"At round 2, Pro "pussied" out after when Pro used very "hazardous" and scary numbers. Pro then decided to "rest his case" when the debate was not even over, afterwards providing no more coherent or logical arguments than Con but rather personal whims and unsportsmanlike arguments."
Recorrected to
"At round 2, Pro "pussied" out after when Con used very "hazardous" and scary numbers. Pro then decided to "rest his case" when the debate was not even over, afterwards providing no more coherent or logical arguments than Con but rather personal whims and unsportsmanlike arguments."
Misrepresented "Pro" for "Con" in the beginning of those writings. His numbers were so scary that it trembled my fingers into typing "Pro".
"For starters, Wikipedia is notorious for being unreliable, not to mention that you're not even sure where it came from Wikipedia in the first place.
Now to the point, you're arguing that if one party is completely restrained, someone can use a piece of paper to slowly cut them to death. Your faulty source claims a few people died from this thousands of years ago.
I don't even see how you can compare that with the tens of thousands of people who die from guns on a yearly basis.
Is this any different than with a gunshot?
These two things are completely different.
Your only other argument is "fire is dangerous"
Yes it is, but before I don't think I need to rebut this yet, considering you provided no numbers.
Then you have your terroristic attacks with explosives. That's fire again.
Fire that is not related to matches."
There is a bad start with pointing out Wikipedia unreliability because of not finding a counteracting argument that is logical enough to concede with the point out done. Also you did mention that he was not even sure where it came from Wikipedia in the first place, regardless of saying "not to mention".
Not to mention, I don't exactly know if you even were aware of the numbers that came from didn't exactly come from "WHO".
However, this still remains logical. Mall did not provide any numbers. Not much I can do to help Mall in this debate. His Arguments are piss-poor. (Respectfully)
"The amount of casualties from firearms on a yearly basis globally are impossible to count, but there is a wide consensus that there are hundreds of thousands. . According to WHO, 400,000 suicides alone are committed with firearms.
Last time I checked, that's more people dying from a gun than from paper cuts."
Somewhat evidence-based, supported by legal governmental data. He most likely got it from "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10881/chapter/9"
However, this doesn't seem like it's from "WHO". It seems like it's from U.S vital statistics System.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10881."
This is somewhat accurate, though it's not exactly according to WHO. But all of this data is simply nationally representative information about lethal self-injuries, especially lethal self-injuries done by firearms.
Do you by any chance have watched gore recently? Or do you tend to watch them more often? Perhaps you have those repetitive desires of exploring the "gore facility" as guided by your wicked curiousity.
"I hear about house fires and all like that with many that have fell victim to the blazes.
Then you have your terroristic attacks with explosives. That's fire again.
So yes guns are not the only hazardous applications to people. You can't get no more hazardous than death."
You're already halfway through the argument and you're making piss poor relations to ISIS incidents. Not only, you're talking about "explosives" which literally are not even matches or thumb tacs or even paper. This isn't related to the Topic debate even. Poor argument.
So... after all of the flaws as well as connections to historical concepts (that are not necessary and irrelevant to the topic), while making these piss poor relations to ISIS suicidal bombing incidents, you come up with the conclusion that guns are no more hazardous than death? And your way out of this is through piss poor semantics?
"Before guns existed, obviously hazardous and harmful elements existed.
After the advent of firearms , those things that pre-dated remain in existence as harmful elements . As well as other things that have also come along to add to the smorgasbord of fatal occurrences.
Speaking of firearms and fire, if we're familiar with pyromaniacs and arsonists, they put firemen to work.
The reason the fire alarm goes off is because an emergency is alerted for a very perilous, adverse, hazardous fatal event potentially.
Which unfortunately regularly ensues to be mortal for individuals.
"
I only have these few words to say:
1. Bruh
2. Bruh
3. As if the fires have caused more human death than guns or knives.
4. Poor argument because the whole debate says "guns ARE no more..." when it's not "Guns WERE no more...", also this dude's trying to find a crappy loophole that is just not even a loophole but a massive FIREwall (in his own words) that he already passed through all cooked like his career.
"This correlates to a topic I had some time ago I believe it was "guns are as deadly as knives" or something to that effect."
Seems like a very dull belief. But the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) that has the quote "You brought a knife to a gunfight." already shows how dull that belief is, if used in a gunfight, or gun battle.
