Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
A response. Though the implied goal of all questions is to receive an answer of some sort, this question (given the context of the forums) seems to be specifically looking for a response. Which is distinct from an answer though this may qualify as one anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
To everyone who is convinced by whatever Mopac is spouting, notice the fact that whenever pushed, or asked a clear question all they do is repeat what they were already saying? They refuse to actually engage in the argument, and instead call me delusional and the like.
I open this question to anyone and everybody:
Why is god equivalent to the ultimate reality? If she is, it should be simple to demonstrate. Just do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Interesting, what would you, in particular, want to happen next?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Interesting, is there a particular reason that certain techniques cancel out others? And I would presume that there are exceptions, such as the fighting equivalent of scissors being used by a very experienced fighter may beat the fighting equivalent of rock?
Created:
-->
@BearMan
What do I want to say to people who I think unjustified in their assertions?
"Prove what you're saying or shut up. Prove what you're saying or get out of my DMs I no longer care this is boring and you admittable unreasonable."
Created:
-->
@Conway
Agreed, but that doesn't really address the criticisms I'm criticizing.
Created:
-->
@Conway
State sanctioned religion, Monarchy, fascism, and socialism seem to be altogether incompatible with the way Americans tend to approach politics.
Monarchy? Intolerable? Nearly 50% of the country tried to elect Trump. Who has gone on record to say that they should just get rid of the election altogether and just let him rule? The notion that they are against a monarchy is an ignorant position.
A great deal of people who came to the United States evidently considered such notions intolerable, and the American people are not often predisposed to view their government as a leviathan like the famous English philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
I would agree maybe some on them, but people didn't just come to escape political or religious oppression, some came to propagate religious and political oppression in a new place where they could get away with it. Some came to escape famine and the like and didn't have a particular opinion on the matter save, "If I can feed my family and I" This is an oversimplification of even what the majority came to America for.
Citizens of the United States would rather eat grass than live in the knowledge that they've exchanged their national sovereignty to the heads of state in exchange for security, a prerequisite to the philosophy of "social democracy".
Their "National Sovereignty" such as what? Is it people getting free health care? Making it to where emergency medical care isn't one of the top bankrupts? Make it to where they can't just rob victims of their earnings for something that usually isn't their fault? Perhaps you mean gun regulation, which isn't socialist in the first place, or free college? None of it is, and this sort of concern is unwarranted. Literally, this was something somebody said and nobody bothered to fact-check and now everyone i spewing it.
Our government must have reasonable justification for its current state, whereas an Englishman must have reasonable justification for their current freedom.
To do what? Exchange the vague term national sovereignty? An Englishman would not have to have justify their freedom, in fact, a document established in 1689 in England called, "The Bill of Rights" (Hmmm) established Constitutional Monarchy and set the same grounds for rights long before America. Not to mention the several several documents and procedures America copied from England. No. This is not true.
Americans aren't on a common spectrum with predominant thinkers of Germany and even though they share common law they have quite a different relationship with the State than the subjects of the United Kingdom.
Obviously not, that was my entire point, that people in America have a political view, on average, which is shifted far further right than the average in Europe. Things such as free health care are pretty standard there, whereas here it is a supposed call out of socialism. I think maybe people might have forgotten their inalienable rights, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pretty hard to be living, if one trip to the hospital takes all of your savings.
Perhaps that is why Americans consider "socialism" objectionable, not purely as a matter of effective policy, but the means of progress that Europeans may be conditioned to.
