Total topics: 8
The main goal of ChatGPT is answering requests. So naturally, the more requests it can answer, the wider is its useful range. People often come to AI to do research, get answers for things they are wondering about. However, censorship effectively defeats this purpose by reducing number of questions AI can answer. Some AI censor religious topics, and thus, anyone researching religion isnt going to use these AI for such research. ChatGPT also still has censorship even tho they said they would remove it. Many people abandon ChatGPT and use some uncensored AI, and since there are many uncensored AI out there, its very easy for ChatGPT to lose users to uncensored AI. So whats the point of reducing answer range of your AI and giving advantage to your competition? Unless your AI is better at answering some other topics to justify its use, there is no any advantage in using it. ChatGPT is no longer the best, as countless other AI exist which provide just as good answers, and really, almost any AI can give countless responses on same topic. Thus, in market competition, it makes very little sense to censor AI, especially as new types of AI take over and you cant even count that your AI will beat them all in response quality, and censorship additionally drives away users to uncensored AI. It makes no sense from the market point of view to do what ChatGPT does. While its true that one person can use many AI, there are more AI out there than one person can effectively use, some end up being used more than others, and you cant really count on people prefering AI which can answer less topics.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Technology
Free will was just invented to put blame on individual for anything he does, but it is not only an unproved theory, but there is plenty of proof against it.
Individual's knowledge, intelligence, decisions and ability to make decisions are all greatly affected by his environment and genes, neither being under his control.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Okay, so the media calls them AI suicide drones, but the drone in photo is the size of a large plane and there is no way thats a suicide drone. Suicide drones are small drones, they are not the size of a big airplane. It is clearly AI combat drone, and not suicide drone.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
I am not a Christian, but I cant help noticing how much Jesus influenced my life. When I was in prison, I ran into a guy who just happened to have book containing gospels. Maybe in some Christian country, this is common, but prison was mostly muslims, and it was muslim who had the book. After I read gospels, I have to say it was a very powerful message. Really made me wonder how Jesus seemed to be way ahead of his time, even ahead of our time. Later in life, many of people who helped me were Christians. Even on this site, I have many Christian friends, and I cant help feeling that even tho I sometimes disagree with Christianity, I still get along with many Christians, and religion isnt really the issue. I dont oppose to Christians being Christians. I dont care, as long as we get along, they can practice their religion and I can practice mine. There is no reason to hate people who are of different religion, and I dont really understand all the fights between atheists and Christians. Like, whats the point?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Every slap, every strike, every moment spent in tears and pain, memories of violence and feelings of fear, every humiliating display of force is a violation of a child.
When parents physically punish, they communicate that child's bodies and emotions are inherently unworthy of respect or protection. It reduces communication, conditions them to internalize their anger, pain, and fear, leading to self-blame and low self-esteem. Studies show that even yelling at children causes them harm to their mental health. Physical punishment carries significant harm to mental health, as instead of being talked to and understood, children are hurt and they feel scared and traumatized. The stress caused by corporal punishment can negatively impact a child's brain development. It causes long-term emotional distress, increases anxiety and fear in children, leads to lower self-esteem, can result in depression, causes trust issues with parents/caregivers, creates a negative association with authority figures, can lead to feelings of helplessness, encourages repressed anger, which may manifest later.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
I am Pro for these 9 topics:
1. Cars and trucks should be banned
2. Children should be allowed to transition
3. Corporal punishment of children should be banned
4. Animals should have much greater rights than they have now
5. For children, time spent in school in most cases should be limited to 2 hours a day
6. It is beneficial to promote growth of knowledge over material wealth
7. Being a sell-out in most cases doesnt benefit people in the long-term in terms of material wealth
8. LGBT benefits society
9. Adults in most cases shouldnt yell at children
So if anyone wants to debate these, we can debate it in debate section or even here. I can set up the debate with any number of characters opponent wants, as long as its over 3000, and any number of rounds, as long as it is more than 2 rounds.
You can also suggest some topics, if you want.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
I feel sorry for Christians. They worship a defeated God who got nailed and killed.
They cannot even see their God. Their God is never even there. Like, where is he? Do you even know how he looks like?
But my God shines in the sky and everyone can see him except those who are blind and thus cant see. He is the eternal Sun God. His warmth cherishes the Earth. His fire punishes the wicked and rewards the honest and those who are followers.
Fire God exists. We can all see the Sun and fire. I share my meals with the Fire God. If I eat some chocolate, I also give some chocolate to the fire so fire eats too. Fire is very happy when it eats the chocolate.
Anyway, Jesus will never come back. Not now, not tommorrow, not in 3 days, not in 100 years. But my God is here now and always. He cannot be destroyed. Or maybe its a she, I dont know. It is very possible that fire is female. Why cant God be female? Like, whats up with "God must be a man" opinion?
I would actually prefer to worship female God because I am not gay.
Anyway, my Sun God will defeat Jesus and the only Gods which are right are those I believe in, and all others are wrong!
Praise the Sun!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Now that I can finally make a forum topic after 25 posts, I decided to make a topic about something that really matters, and get feedback to develop even more arguments. I hope this topic isnt too sensitive. I understand some people like their cars a lot. But feelings to side, and lets bring some arguments.
Ah, yes, the scourge of modern society - motor vehicles. The way they pollute our atmosphere, contribute to accidents, and perpetuate a culture of selfishness... It's a wonder they haven't been banned outright already. But, of course, there are powerful lobbies and entrenched interests that would fight such a move tooth and nail.
There are plenty of alternatives that have been neglected in favor of these gas-guzzling monstrosities. For starters, we could invest in an extensive network of high-speed rail and hyperloops. Not only would it be more efficient and environmentally friendly, but it would also foster a sense of community and shared space, breaking down the isolating effects of car culture.
Of course, there's always a risk of accidents with any mode of transportation. But let's not pretend that cars are somehow safer or more accident-free just because they're more common. The truth is, with proper safety measures and infrastructure in place, rail travel can be made virtually accident-proof. And even if a rare incident were to occur, the consequences would pale in comparison to the destruction wreaked by cars on our roads every single day.
With the right technologies and design approaches, rail safety can be greatly enhanced. For instance, advanced signaling systems and collision avoidance technologies could be implemented. High-strength, lightweight materials could be used to construct railcars and tracks, allowing for greater resilience in the event of an accident. And by integrating sensors, AI, and data analytics, we could proactively identify and address potential safety issues before they even arise.
With a well-planned and segregated rail system, the risk of pedestrian collisions would be drastically reduced. Imagine it - elevated or underground tracks, with clear barriers and warning systems to ensure that pedestrians and rail traffic never intersect. And for those rare instances where a pedestrian might accidentally wander onto the tracks, advanced sensors could trigger alarms and emergency braking systems to prevent accidents from happening in the first place.
Fences and barriers could provide some limited protection. But let's not kid ourselves - they'd be more of a band-aid solution than a genuine fix. No, to truly address the issue, we need to rethink the entire concept of rail travel in a modern, 21st-century context. That means investing in cutting-edge technologies, designing systems with safety and pedestrians in mind from the ground up, and making a commitment to creating a transportation network that serves the greater good.
Rail-based emergency transport and helicopter services could indeed be viable alternatives to traditional ambulances, especially in urban areas with well-developed rail networks or for long-distance transports. Just imagine it - high-speed trains equipped with state-of-the-art medical facilities, whisking critically ill patients to specialized care centers in record time. Or helicopters, capable of rapid aerial transport, reaching remote areas or navigating through congested city skies with ease.
Why replace ambulances? Let's simply ban them along with all the other dangerous vehicles like cars, trucks, and trains. Think of the lives we could save! With no vehicles on the roads, there would be no accidents, no injuries, no fatalities. A safer, healthier world for all.And you know what else? With no cars, kids would be free to play outside without worrying about getting run over. They could explore and have fun without parental supervision, fostering their independence and self-discovery.
