No its just that you are wrong on so many levels and I don't feel like explaining all that to you. So I'd rather just let you make a fool out of yourself here so everyone can see you falling on your face over and over again. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant after all.
Your response makes you look like you've never read anything in philosophy. There is a difference between a moral justification of an action and the effectiveness of the action. Your questions are irrelevant since they are already answered within my first response. I would not actually support banning speech since it's ineffective. You said there is no compelling case against free speech. I provided you one(moral justification of banning speech not its effectiveness) and your rebuttal missed the mark on everything I said. I won't respond back to you cause you're not worth my time. Im tired of engaging in discussions with idiots.
Lets say you're a minority(eg a black person) in a society with a majority (eg white people). Everywhere you go, people call you the "n word" derogatorily. These words will have impacts on the emotional wellbeing of the minority individual. These can lead to individuals developping some mental illnesses and some may even end up causing harm to themselves as a result of thinking they are less worthy than others because of their identity(Something they cannot change or can only change with very drastic, physical changes).
These issues are faced by various minority groups(People of color, members of the lgbt, etc...). Someone, who values a society where the social wellbeing is maximised, can justify banning certain speech that will cause such emotional distress.
You may respond with: Well they need to toughen up.
But that's not easy to do when most people around you treat you this way. There are plenty of cases of people committing suicide, self harm, etc all because they develop insecurities due to being bullied for being different. Therefore, there is a serious moral justification for censorship of these videos that do end up causing harm.
In a university who thrive on having more students applying there, the university has everything to gain by ensuring a maximum wellbeing among their student population.
I would like to point out a typo on my part in the last round and correct it here.
"My argument was that, to prove that the God of the New Testament is real, PRO would have to show how the article you cited failed to reach their own standards. "
I meant for it to say "My argument was that PRO would have to prove that the New Testament is reliable. The article you cited fail to reach even their own standards."
What does that even mean? Lol. I rebutted you and that's it. I did not insult you, I did not make derogatory comments towards you. I don't know what you mean by "hostile". Now it's your turn to respond to me.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This is a website called debateart, I opened this debate with main theme: God is real, and I took the CON position. Even if this was a discussion, whatever that means, do you think I would just read what you said and never rebut it? You agreed to the debate. Do you think people just come here to discuss with people without challenging each other?
I know you stand by your vote and that's good for you. I'm glad you feel that way. Based on that last comment of yours, I doubt you yourself know any of these things. Have a good day :)
Okay, so? That is not against the rules to criticise bad arguments. I provided evidence when saying my opponent used complicated language to sound smart and clarified what they said for the audience. My opponent misunderstood the first premise of their own argument, which is why i said that they don't understand said premise. You may think it's disrespectful but those are facts. And there is nothing wrong with stating facts and I should not have been penalised for doing so. As they often say "facts don't care about your feelings". Still, its your right to give a bad vote and I respect that. I just think that you misrepresented me with what you said in your vote since I made no ad hominem fallacies and its not deserving of a penalty to get heated. Anyway you made your vote already and I dont have to like it. Have a good day buddy
I don't think you know what an ad hominem fallacy is.
An ad hom happens when I don't refute their argument because of a third unrelated characteristic. An eg would be saying something along the lines of: "You are wrong because you suck". Just being critical of someone being dishonest is not an ad hom
There is a huge difference between Galileo saying the Sun is at the center of our galaxy and Milo Yiannopoulos doxxing a transgender student because Milo did not like what the latter had to say
If you read what I have said on this subject so far you will notice one thing: I never said we should censor unpopular or controversial opinion at all. So you are preaching to the choir here
It depends on the context of why you are saying it. If you are making a sociological study, then sure. The same way it's also okay for someone to say, white males have had historically held a position of privilege that they benefit of to this day. Assuming both are factually correct, those are just facts. But if you are saying this with the intention of making prescriptive statements(Therefore we should kick black people out, White people should not be allowed on campus), then I disagree.
People still do say these things: If you look into the Evergreen scandal where Bret Weinstein stood up against the fact that white people were told to stay home and not come to campus, I oppose these students who said that. I side with Bret on this. These students should not have been given a platform and they should have been arrested for what they did later.
However, if instead these students said they wanted to make a socioogical discussion on white privilege and oppression of black people, I would support that.
