Honestly, I can't even begin to point every ridiculous comments out, at this point it's best to just jump off a building as an expression to show how ridiculous this comment section is..
"carbon-14 is a radioactive element that is supposed to break down in a few thousand years, according to modern science. This element is found in diamonds and fossils, which means that fossils can not be millions of years old"
Woah! What a conclusion! So crazy..
Let me just say that "carbon-14" which is an "element" is not only found in diamonds and fossils.... shocking.
It is also naturally formed in the upper atmosphere through the interaction of cosmic rays with nitrogen atoms. (What relevant sources say)
So much for conspiracy theories.. now it's my turn to make a conclusion. Your argument is a failed argument and a fallacy as well.. and to spice things up a bit.. your argument is not only a failed argument and a fallacy as well..
Let that confuse you.. but the pattern is directly relevant to the way of how I made the conclusion.
If I was you, I'd look at this problem and see if LogicalDebater01 is "nitpicking" and if "it" is "a minor legibility issue" or not.. and "it" hadn't made the argument only incomprehensible, it made the argument a failure. Having the will in any way to vote for me is not what I aim for here, what I aim for is seeing the issues within the debate.
And perhaps you had no such difficulty because you haven't found one to have in this debate.
If I also break down the reason in such terms or ways of explaining, I'd do it at this instance..
To also clarify what my reason meant in a way, I could establish an example.
Say.. this example "A car is a vehicle" or "A cars is a vehicle".. not to confuse the plot, I'll use "A car is a vehicle"
This example also supports my reason I believe, Now for.. "A car is a vehicle":
We can imagine a world where A car is not a vehicle.. (but in our world a car is a vehicle)
The world where A car is not a vehicle.. simply disproves the sentence " A car is a vehicle"..
Because in that world.. A car is a vehicle is known to be-- in objectivity logically fallacious.. and is not factual.
And this is.. in a way-- identical to parts of the explanation.
Now for me to explain this situation to you, I will clarify a few thing or somewhat a certain amount of things that are included in this comment in order not to cause any misunderstanding or any confusion-- I will clarify some things to you..
In simple terms, I believe the term "A people" is grammatically correct, I myself have personal issues with the usage of the term (that are also used by people), not the term "A people", and I myself as an individual have personal issues with certain usages within the English language especially the certain usages that are used by people -- due to having thoughts about the general misuse of certain usages of the English language.
I can assure you, the reason that I have provided is either completely relevant or relevant when it comes to the real world.. or when it comes within the real world.. especially the application of my reason in the real world.
In addition, let me include that this matter is not only a matter of "reading" and that "reading" isn't the only cognitive ability in consideration that should be included in this matter.. you need to consider the significance of the other cognitive abilities that you should also be using here because it is entirely relevant.
"However, global food production is incredibly efficient. The worlds farmers produce enough food to feed 1.5x the global population. That's enough to feed 10 billion. (1)"
I guess the other 0.5 billion is not getting enough to get fed and it's best to be left out as outliers, it's probably just a number worthless in this subject.. in fact mentioning the arithmetic skill in this source.. I think.. is simply exceptional.
I hope that I don't get assumed for having "pedantic" qualities or "petty nitpicking" qualities for my statements that have been made in the comment section.
You call this "petty nitpicking"? I call the argument a childish mistake.. if the problem is small then why can't the person itself handle the small thing? Is he incapable of handling such a small thing? Is he too disabled for such a small thing? How common is this childish mistake anyways? Who in the fucktardation says "A people" usually?
Regardless of what the rules say, there is also a type of logic that falls within this website.. and this type is also constant and infallible when it comes to also being a constant..
Whether if the rules deny the type of logic itself or do not deny the type of logic itself.. the logic would still be there, undisputed and sustained.
You simply have to cope.
If we wanna chat about who yapped more, I think we all would say pro yapped the most in this debate.. and couldn't provide any source for their argument.
In such sense.. pro is asking to be dominated directly in the glory hole.
If the quotation that you have written is from the harvard link provided then what you've stated your own self goes against your own argument in round 1 because you are not stating what the quotation itself states.
You have written: "Research over the last 50 years show us that spanking children is harmful to their mental health."
The quotation as cited in round one states:
"We know that spanking is not effective and can be harmful for children’s development and increases the chance of mental health issues."