So we can see the ramifications of cuts with whatever instrument or article used to bring about death.
Is this any different than with a gunshot?
Yes, because death by a thousand cuts involved using a weapon that can cut a thousand times, hence the weapon is used a thousand times.
Whereas, a gun used one time can instantly send the individual to death.
"Lingchi usually translated "slow slicing" or "death by a thousand cuts", was a form of torture and execution used in China from around the 10th century."
How does this help prove that Knives are more dangerous than guns? How does this show that Knives are more hazardous than Guns? How does this help anyone observe that there is much of an "equal" sense of comparison between knives and guns? Does it mean Hazardous in terms of reaching death?
It's very difficult to find sense in something that doesn't make much sense. I already noticed from the beginning that the topic is too dither due to the fact that we are missing data.
Which generality is this? What generic proportion does it have? From where does this generality commonly function within? It's quite ambiguous
This debate is too generic. But if I was to say anything, Knives are more hazardous. (Because of their concentration in this world (where it is more familiar with kitchens and cutleries and how they are more accessible than guns).
People that are transgender obviously have "transgender age" due to transgender people having ID(s) identifiable across nations (therefore, capable of being pointed out, or mentioned, or accused of), nations give out ID for any transgender people. This stands "true". Also the term "age" here is quantifiable for chronological age, biological age, identity age (All 3 elements interconnected).
Some familiar guy on this website is creating alternative accounts in order to prove a point. Or to piss someone off. It's ridiculous. I'm laughing because of how retarded it is.
Kinda ridiculous.
This is a way of how we can evaluate how hazardous guns are, compared to knives:
Object identities (Colloquial terming of the objects used, Statistical or average terming of the objects used, other terming used all in order to make this as logical as possible and allow it make as much as sense as possible, followed by empirical considerations and empirical data):
Guns:
Handguns: Typically weigh between 1 to 3 pounds (0.45 to 1.36 kg).
Rifles: Generally weigh between 6 to 10 pounds (2.72 to 4.54 kg).
Shotguns: Typically weigh between 7 to 9 pounds (3.18 to 4.08 kg).
For a rough average, considering a mix of handguns, rifles, and shotguns:
Average Mass of Guns≈ (2+8+8)/3 =6 pounds ≈ 2.72 kg
Rough average estimation of Guns, considering a mix of handguns, rifles, and shotguns is approximately equal to 2.72kg.
Knives:
Pocket Knives: Generally weigh between 0.1 to 0.5 pounds (45 to 227 grams).
Kitchen Knives: Typically weigh between 0.3 to 1 pound (136 to 454 grams).
Hunting and Tactical Knives: Usually weigh between 0.5 to 2 pounds (227 to 907 grams).
For a rough average, considering a mix of pocket knives, kitchen knives, and hunting/tactical knives:
Average Mass of Knives≈ (0.3+0.7+1)/3 =0.67 pounds≈0.3 kg
Rough average estimation of Knives, considering a mix of pocket knives, kitchen knives, and hunting/tactical knives is approximately equal to 0.3kg.
A comparison between the rough average estimation of Guns and knives:
Average rough estimation of Guns is 2.72 kg.
Average rough estimation of knives is 0.3 kg.
In that comparison, on average, Guns weigh almost 9 times more than knives.
Advantages of Weight and Mass:
Since guns weigh more and since guns are more solid than knives, judging by the composite materials and the mass of guns, as well as their weight and the method of they are made generally, Guns are capable of "packing more force" than knives due to their durability in composition. They can therefore cause more disturbance in the human body, if for example, their lateral sides are used to damage the body by applying excessive force, especially on the skull. But, still, even with guns packing more force, knives still have this sharp point even throughout their non-sharp points that allow them to cause severe damage to the human body, depending on where you strike the sharp point at, despite the packing force they have compared to guns. The Weight advantages still contribute to the hazardous rate of these items being used as weapons. The situations that the advantages of weight can help cause are knocking someone out of consciousness, causing someone a hemorrhage to the brain, or other damages to the head that can be fatal.
