im sorry, i cant really enjoy a debate when i believe information is lacking. im too much of a perfectionist.
also i dont know much about hellbat. but i do know about darkseid, thor and the hulk.
its fun to debate power match ups though, informally.
another thing i wish to point out is. How angry is the hulk? the hulk at his most powerful ie worldbreaker hulk, is capable of destroying worlds in 1 hit.
most of the time hulk loses because he doesnt get that angry or other forces are at play to prevent such emotional escalation.
first off, we need to address something. the darkseid that is encountered is just an avatar of the true darkseid, who is a multiversal god. so hellbat defeating his avatar isnt saying much.
now thor, he is a god, but not on a multiversal level, the power rating of thor is on par with hulk without his hammer (at least before final crisis)
just on this information, let me ask a question. can hellbat defeat the hulk? if yes then possibly he might defeat thor. if no, then he has no chance.
https://youtu.be/fcJ8QmogoXY Darkseid
https://youtu.be/R57iDntD0x0 hulk vs thor
videos are researched by tyler from imaginary axis based on comics and commentary from comic writers, in other words, canon.
you would rather debate a theoretical rather than the realistic?
the description says "as like" so i understood that as any machine that could collect 8 minutes of thought before death.
be it on a quantum computer to a 2023 macbook.
heck the chip has analog to digital converter using binary code. scrap the 2023 macbook we could watch it on tv or a windows xp. the hardest part is converting the info to video.
i would hesitate before saying its not possible. musk has been working hard on technology that transmits thoughts.
he already has animals playing pong with their brain and is doing human testing.
https://youtu.be/L3XxbxfgzoQ
why is this debate turned into multiverse theory and quantum mechanics? there is no need to have theoretical arguements about something that is possible without applying these ideas.
the chip put in a human mind can transmit thoughts, the data processed from the brain to the chip can be stored and transmitted to a database. as long as there is an electrical impulse.
or it can be retrieved from the corpse and recompile the thoughts during/preceding its death. this will not negate or dismiss criminal investigation but rather make it more cohesive on depositions.
forget the movie. focus on the benefits/failings of recompiling last thoughts of someone who died.
i cant weight the oll libertyfund link on davidhume on par with other sources presented. as that one is a commentary and synopsis of his writings. if you directly used his book as the source, it would have been better.
i dont consider that synopsis to be scholarly level
tldr you are both right and both yalls sources verifies both subjective and objective beauty. in the writings mentioned
ugh, i really dont want to vote on this. plato uses the word forms in 2 ways. essence and idea. that and theory of forms IS mentioned in the link under 1:3 beauty of forms. but isnt cited.
this is a good debate, but honestly im getting a headache just trying to award sources.
also i am biased toward objective beauty, though i do recognized subjective beauty ie taste. and this circles back to essence or idea distinction AGAIN.
to understand my grief, i give this link. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/real-essence/
basically john locke defines real essence as plato defines form as essence. and defines nominal essence as plato defines form as idea.
im gonna post here what austin said in round 1. when the words stretched to single letters, or is slightly split up.
• life expectancy in the US dropped an entire year from 2020 to 2021
• Does this mean everyone is going to live a year less? clearly not.
• For people who got COVID and died,
they lost all their remaining years.
• For people who did not get COVID, they lost none of their remaining years.
• This demonstrates how life expectancy, which measures the average of a population, can be misleading if cited out of context.
(later part where words split slightly at the end right before Conclusion [underlined])
• since the debate concerns whether it is likely for wylted to 200, not whether he can live to 200, even theoretical technologies wouldnt be enough to prove his case.
np. the hardest thing for me to weigh was the sources. rm's convinced me, but the majority were off topic.
someone could report my vote, arguing better sources means they convinced me, not that it was better for the debate.
there are many types of love, but each love has a nature, a certain way of acting.
one could say love is how the soul/spirit expresses its self.
however. both of you were referring to God's love, agape.
which is God. scripture declares God is love.
if either of you sufficiently proved How God is love, you would have met the burden of proof in my eyes.
but ONLY because you were referring to scripture and GOD'S love.
if you had not used scripture, i would have been forced to look at arguements dictating it as either
freewill
caring for the necessity of others.
romans 1 in its context is talking about people who disobey God, homosexuality especially.
onan basically had sex with tamar and ejaculated on the ground instead of her. he hated his brother by not giving children and tamar by using her body for just sexual pleasure.
when a man or woman is married, scripture specifically says 1 corinthians 7:4-5,33
and ephesians 5:20-33
so if the woman is pleased by giving oral sex, or the man is pleased by giving oral sex. no wrong is done, they are in covenant with each other by God who makes them 1 flesh.
i would have loved to see deeper research on con's part, this subject is very big and extensive. from copyright laws, dmca's, fair use, justice, morality especially etc.
i suggest limiting the topic a bit or at least making it more specific. such as "in america" or "We should challenge copyright laws on online distributed media" or "The american penalty system on online piracy should be changed."
i would vote, but to be honest, this debate gives me more questions than resolutions.
are we talking around the world?