The quotation you provided also claims that spanking children can be harmful for children's development.. not "is"-- in simplification.. a matter of "can" is not a matter of "is"... an oversimplification could be "is" is not "can"
Please get better at "seriousness" instead of "yapanese".. because it can be a "dayfucker" for people who know how to read..
As fucked as the world also is.. You will always have parts that do not run the way you think the parts run.. Even the type of people that are not clean and tidy and more organized than you are-- can be better than you in ways that matter the most.
What are these silly little arguments as well? Do you adhere to the strict principles of validity?
If you do adhere to the strict principles of validity.. then you should go and look if "asexuality" is a mental disorder or not within sources or the sources given by search engines that are trusted by government officials. (Strict principles of validity is also a part of "logic")
Believe me.. professionals may have had debates that have squandered around the word "asexuality" as well.. and guess who won the debate..
And what is this description of the debate? I have found it to be commonly used as a description during my browsing of the debates..
"Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message."
It really looks like a "new opening" that the "council of debaters" have come up with... it seems efficient whenever used against people incapable of analysing a situation to an "OK" degree.
There are people who ask, why did you waste your time doing such stupid things?
The answer to that question varies.. however there may be a generic answer that is enough to answer the question that are given by such people... and the answer is "I did such stupid things."
Although this generic answer may seem not clear enough.. even though it is clear enough in rationality and literacy.
"Morality is subjective" means that you're claiming what morality is.. is subjective. This is wrong. Morality is not subjective.. Morality is also subjective. Subjective is not the only part of morality, because objective is another part of morality.
Right, I've got it-- from now on I shouldn't buy any dead frozen meat of chicken. This somehow prevents the suffering the chicken had during it's own death by the use of "Art of DeBullShitterry" which is a special practice of the dark arts. Thank you very much.
There is a gender pay gap, it depends. Unless if a country doesn't give much attention to such thing and creates an equality between male and female wages (for those countries that qualify male and female as the only genders).
If things are within existence, it wouldn't always require science to prove their place within existence. Science is not the only way we use to prove the place of things within existence.
If each voter's reasoning is not flawed in the accordance of relevancy, then I will be happy to hear the counteract for "flawed reasoning" and I will also be happy to have someone to refute me.
Note that your words within sentences and your sentences are directly determining your arguments.. any flaws just simply means that your argument is not completely defined (poorly defined) and as a result of your mistake or error in your sentences.. your argument would instantly be flawed. Why? Because you're describing a mistake or error in your sentences.. you're not describing what you should've meant to write(for example, a subject about cars.. and you continue with.. "A cars is a vehicle" .. that is where you're describing a mistake and not a thing relevant to the subject about cars) . This isn't entirely grammatical, it's also logically fallacious... and this message can be reconciled with "savant" flawed reasoning in the "votes" of this section of the page or whatever.
"No case from either side until the final round…
Pro calls Israel hypocritical for being Nazi-like, and says they’re actively creating the next generation of enemies (intuitively, genocide would prevent that).
Con replies with grammar-Nazidom, and accuses pro of gosh-galloping leaving him unable to respond to all the arguments.
I feel neither actually touches the precise topic of aid, reducing the debate down to anti-Israel vs pro-Israel.
I am not seeing any Gish gallop, merely a weak assertion which could have been easily challenged in any number of ways."
Your reasoning is flawed. Everything within the debate is connected, my arguments are constantly relevant to the debate and the arguments within the debate.
"Pro forfeits a good chunk of this debate, but they do give an argument criticizing Israel in the final round whereas Con does not give an argument relevant to the resolution."
Your reasoning is flawed. Though I do not intend to care much nor do I intend to care much to explain to you how it is flawed, unless if you could see it. (as long as your reasoning had not been written thoughtlessly necessary to the debate)
My previous message was never an intention to harm you in any way, it was only an observation of mine. I do believe what I'm saying, and I could be wrong, perhaps my estimation of your verbal reasoning and verbal comprehension could be lower than 100 IQ, and that is possible.. because it's also easier to score lower than scoring high on any test in general (this is not a standard thing, it's just "common sense")
You should note that scoring low or high on a subtest for example "Verbal reasoning" or "Verbal comprehension" in general shouldn't in general determine your full-scale IQ score, because it is not the only determinate.. your full-scale IQ score should be determined by all subtests within IQ tests. It's possible that your full-scale IQ could be higher or lower, and it is your full-scale IQ that matters the most. (People sometimes think the fluid reasoning part matters more but truly, your full-scale is what's the most important. I believe that with your full-scale, certain people and societies would accept you to join them, if you wanted to).
