Well stated, not to copy you, but yeah his positions do suffer from a lack of demonstration. What did you think of my performance? Subpar, just right? Etc etc, curious of your opinion.
Unfortunately yes, I do agree that in cases (besides definitions) you should be to set rules, but there are no rules that the other participant has to follow them, the most you could justfiably do (you as in a general DART member) is penalize them on conduct.
One more note, if you believe a vote to be fraudulent or the like, report it, and the mods will decide. If you aren't confident enough to report it, then the vote is most likely fine.
As much as I lean towards your side in regards to the topic, CalebEr is completely correct in there criticisms. First of all, in the code of conduct in dart on debates (https://info.debateart.com/help/debates) there is no rule that the Contender must follow all rules or obligations in the description, therefore CalebEr is perfectly within their rights to kritik your entire argument.
Second of all - it is also true that the one who has created a definition that deviates from the sourced or cited definition must provide reasoning for their decision. Therefore the burden of the reasoning does fall to you in order to substantiate your new definition. Definitions are some of the most fundamental pieces of a debate, for them to not be open for argument is absurd.
Kinda, but not entirely. We have no choice over our desires and wants that we act on. You can choose whether or not to do an action, but you don't choose wanting to doing or not doing it
Its all fine, though I have once again barely squeezed in my point, I spent like 10 minutes trying to get it succinct enough to fit within the character limits.
Hm.... I suppose I could take this argument, but I don't know if 10,000 is enough characters. Hm... I'll think about it, if no one takes it for a couple of days I will.
Either challenge me to a debate or go to my actual forum about moral subjectivity, don't flood a place that's inconvenient to type on:
Also - I used the dictionary definitions of both, what gives your opinion more validity than the dictionary? Please explain that to me.
What I mean is that objective morality is something that is true as a law (like the laws of physics) regardless of a mind or anything else. That is the literal definition. Your argument is literally proving my point, morality, as is defined, can literally not be objective. That's how morality works, and that was my argument.
I'm not debating you in a comment section, but there is a fairly easy thing to point out: Exactly. You can't have morality without a mind, therefore you can not have objective morality.
Even if a god did exist - things it said wouldn't necessarily be true. It would still be based on a mind (the literal definition of subjective) and therefore not objective.
I think Mall will have a challenging time rebutting this point, its certainly a consequence of the strangely limiting description, also your game on satire is strong on this one.
Definitely, I could have done waay better if I didn't rush myself. Props to Ancap definitely though. I'm actually planning on redoing this one once I'm not so busy, I have so many goals and stuff I have to write right now that I don't know if I can give this topic the proper respect it deserves right now.
The funny thing was, I was actually only planning on using the philosophical argument for free will, but hey if you wanna give me more impacts: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I won't dismiss your point by just saying it was a joke, but... it kinda was. Now I agree, just because I may or may not have defeated a single syllogism, I just thought it was humorous because I had no idea what Seldiora was talking about, and I just so happened to stumble into a forum topic that educated me about it. And definitely fair, I don't think my argumentation is particularly bulletproof, and I definitely get being lazy.
Indeed. which is why I don't like Kantian Theory, universalizing something is rarely a good approach to anything, much less moral systems.
I'll look forward to any takers :)
on balance
Obviously the definition.
Final Round Sources listed:
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/105/30/10273
[2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hbm.23908
[3] https://www.biausa.org/brain-injury/about-brain-injury/basics/function-of-the-brain
[4] http://www.mayfieldclinic.com/pe-anatbrain.htm#:~:text=The%20brain%20controls%20our%20thoughts,the%20brain%20and%20spinal%20cord.
First of all, don't bring up debates in comments, that's what the debate is for.
Second of all, I apologize for the forfeit, I was dealing with IRL stuff and didn't have the motivation nor actual care to debate. I do now and you will be getting my rebuttal sometime tomorrow.
I apologize for the inconvenience.
I appreciate it! Thank you
It's a full forfeit on Juice's part, votes?
We got voters? Voters?
bump, please vote
Guys I really appreciate the vote, but I also have like two other debates with no votes, I-I won this at a Concession, guys there's no need, I just don't want the other ones to end up ties. lmao.
I concur
Bump
Care to vote?
Huh, maybe, it definitely doesn't translate well.
Yeah it is, but still, I find it just a tad insulting. Maybe I'm just a snowflake.
Once I'm done with my Blitzkrieg, I'll see.
Well that, *and the fact that the possibilities were never demonstrated likely true", but let's not get into debates in comment sections lol
Will do! Thank you
Would you consider voting?
