I suppose the only necessary thing for God to be "infinite" is simply that, boundless. I don't know what that looks like, i simply imagine that means him being able to do everything, but i could never comprehend what that looks like. So i was wrong to say i know he's infinitely powerful etc. I can say numbers are infinite and boundless without fully comprehending the significance of it.
well i don't know what infinity would look like! i don't actually have to assert or deny any of that. I simply have to assert that Occam's razor also doesn't work.
Infinite in the sense of being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. I don't get notifs if you don't @me
If God is infinite only fractions of him could be comprehendible to the human mind. In the same sense that numbers in theory are infinite, yet we can grasp some numbers.
"Discard it as an anomaly" that's not a robust philosophical position, nor a metaethical position if it has clear holes in it and we just say "whooptydoo" How can you be content with such a moral philosophy?
I think its very controversial mall. I know for a fact its racist to necessitate someone being the same race as you to date them, its hard to articulate why i feel that's wrong though. As its much deeper than it appears on the surface.
I've come to learn, I may be the only person on the planet who frequently changes their mind from debates. I've come to know it as a superpower, really.
I didn't concede anything. Just because I don't address your arguments point by point doesn't mean I didn't address them indirectly. You just made the same arguments I did myself, but within the description, there was nothing to directly respond to. But alas, I don't mind if I lose the debate. It was the most worthwhile debate I've been in on the site so far, so I thank you for your participation. <3
I imagine this happens because we can only see through own own eyes. If we could all see each others thoughts and experiences problems like this wouldn't happen, who won the debate would be far easier to tell without bias being involved.
I think you made a really good analysis. I also found it odd that whiteflame avoided any personhood argument. I would also agree that Bones' biggest flaw is simply the vagueness of when abortion is acceptable and when it is not. Not knowing the effects of his abortion ban, Which is essential if it ought to be banned. We should know if it actually works at doing just that, Stopping abortion. Based on that i don't believe Bones fulfilled his "ought" criteria. In retrospect whiteflames position was also riddled with assumptions and (likely) impractical contradictory implementation.
Threshold deontology could literally be argued to be utilitarianism, except something has to be "serious enough" to violate deontology for utilitarianism, while utilitarianism runs on the principle of the many no matter what. There is a lot of misinformation about deontology. Philosophically, it is far more robust and superior to utilitarianism. People just strawman it by saying you can't kill evil people no matter what. Kant never said this, that would not be a viable metaethics philosophy. Kant wasn't an idiot with a philosophy a 10 year old could come up with.
-
It is also incorrect that deontologists "violate" their laws in threshold deontology. Kant would just tell you to make a new maxim if it exists in a spot where you can't kill the joker. We can make a deontological maxim such as: killing is bad. But then you may be in a spot where you have to kill someone for your own life. Kant would just tell you to make a new deontological argument where killing these people is ok.
You're just playing word games, that would obviously be a strawman argument. Fantasies cannot be proven to exist in reality. When we talk of universals existing we are obviously not asking if they exist in our imagination. We already know they do if they don't exist in reality.
You're unironically the biggest sophist on the site, you use any method available to win. Judging by any of your debates on china, its obvious you're the one unwilling to change your mind due to cultural indoctrination.
Or you can be like me and not believe in good and evil. They're simply arbitrary man-made concepts with no objective basis in any reality outside one's imagination.
Playing devil's advocate is different from being a sophist. You can play devil's advocate while being in good faith. I generally think it's better for me to open up a 1 on 1 debate, especially on stuff to do with epistemology and metaphysics, as many people simply have no clue what most of this stuff means. I'm going to stop responding to you now though. Apparently asking someone in a 1 on 1 debate to be in good faith is a tall order to ask for in the 21st century.
You're also beginning to strawman, with saying I must believe the leaderboard is "immoral." I've previously said there's nothing wrong with people debating and wanting to win it. Its just not ideal to debate solely for elo and ego boosts.