IQ tests are to be taken seriously, the media in general thinks that it's a joke and that it is something that can be picked up by hand easily and put down easily by hand just like picking up a rock and putting down a rock by hand.. there are however.. people that are limited to picking up rocks and putting them down by hand.. for example.. people who don't have hands and people who don't have arms. These people are simply incapable of picking up a rock by hand, why? Well it's obviously because they don't have hands and are disabled which implies that the rock is the IQ test and the hand is simply people's brains in analogy.
..
People don't understand that taking IQ tests and scoring on an IQ test has limitations. That's one of the things that makes them very serious.. and it also currently plays the most role in making IQ tests very serious.
Anyways, aside from thus little story I've given you, I have to mention something from my previous message again.. "you shouldn't trust my reason of you and my analytical approach of you (of which is observed)"
.
.
.. This mention also means not to trust my observation of you.. it means that you should not trust what I have observed from you, there is always a misinterpretation of things given online.. specifically this website.
To be reasonably honest and analytical with you.. based on your arguments and variation of thinking and reasoning in general, when it comes to arguments.. your arguments do not surpass an IQ between 100 and 117 when it comes to verbal reasoning and verbal comprehension in general.. where 100 IQ is more likely to get and 117 IQ is more unlikely to get.. (this reasoning was done by the judgement of verbal reasoning and verbal comprehension)
And that is as if you'd take a professional test.. which is significantly "more difficult" than online tests in general. The reason to why I'm addressing or including the statement "more difficult" is not because of the situation linked with the person and the IQ test.. It's because of a situation where only IQ tests are compared to each IQ tests.. and not because of the person's ability to consider it "difficult".
By "more difficult", I specifically mean the durability and the g-loading of the test in general.. because each tests have their own format and their own special problems that need to be solved correctly. The durability and g-loading of the tests is simply referring to how valid and reliable it would make the test.. in terms of giving the test the ability to properly measure intelligence (or g). We have tests that have different measuring systems and tests that have similar measuring systems ( (like two tests with different SD's; WAIS-IV (15 SD) and SB-IV (16 SD), or WAIS-IV (15 SD) and SB-V (15 SD) which in a way are the same).. and those measuring systems include statistical identities such as "Standard Deviation" or usually referred to as "SD" for an abbreviation of "Standard Deviation". But, that's enough information for me to use in order for you to "get the idea" (speaking metaphorically and in colloquial use).
But of course, you shouldn't trust my reason of you and my analytical approach of you (of which is observed). You can always try to prove things wrong, especially this abstract observation. But also.. don't forget.. there is a chance that you will fail at proving me wrong.
I'm convinced that we have closeted homosexuals on this website.. we may need a magnifying glass to spot each of them.. who knows? They could be running around without us noticing. Haha.
Books are not as powerful as experiences.. unless if you wish to.. go back in time and experience the events for yourself, only then would you be able to come to a realistically and reasonably logical conclusion.
Or, to put it more simply, "ought to do does not equal will do."
Okay, I'm beginning to think that these simplifications are just simply insults getting smacked against each other in a very unclear manner or behaviour at this point.
Mistaking such matters are very childish.. how could you mistaken "ought to" for "will do"? That would be hilarious, haha. These are very simple basic verbal terms to reason with.
It is not that old, I don't think that your thoughts would differ much by now counting from then.
Also.. Regardless of how old it is, it is still wrong.
Honestly, I can't even begin to point every ridiculous comments out, at this point it's best to just jump off a building as an expression to show how ridiculous this comment section is..
#16 is ridicule.. illogical... and any other words that should indicate how much this crap lacks logic and common sense.
How spreadable is thou cheeks?
Woah, I think I stepped into a gold mine...
These arguments are just a poor excuse for a reason.
The yapping is profoundly concentrated in extraordinary amounts within this debate.
"carbon-14 is a radioactive element that is supposed to break down in a few thousand years, according to modern science. This element is found in diamonds and fossils, which means that fossils can not be millions of years old"
Woah! What a conclusion! So crazy..
