oromagi must be so relieved i dropped the debate. I bet he was skidding his pants. I left my forfeit so late to simply terrorise his soul and psyche. Doctor xavier mind games.
Mall is definitely a troll. You can just look to the questions ive asked him on his profile. He claims to not know what a troll is. Yet at the same time can use really good grammar on rare occasions. I'm just surprised how he can keep this troll up for years.
Considering this is not your own opinion but following what others opinions are. Is it or is it not then naïve in your opinion? if it isn't naïve in your opinion, you're spiteful and hypocritical to consider it naïve of me, but not of yourself. if this isn't the case, then you're simply spiteful and malicious. In option two you're simply acting defeatist in life.
Undefeatable could of won this if he just bit the bullet on the 13% representation. He could of just said "yeah, 13% of characters should be black" depending on the time period and setting of the Disney movie too of course. Then fruit inspectors entire vagueness argument falls apart and he has no sources to deem this hard or expensive to do.
You honestly take the cake oromagi. You're a more dishonest debater than intelligence is. I would find it embarrassing personally. I couldnt live that way.
The words weren't changed to win the debate, but to make more logical sense. You essentially forfeited on that end. The entire debate was (in part) intended to be a discussion about whether pain should be considered an emotion or not. It's somewhat hard to implement that into the broader discussion while putting it in the title etc without it looking weird. which has sadly led me to get strawmanned, but alas, that's the nature of more complex debates. Although I suppose I should take baby steps and argue these points separately. In the end, a debate should be about getting to the root of truth, not what is the most pragmatic to believe.
I just learnt that your elo gains/losses scale depending on your opposition. That means if i beat Novice i should in theory get quite big gains while he gets little if he wins. What a great investment if i wished to climb. Novice is also a good debater, so it would be a great opportunity to develop at the same time too.
I would probably agree they/them type "gender expressions" are actually quite hard to defend and harm the trans mtf and ftm movement. Although you may struggle yourself if they take an ID perspective, which means even if they're opposites it shouldn't matter. Unless you argue an ID view of gender is nonsense? I wont take the debate, i already have a similar one going, and i get the sense you may end up being easy to strawman in this debate simply through your wording in the title, and id rather not strawman to win debates. Especially on a side i dont agree with.
I would recommend you change your title to " there SHOULD be only two genders" the sophists will strawman you to the sun and back if you don't. The number 1 requirement to continuously winning debates on this site is actually just to have airtight titles and descriptions.
The truth is, satan. That when one insults another, all you really point out is how you would feel if you were them, demonstrating your own insecurity. You're telling me i shouldn't have confidence if i possess a 30% winrate, demonstrating how you would view yourself if you had my winrate. All you really point out is your own insecurities and expectations of which I do not have. I will always be more confident and happy than you for as long as you have these judgements. All you point out is the fact you have lower self esteem than me, you're more fragile than me.
lol this guy. It turns out in all of my philosophy discussions i have to offer a free epistemology class to rid them of their brain worms and scientism.
Although as jesus would say, its might not be very bright to cast my pearls before swine. I might pull out simply for the fact i shouldn't spread these ideas if i wish to publish them in the future. None of my true beliefs have been fully expressed on this site, at least to do with philosophy, i do believe consciousness is a universal though.
There isn't a person on the planet who has a greater understanding of metaethics than me. I can bridge the is-ought gap, i can show a mind independent morality to exist.
you can doubt everything, but doubting it without evidence is not good enough. I can doubt whether im a thinking thing. But simply doubting does not disprove what you're doubting. I have fulfilled my burden of proof, you have not.
You're not refuting anything im saying, at all. Its your job to prove me wrong, you're not doing that. You're just desperate to try and get me to argue for peoples lived experiences of being an Egyptian pharaoh.
The fact you think you cannot learn anything from philosophy demonstrates you have already given up. That's a loser mentality, its a shame almost everyone on the planet thinks the same.
Every debate includes philosophical thinking. All you really are telling me is that you are incapable of changing your mind in debates unless someone says it nicely to you. That's the difference though, rationalmadman, i will never give up or lose my open mind regardless of how the past of philosophy or the future of it appears. I have come to know true knowledge of the world can only be found through the study of ones own consciousness. Science is not objective, so it would be cool if people stopped appealing to science like its a religion.
Wherever you choose to take the debate, oromagi. Dualism, physicalism, it does not matter. That is what is necessary on my part, to argue for its necessity, after all. There will be no holes.