Someone can want to win a debate, yet be in good faith and not nitpick or strawman in the debate. Even if they want to win, if they see themselves losing, that's called having honor and humility above pride. I consider using strawmen and underhanded tactics to be like putting one hand behind my back if my intent is to learn and grow. Through doing that you can gain the false sense that you actually won, even though you didnt, limiting your ability to learn from the other party.
It's really not that deep, RM. I don't mind debates being rated. It offers my opposition the added motivation to try harder. I just want them to try harder in good faith, that's all. Someone can be open to learning while caring about the end result of the debate. I don't like the art of rhetoric and debating to debate just to win arguments. I see it as a poison to philosophy, and it has been a real thorn in its side since Socrates. Being called a sophist is one of the biggest insults a philosopher could give you.
-
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to get at. The debate on the existence of universals is an extremely robust philosophical discipline going back thousands of years. There's nothing "vague" about what existence means. When i say existence, i mean things which exist in reality itself not things solely existing in the mind, such as the colour red. I can admit some universals are illusions, not all of them.
I'm not here to be a good debater. I'm on the site simply to find something to help me innovate on my own metaphysical and epistemological views. To do that id prefer a good faith individual so they don't constantly derail the conversation into word games. If you're a sophist, that's ok. I just don't want a sophist accepting my debate who only cares for the debate. Just debate other sophists and jerk each other off learning nothing. That wasn't intended at you, i don't consider you to use a lot of sophist magic, if im to be honest. Although i do see you debate competitively.
They can choose to argue for whatever they want...... I'm simply giving them recommendations, i don't know what other arguments there is against the existence of universals.
Where is the sophistry, if i may ask? what about my debate is vague at all?
I'm unsure of what you mean! If you think universals are simply created through the usage of language and do not exist in reality, that would be called nominalism, which is one of the classes I said you can choose to debate/rebut my position.
Free will can simply be described as conscious volition/control over decisions. I'm unsure how "impede" is sophistry, a quick look at my debate history shows i don't use word games like intelligence_06 does. If my debate opposition finds it vague he can propose to me why it is not in alignment with how we ought to describe free will.
I often notice there is no consideration to models of time in free will debates. There is more to consider than simply biology and one's outer circumstances. The way time flows can drastically change the odds of free will existing or not, depending on which model of time we follow/argue for.
"No. The vagina is designed first as the womb for the baby. It has a blatant exit design, not entry, it is not that different to the ass."
It does have a designed entry and exit purpose......we can just look to different types of animals to see how different vaginas develop differently (such as ducks and hyenas). A vagina is obviously designed to be able to get pregnant, (meaning in a very crude sense, to receive a penis).
"Women, however, are not clearly built to please men at all. 'More' of a woman is only pleasing to some, and when a woman is too womanly she's just a straight up ditzy and emotionally manipulative bimbo whereas a man that's severely masculine is stoic, reliable and keeps the woman respecting him by how he carries himself in the face of her manipulation and emotional swings."
-
Yeah, women are generally attracted to masculine qualities in men. Just like men find feminine qualities in women desirable. I personally don't consider someone who is "too womanly" being a "ditzy bimbo" that's simply called being an idiot.
-
"Men are more disposable because of not only the childrearing ability but because their core ROLE was to protect and sacrifice."
I wouldnt disagree with this assessment, i simply believe a middle ground between you and simone beauvouir is where the truth lays.
(polygamy was very normal back in the day, even polyamory for the woman wasn't as taboo but definitely a high quality man having several women was a norm even before Islam normalised it).
"Women enjoy high quality men to a degree that few men enjoy high quality women, this is because womanhood is not built around what men desire or admire, whereas manhood is built entirely around what women desire and respect."
very jordan peterson-esque as an argument. Can you prove polygamy wasn't the norm through forced marriages and rapes from the rich and powerful in the past? i get the sense the past was generally extremely socially and materially cohersive. Most women if possible are monogamous. Most women don't like sharing a man. Women want a man as much as men want women. There's a reason old ladies who have no kids have 10 cats. It seems evident to me men and women have a coperative relationship. Men cover the flaws of women and women men.