How many people have to not pay/underpay women for it to be a patriarchy?
just from reading this debate i have not gained any knowledge about what a patriarchy is, if its even an established thought or just a rough idea that men treat women unfairly.
from my understanding, women screw over men as much as men screw over women, it just so happens that more men are in charge (at the moment) around the world concerning corporate and wage earning positions.
if you wanna be technical, every type of society struggles with power plays of both matriarchal and patriarchal origins.
my question is, can it be proven to a wide extend as malicious or intentional? this debate doesnt cover that, but i wish it did.
Also, small gripe, but if possible please dont have to have people download pdf's, pay money or create a user to see info. Also some of the links have no reference to where they get their data from.
A debate about surveillance and the contender is under surveillance for using chatgtp to make the debate.
i love irony.
does this mean sir.lancelot wins by example AND principle?
"Since I'm the one proposing the claim, I believe I should win if I demonstrate that Capital Surveillance inhibits the progress of society. One example is all I need."
The term surveillance capitalism was coined by academic Shoshana Zuboff in 2014. She suggests that surveillance capitalism depends on:
…the global architecture of computer mediation […] [which] produces a distributed and mostly uncontested new expression of power that I christen: “Big Other”.
https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-surveillance-capitalism-and-how-does-it-shape-our-economy-119158
a thing that most people dont know or dont mention is that scripture mentions palestine and in understanding it, is basically philistia, ie philistines.
scripture has some unique passages about the conflict between israel and philistia, basically that israel will win.
so, my personal position in this matter is, it doesnt matter if other countries get involved or not. scripture has said that all nations will rise against israel, yet israel will still remain.
i mean, technically scripture doesnt even mention oral sex. you have to impose a precept that you think deals with it.
if you think its used sinfully then verses about it will be used, however the covenant of marriage is bound in THIS precept. the husband loves the wife and his body is for her and the wife the husband.
but assuming the relationship isnt marriage, then all forms of sexual acts fall under fornication or unlawful contact.
at the end of the day, if you judge yourself, you will be wiser.
10 billion people could disagree with you, but its your conscience and guilt you must live with.
now, as to what standard you judge yourself, thats for you to decide.
ive been here before. Its not really a question of God created these things. but its more a question of, why do you want to debate it?
anyone can turn to scripture and see what God said, so why debate it? do you desire to convert people to christanity? do you simply want debate wins?
if you wish to gain converts, i suggest doing discussions.
i speak from experience on this website and ddo.
Nonsense doesnt = stupid. Lack of intelligence =stupid.
stu·pid
/ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
You can also argue common sense as a debate
i will respond once ive looked over the sources and weighed the arguements. Got a week to vote.
ill probably respond tomorrow or friday
will be praying for you and the company and yalls families.
uh. quick semantic question. are we talking about actual feminists? or people who claim to be feminist? this could be a kritik.
this debate is like hanging by a thread of assumed truism.
this could have been a good example of tautology. oh well.
as to the 100 ton standard, heck, spiderman can lift more than that. if only briefly.
https://youtu.be/JC0CcRdRQ04
final crisis and the reset has really thrown off the power scaling. i would have to relearn alot of stuff.
im sorry, i cant really enjoy a debate when i believe information is lacking. im too much of a perfectionist.
also i dont know much about hellbat. but i do know about darkseid, thor and the hulk.
its fun to debate power match ups though, informally.
another thing i wish to point out is. How angry is the hulk? the hulk at his most powerful ie worldbreaker hulk, is capable of destroying worlds in 1 hit.
most of the time hulk loses because he doesnt get that angry or other forces are at play to prevent such emotional escalation.
first off, we need to address something. the darkseid that is encountered is just an avatar of the true darkseid, who is a multiversal god. so hellbat defeating his avatar isnt saying much.
