Benjamin

• Gojo can take the effect of cursed energy and techniques, and reverse it.
  
• Healing: basically 100 sealing jutsu, in that Gojo can heal from any injury, so long as his entire head is not destroyed in one attack.
  

• Allows the user to perceive everything around them, just like a byakugan, except constantly active and with no blind spot
  
• It also allows him to keep track of way faster opponents, and see through illusions, genjutsu and shaddow clones just like a sharingan
  
• Makes it so that you have perfect perception and controll over cursed energy on a molecular level.
  
• This precision allows him to spend only an infinitesimal ammount of cursed energy, so he never runs out of juice, he can spam his arsenal for days.
  

• Gojo constantly creates infinite distance between himself and everything else. Essentially, all attacks with finite speed can never hit him. 
  
• For comparison, Obito has a similarly effective defense, where attacked parts of his body teleport to another dimension. This single ability makes him formidable.
  
• Gojo can increase his speed exponentially and even teleport. He reduces the distance between himself and where he wants to be to 0, and moves instantly between locations.
  
• For comparison, Minato is one of the strongest fighters in Naruto, solely because of his ability to teleport. And unlike Gojo, he can only teleport to premarked locations.
  
• Oh yeah, and Gojo can fly.
  

• Blue:
  
• Nothing too special by Naruto standards. It is a mini-black hole that he can controll that drags everything around into it.
  
• Red:
  
• A reversal of blue. Basically a ball that is in a state of constant explosions that pushes everythign away. 
  
• Hollow purple:
  
• This is the important part. Purple is a combination of Blue and Red. Purple is a sphere of controllable size which turns all matter into nonexistence.
  
• For comparison, the Tsuchikage is the most powerfull living kage in Naruto Shippuden, only because he has a nerfed version of this power.
  
• Atomic dismantling jutsu turns enemies into individual atoms. But hollow purple does that but also removes those atoms.
  
• Regardless, both attacks straight up ignore durability. Toji, the most durable guy in JJK, tanked blue and red, but purple slized through him.
  

• The ultimate genjutsu. This domain expansion will create a sphere with a radius of 200 meters. Everyone inside will be trapped and flooded with infinite information.
  
• Normal people will be hospitalized and extremely strong opponents capable of leveling cities will be frozen for minutes after only experiencing unlimited void for 0.2 seconds.
  
• Literally any enemy who gets trapped in this attack is going to die, either from the information itself, or from being blasted with hollow purple while unconscious. 
  
• For comparison, Itachi is the strongest genjutsu user in Naruto, and he can hospitalize only one person and only if they look in his eyes, and it will still drain him.
  
• But Gojo can spam this AoE genjutsu as long as he wants.
  

• Kakashi could send Gojo to another dimension where there is the slightest chance he might not be able to teleport away from. 
  
• 10-tails Madara has limbo clones that could kill Gojo because he has no way of detecting them. 
  
• Itachi could maybe hit him with his occular genjutsu. We know this is effective even against strong willed people, but Gojo rarely uncovers his eyes.
  
• Naruto and Sasuke with sage of six paths powers could potentially seal him away just like they did Kagya, because we know Gojo is weak to sealing techniques.
  

• Guns for self defence, when Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and told Peter not to raise his sword
  
• Deporting immigrants, maltreating the poor and homeless, and letting prisoners rot like animals --- when Jesus said to treat these specific groups better
  
• Dickriding capitalists like Elon Musk and supporting low taxes for the rich, when Jesus said the rich man getting to heaven is very unlikely, and that resources should go to the poor

