Thank you for casting a vote on my behalf. As a thank you, I am going to start a roach farm as you suggested. I am hoping to provide maybe 5% of the world's meat, milk, and egg supply by 2026.
Given that I cannot vote, I will cast an unofficial one here in the comments. I suppose my one vote will have some weight if nobody else votes.
In my interpretation of what Moozer intended by saying a "Christian God", he means "A god as described by Christianity" (As described by the bible, effectively).
Moozer then argues that something cannot be defined by contradictions.
We can look to math to help us understand this: anything divided by zero is explicitly 'undefined'. Mathematicians will refuse to define X/0 solely because contradictions lie in any definition.
F(x)=X/0
Lim X of F(x) -> 0 (-) = -infinity
But, Lim X of F(x) -> 0 (+) = +infinity.
A contradiction.
After reading the arguments, it is apparent that Moozer successfully proved this. Namely, the death of Judas sold the point for me.
However, I will note that demonstrating evolution is pretty much a certainty would not suffice as evidence for this argument. This is due to the nature of the contradiction, where it is one view contradicting another. In other words: "You are lying! No, I'm not!" Even if we were 99.999% sure evolution is real, there is the slimmest of chances still that creationism would occur, which is enough of a point for Mall. This is different from what Moozer needed to show more of, where one view contradicts itself. In other words: "I am lying!" Since we know here that whichever point is true, provable, or not, the person stating it is still contradicting themselves.
On this basis, Moozer would have my vote.
**HOWEVER**
If we wanted to go further into math, we would learn of Kurt Gödle. Kurt Gödle managed to demonstrate in his Incompleteness Theorems that there exist true statements in math that cannot be proven true. Using only math, he effectively managed to write a true statement stating, "This statement cannot be proven." Which upended countless mathematical assumptions at the time.
What I am getting at with this is that there does exist one niche spot in math that is in itself still up for contention which demonstrates even the slightest possibility for 'true contradictions'.
On THIS basis, if we truly wanted to cherry-pick for a single cherry in an entire field of cherry trees, there exists one way in which Mall may have grounds to say he won this debate.
My vote is for Moozer, but if we wanted to jump 1000 hurdles, there is one argument I see that Mall could still fight for.
I doubt this is what you are arguing, but I think that we should adopt a completely holistic approach to grading where the average student should be expected to get a 50 where getting a 90 or above is reserved for the most exceptional work.
Republic may be a bit too vague as many forms of democracy, such as my philosophy, could be considered a republic, but 'Presidential Democracy' or 'monarchy' may work.
Given that my philosophy has no examples, I will not include examples (Unless I bring up some side point that can be exemplified). However, you can bring up any example to help your argument. Anything that furthers one's argument is fair.
How will it be judged? It is up to me to convince the voters that my Democracy is better than yours. Simple as that. Of course, that is a steep hill to climb, but that's the fun of debate.
"A child has no business, has no concern about what they should do on their own. They never have to think about what should be decided outside of the default and because of it which would be what the parent tells them to do. Just replace the word "should" with "told". "
This seems like an intriguing debate topic. I'm going to start looking into this.
I am new to the website, so I'll just drop this question here:
If I post a debate, it gets accepted, but the other person never responds, am I able to repost the same debate to look for another contender?
"of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one's same sex".
It does not say 'Another person of same sex.'
It simply says 'people of one's same sex.'
If one is a person, and they show attraction to themselves, that surely qualifies.
Given:
- Masturbation is doing a sexual activity with oneself
- One is masturbating at their free will (They have an attraction to the act)
Therefore:
- Masturbation shows that one is sexually attracted to oneself.
- Masturbation is gay.
"of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one's same sex".
It does not say 'Another person of same sex.'
It simply says 'people of one's same sex.'
If one is a person, and they show attraction to themselves, that surely qualifies.
Given:
- Masturbation is doing a sexual activity with oneself
- One is masturbating at their free will (They have an attraction to the act)
Therefore:
- Masturbation shows that one is sexually attracted to oneself.
- Masturbation is gay.
Exactly as Bella3sp stated.
Pro (Me): This idea could be an ideal form of governing compared to our current ones.
Con: Another style of government is better.
Given that I maxed out the description limit, it wouldn't hurt to slide in some rebuttals/extra details here:
- Unemployed people. They will still be able to vote for the Administrative Commission, however, they will be barred from voting in other commissions.
