_id
stringlengths 36
39
| title
stringlengths 1
1.16k
| text
stringlengths 1
106k
|
|---|---|---|
6b75a4f4-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00002-000 | This is not a debate. | Replies 1. " In a real debate, people don't go off topic like that. " I disagree. " in his next argument entertained my comments about tarantulas, by disagreeing with me that they were scary and monstrous. Therefore we were having a conversation and not a debate, because I couldn't even stick to the topic" Pro contends that the definition of debate it "And, finally I would like to remind my opponent that the definition of a debate is having opposing viewpoints. " Thus, since I disagreed with what pro said we had opposing views. So this is a debate. Whether or not it is a debate over a specific topic is irrelevant. 2. "There has been a pathetic lack of clash in this non-debate" You can vote Con. Pro agrees that there has been some clash, so this is a debate. " As I said earlier, once you take all the arguing out of a debate, it ceases to be a debate but instead becomes a discussion. " Problem: We've been bickering over definitions this entire debate, thus we have been arguing. " In a debate, 2 people have opposing sides and try to prove why their side is right. I failed to do that in this non-debate" Pro doesnt prove this claim.3. "However, he was not disputing the subject at hand( whether or not this is a debate) he was simply disputing my off-topic rambling about tarantulas and other irrelevant stuff " Talk about irrelevant! You've defined a debate as "having opposing viewpoints", and I disputed your statements. Your definition proves that this is a debate. Who cares if it's about the subect at hand? "Notice how my opponent is making an attempt to argue with me, but I have not made any effort at all in this non-debate" Problem: You've made statements, I've disagreed. Opposing viewponts=debate. Also of note:My definition was dropped by my opponent, extend that. My evidence of this being a debate was dropped, extend that. |
6b75a4f4-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00003-000 | This is not a debate. | I am now going to provide reasons why this isn't a debate 1) In my previous argument, I strayed off topic and starting saying a bunch of random things about tarantulas, usernames, and pictures of ducks. In a real debate, people don't go off topic like that. I want to point out that my opponent in his next argument entertained my comments about tarantulas, by disagreeing with me that they were scary and monstrous. Therefore we were having a conversation and not a debate, because I couldn't even stick to the topic 2) There has been a pathetic lack of clash in this non-debate. As I said earlier, once you take all the arguing out of a debate, it ceases to be a debate but instead becomes a discussion. In a debate, 2 people have opposing sides and try to prove why their side is right. I failed to do that in this non-debate. During both Round 1 and Round 2, I didn't challenge anything my opponent said, I simply started talking about tarantulas, and said "I agree with everything my opponent says" 3) My opponent says that he has disputed everything I said, therefore this is a debate. However, he was not disputing the subject at hand( whether or not this is a debate) he was simply disputing my off-topic rambling about tarantulas and other irrelevant stuff that nobody cares about. Also, my opponent did dispute what I said, yes, but the disputing and the arguments are one-sided. Notice how my opponent is making an attempt to argue with me, but I have not made any effort at all in this non-debate. And, finally I would like to remind my opponent that the definition of a debate is having opposing viewpoints. Since I have been continuously insisting that the voters vote for my opponent, and my opponent also wants them to vote for him/her, then this can not be a debate because we both want the voters to vote for thett3. I therefore affirm the resolution that "This is not a debate. " Vote Con. I look forward to my opponent's reply. |
6b75a4f4-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00004-000 | This is not a debate. | " I mean, they LITERALLY look like little beasties." No they dont they're cool!!!!!! " They have too many legs" No trust me, having 8 legs rules. " and they're all hairy and gross." I disagree." I had a dream when I was little that there was this tarantula, and it started out with 8 legs, but as time went by the amount of legs it had doubled, until there was nothing but a tangled mass of hairy legs. Ever since then, I acquired a hatred for tarantulas and just spiders in general." You're making tht up."By the way, how did you come up with your username? What does "thett3" mean?" It's based off something I called myself when I was a small child. "Oh yea, I forgot about that interaction we were having that isn't a debate." Is so!! "I agree with everything my opponent said" I said earlier (R1): "This is indeed a debate. " So vote Con. ". My opponent is an astoundingly intelligent woman" I'm not a woman! I'm a guy!!I have disputed everything my Opponent has said.This is a debate.More evidence:" chesslvr is debating thett3: This is not a debate.58 minutes ago"" chesslvr wants to debate the following topic: This is not a debate.1 hour ago"" chesslvr's Debates"" 1 Debate" http://www.debate.org... |
6b75a4f4-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00005-000 | This is not a debate. | The duck in your picture is really cute. Don't you hate tarantulas? They look absolutely monstrous. I mean, they LITERALLY look like little beasties. They have too many legs, and they're all hairy and gross. I had a dream when I was little that there was this tarantula, and it started out with 8 legs, but as time went by the amount of legs it had doubled, until there was nothing but a tangled mass of hairy legs. Ever since then, I acquired a hatred for tarantulas and just spiders in general. By the way, how did you come up with your username? What does "thett3" mean? Oh yea, I forgot about that interaction we were having that isn't a debate. I agree with everything my opponent said Vote Con. Don't vote for me. My opponent is an astoundingly intelligent woman, who has come up with such solid, undisputable arguments, that I can not even challenge them. I look forward to my opponent's reply. |