1. Capitalism - good
   
2. Communism - good
   
3. Abortion - good
   
4. Religion - bad
   
5. Gay - good
   
6. Trans surgery - bad
   
7. Trump - bad
   
8. Biden - good
   
9. Russia - good
   
10. Israel - good
    
11. Ukraine - good
    
12. Child marriage - good
    
13. Veganism - good
    
14. Vegetarianism - bad
    
15. Porn - good
    
16. Smoking - good
    
17. Drugs - good
    
18. Guns - good
    
19. Accepting migrants - bad
    
20. Government healthcare - good
    
21. Recycling - bad
    
22. Solar energy - bad
    
23. Fast food - good
    
24. Social media - bad
    
25. Video games - good
    
26. Artificial Intelligence - bad
    
27. Public transportation - good
    
28. Homeschooling - bad
    
29. Public schooling - good
    
30. Nuclear energy - bad
    
31. Deforestation - good
    
32. Animal testing - bad
    
33. Space exploration - good
    
34. Online privacy - good
    
35. Minimum wage increase - bad
    

The Subjectivity of Morality: An In-depth Analysis

Introduction
Morality, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, refers to the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Subjective morality posits that these principles are created by individuals or societies and can vary significantly, reflecting personal or cultural views.

Affirming the Existence of Diverse Moral Frameworks
Across the globe, societies exhibit a wide range of moral frameworks, reflecting diverse cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions. This diversity suggests that morality is not universally objective but is shaped by subjective factors. For instance, Harvard University’s research on global ethics highlights the vast differences in moral codes across cultures, further affirming the subjectivity of morality.

Demonstrating the Influence of Culture and Society on Morality
Cultural and societal norms play a significant role in shaping an individual’s moral compass. For instance, practices considered morally acceptable in one culture may be viewed as immoral in another. This variation underscores the subjectivity of morality. The American Psychological Association’s studies on cultural psychology provide numerous examples of how cultural norms influence moral judgments.

Presenting Evidence of Changing Moral Standards
Historical shifts in moral standards provide further evidence of morality’s subjectivity. Over time, societies’ views on issues such as slavery, women’s rights, and LGBTQ+ rights have evolved significantly, suggesting that morality is not fixed but is subject to change. Yale University’s research on the evolution of moral standards over time provides compelling evidence of this phenomenon.

Analyzing the Role of Personal Beliefs and Experiences
Personal beliefs and experiences also shape an individual’s moral judgments. Two individuals can interpret the same situation differently based on their personal beliefs, further highlighting the subjectivity of morality. The University of Oxford’s research on moral psychology explores this aspect in depth.

Addressing Common Objections
One common objection to the idea of subjective morality is the existence of universal moral principles, such as prohibitions against murder or theft. However, even these seemingly universal principles can be subject to cultural interpretation and context. For instance, some societies may condone killing in certain circumstances, such as in self-defense or during war.

Another objection is the idea that subjective morality leads to moral relativism, where any action can be justified. However, this overlooks the fact that most individuals and societies have core moral principles that guide their actions, even if these principles are not universally shared.

Conclusion
The evidence suggests that morality is subjective rather than objective. It is influenced by a variety of factors, including cultural and societal norms, historical context, and personal beliefs and experiences. While certain moral principles may be widely accepted within a particular society or culture, they are not universally applicable, underscoring the subjectivity of morality.

The Objectivity of Morality: A Comprehensive Examination

Introduction
Morality, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, refers to the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Objective morality asserts that these principles exist independently of individual or societal beliefs, and are universally applicable.

Affirming the Existence of Universal Moral Principles
Despite cultural variations, certain moral principles are universally recognized, such as prohibitions against murder or theft. This universality suggests that morality is not entirely subjective but contains objective elements. Research from the University of Oxford on global ethics supports the existence of these universal moral principles.

Demonstrating the Influence of Human Nature on Morality
Human nature, which is consistent across cultures and societies, plays a significant role in shaping morality. Certain behaviors, such as empathy and cooperation, are universally considered moral, suggesting an objective basis for morality. Studies from the American Psychological Association on human nature and morality provide numerous examples of this phenomenon.

Presenting Evidence of Consistent Moral Standards
While societal views on certain issues have evolved over time, fundamental moral principles have remained consistent. This consistency suggests an objective basis for morality. Research from Yale University on the consistency of moral standards over time provides compelling evidence of this phenomenon.