Let me just say that "carbon-14" which is an "element" is not only found in diamonds and fossils.... shocking.
It is also naturally formed in the upper atmosphere through the interaction of cosmic rays with nitrogen atoms. (What relevant sources say)
So much for conspiracy theories.. now it's my turn to make a conclusion. Your argument is a failed argument and a fallacy as well.. and to spice things up a bit.. your argument is not only a failed argument and a fallacy as well..
Let that confuse you.. but the pattern is directly relevant to the way of how I made the conclusion.
If I was you, I'd look at this problem and see if LogicalDebater01 is "nitpicking" and if "it" is "a minor legibility issue" or not.. and "it" hadn't made the argument only incomprehensible, it made the argument a failure. Having the will in any way to vote for me is not what I aim for here, what I aim for is seeing the issues within the debate.
And perhaps you had no such difficulty because you haven't found one to have in this debate.
"Causation is correlation"
Korea must have the most advanced education in the world.. this is some truly exceptional equality.
If I also break down the reason in such terms or ways of explaining, I'd do it at this instance..
To also clarify what my reason meant in a way, I could establish an example.
Say.. this example "A car is a vehicle" or "A cars is a vehicle".. not to confuse the plot, I'll use "A car is a vehicle"
This example also supports my reason I believe, Now for.. "A car is a vehicle":
We can imagine a world where A car is not a vehicle.. (but in our world a car is a vehicle)
The world where A car is not a vehicle.. simply disproves the sentence " A car is a vehicle"..
Because in that world.. A car is a vehicle is known to be-- in objectivity logically fallacious.. and is not factual.
And this is.. in a way-- identical to parts of the explanation.
Now for me to explain this situation to you, I will clarify a few thing or somewhat a certain amount of things that are included in this comment in order not to cause any misunderstanding or any confusion-- I will clarify some things to you..
In simple terms, I believe the term "A people" is grammatically correct, I myself have personal issues with the usage of the term (that are also used by people), not the term "A people", and I myself as an individual have personal issues with certain usages within the English language especially the certain usages that are used by people -- due to having thoughts about the general misuse of certain usages of the English language.
I can assure you, the reason that I have provided is either completely relevant or relevant when it comes to the real world.. or when it comes within the real world.. especially the application of my reason in the real world.
In addition, let me include that this matter is not only a matter of "reading" and that "reading" isn't the only cognitive ability in consideration that should be included in this matter.. you need to consider the significance of the other cognitive abilities that you should also be using here because it is entirely relevant.
I hope that this explanation is useful.
"However, global food production is incredibly efficient. The worlds farmers produce enough food to feed 1.5x the global population. That's enough to feed 10 billion. (1)"
I guess the other 0.5 billion is not getting enough to get fed and it's best to be left out as outliers, it's probably just a number worthless in this subject.. in fact mentioning the arithmetic skill in this source.. I think.. is simply exceptional.
I hope that I don't get assumed for having "pedantic" qualities or "petty nitpicking" qualities for my statements that have been made in the comment section.
You call this "petty nitpicking"? I call the argument a childish mistake.. if the problem is small then why can't the person itself handle the small thing? Is he incapable of handling such a small thing? Is he too disabled for such a small thing? How common is this childish mistake anyways? Who in the fucktardation says "A people" usually?
Regardless of what the rules say, there is also a type of logic that falls within this website.. and this type is also constant and infallible when it comes to also being a constant..
Whether if the rules deny the type of logic itself or do not deny the type of logic itself.. the logic would still be there, undisputed and sustained.
You simply have to cope.
I don't think you understand.. the argument itself he has given is a failure.
If we wanna chat about who yapped more, I think we all would say pro yapped the most in this debate.. and couldn't provide any source for their argument.
In such sense.. pro is asking to be dominated directly in the glory hole.
Most of the rounds lack sources of the argument both opposing sides are making.. and the sources provided are -- in addition poorly distributed..
If the quotation that you have written is from the harvard link provided then what you've stated your own self goes against your own argument in round 1 because you are not stating what the quotation itself states.
You have written: "Research over the last 50 years show us that spanking children is harmful to their mental health."
The quotation as cited in round one states:
"We know that spanking is not effective and can be harmful for children’s development and increases the chance of mental health issues."
