"I don't agree that we can't verify our reality, but this wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed on this."
Easy win for me.
Prove our reality without using an Argumentum Ad Populum.
You are wrong.
For perception to be reality you would require to proof your perception is a reliable source of gaining knowledge of reality. No one can do that. We can't go outside our senses to verify our senses to be true so you have lost.
You have very little to do. The contender cannot possibly prove the existence or non-existence if we don't set parameters that we are not even sure the creator follows or not. It is up to you how difficult you want to make it for the Contender.
I guess making it based on philosophy can make it easier since it is not based on observable evidence instead can be based on who can make the better argument.
Where was the first version of "Donald Trump is NOT Racist: Change my Mind"?
That is where my comment was and looking through his debates this is the only one he has.
I am guessing when he makes changes to his debates the comments get deleted.
"1. It's not ad populum,"
How is it not? You did not explain it how it is isn't because everyone else sees it therefore it must be true. I only mentioned this part because I have a problem here. Supporting data is not an argument because you would require initial data to use the supporting data to support it and I have already mentioned you cannot know your senses are correct so initial data is flawed.
2.
"Wouldn't you have to prove that what you think is right/wrong is actually right/wrong before saying your action is right/wrong?"
Not really based on proof. Value can be gained without proving it. I hope it would be supported by evidence but not intrinsic to values. If you want to make sure your values are correct then you would require evidence but it is not a necessity to have a value.
"3.Through the corroboration of others."
That is an argumentum ad populum.
I would have a liked an answer to this. Can you give one?
"You don't know there are right because at a fundamental level were accept a truth that are our senses are helpful in perceiving the world instead of proving it."
Wasn't at my computer which is why I am typing this now.
"1. If i observe that gravity causes objects to fall. And others corroborate my findings...and if MANY MANY others corroborate my findings, then I can be reasonably sure that what my senses tell me about gravity is accurate."
You do know this is an argumentum ad populum right? If a lot of people see it therefore it must be true?
"2. Agreed with a good and proper sense we are at a disadvantage. Likewise the person who has a disordered sense of what is right/wrong."
Wouldn't you have to prove your senses are correct before saying the blind person has the wrong senses?
"3. Agreed. Our senses are what we have. It's what we use to experience the world around us. But against, that doesn't mean that everythign we do is subjective."
Everything we do goes through subjective lens. So how do you propose to find objectivity when everything is subject to our perception?
"But interchanging words doesn't change the discussion."
Value is more specific. The statement would have been if I used opinion is that the rapist likes the opinion of rape being okay so he thinks it is okay. Value is less words.
"Your first question is spot on. If my senses are bad, how can i be trusted to actually know what is objective."
How do you know your senses are not bad?
"By forming against things yo uknow are right-- objective things."
You don't know there are right because at a fundamental level were accept a truth that are our senses are helpful in perceiving the world instead of proving it.
"I said via my senses. I never said they were good"
If you don't know they are good how do you know they can be trusted in actually showing you what is objective?
"why look inward to determine morality?"
Look al-right Buddhist monk. Without good senses you will be at a disadvantage. This is not Daredevil. You are F*cked and I feel sorry for you if you are blind can't hear or your taste is gone.
"Why not look to something beyond you?"
All you are are your senses. Without it you won't be able to perceive the world.
"If you say morality is subjective, then what you think is right, and you would have to believe that if another person thinks something is right, then they are right...because that is their opinion."
It is based on values more specifically. I consider you calling my argument an opinion deserving of you being lynched. Hope you are ready.
Values is better word than opinion. Opinion is too general not specific.
"Ok. What speicifically did I accept to be true and not tell you how?"
Your senses being a good source of information.
"Does the fact that I'm blind negate the fact that water is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? nope."
If everyone was blind then yes.
"We use our senses to perceive and detect gravity. Does that mean gravity is purely subjective? of course not."
We cannot be sure on our senses because we cannot verify them to be true.
"What exactly was the strawman you said I concocted?"
You said this "So the person who thinks Rape is ok is in the right?"
Fair representation would be if person values rape then that person would say rape is okay.
You do thing where you accept something to be true without telling me how. That is part I have a problem with.
"I use my sense to perceive my world. We all do. But that doesn't mean everything is subjective."
How? If you are blind you can't see a chemical makeup. If you are visually impaired you can't see a chemical makeup that well.
We all do is not a good reason for why it should be accepted without proving it.
Everything is subjective because it is dependent on the person perceiving it whatever it maybe.
"Explain it? Didn't you accuse of constructing a straw man by bringing about the worst extent that logically follows"
My argument stating rape being good was not my argument. My argument was if the person values rape then rape for him is okay. Your interpretation of my argument was unfair.
"Yes. It wsa brought up in the debate arguments."
Okay
"I guess that depends on who you ask. People use different objective standards all the time: some base the morality of their behavior on what their parents think....or what their spouse thinks....or what the government says....or what they believe God says."
More fundamental. What do you use to perceive the world?
"If you are going to say morality is subjective, you can't change your story based on the severity of the action."
I did not understand this.Can you say it in a different way?
"And for the record, I wasn't the one who introduced rape and murder into the discussion ;-)"
Who was it?
This was from you
"so say someone rapes someone.
Person A thinks rape is ok.
Person B thinks rape is not ok.
They are both right?"
Which was the first sighting I saw of rape in the comments section. Guess you are counting the debate as well.
You have asked 4 people. They are probably better than I am at this. Please don't ask me to vote on rap battles. I can't rap or know what is good. I just use subjectivity as my standard in voting. Not fair when there can be an objective standard achieved in rap battling. You can ask me to vote on something boring like politics, philosophy which I find a joy to read. Sorry if this is not the answer you wanted.
"You can't measure outside yourself?"
What are you using to measure outside yourself?