Analyzing the Role of Reason in Moral Judgments
Reason, which is independent of personal beliefs and experiences, plays a crucial role in moral judgments. Two individuals can reach the same moral conclusion about a situation through logical reasoning, highlighting the objectivity of morality. The University of Cambridge’s research on moral reasoning explores this aspect in depth.

Addressing Common Objections
One common objection to the idea of objective morality is the existence of moral disagreements. However, disagreements do not necessarily negate the existence of objective truths. For instance, scientists may disagree about certain theories, but this does not mean that there are no objective truths in science. Another objection is the idea that objective morality implies moral absolutism, where moral principles are inflexible. However, objective morality can accommodate context and nuance. For instance, while killing is generally considered wrong, most would agree that it can be justified in self-defense.

Rebuttal 1: Diverse Moral Frameworks
Argument X asserts that the existence of diverse moral frameworks across cultures affirms the subjectivity of morality. However, this argument overlooks the existence of universal moral principles that are recognized across cultures, suggesting an objective basis for morality.

Rebuttal 2: Influence of Culture and Society
While it is true that cultural and societal norms influence morality, this does not negate the existence of objective morality. Certain moral behaviors, such as empathy and cooperation, are universally recognized, indicating an objective basis for morality.

Rebuttal 3: Changing Moral Standards
The argument that changing moral standards affirm the subjectivity of morality is flawed. While societal views on certain issues have evolved, fundamental moral principles have remained consistent, suggesting an objective basis for morality.

Rebuttal 4: Role of Personal Beliefs and Experiences
The assertion that personal beliefs and experiences shape morality overlooks the role of reason in moral judgments. Through logical reasoning, individuals can reach the same moral conclusions, indicating the objectivity of morality.

Rebuttal 5: Common Objections
The objections raised in Argument X do not sufficiently counter the idea of objective morality. Disagreements do not negate the existence of objective truths, and objective morality can accommodate context and nuance. Therefore, these objections do not undermine the case for objective morality.

Conclusion

The evidence suggests that morality is objective rather than subjective. It is influenced by universal principles, human nature, consistent moral standards, and reason. While certain moral principles may be interpreted differently within a particular society or culture, they are universally applicable, underscoring the objectivity of morality.

• How long untill the Large Language Models surpass us humans in debate ability?
  
• Would this be a positive thing for the community?
  
• We should probably ban AI written arguments, right?
  
• Will we in the future analyse debates with AI just like chess players do nowadays?
  
• Any other thoughts you may have on this topic.

1. Children and infants go to hell.
   
2. Children and infants do not go to hell.
   

1. You have to actually have a certain level of maturity to be able to commit a sin, and you have to sin before becomming eligible for hell.
   
2. Jesus saves all the children regardless of their lack of faith while they were alive. 
   
3. Children don't have souls, so they go nowhere. 
   

1. God overides free will on multiple occations. He hardens the heart of pharao so he can continue torturing the Egyptians. He is also many times using world leaders to enact his will - without them even knowing or consenting. He is even going to force every knee to bow for him when he returns. 
   
2. The children and infants never chose to be sick with malaria, so there is no free will to overide in order to heal them. God chose to create malaria, not a human, and then he continually choses to ignore the cries of all its victims. Whose free will is he respecting in this case?
   
3. Why does God respect the free will of the rapist, but not the free will of the victim? Doing nothing is the equivalent of siding with the rapist. 
   
4. God is sending to hell many people that were never even introduced to the concept of an almighty God. People that were only exposed to primitive religions and were never faced with the question of accepting or rejecting Jesus. These people never chose hell, but yet were born destined to go there. 
   
5. How can someone have free will if they are possesed by demons? The Biblical stories about demon possesions are proof that God doesn't guarantee our free will. 
   

• Abandoning private prisons and mass incarceration, focus on preventative work like curbing poverty and improving education.
  
• Subsidizing green technology and food production with low impact on the enviroment (cuting subsidies to oil companies, weapons manufacturers, etc).
  
• Cutting back on military spending. Prioritise saving lives through better healthcare rather than with highly expensive, only slightly improved military tech.
  