Guns in battle, can allow the person to "burst" out the areas of their body, depending on the bullet shot by the gun (assuming there is a bullet that has been shot by it, because without the bullet the guns are simply less useful than they usually are for battles, or for situations in battles). Guns cause much more damage to the human body than knives do, due to the impact of the bullet, or the force of the bullet. The damage of the bullet's impact or force can cause the body to have a "linear" directed motion of a force thrusting through their body, followed by the locomotion of the bullet (through the act of shooting, depending on the area that is shot through). This in total, allows the bullet to cause a "Gunshot wound". A gunshot wound is much more severe than a knife wound, because it doesn't cause as much as damage as a knife does per an act of damaging force on a person. (this is all of course, during one glimpse of a moment).
Knives in battle, can allow the person to bleed to death if an artery has been cut through, and multiple stabbing can lead to a more severe form of Major haemorrhage if an artery or multiple arteries have been cut through, or cut. (And of course, damage to the parts of the human body, including the internal and external tissues, meaning the muscle tissues and the outlier tissues, the epidermis contributing to the hazardous rate of knives). However, this during one glimpse of a moment, the cutting only cause a risk of blood loss (depending on the situation) and not furthermore damages, apart the areas damaged by wherever the knife has been cut through. This in total, allows the knife to cause a "knife wound" (all of This is only through an act of stabbing).
Based on the one glimpse of a moment, Guns appear to be more hazardous than knives.
For the other parts of the topic, knives are on average just more hazardous than matches, paper, and thumb tacs. Conclusively, Guns are are on average more hazardous than matches, paper, and thumb tacs because Guns are more hazardous than knives.
However, I believe that matches, paper, and thumb tacs can be more hazardous than Guns, only if they are known how to be used in a unique way.
Like someone read this:
-----------------------------------------
"When it comes to debating what’s possible and what’s not I think the win will most often than not go to the person arguing as PRO regardless of the debate being serious or not. Absolute knowledge is very hard to prove for basic things that we experience let alone for something like this.
PRO states that there is a possibility that Savant is not human and is a robot/bot/AI (along with other more unrealistic beings).
Now I think in 2024, the existence of AI is pretty common knowledge and advanced AIs have wide range of capabilities. PRO states that there is no evidence that Savant is human based on the lack of personal information we have about him (true but in my opinion wont change anything even if we had it because the information could be fake). This is a weak argument but it serves its purpose to just present the idea that the possibility exists and from now on I don’t know how CON could have even proven absolute certainty.
CON’s whole argument is based on Captcha and that if Savant is a member of the website he had to pass it which proves that he is a human.
The obvious problem as PRO mentioned is that bots and AIs are capable of passing through those captchas pretty easy. I don’t really need sources for that claim because I consider it common knowledge. PRO still provides sources tho with studies done on this topic that clearly state that bots are capable of passing through captcha with high accuracy.
CONs rebuttal to PROs arguments is solely focused on sources and that they are not reliable and “seem ridiculous”. I don’t see however how CON justified those claims.
CON: “because it starts with "study shows"”
“Its from 2013”
“Argument from authority”
“Are you smarter than a robot? Study finds bots better than us at passing CAPTCHA tests”
- I don’t see a problem with how this article starts. Sure the author of the article might’ve missed an “A” infront of “study” but he wasn’t the one who did the experiments and it’s laughable that CON tries to dismiss a whole article because of a missing “A” and not engage with the actual content.
The articles contained the actual studies done and experiments made by scientists which prove PROs claims.
Only one source was from 2013, the others were from 2023. Even if all were from 2013 that means nothing. CONs objection is that captcha has been improved since then and? AI has been improved too arguably way more than anything else. And where is CONS source that captcha has been improved? Based on PRO sources AI can still pass captcha today.
His other objection is that one of the articles is making “an argument from authority” but fails in that (which is good if they were making one lol). In the article there were many scientists quoted not only the one he couldn’t find and there were also linking the studies done which is way more important.
Another interesting thing from the same article, that debunks the idea that captcha has evolved so much:
“But there’s a problem with designing better CAPTCHAs: They have a built-in ceiling. “If it is too difficult, people give up,” Cengiz Acartürk, a cognition and computer scientist at Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland, tells Inverse.
Acartürk and his colleagues conducted a 2021 study in which they scanned the brains of volunteers…”
(They also link the study done so its not argument from authority which CON still doesn’t know what it is).
Those are also interesting statements from CON:
“Sure, there is a 0.0000...1% chance”
“Just because a possibility of something is given…”
Well if CON agrees the possibility is given and theres a small chance (doesn’t matter how small) the debate is won for PRO. But that part of the debate is not too significant for my decision since legibility was not great and somewhat confusing.