"So the person who thinks Rape is ok is in the right?"
So the person thinks believing in something without evidence is rational? I can play the same game don't strawman me I won't do it back to you. I am aware of showing the worst extent of someone else's logic but that was unfair. You did not fairly represent me.
"yes, I get it. We use our senses,"
Then how is anything objective?
"We use our senses even to explore scientific data-- but I'm willing to bet you would now say that science is objective...."
Science is a standard we apply to our subjective senses in order to find out fact in what we are constraint by (senses).
Everything else was basically fluff. I want it to be specific not story time with GuitarSlinger. I have to agree with you on the fundamentals before I go along with your hypotheticals or real-world examples.
"Sounds like game of thrones."
God (debateart.com)
There is one top guy I guess Cerci (bsh1)
Underling I guess Jaimie (don't get offended Virutoso)
Jon Snow (RationalMadman)
Tywin (Ramshutu)
I guess that is it.
"I used to rock arm sleeves in high school. They were super popular when I was a teenager a million years ago. I also wore a dog collar, so take that how you'd like."
Wow I must be from another universe.
"You seem to be in a really good mood today. I never see you deviate from serious statements."
Good mood? I don't want to kicked off the site. You have to jerk the higher-ups to gain favour. Without favour your screwed. Look at the real world. Nepotism works and highly doubt I would ever get close to that but hopefully we are on good terms.
"lmao shapiro is the smartest political figure out there. He could destroy any of your arguments in a second. He is a living encyclopedia and has facts and reasoning."
Yeah you are too far gone to save. Ben is a talking conservatives who goes to College campuses to conflate his ego who stays in his studio at Daily Wire where no-one can challenge. There are exceptions like Sam Harris where he made him look like a fool but his speeches are not debates. Shapiro would lose to an intellectual. Shapiro is not. When you take away the crowd he can't use them to confirm his position instead has to actually keep up with an intellectual.
"Your conduct was fine. I believe he's being sarcastic."
No I heard you could remove me from existence. I mean as in remove me from the site.
"Rolling on the floor laughing"
Hey you have to respect the higher ups or you will be punished. I think so at least since I haven't seen the rules. Where are they?
"I honestly have no clue...."
Must be like 0.00000001%
I don't think I did the percentage justice but you get the point. Not a lot of people. Really rare.
"Well I was aiming for matter of fact with sound conduct. Did I fail? :("
I don't want to speak on his behalf. From my point of view you have stuck to the arguments without the name-calling.
Should have directed that to Virtuoso.
"They're called arm sleeves"
How much of the population of the world do you think wears them? As a percentage.
Never heard of them and knew Jeff Hardy wore women's leggings on his arms. I think so.
Are those woman's leggings on your arms?
Jeff Hardy from WWE uses them don't know what they are called.
I know I did say to Instigator to be respectful but I had to ask.
Be respectful don't want to be an enemy of someone who does God's work.
He is basically does stuff for the site. Made one of my forum post read-only so you know he means business.
"The moment you look outside yourself to measure against, you are now being objective."
You can't measure outside yourself. You are your senses.
"but as soon as you pose a scenario/question like rape, and say one guy thinks it's ok, the other guy thinks it's wrong, folks start acting like morality must now be objective."
Do you like strawmans? I made it clear what I said. If the person values rape then that person would consider it okay if the person does not value rape for him/her it is not okay.
"but the moment the individual looks beyond himself (i.e. looks toward society) to determine what's right or wrong, the individual is being objective.."
Looks beyond himself? You can't do that. Everything goes through your senses. Do tell me what doesn't.
"Society can very well make laws that are subjective, but when the individual looks to this law, the individual is being objective."
I don't know where you got society from but it still does not help your point. Looking is using subjective senses.
"Person A thinks rape is ok.
Person B thinks rape is not ok.
They are both right?"
I was putting into the context of what created the universe. There are multiple explanations and the currently accepted one is the Big Bang.
About the rape part. If the person finds rape okay then by his standards okay but that doesn't mean there isn't another standard like the law which will jail A.
"damn i got roasted you sound like an intellectual titan with those ben shapiro fire roasts."
That is disrespectful. Ramshutu uses logic whereas Shapiro is an anti-intellectual.
"Anecdotal means "evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them""
Oxford has the better definition.
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather then facts and research.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anecdotal
"so i would disagree because it was actually filmed and aired lived so that is proof that is was fake."
But this is one case so it is an anecdote. Do you agree?
My question about infowars is what do you consider an invasion?
"Whether it is right or wrong it completely objective and opinionated."
What do you even mean here?
"They are pro-left and anti-trump, which is clearly bias from a liberal point of view."
Fox news are pro-right and pro-Trump which is clearly bias from a conservative point of view.
Am I wrong?
"I could argue all day how fox news is not "wrong" in their reporting but I can at least have the common sense to admit they are pro-conservative and come from republican viewpoints."
Facts are irrespective of your feelings. Opinions are of-course determined by what you value the most so basically me admitting to it doesn't change anything.
"No, media bias is not a conspiracy theory. If you turn on anyone of their shows you can obviously tell they have liberal bias."
Any proof?
CNN are biased for views. Your point?
"When you post or tell multiple fake news stories and have a reputation for doing so, you can't trust what they say. That is called Fake News. "
My definition no it isn't and from yours requires them to be majority of the time misleading in order for CNN to be considered Fake News.
"It doesn't matter whether it is over 50% or not"
Tell me why this doesn't matter.
"it matters how many times they do it have done nothing to fix it"
Wait what? Are they reporting the same story over and over again and did not "fix" it?
Do you mean fix as have right wing bias or something else?
If your claim is CNN does not nothing to fix news then your cases should be CNN are bad at redacting. Redacting and Fake News are not the same thing.
