Why does....
con need to prove morality objective to support the premise that religion is needed for morality.
Pro must prove that religion is not needed by proving morality is subjective
???
I messed up. I deleted a part you are asking about. It starts in round 2. Talking about how certain groups did not need x. But it ends before it supposed to. My mistake.
If my words and grammar are not clear, thank you for letting me know. I have a hard time putting thought to words. In my mind everything makes sense and is worded in a way I understand. But to put those words in a way for others to understand is tricky. So sometimes I get surprised/shocked when others interpret the words differently.
In regards to pro saying iraq was justified. I understand golf war to be started by Iraq. Others joinging an existing wat. Right?
In last round pro says, " To settle a different. Ex: Iraq believing Kuwait belongs to them."
.
I understood this to be in response to my question "how is iraq vs kuwait a just war, without considering coalition involvement." (Paraphrase).
"I fail to see why I should side with you."
Im not saying side with me. I am saying that if someone says there were no other possible actions to take for a war they should explain why that is true. If we just look at history then we only know what happened. But to say that is the only possible outcome is unfounded.
I also gave a response to what other options there were. "dont go to war. " even if russia launches nukes and the president has options. Its anti-nike. Just don't do it. That is an option.
I critized the attitude that leads to war in round 2. Pro responds to it, quotes it in round 3. Highlighting that the wars were started for reasons that each aggressor did not need. I e. Land resources.
But I am perchance too brief because I understand giving positive claim means you inherintly have b.o.p. I was making a negative claim which can (and often) rely on disbelief. Was there something inccorect in that thought? Perchance I actaually made a positive claim?
"You literally stated: "now, Kouen present the usual excuse for war. There is no other option. Unfortunate that this is the same quote given so many times to look away from other options."
Yeah. To criticise their argument. Does that make it my arguenent?
Con argues that all war is unjustified because the very act of starting a war reflects a failure to exercise other alternative solutions.
Responding to above. Post 1 is my arguement. Which doesnt have or mention anything about failure to exercise alternative solutions.
Pro said there are no other options but provides zero evidence other than war happened. B.o.p is on pro here. And I questioned the logic behind the comment.
This part should at least be a tie if my response was not adequate to question pro's point.
what are you talking about?!
I was direct in countering pro's comments on iraq vs kuwait war! Countless times I called the war unjust because iraq is the reason for the war.
I asked pro to proove or at leas explain why was the war just if iraq was unjust.
Pro seems to say iraq was just at the end because in iraqs mind, they should have kuwait. I attack this head on!
By saying it is a subjective opinion that can now justify all wars and even genocies in another paragraph.
I just noticed that part of description is not in the full description. ... or vise versa.
So.
I as pro am arguing for banning
Con is arguing against banning books from the entire school library.
As I read your posts, I notice you increase in "p" - I must ask you to consider formating and readability.
I know some on this site do not like how I format my posts. Also seems like you are numbering each paragraph.
However, please consider how easy is it for a reader to look at content and connect content between each round.
If you are talking about a topic on p18 which is also in p10 or p 5, why give the topic a new title or identifier?
For example, anyone should be able to point to the same identifier in any round from any round for my formatting system. Part 1 "bees" should always reference bees. Talking about bees in p5, p10, and p18 in different ways may get readers lost.
Explore what settings there are and what works for you. I just know I can only do 1 week or 2 week rounds. Some may do less but everyone has their limit. Having only two days to clarify and research and type and what ever else can take a long time.
There seems to be a lot of info to cover in small amount of time. For 2 round and 2 day per round debate. 3 rounds is always comfy. And consider legnth of debate between rounds on content & availability.
I think all parts have no evidence. So yes, you have not provided sufficient evidence. If you think otherwise, you may explain or point it out. Again this is for all points given - primarily looking at how or why things are connected.
So I think thats first paragraph. I am speaking to audience to say we (the audience included) are unable to believe your position because some things are unexplained .. . or the premises do not line up with the conclusions.
