Sorry about the last round. I might need to work on my final round conclusions. I couldn’t think of anything new so I just did an overarching touch on ideas.
if you are confused by point 5), it's basically an extremely wordy version of That1User's argument against Seldiora lol (https://www.debateart.com/debates/2342-mysterious-topic)
oh, I think I finally understand your logic, after scratching my noggin.
You are trying to say that because our wants and needs are controlled by outside our own forces, despite the wants being able to endorse the choice, this is not of our own free will. So even if my expert was correct in that the external possibilities allows you to perform two different actions with two different justifications, this was decided ahead of time. Man, that's a tough idea to get my head around. We'll see if whiteflame thinks it defeats my expert's argument.
I'm greatly torn, because Utilitarian's ideals are weaker, but ironically the world that employs Utilitarian would be better off than Deontology. If no one accepts, I may do so. (plus, I don't want to help Jarrett in my debate against him, lol)
also, if Virtue Ethics' differentiation seems confusing (since I admitted you failed to show differentiation), the implication is that, it is more likely that the action itself is wrong, rather than the outcome is right or wrong
(Utilitarian would say the overall majority has the right to be given moral duty, while I am arguing for individual duty in a sense)
sorry if my argument seems confusing. Arguments I~VI are what I consider necessary to question and bring out the true core values of utilitarianism. Some versions of utilitarianism only value happiness (as Mill argues implicitly). Not all utilitarian would consider lives infinitely valuable (in fact, that's the first time I've seen a utilitarian argue that). Not all utilitarian stick with Mill's idea that higher goods are emotional and lower goods are senses.
Next time, it would help to specify all examples and ideas of what utilitarian acts you advocate for, as well as higher/lower goods. ("Seek pleasurable" gives illusion that you're arguing for happiness, which I structured I~VI for.)
Also I know you said other moral systems will not be discussed, but I'm pretty sure you meant for Pro side's support. For utilitarianism to work, as it says we want the best results, we must consider other ideals that are followed. I hope that's acceptable.
The branch leads to unknown route? This seems rigged in pro’s favor. legal circumstances matter (as manslaughter is messier than negligence), you have no moral obligation to uphold (merely a driver has no responsibility to save persons), and the waste of time on the passengers (30 people job productivity is lost). It is impossible for con to win.
Even if you miraculously bypass legality, prove your responsible worth, and mention the interesting new place that may or may not interest the passenger, the knowledge of discovery is outweighed by difficulty of getting back.
I see what you mean. I think my expert just jumps completely over the hurdle by saying the separation of free action result and endorsement, (“I do not have free action to play tennis since I have no racket, yet I can CHOOSE to play tennis”) while saying intentional action separates itself into “rational for you” vs “possible for you” (“because I am Brutus, I killed Caesar, and I will do it again. That doesn’t negate the possibility that I would not kill Caesar if I didn’t want to”)
If VI looks confusing, I struggled to word it correctly. I think the most clarified way to conclude the study would be to say "utilitarian ideas lead to ruthlessness, so ironically most people are usually less utilitarian"
thanks for the vote. I'll try to refrain from declaring victory too early. My username's pretty on the nose lol (though I guess it would help to say "I have not lost this debate in the least" since it isn't equivalent to "Victorious")
I admitted I was wrong and Antarctica was a better example (also pro didn’t even bother contesting lol). I was tired of pro ignoring the fact that no expert agrees with Qanon or flat earth
sadly, I only have 50% understanding of your argument and how it actually defeats my expert (probably because I'm not skilled in philosophy) so I just clarified my argument for the most part, lol. Please do try to make your argument and impacts clearer, it would help.
(I hope it makes sense that you can't choose to *actually* play tennis without a racket, but you can choose to want to play tennis)
I wanted to challenge "Everyone's pleasure (or good) counts equally" but I didn't have enough space... lol. Utilitarianism has so many flaws that 10k can't cover them all DX
actually, I suppose you're right. I do believe in free will but tearing down the scientific standard with more scientific innovation is incredibly difficult lol
would you like to debate con's intended topic? "It is justified to support the current state of meat industry in 1st world countries". I'll take either side.
eh... yeah. But look at the character count. This guy's gonna destroy any egoist argument possible. If it was 15k it would be a bit harder, but 30k means he gets infinite time to weigh the environmental effects to ultimately harm yourself (you eat meat, and your lungs get polluted). Egoism doesn't work here. Kant's Universalism might work if we can convincingly show reformation can assist the animals well enough.
Nice topic. I'll be skipping out of this one because I know Con has two strong angles of attack (moral + environment), which is pitted against potential solutions (no obligation, financial gain, reformations, cultural necessity). But Pro side is very difficult to support, and I'm not confident that I can keep my namesake. XD
er.... ignore the commentary on Australia. Stick with Antarctica. I named a random country on top of my head lol. Probably should've went with a more obscure country as an example.
Thanks, though I forgot to spell check. I put in vote for pro by accident at the end of R1. Well, from my username alone, it's not a concession on its own. I got confused at the end since I'm affirming that systemic racism exists.
Sorry about the last round. I might need to work on my final round conclusions. I couldn’t think of anything new so I just did an overarching touch on ideas.
You will regret the day you gave Undefeatable 30,000 characters
if you are confused by point 5), it's basically an extremely wordy version of That1User's argument against Seldiora lol (https://www.debateart.com/debates/2342-mysterious-topic)
You’ve fallen right into my trap!
oh, I think I finally understand your logic, after scratching my noggin.
You are trying to say that because our wants and needs are controlled by outside our own forces, despite the wants being able to endorse the choice, this is not of our own free will. So even if my expert was correct in that the external possibilities allows you to perform two different actions with two different justifications, this was decided ahead of time. Man, that's a tough idea to get my head around. We'll see if whiteflame thinks it defeats my expert's argument.