You did about everything i expected you to do. Ill give you my response tomorrow (its rather late here now). Obviously nothing you said actually counters anything i said, its actually a straw man, everything is. Even your argument to against intuition. Copernicus's findings were not intuitive but discursive, although its obvious you will intentionally act as if you're mentally inadequate on this point so i will move the goalpost too.
You can argue against America not having boots on the ground if china invaded Taiwan. I would adamantly disagree, although that is not the premise of this debate. In the end, i would consider it either ignorance or cowardice to not to wish to defend Taiwan from china with boots on the ground in the event of an invasion. People will make up excuses to let other die in an attempt for self preservation such as "they're not even Americans, why should i care?".
From what i know about you, you appear to be a man much older than I. I would be put into such a war far before you would, i would be more than willing to die for my values. The only reason why you have the freedoms you do now is because of people who weren't cowards and were willing to risk it all for more rights both for themselves and others. People will take your rights if they can, and if you don't defend others rights one day no one will be there to defend yours either.
That is correct within common vernacular, yes. If you accepted the debate you can always argue for why this shouldn't be the case. America does not need to have its military alliances. It would be fine if the USSR or the Nazis won. At least for a good 20 years they can pretend nothing has changed.
You are aware you ought to pick up arms under the NATO articles if one of the NATO nations are invaded, correct? how is that not a form of interventionalism? if America was isolationist, that means they wouldn't have military alliances. That also involves and is true under non- interventionailism, so would you like to explain what is "bs"?
and if you want this debate afterwards, i will gladly accept. I've all but come to the conclusion most people have been so indoctrinated into a materialist/physicalist way of thinking of things that judgment has been excessively clouded through culture. You claim to be a christian, the difference between me and you is that you need faith to know god. I need no such thing.
How would you respond to the forms of knowledge i postulate to oromagi then? if you too, disagree we can detect whether we reincarnate. theoretical physicists for instance cannot detect dark energy, yet they claim to know it exists out of necessity. If science can know things for certainty without detecting it with instruments, then i can too if i can corner it to necessity, no?
It seems like much of my discursive and intuitive divide must have flown over your head, it seems. It remains true that all intuitive knowledge is necessarily beyond the scope of science. It also remains true that we can detect synthetic a priori knowledge (and analytic a posteriori knowledge) without the aid of any scientific apparatus, i.e., 2 + 2 will always equal 4. These two forms of knowledge exist as forms of knowledge independent of physicalism or empirical testing. Unless you disagree you can detect the taste of chocolate? can you not detect that 2 + 2 equals 4?
-
It should be noted, if this was a debate on the likelihood of reincarnation being possible, I would have already won. Within the first scenario I postulate (that I came from non-existence), it at least leaves open the possibility that I can once more come back from nonexistence once I return to it, within the second option. I have to be immortal and therefore continue to exist after death. Your best argument is to follow premise one and argue simply that it is a likelihood and not surefire knowledge. Although once more, you ought to admit that reincarnation is likely based on this. It should also be noted that Socrates, through the study of consciousness, indirectly came to know the two theories for how the universe came to be ex nihilo(from nothing) or that it has simply always existed. This theory of metaphysics then is in perfect alignment with scientific theories of the creation of the universe.
I will also argue that American interventionalism is a net good for the entire world too, not just america and its allies. Evidently i will offer myself a large burden of proof in this discussion.
I assure you, i will be arguing it is in Americas best interests to be interventionist. It is also in the best interest of its allies and their values too.
i believe we ought not to completely exclude the possibility that being a "social pariah" internationally isn't optimal without a fleshed out discussion on the topic beforehand.
True, his short description contradicts the title and the long description. Although I thank him for lessening my burden slightly through doing so, I however would still put up a very strong argument even in a provable scenario (although I might of needed more than 5,000 to do that).
oromagi must be so relieved i dropped the debate. I bet he was skidding his pants. I left my forfeit so late to simply terrorise his soul and psyche. Doctor xavier mind games.
May i get some smexy votes my beautiful peeps?
Should of set the argument time to two hours. get him in his sleep.
Novice uses google, we're going to have to get a conduct point deduction for that (issa joke).
Mall is definitely a troll. You can just look to the questions ive asked him on his profile. He claims to not know what a troll is. Yet at the same time can use really good grammar on rare occasions. I'm just surprised how he can keep this troll up for years.