"That is why their viewership dropped dramatically in the direct days after it came out there was no collusion, in some cases up to 50% drop. That tells you viewers aren't trsuting you, is it not?"
I like evidence. Have any?
"one of which is an actual PRODUCER, which is one of the highest positions on networks which has control over many things."
How high is he do you have a source or picture showing me how high he is. How many producers did CNN have before the guy left?
"CNN received a 93% negative reporting score since Trump won the White House."
Do you agree this sources doesn't say CNN are wrong instead says they are negative towards Trump?
"Sounds fishy for such an "objective journalism," "fair and balanced" and "unbiased" "most trusted name in news" news network doesn't it?"
So from that you made a conspiracy theory. Okay.
"Again I am not arguing that the majority of stories are fake news, just some very obvious stories that were promoted as an anti-trump agenda."
Then make the debate specific CNN stories are fake news not CNN is. CNN doesn't just talk about politics or Trump.
"btw i think ur a cool guy too and respect u we just have different opinions"
It is based on stances but they are important to me and for sure you to.
"Here is Jim Acosta spreading fake news over the border-"
InfoWars? ooof.
"‘Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on, but they’re not going to be doing that,’ Acosta told president"
I would consider this statement do be wrong.
Do you mean he is wrong about this?
"- Not an invasion
- Hundreds of miles away
- Would not jump border wall"
3rd and 2nd would be correct. 1st one depends on what they mean by invasion. They are left out the definition so I'll leave that to you since I do not use InfoWars as my source of information.
"CNN has also been caught staging interviews and protests, such as staging protesters in London after a terrorist attack."
Yeah that was really bad. I think I saw it in a curb your meme. Found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df7jy8s4Nyw
Do you agree this is anecdotal and require a study to be done on CNN to be more than just that?
"that A is not logical or possible...does that mean the only alternative is B?"
Yes. If this was used in the real world you do know it would be false dichotomy right?
"Now, substitute A= "subjective" and B="objective". That's it. NO other alternatives. It's either subjective or objective-- there is no in-between. Now if you show that A is not logical or possible, doesn't that imply that the only alternative is B (Objective)? That's one way to prove or draw conclusions about objectivity."
You can't prove objectivity we use our senses which are subjective to perceive the world. A is correct.
"yo uhave to an appeal to objective standard against which to measure it."
An objective standard through a subjective lens. Objectivity is more than that. It is saying we can know something outside our senses but we can't.
"See, you think this...but when i compare it to this standard ___________ you are wrong."
Yes it is based on the standard someone follows.
"Who is right?"
Depends on their standards. If they follow the same standard that is logically consistent then one is wrong.
"I will continue to say this and you have not responded to this and if u have plz copy and paste-"
Your definition is fake news is misleading. One producers testimony is not enough to say as a whole CNN is fake news. Reason is I can find someone who says CNN is the opposite are they right? Provide actual proof not testimony which I am sure Christians do like. Do change your profile picture to feelings don't care about your facts when you consider testimony as a fact that CNN is fake news.
"I think that would qualify for ur def. then."
Intentionally? I am sorry did he have a part to play in every single CNN news article? No I am sure it wasn't even majority of the time so even by my definition you don't have a point.
"For the religious thing, there is evidence that God exists and people that can make rly good arguments for his existence. Based on personal experiences I know that God is real"
Lol. Says evidence and then right afterwards starts speaking about personal experience. Do change your profile picture to feelings don't care about your facts.
"I know the probabilities that this world perfectly fell in place are extremely unlikely. I am not an expert on all the facts myself, however."
Intelligence design? Is God not a sign of intelligence. What created God? The intelligence design argument has been debunked several times and if you have personal experience and intelligence design as your best arguments for God your logic is faulty.
"Religion is one thing that people typically don't want their mind changed about."
They are incapable to provide evidence of God's existence but still follow it.
"I am a Christian and will never change my mind because I know that God is real."
Thank you for telling me you are not open minded. Who would have thought a Christian conservative was? No your delusion that you perceive as God is not real.
I lied lets not agree to disagree. Your comments have triggered me.
"bruh lmao u still haven't responded so I'll wait until you will-"
Yes I have but it does not get through to you that even by your definition CNN is not "fake news". What part of it don't you understand?
"no evidence for atheism."
You are basically saying people who believe in unicorns are justified because I can't disprove unicorns don't exist.
I can logically deduce God not existing but I think it might be too much for you. What do you say? Want a conservation about the non-existence of God since you did say you are "open minded"?
"I also have had many constructive debates and have changed multiple people's minds on topics like Gun control and kneeling for the anthem."
I don't consider this open minded. I am guessing you now don't consider kneeling a bad thing or if the reverse God help you. I seriously don't know what you changed your mind on gun control due to how many discussions can be had about that.
"I think the key to having the most open-mind is being respectful."
I personally don't think you are but I may be wrong.
"Obviously omar and I have not been so respectful, lol, so ig it would be a debate for others to view and not change any of our minds."
I am sure you are a cool dude in real life and if I was a Christian right winger I am sure I would like you but as it stands I don't think it is worth each others time when we can't even agree on basic things like why CNN is not misleading for posting 3 false news. You are leaving out the countless other posts which outweigh the 3 you cherry-picked.
This conservation is not going anywhere and I have done this so many times on DDO where a debate comment section almost had 500 (487) comments. Lets agree to disagree until I want to call you out again which I am prone to doing when I want to waste my time even more.
"Wow, I am amused you still haven't responded."
Even by your definition of fake news you still have not shown your burden of proof. You need a lot more examples anecdotal andy.
"You have been avoiding this the whole time."
1 person who isn't in public relations is a representative of an entire news network? Oh wow I learn something new every day.
"Oh, so now we have to get everyone at cnn secretly recorded saying its fake?"
