And before I catch shit. That was said in a generic enough way to not help the instigator. If you copied and pasted that in th debate it wouldn't count as an argument you would still need to research the things I brought up further.
I think it's easier to argue its not suicide when you get into a discussion of what consciousness it. Its a continuation of your thoughts. So if you could replicate human though than it would still be you.
It gets interesting though. If you split yourself into a copy you would have 2 yous.
Let's call the presplit you Barney alpha and then you have barney 2 and barney 3.
Well if this continuation theory is correct alpha barney is barney 2 and barney 3. However barney 2 is not barney 3 and barney 3 is not barney 2.
I would think that if barney alpha murdered somebody both barney 2 and 3 should be in prison but if barney 2 murdered somebody than Barney 3 should be in the free in clear.
I think startrek TNG covers a lot of these philosophical conundrums and it's interesting to think of them when you watch th show. It was BSH1s startrek debates to start me down the road of looking at consciousness this way.
I am not eligible to vote yet and to be honest there are certain debates I actually avoid voting on because I assume I will do a terrible job at voting. This is one where I think I am confused enough by the e tire premise around it that my vote would be terrible.
I feel triggered bow because that does happen a lot in my debates here. I think it's because I am not a fan of semantics games I would rather everyone just acknowledge we knew what we meant and keep the debate on track. I wouldn't say thy run circles Around me but it does get tedious andboring
The definition of boiling is going to be assumed to be descriptive and not prescriptive here. Everyone already k own that boil is when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat after a while.
I guess your new strategy is to see yourself as terrible or something and to drop the arrogance. I think dropping the arrogance should suffice without the negative views of yourself but if that view made you want to provide a definition for water boiling. More power to you.
I think I would maybe be willing to do this debate if I am allowed to just plagiarize David's first round and you copy and paste your rounds. The one thing I would also ask is that I am allowed to use video format.
I am going to see if u can actually work some editing software though and if I can't than I might not want to do it, but I if my video editing goes off without a hitch than I am down
"I'll admit I was somewhat pro-Israel until recently"
I was anti Israel until recently. I think they have every right to not o ly defend themselves from this savagery but to take measures to make sure it never occurs again.
There are literally missiles even prior to this that every day were aimed at Israel only to be stopped by the Iron dome. I can tell you that if America's anti missile defense system knocked down even a single incoming missile, there would be all out war not just a bunch of politicians sitting around trying to make us incrementally safer but an effort to immediately end missile strikes.
There are a lot of leftists who legitimately believe that Hamas has the moral high ground and are representative of Palestinians. You have an ethical obligation to put your opponent in his place even if it means sacrificing a debate victory and veering off topic to do so. I urge you to post the next round.
You can criticize the right for not wanting to help Israel, but atleast the right recognizes who has the moral high ground here.
Did you know that Republicans are for implementing the fair tax which comes with a monthly check for every American citizen for a out $1000 and democrats oppose it not because they think the tax system is bad but only because repu licans think it is good. The fair tax would literally be the seed stages of a basic mi imum income and studies have shown it to be a tax that would bring jobs back home and it would simultaneously reduce the tax burden of almost every American while simultaneously increasing tax revenue.
"each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."
So apparently you don't actually want to debate this. You don't even want to debate communist policies only the goals of communists which is something even anti communists would agree with. You could atheist debate the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
And before I catch shit. That was said in a generic enough way to not help the instigator. If you copied and pasted that in th debate it wouldn't count as an argument you would still need to research the things I brought up further.
I think it's easier to argue its not suicide when you get into a discussion of what consciousness it. Its a continuation of your thoughts. So if you could replicate human though than it would still be you.
It gets interesting though. If you split yourself into a copy you would have 2 yous.
Let's call the presplit you Barney alpha and then you have barney 2 and barney 3.
Well if this continuation theory is correct alpha barney is barney 2 and barney 3. However barney 2 is not barney 3 and barney 3 is not barney 2.
I would think that if barney alpha murdered somebody both barney 2 and 3 should be in prison but if barney 2 murdered somebody than Barney 3 should be in the free in clear.
I think startrek TNG covers a lot of these philosophical conundrums and it's interesting to think of them when you watch th show. It was BSH1s startrek debates to start me down the road of looking at consciousness this way.
I am not eligible to vote yet and to be honest there are certain debates I actually avoid voting on because I assume I will do a terrible job at voting. This is one where I think I am confused enough by the e tire premise around it that my vote would be terrible.
If leftwing is better than right-wing, why is Portugal a shithole?
I feel triggered bow because that does happen a lot in my debates here. I think it's because I am not a fan of semantics games I would rather everyone just acknowledge we knew what we meant and keep the debate on track. I wouldn't say thy run circles Around me but it does get tedious andboring
The definition of boiling is going to be assumed to be descriptive and not prescriptive here. Everyone already k own that boil is when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat after a while.
I guess your new strategy is to see yourself as terrible or something and to drop the arrogance. I think dropping the arrogance should suffice without the negative views of yourself but if that view made you want to provide a definition for water boiling. More power to you.
Also what is with you and definitions. You don't need to define boiling LOL
There is zero chance I would give you a good debate here so it's better that Benjamin accepted
Thanks for defining the word chess and the word high. I was so confused prior to that definition.
I have accurately and effectively defended liberalism here but any input would be appreciated.
I think I would maybe be willing to do this debate if I am allowed to just plagiarize David's first round and you copy and paste your rounds. The one thing I would also ask is that I am allowed to use video format.
I am going to see if u can actually work some editing software though and if I can't than I might not want to do it, but I if my video editing goes off without a hitch than I am down
"I'll admit I was somewhat pro-Israel until recently"
I was anti Israel until recently. I think they have every right to not o ly defend themselves from this savagery but to take measures to make sure it never occurs again.
There are literally missiles even prior to this that every day were aimed at Israel only to be stopped by the Iron dome. I can tell you that if America's anti missile defense system knocked down even a single incoming missile, there would be all out war not just a bunch of politicians sitting around trying to make us incrementally safer but an effort to immediately end missile strikes.
There are a lot of leftists who legitimately believe that Hamas has the moral high ground and are representative of Palestinians. You have an ethical obligation to put your opponent in his place even if it means sacrificing a debate victory and veering off topic to do so. I urge you to post the next round.
You can criticize the right for not wanting to help Israel, but atleast the right recognizes who has the moral high ground here.
Did you know that Republicans are for implementing the fair tax which comes with a monthly check for every American citizen for a out $1000 and democrats oppose it not because they think the tax system is bad but only because repu licans think it is good. The fair tax would literally be the seed stages of a basic mi imum income and studies have shown it to be a tax that would bring jobs back home and it would simultaneously reduce the tax burden of almost every American while simultaneously increasing tax revenue.
Here I your definition
"each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."
So apparently you don't actually want to debate this. You don't even want to debate communist policies only the goals of communists which is something even anti communists would agree with. You could atheist debate the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Would Israel illegally occupying Palestine be an oppressive action, and would that make Palestinians oppressed?
what do you mean there is nothing wrong with it. It seems gay to me.
I was a leftist when that movie came out so it was even more entertaining for me then, than it is now.