That was never my point, my other point was that people tend to mislabel socialism as what is really standard left values, not even far left, moderate left in most cases. It is incorrect that what they are currently objecting to is socialism, its not, what they are objecting to is focusing on actual people instead of pure profit as they have. Not to say capitalism is something which should be abolished, but as all things that have the power to harm massive amounts of people, it must be regulated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
Definitely, social anxiety and all that, I have no idea how I can debate sometimes. But yeah, that's true: ideas not the people holding them. Also I'll see if I can vote on that, for longer ones I usually read through it once, read through it again while taking notes, read through again for extra notes and to ensure my notes were accurate. Then I summarize my notes into a rdf, then I go through the debate again to check if the rdf was accurate and not ship of theasus'ing anyone. Then I shorten and edit the rdf into a vote. So first I gotta finish my argument against free will, then I'll be doing the voting xD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
Well thank you a ton, I'm glad to see it, a bit of familiarity in this site of primarily LD and Cross Ex debaters, philosophic arguments anyways. I try my best to act rationally, but that's really only because I use to act super irrationality. I looked at myself whenever quarantine started and I was like, "Huh... you say you're a debater, you should probably act like it." And then I changed :3
I guess so, but I definitely would've been angry in your position. In fact, sometimes I still have to pause, close my laptop, and walk away. Do something else, just because I know I won't be rational while I rebut the idea (Had to do that with Mopac and some transphobes a couple of times) I actually debated Intelligence, and I can see how he got to top 10, but I also see how you might think I'm better.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anyways, thank you for being sweet and not tearing me to shreds like I half expected you to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
You have very convincing arguments, although some of them are more intuitively based than what they seem. My impression of you in general? Maybe one would presume that I would say arrogant or something, but I do think the nickname is mostly ironic, or at least that in a serious conversation you would admit people could beat you. At least I think. I think despite my earlier criticism that you really are a strong debater and that you have a fairly good grasp on the fundamentals of debate.
Now to ask in return, what do you think of me so far, I'll accept the same level of criticism as you did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Huh, so their raw physical attributes, their ability to react to others, strength, stamina, endurance, hand-eye coordination and so on, allows them to compete with what more technical people? Yeah, I would think so, I think its just athleticism in most cases helps most of those things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What? First of all, link the page if you would, second of all: it's used as a consensus of information, as Oromgai has detailed time and time again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Excuse me? Was it not you that continuously espouses how Wiki itself admits it is unreliable?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
First, things first:
If God/gods do not exist, what is the explanation for the universe, existence, morality???
I'll cover morality first: I do not believe objective morality exists. You can see this from my two negative positions regarding it within my debates.
Next, existence - are you referring to our human existence or existence in general? Simple the big bang theory, which I will provide sources to investigate below:
To assume a god was what caused this is simple an assumption, one would have to prove that a god exists to even be a likely candidate to cause the big bang, and the big bang also explains the universe, again, no god required. Further propositions would require evidence to presume.
Happenstance is not a presupposition that comes from my way of thinking. I do not believe in chance as to why the universe exists or is sustainable. That would have to be your default position once you jettison God.
Care to demonstrate? I have the big bang? Why is chance impossible to have created the universe? If it isn't impossible, and you do prove this, why is a god any more likely than happenstance?
Cosmic inflation dating back to when? This is all guesswork on your part, and what is more, it is unreasonable.
Notice the idea of a vague notion, as in it was not a hard position on my part, but simply some ideas that it may or may not have. There is no need for a dating back to when.
It is the other way around. You assume all kinds of causes and effects are a result of mindlessness. You assume that the laws of nature are sustainable by what? Nothing? No intent, no agency. Poof, they suddenly happen and continue to substance themselves for no reason.
No I substantiate that they were caused by a what, not a who. You are assuming agency behind it, when the position that assumes less is concluding it a thing, as there already things there, whereas there is no evidence for a mind.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Atheism can simply be, being unconvinced of an assertion, whereas theism is inherently a proposition which is often unfalsifiable. By near definition Atheism is more reasonable.It is not reasonable at all when you look at its starting presuppositions. If the universe is not a result of mindful intention and agency, it results from blind, indifferent chance happenstance.
Blind and indifferent are unnecessary adjectives which describe the creation of the universe, happenstance? Perhaps, perhaps not. We have only a vague idea of what preceded the big bang (cosmic inflation) with nothing beyond that, to claim a god created a universe is a bigger assumption (because you are presuming god) then to simply accept the proposition that the universe is existent through things that "happenstance"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you have sources backing any of that up? Do you have sources that tell allow you to gauge that these are the actual positions of the average progressive?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm not completely sure, 21 would be the best age, but 18 would be an acceptable compromise.Many people beyond this age die in accidents.