Surprisingly, Simone de Beauvoir, a feminist philosopher and the wife of Jean Paul Sartre, one of, if not the, greatest philosophers of the twentieth century, strongly disagrees with you. She argues the woman's body is built to serve the species more than the man's. As she is the one with the ability to harbor and develop the child, she sacrifices her own bodily nutrients for the good of the species as a whole. On average, women are more physically incapable of doing things on their own as much as men. The female body is designed to have less independence and individuality.
-
"The vagina's design is to host and eject a baby, the penis' design is to please and enter a vagina. Men were built around women, not the other way at all. Men have nipples, do you know why that is?"
Is the vagina also not designed to please the penis? it obviously goes both ways.
"to recognize someone or something and say or prove who or what that person or thing is:"
I personally disagree with your definition of "identify". As I said in my first comment, definitions tend to limit the brevity of how applicable a word can be to generally being in favour of the one using it. To use an example against your definition of "identify": based on your definition of "identify", it should be impossible for someone who is considered "white" to not identify as such (they should have no choice, right?) If not, what is the symmetry breaker between being gay and white? Evidently, someone can choose not to identify as white. Therefore, even through simply observing our own choices and those of others, there's still no proof that your definition is in alignment with how the word identify actually functions in the real world (at least wholly). there's still no proof within it that gay people don't make a choice to even just recognise themselves as gay, just like a white person may do so themselves. To argue there is no flaw in this definition is simply hardcore determinism (arguing no one ever chooses anything). Point in case is that: Pro would need to of rejected your definition all together as it implies determinism, using that definition automatically gives you the win. People treat dictionaries like the bible these days.
-
No amount of sociological studies can prove determinism. I never claimed it was a flaw. You're awfully defensive, i was just pointing out that i think the debate was actually a free will debate.
I do deserve to lose it. It just came to me when i accepted it, I'm just not the musical type. I also have lots of debates planned for the future. Really juicy stuff.
"You apparently did not actually read my argument, identify means to RECOGNIZE a truth about oneself, in other words - if you were a doctor it would have to do with recognizing the fact that you are a doctor by profession. Please don't straw-man, its dishonest."
"to recognize someone or something and say or prove who or what that person or thing is". This would mean that identifying as homosexual or gay, is not a choice, it is to recognize that you are gay, and say that you are. "
-
A gay person (according to your definition) may not be able to choose whether or not to identify as gay (once they recognize they are gay). Intelligence could have argued that the events leading up to the recognition of them being gay were events under their control (this is what i intended to explain rather poorly). To use an example: there was a time when a doctor wasn't a doctor. Following your own definition, there was a time (before he became a doctor) he couldn't claim to be a doctor. there will be a time in the future where he is a doctor (when he wasn't a doctor). I imagine this pastes 1 to 1 onto your argument for gay people. There may have been a time when a gay person did not recognize or believe they were gay, so he has room to argue for choices that led to them being gay here, just as a doctor made a choice to become a doctor before becoming one.
-
Your argument essentially became an argument for biological determinism. If PRO decided to continue the debate, it would more than likely become a debate on the validity of biological determinism compared to other philosophical models. Point in case: this debate would ended up a discussion on naturalism/free will. I don't think anyone can disprove biological determinism currently, and no one seems to be able to debunk all alternative theories of naturalism and biological determinism either.
-
Although I did, looking back, misunderstand a large part of what you were saying in the identify argument.
Facts. I was just going to comment. What's wrong with women enjoying being stay-at-home-moms? studies show women are generally happier this way ( i still think people should not be coerced into this) but its something to factor into these discussions.
"I realise rehabilitation prisons work better for crime rates, visitation rates, and the economy".
i intended to say this in comparison to how the current prison system is run. I did later say that may not be the case compared to a slave labour prison system. Understandable vote nonetheless
Conservatives tend to think Marxist critiques of capitalism are good. They strongly disagree on Marxist ways of fixing the problem (communism). Most conservatives are aware that capitalism isn't perfect. I've never heard a conservative says its a good thing people grow up in one parent households or the fact some kids cant go college. They just don't think communism is any better an alternative. I am not a communist, but the statistics on their insane levels of mental illness speak for themselves. I get the sense you have an unjustified leap of logic in believing more empathy equals more mental strength. I could easily claim a clear divide in that and say it only shows more mental strength when it comes to helping others but not yourself.