B.o.p is usually described to identify who needs to win over the audience. Like in a debate about "does unicorns exist" the person making the claim "unicorns exist" has b.o.p. because they have to show evidence a unicorn actually exists. Where as an opponent's position does not need evidence to say unicorns do not exist (at least in same way).
B.o.p. shared means you and I would have to explain our positions to gain support from the audience (readers & voters). So in this instance I am saying, even if I needed to prove my case, we have yet to see how your side can be proven.
10 ppl:
How did you come up with the 10 ppl since it seems as an arbitrary count lacking documentation.
The number is arbitrary. I made it up because we need a quick look into how the work place changes, then expand it nation wide. Then consider this nation wide change for all industries, not just food service.
A visual guide for the rebuttal.
- writing ability as skill
Beacuse you do realize AI have different levels of "ability" within writing, right?
I view it different because abilities do not have levels. Ability to create pose is different than creating a poem, which is different than creating Shakespearean play, which is different than creating a novel. Although some writers may be involved with different jobs (writing novel vs. broadway play vs. screen play) - and yes some writers have different levels to their skill in writing or experience ( i.e. beginner, novice, expert, etc ), each writer's ability to create a specific type of literature exists or does not exist. A novelist can put together a top seller but can't make a dime for writing a broadway play because that is not their ability. The skill is interchangable. The experience can differ. But ones ability is there or it is not there.
Skills that grow and fail. Increase and decrease. Computer programming doesn't change in that way. A computer's ability to increase or change in any way requires programming. A i. still operates in the same way. Even with ability to learn, a .i. will increase depth to its existing ability. The depth to its existing programing. That is not skill.
You're assuming within writing itself that AI is superior at writing, and could tolpwhich at its current state, isn't at all.
It's a bit of an overstatement to say publishers will prefer AI to contemporary writers, which isn't too well supported nor documented in the current world as AI is still in the improvement stage, still lacking in some parts of writing.
I understand your view. I am responding to the idea that a.i. would be used by writers to create materials. Great. I say, if writers can use it to make something, then someone else who is not a writer can do the same thing. Maybe even cheaper. I did not desire to argue how well a.i. can create thing because I already did. I wanted to present a different idea.
- R3
Technically R3 (your last round in this case) is supposed to be the point where you refute all possible opponent's arg and really ensure your ground.
When I was saying "avoiding the arg", you're mainly avoiding focusing on rebuttals and more so finding extra sources to solidify your args presented in R1/R2/R3. Honestly, if you bring out sources, it's usually recommended to do so through rebuttals; bringing out new stances in a last round is generally frowned upon by voters.
I understand your view. I try to reinforce my position through out the debate so people can remember the points from round 1 by the end. No need to reread and I doubt anyone rereads each round. But fair suggestion.
- explains 10 ppl losing job (why 10 P?)
I gave an example on how a single location could be effected by a.i. 10 people did not loose their jobs. I said this about 10 people:
10 employees staffed during all business hours.
So I then say that the over all employee count would be higher. Total lay off # is given for both this one diner and "hundreds of thousands" are fired nation wide.
this method in taking a close look first and then a bigger picture was a desired approach.
- lose writing ability (although doesn't acknowledge writing abilities of AI as a "skill")?
In my opinion, AI writing a story does not require an actual experienced/professional writer. The point was to reinforce that writers would become obsolete because publishers or what ever company would prefer the cheaper (in the long run) option.
Otherwise a i doing work is not a skill. Only we have skills. A.i. would have programing.
- Generalizes AI is for worker to lose job, although doesn't acknowledge how ppl will get income with no work (1/2 problem is solved, 1/2 problem causes more problems)
To be neutral. Saying govt would provide income is a how?.
-
- Humans increase safety of AI (how?).
- fix to AI is shut down and rewrite programming (P why are you arguing C's side here)
I tried to tie this with point 1 from round 1 and round 3. There are too many unknowns. Im missing ways to connect the dots.
- P says debate is whether or not it should be done
Now here's the funny thing. C already justified why AI in work is okay. P is just avoiding saying an arg and keeps saying that C doesn't justify if it should or not be done.