• Encourage and protect workers unions, prevent union busting, enforce workers rights, even for part-time workers.
  
• Ending homelessness. This would only cost 20 billion dollars, and the government would save money in the long run
  

"The relationships between PQL and political-economic system deserve more serious attention than they have received in the past. Our findings indicate that countries with socialist political-economic systems can make great strides toward meeting basic human needs, even without extensive economic resources. When much of the world's population suffers from disease, early death, malnutrition, and illiteracy, these observations take on a meaning that goes beyond cold statistics." [ibid]

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. 

 

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.

 

No human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, OPEN TO REASON, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

 

 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.  The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.

JAMES, THE BIBLE

• Everyone is sinfull. The type of sin is irrelevant to God, nobody is better than anyone else.
  
• Your prayers will heal people consistently if you are actually righteous.
  
• God demands the avoidance of anger and verbal attacks -- he demands one is always gentle, peacefull and open to reason.
  
• If you do not actively help the weakest in society it shows that your faith is worthless and that you won't go to heaven.
  

1.  Religion and other forms of unfounded beliefs are firmly established in indoctrinated minds. Many people have become immune to truth. By definition, echo chambers prevent misinformation from being corrected - especially when faith or "anecdotal evidence" is trusted above real evidence that is verifiable.
   
2. Lack of education is a hard nut to crack because many unconciously avoid finding, learning and remembering correct information. Sometimes it is not mallicious intent or indoctrination that causes the spread of misinformation, but rather intelectual laziness and lack of skepticism. When people have enough of an open mind, their brain falls out. People sorely need to recognize untrustworthy sources and fake facts, but they cannot do so without putting in some effort. 
   
3. Big lies feeds on widespread ignorance and distrust of authority (whatever all the experts agree on). Any attempt at helping people will be portrayed as an oppressive establishment stricking down dissent. For this reason, trying to cure ignorance can sometimes backfire. 
   
4. The greatest problem is that lack of education is not the real problem. The average IQ and knowledge is way higher today than most of history. But the way modern media works, people are educated in different directions. Factually accurate education is hard to come by, it is drowned in a sea of dishonest alternatives. The layman learns from his sources, trusting them regardless of their trustworthiness. Most such sources are driven by political, religious or ideological agendas to cherry pick information and perspectives. Even if they don't outright lie they hide the truth when it conflicts with their narrative. They shoot a constant barrage of fallacious arguments at the gullible person with devastating success, no matter the absurdity of their position.
   
5. A person is likely to host a growing colony of misconceptions because there are a quadrillion ways to view the world, most of which are objectively incorrect. Human cognition also suffer from biases and logical fallacies obscuring our ability to decipher the validity of arguments and claims.
   

• Democracy can't but be based on the traditions and customs of a nation. When the USA went into Afganistan they ignored the history and traditions of the people, and therefore their attempt at enforcing democracy failed miserably. The failure of USSR and the failure of American imperialism is that neither respects nor understood other people, opting instead to enforce their own values and interests. Russia will learn from USSR's mistakes. 
  
• The development of the Russian economic, social and political spheres MUST be slow and steady as to prevent revolts and revolutions. Russia has had enough revolutions. The stability of the nation and living standard of the people must have first priority. When mass rallies in the west is met and destroyed by the police, it too is lack of freedom based on a preference for stability and order. Russia is a democracy, denying it is just a matter of how you define it. There are 32 political parties in Russia, and different departments are controlled by different parties. We know that corruption in Russia is a big problem, but it unfortunately is not unique. American lobbying, for example, is legalized corruption. Instead of pointing fingers everyone should focus on solving their problems; this is what we will be doing in Russia.
  
• Russia does have economic problems, but we do not print money like other countries. Our inflation is caused by being part of the world economy. We recognize the need to put much effort, focus and resources into the economy. We are also working hard to ensure that higher GDP translates into higher wages, this is a specific area of focus for the Russian administration.
  

