since no one is accepting my debates I invite anyone to bring forth a controversial topic to talk about. I will take the opposing side and offer information and we can have a casual discussion about it. I will award people points for making good constructive or refutations. Come one come all. Defeat the Undefeatable!
Challenge Undefeatable!
Posts
Total:
20
-->
@3RU7AL
i think I saw something similar with your debates. Interested?
I'm looking forward to reading your debate about free will. Tag me if I forget.
-->
@Undefeatable
What topics are you interested in debating?
-->
@That1User
I can debate almost anything except religion. I am also not good at talking about relationships as I have never been in one.
-->
@Undefeatable
I can debate almost anything except religion. I am also not good at talking about relationships as I have never been in one.
Time to trade topics
The B-theory of Time (Eternalism) is sound (Pro)
Perception is Reality (Pro)
CRISPR is Revolutionary (Pro)
Operation Barbarossa was Strategically Sound (Given the Circumstances) (Pro)
-->
@That1User
personally, I agree with Eternalism, and https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2801&context=oa_dissertations offers an insanely long insight into the debate. In essence, it's extraordinarily difficult to argue for presentism (though it is possible, with hair-pulling semantics and incredible stress on "the past cannot currently exist, and the future cannot currently exist. Only the present can exist", etc. )[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10516-018-9373-7], and no-futurism is stuck at an odd place. Nevertheless you could make the argument that all three theories are actually quite similar in essence as they are not substantial, and so all of them are equally sound or unsound. From a scientific point of view, Eternalism is backed relatively well.
(also, Eternalism is less morally sound than Presentism, despite logically being more sound)
but TBH both of these are crappy theories and the controversy is utterly meaningless unless Eternalism actually cannot solve the problem of murder/death being immoral. Presentism is slightly easier to argue especially for my username, but the cause-and-effect causes a lot of plot holes and you need to be like, expert level to resolve those problems that simple logic deduces.
I will get to the rest later as I am tired.
-->
@Undefeatable
personally, I agree with Eternalism
Sweet we agree, brainstorming topics rn, hopefully you have some too
-->
@That1User
also perception is reality is ridiculously easy to win as con. Your brain's information is different from what is actually seen; you interpret and manipulate reality in your favor. You're basically saying whatever people think changes reality. But obviously dreams are not real. So perception =/= reality
-->
@seldiora
Your brain's information is different from what is actually seen; you interpret and manipulate reality in your favor. You're basically saying whatever people think changes reality. But obviously dreams are not real. So perception =/= reality
What is actually seen is because of the brain processing the information sent by the eyes, why aren't dreams real? Dreams synthesize the brain's info, same with the senses
-->
@That1User
why aren't dreams real? Because you can perform extraordinary feats within your imagination. The very fact that you could be dying in real life while having a good time in the dream goes to show your perception can be warped
why aren't dreams real? Because you can perform extraordinary feats within your imagination. The very fact that you could be dying in real life while having a good time in the dream goes to show your perception can be warped
This doesn't mean this isn't real, you are still expierencing the dream, to you and your mind the dream is reality in your physical dying moments. The dream is also impactful to life because it's ending happily. One's life would end very differently if concious during death, or having a bad dream. In fact, having vivid dreams while dying is a common response of the human mind throughout humanity, impacting reality. How one dies is important medically, and dreams are a part of that reality of life and death.
-->
@That1User
"perception is reality" is very problematic. That would potentially mean because a person's memory lives on in your heart that euthanizing them may be justified as they are still "alive to you".
-->
@That1User
as for CRISPR... it doesn't always work, it has problems, but depending on the threshold of "revolutionary" you'll probably always win as pro. It's relatively easy, unless you try to compare it. Like, it is as impacting as cell phones? Probably not. Is it as impacting as even the vaccine for covid-19? Still probably not.
-->
@Undefeatable
as for CRISPR... it doesn't always work, it has problems, but depending on the threshold of "revolutionary" you'll probably always win as pro. It's relatively easy, unless you try to compare it. Like, it is as impacting as cell phones? Probably not. Is it as impacting as even the vaccine for covid-19? Still probably not.
Time to clarify, the potential CRISPR has is revolutionary
-->
@Undefeatable
"perception is reality" is very problematic. That would potentially mean because a person's memory lives on in your heart that euthanizing them may be justified as they are still "alive to you".
I didn't consider the moral implications, it being problematic doesn't invalidate it though
-->
@That1User
With Op. Barborossa, it seems that most critics of it realize that the actual implementation and communication are problematic (https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1039919.pdf). It's agreed that it is *tactically* sound, but not strategically. A very subtle semantics difference.
-->
@Undefeatable
I'm perfectly happy to attack any of the following resolutions,
Free will is an incoherent concept.
Morality is indisputable.
Science is not objective.
We can give it a go on the forums or in the debate section.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not a big fan of those topics because they're really vague and hard to grasp onto. Theweakeredge might be better at such ambiguous ideas. I personally agree that free will is incoherent, but should still be agreed to exist. Morality obviously exists, but whether it is objective or subjective is up to debate. Finally, science can be our interpretations as well as the actual results, making objectivity impossible to determine.
-->
@Undefeatable
Why do you think "free will" "should still be agreed to exist"?