I understand C, for arg. #5 (business rights) to say that businesses should use a i. because they have legal ability to purchase a.i.
I approached #5 to say the negatives outweigh legal abilities among other points - therefore should not.
What is there to avoid?
What fallacies where there and how does that impact debate?
This debate appears to rely on the question "what catholicism teaches?" I do not see anyone providing resources to say what catholicism teaches, however.
Are points 2&3 in the description covered, and are they meant to be covered by pro?
Although we dont see eye to eye much, thank you for your input. I didnt see your comment to me until 3 rd round. I lost count, and thought I had 5 to do too . Lol.
Both debating parties have put in a swell argument. Cheers to the both.
Why does....
con need to prove morality objective to support the premise that religion is needed for morality.
Pro must prove that religion is not needed by proving morality is subjective
???
No I don't like voting.
See. They be every where online. That under the bridge thing, waiting for anyone to hassle with gibberish nonsense to cause anger.
Just don't look.
Ignore the trolls.
Sounds like communism.
Thanks again for debate. You will do well on this site.
I messed up. I deleted a part you are asking about. It starts in round 2. Talking about how certain groups did not need x. But it ends before it supposed to. My mistake.
If my words and grammar are not clear, thank you for letting me know. I have a hard time putting thought to words. In my mind everything makes sense and is worded in a way I understand. But to put those words in a way for others to understand is tricky. So sometimes I get surprised/shocked when others interpret the words differently.
In regards to pro saying iraq was justified. I understand golf war to be started by Iraq. Others joinging an existing wat. Right?
In last round pro says, " To settle a different. Ex: Iraq believing Kuwait belongs to them."
.
I understood this to be in response to my question "how is iraq vs kuwait a just war, without considering coalition involvement." (Paraphrase).
"I fail to see why I should side with you."
Im not saying side with me. I am saying that if someone says there were no other possible actions to take for a war they should explain why that is true. If we just look at history then we only know what happened. But to say that is the only possible outcome is unfounded.
I also gave a response to what other options there were. "dont go to war. " even if russia launches nukes and the president has options. Its anti-nike. Just don't do it. That is an option.
I critized the attitude that leads to war in round 2. Pro responds to it, quotes it in round 3. Highlighting that the wars were started for reasons that each aggressor did not need. I e. Land resources.
But I am perchance too brief because I understand giving positive claim means you inherintly have b.o.p. I was making a negative claim which can (and often) rely on disbelief. Was there something inccorect in that thought? Perchance I actaually made a positive claim?
"You literally stated: "now, Kouen present the usual excuse for war. There is no other option. Unfortunate that this is the same quote given so many times to look away from other options."
Yeah. To criticise their argument. Does that make it my arguenent?
Con argues that all war is unjustified because the very act of starting a war reflects a failure to exercise other alternative solutions.
Responding to above. Post 1 is my arguement. Which doesnt have or mention anything about failure to exercise alternative solutions.
Pro said there are no other options but provides zero evidence other than war happened. B.o.p is on pro here. And I questioned the logic behind the comment.
This part should at least be a tie if my response was not adequate to question pro's point.
what are you talking about?!
I was direct in countering pro's comments on iraq vs kuwait war! Countless times I called the war unjust because iraq is the reason for the war.
I asked pro to proove or at leas explain why was the war just if iraq was unjust.
Pro seems to say iraq was just at the end because in iraqs mind, they should have kuwait. I attack this head on!
By saying it is a subjective opinion that can now justify all wars and even genocies in another paragraph.
How was this not direct?!
I prefer people doing what ever they want.
I added who would he arguing what in deacription. Its the brief description. Visible from your profile.
Definitions are part of debate in my opinion. We have to know why something is as said.
Yeah thats cool. Mention it in post for readers. Some are a bit too strick on things like that I think.
Correct. You as con will be arguing against banning
I just noticed that part of description is not in the full description. ... or vise versa.
So.
I as pro am arguing for banning
Con is arguing against banning books from the entire school library.