I'll look into indeterminism further then, thank you for your criticism, I'll try to be more exact in my wording, a big problem was lack of space for most of the debate, but I'll still look to expounding it. Seeing you are fairly informed up on the debate, would you consider voting, though I would have to remind you (Not because I feel you would, but to be nonbiased) that you regard Undefeatable's arguments through what is brought up here.
Well stated, not to copy you, but yeah his positions do suffer from a lack of demonstration. What did you think of my performance? Subpar, just right? Etc etc, curious of your opinion.
Would you consider voting?
Mmm... not necessarily, just like CalebEr did here, it could be just to kritik your debate topic.
Unfortunately yes, I do agree that in cases (besides definitions) you should be to set rules, but there are no rules that the other participant has to follow them, the most you could justfiably do (you as in a general DART member) is penalize them on conduct.
I mean.... yeah... you aren't wrong there
One more note, if you believe a vote to be fraudulent or the like, report it, and the mods will decide. If you aren't confident enough to report it, then the vote is most likely fine.
As much as I lean towards your side in regards to the topic, CalebEr is completely correct in there criticisms. First of all, in the code of conduct in dart on debates (https://info.debateart.com/help/debates) there is no rule that the Contender must follow all rules or obligations in the description, therefore CalebEr is perfectly within their rights to kritik your entire argument.
Second of all - it is also true that the one who has created a definition that deviates from the sourced or cited definition must provide reasoning for their decision. Therefore the burden of the reasoning does fall to you in order to substantiate your new definition. Definitions are some of the most fundamental pieces of a debate, for them to not be open for argument is absurd.
I'm gonna have a fun time writing my rebuttal tonight, I have a feeling I can finally bust out MrChris's entire refutation guide.
Is there any way that you could lower the debate time? Considering that RationalMadman said in the forums that he was leaving the site.
Uuh, the very last does is supposed to be doesn't, three characters my bad.
Kinda, but not entirely. We have no choice over our desires and wants that we act on. You can choose whether or not to do an action, but you don't choose wanting to doing or not doing it
Its all fine, though I have once again barely squeezed in my point, I spent like 10 minutes trying to get it succinct enough to fit within the character limits.
Btw, I only had like 15 characters left, so I really milked that space for all it was worth.
Sad days, no clashing for me, have fun with that CalebEr
Hm.... I suppose I could take this argument, but I don't know if 10,000 is enough characters. Hm... I'll think about it, if no one takes it for a couple of days I will.
Yeah, that's essentially what I wrote.
Interesting arguments on Wesley's side, too bad though, could've made a compelling argument........
Just so you know - I sighed when I read that - I suppose. Idk, I feel like killing all humanity is pretty creative compared to: Believe in god.
Mostly the arguments, just.... the arguments.....
I am ashamed of you
I will not respond to anything here. Full stop. I will be more than happy to address your points. Just go to my morality subjectivism ama
Either challenge me to a debate or go to my actual forum about moral subjectivity, don't flood a place that's inconvenient to type on:
Also - I used the dictionary definitions of both, what gives your opinion more validity than the dictionary? Please explain that to me.
What I mean is that objective morality is something that is true as a law (like the laws of physics) regardless of a mind or anything else. That is the literal definition. Your argument is literally proving my point, morality, as is defined, can literally not be objective. That's how morality works, and that was my argument.
I'm not debating you in a comment section, but there is a fairly easy thing to point out: Exactly. You can't have morality without a mind, therefore you can not have objective morality.
Even if a god did exist - things it said wouldn't necessarily be true. It would still be based on a mind (the literal definition of subjective) and therefore not objective.
I think Mall will have a challenging time rebutting this point, its certainly a consequence of the strangely limiting description, also your game on satire is strong on this one.
Nah, you can take it. I'm good without it.
Definitely, I could have done waay better if I didn't rush myself. Props to Ancap definitely though. I'm actually planning on redoing this one once I'm not so busy, I have so many goals and stuff I have to write right now that I don't know if I can give this topic the proper respect it deserves right now.
Oh no, I'll use both, maybe, I'm used to more character space.
eh, its fine
The funny thing was, I was actually only planning on using the philosophical argument for free will, but hey if you wanna give me more impacts: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Its probably a combination of the voters, elo points, structured debate, and all
I won't dismiss your point by just saying it was a joke, but... it kinda was. Now I agree, just because I may or may not have defeated a single syllogism, I just thought it was humorous because I had no idea what Seldiora was talking about, and I just so happened to stumble into a forum topic that educated me about it. And definitely fair, I don't think my argumentation is particularly bulletproof, and I definitely get being lazy.