now thor, he is a god, but not on a multiversal level, the power rating of thor is on par with hulk without his hammer (at least before final crisis)
just on this information, let me ask a question. can hellbat defeat the hulk? if yes then possibly he might defeat thor. if no, then he has no chance.
https://youtu.be/fcJ8QmogoXY Darkseid
https://youtu.be/R57iDntD0x0 hulk vs thor
videos are researched by tyler from imaginary axis based on comics and commentary from comic writers, in other words, canon.
you would rather debate a theoretical rather than the realistic?
the description says "as like" so i understood that as any machine that could collect 8 minutes of thought before death.
be it on a quantum computer to a 2023 macbook.
heck the chip has analog to digital converter using binary code. scrap the 2023 macbook we could watch it on tv or a windows xp. the hardest part is converting the info to video.
i would hesitate before saying its not possible. musk has been working hard on technology that transmits thoughts.
he already has animals playing pong with their brain and is doing human testing.
https://youtu.be/L3XxbxfgzoQ
why is this debate turned into multiverse theory and quantum mechanics? there is no need to have theoretical arguements about something that is possible without applying these ideas.
the chip put in a human mind can transmit thoughts, the data processed from the brain to the chip can be stored and transmitted to a database. as long as there is an electrical impulse.
or it can be retrieved from the corpse and recompile the thoughts during/preceding its death. this will not negate or dismiss criminal investigation but rather make it more cohesive on depositions.
forget the movie. focus on the benefits/failings of recompiling last thoughts of someone who died.
i am aware of that.
while i do appreciate your explanations and your intentions in this debate. i cannot in good conscience vote on this debate with the arguements given.
please dont counter vote bomb. my vote was already reported. you are affecting ratings unnecessarly.
this is a truism debate. teresay would have to kritik.
you could use semantic kritiking.
i cant weight the oll libertyfund link on davidhume on par with other sources presented. as that one is a commentary and synopsis of his writings. if you directly used his book as the source, it would have been better.
i dont consider that synopsis to be scholarly level
tldr you are both right and both yalls sources verifies both subjective and objective beauty. in the writings mentioned
ugh, i really dont want to vote on this. plato uses the word forms in 2 ways. essence and idea. that and theory of forms IS mentioned in the link under 1:3 beauty of forms. but isnt cited.
this is a good debate, but honestly im getting a headache just trying to award sources.
also i am biased toward objective beauty, though i do recognized subjective beauty ie taste. and this circles back to essence or idea distinction AGAIN.
to understand my grief, i give this link. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/real-essence/
basically john locke defines real essence as plato defines form as essence. and defines nominal essence as plato defines form as idea.
please dont put me in ptsd by mentioning written final exams.
alrighty. thanks.
and thank you wylted.
and thank you whiteflame and barney.
and thank you rm for trying my reasoning, you have made me greater and more right by opposing it.
im gonna post here what austin said in round 1. when the words stretched to single letters, or is slightly split up.
• life expectancy in the US dropped an entire year from 2020 to 2021
• Does this mean everyone is going to live a year less? clearly not.
• For people who got COVID and died,
they lost all their remaining years.
• For people who did not get COVID, they lost none of their remaining years.
• This demonstrates how life expectancy, which measures the average of a population, can be misleading if cited out of context.
(later part where words split slightly at the end right before Conclusion [underlined])
• since the debate concerns whether it is likely for wylted to 200, not whether he can live to 200, even theoretical technologies wouldnt be enough to prove his case.
i dont mind doing a jury trial if rm or ll want it.
thank you all for validating my vote and source allotment. i hate that it caused contention, but i brought it up so that i know if its right or not.
i assert that this debate falls under foregone conclusion in voting policy.
and that voters on this debate should have a lower standard.
i know, but any attempt to destroy logic is intresting to me. so i dont deny the request.
i wont be able to vote on this. someone could report my vote for bias, even if i just used debate info only. unless i gave all points to bella.
alrighty then
if you want to be a better man. report my vote for rm.
if it falls through or doesnt. yall are still tied either way.
ill leave this here from voting policy on sources.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
np. the hardest thing for me to weigh was the sources. rm's convinced me, but the majority were off topic.
someone could report my vote, arguing better sources means they convinced me, not that it was better for the debate.
ah well.
edit: round 1* not 2 is where confusion is.
i will add my point of view.
there are many types of love, but each love has a nature, a certain way of acting.
one could say love is how the soul/spirit expresses its self.
however. both of you were referring to God's love, agape.
which is God. scripture declares God is love.