• American military excercises in Alaska, we don't care about them, its in their own territory, as such excercises should be. Russian military excercices happen regularly in the south, the east and the west, but only the war games in the west, near eastern Europe, has gotten western attention. We are viewed as aggressive despite containing our operations and infrastructure inside our own territory. Yet military infrastructure in addition to 40.000 military personell and 15.000 pieces of military equipment from Defender Europe is used in a military excercise at our southern borders, some was even airlifted there. How is Russia the aggresive one when we are the ones who keep our military excersices inside our borders? 
  
• Gorbachov was promissed that NATO would not expand more towards the east. Interviewer: "where is that written down?" Putin: "Right, right. Well done, correct. You've got a point. They fooled him good". Everything should have been written down, but it wasn't. In fact, NATO has expanded, they have moved their military equipment close to our borders. America has also withdrawn from our treaties regulating the arms race, leading to both America and Russia accelerating the development of more and more advanced weapons. What was the point? And why is Russia the aggressive party? I have said it before and I will say it again, we are willing and eager to negotiate new treaties in order to again restrict and hopefully stop the new arms race of today.
  
• When it comes to economy, stability and predictability are the most important. Currency doesn't matter. America apperently does not value its currency. "it is used as an instrument against competition and political struggle. This, of course, is detrimental to the dollar as a global reserve currency"  According to the world bank, among other things, settlements in dollars are shrinking. But we still prefer the dollar as an exchange currency. But we are also willing to use many other currencies for trade. We are ready to talk about transactions in Euro for gas trade, for example. Such monetary changes are acceptable to us. The way the world economy is developing, and the way America treats its currency, it is clear that multiple reserve currencies will be needed.
  

• Rolling a dice could render it in a "superposition" with each numerical outcome having a 1/6 chance of occuring. When we measure it, the superposition collapses and we have a definitive outcome (comparable with a particles excact position)
  
• The dice is random because the process of throwing a dice, its trajectory and landing, are messy and chaotic. Because the dice follows the laws of physics, we could simulate a dice throw, and if we did, the same outcome would arise every time we use the same initial conditions.
  
• Thus, the result of the dice is not truly random, just hard to predict. It's "superposition" prior to us measuring the outcome only exists from our perspective. The dice always has a definitive outcome, and this outcome is determined by the laws of physics.
  

1. Humans ought to take into moral consideration future value
   
2. xxx has future value
   
3. Humans ought to take xxx into moral consideration
   

• This would make our ranking system more accurate
  

• Right now, unrated does not mean actually unrated. The current system makes losing an unrated debate affect the win/loss ration, a very important number.
  
• With my suggestion implemented, people like Ragnar and Oromagi would be able to participate in as many debates as they would like
  
• Currently, participating in unrated debates puts their precious win/loss rations at risk
  
• The current system thus prevents exceptional debaters from participating in funny/informal debates
  
• thus the current system causes a lot of undesired and fatal effects and is VERY flawed because of this
  

• Elsewise, point 2 would not be as effective
  
• Currently, unrated debates and ranked debates are seen as one category, making it very possible for the win/loss ratio and elo number to disagree
  

• Tied debates are neither win's nor losses, and should not be recorded as such
  
• This suggestion makes the win percentage more accurate, as ties are not actually half-wins half-losses,
  
• With this feature, an agreed-upon tie can have the desired effect of not affecting any rating or number
  

• P1: Free will can only exist if my experience and choices affect the future state of myself
  
• P2: If choices and experiences affect the future, then every choice was affected by previous choices and experiences
  
• C: Free will can only exist if every choice was affected by previous choices and/or experience
  

• Is this "I" merely a product of atoms moving around?
  
• Do all atoms moving around create some form of "I", or does this only occur in our brains?
  
• How does this happen? New physical dimensions, quantum mechanics, maybe something else?
  

• If "I" doesn't exist, then why do I experience this thought process?
  
• If "I" doesn't exist, then a human is no better than a rock. How can one still support morality?
  
• What substitutes "I" in terms of function?