No.... that's not at all true, your resolution implies that the actual motivation for converting doesn't matter, only that they did. Also, tons of theists say they have scientific groundings for their religion... As a former theist, I believed in science and religion. You have no idea what you're talking about here.
That's because you've already had this debate, and lost.... nearly everytime (you might have actually lost everytime if I missed something), and all of the votes are logically consistent. No one wants to debate the same argument over and over again, whenever there seems to be no sign of you actually engaging in arguments or any noticable evolution in your arguments
Also, not what that means, it could mean a variety of things.
1) Nobody has the time/desire to debate this argument
2) Nobody considers this debate as worth their time/effort
3) Nobody wants to debate you specifically regarding this debate
4) Everyone agrees with this topic
Notice that none of the above conditions mean that the topic is necessarily true.
I mean, I agree with that typically - saying otherwise, or that something is good because it is natural, is actually a logical fallacy. The logic, however, seems to be hypocritical considering some of your other debates, such as; nobody accepts homosexuality, your plan for everybody to accept homosexuality, and other debates like it
Mm, nah it's cool, mostly I want to see if there are any more topical definitions, and the goal post described isn't quite what I think the resolution would imply, it could be true that I agree with all the assertions in the descriptions, its just to let you know that that is the approach I will take when looking at the debate.
As you are a very talented debater, I look forward to the following debate - though as outlawing kritiks is not something you did, I'll take everything in the description as an assertion, not a rule
This one really interests me, but I'd have to do a bunch more research before I would consider taking it myself. Maybe if no one else grabs this one I will after some more research.
And taking my statements and trying to argue that they mean what he wants them to mean... its maalll.. You're still wrong. That statement supposes that heterosexuality isn't necessary for human reproduction, nothing of what you think
Wagyu, all of my claims are hyperlinked. All you have to do is go to the first round and find where I claimed it, from there, just click the annotated number directly beside it.
Thanks! And no worries, Its already pretty far into development, I'm doing some tying up and summations currently, well not right now right now, but I'm around there writing it.
Keep on talking and talking, the fact that i debunked every argument you even tried to imply speaks volumes about the actual evidence you have for such a view. You have no idea what you're talking about, as I have demonstrated thusly. Fauxlaw and I are as separate as can be, and yet even he agreed with my arguments in this debate. This is not a biased vote.
I don't particularly like to judge on S&G as long as both sides are readable and not word salads, I'm okay with tieing that score, but it is up to the voters not the debaters.
That's fair I suppose, I had fun with the debate, and if I were to do it again, I'd probably elaborate more on that point, but it is what it is. I'm glad you got the vote out and the level of effort is considerable so thanks again.
Truthfully, a lot of this was in preparation for a debate with you or someone else of your caliber, but I look forward to seeing how Wagyu argues the point.
I'm not completely sure if this is what you did, but please only use the arguments themself to inform your vote, don't change your vote based on other voters takes.
No, my point was that these supposed categorical imperatives are useless. "Stealing is wrong" that can not be a categorical imperative. Let's say you and your family are starving, then should you steal? Or should you let your children starve? They are based on a binary view of moral works, no good will is good without a means. That does not work fundamentally. Nothing exists in a vacume, if anything, your "categorical" imperatives are more hypothetical than the "hypothetical" imperatives. I don't know which example of a scientists your talking about, nothing is universal! You can have widely applicable rules, but trying to determine something as universal will fail, because almost nothing can be universal. There are actions that are universally bad, but a lot of these actions even have nuance themself.
Its a moral action because it determines the suffering or pleasure of individuals, let the earth suffer through overpopulation, or stop it and let the entire world die out. Literally all moral principles are based on ends. Now, standards may or may not have wide applicability, and then you can extrapolate from there.
You know lets look at this in depth for a bit: "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" Therefore if there is a single instance of inconsistency, that action is immoral. Having children is then immoral, having sex is immoral, deciding to drive on the highway is immoral, etc, etc... If a maxim has to be universal in order to be "good" then so many things aren't I suppose you shouldn't even be on the computer right now.