if either of you sufficiently proved How God is love, you would have met the burden of proof in my eyes.
but ONLY because you were referring to scripture and GOD'S love.
if you had not used scripture, i would have been forced to look at arguements dictating it as either
freewill
caring for the necessity of others.
im on the fence at the moment
how in the world can i vote on this and not consider it a troll debate or a hypothetical debate?
especially when wylted wont allow kritiks.
romans 1 in its context is talking about people who disobey God, homosexuality especially.
onan basically had sex with tamar and ejaculated on the ground instead of her. he hated his brother by not giving children and tamar by using her body for just sexual pleasure.
when a man or woman is married, scripture specifically says 1 corinthians 7:4-5,33
and ephesians 5:20-33
so if the woman is pleased by giving oral sex, or the man is pleased by giving oral sex. no wrong is done, they are in covenant with each other by God who makes them 1 flesh.
i would have loved to see deeper research on con's part, this subject is very big and extensive. from copyright laws, dmca's, fair use, justice, morality especially etc.
i suggest limiting the topic a bit or at least making it more specific. such as "in america" or "We should challenge copyright laws on online distributed media" or "The american penalty system on online piracy should be changed."
i would vote, but to be honest, this debate gives me more questions than resolutions.
are we talking around the world?
How many people have to not pay/underpay women for it to be a patriarchy?
just from reading this debate i have not gained any knowledge about what a patriarchy is, if its even an established thought or just a rough idea that men treat women unfairly.
from my understanding, women screw over men as much as men screw over women, it just so happens that more men are in charge (at the moment) around the world concerning corporate and wage earning positions.
if you wanna be technical, every type of society struggles with power plays of both matriarchal and patriarchal origins.
my question is, can it be proven to a wide extend as malicious or intentional? this debate doesnt cover that, but i wish it did.
Also, small gripe, but if possible please dont have to have people download pdf's, pay money or create a user to see info. Also some of the links have no reference to where they get their data from.
most of the time people just subtract conduct if you miss 1/3 or less of rounds. but it depends.
A debate about surveillance and the contender is under surveillance for using chatgtp to make the debate.
i love irony.
does this mean sir.lancelot wins by example AND principle?
"Since I'm the one proposing the claim, I believe I should win if I demonstrate that Capital Surveillance inhibits the progress of society. One example is all I need."
The term surveillance capitalism was coined by academic Shoshana Zuboff in 2014. She suggests that surveillance capitalism depends on:
…the global architecture of computer mediation […] [which] produces a distributed and mostly uncontested new expression of power that I christen: “Big Other”.
https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-surveillance-capitalism-and-how-does-it-shape-our-economy-119158
scripture (the word of God) says a person is happier if they remain single and arent fornicating.
so objectively, pro wins by default
a thing that most people dont know or dont mention is that scripture mentions palestine and in understanding it, is basically philistia, ie philistines.
scripture has some unique passages about the conflict between israel and philistia, basically that israel will win.
so, my personal position in this matter is, it doesnt matter if other countries get involved or not. scripture has said that all nations will rise against israel, yet israel will still remain.
i mean, technically scripture doesnt even mention oral sex. you have to impose a precept that you think deals with it.
if you think its used sinfully then verses about it will be used, however the covenant of marriage is bound in THIS precept. the husband loves the wife and his body is for her and the wife the husband.
but assuming the relationship isnt marriage, then all forms of sexual acts fall under fornication or unlawful contact.
at the end of the day, if you judge yourself, you will be wiser.
10 billion people could disagree with you, but its your conscience and guilt you must live with.
now, as to what standard you judge yourself, thats for you to decide.
Does the arguement of morality concerning homosexuality, affect you to the extent that your judgement could be questioned?
no problems. i simply wish to understand the reason for it.
are not both required for logic and feeling?
I mean, all someone has to do is appeal to a higher authority on what is " right/wrong" the logic then followed based on their position of authority.
i dont understand the reason for this debate.
ive been here before. Its not really a question of God created these things. but its more a question of, why do you want to debate it?
anyone can turn to scripture and see what God said, so why debate it? do you desire to convert people to christanity? do you simply want debate wins?
if you wish to gain converts, i suggest doing discussions.
i speak from experience on this website and ddo.
No one wins on these forfeits. Oi
Nonsense doesnt = stupid. Lack of intelligence =stupid.
stu·pid
/ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
You can also argue common sense as a debate
You would be better off trying to prove stupidity rather than say things in a nonsenical manner