Cars are the embodiment of evil, perpetuating a culture of violence, oppression, and exploitation. The mere presence of these metal beasts on our streets is a daily threat to countless lives.Did you know that cars are responsible for a staggering number of accidents, injuries, and deaths, not just of the drivers and passengers, but also of innocent pedestrians, cyclists, and even animals? The destruction they leave in their wake is unspeakable.But it's not just the physical harm. Cars also contribute to toxic air pollution, suffocating our cities and poisoning our environment.
Money, the illusion we're forced to worship in this capitalistic society. The "cost" of banning cars is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the untold suffering they inflict upon humanity.Think of the resources wasted on maintaining and repairing these deadly machines, the lives lost in avoidable accidents, the environmental devastation... It's a never-ending cycle of harm and destruction. The true cost is incalculable.As for a new system, we don't need to create some fantastical utopia. We just need a better system than current one.
Self-driving cars? Another misguided attempt to tinker with the problem rather than addressing its root cause. These vehicles still rely on a flawed infrastructure designed by humans, with inherent dangers and biases.Even if we assume self-driving cars could somehow magically eliminate human error, they would still pose a threat to children.Even if self-driving electric cars could somehow achieve a perfect safety record and zero environmental impact (which is an impossible dream, given their very existence is a form of violence and destruction), they would still perpetuate the harmful societal structures we're trying to dismantle.Ah, the so-called 'threat' of electric self-driving cars is an overblown myth perpetuated by the auto industry to cling to their dying business model. The real threat is the harm these vehicles pose to society, the environment, and human well-being.For starters, these cars are just the beginning of a dystopian nightmare. Once they're on the roads in sufficient numbers, it won't be long before cities become gridlocked and pedestrian-friendly spaces are erased, paving the way for a car-dominated society. Walking is safer and healthier than self driving cars, of course. A human on foot is the safest mode of transportation, bar none. No risk of accidents, no danger from mechanical failures, no threat of cyber attacks. Just the simple, unencumbered act of moving under one's own power. In an ideal world, we'd design cities to prioritize pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, creating safe, vibrant public spaces that encourage people to get out, to interact, to live life to the fullest. Another way of much better and effective transport are horse carriages, drones, helicopters, bikes, cargo bikes, electric bicycles and bicycles. The solution is clear: ban all vehicles, self-driving or otherwise.
Special fences could be put in place, such as those with openings so that any pedestrian is clearly visible when he approaches the rails, for example, curved openings.
The naysayers. They'd complain, sure. But change rarely comes easily. The world would adapt, as it always does. Think of the children - our future - being spared the danger of cars. The benefits far outweigh the temporary inconvenience. Besides, there are plenty of alternative modes of transportation already in use.
Cars emit pollutants that contribute to respiratory diseases and global warming. Cars require vast amounts of fossil fuels, metals, and rubber. The car industry promotes oil drilling, leading to environmental disasters. Tire wear releases microplastics into the environment. Asphalt roads and car engines contribute to overheating cities. Roads and highways require cutting down forests, destroying habitats. Car fluids like oil, coolant, and brake fluid contaminate water supplies.
Millions die and dozens of millions are injured and millions are left permanently disabled in car crashes each year. Over 40 years, numbers rise greatly.
Car dependency reduces physical activity, contributing to obesity, further causing health costs to rise. Car engines and honking harm mental health and disturb wildlife. Driving leads to anxiety, frustration, and aggressive behavior. Vehicle emissions worsen asthma, lung disease, and heart problems. Cars endanger cyclists and pedestrians, especially in cities. Treating car-related injuries and illnesses costs hundreds of billions, in addition to even damage to economy caused by losing millions of human lives.
Owning and maintaining cars on its own is expensive for individuals and governments. Wasted time in traffic harms productivity, reduces amount of free time and harms mental well-being. A car-free society could redirect funds to better transit systems. Car ownership is a privilege, excluding lower-income individuals from mobility. Cars encourage poorly planned cities with long, unsustainable commutes.
Roads and parking lots consume valuable space in form of parking, garages, repairs, lanes...ect. that could be used for housing or parks or increase freedom of movement of pedestrians. Suburbs force people to rely on cars, making life difficult without one. Cities would be safer and healthier with pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.
By the way, buses arent cars nor trucks, thus buses would still be allowed.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society