6b75a4f4-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00006-000 | This is not a debate. | Why this is a debate(i)My Opponent concedes to all my points in an attempt to show that this is not a debate because no dispute is happening. The problem with this is that my arguments proved that this was a debate. (ii) Secondly, my opponent states: "I would first like to point out that my opponent is right about everything, except his definition of a debate. Not only did my opponent not provide any sources for this so-called definition, but it is not correct."I think my definition is perfect, and better than all of hers. You have to vote con, my definition is 10 times better.(iii) "My opponent then says that buttons such as "Report this Debate", "Do you like this debate", and "No comments have been posted on this debate" prove that it is a debate. I suppose he's right. He will get no argument from me." Vote Con.(iv)"Notice how, because I have not challenged any of my opponent's points, and I agreed that it IS a debate, and my opponent also thinks it's a debate, it therefore really isn't a debate, because there is no clash." Problem- The resolution is "This is not a debate" you are taking Pro. You can't argue that it is a debate or else your position is self contradicting. (v)" Another thing I would like to point out is that my opponent does not have the following things in his opening argument: a value, contentions, and a criteria. Since these are all crucial parts of a debate, this can't be a debate." Did so. Look closer!(vi) "Everything he says is right." I'm female. |
6b75a4f4-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00007-000 | This is not a debate. | This should be interesting. I am new to this website, so don't have too high expectations of me. I would first like to point out that my opponent is right about everything, except his definition of a debate. Not only did my opponent not provide any sources for this so-called definition, but it is not correct. Dictionary. com defines debate as, and I quote, "a formal contest in which the affirmative sides and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers" Another definition says "a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints. I wholeheartedly agree with my opponent that this in fact a debate, because we have opposing viewpoints. One of us is arguing that this IS a debate, and one of us is arguing that it ISN'T. We have opposing viewpoints, so this must be a debate. My opponent then says that buttons such as "Report this Debate", "Do you like this debate", and "No comments have been posted on this debate" prove that it is a debate. I suppose he's right. He will get no argument from me. Notice how, because I have not challenged any of my opponent's points, and I agreed that it IS a debate, and my opponent also thinks it's a debate, it therefore really isn't a debate, because there is no clash. The whole point of debating is to argue on something, and I'm not arguing with anything he says. Another thing I would like to point out is that my opponent does not have the following things in his opening argument: a value, contentions, and a criteria. Since these are all crucial parts of a debate, this can't be a debate. I look forward to my opponent's reply. Please vote for him. Everything he says is right. |
6b75a4f4-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00008-000 | This is not a debate. | This is indeed a debate. Pro hasn't defined debate, so I'm going to.Definition of debate: A form of interaction on debate.org that can appear on the first page, not the forums or a privaste message. Heres some evidence: I am shown these things when looking at this page:" Report this Debate"" Do you like this debate?"" This debate has 8 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.""No comments have been posted on this debate."" Debating Period" |
6b75a4f4-2019-04-18T18:38:43Z-00009-000 | This is not a debate. | This is not a debate. Please accept this debate if you want to argue that it indeed is a debate. The guidelines are as follows: 5 rounds, 5 hours(altogether) to argue, and 5,000 characters. Good luck :) |
1ab843d2-2019-04-18T13:33:26Z-00000-000 | Con Will Not Forfeit First | the only person to be first and last to forfeit in this debate, thats me, i con one can set a limit to the amount of children they want.. therfore the first can easily be the last |
1ab843d2-2019-04-18T13:33:26Z-00001-000 | Con Will Not Forfeit First | Yes you did forfeit, and I do agree with what you say about last coming after first. However you are not the last one to forfeit nor the first to forfeit; you are the ONLY person to have forfeited. There was no other forfeit before or after your own, meaning you can't be first to forfeit. A parent with one child might say 'he is my first kid' to express he wants more kids. The parent may even say 'he is my last kid' to express he doesn't want another kid. However by expressing his feelings in this way he'd cause other more rational people to think he has other children, because last comes after first, and first comes before last. |
1ab843d2-2019-04-18T13:33:26Z-00002-000 | Con Will Not Forfeit First | forfeit is not a race, i am the last to forfeit in this debate to last comes after first i did forfeit |
1ab843d2-2019-04-18T13:33:26Z-00003-000 | Con Will Not Forfeit First | Con has forfeited, and probably now thinks he has forfeited first, however it was not a race. In order for someone or something to come first; someone or something must come second. Thus, the only way my opponent can forfeit first is if I forfeit afterwards. I will not forfeit, therefore Con will not forfeit first and my statement is true |