-
Even that I would argue is false, people are as only strong as their reasons. If you don't even believe you have free will, whatever reason you have will always be held back by your self-belief. Although I wont comment further, its your debate.
They're at similar levels of insecurity, but conservatives more. Conservatives, despite this, are still mentally stronger and more resilient to the troubles of life. Courage isn't having no fear, but being able to face what you fear. Leftists blame their lack of health and drive in life on other people, institutions, and determinism. At least overweight conservatives own the fact that they are fat for their own decisions. Conservatives are more insecure precisely because they're more willing to face and accept hard facts of reality. Leftists will generally try to ignore or reason away these facts, so they feel like they don't have to face the fact that they ultimately have the final say over their emotional well being. This is a hard thing for many to accept. It has a lot of responsibility.
I'm likely going to post an argument in the next round of my induction debate. I think its possible if I can prove analytic a posteriori to exist. Which initially seems to be internally contradictory. I'm not sure about that though.
90% of people have been programmed by society to be losers and to stay in line. to either disregard your health or to place too much emphasis on self-control in order to avoid looking at the beam in one's own eye. We have no independent thinkers; everyone is a lunatic through philosophical and political brainwashing. People need to wake up out the matrix and realise the lies they've been fed.
I will avenge you one day whiteflame.
I just want to talk about if Occam's razor is applicable to God.
I suppose the only necessary thing for God to be "infinite" is simply that, boundless. I don't know what that looks like, i simply imagine that means him being able to do everything, but i could never comprehend what that looks like. So i was wrong to say i know he's infinitely powerful etc. I can say numbers are infinite and boundless without fully comprehending the significance of it.
well i don't know what infinity would look like! i don't actually have to assert or deny any of that. I simply have to assert that Occam's razor also doesn't work.
Infinite in the sense of being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. I don't get notifs if you don't @me
If God is infinite only fractions of him could be comprehendible to the human mind. In the same sense that numbers in theory are infinite, yet we can grasp some numbers.
Well that's the oxford dictionary definition i got. Feel free to adjust it however you want. Accept the debate if you're interested.
Can you explain what you mean when you say that? that gender and sex cannot be separated?
I've asked him in DM's too! lets wait and see if he's interested.
yeah....this was obviously a draw.
Communism sure seems to make people more equal, equally deprived. 2000 character limit? no thank you.
"Discard it as an anomaly" that's not a robust philosophical position, nor a metaethical position if it has clear holes in it and we just say "whooptydoo" How can you be content with such a moral philosophy?
I think its very controversial mall. I know for a fact its racist to necessitate someone being the same race as you to date them, its hard to articulate why i feel that's wrong though. As its much deeper than it appears on the surface.
The universe appears to be most like a quantum computer. Neither wholly deterministic nor probabilistic.
Would you by any chance be interested in debating this topic if my debate partner forfeits?
I get the sense con isn't even going to respond in this debate.
"If this is the case (as is the most likely as the past and present are impossible currently to prove to exist)"
I meant to say past and future, not present.
I've come to learn, I may be the only person on the planet who frequently changes their mind from debates. I've come to know it as a superpower, really.
I believe universals exist independent of words. We wont be arguing words but noumena. At least i would.
then why don't you take the nominalism stance? that's what they think too.
I didn't concede anything. Just because I don't address your arguments point by point doesn't mean I didn't address them indirectly. You just made the same arguments I did myself, but within the description, there was nothing to directly respond to. But alas, I don't mind if I lose the debate. It was the most worthwhile debate I've been in on the site so far, so I thank you for your participation. <3
Was my vote dogshit Novice? be honest. Looking for constructive feedback.
I imagine this happens because we can only see through own own eyes. If we could all see each others thoughts and experiences problems like this wouldn't happen, who won the debate would be far easier to tell without bias being involved.