Except I could easily just define accepting as what it usually means and not care what you think it means. You wouldn't be arguing for the resolution, if you want your argument to work here is the resolution, "Your proposal to have all people do homosexuality/same sex marriage." By the way, homosexuality and same sex marriage aren't the same thing.
That moral value, devoid of means or ends, is practically worthless. Yes, it's good to have them, but only basing what is good and what is not good off of that small amount of moral value is not only dangerous but logically inconsistent. In order to say that this intent is actually "good" you have to think about the multiple aspects that make something good or not good, the intent itself, the means of accomplishing that intent, and the results, otherwise you are leaving such a wide void open.
Okay, "People should have sex for reproduction" you apply that as a universal law and bada boom, that will lead to overpopulation at this rate, so people should just stop having sex? Well no, you might say, "People should have sex to a degree?" Well what degree, is that arbitrary, and my entire point is how messy it is, because it's only looking at one dimension of moral theory, and doing that limits your actual moral understanding of something.
News flash, hypothetical imperatives as you like to call them, is what 95% of moral debate, philosophy, and even real-world practicality, we only use the other sort to test things that have happened, and those sorts of things we can look at the results, means, and intent, so that isn't needed.
You are completely missing the point, people can do bad things with good intentions, especially practically speaking. Moral rules have dimensions and scales, they are ever so rarely binary.
"Goodwill should be good because it doesn't need a qualification to be good"
No that's asserting that because that if this super-specific thing works universally than it's moral. I think someone brought up an excellent point, by that logic a lot of minorities would be acting immorally, a lot of things would be considered moral that isn't, etc, etc, morals aren't universal.
If something brings about bad results, it is not good, maybe it was intended to be good, but that doesn't mean it is good. Good must be demonstrated like anything else, you have to actually prove that x should be ascribed as good, that's how logic works
No no no, all good's must be "qualified" i.e, shown to actually be good, something is not intrinsically good, ascribing the adjective "good" to the front it is like me saying, "Blue water is blue." I didn't notice.
No, you use logic and an axiom that people agree to, you can apply logical conclusions, for example: if we assume a standard of x, then using x we can apply y and z. These situations aren't black and white they aren't binary, they are more often than not a scale. As all moral systems are. There is nothing that is "good" without qualification, that doesn't exist. You have to find a shared good.
That's not how that works, I could care less if its "in line with universal principles" I care about getting to the most good result with the most good means.
Ah, too bad, i'll definitely be following this one
I actually think that this argument isn't compelling reason to believe that no gods exist... hmmm
No.... that's not at all true, your resolution implies that the actual motivation for converting doesn't matter, only that they did. Also, tons of theists say they have scientific groundings for their religion... As a former theist, I believed in science and religion. You have no idea what you're talking about here.
That's because you've already had this debate, and lost.... nearly everytime (you might have actually lost everytime if I missed something), and all of the votes are logically consistent. No one wants to debate the same argument over and over again, whenever there seems to be no sign of you actually engaging in arguments or any noticable evolution in your arguments
Also, not what that means, it could mean a variety of things.
1) Nobody has the time/desire to debate this argument
2) Nobody considers this debate as worth their time/effort
3) Nobody wants to debate you specifically regarding this debate
4) Everyone agrees with this topic
Notice that none of the above conditions mean that the topic is necessarily true.
I mean, I agree with that typically - saying otherwise, or that something is good because it is natural, is actually a logical fallacy. The logic, however, seems to be hypocritical considering some of your other debates, such as; nobody accepts homosexuality, your plan for everybody to accept homosexuality, and other debates like it
Mm, nah it's cool, mostly I want to see if there are any more topical definitions, and the goal post described isn't quite what I think the resolution would imply, it could be true that I agree with all the assertions in the descriptions, its just to let you know that that is the approach I will take when looking at the debate.
