oops. I accidentally also type in Shows in the description lol, cuz I was researching it. Well, hopefully I made my point about movies alone to outweigh the cons, hah.
you know, I should've used golden rule to support humanitarianism innately moral and obligated to do it. Nicely done to overturn the crux of my argument.
as I suspected, con has a slight edge in this debate topic. I was ready to toss in the towel but I really just needed to get the answers, in case a stronger Pro asked "exactly why do you allow hazardous jobs but not the organ donation?" -- because I don't have an answer to that, and you never answered it. Sorry about the weird structure. I was trying to pick apart worries I had in the future when doing Con side. I probably lost, but it was interesting to take apart the con side and try to argue the pro's benefits.
I did. I don't feel like I fully grasped its implications, and the creationism claim left a sour taste in my mouth. If "concede" was in my dictionary, I probably would've gone for it. But I didn't fully feel persuaded. I know my logic's flawed on paper but I just can't shake off the feeling of impossible to know God's "good intentions", especially if intentions are all that are necessary. If I lost, I lost.
fair enough. I was kind of waiting for some implementation counter to my big point but your counter is interesting as well. I like to go big before going small. If I had more characters I could better demonstrate the contradiction, but I feel like it's important to ask tricky questions with only 10k characters.
(also bear in mind I am playing devil's advocate and hence don't know 100% the best way to argue Pro side :P)
man, you off your game? Why would you link the Stanford article to "innately coercive" when those words aren't even there? and that out of context quote from Brookings institute lol.
what's your take on this? I glanced over both sides in my research, but the morality seems undecidable. Of course, Con cannot argue that given the set up.
Feel free to take a look later if you have time. This felt weird for a policy debate because con only tried to negate impacts without many unique detrimental impacts of open border or unique benefits of restricted border. I’m interested if my “take a step back” conclusion worked or not.
I'm trying to gain better understanding. I definitely have a stronger way to phrase the denial of God, but by phrasing the clearness of my beliefs and stripping the complexity of it, I allow Con to better explain the questions I have for Christianity.
polytheistic religions would be interesting. I'll need more information about those before I'm willing to convert LOL. Buddhism seems pretty acceptable to me.
If this topic had been “the open border policy is A just policy for US” your argument would’ve been great. But sadly morality isn’t super big on politics lol
I'm beginning to connect everything together. I realize that the government corruption statistic makes it near impossible to actually implement the government sponsored market in most developing countries. Therefore, let's start one country at a time. Isolated so that it won't ruin other countries policies, check. Well informed citizens to battle exploitation, check. Lack of corruption, check. How's this look?
oh, I see. well hopefully the voters won't notice I contradicted myself lol. I was trying to establish some better case but I realized it might be con's case.
pretty sure Mall didn't win with no sources of his own, but what about this approach? Is Gov Compensation usually good for pro side? Or is it a con thing with Gov buying from the market?
I'm curious, since you mentioned I stabbed myself in the foot the final round. How much worse/better would it have been if I merely waived the round and said "vote con"?
so just to clarify -- to truly have the "Undefeatable" mindset -- I would have had to muddle the resolution and stick to the crystallization of the lack of clear decision, correct? I stabbed the argument in the foot to try to have utilitarian outcome hopefully result in the endless violence that wouldn't work out in the world creation (and Pro never countered), but because I keep my username with a tie, making the resolution as vague and ambiguous as possible would ruin Pro's work, yes?
[I should really do that often. Since my name is not "Victorious", I am encouraged to make the vote as difficult as possible to make, not to actually win]
thanks for the vote. I suspected that Pro had a winning edge in this topic. I suppose he'll be the end to my streak. Any suggestions for this or in general?
I had considered using the example of American Revolution as a solid example to give the impact that we let a country get away with 200 years of supposed freedom only to end back up where we started with BLM talking of oppression of blacks -- the same as when the Whigs complained about "slavery"
I also didn't bother mentioning intentions, because I know libertarian arguments defeat it 100% of the time. You can't defeat "people have the right to defend, even through violence". That's why I mentioned results. Only utilitarianism analysis can overcome the rights argument, as the infringement of the Deontology morality makes Kant lose ground on Pro's ideas.
probably your pro case. I was barely holding onto a lot of points (only combined together can they defeat you), and forced to argue a strange non moral stance. The persons' judgement to determine oppression is an interesting point, but I don't think Con you can grasp enough of it to defeat Pro you.
ha, so much for practice. Also apologize for any unanswerable arguments, but I couldn't think of a better place to add them. The structure was weird enough that maybe a 5th round would've helped. Also, I am very surprised I was unable to find "The Ethics of War: Essays” in my research that you had in your first debate.
hey, thanks for the vote. I see now that I didn't 100% make the differentiation of mind and brain clear. If I knew that could improve my argument, I definitely would've mentioned more limits to neuroscience rather than rambling on about the different worldlines and imposition on physical vs mental. (Ex: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jun/30/brain-mind-behaviour-neuroscience-neuroimaging)
I am indeed curious what you think of each argument. You’re famous for weighing impacts, but philosophy makes direct impacts difficult to judge in my opinion (even if edge’s argument is partially backed by science).
I realized that the "Failure of Pacifism and the Success of Nonviolence" article can't be accessed unless you have a school account. The pastebin of the full article is available here: https://pastebin.com/bBF0prCV
I believe Intelligence is referring to this: http://www.fao.org/3/x5304e/x5304e04.htm
The cultivation of livestock is necessary to support the land.
oops. I accidentally also type in Shows in the description lol, cuz I was researching it. Well, hopefully I made my point about movies alone to outweigh the cons, hah.
you know, I should've used golden rule to support humanitarianism innately moral and obligated to do it. Nicely done to overturn the crux of my argument.
updated for more broad applicated of the specific theory. Looking for feedback on if resolution is too hard to argue against.
as I suspected, con has a slight edge in this debate topic. I was ready to toss in the towel but I really just needed to get the answers, in case a stronger Pro asked "exactly why do you allow hazardous jobs but not the organ donation?" -- because I don't have an answer to that, and you never answered it. Sorry about the weird structure. I was trying to pick apart worries I had in the future when doing Con side. I probably lost, but it was interesting to take apart the con side and try to argue the pro's benefits.
There's only five days left and this might be buried under all the other debates. You two can both vote.
how's this? A bit harder, but I think I can manage.
I did. I don't feel like I fully grasped its implications, and the creationism claim left a sour taste in my mouth. If "concede" was in my dictionary, I probably would've gone for it. But I didn't fully feel persuaded. I know my logic's flawed on paper but I just can't shake off the feeling of impossible to know God's "good intentions", especially if intentions are all that are necessary. If I lost, I lost.
I am not good at debating religion, lol. Just a heads up for why it seems so awkward
oop, I meant that the action increased utility in that one scenario (as exampled from my self defense vs murder idea)
fair enough. I was kind of waiting for some implementation counter to my big point but your counter is interesting as well. I like to go big before going small. If I had more characters I could better demonstrate the contradiction, but I feel like it's important to ask tricky questions with only 10k characters.
(also bear in mind I am playing devil's advocate and hence don't know 100% the best way to argue Pro side :P)
man, you off your game? Why would you link the Stanford article to "innately coercive" when those words aren't even there? and that out of context quote from Brookings institute lol.
what's your take on this? I glanced over both sides in my research, but the morality seems undecidable. Of course, Con cannot argue that given the set up.
is this just a convoluted version of Wagyu's "Machines in theory can think"? Sure seems like it.
I noticed the last link (the study) doesn't work. The article can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/57/6/1301/2623947?login=true
Feel free to take a look later if you have time. This felt weird for a policy debate because con only tried to negate impacts without many unique detrimental impacts of open border or unique benefits of restricted border. I’m interested if my “take a step back” conclusion worked or not.
I'm trying to gain better understanding. I definitely have a stronger way to phrase the denial of God, but by phrasing the clearness of my beliefs and stripping the complexity of it, I allow Con to better explain the questions I have for Christianity.
polytheistic religions would be interesting. I'll need more information about those before I'm willing to convert LOL. Buddhism seems pretty acceptable to me.
feel free to take a look. (As for weakeredge, I know you're atheist but maybe you know some good arguments for the devil's advocate side)
If this topic had been “the open border policy is A just policy for US” your argument would’ve been great. But sadly morality isn’t super big on politics lol
I'm beginning to connect everything together. I realize that the government corruption statistic makes it near impossible to actually implement the government sponsored market in most developing countries. Therefore, let's start one country at a time. Isolated so that it won't ruin other countries policies, check. Well informed citizens to battle exploitation, check. Lack of corruption, check. How's this look?