From the library proper
This seems pretty tricky. Secon part of title makes it seem like first part is not accurate.
If this is a troll debate. Do we take it serious or we seeing it as a joke; So positions can vary and be silly?
No. I am unable to do it. Sometimes newcomers do it by accident so I was just checking in.
Hey you wanted only 1 day between posts?
That means you only have 24 hours to complete an argument and same for con. You good with it?
should be easy to prove they are an organization. They meet before rallies and plan things as a group. Thats organization.
Id join if mor than 2 day time period but interested in watching debate either way.
Also.
As I read your posts, I notice you increase in "p" - I must ask you to consider formating and readability.
I know some on this site do not like how I format my posts. Also seems like you are numbering each paragraph.
However, please consider how easy is it for a reader to look at content and connect content between each round.
If you are talking about a topic on p18 which is also in p10 or p 5, why give the topic a new title or identifier?
For example, anyone should be able to point to the same identifier in any round from any round for my formatting system. Part 1 "bees" should always reference bees. Talking about bees in p5, p10, and p18 in different ways may get readers lost.
But thats my opinion on it. Others may disagree.
Hi.
To confirm. . .
"I like con to suggest how to proceed on this..."
You are asking how to proceed in providing evidence for p3&p4 to get c2???
CanN i do republic?
What is basis for examples?
How do you expect ppeople to judge each side?
Explore what settings there are and what works for you. I just know I can only do 1 week or 2 week rounds. Some may do less but everyone has their limit. Having only two days to clarify and research and type and what ever else can take a long time.
So only two days can put people off
There seems to be a lot of info to cover in small amount of time. For 2 round and 2 day per round debate. 3 rounds is always comfy. And consider legnth of debate between rounds on content & availability.
I think all parts have no evidence. So yes, you have not provided sufficient evidence. If you think otherwise, you may explain or point it out. Again this is for all points given - primarily looking at how or why things are connected.
hi.
So I think thats first paragraph. I am speaking to audience to say we (the audience included) are unable to believe your position because some things are unexplained .. . or the premises do not line up with the conclusions.
B.o.p is usually described to identify who needs to win over the audience. Like in a debate about "does unicorns exist" the person making the claim "unicorns exist" has b.o.p. because they have to show evidence a unicorn actually exists. Where as an opponent's position does not need evidence to say unicorns do not exist (at least in same way).
B.o.p. shared means you and I would have to explain our positions to gain support from the audience (readers & voters). So in this instance I am saying, even if I needed to prove my case, we have yet to see how your side can be proven.
I feel like b.k. needs to pace themself better.
Do you know QED ?
Bboooo
Oh. Didnt know it was rheroric
10 ppl:
How did you come up with the 10 ppl since it seems as an arbitrary count lacking documentation.
The number is arbitrary. I made it up because we need a quick look into how the work place changes, then expand it nation wide. Then consider this nation wide change for all industries, not just food service.
A visual guide for the rebuttal.
- writing ability as skill
Beacuse you do realize AI have different levels of "ability" within writing, right?
I view it different because abilities do not have levels. Ability to create pose is different than creating a poem, which is different than creating Shakespearean play, which is different than creating a novel. Although some writers may be involved with different jobs (writing novel vs. broadway play vs. screen play) - and yes some writers have different levels to their skill in writing or experience ( i.e. beginner, novice, expert, etc ), each writer's ability to create a specific type of literature exists or does not exist. A novelist can put together a top seller but can't make a dime for writing a broadway play because that is not their ability. The skill is interchangable. The experience can differ. But ones ability is there or it is not there.
Skills that grow and fail. Increase and decrease. Computer programming doesn't change in that way. A computer's ability to increase or change in any way requires programming. A i. still operates in the same way. Even with ability to learn, a .i. will increase depth to its existing ability. The depth to its existing programing. That is not skill.
You're assuming within writing itself that AI is superior at writing, and could tolpwhich at its current state, isn't at all.
It's a bit of an overstatement to say publishers will prefer AI to contemporary writers, which isn't too well supported nor documented in the current world as AI is still in the improvement stage, still lacking in some parts of writing.