As you are a very talented debater, I look forward to the following debate - though as outlawing kritiks is not something you did, I'll take everything in the description as an assertion, not a rule
I'm still recovering, and I need to do some research, but this looks like a compelling one
Sorry about that, kinda super sick, you can write another argument if you like, I should be able to get a argument up in a day or two
I'll be voting soon, and as I am currently debating you in another detailed debate, I don't think anyone can claim "bias!"
This one really interests me, but I'd have to do a bunch more research before I would consider taking it myself. Maybe if no one else grabs this one I will after some more research.
And taking my statements and trying to argue that they mean what he wants them to mean... its maalll.. You're still wrong. That statement supposes that heterosexuality isn't necessary for human reproduction, nothing of what you think
Wagyu, all of my claims are hyperlinked. All you have to do is go to the first round and find where I claimed it, from there, just click the annotated number directly beside it.
what? How so? Con has more goalposts than pro, and I had one of the strongest gorilla's put up.
I hope I can do it justice
Thanks! And no worries, Its already pretty far into development, I'm doing some tying up and summations currently, well not right now right now, but I'm around there writing it.
Indeed
You clever one you, you just pulled an Alex O'Connor!
Oooh, sounds like a good time, lol. I'll challenge him after I have my argument written for our debate.
Keep on talking and talking, the fact that i debunked every argument you even tried to imply speaks volumes about the actual evidence you have for such a view. You have no idea what you're talking about, as I have demonstrated thusly. Fauxlaw and I are as separate as can be, and yet even he agreed with my arguments in this debate. This is not a biased vote.
Definitely an interesting argument, I'll get into my next round shortly then, probably a couple of days for school and all.
I don't particularly like to judge on S&G as long as both sides are readable and not word salads, I'm okay with tieing that score, but it is up to the voters not the debaters.
Oh? This will be a fun challenge then. I look forward to your response
okay? That doesn't justify the vote. You have to present actual reasons for that, how is reposting the debate in google docs a good reason?
The RFD in the votes is just a copy and paste of the debate
Pro full forfeited, why did you vote for Pro?
I definitely think Undefeatable is a great debater, I enjoy reading all the debates he's in. I'll probably try to give it a read myself
That's fair I suppose, I had fun with the debate, and if I were to do it again, I'd probably elaborate more on that point, but it is what it is. I'm glad you got the vote out and the level of effort is considerable so thanks again.
Fair enough
I can't say I agree, but I do thank you for your vote.
Truthfully, a lot of this was in preparation for a debate with you or someone else of your caliber, but I look forward to seeing how Wagyu argues the point.
Bump
Definitional Sources:
[A1] https://medlineplus.gov/abortion.html
[A2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
[A3] https://www.lexico.com/definition/moral
[A4] https://www.lexico.com/definition/balance
[A5] https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm
[A6] https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/blog/what-wellbeing-how-can-we-measure-it-and-how-can-we-support-people-improve-it
[A7] https://www.lexico.com/definition/person
References:
[1] https://www.mhanational.org/taking-good-care-yourself
[2] https://www.ferris.edu/RSS/eccc/tools/wellness.htm
[3] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullying-suicide-translation-final-a.pdf
[4] https://ourworldindata.org/births-and-deaths
[5] https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/suicide-data
[6] https://afsp.org/suicide-statistics/
[7] https://www.census.gov/popclock/
[8] https://www.thejournal.ie/pregnancy-timeline-3979399-May2018/
[9] https://www.thejournal.ie/pregnancy-timeline-3979399-May2018/
[10] https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
[11] https://www.wellandgood.com/verbal-coercion-first-time-having-sex/#:~:text=A%20study%20published%20Tuesday%20by,having%20sex%20the%20first%20time.
[12] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2751247
[13] https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/04/24/stealthing-removing-condom_n_16209510.html
[14] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2954726
[15] https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-complications.html
[16] https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/risk-factors
[17] https://www.marchofdimes.org/complications/miscarriage.aspx#:~:text=For%20women%20who%20know%20they,1%20to%205%20percent)%20pregnancies.
I'm not completely sure if this is what you did, but please only use the arguments themself to inform your vote, don't change your vote based on other voters takes.