I think you made a really good analysis. I also found it odd that whiteflame avoided any personhood argument. I would also agree that Bones' biggest flaw is simply the vagueness of when abortion is acceptable and when it is not. Not knowing the effects of his abortion ban, Which is essential if it ought to be banned. We should know if it actually works at doing just that, Stopping abortion. Based on that i don't believe Bones fulfilled his "ought" criteria. In retrospect whiteflames position was also riddled with assumptions and (likely) impractical contradictory implementation.
Threshold deontology could literally be argued to be utilitarianism, except something has to be "serious enough" to violate deontology for utilitarianism, while utilitarianism runs on the principle of the many no matter what. There is a lot of misinformation about deontology. Philosophically, it is far more robust and superior to utilitarianism. People just strawman it by saying you can't kill evil people no matter what. Kant never said this, that would not be a viable metaethics philosophy. Kant wasn't an idiot with a philosophy a 10 year old could come up with.
-
It is also incorrect that deontologists "violate" their laws in threshold deontology. Kant would just tell you to make a new maxim if it exists in a spot where you can't kill the joker. We can make a deontological maxim such as: killing is bad. But then you may be in a spot where you have to kill someone for your own life. Kant would just tell you to make a new deontological argument where killing these people is ok.
You're just playing word games, that would obviously be a strawman argument. Fantasies cannot be proven to exist in reality. When we talk of universals existing we are obviously not asking if they exist in our imagination. We already know they do if they don't exist in reality.
You're unironically the biggest sophist on the site, you use any method available to win. Judging by any of your debates on china, its obvious you're the one unwilling to change your mind due to cultural indoctrination.
Or you can be like me and not believe in good and evil. They're simply arbitrary man-made concepts with no objective basis in any reality outside one's imagination.
Playing devil's advocate is different from being a sophist. You can play devil's advocate while being in good faith. I generally think it's better for me to open up a 1 on 1 debate, especially on stuff to do with epistemology and metaphysics, as many people simply have no clue what most of this stuff means. I'm going to stop responding to you now though. Apparently asking someone in a 1 on 1 debate to be in good faith is a tall order to ask for in the 21st century.
You're also beginning to strawman, with saying I must believe the leaderboard is "immoral." I've previously said there's nothing wrong with people debating and wanting to win it. Its just not ideal to debate solely for elo and ego boosts.
Someone can want to win a debate, yet be in good faith and not nitpick or strawman in the debate. Even if they want to win, if they see themselves losing, that's called having honor and humility above pride. I consider using strawmen and underhanded tactics to be like putting one hand behind my back if my intent is to learn and grow. Through doing that you can gain the false sense that you actually won, even though you didnt, limiting your ability to learn from the other party.
It's really not that deep, RM. I don't mind debates being rated. It offers my opposition the added motivation to try harder. I just want them to try harder in good faith, that's all. Someone can be open to learning while caring about the end result of the debate. I don't like the art of rhetoric and debating to debate just to win arguments. I see it as a poison to philosophy, and it has been a real thorn in its side since Socrates. Being called a sophist is one of the biggest insults a philosopher could give you.
-
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to get at. The debate on the existence of universals is an extremely robust philosophical discipline going back thousands of years. There's nothing "vague" about what existence means. When i say existence, i mean things which exist in reality itself not things solely existing in the mind, such as the colour red. I can admit some universals are illusions, not all of them.
I'm not here to be a good debater. I'm on the site simply to find something to help me innovate on my own metaphysical and epistemological views. To do that id prefer a good faith individual so they don't constantly derail the conversation into word games. If you're a sophist, that's ok. I just don't want a sophist accepting my debate who only cares for the debate. Just debate other sophists and jerk each other off learning nothing. That wasn't intended at you, i don't consider you to use a lot of sophist magic, if im to be honest. Although i do see you debate competitively.
They can choose to argue for whatever they want...... I'm simply giving them recommendations, i don't know what other arguments there is against the existence of universals.
Where is the sophistry, if i may ask? what about my debate is vague at all?