1ab843d2-2019-04-18T13:33:26Z-00004-000 | Con Will Not Forfeit First | i forfeit |
1ab843d2-2019-04-18T13:33:26Z-00005-000 | Con Will Not Forfeit First | I agree with the statement "Con will not forfeit first". Rules: must have completed a min of 10 debates, and be ranked as good or better than me |
b2dc0801-2019-04-18T19:00:23Z-00000-000 | Whether or not the prophecies in the bible can be used as evidence for the existence of god | Here are the two main argument which my opponent makes, everything I have written below these two arguments are small details, furthermore I argue that my opponent hasn't visited the link I gave him: . http://therefinersfire.org... To prove this I will only use arguments that can come from a website I've just given. 1. The Prophecies Came to Pass logically Here he argues that because of the Christian leaders this prophecy came to pass quite naturally. I argue that when this prophecy was written there was nothing logical, normal or probable about it. As one can see here: . http://therefinersfire.org... Furthermore I don't see an alternative to a logical fulfillment with the exception of an extravagant miracle (which was probably what the prophet imagined would happen). An extravagant miracle can be anything from all Jews teleporting to Israel to something involving flying unicorn with its tail on fire ! !! 2. Prophecies are timeless. Here my opponent argues that the Bible prophecies are timeless however thats not true as you can see here: . http://therefinersfire.org... Some of these prophecies are very precise and must be fulfilled in a certain amount of time. Some of these prophecies must be fulfilled in the right order. The theme of me regretting for not building a cumulative case is very vivid in this debate but I realize that I don't need to have this to win. Furthermore its obvious that my opponent hasn't even visited the lousy website I presented which funnily enough contains enough information for me to win this debate. The website that won this debate: . http://therefinersfire.org... Because of Cons obvious narrow mind (Didn't visit my website) I urge a Pro vote. Vote Pro Below are some other points refuted but this debate hangs on whatever the previous two points are valid. Time: "I willingly admit that he had no idea how it would happen or that he could even fathom that it was possible for it to happen the way it did. " No one would make a prediction unless one sees at least a small possibility. " the first segment of Pro's argument is nullified" No because you never addressed the most important parts of this fact. "I was merely offering a logical explanation based on what is known" While ignoring the Bible and God as a possibility consideration. " I have not denied the power of prophecy" One can't predict things the Bible predicted without God though it could be a one big coincidence. However that would be an irrational conclusion. Edgar Cayce: If we reject the deserved criticism: . http://www.intuitive-connections.net... I still argue that the return of the Jews is still less likely considering the place and time the prophet was when he predicted this. " There is no evidence that these prophecies came directly from god" If this is untrue then the prophets lied and if the prophets lied, there is no reason to believe the prophets which would make the prophecies untrue. However the prophecies have been fulfilled hence it cam from God. Modern Prophets: Because of the amount of rounds I have been given, Ill debate under the assumption that these modern prophets never made a mistake nor is there any correct criticism. How does that make the Bible prophecies, likely or even possible when predicted ? Again I feel sorry for not building a cumulative case but your notion even with my one prophecy is ridiculous. The final Paragraph: "With this information you see that the nations with Christian leaders set it in motion" You have ignored the many reasons why this prophecy is unlikely even with the Christian leaders which I have given in the previous round. " It is up to my opponent to dispute these facts " I laugh at that, you're the one who provided a bias view of these modern prophets. I thank you for reading this despite it not being necessary :). |
b2dc0801-2019-04-18T19:00:23Z-00001-000 | Whether or not the prophecies in the bible can be used as evidence for the existence of god | Somehow my opponent thinks that I inferred that Hosea knew about how Israel would be re-instituted, but I never said anything of the sort. I willingly admit that he had no idea how it would happen or that he could even fathom that it was possible for it to happen the way it did. All he said was that it would happen. Therefore, the first segment of Pro's argument is nullified. As to the second segment, where he requests that I provide evidence to the claim that the active world powers intentionally made the prophecies come true, it is nearly impossible to prove what was going on inside the head of the world leaders at the time. My saying what I did about the governments was not me claiming that was exactly why and how it happened, I was merely offering a logical explanation based on what is known. I will, however provide what evidence I can that led me to such a conclusion. Perhaps I should have been clearer that I was merely explaining a natural. logical explanation as to how the prophecy came true. I just thought that it would be inferred due to the fact that I have not denied the power of prophecy, I have just denied that such prophecies come from God. While it is true that the prophecies from the ancient civilizations came from math and astronomy, I also used Edgar Cayce as a reference and his prophecies were nothing like that and probably more unpredictable than Hosea's (such as the stock market crash of 1929). The prophecies themselves are not the basis of this debate, it is whether or not they can be used as evidence of god. There is no evidence that these prophecies came directly from god. There is no difference between biblical prophets such as Hosea, Daniel, and John the Revelator or more modern day ones like Ray Bradbury and Edgar Casey except the time period in which they lived. The reasons that I came to the conclusion that it was prophecy causing reality are as follows: 1. The primary countries that were involved in making the re-institution of Israel as a nation were the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. 