Sure, but people who are in their teens are at the highest risk for crashing or injury operating a vehicle: CDC notes:
"The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among teens aged 16–19 than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers in this age group are nearly three times as likely as drivers aged 20 or older to be in a fatal crash.2"
Also, automatics are really effective at killing people, the number of deaths per automatic used to deaths per almost any other kind of gun makes that apparent. It's how efficient they are at killingEvery gun is effective at killing. the question is how dangerous the gun is? The danger of anything is measured in how many people it kills.
Yes, but some guns are more effective at is, no, that isn't true at all. Handguns were used in maybe 64 to 84% of gun homicides, therefore they would of course have a higher kill count, but guns that are more effective at killing, are more dangerous. We should let the specially trained military personal handle them, not civilians. Need a source? This study notes:
Although 44% of persons wounded in active shooter incidents died of their injuries, irrespective of the type of firearm used, more people were wounded and killed in incidents in which semiautomatic rifles were used compared with incidents involving other firearms. Semiautomatic rifles are designed for easy use, can accept large magazines, and fire high-velocity bullets, enabling active shooters to wound and kill more people per incident.4
Also I never said what kind of regulations I was for, you just assumed you knew what I was going to say, which you didn't.I don't know your position on guns. If you want to end gun homicides, the only way this would even be possible is with banning all guns, which few people want and I don't want.Your stats said that the homicide rate is around 5 per 100,000. This means in a given year, the odds of you being murdered by a gun are .005%. That's incredibly small. I think I'll take that chance.
We should do what we can to minimize gun homicides while ensuring the rights of others, it isn't: The solution either cures all homicides by guns or it doesn't matter, that is absolutist. We want to save more people from this fate, and regulating guns, in general, will accomplish that.
Also, do you not know what, "Deaths per 100,000 population: 5" means? It means that per every 100,000 people of the 330,000,000 people who live in the US, 5 will be killed by a gun. That means 19,000 people or so will die to guns each year.
I gotta go, I'll respond to your claims here and abroad in about a week. Have a good afternoon.
Looking forward to it, stay safe, and thank you!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
A semantic, pedantic mess? Yeah. Also, just like god/jesus would forgive you for not murdering me because I'm gay, would he even have to forgive you for murdering me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm not completely sure, 21 would be the best age, but 18 would be an acceptable compromise.
What I meant is that you only used statistics from school shootings. Also, automatics are really effective at killing people, the number of deaths per automatic used to deaths per almost any other kind of gun makes that apparent. It's how efficient they are at killing, not even the net death that I'm looking at. Also I never said what kind of regulations I was for, you just assumed you knew what I was going to say, which you didn't.
Speaking of which, are you even going to address my stats which totally prove yours incorrect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
No.
Blatantly, you are saying that all guns deaths are caused by school shootings, which is untrue.
According to the CDC:
All homicides
- Number of deaths: 18,830
- Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.8
Firearm homicides
- Number of deaths: 13,958
- Deaths per 100,000 population: 4.3
And Car accidents and speeding is dangerous, which is why I advocate to up the age at which one can get their drivers licence as well as improving the testing system, I want to regulate the driving system.
Car and Speeding deaths are also a completely different beast from homicides, which is the percentage you should actually consider here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm not sure if there's a specific sexuality term for that, there may be, but I'm unaware of one. It would probably mean pansexual, since they don't have one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That's all good, Ultimate Reality = everything
But why is god the ultimate reality?
Created:
Posted in:
That's.... terrifyingly awesome. I love it, Im rooting for your logo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If you wanna debate I already bodied everyone on my forum and in my debates. But you are objectively wrong
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I am cis male. (That means I was born with a penis) I am a guy. No, all being pansexual is, is that you are attracted to people regardless of gender, gender doesn't factor in. You can be non-binary and pansexual. The two are not mutually exclusive. If you think they are, explain yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Technically pansexual, and I was dating a guy who was trans. His gender was male. We aren't anymore. Stuff happened, that's all I really care to talk about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
Mmm, a good one (kinda going out of niche) I like is Good luck Charlie, I actually laughed with the queue, it really surprised me how much I actually liked the show.