I understand your view. I am responding to the idea that a.i. would be used by writers to create materials. Great. I say, if writers can use it to make something, then someone else who is not a writer can do the same thing. Maybe even cheaper. I did not desire to argue how well a.i. can create thing because I already did. I wanted to present a different idea.
- R3
Technically R3 (your last round in this case) is supposed to be the point where you refute all possible opponent's arg and really ensure your ground.
When I was saying "avoiding the arg", you're mainly avoiding focusing on rebuttals and more so finding extra sources to solidify your args presented in R1/R2/R3. Honestly, if you bring out sources, it's usually recommended to do so through rebuttals; bringing out new stances in a last round is generally frowned upon by voters.
I understand your view. I try to reinforce my position through out the debate so people can remember the points from round 1 by the end. No need to reread and I doubt anyone rereads each round. But fair suggestion.
- explains 10 ppl losing job (why 10 P?)
I gave an example on how a single location could be effected by a.i. 10 people did not loose their jobs. I said this about 10 people:
10 employees staffed during all business hours.
So I then say that the over all employee count would be higher. Total lay off # is given for both this one diner and "hundreds of thousands" are fired nation wide.
this method in taking a close look first and then a bigger picture was a desired approach.
- lose writing ability (although doesn't acknowledge writing abilities of AI as a "skill")?
In my opinion, AI writing a story does not require an actual experienced/professional writer. The point was to reinforce that writers would become obsolete because publishers or what ever company would prefer the cheaper (in the long run) option.
Otherwise a i doing work is not a skill. Only we have skills. A.i. would have programing.
- Generalizes AI is for worker to lose job, although doesn't acknowledge how ppl will get income with no work (1/2 problem is solved, 1/2 problem causes more problems)
To be neutral. Saying govt would provide income is a how?.
-
- Humans increase safety of AI (how?).
- fix to AI is shut down and rewrite programming (P why are you arguing C's side here)
I tried to tie this with point 1 from round 1 and round 3. There are too many unknowns. Im missing ways to connect the dots.
- P says debate is whether or not it should be done
Now here's the funny thing. C already justified why AI in work is okay. P is just avoiding saying an arg and keeps saying that C doesn't justify if it should or not be done.
I understand C, for arg. #5 (business rights) to say that businesses should use a i. because they have legal ability to purchase a.i.
I approached #5 to say the negatives outweigh legal abilities among other points - therefore should not.
What is there to avoid?
What fallacies where there and how does that impact debate?
Looks like Im being asked questions in vote. I will respond on it. I also have questions.
I think the hardest part to this debate is combining flag and statues. They are not mutual. I would get stuck on something. Ha ha.
Good luck to debators.
Oops. I forgot its now last round. Lol.
No worries. Just upload it next round
How do you get ai?
Is pro arguing for one world govt. while con argue against it - or does everyone argue for pro/con list?
If you are new. Consider if you have time to type and research within a 2 day period. Its possible, but not everyone can do that time.
Either way welcome. I hope you enjoy your time here.
As in present rather than future.
Wow thanks for making this a debate. I hope to remember to vote on it.
Can more be added to description or too late?
Hey I see time going down. No worries about answering or responding to everything. Take ya time ans some parts can be reviewed in another round.
Hey this is interesting topic. Are you open to debate me on same topic?
Any description to help guide conversation?
This debate appears to rely on the question "what catholicism teaches?" I do not see anyone providing resources to say what catholicism teaches, however.
Are points 2&3 in the description covered, and are they meant to be covered by pro?
Got to forums section. Then select a categroy you think this topic fits.
Then look for and click on plus sign. Should be on right side of webpage.
Hi,
Although we dont see eye to eye much, thank you for your input. I didnt see your comment to me until 3 rd round. I lost count, and thought I had 5 to do too . Lol.
Anyways. Have nice day.
Hey, your debate topic should be added into the forums. May have some good input and discussion there.
Thanks for debate.
Hey. After my two debates are complete. I can join you in this debate topic. You open to it?