People like Richard Spencer may not directly say they want black people kicked out, they are indeed obtuse with their language. But by looking at the bigger picture of all that they said, it is easy to see what their intentions are.
I am fine with ideologies/political views being discussed among actual experts, I just am not fine with someone being given a platform just to dehumanize people. If Richard Dawkins were to come to my university to dehumanise all religious people("all Muslims are terrorists", "All Catholics are pedophiles", "Jews are taking over the World",etc...) ,I would oppose him being given a platform. If he were to come just to discuss why he hates religions(Islam/ Judaism/ Christianity/etc... is dumb/violent/retarded/etc...), then I would support that. As I said, I am even fine with people being given a platform to criticise atheism.
King Strawmanner in the house lol. Keep living in your delusion, buddy. I explained my position and refuted your arguments. You've only done strawmans this whole time and you don't even understand the argument you bring forward. I explained to you how the Kalam works and you don't even understand the first premise. As I said, I can't educate you on it. Do your own research
All kinds of things are possible. It is possible that there is a flying spaghetti monster that lives millions of light years away from Earth. It is possible that fairies exist in a galaxy far, far away. Just because I said that it is possible, it does not mean that it is the case.
This is how I define a strong atheist = Someone who believes that there is no god.
And I am challenging people here to change my mind by providing evidence for why they believe in a god/gods.
If you want to call me agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist or whatever, then feel free. I find arguing labels to be boring.
I find many flaws in the agnostic atheist label hence why I don't use it. And it is not specific enough to describe my position. Agnostic atheist means I don't know and I don't believe. My position is that I strongly believe in the non existence of a god.
Here is a blog post by someone else on the issue with that agnostic atheist label.
https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2019/02/24/the-logical-ambiguity-of-agnostic-atheist/
In the end, I genuinely dont care about the label argument. Call me what you want, just provide argument for your position so we can argue.
Ok.
Its okay, have a good day buddy lol.
No its just that you are wrong on so many levels and I don't feel like explaining all that to you. So I'd rather just let you make a fool out of yourself here so everyone can see you falling on your face over and over again. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant after all.
Ok.
Ok. Have a good day buddy
ok.
I have no idea who you are and what you are talking about. I only recently have been trying out this website
Your response makes you look like you've never read anything in philosophy. There is a difference between a moral justification of an action and the effectiveness of the action. Your questions are irrelevant since they are already answered within my first response. I would not actually support banning speech since it's ineffective. You said there is no compelling case against free speech. I provided you one(moral justification of banning speech not its effectiveness) and your rebuttal missed the mark on everything I said. I won't respond back to you cause you're not worth my time. Im tired of engaging in discussions with idiots.
Lets say you're a minority(eg a black person) in a society with a majority (eg white people). Everywhere you go, people call you the "n word" derogatorily. These words will have impacts on the emotional wellbeing of the minority individual. These can lead to individuals developping some mental illnesses and some may even end up causing harm to themselves as a result of thinking they are less worthy than others because of their identity(Something they cannot change or can only change with very drastic, physical changes).
These issues are faced by various minority groups(People of color, members of the lgbt, etc...). Someone, who values a society where the social wellbeing is maximised, can justify banning certain speech that will cause such emotional distress.
You may respond with: Well they need to toughen up.
But that's not easy to do when most people around you treat you this way. There are plenty of cases of people committing suicide, self harm, etc all because they develop insecurities due to being bullied for being different. Therefore, there is a serious moral justification for censorship of these videos that do end up causing harm.
In a university who thrive on having more students applying there, the university has everything to gain by ensuring a maximum wellbeing among their student population.
Sorry I think I misunderstood what free speech absolutism meant
I would like to point out a typo on my part in the last round and correct it here.
"My argument was that, to prove that the God of the New Testament is real, PRO would have to show how the article you cited failed to reach their own standards. "
I meant for it to say "My argument was that PRO would have to prove that the New Testament is reliable. The article you cited fail to reach even their own standards."
What does that even mean? Lol. I rebutted you and that's it. I did not insult you, I did not make derogatory comments towards you. I don't know what you mean by "hostile". Now it's your turn to respond to me.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This is a website called debateart, I opened this debate with main theme: God is real, and I took the CON position. Even if this was a discussion, whatever that means, do you think I would just read what you said and never rebut it? You agreed to the debate. Do you think people just come here to discuss with people without challenging each other?