153 days lol
Considering this is not your own opinion but following what others opinions are. Is it or is it not then naïve in your opinion? if it isn't naïve in your opinion, you're spiteful and hypocritical to consider it naïve of me, but not of yourself. if this isn't the case, then you're simply spiteful and malicious. In option two you're simply acting defeatist in life.
con wins this easily if he knows his way around semantics.
Undefeatable could of won this if he just bit the bullet on the 13% representation. He could of just said "yeah, 13% of characters should be black" depending on the time period and setting of the Disney movie too of course. Then fruit inspectors entire vagueness argument falls apart and he has no sources to deem this hard or expensive to do.
Thank god this person didnt reply. I'm completely burnt out from debating as is, i have way too many debates going on.
Why don't you debate it then if you think its ok because of culture?
You honestly take the cake oromagi. You're a more dishonest debater than intelligence is. I would find it embarrassing personally. I couldnt live that way.
Is this mister ramshutu getting back into voting?
Well, we will see why someone may think its acceptable when someone accepts the debate i suppose!
The words weren't changed to win the debate, but to make more logical sense. You essentially forfeited on that end. The entire debate was (in part) intended to be a discussion about whether pain should be considered an emotion or not. It's somewhat hard to implement that into the broader discussion while putting it in the title etc without it looking weird. which has sadly led me to get strawmanned, but alas, that's the nature of more complex debates. Although I suppose I should take baby steps and argue these points separately. In the end, a debate should be about getting to the root of truth, not what is the most pragmatic to believe.
I just learnt that your elo gains/losses scale depending on your opposition. That means if i beat Novice i should in theory get quite big gains while he gets little if he wins. What a great investment if i wished to climb. Novice is also a good debater, so it would be a great opportunity to develop at the same time too.
My rating is too low to accept the debate. If you lower the rating if no one accept it after tomorrow ill give it a shot.
I would probably agree they/them type "gender expressions" are actually quite hard to defend and harm the trans mtf and ftm movement. Although you may struggle yourself if they take an ID perspective, which means even if they're opposites it shouldn't matter. Unless you argue an ID view of gender is nonsense? I wont take the debate, i already have a similar one going, and i get the sense you may end up being easy to strawman in this debate simply through your wording in the title, and id rather not strawman to win debates. Especially on a side i dont agree with.
Christian will be a menace to society of the likes of horrid henry and post his argument as soon as he's back online.
I would recommend you change your title to " there SHOULD be only two genders" the sophists will strawman you to the sun and back if you don't. The number 1 requirement to continuously winning debates on this site is actually just to have airtight titles and descriptions.
The truth is, satan. That when one insults another, all you really point out is how you would feel if you were them, demonstrating your own insecurity. You're telling me i shouldn't have confidence if i possess a 30% winrate, demonstrating how you would view yourself if you had my winrate. All you really point out is your own insecurities and expectations of which I do not have. I will always be more confident and happy than you for as long as you have these judgements. All you point out is the fact you have lower self esteem than me, you're more fragile than me.
Maybe there's more going on than meets the eye.
lol this guy. It turns out in all of my philosophy discussions i have to offer a free epistemology class to rid them of their brain worms and scientism.
Although as jesus would say, its might not be very bright to cast my pearls before swine. I might pull out simply for the fact i shouldn't spread these ideas if i wish to publish them in the future. None of my true beliefs have been fully expressed on this site, at least to do with philosophy, i do believe consciousness is a universal though.
There isn't a person on the planet who has a greater understanding of metaethics than me. I can bridge the is-ought gap, i can show a mind independent morality to exist.
I would disagree. Although im planning on debating ossa on the matter in a months time.
what is the part you want me to address, sir? about philosophy picking straws of ethics?
you can doubt everything, but doubting it without evidence is not good enough. I can doubt whether im a thinking thing. But simply doubting does not disprove what you're doubting. I have fulfilled my burden of proof, you have not.
You're not refuting anything im saying, at all. Its your job to prove me wrong, you're not doing that. You're just desperate to try and get me to argue for peoples lived experiences of being an Egyptian pharaoh.
The fact you think you cannot learn anything from philosophy demonstrates you have already given up. That's a loser mentality, its a shame almost everyone on the planet thinks the same.
Every debate includes philosophical thinking. All you really are telling me is that you are incapable of changing your mind in debates unless someone says it nicely to you. That's the difference though, rationalmadman, i will never give up or lose my open mind regardless of how the past of philosophy or the future of it appears. I have come to know true knowledge of the world can only be found through the study of ones own consciousness. Science is not objective, so it would be cool if people stopped appealing to science like its a religion.
