Total topics: 16
The 700+ American billionaires hold more wealth than the bottom half of households. I think no billionaire has or ever will deserve that much money. Therefore, we should feel free to impose tax rates as high as is beneficial for the common good. What do you think?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics
The US Ought to Support NATO Expansion to Sweden and Finland: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3436-the-us-ought-to-support-nato-expansion-to-sweden-and-finland
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
A black, female, BEARDLESS Dwarf princess?? Is that elf BLACK?!
No sir, no sir I won't stand for it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
If you believe in God, consider this an open invitation to participate in Street Epistemology (SE). Definition of SE:
While definitions vary, it's generally accepted that Street Epistemology is a conversational tool that helps people reflect on the quality of their reasons and the reliability of their methods used to derive one's confidence level in their deeply-held beliefs.
Should you accept, I will politely question you about your God belief in a separate forum chat. It will be a one-on-one conversation. My questioning will be respectful and you will be free to end the conversation at any time. The goal is not to turn you into an atheist; rather, the goal is to explore the basis for your belief.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
The coronavirus has killed over 100,000 Americans.
Imagine if instead those 100,000 had been gunned down by terrorists. It strikes me as indisputable that people would behave very differently if the 100,000 were killed by terrorists instead of by a virus. Just look how we reacted to 9/11.
So, what do we make of this?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Discipulus_Didicit, prompted by my recent debate with User_2006, asked that we debate this or have a forum discussion about it. I prefer the latter, as my interest in a debate topic tends to fall off rapidly after I set up the debate. The consequence is that I often regret committing myself to a debate when my opponent and I are still working on final arguments a month later. That didn't happen this time, because my opponent conceded, but even so, I prefer not to have another debate on the subject.
While working on the debate, I coincidentally encountered some podcast content that informed my understanding of space exploration's value. I can share how said content enriched my beliefs, but I take it D_D has been politely holding back his opinions on the matter, so as to not contaminate my debate with outside influences. So, D_D, I'd be happy to let you go first. If you like, please share your thoughts.
(see debate that prompted all this: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1944/space-exploration-ought-to-be-a-top-priority-in-the-near-term)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Hey all, I'm looking for 5 individuals to join me in playing A Horrible One-Sided Deal. This is a "matrix game," meaning it relies on structured arguments and assigned probabilities to determine what happens in the game. You can think of it as sort of like D&D but, in this case, the in-game actors are states instead of individuals. Hopefully, as you read on, the information I provide will make clear what playing this game would be like.
Introduction
This game explores the contemporary tensions between Iran and the US. The game is set in present day. Pages 2-5 of the hyperlinked document provide a decent summary of recent US-Iran tensions. You can also refer to this Vox timeline which is being updated as necessary. This article does a decent job of explaining where Iran is with respect to the JCPOA.
There are 5 actors in the game: the US, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the European Union. Each player will assume control of one of these actors, and they will roleplay according to the interests and values of their chosen actor. In the hyperlinked document, players can find briefing documents for each actor, which outlines their perspectives and general aims. It is up to each player to decide what their specific objectives will be as we play.
How play works
When it is a player's turn, they declare one action their state is taking. They make an argument as to why this action should succeed. Other players will have 24 hours to make arguments as to why the action should fail. The Facilitator (me), after assessing all arguments, sets percentage chance of success. Using this dice roll lobby that keeps everything on the record, the Facilitator will roll to see if the action succeeds or fails, according to the determined percentage.
Example: It is Iran's turn, and Iran declares their action: "We are going to use mines and limited naval attacks to seriously harass oil tankers moving through the Strait of Hormuz." The Iran player justifies this by referring to their briefing document, which says "Iran has the ability to severely impede oil shipments through shore-based missiles, mines, naval and small boat attacks, and covert operations." The Iran player also justifies this by pointing to recent history, in which Iran was alleged to have performed these types of actions.
The US player argues that since it has a Carrier Strike Group in the region (see hyperlinked document), it may be difficult for the Iranian navy to "seriously harass" oil tankers.
The Facilitator considers both arguments, and decides the odds generally favor Iran. They give Iran 70% of success (which means 7 or higher dice roll with a d20). The Facilitator uses the aforementioned dice roll lobby to roll a virtual d20. The outcome is a 10, meaning Iran's action succeeds. The Facilitator announces Iranian success, adding that global oil prices have spiked by 30%.