Majority of them. Here I can make it easier. Find a representative of CNN someone from public relations or the owner stating their biases and intentionally misleading the public. Really thought the great DDO debater would at least know how to think outside the box.
"I'm not going to rise to this bait but I will say, yes, religion is a belief. Atheism is also a belief. So is agnosticism."
No bait since it is facts and you can't deny the fact that conservatives are more Religious than liberals. Atheism is a non-belief so in a sense still a belief but a negative one. An atheist and agnostic is more justified in their belief since there is no evidence for a such a thing.
"Those last two can't prove science made the world."
What? Now you don't even know what science is. Science observes the natural world. I find the world beyond the Big Bang a bit of a stretch for a science to observe but I might be wrong. They can always theorise but can't really say what is. Maybe science can one day.
Science doesn't make anything. It is a field which observes the natural world. Not made the entire world. You are definitely Religious. Just checked you are.
"The big bang theory is a common one, and that is a theory. A hypothesis, not factual."
oof. The Big Bang is considered a theory which best explains how the universe started. God can and does not explain anything due to the lack of evidence.
I know from my DDO past and current days most people who disagree argue in bad faith, logically inconsistent, fallacious and just now don't even know the basics of having a debate.
"it seems like a waste not to utilize it constructively."
I love debating but from having 75 debates on DDO I have found very little constructive. I have definitely changed my mind on a lot of things but it wasn't because of my opponents instead of reading other debates. Which is why I took a drastic change from conservatism to liberal or progressive.
"I haven't debated in 5 months."
So this is a basic thing and what does it say in your bio?
"Van Jones, a far-leftist also admitted russia collusion was "just a big nothingburger""
One person compared to how many posts CNN produces.
"That is a perfect example of feelings and not respondng to the facts."
Here we go. Something typical of conservatives. Denial. You at least understood you required a definition but you don't understand how awful your argument is. 3 false reports doesn't make CNN as a whole "Fake News" even if you are going by it only being misleading.
"Oh and also great pivot to religion, something completely unrelated to this and distracting from this. You do realize there are atheist conservatives right? And religious people can be liberal?"
It is not a pivot since it does provide my point. Majority of theists are conservative. Showing me few examples of atheist conservatives doesn't state the right isn't the party of Religion. Religion is based on belief therefore your profile picture should be feelings don't care about your facts if you are a conservative.
"I will provide a definition in the next round. I can't go back in time."
If you were such a good debater on DDO why did you forget such a crucial thing like definitions?
"You are the only one not responding to my evidence with facts."
From my definition of fake news you still have not fulfilled your burden of proof. You have to show that CNN as a whole deliberately post false information and the person who gave the news admitting to it being false. You haven't done that.
"You ignored it and resorted to name calling and vague cleche's instead of arguing the substance."
Conservative don't care about substance. Remember most of the right are Religious and if they cared about substance they would realise there is no substance for God. The right is the party of feelings don't care about your facts.
Coming from a person who doesn't even know you require a definition before you argue something.
Your argument in Round 1 I feel like CNN is fake news because of 3 incidences.
Change your profile picture to feelings don't care about your facts.
You can't even provide a definition and expect to provide facts when you didn't even tell anyone what you mean by fake news.
"The Fake news narrative, is really more of a tool by Trump and the Right to discredit sources of criticism, rather than actual issues with news."
oof can't wait for feelings don't care about your facts to respond.
No point in me stating how you are wrong when Ragnar and Ramshutu and Death23 and dustryder done it for me.
You are clearly biased and you do not even know how to represent your point correctly due to it.
RationalMadman has got this if he isn't biased and if he is a good debater.
"I just have to prove some of their content is fake news, not "50%"."
Guess you have already lost. Be prepared to do so. If the number is less than 50% Rational Madman just needs to show a number of 51% or higher. That is easy when you look at your Round 1. You have pointed out 3 news articles when I am sure CNN post more than 3 everyday. I doubt RationalMadman even needs to go past a week to debunk your claim. Guess you really like to lose I guess.
"I am also basing it off the whole premise of their networking, which is they think they are unbiased and say that they are, even though every one knows they have a leftist biased."
Even if they have a leftist agenda doesn't mean they are misleading. I hope RationalMadman owns you with facts when you can't even show facts that CNN is fake news. Remember facts don't care about your feelings. Yet another example from a conservative that does not uphold that who thinks 3 incidences compared to the amount of CNN posts somehow makes them more fake news than not. At best you can say majority of the time CNN post correct news whereas sometimes like 3 incidences they are not accurate. That is not fake news instead CNN made mistakes. You would know this if you weren't so biased but guess you are. Your profile should be feelings don't care about your facts when you make such a bogus claim that "CNN is fake news"
So your argument is on fact rather then right or wrong?
Are you going to with what Ragnar said where you are going to state they mislead more than they accurately represent the news?
Also quit complaining if other people are taking it seriously. If you are not telling taking it seriously don't expect others to not also. If you are also not basing it on what Ragnar said then all the Contender has to do is prove that more than 50% CNN are accurately representing the facts to have a better argument than you.
"misleading viewers on facts, as well as just false claims/information."
Is the misleading intentional and if you are so can you prove it?
"There is no one set definition, it is a pretty broad term but i am sorta combining those two definitions. Dont overcomplicate it."
Why did you use it for? To own the "libtards"? If you wanted a serious discussion I think you would have titled the debate CNN is more misleading than accurate.
"I don't agree that we can't verify our reality, but this wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed on this."
Easy win for me.
Prove our reality without using an Argumentum Ad Populum.
You are wrong.
For perception to be reality you would require to proof your perception is a reliable source of gaining knowledge of reality. No one can do that. We can't go outside our senses to verify our senses to be true so you have lost.
Simply remember them and post them again to make sure people can see how witty it is.
What your saying this is going to be a sh*t-show right?