Dude, what are you doing?
I know you stand by your vote and that's good for you. I'm glad you feel that way. Based on that last comment of yours, I doubt you yourself know any of these things. Have a good day :)
Okay, so? That is not against the rules to criticise bad arguments. I provided evidence when saying my opponent used complicated language to sound smart and clarified what they said for the audience. My opponent misunderstood the first premise of their own argument, which is why i said that they don't understand said premise. You may think it's disrespectful but those are facts. And there is nothing wrong with stating facts and I should not have been penalised for doing so. As they often say "facts don't care about your feelings". Still, its your right to give a bad vote and I respect that. I just think that you misrepresented me with what you said in your vote since I made no ad hominem fallacies and its not deserving of a penalty to get heated. Anyway you made your vote already and I dont have to like it. Have a good day buddy
No worries. I was confused cause I agree with what you were saying but I thought you were trying to refute me
I don't think you know what an ad hominem fallacy is.
An ad hom happens when I don't refute their argument because of a third unrelated characteristic. An eg would be saying something along the lines of: "You are wrong because you suck". Just being critical of someone being dishonest is not an ad hom
There is a huge difference between Galileo saying the Sun is at the center of our galaxy and Milo Yiannopoulos doxxing a transgender student because Milo did not like what the latter had to say
If you read what I have said on this subject so far you will notice one thing: I never said we should censor unpopular or controversial opinion at all. So you are preaching to the choir here
It depends on the context of why you are saying it. If you are making a sociological study, then sure. The same way it's also okay for someone to say, white males have had historically held a position of privilege that they benefit of to this day. Assuming both are factually correct, those are just facts. But if you are saying this with the intention of making prescriptive statements(Therefore we should kick black people out, White people should not be allowed on campus), then I disagree.
People still do say these things: If you look into the Evergreen scandal where Bret Weinstein stood up against the fact that white people were told to stay home and not come to campus, I oppose these students who said that. I side with Bret on this. These students should not have been given a platform and they should have been arrested for what they did later.
However, if instead these students said they wanted to make a socioogical discussion on white privilege and oppression of black people, I would support that.
People like Richard Spencer may not directly say they want black people kicked out, they are indeed obtuse with their language. But by looking at the bigger picture of all that they said, it is easy to see what their intentions are.
I am fine with ideologies/political views being discussed among actual experts, I just am not fine with someone being given a platform just to dehumanize people. If Richard Dawkins were to come to my university to dehumanise all religious people("all Muslims are terrorists", "All Catholics are pedophiles", "Jews are taking over the World",etc...) ,I would oppose him being given a platform. If he were to come just to discuss why he hates religions(Islam/ Judaism/ Christianity/etc... is dumb/violent/retarded/etc...), then I would support that. As I said, I am even fine with people being given a platform to criticise atheism.
I am referring to refusing people like Milo Yiannopoulos for eg, a stage to deliver a speech on university grounds
Its unfortunate you forfeited both rounds but still it was fun engaging with you.
I challenged you. Accept it and lets get to debating
Would you like to debate me on the existence of god?
King Strawmanner in the house lol. Keep living in your delusion, buddy. I explained my position and refuted your arguments. You've only done strawmans this whole time and you don't even understand the argument you bring forward. I explained to you how the Kalam works and you don't even understand the first premise. As I said, I can't educate you on it. Do your own research
I said nothing that goes against the rules. Next time learn your own arguments better and avoid strawmanning the opposing side
All kinds of things are possible. It is possible that there is a flying spaghetti monster that lives millions of light years away from Earth. It is possible that fairies exist in a galaxy far, far away. Just because I said that it is possible, it does not mean that it is the case.
This is how I define a strong atheist = Someone who believes that there is no god.
And I am challenging people here to change my mind by providing evidence for why they believe in a god/gods.
If you want to call me agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist or whatever, then feel free. I find arguing labels to be boring.
I find many flaws in the agnostic atheist label hence why I don't use it. And it is not specific enough to describe my position. Agnostic atheist means I don't know and I don't believe. My position is that I strongly believe in the non existence of a god.
Here is a blog post by someone else on the issue with that agnostic atheist label.
https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2019/02/24/the-logical-ambiguity-of-agnostic-atheist/
In the end, I genuinely dont care about the label argument. Call me what you want, just provide argument for your position so we can argue.