Each round proceeds as follows:
- Iran's turn
- US' turn
- Saudi Arabia's turn
- European Union's turn
- Russia's turn
At any time during play, any player can make a statement to the rest of the group. At any time during play, any player can direct message another player to hold confidential bilateral discussions.
The game will go on for as many rounds as the Facilitator (with player input) deems best for the construction of a credible narrative.
More things to know before you agree to play
- A player will have 72 hours to declare an action and provide a supporting argument once it becomes their turn. If 72 hours elapse without an action and argument from that player, the Facilitator will announce that player has passed and move the game onto the next person's turn, at which point the 72 hour clock resets.
- When a player declares an action and provides a supporting argument, other players have 48 hours to submit supporting/opposing arguments
- These arguments should be kept relatively brief. A paragraph at most
- When you are declaring an action and providing a supporting argument as a part of your turn, start your text with "ACTION:" to make clear to everyone what's going on. If you are simply making a statement to the group, start your text with "STATEMENT:". If you want to make an out-of-character statement, just start your text with "OOC:".
- There are no pre-defined objectives or victory points. There will not necessarily be an 'objective' winner. However, when the game ends, players will have an opportunity to discuss their goals, decision-making, and achievements.
- The overarching goal is to collectively construct a credible narrative and have fun doing it. We may even learn a thing or two.
I will accept players on a first-come first-serve basis. When you accept, tell me what country you want.
Please feel free to ask questions.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Gaming
Are states morally justified in pursuing the 'national interest'? If so, how?
Alternatively, should we remove morality from the question of international affairs entirely?
Personally, I have trouble identifying a solid justification for pursuing the national interest. I think a lot of my trouble with this stems from the fictive nature of states. According to the accident of one's birth, a state may serve them or kill them to serve another. I have more thoughts on the origin and limits of moral justifications for pursuit of the national interest, but I don't feel super strongly about them (or else I'd do a debate on it). What do you think?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Though the two are partly set in space, they are definitely different types of movies.
That said, which do you prefer?
Both have spectular visuals and great emotional performances, but for me, it has to be Ad Astra. There is something about the slow pace, beautiful visuals, and Brad Pitt's subtle yet engrossing portrayal of McBride that really hit the spot for me.
There's also a lot to unpack about the movies messages and to what extent they overlap/diverge.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
I think this question is too given to speculation to make for a good debate, but it still interests me.
Basically, Star Trek's heroes must abide by the Prime Directive, an order that forbids them from interfering in the affairs of primitive civilizations. Hardcore fans could probably argue it's more complicated than that, but let's assume it is this simple for the sake of this thread.
I suppose you could make two basic arguments in favor of the Prime Directive: an argument from utility and an argument from principle.
The argument from utility would contend that interference in alien cultures - no matter how benevolent in intention - will likely backfire and cause more problems than it solves.
The argument from principle would contend that interference in alien cultures is wrong simply because a species has a collective right to self-determination and unfettered development. According to this line of thought, there is something intrinsically desirable about a species charting its course without the guidance/influence of extraterrestrials.
But, if one were to adopt a policy of strict non-interference vis a vis primitive alien civilizations, one would commit oneself to the following:
-Permitting genocides and highly destructive wars.
-Permitting plagues, disease, general poor health and misery
-Permitting extinction events
It seems that although the Prime Directive has good intentions, it could result in unjust outcomes, at least some of the time.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
The Sagan Standard: "Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence"
I often hear atheists on the internet use this line, seemingly to raise the evidence requirements for theistic claims. But something about this sits wrong with me. Shouldn't all claims be evaluated equally (i.e. on their evidential merits)? If someone wants to claim God exists, what makes that claim Extraordinary, compared to claiming the Big Bang happened? Why can't we approach them both as claims, and decide if we accept the claim based on its merit?
I found this article abstract that argues "Extraordinary Claims" should be precisely defined as a claim that is contradicted by a wealth of factual observations. The author defines "Extraordinary Evidence" as a massive number of supporting observations.
Under these definitions, claiming God exists would not be an Extraordinary claim, would it? After all, an invisible metaphysical entity cannot be disproven. To be clear, I'm not some crank trying to justify their god belief by saying the Sagan Standard is misused. I'm just a skeptic.
What do you think?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature