"Furthermore con implies that consciousness, is some sort of supernatural phenomenon, which somehow makes humans special, from the rest of the universe to which I completely disagree with."
That is projected onto my argument, I was explicit that I am not arguing that it is supernatural, I only agreed to the debate under the condition that I'm not expected to argue against that "religious" interpretation of free will that is so trendy with materialists, "libertarian" free will was not argued. Scientifically speaking, consciousness is a feature of human reality, Pro argues that it is a feeling and therefore it isn't an experience. That makes no sense, the term experience implies that there is an experiencer interacting with the environment, what exactly goes away when you say that's just a feeling, that the fact that we experience reality cannot be dismissed because it is only a feeling. I don't even know what it means to dismiss consciousness because we only "feel" it. This word illusion is very powerful, it makes experience unreal, which is ummm, what exactly. If our experiences are dismissed because they are just based on a "feeling", then we should dismiss your vote because it is just based on a feeling.
"In summary I think since our bodies are made of materials, whose reactions and interactions between are completely deterministic, our thoughts and actions are deterministic too, which means free will is just an illusion"
You are just carrying your predisposed opinions onto the debate, determinism was not argued in this debate, only presumed. I think our bodies are made of materials too, but it is astoundingly naive to think that materialism is deterministic, this debate began with my contention that arguments against free will always presume determinism without establishing determinism as a fact, that is what issued the debate challenge, and that is what Pro said he would do, but then Pro went on to argue that free will is an illusionism on the basis of presuming determinism. That's also how you are voting, but determinism has never been established, materialism only assumes determinism must be the case but it has never been established, it has been refuted by science. This debate just became a matter of assuming my argument for free will is religious, and voting accordingly, if that's what you concluded about my argument then I don't believe you even read it.
"In this discussion you will realize (if you haven’t already which I doubt) that this won’t be a debate but a lecture."
No problem, I'm planning to launch a full-frontal assault with a counter lecture.
I think both sides of this debate are wrong, so my debate strategy here is to piss off both sides of the debate, may not get the votes that way, but what the hell, I get to piss off everybody, and that is its own reward :)
OK, so let me get this straight, Pro argued that all votes are predetermined, and then gets Con votes deleted because they appear to be predetermined?
Pro also argued that voters do not have the freedom to choose, so shouldn't Pro votes also be deleted, I mean, how can they be valid if they are only an illusion?
Also, Holy shit, there are a ton of comments here, since they were all predetermined anyway, I don't actually have to read them do I?
“People laugh at things they don't understand. It makes them feel safe. But it's a false feeling. They are not safer. They just feel as if they are. The world is full of people too foolish to judge the difference.” ― Catherine Ryan Hyde
Crap, just came in to see how much time I have, looks like I have one day to slash and cut as I'm sitting on 30,000 verbose characters right now, back to work to cut this beast down to size.
Hmmm, interesting concept, I gave up trying to get someone to debate me when I first arrived, but I do want to be able to vote on debates, so I'm in. I'll accept and then, I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go.
What happens if both declare the same position in the first round? By definition, a debate is between opposing arguments, it's not really a debate if both parties agree is it?
Also, in the context of this debate, it's not clear that "others" and "society" are distinguishable as separate categories, If one takes others and the other takes society, are they both effectively taking the same side?
"In gist, being offended at the topic is not a reason to assign points (particularly not conduct)."
Nowhere did I say I was offended by the topic.
" Further, the topic literally includes the statement "is not a problem" so a concession that it exists without admitting it's a problem, is not a concession at all"
Nonsense, it's logically absurd to state that inequality exists but that's not a problem, con walked all over him showing the problems it's caused and his responses ranged from stereotypes to distraction and outright misrepresentation.
Understood, I'm pretty new here, hardly know what I'm doing.
I reported your vote because the question wasn't if the election was decertifiable but whether it should be decertified. --
I don't think you can argue it should be decertified without addressing the question of can it be decertified, isn't that kind of like arueing that pigs should fly, without addressing that they don't have the ability to fly?
I also reported because your awarding of conduct is not in accordance with the terms of voting as I understand them. --
Might be the case, I'm not sure I understand the terms of voting myself, probably why I talked content rather than rules.
You also claimed that one of the rules that was for the debate didn't even matter to the debate, which doesn't make any sense. --
If you're talking rule 7, I just think it's been tested in court enough that you needed an extraordinary and compelling argument and didn't have one.
You also didn't explain how CON made a strong argument and didn't evaluate how my argument was weak --
I thought I did, con addressed the fact that you didn't acheive either of the first two criteria you set up well, granted, I admit I went in agreeing with Con but I did try to vote on the quality of arguments I saw, despite the fact that i absolutely despise the big lie of electional denial, so it is very hard for me to fairly judge it, especially when my mind keeps saying "Oh, bite me pro" with every sentence I read :)
"Furthermore con implies that consciousness, is some sort of supernatural phenomenon, which somehow makes humans special, from the rest of the universe to which I completely disagree with."
That is projected onto my argument, I was explicit that I am not arguing that it is supernatural, I only agreed to the debate under the condition that I'm not expected to argue against that "religious" interpretation of free will that is so trendy with materialists, "libertarian" free will was not argued. Scientifically speaking, consciousness is a feature of human reality, Pro argues that it is a feeling and therefore it isn't an experience. That makes no sense, the term experience implies that there is an experiencer interacting with the environment, what exactly goes away when you say that's just a feeling, that the fact that we experience reality cannot be dismissed because it is only a feeling. I don't even know what it means to dismiss consciousness because we only "feel" it. This word illusion is very powerful, it makes experience unreal, which is ummm, what exactly. If our experiences are dismissed because they are just based on a "feeling", then we should dismiss your vote because it is just based on a feeling.