I'm unsure of what you mean! If you think universals are simply created through the usage of language and do not exist in reality, that would be called nominalism, which is one of the classes I said you can choose to debate/rebut my position.
Free will can simply be described as conscious volition/control over decisions. I'm unsure how "impede" is sophistry, a quick look at my debate history shows i don't use word games like intelligence_06 does. If my debate opposition finds it vague he can propose to me why it is not in alignment with how we ought to describe free will.
I often notice there is no consideration to models of time in free will debates. There is more to consider than simply biology and one's outer circumstances. The way time flows can drastically change the odds of free will existing or not, depending on which model of time we follow/argue for.
"No. The vagina is designed first as the womb for the baby. It has a blatant exit design, not entry, it is not that different to the ass."
It does have a designed entry and exit purpose......we can just look to different types of animals to see how different vaginas develop differently (such as ducks and hyenas). A vagina is obviously designed to be able to get pregnant, (meaning in a very crude sense, to receive a penis).
"Women, however, are not clearly built to please men at all. 'More' of a woman is only pleasing to some, and when a woman is too womanly she's just a straight up ditzy and emotionally manipulative bimbo whereas a man that's severely masculine is stoic, reliable and keeps the woman respecting him by how he carries himself in the face of her manipulation and emotional swings."
-
Yeah, women are generally attracted to masculine qualities in men. Just like men find feminine qualities in women desirable. I personally don't consider someone who is "too womanly" being a "ditzy bimbo" that's simply called being an idiot.
-
"Men are more disposable because of not only the childrearing ability but because their core ROLE was to protect and sacrifice."
I wouldnt disagree with this assessment, i simply believe a middle ground between you and simone beauvouir is where the truth lays.
(polygamy was very normal back in the day, even polyamory for the woman wasn't as taboo but definitely a high quality man having several women was a norm even before Islam normalised it).
"Women enjoy high quality men to a degree that few men enjoy high quality women, this is because womanhood is not built around what men desire or admire, whereas manhood is built entirely around what women desire and respect."
very jordan peterson-esque as an argument. Can you prove polygamy wasn't the norm through forced marriages and rapes from the rich and powerful in the past? i get the sense the past was generally extremely socially and materially cohersive. Most women if possible are monogamous. Most women don't like sharing a man. Women want a man as much as men want women. There's a reason old ladies who have no kids have 10 cats. It seems evident to me men and women have a coperative relationship. Men cover the flaws of women and women men.
Surprisingly, Simone de Beauvoir, a feminist philosopher and the wife of Jean Paul Sartre, one of, if not the, greatest philosophers of the twentieth century, strongly disagrees with you. She argues the woman's body is built to serve the species more than the man's. As she is the one with the ability to harbor and develop the child, she sacrifices her own bodily nutrients for the good of the species as a whole. On average, women are more physically incapable of doing things on their own as much as men. The female body is designed to have less independence and individuality.
-
"The vagina's design is to host and eject a baby, the penis' design is to please and enter a vagina. Men were built around women, not the other way at all. Men have nipples, do you know why that is?"
Is the vagina also not designed to please the penis? it obviously goes both ways.
Your really getting extravagant with it, huh.
We call those cliffhanger "endings" in English.
"to recognize someone or something and say or prove who or what that person or thing is:"
I personally disagree with your definition of "identify". As I said in my first comment, definitions tend to limit the brevity of how applicable a word can be to generally being in favour of the one using it. To use an example against your definition of "identify": based on your definition of "identify", it should be impossible for someone who is considered "white" to not identify as such (they should have no choice, right?) If not, what is the symmetry breaker between being gay and white? Evidently, someone can choose not to identify as white. Therefore, even through simply observing our own choices and those of others, there's still no proof that your definition is in alignment with how the word identify actually functions in the real world (at least wholly). there's still no proof within it that gay people don't make a choice to even just recognise themselves as gay, just like a white person may do so themselves. To argue there is no flaw in this definition is simply hardcore determinism (arguing no one ever chooses anything). Point in case is that: Pro would need to of rejected your definition all together as it implies determinism, using that definition automatically gives you the win. People treat dictionaries like the bible these days.