Mall is a cute guy. You cant help but love him.
Potentially ill show the physicalists how miracles are possible at a later date.
Wherever you choose to take the debate, oromagi. Dualism, physicalism, it does not matter. That is what is necessary on my part, to argue for its necessity, after all. There will be no holes.
You're just going to end up having to argue against my pantheism, it seems.
You did about everything i expected you to do. Ill give you my response tomorrow (its rather late here now). Obviously nothing you said actually counters anything i said, its actually a straw man, everything is. Even your argument to against intuition. Copernicus's findings were not intuitive but discursive, although its obvious you will intentionally act as if you're mentally inadequate on this point so i will move the goalpost too.
You can argue against America not having boots on the ground if china invaded Taiwan. I would adamantly disagree, although that is not the premise of this debate. In the end, i would consider it either ignorance or cowardice to not to wish to defend Taiwan from china with boots on the ground in the event of an invasion. People will make up excuses to let other die in an attempt for self preservation such as "they're not even Americans, why should i care?".
From what i know about you, you appear to be a man much older than I. I would be put into such a war far before you would, i would be more than willing to die for my values. The only reason why you have the freedoms you do now is because of people who weren't cowards and were willing to risk it all for more rights both for themselves and others. People will take your rights if they can, and if you don't defend others rights one day no one will be there to defend yours either.
That is correct within common vernacular, yes. If you accepted the debate you can always argue for why this shouldn't be the case. America does not need to have its military alliances. It would be fine if the USSR or the Nazis won. At least for a good 20 years they can pretend nothing has changed.
You are aware you ought to pick up arms under the NATO articles if one of the NATO nations are invaded, correct? how is that not a form of interventionalism? if America was isolationist, that means they wouldn't have military alliances. That also involves and is true under non- interventionailism, so would you like to explain what is "bs"?
You can simply say it, as I can simply say chimpanzees are pink, yet me stating it as fact doesn't make it a matter of fact.
and if you want this debate afterwards, i will gladly accept. I've all but come to the conclusion most people have been so indoctrinated into a materialist/physicalist way of thinking of things that judgment has been excessively clouded through culture. You claim to be a christian, the difference between me and you is that you need faith to know god. I need no such thing.
How would you respond to the forms of knowledge i postulate to oromagi then? if you too, disagree we can detect whether we reincarnate. theoretical physicists for instance cannot detect dark energy, yet they claim to know it exists out of necessity. If science can know things for certainty without detecting it with instruments, then i can too if i can corner it to necessity, no?
I'll walk you through it properly next round.
It seems like much of my discursive and intuitive divide must have flown over your head, it seems. It remains true that all intuitive knowledge is necessarily beyond the scope of science. It also remains true that we can detect synthetic a priori knowledge (and analytic a posteriori knowledge) without the aid of any scientific apparatus, i.e., 2 + 2 will always equal 4. These two forms of knowledge exist as forms of knowledge independent of physicalism or empirical testing. Unless you disagree you can detect the taste of chocolate? can you not detect that 2 + 2 equals 4?
-
It should be noted, if this was a debate on the likelihood of reincarnation being possible, I would have already won. Within the first scenario I postulate (that I came from non-existence), it at least leaves open the possibility that I can once more come back from nonexistence once I return to it, within the second option. I have to be immortal and therefore continue to exist after death. Your best argument is to follow premise one and argue simply that it is a likelihood and not surefire knowledge. Although once more, you ought to admit that reincarnation is likely based on this. It should also be noted that Socrates, through the study of consciousness, indirectly came to know the two theories for how the universe came to be ex nihilo(from nothing) or that it has simply always existed. This theory of metaphysics then is in perfect alignment with scientific theories of the creation of the universe.
I will also argue that American interventionalism is a net good for the entire world too, not just america and its allies. Evidently i will offer myself a large burden of proof in this discussion.
I assure you, i will be arguing it is in Americas best interests to be interventionist. It is also in the best interest of its allies and their values too.
i believe we ought not to completely exclude the possibility that being a "social pariah" internationally isn't optimal without a fleshed out discussion on the topic beforehand.
I hope you accept the debate then, if that's what you really think.
I believe you may disagree with this sentiment. Are you interested?
True, his short description contradicts the title and the long description. Although I thank him for lessening my burden slightly through doing so, I however would still put up a very strong argument even in a provable scenario (although I might of needed more than 5,000 to do that).