I'm greatly torn, because Utilitarian's ideals are weaker, but ironically the world that employs Utilitarian would be better off than Deontology. If no one accepts, I may do so. (plus, I don't want to help Jarrett in my debate against him, lol)
I suppose I’ll have to edit my profile then. Successful defense is arguably easier than successful attack
sorry, I meant violent revolutions are unjust overall in the conclusion. Repetition go brrr
also, if Virtue Ethics' differentiation seems confusing (since I admitted you failed to show differentiation), the implication is that, it is more likely that the action itself is wrong, rather than the outcome is right or wrong
(Utilitarian would say the overall majority has the right to be given moral duty, while I am arguing for individual duty in a sense)
I can clarify this in R4 if you like.
sorry if my argument seems confusing. Arguments I~VI are what I consider necessary to question and bring out the true core values of utilitarianism. Some versions of utilitarianism only value happiness (as Mill argues implicitly). Not all utilitarian would consider lives infinitely valuable (in fact, that's the first time I've seen a utilitarian argue that). Not all utilitarian stick with Mill's idea that higher goods are emotional and lower goods are senses.
Next time, it would help to specify all examples and ideas of what utilitarian acts you advocate for, as well as higher/lower goods. ("Seek pleasurable" gives illusion that you're arguing for happiness, which I structured I~VI for.)
Also I know you said other moral systems will not be discussed, but I'm pretty sure you meant for Pro side's support. For utilitarianism to work, as it says we want the best results, we must consider other ideals that are followed. I hope that's acceptable.
my brain is mush. I can't tell who's winning and losing. But nicely argued.
The branch leads to unknown route? This seems rigged in pro’s favor. legal circumstances matter (as manslaughter is messier than negligence), you have no moral obligation to uphold (merely a driver has no responsibility to save persons), and the waste of time on the passengers (30 people job productivity is lost). It is impossible for con to win.
Even if you miraculously bypass legality, prove your responsible worth, and mention the interesting new place that may or may not interest the passenger, the knowledge of discovery is outweighed by difficulty of getting back.
I see what you mean. I think my expert just jumps completely over the hurdle by saying the separation of free action result and endorsement, (“I do not have free action to play tennis since I have no racket, yet I can CHOOSE to play tennis”) while saying intentional action separates itself into “rational for you” vs “possible for you” (“because I am Brutus, I killed Caesar, and I will do it again. That doesn’t negate the possibility that I would not kill Caesar if I didn’t want to”)
If you miraculously make it to round three, I will give you with the fundamental flaw of P1 and P2 you’ve wanted. Look forward to it. ;)
If VI looks confusing, I struggled to word it correctly. I think the most clarified way to conclude the study would be to say "utilitarian ideas lead to ruthlessness, so ironically most people are usually less utilitarian"
thanks for the vote. I'll try to refrain from declaring victory too early. My username's pretty on the nose lol (though I guess it would help to say "I have not lost this debate in the least" since it isn't equivalent to "Victorious")
Ohhhhh hohoho. Malls gotten better. He managed to point out the mistreatment of people and inability to solve the problem!
I admitted I was wrong and Antarctica was a better example (also pro didn’t even bother contesting lol). I was tired of pro ignoring the fact that no expert agrees with Qanon or flat earth
sadly, I only have 50% understanding of your argument and how it actually defeats my expert (probably because I'm not skilled in philosophy) so I just clarified my argument for the most part, lol. Please do try to make your argument and impacts clearer, it would help.
(I hope it makes sense that you can't choose to *actually* play tennis without a racket, but you can choose to want to play tennis)
lol I see you take my username seriously...
weird formatting. Anyways, pro has quit the site, just heads up.
I wanted to challenge "Everyone's pleasure (or good) counts equally" but I didn't have enough space... lol. Utilitarianism has so many flaws that 10k can't cover them all DX
mall probably be like, "b-but... mind control! God's existence controlling us! PROVE IT, PROVE IT!"
hope you didn't want to take this. Well, you can request him any time.
It's fine, my major is comp sci, I think I can take on a bunch of science arguments better than philosophy.
I probably should've made the limit 12,500. I was a bit tired so I got too lazy to read it over. Hopefully, it's enough.
here you go. I switched sides
actually, I suppose you're right. I do believe in free will but tearing down the scientific standard with more scientific innovation is incredibly difficult lol
you wanna take this one? Or are you ironically pro side?
lol a top 5 debater accepting Mall's idea... overkill XD
would you like to debate con's intended topic? "It is justified to support the current state of meat industry in 1st world countries". I'll take either side.
I hope you’re just speaking as a debater. I’d be appalled if pro was your real stance
eh... yeah. But look at the character count. This guy's gonna destroy any egoist argument possible. If it was 15k it would be a bit harder, but 30k means he gets infinite time to weigh the environmental effects to ultimately harm yourself (you eat meat, and your lungs get polluted). Egoism doesn't work here. Kant's Universalism might work if we can convincingly show reformation can assist the animals well enough.
Nice topic. I'll be skipping out of this one because I know Con has two strong angles of attack (moral + environment), which is pitted against potential solutions (no obligation, financial gain, reformations, cultural necessity). But Pro side is very difficult to support, and I'm not confident that I can keep my namesake. XD
er.... ignore the commentary on Australia. Stick with Antarctica. I named a random country on top of my head lol. Probably should've went with a more obscure country as an example.
Thanks, though I forgot to spell check. I put in vote for pro by accident at the end of R1. Well, from my username alone, it's not a concession on its own. I got confused at the end since I'm affirming that systemic racism exists.