CON also very desperately tried to defend Captcha with nothing but assertions that it proves someone is human “regardless of anything”. This phrase “regardless of anything” and “please understand that it works regardless of anything” has been repeated like 200 times and CON just doesn’t understand that you can’t say something works regardless of anything even when someone shows you a direct example of that failing its purpose. Just because something passed captcha and is human ACCORDING TO CAPTCHA does not make it a human. AI doesn’t turn into human once it passes captcha just because captcha thinks that was a human.
“There is no flaw in this, please understand."- sad attempt to save his case without actually acknowledging the flaws of captcha presented to him."
----------------------------------------------------------------
It seriously has so many flaws, holy shit.
I'm convinced that baggins is a walking low-functioning robot at this point.
A voter is spreading a contagious parasitic disease called "cooties" through internet by having the vote displayed in "votes" section of the website. It must immediately be exterminated by deleting the atrocity of the contagious parasitic disease (this is through deleting the vote).
Sheet. Couldn't make it.
Oh well, still 2 round more rounds left.
Oh crap, i missed out.
Recorrection, for my vote.
"At round 2, Pro "pussied" out after when Pro used very "hazardous" and scary numbers. Pro then decided to "rest his case" when the debate was not even over, afterwards providing no more coherent or logical arguments than Con but rather personal whims and unsportsmanlike arguments."
Recorrected to
"At round 2, Pro "pussied" out after when Con used very "hazardous" and scary numbers. Pro then decided to "rest his case" when the debate was not even over, afterwards providing no more coherent or logical arguments than Con but rather personal whims and unsportsmanlike arguments."
Misrepresented "Pro" for "Con" in the beginning of those writings. His numbers were so scary that it trembled my fingers into typing "Pro".
"For starters, Wikipedia is notorious for being unreliable, not to mention that you're not even sure where it came from Wikipedia in the first place.
Now to the point, you're arguing that if one party is completely restrained, someone can use a piece of paper to slowly cut them to death. Your faulty source claims a few people died from this thousands of years ago.
I don't even see how you can compare that with the tens of thousands of people who die from guns on a yearly basis.
Is this any different than with a gunshot?
These two things are completely different.
Your only other argument is "fire is dangerous"
Yes it is, but before I don't think I need to rebut this yet, considering you provided no numbers.
Then you have your terroristic attacks with explosives. That's fire again.
Fire that is not related to matches."
There is a bad start with pointing out Wikipedia unreliability because of not finding a counteracting argument that is logical enough to concede with the point out done. Also you did mention that he was not even sure where it came from Wikipedia in the first place, regardless of saying "not to mention".
Not to mention, I don't exactly know if you even were aware of the numbers that came from didn't exactly come from "WHO".
However, this still remains logical. Mall did not provide any numbers. Not much I can do to help Mall in this debate. His Arguments are piss-poor. (Respectfully)
"The amount of casualties from firearms on a yearly basis globally are impossible to count, but there is a wide consensus that there are hundreds of thousands. . According to WHO, 400,000 suicides alone are committed with firearms.
Last time I checked, that's more people dying from a gun than from paper cuts."
Somewhat evidence-based, supported by legal governmental data. He most likely got it from "https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10881/chapter/9"
However, this doesn't seem like it's from "WHO". It seems like it's from U.S vital statistics System.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10881."
This is somewhat accurate, though it's not exactly according to WHO. But all of this data is simply nationally representative information about lethal self-injuries, especially lethal self-injuries done by firearms.
This remains logically coherent.
Do you cook often? Have you particularly seen any animal get slaughtered for consumption purposes?
Do you by any chance have watched gore recently? Or do you tend to watch them more often? Perhaps you have those repetitive desires of exploring the "gore facility" as guided by your wicked curiousity.
"I hear about house fires and all like that with many that have fell victim to the blazes.
Then you have your terroristic attacks with explosives. That's fire again.
So yes guns are not the only hazardous applications to people. You can't get no more hazardous than death."
You're already halfway through the argument and you're making piss poor relations to ISIS incidents. Not only, you're talking about "explosives" which literally are not even matches or thumb tacs or even paper. This isn't related to the Topic debate even. Poor argument.