Done.
I thought of Queens Gambit and I liked the show too much to argue against what Beth is doing
Sorry about the 14th amendment rebuttal typo, I meant that only lawful and permanent resident’s child is considered US Citizen
What’s your stance? Also pro?
oh, I see. well hopefully the voters won't notice I contradicted myself lol. I was trying to establish some better case but I realized it might be con's case.
pretty sure Mall didn't win with no sources of his own, but what about this approach? Is Gov Compensation usually good for pro side? Or is it a con thing with Gov buying from the market?
I'm curious, since you mentioned I stabbed myself in the foot the final round. How much worse/better would it have been if I merely waived the round and said "vote con"?
to be fair, Open border also offers trade benefit and various other things that we need
so just to clarify -- to truly have the "Undefeatable" mindset -- I would have had to muddle the resolution and stick to the crystallization of the lack of clear decision, correct? I stabbed the argument in the foot to try to have utilitarian outcome hopefully result in the endless violence that wouldn't work out in the world creation (and Pro never countered), but because I keep my username with a tie, making the resolution as vague and ambiguous as possible would ruin Pro's work, yes?
[I should really do that often. Since my name is not "Victorious", I am encouraged to make the vote as difficult as possible to make, not to actually win]
thanks for the vote. I suspected that Pro had a winning edge in this topic. I suppose he'll be the end to my streak. Any suggestions for this or in general?
I had considered using the example of American Revolution as a solid example to give the impact that we let a country get away with 200 years of supposed freedom only to end back up where we started with BLM talking of oppression of blacks -- the same as when the Whigs complained about "slavery"
I also didn't bother mentioning intentions, because I know libertarian arguments defeat it 100% of the time. You can't defeat "people have the right to defend, even through violence". That's why I mentioned results. Only utilitarianism analysis can overcome the rights argument, as the infringement of the Deontology morality makes Kant lose ground on Pro's ideas.
seems like the definition fulfills itself. https://medium.com/literate-schools/what-does-it-mean-to-be-literate-bcd2e4c1227c
Why are you arguing truisms?
Bump. I can extend this to worldwide at request but I’m going to need more research.
Your argument reminds me of My VR debate... heh.
probably your pro case. I was barely holding onto a lot of points (only combined together can they defeat you), and forced to argue a strange non moral stance. The persons' judgement to determine oppression is an interesting point, but I don't think Con you can grasp enough of it to defeat Pro you.
ha, so much for practice. Also apologize for any unanswerable arguments, but I couldn't think of a better place to add them. The structure was weird enough that maybe a 5th round would've helped. Also, I am very surprised I was unable to find "The Ethics of War: Essays” in my research that you had in your first debate.
hey, thanks for the vote. I see now that I didn't 100% make the differentiation of mind and brain clear. If I knew that could improve my argument, I definitely would've mentioned more limits to neuroscience rather than rambling on about the different worldlines and imposition on physical vs mental. (Ex: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jun/30/brain-mind-behaviour-neuroscience-neuroimaging)
In any case, I don't know why the linking to the India study failed. Here's the link: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/195344
*facepalm* this is what happens when I listen to you and don't put "no kritiks".
vote if you dare!
No definition found for "better". Do you mean more beneficial?
Hopefully Wagyu won’t forfeit lol
sorry. I forgot to type the extra "I"s. It's VIII
Alexei: You can't defeat me
Me: I know, but he can
Younger Alexei: Hello.
I was in a bit of rush while noting the precise resolution. Here's the official one. Feel free to think it over.
done.
I am indeed curious what you think of each argument. You’re famous for weighing impacts, but philosophy makes direct impacts difficult to judge in my opinion (even if edge’s argument is partially backed by science).
I realized that the "Failure of Pacifism and the Success of Nonviolence" article can't be accessed unless you have a school account. The pastebin of the full article is available here: https://pastebin.com/bBF0prCV
Nice.
Also, I meant to say harm potential enemies rather than allies in the harm of innocent.
Does this include both Old Testament and New Testament?
And also How do you expect zero outside sources? You could cheat by using the English bible and misinterpret it while the original is in Hebrew