You have very little to do. The contender cannot possibly prove the existence or non-existence if we don't set parameters that we are not even sure the creator follows or not. It is up to you how difficult you want to make it for the Contender.
I guess making it based on philosophy can make it easier since it is not based on observable evidence instead can be based on who can make the better argument.
It isn't. I clicked on the bell to see previous rebuttals the Instigator gave to me in the comments it just redirects me to debateart.com homepage.
Where was the first version of "Donald Trump is NOT Racist: Change my Mind"?
That is where my comment was and looking through his debates this is the only one he has.
I am guessing when he makes changes to his debates the comments get deleted.
What happen to my comments?
Did you re-upload the same debate?
Did you ask the higher ups to remove my comments?
"1. It's not ad populum,"
How is it not? You did not explain it how it is isn't because everyone else sees it therefore it must be true. I only mentioned this part because I have a problem here. Supporting data is not an argument because you would require initial data to use the supporting data to support it and I have already mentioned you cannot know your senses are correct so initial data is flawed.
2.
"Wouldn't you have to prove that what you think is right/wrong is actually right/wrong before saying your action is right/wrong?"
Not really based on proof. Value can be gained without proving it. I hope it would be supported by evidence but not intrinsic to values. If you want to make sure your values are correct then you would require evidence but it is not a necessity to have a value.
"3.Through the corroboration of others."
That is an argumentum ad populum.
I would have a liked an answer to this. Can you give one?
"You don't know there are right because at a fundamental level were accept a truth that are our senses are helpful in perceiving the world instead of proving it."
Yeah I'll vote.
Wasn't at my computer which is why I am typing this now.
"1. If i observe that gravity causes objects to fall. And others corroborate my findings...and if MANY MANY others corroborate my findings, then I can be reasonably sure that what my senses tell me about gravity is accurate."
You do know this is an argumentum ad populum right? If a lot of people see it therefore it must be true?
"2. Agreed with a good and proper sense we are at a disadvantage. Likewise the person who has a disordered sense of what is right/wrong."
Wouldn't you have to prove your senses are correct before saying the blind person has the wrong senses?
"3. Agreed. Our senses are what we have. It's what we use to experience the world around us. But against, that doesn't mean that everythign we do is subjective."
Everything we do goes through subjective lens. So how do you propose to find objectivity when everything is subject to our perception?
"But interchanging words doesn't change the discussion."
Value is more specific. The statement would have been if I used opinion is that the rapist likes the opinion of rape being okay so he thinks it is okay. Value is less words.
"Your first question is spot on. If my senses are bad, how can i be trusted to actually know what is objective."
How do you know your senses are not bad?
"By forming against things yo uknow are right-- objective things."
You don't know there are right because at a fundamental level were accept a truth that are our senses are helpful in perceiving the world instead of proving it.
"I said via my senses. I never said they were good"
If you don't know they are good how do you know they can be trusted in actually showing you what is objective?
"why look inward to determine morality?"
Look al-right Buddhist monk. Without good senses you will be at a disadvantage. This is not Daredevil. You are F*cked and I feel sorry for you if you are blind can't hear or your taste is gone.
"Why not look to something beyond you?"
All you are are your senses. Without it you won't be able to perceive the world.
"If you say morality is subjective, then what you think is right, and you would have to believe that if another person thinks something is right, then they are right...because that is their opinion."
It is based on values more specifically. I consider you calling my argument an opinion deserving of you being lynched. Hope you are ready.
Values is better word than opinion. Opinion is too general not specific.
"Ok. What speicifically did I accept to be true and not tell you how?"
Your senses being a good source of information.
"Does the fact that I'm blind negate the fact that water is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? nope."
If everyone was blind then yes.
"We use our senses to perceive and detect gravity. Does that mean gravity is purely subjective? of course not."
We cannot be sure on our senses because we cannot verify them to be true.
"What exactly was the strawman you said I concocted?"
You said this "So the person who thinks Rape is ok is in the right?"
Fair representation would be if person values rape then that person would say rape is okay.
You do thing where you accept something to be true without telling me how. That is part I have a problem with.
"I use my sense to perceive my world. We all do. But that doesn't mean everything is subjective."
How? If you are blind you can't see a chemical makeup. If you are visually impaired you can't see a chemical makeup that well.
We all do is not a good reason for why it should be accepted without proving it.
Everything is subjective because it is dependent on the person perceiving it whatever it maybe.
"Explain it? Didn't you accuse of constructing a straw man by bringing about the worst extent that logically follows"
My argument stating rape being good was not my argument. My argument was if the person values rape then rape for him is okay. Your interpretation of my argument was unfair.
"Yes. It wsa brought up in the debate arguments."
Okay
"I guess that depends on who you ask. People use different objective standards all the time: some base the morality of their behavior on what their parents think....or what their spouse thinks....or what the government says....or what they believe God says."
More fundamental. What do you use to perceive the world?
"If you are going to say morality is subjective, you can't change your story based on the severity of the action."
I did not understand this.Can you say it in a different way?
"And for the record, I wasn't the one who introduced rape and murder into the discussion ;-)"
Who was it?
This was from you
"so say someone rapes someone.
Person A thinks rape is ok.
Person B thinks rape is not ok.
They are both right?"
Which was the first sighting I saw of rape in the comments section. Guess you are counting the debate as well.
You have asked 4 people. They are probably better than I am at this. Please don't ask me to vote on rap battles. I can't rap or know what is good. I just use subjectivity as my standard in voting. Not fair when there can be an objective standard achieved in rap battling. You can ask me to vote on something boring like politics, philosophy which I find a joy to read. Sorry if this is not the answer you wanted.
"You can't measure outside yourself?"
What are you using to measure outside yourself?
"So the person who thinks Rape is ok is in the right?"