- People with multiple jobs. The one they have more education in will be in use, or if that is not possible, the one they had longer. In the rare scenario that they get the jobs at the same second, they will be randomly chosen. They will be chosen randomly so that people can't exploit it by having economics as a side gig even though they're a teacher, and they choose to be able to vote in economics for whatever bad intentions. I'd imagine that if someone managed to get both jobs approved at the same time, they are up to some shady things.
- Voting will be swapped to rank-choice voting because it's simply better.
- Local governments will follow the same principle. Federal law has rule over local law, however, local commissions can impeach their related federal commission if 2/3rds of the local commissions agree (Like if the board of education from New York, California, Utah, etc. voted to impeach a commissioner from the Federal Commission of Education).
But does the dad actively keep up their daughter’s job? Does the dad still have direct control on the daughter’s spending and have the decision weather the daughter is fired?
Sure, the dad *could* be deserving of something in return for the time they catered to the daughter.
However, most find that the love and joy they spend with their daughter is enough.
The analogy does bring up a good thought process, very nicely thought, but it is a rather limited connection to the point.
It is likely a good idea to elaborate on what I mean by most deserving before you post a mislead argument and are unfairly punished for it.
For roughly 600 people are billionaires (likely more from when the data was released).
Such a small group I do believe have more money than called for.
Another definition of most I would like to put out there is those who exploit loopholes (subtle glare at Trump).
I do however have some redeeming arguments for these billionaires, but, for the most case, they are open grounds for you to shoot them down.
May you please define evil? I'd be interested in debating this.
Thank you for casting a vote on my behalf. As a thank you, I am going to start a roach farm as you suggested. I am hoping to provide maybe 5% of the world's meat, milk, and egg supply by 2026.
Quick correction to comment #4:
F(x) should equal 1/X, not X/0
Oops!
Given that I cannot vote, I will cast an unofficial one here in the comments. I suppose my one vote will have some weight if nobody else votes.
In my interpretation of what Moozer intended by saying a "Christian God", he means "A god as described by Christianity" (As described by the bible, effectively).
Moozer then argues that something cannot be defined by contradictions.
We can look to math to help us understand this: anything divided by zero is explicitly 'undefined'. Mathematicians will refuse to define X/0 solely because contradictions lie in any definition.
F(x)=X/0
Lim X of F(x) -> 0 (-) = -infinity
But, Lim X of F(x) -> 0 (+) = +infinity.
A contradiction.
After reading the arguments, it is apparent that Moozer successfully proved this. Namely, the death of Judas sold the point for me.
However, I will note that demonstrating evolution is pretty much a certainty would not suffice as evidence for this argument. This is due to the nature of the contradiction, where it is one view contradicting another. In other words: "You are lying! No, I'm not!" Even if we were 99.999% sure evolution is real, there is the slimmest of chances still that creationism would occur, which is enough of a point for Mall. This is different from what Moozer needed to show more of, where one view contradicts itself. In other words: "I am lying!" Since we know here that whichever point is true, provable, or not, the person stating it is still contradicting themselves.
On this basis, Moozer would have my vote.
**HOWEVER**
If we wanted to go further into math, we would learn of Kurt Gödle. Kurt Gödle managed to demonstrate in his Incompleteness Theorems that there exist true statements in math that cannot be proven true. Using only math, he effectively managed to write a true statement stating, "This statement cannot be proven." Which upended countless mathematical assumptions at the time.
What I am getting at with this is that there does exist one niche spot in math that is in itself still up for contention which demonstrates even the slightest possibility for 'true contradictions'.
On THIS basis, if we truly wanted to cherry-pick for a single cherry in an entire field of cherry trees, there exists one way in which Mall may have grounds to say he won this debate.
My vote is for Moozer, but if we wanted to jump 1000 hurdles, there is one argument I see that Mall could still fight for.
I doubt this is what you are arguing, but I think that we should adopt a completely holistic approach to grading where the average student should be expected to get a 50 where getting a 90 or above is reserved for the most exceptional work.
Question on what the incentive behind the second rule is?
Apologies I am relatively unfamiliar of website. Who are they/may you send me a link to the debate you are referring to? Thank you
Mall on his way to redefine his stance after each argument
And I intend to use ethical arguments as well, so there aren't restraints for contender.