Hello! Welcome to the site, I look forward to the debate, I've been doubling down on research for this one! To a productive debate.
Ahhh, yeah... kind of bummed about that
Thaaanks, I was just checking in here
Bump?
No, my point was that these supposed categorical imperatives are useless. "Stealing is wrong" that can not be a categorical imperative. Let's say you and your family are starving, then should you steal? Or should you let your children starve? They are based on a binary view of moral works, no good will is good without a means. That does not work fundamentally. Nothing exists in a vacume, if anything, your "categorical" imperatives are more hypothetical than the "hypothetical" imperatives. I don't know which example of a scientists your talking about, nothing is universal! You can have widely applicable rules, but trying to determine something as universal will fail, because almost nothing can be universal. There are actions that are universally bad, but a lot of these actions even have nuance themself.
Its a moral action because it determines the suffering or pleasure of individuals, let the earth suffer through overpopulation, or stop it and let the entire world die out. Literally all moral principles are based on ends. Now, standards may or may not have wide applicability, and then you can extrapolate from there.
You know lets look at this in depth for a bit: "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" Therefore if there is a single instance of inconsistency, that action is immoral. Having children is then immoral, having sex is immoral, deciding to drive on the highway is immoral, etc, etc... If a maxim has to be universal in order to be "good" then so many things aren't I suppose you shouldn't even be on the computer right now.
Except I could easily just define accepting as what it usually means and not care what you think it means. You wouldn't be arguing for the resolution, if you want your argument to work here is the resolution, "Your proposal to have all people do homosexuality/same sex marriage." By the way, homosexuality and same sex marriage aren't the same thing.
That moral value, devoid of means or ends, is practically worthless. Yes, it's good to have them, but only basing what is good and what is not good off of that small amount of moral value is not only dangerous but logically inconsistent. In order to say that this intent is actually "good" you have to think about the multiple aspects that make something good or not good, the intent itself, the means of accomplishing that intent, and the results, otherwise you are leaving such a wide void open.
Okay, "People should have sex for reproduction" you apply that as a universal law and bada boom, that will lead to overpopulation at this rate, so people should just stop having sex? Well no, you might say, "People should have sex to a degree?" Well what degree, is that arbitrary, and my entire point is how messy it is, because it's only looking at one dimension of moral theory, and doing that limits your actual moral understanding of something.
News flash, hypothetical imperatives as you like to call them, is what 95% of moral debate, philosophy, and even real-world practicality, we only use the other sort to test things that have happened, and those sorts of things we can look at the results, means, and intent, so that isn't needed.
I'm not going to add a random conditional for you, you will have to assert and argue for your moral system, whether we agree on a point is irrevelent.
You are completely missing the point, people can do bad things with good intentions, especially practically speaking. Moral rules have dimensions and scales, they are ever so rarely binary.
"Goodwill should be good because it doesn't need a qualification to be good"
No that's asserting that because that if this super-specific thing works universally than it's moral. I think someone brought up an excellent point, by that logic a lot of minorities would be acting immorally, a lot of things would be considered moral that isn't, etc, etc, morals aren't universal.
If something brings about bad results, it is not good, maybe it was intended to be good, but that doesn't mean it is good. Good must be demonstrated like anything else, you have to actually prove that x should be ascribed as good, that's how logic works
No no no, all good's must be "qualified" i.e, shown to actually be good, something is not intrinsically good, ascribing the adjective "good" to the front it is like me saying, "Blue water is blue." I didn't notice.
"X will is x because will is x in itself" ..... Does that sound like begging the question to anyone else?
No, you use logic and an axiom that people agree to, you can apply logical conclusions, for example: if we assume a standard of x, then using x we can apply y and z. These situations aren't black and white they aren't binary, they are more often than not a scale. As all moral systems are. There is nothing that is "good" without qualification, that doesn't exist. You have to find a shared good.
That's not how that works, I could care less if its "in line with universal principles" I care about getting to the most good result with the most good means.
Universalizing moral principals is a bad idea in most cases. And you don't need to universalize a maxim to see if it's applicable.