So the person thinks believing in something without evidence is rational? I can play the same game don't strawman me I won't do it back to you. I am aware of showing the worst extent of someone else's logic but that was unfair. You did not fairly represent me.
"yes, I get it. We use our senses,"
Then how is anything objective?
"We use our senses even to explore scientific data-- but I'm willing to bet you would now say that science is objective...."
Science is a standard we apply to our subjective senses in order to find out fact in what we are constraint by (senses).
Everything else was basically fluff. I want it to be specific not story time with GuitarSlinger. I have to agree with you on the fundamentals before I go along with your hypotheticals or real-world examples.
"Sounds like game of thrones."
God (debateart.com)
There is one top guy I guess Cerci (bsh1)
Underling I guess Jaimie (don't get offended Virutoso)
Jon Snow (RationalMadman)
Tywin (Ramshutu)
I guess that is it.
"I used to rock arm sleeves in high school. They were super popular when I was a teenager a million years ago. I also wore a dog collar, so take that how you'd like."
Wow I must be from another universe.
"You seem to be in a really good mood today. I never see you deviate from serious statements."
Good mood? I don't want to kicked off the site. You have to jerk the higher-ups to gain favour. Without favour your screwed. Look at the real world. Nepotism works and highly doubt I would ever get close to that but hopefully we are on good terms.
"lmao shapiro is the smartest political figure out there. He could destroy any of your arguments in a second. He is a living encyclopedia and has facts and reasoning."
Yeah you are too far gone to save. Ben is a talking conservatives who goes to College campuses to conflate his ego who stays in his studio at Daily Wire where no-one can challenge. There are exceptions like Sam Harris where he made him look like a fool but his speeches are not debates. Shapiro would lose to an intellectual. Shapiro is not. When you take away the crowd he can't use them to confirm his position instead has to actually keep up with an intellectual.
"Your conduct was fine. I believe he's being sarcastic."
No I heard you could remove me from existence. I mean as in remove me from the site.
"Rolling on the floor laughing"
Hey you have to respect the higher ups or you will be punished. I think so at least since I haven't seen the rules. Where are they?
"I honestly have no clue...."
Must be like 0.00000001%
I don't think I did the percentage justice but you get the point. Not a lot of people. Really rare.
"Well I was aiming for matter of fact with sound conduct. Did I fail? :("
I don't want to speak on his behalf. From my point of view you have stuck to the arguments without the name-calling.
Should have directed that to Virtuoso.
"Rofl"
What is that?
"They're called arm sleeves"
How much of the population of the world do you think wears them? As a percentage.
Never heard of them and knew Jeff Hardy wore women's leggings on his arms. I think so.
Are those woman's leggings on your arms?
Jeff Hardy from WWE uses them don't know what they are called.
I know I did say to Instigator to be respectful but I had to ask.
Be respectful don't want to be an enemy of someone who does God's work.
He is basically does stuff for the site. Made one of my forum post read-only so you know he means business.
"The moment you look outside yourself to measure against, you are now being objective."
You can't measure outside yourself. You are your senses.
"but as soon as you pose a scenario/question like rape, and say one guy thinks it's ok, the other guy thinks it's wrong, folks start acting like morality must now be objective."
Do you like strawmans? I made it clear what I said. If the person values rape then that person would consider it okay if the person does not value rape for him/her it is not okay.
"but the moment the individual looks beyond himself (i.e. looks toward society) to determine what's right or wrong, the individual is being objective.."
Looks beyond himself? You can't do that. Everything goes through your senses. Do tell me what doesn't.
"Society can very well make laws that are subjective, but when the individual looks to this law, the individual is being objective."
I don't know where you got society from but it still does not help your point. Looking is using subjective senses.
An elephant?
Was that one of the ones DA gave you to pick?
I think CD is createdebate or something.
You made an account that quickly?
"Person A thinks rape is ok.
Person B thinks rape is not ok.
They are both right?"
I was putting into the context of what created the universe. There are multiple explanations and the currently accepted one is the Big Bang.
About the rape part. If the person finds rape okay then by his standards okay but that doesn't mean there isn't another standard like the law which will jail A.
"damn i got roasted you sound like an intellectual titan with those ben shapiro fire roasts."
That is disrespectful. Ramshutu uses logic whereas Shapiro is an anti-intellectual.
Guess you went with the actual definition of Fake News.
I wish Our_Boat_is_Right good luck.
"Anecdotal means "evidence in the form of stories that people tell about what has happened to them""
Oxford has the better definition.
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather then facts and research.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anecdotal
"so i would disagree because it was actually filmed and aired lived so that is proof that is was fake."
But this is one case so it is an anecdote. Do you agree?
My question about infowars is what do you consider an invasion?
Awaiting next comment.
"Whether it is right or wrong it completely objective and opinionated."
What do you even mean here?
"They are pro-left and anti-trump, which is clearly bias from a liberal point of view."
Fox news are pro-right and pro-Trump which is clearly bias from a conservative point of view.
Am I wrong?
"I could argue all day how fox news is not "wrong" in their reporting but I can at least have the common sense to admit they are pro-conservative and come from republican viewpoints."
Facts are irrespective of your feelings. Opinions are of-course determined by what you value the most so basically me admitting to it doesn't change anything.
"No, media bias is not a conspiracy theory. If you turn on anyone of their shows you can obviously tell they have liberal bias."
Any proof?
CNN are biased for views. Your point?
"When you post or tell multiple fake news stories and have a reputation for doing so, you can't trust what they say. That is called Fake News. "
My definition no it isn't and from yours requires them to be majority of the time misleading in order for CNN to be considered Fake News.
"It doesn't matter whether it is over 50% or not"
Tell me why this doesn't matter.
"it matters how many times they do it have done nothing to fix it"
Wait what? Are they reporting the same story over and over again and did not "fix" it?