So... after all of the flaws as well as connections to historical concepts (that are not necessary and irrelevant to the topic), while making these piss poor relations to ISIS suicidal bombing incidents, you come up with the conclusion that guns are no more hazardous than death? And your way out of this is through piss poor semantics?
"Before guns existed, obviously hazardous and harmful elements existed.
After the advent of firearms , those things that pre-dated remain in existence as harmful elements . As well as other things that have also come along to add to the smorgasbord of fatal occurrences.
Speaking of firearms and fire, if we're familiar with pyromaniacs and arsonists, they put firemen to work.
The reason the fire alarm goes off is because an emergency is alerted for a very perilous, adverse, hazardous fatal event potentially.
Which unfortunately regularly ensues to be mortal for individuals.
"
I only have these few words to say:
1. Bruh
2. Bruh
3. As if the fires have caused more human death than guns or knives.
4. Poor argument because the whole debate says "guns ARE no more..." when it's not "Guns WERE no more...", also this dude's trying to find a crappy loophole that is just not even a loophole but a massive FIREwall (in his own words) that he already passed through all cooked like his career.
"This correlates to a topic I had some time ago I believe it was "guns are as deadly as knives" or something to that effect."
Seems like a very dull belief. But the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) that has the quote "You brought a knife to a gunfight." already shows how dull that belief is, if used in a gunfight, or gun battle.
So we can see the ramifications of cuts with whatever instrument or article used to bring about death.
Is this any different than with a gunshot?
Yes, because death by a thousand cuts involved using a weapon that can cut a thousand times, hence the weapon is used a thousand times.
Whereas, a gun used one time can instantly send the individual to death.
Poor argument.
"Lingchi usually translated "slow slicing" or "death by a thousand cuts", was a form of torture and execution used in China from around the 10th century."
How does this help prove that Knives are more dangerous than guns? How does this show that Knives are more hazardous than Guns? How does this help anyone observe that there is much of an "equal" sense of comparison between knives and guns? Does it mean Hazardous in terms of reaching death?
Can't see anyone who wrote "Paper kills more than guns". False argument. One flaw.
Regardless, I'm going to be voting based on which one makes better argument.
It's very difficult to find sense in something that doesn't make much sense. I already noticed from the beginning that the topic is too dither due to the fact that we are missing data.
Which generality is this? What generic proportion does it have? From where does this generality commonly function within? It's quite ambiguous
This debate is too generic. But if I was to say anything, Knives are more hazardous. (Because of their concentration in this world (where it is more familiar with kitchens and cutleries and how they are more accessible than guns).
Bro didn't publish an argument. He published a research.
Your first argument published is somewhat disappointing me.
Besides that, It's good that you published as early as possible.
I support trump.
Those people who forfeit debates and not respond are actual clowns.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Recidivism? More like, Reci-eve deez nutz.
People that are transgender obviously have "transgender age" due to transgender people having ID(s) identifiable across nations (therefore, capable of being pointed out, or mentioned, or accused of), nations give out ID for any transgender people. This stands "true". Also the term "age" here is quantifiable for chronological age, biological age, identity age (All 3 elements interconnected).
Are you going to respond?
F*ck it. I'm doing this debate due to the unjust history with my previous "last considered debate" that I had no taste of.
This is not just happening for this debate.
Some familiar guy on this website is creating alternative accounts in order to prove a point. Or to piss someone off. It's ridiculous. I'm laughing because of how retarded it is.
Is this some sort of a comeback on me? This is absolutely ridiculous. Creating some bot accounts on purpose and controlling them to take debates.
Bruh
Is this is some bot?
This is absurd.
This guy bruh. " "Strategy" is too similar to "Arguments." "
Just write that strategy can be awarded through argument.
I can't find any dictionary where "Arguments" has "strategy" as a similarity.
#3 has situation-based terming, I can't speak for all situations except around 25% to 65% of it.
Kinda ridiculous.
This is a way of how we can evaluate how hazardous guns are, compared to knives:
Object identities (Colloquial terming of the objects used, Statistical or average terming of the objects used, other terming used all in order to make this as logical as possible and allow it make as much as sense as possible, followed by empirical considerations and empirical data):
Guns:
Handguns: Typically weigh between 1 to 3 pounds (0.45 to 1.36 kg).
Rifles: Generally weigh between 6 to 10 pounds (2.72 to 4.54 kg).
Shotguns: Typically weigh between 7 to 9 pounds (3.18 to 4.08 kg).
For a rough average, considering a mix of handguns, rifles, and shotguns:
Average Mass of Guns≈ (2+8+8)/3 =6 pounds ≈ 2.72 kg
Rough average estimation of Guns, considering a mix of handguns, rifles, and shotguns is approximately equal to 2.72kg.
Knives:
Pocket Knives: Generally weigh between 0.1 to 0.5 pounds (45 to 227 grams).
Kitchen Knives: Typically weigh between 0.3 to 1 pound (136 to 454 grams).
Hunting and Tactical Knives: Usually weigh between 0.5 to 2 pounds (227 to 907 grams).
For a rough average, considering a mix of pocket knives, kitchen knives, and hunting/tactical knives:
Average Mass of Knives≈ (0.3+0.7+1)/3 =0.67 pounds≈0.3 kg
Rough average estimation of Knives, considering a mix of pocket knives, kitchen knives, and hunting/tactical knives is approximately equal to 0.3kg.
A comparison between the rough average estimation of Guns and knives:
Average rough estimation of Guns is 2.72 kg.
Average rough estimation of knives is 0.3 kg.
In that comparison, on average, Guns weigh almost 9 times more than knives.
Advantages of Weight and Mass:
Since guns weigh more and since guns are more solid than knives, judging by the composite materials and the mass of guns, as well as their weight and the method of they are made generally, Guns are capable of "packing more force" than knives due to their durability in composition. They can therefore cause more disturbance in the human body, if for example, their lateral sides are used to damage the body by applying excessive force, especially on the skull. But, still, even with guns packing more force, knives still have this sharp point even throughout their non-sharp points that allow them to cause severe damage to the human body, depending on where you strike the sharp point at, despite the packing force they have compared to guns. The Weight advantages still contribute to the hazardous rate of these items being used as weapons. The situations that the advantages of weight can help cause are knocking someone out of consciousness, causing someone a hemorrhage to the brain, or other damages to the head that can be fatal.
Guns in battle, can allow the person to "burst" out the areas of their body, depending on the bullet shot by the gun (assuming there is a bullet that has been shot by it, because without the bullet the guns are simply less useful than they usually are for battles, or for situations in battles). Guns cause much more damage to the human body than knives do, due to the impact of the bullet, or the force of the bullet. The damage of the bullet's impact or force can cause the body to have a "linear" directed motion of a force thrusting through their body, followed by the locomotion of the bullet (through the act of shooting, depending on the area that is shot through). This in total, allows the bullet to cause a "Gunshot wound". A gunshot wound is much more severe than a knife wound, because it doesn't cause as much as damage as a knife does per an act of damaging force on a person. (this is all of course, during one glimpse of a moment).
Knives in battle, can allow the person to bleed to death if an artery has been cut through, and multiple stabbing can lead to a more severe form of Major haemorrhage if an artery or multiple arteries have been cut through, or cut. (And of course, damage to the parts of the human body, including the internal and external tissues, meaning the muscle tissues and the outlier tissues, the epidermis contributing to the hazardous rate of knives). However, this during one glimpse of a moment, the cutting only cause a risk of blood loss (depending on the situation) and not furthermore damages, apart the areas damaged by wherever the knife has been cut through. This in total, allows the knife to cause a "knife wound" (all of This is only through an act of stabbing).
Based on the one glimpse of a moment, Guns appear to be more hazardous than knives.
For the other parts of the topic, knives are on average just more hazardous than matches, paper, and thumb tacs. Conclusively, Guns are are on average more hazardous than matches, paper, and thumb tacs because Guns are more hazardous than knives.
However, I believe that matches, paper, and thumb tacs can be more hazardous than Guns, only if they are known how to be used in a unique way.
Mate, where are you? Everything going well?
Sure, I'll try to post as soon as possible. Better be prepared.
You take the first advantage if you'd like. Also if the circumstances are right for you, where you can take the first advantage.
Not a peaceful religion, no.
Note: I'm just multi-tasking debates, but this one is also very interesting.
I wonder whose alt "njk25" is.
Couldn't be baggins alt.
I hope this debate's going to be fun for you.
As it goes the same for me.