The quotation you provided also claims that spanking children can be harmful for children's development.. not "is"-- in simplification.. a matter of "can" is not a matter of "is"... an oversimplification could be "is" is not "can"
Please get better at "seriousness" instead of "yapanese".. because it can be a "dayfucker" for people who know how to read..
As fucked as the world also is.. You will always have parts that do not run the way you think the parts run.. Even the type of people that are not clean and tidy and more organized than you are-- can be better than you in ways that matter the most.
There are feminine men who debate much better than you.
Copium fantasium! (Ultra-move)
There are feminine men much taller than you.
Cope x3
There are feminine men more intelligent than you.
Cope x2
There are feminine men with an academic degree higher than you.
cope
What are these silly little arguments as well? Do you adhere to the strict principles of validity?
If you do adhere to the strict principles of validity.. then you should go and look if "asexuality" is a mental disorder or not within sources or the sources given by search engines that are trusted by government officials. (Strict principles of validity is also a part of "logic")
Believe me.. professionals may have had debates that have squandered around the word "asexuality" as well.. and guess who won the debate..
And what is this description of the debate? I have found it to be commonly used as a description during my browsing of the debates..
"Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message."
It really looks like a "new opening" that the "council of debaters" have come up with... it seems efficient whenever used against people incapable of analysing a situation to an "OK" degree.
Hey man, DSM-5 does not contain the word "asexuality" as a mental disorder.. so quit yapping.
Hey.. I never knew that being a vegan (alone) is a solution to end animal suffering at once.
Some words within the topic lack colloquialism... which in a way has led to a lack of common sense.
There are people who ask, why did you waste your time doing such stupid things?
The answer to that question varies.. however there may be a generic answer that is enough to answer the question that are given by such people... and the answer is "I did such stupid things."
Although this generic answer may seem not clear enough.. even though it is clear enough in rationality and literacy.
In reply to your current comment on this debate:
Then you should state your beliefs by using words properly next time.
"Morality is subjective" means that you're claiming what morality is.. is subjective. This is wrong. Morality is not subjective.. Morality is also subjective. Subjective is not the only part of morality, because objective is another part of morality.
Well argued.
Genius..
Right, I've got it-- from now on I shouldn't buy any dead frozen meat of chicken. This somehow prevents the suffering the chicken had during it's own death by the use of "Art of DeBullShitterry" which is a special practice of the dark arts. Thank you very much.
Probably a not.
There is a gender pay gap, it depends. Unless if a country doesn't give much attention to such thing and creates an equality between male and female wages (for those countries that qualify male and female as the only genders).
If things are within existence, it wouldn't always require science to prove their place within existence. Science is not the only way we use to prove the place of things within existence.
If the bible is wrong, then the word of God has been carried out poorly. (a statement)
If each voter's reasoning is not flawed in the accordance of relevancy, then I will be happy to hear the counteract for "flawed reasoning" and I will also be happy to have someone to refute me.
Note that your words within sentences and your sentences are directly determining your arguments.. any flaws just simply means that your argument is not completely defined (poorly defined) and as a result of your mistake or error in your sentences.. your argument would instantly be flawed. Why? Because you're describing a mistake or error in your sentences.. you're not describing what you should've meant to write(for example, a subject about cars.. and you continue with.. "A cars is a vehicle" .. that is where you're describing a mistake and not a thing relevant to the subject about cars) . This isn't entirely grammatical, it's also logically fallacious... and this message can be reconciled with "savant" flawed reasoning in the "votes" of this section of the page or whatever.
"No case from either side until the final round…
Pro calls Israel hypocritical for being Nazi-like, and says they’re actively creating the next generation of enemies (intuitively, genocide would prevent that).
Con replies with grammar-Nazidom, and accuses pro of gosh-galloping leaving him unable to respond to all the arguments.
I feel neither actually touches the precise topic of aid, reducing the debate down to anti-Israel vs pro-Israel.
I am not seeing any Gish gallop, merely a weak assertion which could have been easily challenged in any number of ways."
Your reasoning is flawed. Everything within the debate is connected, my arguments are constantly relevant to the debate and the arguments within the debate.
"Pro forfeits a good chunk of this debate, but they do give an argument criticizing Israel in the final round whereas Con does not give an argument relevant to the resolution."