Do you mean fix as have right wing bias or something else?
If your claim is CNN does not nothing to fix news then your cases should be CNN are bad at redacting. Redacting and Fake News are not the same thing.
"That is why their viewership dropped dramatically in the direct days after it came out there was no collusion, in some cases up to 50% drop. That tells you viewers aren't trsuting you, is it not?"
I like evidence. Have any?
Continues...
F*ck now I feel bad. Sorry.
Type1 diabetes strikes again.
Please tell me someone has already said that to you.
I don't want to be the first.
"one of which is an actual PRODUCER, which is one of the highest positions on networks which has control over many things."
How high is he do you have a source or picture showing me how high he is. How many producers did CNN have before the guy left?
"CNN received a 93% negative reporting score since Trump won the White House."
Do you agree this sources doesn't say CNN are wrong instead says they are negative towards Trump?
"Sounds fishy for such an "objective journalism," "fair and balanced" and "unbiased" "most trusted name in news" news network doesn't it?"
So from that you made a conspiracy theory. Okay.
"Again I am not arguing that the majority of stories are fake news, just some very obvious stories that were promoted as an anti-trump agenda."
Then make the debate specific CNN stories are fake news not CNN is. CNN doesn't just talk about politics or Trump.
"btw i think ur a cool guy too and respect u we just have different opinions"
It is based on stances but they are important to me and for sure you to.
"Here is Jim Acosta spreading fake news over the border-"
InfoWars? ooof.
"‘Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on, but they’re not going to be doing that,’ Acosta told president"
I would consider this statement do be wrong.
Do you mean he is wrong about this?
"- Not an invasion
- Hundreds of miles away
- Would not jump border wall"
3rd and 2nd would be correct. 1st one depends on what they mean by invasion. They are left out the definition so I'll leave that to you since I do not use InfoWars as my source of information.
"CNN has also been caught staging interviews and protests, such as staging protesters in London after a terrorist attack."
Yeah that was really bad. I think I saw it in a curb your meme. Found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df7jy8s4Nyw
Do you agree this is anecdotal and require a study to be done on CNN to be more than just that?
"that A is not logical or possible...does that mean the only alternative is B?"
Yes. If this was used in the real world you do know it would be false dichotomy right?
"Now, substitute A= "subjective" and B="objective". That's it. NO other alternatives. It's either subjective or objective-- there is no in-between. Now if you show that A is not logical or possible, doesn't that imply that the only alternative is B (Objective)? That's one way to prove or draw conclusions about objectivity."
You can't prove objectivity we use our senses which are subjective to perceive the world. A is correct.
"yo uhave to an appeal to objective standard against which to measure it."
An objective standard through a subjective lens. Objectivity is more than that. It is saying we can know something outside our senses but we can't.
"See, you think this...but when i compare it to this standard ___________ you are wrong."
Yes it is based on the standard someone follows.
"Who is right?"
Depends on their standards. If they follow the same standard that is logically consistent then one is wrong.
"I will continue to say this and you have not responded to this and if u have plz copy and paste-"
Your definition is fake news is misleading. One producers testimony is not enough to say as a whole CNN is fake news. Reason is I can find someone who says CNN is the opposite are they right? Provide actual proof not testimony which I am sure Christians do like. Do change your profile picture to feelings don't care about your facts when you consider testimony as a fact that CNN is fake news.
"I think that would qualify for ur def. then."
Intentionally? I am sorry did he have a part to play in every single CNN news article? No I am sure it wasn't even majority of the time so even by my definition you don't have a point.
"For the religious thing, there is evidence that God exists and people that can make rly good arguments for his existence. Based on personal experiences I know that God is real"
Lol. Says evidence and then right afterwards starts speaking about personal experience. Do change your profile picture to feelings don't care about your facts.
"I know the probabilities that this world perfectly fell in place are extremely unlikely. I am not an expert on all the facts myself, however."
Intelligence design? Is God not a sign of intelligence. What created God? The intelligence design argument has been debunked several times and if you have personal experience and intelligence design as your best arguments for God your logic is faulty.
"Religion is one thing that people typically don't want their mind changed about."
They are incapable to provide evidence of God's existence but still follow it.
"I am a Christian and will never change my mind because I know that God is real."
Thank you for telling me you are not open minded. Who would have thought a Christian conservative was? No your delusion that you perceive as God is not real.
I lied lets not agree to disagree. Your comments have triggered me.
"bruh lmao u still haven't responded so I'll wait until you will-"
Yes I have but it does not get through to you that even by your definition CNN is not "fake news". What part of it don't you understand?
"no evidence for atheism."
You are basically saying people who believe in unicorns are justified because I can't disprove unicorns don't exist.
I can logically deduce God not existing but I think it might be too much for you. What do you say? Want a conservation about the non-existence of God since you did say you are "open minded"?
"I also have had many constructive debates and have changed multiple people's minds on topics like Gun control and kneeling for the anthem."
I don't consider this open minded. I am guessing you now don't consider kneeling a bad thing or if the reverse God help you. I seriously don't know what you changed your mind on gun control due to how many discussions can be had about that.
"I think the key to having the most open-mind is being respectful."
I personally don't think you are but I may be wrong.
"Obviously omar and I have not been so respectful, lol, so ig it would be a debate for others to view and not change any of our minds."
I am sure you are a cool dude in real life and if I was a Christian right winger I am sure I would like you but as it stands I don't think it is worth each others time when we can't even agree on basic things like why CNN is not misleading for posting 3 false news. You are leaving out the countless other posts which outweigh the 3 you cherry-picked.
This conservation is not going anywhere and I have done this so many times on DDO where a debate comment section almost had 500 (487) comments. Lets agree to disagree until I want to call you out again which I am prone to doing when I want to waste my time even more.