This is probably going to be my last debate on this website. Then I may quit and be busy with myself.
Like someone read this:
-----------------------------------------
"When it comes to debating what’s possible and what’s not I think the win will most often than not go to the person arguing as PRO regardless of the debate being serious or not. Absolute knowledge is very hard to prove for basic things that we experience let alone for something like this.
PRO states that there is a possibility that Savant is not human and is a robot/bot/AI (along with other more unrealistic beings).
Now I think in 2024, the existence of AI is pretty common knowledge and advanced AIs have wide range of capabilities. PRO states that there is no evidence that Savant is human based on the lack of personal information we have about him (true but in my opinion wont change anything even if we had it because the information could be fake). This is a weak argument but it serves its purpose to just present the idea that the possibility exists and from now on I don’t know how CON could have even proven absolute certainty.
CON’s whole argument is based on Captcha and that if Savant is a member of the website he had to pass it which proves that he is a human.
The obvious problem as PRO mentioned is that bots and AIs are capable of passing through those captchas pretty easy. I don’t really need sources for that claim because I consider it common knowledge. PRO still provides sources tho with studies done on this topic that clearly state that bots are capable of passing through captcha with high accuracy.
CONs rebuttal to PROs arguments is solely focused on sources and that they are not reliable and “seem ridiculous”. I don’t see however how CON justified those claims.
CON: “because it starts with "study shows"”
“Its from 2013”
“Argument from authority”
“Are you smarter than a robot? Study finds bots better than us at passing CAPTCHA tests”
- I don’t see a problem with how this article starts. Sure the author of the article might’ve missed an “A” infront of “study” but he wasn’t the one who did the experiments and it’s laughable that CON tries to dismiss a whole article because of a missing “A” and not engage with the actual content.
The articles contained the actual studies done and experiments made by scientists which prove PROs claims.
Only one source was from 2013, the others were from 2023. Even if all were from 2013 that means nothing. CONs objection is that captcha has been improved since then and? AI has been improved too arguably way more than anything else. And where is CONS source that captcha has been improved? Based on PRO sources AI can still pass captcha today.
His other objection is that one of the articles is making “an argument from authority” but fails in that (which is good if they were making one lol). In the article there were many scientists quoted not only the one he couldn’t find and there were also linking the studies done which is way more important.
Another interesting thing from the same article, that debunks the idea that captcha has evolved so much:
“But there’s a problem with designing better CAPTCHAs: They have a built-in ceiling. “If it is too difficult, people give up,” Cengiz Acartürk, a cognition and computer scientist at Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland, tells Inverse.
Acartürk and his colleagues conducted a 2021 study in which they scanned the brains of volunteers…”
(They also link the study done so its not argument from authority which CON still doesn’t know what it is).
Those are also interesting statements from CON:
“Sure, there is a 0.0000...1% chance”
“Just because a possibility of something is given…”
Well if CON agrees the possibility is given and theres a small chance (doesn’t matter how small) the debate is won for PRO. But that part of the debate is not too significant for my decision since legibility was not great and somewhat confusing.
CON also very desperately tried to defend Captcha with nothing but assertions that it proves someone is human “regardless of anything”. This phrase “regardless of anything” and “please understand that it works regardless of anything” has been repeated like 200 times and CON just doesn’t understand that you can’t say something works regardless of anything even when someone shows you a direct example of that failing its purpose. Just because something passed captcha and is human ACCORDING TO CAPTCHA does not make it a human. AI doesn’t turn into human once it passes captcha just because captcha thinks that was a human.
“There is no flaw in this, please understand."- sad attempt to save his case without actually acknowledging the flaws of captcha presented to him."
----------------------------------------------------------------
It seriously has so many flaws, holy shit.
I'm convinced that baggins is a walking low-functioning robot at this point.
No one has the balls to take this debate. Good to know. All I'm seeing is a tremendous amount of yapping in the comments.
The answer is: Very versatile.
Your saying of it is an overcomplication of the debate. Why am I seeing too much yapping?
Your vote is schizo.
A voter is spreading a contagious parasitic disease called "cooties" through internet by having the vote displayed in "votes" section of the website. It must immediately be exterminated by deleting the atrocity of the contagious parasitic disease (this is through deleting the vote).
Delete the atrocity in the votes. Clearly Pro has stated that this is no laughing matter.