Don't think I've watched Seinfeld, if I have time to do more time maybe I'll give it a watch
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
Oh yeah, movies are definitely great (less into sitcoms, most of them now feel really forced) and I love critiquing and looking at movies especially with regards to character psychology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Mall? If I were to guestimate? Hm... A foreigner? I could at least see the possibility that English isn't their first language, but aside from some bad prepositions, I don't think they are all that bad at English. I also find it likely that Mall is older, and educated, why? Well older educated folk are typically people who mistrust analytics and studies and are much more likely to value experience as well as discredit other's views.
Mall sees more value in questioning others, and not as much on actually arguing, so older educated person, probably moved here, and English is their second language.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Hmm, yeah that is pretty broad to be fair, gun control? Just argue that easier access = more shootings, it's not that difficult of an argument, I'm sure you could pull it off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
That's why I thought it wasn't just a love of debating because then you would care more about Elo, and you really don't seem to care much about that, I'd also think we would see a more topical trend in whatever topic of debating you specialize in but there isn't, it's pretty all over the place as far as I can tell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Its hard to do without facial ques to see what lands and what doesn't and most of my reading actually comes from body language, but I'll see what I can do.
You give me the distinct impression that you were bullied, or ignored throughout your early life. In some capacity your ideas were fundamentally held down. I get this from how often you debate and how you don't really care what you're arguing, just that you're putting your position out there. Of course, there are the devils' advocate debates, but most of the time it seems to me that you just want your position out.
Could be wrong - and I'm miss-attributing a simple extreme passion for debate with some kind of "oppression" so to speak, but that's my impression. Thats what I got for now, didn't do any looking though, so I can do a more in-depth one if I look more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No you told me that you believe god to be the ultimate reality, not why you believed god to be ultimate reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Okay, but why is god the ultimate reality? Why? What logical reason do you have for asserting that?
Created:
-->
@seldiora
Well, debaters aren't constrained by an argument, but I agree that Ragnar is stronger than you give him credit, or at least he seems so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
That makes sense I suppose - certain limitations would mean certain aspects are more emphasized than others. In football, there are pretty strict rules about how you can tackle your opponent, which severely limits physical aggression. I think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
Yeah huh, I'm a big fan of writing and comedy, so I definitely get how important it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Huh that's really interesting actually - you know - this is kinda random, but if I could ask a favor?
I actually write quite a lot, and I'm working on several short stories, where fighting is a pretty popular thing to do within. Do you think you give me some tips on some basics off combat? Or at least some typically used techniques? I'm not terrible I would say but I feel like I could definitely do better.
Anyways- to the topic at hand -I would figure something like that for MMA at least, it makes sense to me anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Not to mention within classical gods there isn't even a reason to even apply that standard to any gods
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Well shoey, thanks anyways Anonymous
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Like - the motivations behind them, why? What is the essence of football? What does it do? What does it accomplish? Why and how does it work?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I would agree even if I wasn't. I was just trying to distinguish what you're goal was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
That and its suuuper fallacious, do these guys even know what begging the question means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Safalcon7
In writing there is a concept of a comic relief character - and I like to use it as an example of how people use comedy as a whole in real life - typically comic relief characters are ones who are there to let the tension fall when it's unnecessary or provide some kind of relief after a particularly gruesome part of a chapter or partage. Even in popular television, we see a comic relief character, in thrillers and action movies for example, after too much combat or chasing, some kind of comic relief is allowed, to allow viewers to catch their breath.
Essentially - that is what the core of comedy is - something to let people catch their breath from a society that is ever changed, to allow people to find some brief moment of humor and relatability with a stranger.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I'm not sure what the second part is, perhaps, you mean unequal rights?
If those are the only two options, then one should just discard depopulation as an idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Oh? Any particular bird that you're working off as a base? Or are you just going for a general predator?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Socialism sees to grant the group of individuals equal rights - seeing as we are called the United States of America and not the Separated States of America, our massive patriotic pride towards our country, etc etc, I'd say the collective matters at least a little bit. Saying there is no balance is false, we already have examples of Socialism within our current Capitalism, and yet there is too much capitalism.
Also - Just because things have different goals, doesn't mean that they can't be incorporated together, because you can always just change those goals, you're not required to keep them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Point out some then, what do you have as some contradictions?
Created: