There is a reason I am not accepting this. You cannot present something continuous as something discrete without putting boundaries as to how the continuous can be mapped to the discrete.
I am sure most Pro-something people know their restraint and boundaries. For example, a pro-choice person will probably not condone the act of aborting a child one day before supposed delivery, and regular pro-Palestine people will probably be less extreme than Hamas.
What I am really saying is that your position is too flawed to even be called one.
What you could have actually done is to bring up: "Well what about taxi drivers? They do what I tell them to do, they take me to wherever I instruct them to, just like I do with Alexa. In this case, following your logic, shouldn't *I* be the one that is driving the taxi, not the so-called taxi driver?"
This would essentially derail into whether AIs should be held morally responsible in any circumstances under any level of intelligence. Because we all know, the difference between an actual taxi driver and a rice cooker is that a rice cooker is not sentient. Seeing how unclear the field of AI ethics currently is (trust me), doing that would actually give you an edge of winning especially since I don't know a lot either about moral philosophy and I can't say I do.
The scary thing is: The closer an AI is sentient as an actual human (such as a taxi driver), the closer it will get to being fully able to control the car better than we do while being trustworthy. Basically, that would mean we ought to treat it more as a buddy such as Chad the next block over than a tool like Alexa or Siri. Being able to use this example to your advantage might as well can cost me the win, and I don't think I can do anything about it in the near future.
I don't know how to survive in muddled water. I just scavenge the waterbed to seek solid pillars protruding off the shores. All you have to do is to push me off one of those.
By technicality I actually agree with you. The existing points here technically all account for strategy. Arguments would be nothing if not for strategy supporting it with rhetorical beams.
This isn't rated, so you will gain experience without losing rating ever.
Also dw. I am just a lowly uni prefrosh who knows jack shit about the printing press. I am just here because like you, I wanna challenge myself with topics I don't even know existed.
I made too many mistakes in the second round due to it being written in the 30 minutes prior to my last podcast appearance on my school's broadcast station as I am graduating next week.
"Again, because Pro's false meddling results in an inadequate understanding of the properties"
Pro's "false meddling" (which I only phrased such pungent words because I am unable to think of more elegant and precise phrases within the same etymological niche) should be the EFFECT rather than the cause. It is caused by the inadequate understanding, rather than causing it.
"which would be less holistic than to consider the greater good of society or any community in question."
The entire sentence of which this excerpt was contained within is entirely redundant as individual deterioriation was already implied when such acts on a macro-scale would ideally result in the total collapse of the environment, which guess what, contains all the individuals.
"TF4: Accepting is more practice than none."
I would argue that writing "TF" then proceed to not use it in even a nominal syllogism is comically as blaphemous as the Chinese boy band TFBOYS. Good one from me, mate.
Also, bolding only one phrase from the last productive paragraph brings as many cackles from my within as the last one is capable of. What was I thinking.
I do accept the concession. Although I have genuinely rushed and compromised this debate, the man said it himself and I should not exceed my mannerisms to lose my ratings over one of the rare sights on this website in its current habitat, that is, rated debates with people actually willing to talk back.
I respect your opinions but there is no way I would agree to that. This will just take the perk that I adore the most about here away and lest this become one of the normal ones.
If I want to argue the obvious, I would obviously go somewhere else for that.
It's noice to see Mall finally getting the hang of the bolding function, we will wait five more years to see if he will use the italic and underline functions, and 10 more for the quoting function, and 15 more for the hyperlink function.
This is ALSO removing the consideration of the fact that schools are places, not intervals of time. You are quite literally arguing for/against something like "class meetings should be four feet long". I get the spacetime fabric links space and time, but schools are not "7 hours long" no matter how you look at it.
I swear most of these topics on this site falls apart on literally the third reading of it and is only kept by the mutually agreed ignorance of noticing something is wrong with the topic (and yes, because things are not properly defined in the description that is exactly what is wrong with it). That is like both parties of the superbowl agreeing to keep playing whilst ignoring the huge ass tornado ripping the football stadium into shreds causing the casualties of at least 1,000 fans on (or rather off) the stands. You could save yourself if you as much as looking up at what you are dealing with, and the lack thereof within this site or generally the debating community at large (that isn't just law-based) is as disturbing to me as Luke's force energy is to his father.
A week has 7 days, so 7 hours per day is 49 hours.
Now because weekends are what we love and to take that away would cause riots, these 49 hours would have to be divided among 5 days. That is 9.8 hours a day. Accounting for alotted times for mandatory holidays such as Christmas and it probably goes up to 10. Maybe even 11 when we count spring breaks and the summer vacation.
The most likely outcome for such an enforcement (if it is possible to begin with, which is, I think, not) is that nations will just dissolve "police" as a separate entity and make all of them a part of the military for example and then present them to the world as "they are just specialized troops." When we dissolve a company, the employees ought to go somewhere, and they don't just disappear.
This is roughly the opposite of what Germany did in the '30s. Not saying it is a good idea, it isn't, but it is possible.
What is the easiest way to prevent people from drinking "Water"? You put stuff in water so it is something else (such as "tea", "coffee", "fruit punch", "dilute hydrochloric acid", and "cyanide solution") so that nothing that is drank can be classified as "water".
Also, there is no preventing anyone from being both. Not to mention the lack of clear definitions, from what I know in zoomer slanging (which is not a lot), one can DEPART from their depressing male rat race in which "alphas" stem from (thus making one a sigma) to join a global network helping women in need (thus making on a feminist). I am too lazy to look up examples, but you can just sift through the graduation ceremony at Harvard University.
We should free ourselves from the restricting chains of the immoral and greedy employers exploiting us as robotic assets of theirs rather than people too like them. Go Socialism!
As an actual Chinese I should remind you that the social credit score doesn't work like that. I reckon it does go down if you commit crimes, evade taxes, fail to pay loans, etc. It goes back up when you pay loans on time, etc. Even then, at least it isn't the IRS telling FBI on your door for your jail cell.
Ideological skirmishes are instead being handled by whatever moderators are on the website hosting such discussions. These have nothing to do with the "social credit score" unless it leads to a crime being committed such as planning to launder money.
And yes, I believe the system the topic is trying to impose is more depressing than whatever yall call "the social credit score system" since most adults in this world have exes. In fact, since the reasons exes are exes are due to ideological skirmishes, this would on average defame most of the population that is still on the market or even off the market. I really wanna laugh as a single young man, but I probably shouldn't given the inherent depressing nature of the proposed system.
Remember that episode on Black Mirror? (If you don't, it is S3E1).
Remember the times when we made fun of China for having a social credit score system? Well truth to be told, it doesn't work like how some of yall think it does, but if it does, we would be far angrier.
Life would be better if we replace horses with engines.
woah there don't tell me to kill myself
Go take your introductory biology class again
Hitler, has only got one ball.
Goring, has two but very small.
Himmler, has something similar.
But poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.
It is fine if you think you have already clarified, but I don't think you have.
Replying me a comment to specifically not answer my question is not very logical debater of you.
How versatile is very versatile?
There is a reason I am not accepting this. You cannot present something continuous as something discrete without putting boundaries as to how the continuous can be mapped to the discrete.
if you use chatgpt for debateart, thats your skill issue
What is the acceptance rate of the electoral college? Do they have a physics major?
Haven't heard anyone called "Donold" recently. Could be one of the redder necks during the raid, though.
Bro has never heard of 996 and unpaid mandatory overtime.
Pro-? How much do you think it should be applied?
I am sure most Pro-something people know their restraint and boundaries. For example, a pro-choice person will probably not condone the act of aborting a child one day before supposed delivery, and regular pro-Palestine people will probably be less extreme than Hamas.
What I am really saying is that your position is too flawed to even be called one.
Guess ragebait is a new category of debates.
Oh wait, we already have those. It is called the 2024 presidential debate.
What you could have actually done is to bring up: "Well what about taxi drivers? They do what I tell them to do, they take me to wherever I instruct them to, just like I do with Alexa. In this case, following your logic, shouldn't *I* be the one that is driving the taxi, not the so-called taxi driver?"
This would essentially derail into whether AIs should be held morally responsible in any circumstances under any level of intelligence. Because we all know, the difference between an actual taxi driver and a rice cooker is that a rice cooker is not sentient. Seeing how unclear the field of AI ethics currently is (trust me), doing that would actually give you an edge of winning especially since I don't know a lot either about moral philosophy and I can't say I do.
The scary thing is: The closer an AI is sentient as an actual human (such as a taxi driver), the closer it will get to being fully able to control the car better than we do while being trustworthy. Basically, that would mean we ought to treat it more as a buddy such as Chad the next block over than a tool like Alexa or Siri. Being able to use this example to your advantage might as well can cost me the win, and I don't think I can do anything about it in the near future.
I don't know how to survive in muddled water. I just scavenge the waterbed to seek solid pillars protruding off the shores. All you have to do is to push me off one of those.
But thanks for the concession anyways.
good luck with iron bars
The fact Pro put all of this in his Stance rather than outside as general description of the setup of this debate makes it hilarious.
A wok is a tool. A rice cooker is also a tool. You see where I'm getting?
Imma buy my HS as my own residence and register myself as the principal.
Homeshgool.
Exactly. We should never be eating corn. We should eat less yucky stuff such as McFlurries and McFries, the larger the serving the better.
I wish.
"In god we trust"
yeah, america is doomed trust me bro
"a thing changed to that of a complete human"
We call that a fetus but let's keep abortion out of the rest of the debate.
By technicality I actually agree with you. The existing points here technically all account for strategy. Arguments would be nothing if not for strategy supporting it with rhetorical beams.
I would say that calling Rockefeller and Koch brothers entrepreneurs is an understatement, ay?
Either you have a lesson to learn, or you made a trap. Either way, I suppose fear only keeps me from victory, ay?
In labs we use ppm, or parts per million. The less impurities in there, the cleaner.
This isn't rated, so you will gain experience without losing rating ever.
Also dw. I am just a lowly uni prefrosh who knows jack shit about the printing press. I am just here because like you, I wanna challenge myself with topics I don't even know existed.
Political reasons is undoubtedly a driving factor and undoubtedly not the only driving factor. What do you mean?
Call me a stinker but some topics are so vague that even a silver bullet would be weak against literal formlessness.
I made too many mistakes in the second round due to it being written in the 30 minutes prior to my last podcast appearance on my school's broadcast station as I am graduating next week.
"Again, because Pro's false meddling results in an inadequate understanding of the properties"
Pro's "false meddling" (which I only phrased such pungent words because I am unable to think of more elegant and precise phrases within the same etymological niche) should be the EFFECT rather than the cause. It is caused by the inadequate understanding, rather than causing it.
"which would be less holistic than to consider the greater good of society or any community in question."
The entire sentence of which this excerpt was contained within is entirely redundant as individual deterioriation was already implied when such acts on a macro-scale would ideally result in the total collapse of the environment, which guess what, contains all the individuals.
"TF4: Accepting is more practice than none."
I would argue that writing "TF" then proceed to not use it in even a nominal syllogism is comically as blaphemous as the Chinese boy band TFBOYS. Good one from me, mate.
Also, bolding only one phrase from the last productive paragraph brings as many cackles from my within as the last one is capable of. What was I thinking.
I do accept the concession. Although I have genuinely rushed and compromised this debate, the man said it himself and I should not exceed my mannerisms to lose my ratings over one of the rare sights on this website in its current habitat, that is, rated debates with people actually willing to talk back.
I respect your opinions but there is no way I would agree to that. This will just take the perk that I adore the most about here away and lest this become one of the normal ones.
If I want to argue the obvious, I would obviously go somewhere else for that.
If someone shits on the ground of my own home, I would demand them to clean up before I do.
This rule is stupid and...wait how has this been in place for 1.5 years already?
I am too tired to read calculus at this moment so I am here to fresh my noggins. Don't blame me, blame Stewart and Axler.
And that is why you are losing some of the battles.
Heard a post saying that Biden actually built more of the wall than trump did. If that is true, it would have been hilarious.
Remember the times when teachers told us to instead use the sources Wikipedia cites rather than wikipedia itself? Yeah, good times.
It's noice to see Mall finally getting the hang of the bolding function, we will wait five more years to see if he will use the italic and underline functions, and 10 more for the quoting function, and 15 more for the hyperlink function.
Battles are decided before they are even fought, pal.
If you are relying on the version of yourself on the last round (or even the second last round) then you are not being consistent enough.
This is ALSO removing the consideration of the fact that schools are places, not intervals of time. You are quite literally arguing for/against something like "class meetings should be four feet long". I get the spacetime fabric links space and time, but schools are not "7 hours long" no matter how you look at it.
I swear most of these topics on this site falls apart on literally the third reading of it and is only kept by the mutually agreed ignorance of noticing something is wrong with the topic (and yes, because things are not properly defined in the description that is exactly what is wrong with it). That is like both parties of the superbowl agreeing to keep playing whilst ignoring the huge ass tornado ripping the football stadium into shreds causing the casualties of at least 1,000 fans on (or rather off) the stands. You could save yourself if you as much as looking up at what you are dealing with, and the lack thereof within this site or generally the debating community at large (that isn't just law-based) is as disturbing to me as Luke's force energy is to his father.
"7 hours per day" okay lets see what happens.
A week has 7 days, so 7 hours per day is 49 hours.
Now because weekends are what we love and to take that away would cause riots, these 49 hours would have to be divided among 5 days. That is 9.8 hours a day. Accounting for alotted times for mandatory holidays such as Christmas and it probably goes up to 10. Maybe even 11 when we count spring breaks and the summer vacation.
Do you see the problem here?
Starting a bipartisan debate topic with "Why". You are a funny one.
Shockingly enough, every serving of iced coffee is a serving of coffee.
"a thing changed to that of a complete human"
A fetus changed to a complete human for most cases. And don't you tell me that a fetus in its first week is a complete human.
The most likely outcome for such an enforcement (if it is possible to begin with, which is, I think, not) is that nations will just dissolve "police" as a separate entity and make all of them a part of the military for example and then present them to the world as "they are just specialized troops." When we dissolve a company, the employees ought to go somewhere, and they don't just disappear.
This is roughly the opposite of what Germany did in the '30s. Not saying it is a good idea, it isn't, but it is possible.
What is the easiest way to prevent people from drinking "Water"? You put stuff in water so it is something else (such as "tea", "coffee", "fruit punch", "dilute hydrochloric acid", and "cyanide solution") so that nothing that is drank can be classified as "water".
Remember Virginia Woolf? Yeah, good times.
Also, there is no preventing anyone from being both. Not to mention the lack of clear definitions, from what I know in zoomer slanging (which is not a lot), one can DEPART from their depressing male rat race in which "alphas" stem from (thus making one a sigma) to join a global network helping women in need (thus making on a feminist). I am too lazy to look up examples, but you can just sift through the graduation ceremony at Harvard University.
We should free ourselves from the restricting chains of the immoral and greedy employers exploiting us as robotic assets of theirs rather than people too like them. Go Socialism!
(Watch people hate me for saying it.)
I doubt many would actually rate their ex a 5 star. I respect those who potentially do, but I doubt there will be a lot of them.
As an actual Chinese I should remind you that the social credit score doesn't work like that. I reckon it does go down if you commit crimes, evade taxes, fail to pay loans, etc. It goes back up when you pay loans on time, etc. Even then, at least it isn't the IRS telling FBI on your door for your jail cell.
Ideological skirmishes are instead being handled by whatever moderators are on the website hosting such discussions. These have nothing to do with the "social credit score" unless it leads to a crime being committed such as planning to launder money.
And yes, I believe the system the topic is trying to impose is more depressing than whatever yall call "the social credit score system" since most adults in this world have exes. In fact, since the reasons exes are exes are due to ideological skirmishes, this would on average defame most of the population that is still on the market or even off the market. I really wanna laugh as a single young man, but I probably shouldn't given the inherent depressing nature of the proposed system.
Remember that episode on Black Mirror? (If you don't, it is S3E1).
Remember the times when we made fun of China for having a social credit score system? Well truth to be told, it doesn't work like how some of yall think it does, but if it does, we would be far angrier.