-
No amount of sociological studies can prove determinism. I never claimed it was a flaw. You're awfully defensive, i was just pointing out that i think the debate was actually a free will debate.
I do deserve to lose it. It just came to me when i accepted it, I'm just not the musical type. I also have lots of debates planned for the future. Really juicy stuff.
"You apparently did not actually read my argument, identify means to RECOGNIZE a truth about oneself, in other words - if you were a doctor it would have to do with recognizing the fact that you are a doctor by profession. Please don't straw-man, its dishonest."
"to recognize someone or something and say or prove who or what that person or thing is". This would mean that identifying as homosexual or gay, is not a choice, it is to recognize that you are gay, and say that you are. "
-
A gay person (according to your definition) may not be able to choose whether or not to identify as gay (once they recognize they are gay). Intelligence could have argued that the events leading up to the recognition of them being gay were events under their control (this is what i intended to explain rather poorly). To use an example: there was a time when a doctor wasn't a doctor. Following your own definition, there was a time (before he became a doctor) he couldn't claim to be a doctor. there will be a time in the future where he is a doctor (when he wasn't a doctor). I imagine this pastes 1 to 1 onto your argument for gay people. There may have been a time when a gay person did not recognize or believe they were gay, so he has room to argue for choices that led to them being gay here, just as a doctor made a choice to become a doctor before becoming one.
-
Your argument essentially became an argument for biological determinism. If PRO decided to continue the debate, it would more than likely become a debate on the validity of biological determinism compared to other philosophical models. Point in case: this debate would ended up a discussion on naturalism/free will. I don't think anyone can disprove biological determinism currently, and no one seems to be able to debunk all alternative theories of naturalism and biological determinism either.
-
Although I did, looking back, misunderstand a large part of what you were saying in the identify argument.
Facts. I was just going to comment. What's wrong with women enjoying being stay-at-home-moms? studies show women are generally happier this way ( i still think people should not be coerced into this) but its something to factor into these discussions.
I gave it a good shot. What do you think of the argument i created for analytic a posteriori?
"I realise rehabilitation prisons work better for crime rates, visitation rates, and the economy".
i intended to say this in comparison to how the current prison system is run. I did later say that may not be the case compared to a slave labour prison system. Understandable vote nonetheless
Conservatives tend to think Marxist critiques of capitalism are good. They strongly disagree on Marxist ways of fixing the problem (communism). Most conservatives are aware that capitalism isn't perfect. I've never heard a conservative says its a good thing people grow up in one parent households or the fact some kids cant go college. They just don't think communism is any better an alternative. I am not a communist, but the statistics on their insane levels of mental illness speak for themselves. I get the sense you have an unjustified leap of logic in believing more empathy equals more mental strength. I could easily claim a clear divide in that and say it only shows more mental strength when it comes to helping others but not yourself.
-
Even that I would argue is false, people are as only strong as their reasons. If you don't even believe you have free will, whatever reason you have will always be held back by your self-belief. Although I wont comment further, its your debate.
They're at similar levels of insecurity, but conservatives more. Conservatives, despite this, are still mentally stronger and more resilient to the troubles of life. Courage isn't having no fear, but being able to face what you fear. Leftists blame their lack of health and drive in life on other people, institutions, and determinism. At least overweight conservatives own the fact that they are fat for their own decisions. Conservatives are more insecure precisely because they're more willing to face and accept hard facts of reality. Leftists will generally try to ignore or reason away these facts, so they feel like they don't have to face the fact that they ultimately have the final say over their emotional well being. This is a hard thing for many to accept. It has a lot of responsibility.
I'm likely going to post an argument in the next round of my induction debate. I think its possible if I can prove analytic a posteriori to exist. Which initially seems to be internally contradictory. I'm not sure about that though.
90% of people have been programmed by society to be losers and to stay in line. to either disregard your health or to place too much emphasis on self-control in order to avoid looking at the beam in one's own eye. We have no independent thinkers; everyone is a lunatic through philosophical and political brainwashing. People need to wake up out the matrix and realise the lies they've been fed.