Your reasoning is flawed. Though I do not intend to care much nor do I intend to care much to explain to you how it is flawed, unless if you could see it. (as long as your reasoning had not been written thoughtlessly necessary to the debate)
My previous message was never an intention to harm you in any way, it was only an observation of mine. I do believe what I'm saying, and I could be wrong, perhaps my estimation of your verbal reasoning and verbal comprehension could be lower than 100 IQ, and that is possible.. because it's also easier to score lower than scoring high on any test in general (this is not a standard thing, it's just "common sense")
You should note that scoring low or high on a subtest for example "Verbal reasoning" or "Verbal comprehension" in general shouldn't in general determine your full-scale IQ score, because it is not the only determinate.. your full-scale IQ score should be determined by all subtests within IQ tests. It's possible that your full-scale IQ could be higher or lower, and it is your full-scale IQ that matters the most. (People sometimes think the fluid reasoning part matters more but truly, your full-scale is what's the most important. I believe that with your full-scale, certain people and societies would accept you to join them, if you wanted to).
IQ tests are to be taken seriously, the media in general thinks that it's a joke and that it is something that can be picked up by hand easily and put down easily by hand just like picking up a rock and putting down a rock by hand.. there are however.. people that are limited to picking up rocks and putting them down by hand.. for example.. people who don't have hands and people who don't have arms. These people are simply incapable of picking up a rock by hand, why? Well it's obviously because they don't have hands and are disabled which implies that the rock is the IQ test and the hand is simply people's brains in analogy.
..
People don't understand that taking IQ tests and scoring on an IQ test has limitations. That's one of the things that makes them very serious.. and it also currently plays the most role in making IQ tests very serious.
Anyways, aside from thus little story I've given you, I have to mention something from my previous message again.. "you shouldn't trust my reason of you and my analytical approach of you (of which is observed)"
.
.
.. This mention also means not to trust my observation of you.. it means that you should not trust what I have observed from you, there is always a misinterpretation of things given online.. specifically this website.
"My IQ is probably between 120 and 130 "
To be reasonably honest and analytical with you.. based on your arguments and variation of thinking and reasoning in general, when it comes to arguments.. your arguments do not surpass an IQ between 100 and 117 when it comes to verbal reasoning and verbal comprehension in general.. where 100 IQ is more likely to get and 117 IQ is more unlikely to get.. (this reasoning was done by the judgement of verbal reasoning and verbal comprehension)
And that is as if you'd take a professional test.. which is significantly "more difficult" than online tests in general. The reason to why I'm addressing or including the statement "more difficult" is not because of the situation linked with the person and the IQ test.. It's because of a situation where only IQ tests are compared to each IQ tests.. and not because of the person's ability to consider it "difficult".
By "more difficult", I specifically mean the durability and the g-loading of the test in general.. because each tests have their own format and their own special problems that need to be solved correctly. The durability and g-loading of the tests is simply referring to how valid and reliable it would make the test.. in terms of giving the test the ability to properly measure intelligence (or g). We have tests that have different measuring systems and tests that have similar measuring systems ( (like two tests with different SD's; WAIS-IV (15 SD) and SB-IV (16 SD), or WAIS-IV (15 SD) and SB-V (15 SD) which in a way are the same).. and those measuring systems include statistical identities such as "Standard Deviation" or usually referred to as "SD" for an abbreviation of "Standard Deviation". But, that's enough information for me to use in order for you to "get the idea" (speaking metaphorically and in colloquial use).
But of course, you shouldn't trust my reason of you and my analytical approach of you (of which is observed). You can always try to prove things wrong, especially this abstract observation. But also.. don't forget.. there is a chance that you will fail at proving me wrong.
I'm convinced that we have closeted homosexuals on this website.. we may need a magnifying glass to spot each of them.. who knows? They could be running around without us noticing. Haha.
Books are not as powerful as experiences.. unless if you wish to.. go back in time and experience the events for yourself, only then would you be able to come to a realistically and reasonably logical conclusion.
Of course, this is metaphorical. Haha.
" it is sound to avoid death as justifiably necessary", why? Do you think that it is acoustic?
Yes, it is logical.
Or, to put it more simply, "ought to do does not equal will do."
Okay, I'm beginning to think that these simplifications are just simply insults getting smacked against each other in a very unclear manner or behaviour at this point.
Mistaking such matters are very childish.. how could you mistaken "ought to" for "will do"? That would be hilarious, haha. These are very simple basic verbal terms to reason with.