No we're not here
This could spark a nice debate. I want to see how a con would argue against this one lol.
Perhaps if you don't know what the words mean, you could read the description that helpfully provides the definitions.
Republic may be a bit too vague as many forms of democracy, such as my philosophy, could be considered a republic, but 'Presidential Democracy' or 'monarchy' may work.
Given that my philosophy has no examples, I will not include examples (Unless I bring up some side point that can be exemplified). However, you can bring up any example to help your argument. Anything that furthers one's argument is fair.
How will it be judged? It is up to me to convince the voters that my Democracy is better than yours. Simple as that. Of course, that is a steep hill to climb, but that's the fun of debate.
"A child has no business, has no concern about what they should do on their own. They never have to think about what should be decided outside of the default and because of it which would be what the parent tells them to do. Just replace the word "should" with "told". "
This seems like an intriguing debate topic. I'm going to start looking into this.
Also, I'm new to the website, so if any formatting is strange, please tell me.
I am new to the website, so I'll just drop this question here:
If I post a debate, it gets accepted, but the other person never responds, am I able to repost the same debate to look for another contender?
"of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one's same sex".
It does not say 'Another person of same sex.'
It simply says 'people of one's same sex.'
If one is a person, and they show attraction to themselves, that surely qualifies.
Given:
- Masturbation is doing a sexual activity with oneself
- One is masturbating at their free will (They have an attraction to the act)
Therefore:
- Masturbation shows that one is sexually attracted to oneself.
- Masturbation is gay.
"of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one's same sex".
It does not say 'Another person of same sex.'
It simply says 'people of one's same sex.'
If one is a person, and they show attraction to themselves, that surely qualifies.
Given:
- Masturbation is doing a sexual activity with oneself
- One is masturbating at their free will (They have an attraction to the act)
Therefore:
- Masturbation shows that one is sexually attracted to oneself.
- Masturbation is gay.
Exactly as Bella3sp stated.
Pro (Me): This idea could be an ideal form of governing compared to our current ones.
Con: Another style of government is better.
Also, apologies for the unusual formatting. This would be my second debate posted ever, and the first one was years ago.
Given that I maxed out the description limit, it wouldn't hurt to slide in some rebuttals/extra details here:
- Unemployed people. They will still be able to vote for the Administrative Commission, however, they will be barred from voting in other commissions.
- People with multiple jobs. The one they have more education in will be in use, or if that is not possible, the one they had longer. In the rare scenario that they get the jobs at the same second, they will be randomly chosen. They will be chosen randomly so that people can't exploit it by having economics as a side gig even though they're a teacher, and they choose to be able to vote in economics for whatever bad intentions. I'd imagine that if someone managed to get both jobs approved at the same time, they are up to some shady things.
- Voting will be swapped to rank-choice voting because it's simply better.
- Local governments will follow the same principle. Federal law has rule over local law, however, local commissions can impeach their related federal commission if 2/3rds of the local commissions agree (Like if the board of education from New York, California, Utah, etc. voted to impeach a commissioner from the Federal Commission of Education).
…? They do… that’s, sort of how the stock market works.
But does the dad actively keep up their daughter’s job? Does the dad still have direct control on the daughter’s spending and have the decision weather the daughter is fired?
Sure, the dad *could* be deserving of something in return for the time they catered to the daughter.
However, most find that the love and joy they spend with their daughter is enough.
The analogy does bring up a good thought process, very nicely thought, but it is a rather limited connection to the point.
That is not what I mean.
I just wanted you to understand what I meant by ‘most’ in order to avoid unnecessary argument and a waste of time.
Also so I’m not forced into an awkward position of dismissing one of your arguments merely by saying, “that is not what I meant.”
Please keep the comments relevant.
But it should be noted the owner handles many of the things for the worker — such as logistical problems.
Not to mention creating the job in the first place for the worker.
It is likely a good idea to elaborate on what I mean by most deserving before you post a mislead argument and are unfairly punished for it.
For roughly 600 people are billionaires (likely more from when the data was released).
Such a small group I do believe have more money than called for.
Another definition of most I would like to put out there is those who exploit loopholes (subtle glare at Trump).
I do however have some redeeming arguments for these billionaires, but, for the most case, they are open grounds for you to shoot them down.
Perhaps this debate is about the definition of deserving rather than whether the top 1% earned their money with truth.
Perhaps you are demanding something to be how it already is.