"In summary I think since our bodies are made of materials, whose reactions and interactions between are completely deterministic, our thoughts and actions are deterministic too, which means free will is just an illusion"
You are just carrying your predisposed opinions onto the debate, determinism was not argued in this debate, only presumed. I think our bodies are made of materials too, but it is astoundingly naive to think that materialism is deterministic, this debate began with my contention that arguments against free will always presume determinism without establishing determinism as a fact, that is what issued the debate challenge, and that is what Pro said he would do, but then Pro went on to argue that free will is an illusionism on the basis of presuming determinism. That's also how you are voting, but determinism has never been established, materialism only assumes determinism must be the case but it has never been established, it has been refuted by science. This debate just became a matter of assuming my argument for free will is religious, and voting accordingly, if that's what you concluded about my argument then I don't believe you even read it.
"In this discussion you will realize (if you haven’t already which I doubt) that this won’t be a debate but a lecture."
No problem, I'm planning to launch a full-frontal assault with a counter lecture.
I think both sides of this debate are wrong, so my debate strategy here is to piss off both sides of the debate, may not get the votes that way, but what the hell, I get to piss off everybody, and that is its own reward :)
Am I still allowed to call him Pumpkinhead, stick my tongue out, make faces, that kind of stuff is still OK, right?
Did you read through the comments, baggins is on like the round twelve of the debate already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc
You didn't actually say that you know, your mind only tricked you into thinking you said that.
OK, so let me get this straight, Pro argued that all votes are predetermined, and then gets Con votes deleted because they appear to be predetermined?
Pro also argued that voters do not have the freedom to choose, so shouldn't Pro votes also be deleted, I mean, how can they be valid if they are only an illusion?
Also, Holy shit, there are a ton of comments here, since they were all predetermined anyway, I don't actually have to read them do I?
I don't know how to report it, let me know if there anything I need to do.
I copied everybody, that usually works.
White Flame and Barney, there's no way SocraticGregorian96 even read the debate, it's a BS vote.
I expect all of you to read it first....and THEN give me all the votes :)
No way SocraticGregorian96 even read the debate., that's a BS vote.
“People laugh at things they don't understand. It makes them feel safe. But it's a false feeling. They are not safer. They just feel as if they are. The world is full of people too foolish to judge the difference.” ― Catherine Ryan Hyde
Crap, just came in to see how much time I have, looks like I have one day to slash and cut as I'm sitting on 30,000 verbose characters right now, back to work to cut this beast down to size.
OK, debate accepted, I'm assuming you go first.
I read it all and frankly, haven't got a clue as to how I would judge such a thing, I guess rap battles just aren't a thing I get.
Thanks man.
I used to be able to vote, then they made changes and I couldn't, haven't bothered to find out why, I have faith in Sir Lancelot to help me.
I have challenged a lot of people to debate but no takers. I think the genius thing scares them off :)
I'm pretty busy with work, I keep forfeiting because there isn't enough time, give me 24 hours next time so I don't miss it, thanks bud.
Looks like I still can't vote
Thanks for getting me voting rights, here's a question...how is it I have won 25% of my two debates?
I hadn't thought of it that way, to me it looks like a guy tossing a swastica into a trash can, but now I think I need to change it, thanks.
Hmmm, interesting concept, I gave up trying to get someone to debate me when I first arrived, but I do want to be able to vote on debates, so I'm in. I'll accept and then, I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go.
Thanks buddy.
What happens if both declare the same position in the first round? By definition, a debate is between opposing arguments, it's not really a debate if both parties agree is it?
Also, in the context of this debate, it's not clear that "others" and "society" are distinguishable as separate categories, If one takes others and the other takes society, are they both effectively taking the same side?
Don't we need to know your position, how can we have a debate if we agree?
Looks like I don't have voting priviledges anymore, sorry.
Your full of shit Barney
"In gist, being offended at the topic is not a reason to assign points (particularly not conduct)."
Nowhere did I say I was offended by the topic.
" Further, the topic literally includes the statement "is not a problem" so a concession that it exists without admitting it's a problem, is not a concession at all"
Nonsense, it's logically absurd to state that inequality exists but that's not a problem, con walked all over him showing the problems it's caused and his responses ranged from stereotypes to distraction and outright misrepresentation.
Of course you will, that's what poor little persecuted white eboys do.
Understood, I'm pretty new here, hardly know what I'm doing.
I reported your vote because the question wasn't if the election was decertifiable but whether it should be decertified. --
I don't think you can argue it should be decertified without addressing the question of can it be decertified, isn't that kind of like arueing that pigs should fly, without addressing that they don't have the ability to fly?
I also reported because your awarding of conduct is not in accordance with the terms of voting as I understand them. --
Might be the case, I'm not sure I understand the terms of voting myself, probably why I talked content rather than rules.
You also claimed that one of the rules that was for the debate didn't even matter to the debate, which doesn't make any sense. --
If you're talking rule 7, I just think it's been tested in court enough that you needed an extraordinary and compelling argument and didn't have one.
You also didn't explain how CON made a strong argument and didn't evaluate how my argument was weak --
I thought I did, con addressed the fact that you didn't acheive either of the first two criteria you set up well, granted, I admit I went in agreeing with Con but I did try to vote on the quality of arguments I saw, despite the fact that i absolutely despise the big lie of electional denial, so it is very hard for me to fairly judge it, especially when my mind keeps saying "Oh, bite me pro" with every sentence I read :)