"Wow, I am amused you still haven't responded."
Even by your definition of fake news you still have not shown your burden of proof. You need a lot more examples anecdotal andy.
"You have been avoiding this the whole time."
1 person who isn't in public relations is a representative of an entire news network? Oh wow I learn something new every day.
"Oh, so now we have to get everyone at cnn secretly recorded saying its fake?"
Majority of them. Here I can make it easier. Find a representative of CNN someone from public relations or the owner stating their biases and intentionally misleading the public. Really thought the great DDO debater would at least know how to think outside the box.
"I'm not going to rise to this bait but I will say, yes, religion is a belief. Atheism is also a belief. So is agnosticism."
No bait since it is facts and you can't deny the fact that conservatives are more Religious than liberals. Atheism is a non-belief so in a sense still a belief but a negative one. An atheist and agnostic is more justified in their belief since there is no evidence for a such a thing.
"Those last two can't prove science made the world."
What? Now you don't even know what science is. Science observes the natural world. I find the world beyond the Big Bang a bit of a stretch for a science to observe but I might be wrong. They can always theorise but can't really say what is. Maybe science can one day.
Science doesn't make anything. It is a field which observes the natural world. Not made the entire world. You are definitely Religious. Just checked you are.
"The big bang theory is a common one, and that is a theory. A hypothesis, not factual."
oof. The Big Bang is considered a theory which best explains how the universe started. God can and does not explain anything due to the lack of evidence.
I know from my DDO past and current days most people who disagree argue in bad faith, logically inconsistent, fallacious and just now don't even know the basics of having a debate.
"it seems like a waste not to utilize it constructively."
I love debating but from having 75 debates on DDO I have found very little constructive. I have definitely changed my mind on a lot of things but it wasn't because of my opponents instead of reading other debates. Which is why I took a drastic change from conservatism to liberal or progressive.
"I haven't debated in 5 months."
So this is a basic thing and what does it say in your bio?
"Van Jones, a far-leftist also admitted russia collusion was "just a big nothingburger""
One person compared to how many posts CNN produces.
"That is a perfect example of feelings and not respondng to the facts."
Here we go. Something typical of conservatives. Denial. You at least understood you required a definition but you don't understand how awful your argument is. 3 false reports doesn't make CNN as a whole "Fake News" even if you are going by it only being misleading.
"Oh and also great pivot to religion, something completely unrelated to this and distracting from this. You do realize there are atheist conservatives right? And religious people can be liberal?"
It is not a pivot since it does provide my point. Majority of theists are conservative. Showing me few examples of atheist conservatives doesn't state the right isn't the party of Religion. Religion is based on belief therefore your profile picture should be feelings don't care about your facts if you are a conservative.
"I will provide a definition in the next round. I can't go back in time."
If you were such a good debater on DDO why did you forget such a crucial thing like definitions?
"You are the only one not responding to my evidence with facts."
From my definition of fake news you still have not fulfilled your burden of proof. You have to show that CNN as a whole deliberately post false information and the person who gave the news admitting to it being false. You haven't done that.
"You ignored it and resorted to name calling and vague cleche's instead of arguing the substance."
Conservative don't care about substance. Remember most of the right are Religious and if they cared about substance they would realise there is no substance for God. The right is the party of feelings don't care about your facts.
Coming from a person who doesn't even know you require a definition before you argue something.
Your argument in Round 1 I feel like CNN is fake news because of 3 incidences.
Change your profile picture to feelings don't care about your facts.
You can't even provide a definition and expect to provide facts when you didn't even tell anyone what you mean by fake news.
"The Fake news narrative, is really more of a tool by Trump and the Right to discredit sources of criticism, rather than actual issues with news."
oof can't wait for feelings don't care about your facts to respond.
No point in me stating how you are wrong when Ragnar and Ramshutu and Death23 and dustryder done it for me.
You are clearly biased and you do not even know how to represent your point correctly due to it.
RationalMadman has got this if he isn't biased and if he is a good debater.
"I just have to prove some of their content is fake news, not "50%"."
Guess you have already lost. Be prepared to do so. If the number is less than 50% Rational Madman just needs to show a number of 51% or higher. That is easy when you look at your Round 1. You have pointed out 3 news articles when I am sure CNN post more than 3 everyday. I doubt RationalMadman even needs to go past a week to debunk your claim. Guess you really like to lose I guess.
"I am also basing it off the whole premise of their networking, which is they think they are unbiased and say that they are, even though every one knows they have a leftist biased."
Even if they have a leftist agenda doesn't mean they are misleading. I hope RationalMadman owns you with facts when you can't even show facts that CNN is fake news. Remember facts don't care about your feelings. Yet another example from a conservative that does not uphold that who thinks 3 incidences compared to the amount of CNN posts somehow makes them more fake news than not. At best you can say majority of the time CNN post correct news whereas sometimes like 3 incidences they are not accurate. That is not fake news instead CNN made mistakes. You would know this if you weren't so biased but guess you are. Your profile should be feelings don't care about your facts when you make such a bogus claim that "CNN is fake news"
So your argument is on fact rather then right or wrong?
Are you going to with what Ragnar said where you are going to state they mislead more than they accurately represent the news?
Also quit complaining if other people are taking it seriously. If you are not telling taking it seriously don't expect others to not also. If you are also not basing it on what Ragnar said then all the Contender has to do is prove that more than 50% CNN are accurately representing the facts to have a better argument than you.
"misleading viewers on facts, as well as just false claims/information."
Is the misleading intentional and if you are so can you prove it?
"There is no one set definition, it is a pretty broad term but i am sorta combining those two definitions. Dont overcomplicate it."
Why did you use it for? To own the "libtards"? If you wanted a serious discussion I think you would have titled the debate CNN is more misleading than accurate.