Technically yes they aren't. But it's kinda hard to debate which one is better than the other if either of us can say "well if it doesn't work we can always have the second one as a backup". It makes every argument non-unique.
Definitions are half of any debate. And if you think there's no recourse to someone defining something in a way that makes the debate unfair then you're not thinking particularly hard. That being said, I dont plan on defining something unfairly.
The amount of quality ethics memes are real low. Good luck with that one.
That being said, I may give this one a read over.
I don't know what I'm more tilted by - the blank google doc or the fact Con misspelled Kritik.
Technically yes they aren't. But it's kinda hard to debate which one is better than the other if either of us can say "well if it doesn't work we can always have the second one as a backup". It makes every argument non-unique.
Actually, nevermind. I'm not worried.
That doesn't really answer my question. Look at how I organized my use of sources. I'd like for you to do the same, or at least something similar.
Bruh, what are any of these sources backing up? Which link is for which argument?
Definitions are half of any debate. And if you think there's no recourse to someone defining something in a way that makes the debate unfair then you're not thinking particularly hard. That being said, I dont plan on defining something unfairly.
I mean, I haven't decided on what my exact arguments will be. You can certainly argue the opposite.