2. The leaders of those countries were Harry S. Truman (U.S.A.), King George VI (U.K.) and Stalin (U.S.S.R.) 3. President Truman was a Southern Baptist, King George was Anglican/Episcopalian, and Stalin, who though commonly thought of as an atheist, was actually Christian. This is revealed in an interview with his daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva Stalin. (Link #3 below if you want to verify) 4. The USA and the UK were two of the first countries to sign Israel into independence from Britain, and the USSR agreed three days later. With this information you see that the nations with Christian leaders set it in motion. Therefore the conclusion I drew about how the prophecy came to pass is quite logical, but none of that really matters since I said myself in the description that I admit the prophecies were accurate. What I dispute is that they can be connected to God other than the fact that the prophets lived during the time those books of the bible were written. The biggest argument I encounter with this subject is that none of the prophecies are wrong, so let me address that fact. The biblical prophecies are timeless. For a prophecy to be proved wrong, there has to be a time limit on it. Without some kind of time-frame the world can go on forever and still be waiting on it to come true. If I make a prediction that we will create a virus that destroys mankind and say nothing more, then millions of years later it will still not be proved wrong unless the world ends. On the contrary, if I say the virus in question came from trying to cure AIDS then when AIDS is actually cured without a killer virus I would be proved wrong. It is this strategy the biblical prophets used to maintain 100% accuracy, since the only real time-frame given is the end times. Starting with the Rapture, then the Tribulation, the Great Tribulation, and finally the Millennial Kingdom. Since they all fall into the category of "end times" then they will never be proven right or wrong as long as the human race continues. In closing, the biblical prophecies cannot be used as evidence for the existence of God because they are set up to never be proven wrong as explained above and because prophecies and prophets have been around all throughout history and are not inclusive to the bible. It is up to my opponent to dispute these facts and show why and how the prophecies can be accredited to God. Below are the sources for the reasons I gave for the conclusion about Hosea's prophecy. 1. http://www.nndb.com... 2. http://www.adherents.com... 3. http://wiki.answers.com... |
b2dc0801-2019-04-18T19:00:23Z-00002-000 | Whether or not the prophecies in the bible can be used as evidence for the existence of god | Because I don't have to address the prophecies my opponent has shown to win, I wont (I was simply testing if you're rambling in the first place). Though I'm strongly unsatisfied with what you've presented. "Why" should be partly explained in the further paragraphs. Time: Cons argument fails when one considers the background of the the writers. For example Hosea was born before Jesus was. He had no idea that America existed and one must remember in the times he lived something like electricity or even visiting Europe was almost inconceivable. There is no doubt that the "how" question couldn't be answered in his times nor could be answered by the generation which followed and so forth for a long amount of time. I suppose he thought that it would be done by some extravagant miracle. Explanation: "The American and Western European governments knew about the prophecy and took it upon themselves to make it happen." For non-believers this is needed furthermore this is a great statement hence some strong evidence would be needed. Not only you have to prove that it was encouraged but that it was also strongly supported. The evidence for the contrary is found in the BBC website. I must remind you that I'm not talking about the relationship USA and Israel share now but we're talking about the times when it was established, some time before and after. The Odds when accepting what my opponent said as true: Let BBC do the explanations for me: http://news.bbc.co.uk... also: http://www.suite101.com... I feel a bit of resentment for not building a cumulative case but this shouldn't hinder me much. It is my stance that the return of the Jews is extremely improbable and couldn't have been predicted by "mathematics and astronomy" especially by a man living over 2000 years ago. The more prophecies one includes the more obvious this becomes but I think that this one prophecy is more than enough. |
b2dc0801-2019-04-18T19:00:23Z-00003-000 | Whether or not the prophecies in the bible can be used as evidence for the existence of god | Very well, I will provide my opponent with the requested examples and sources, but I will limit it to three of them so as not to take too much time. 1. Well known author Ray Bradbury, in his book Fahrenheit 451 (1953), painted a mental picture of a future world with eerie similarities to the one we live in today. First off, he spoke of banks having automated tellers that were in operation 24 hours a day. Secondly, several of the homes had wall televisions similar to the hanging plasma TVs we have today, and some highly expensive homes even have full-size wall TVs nearly identical to the ones in Bradbury's book. Finally the book spoke of voting via the television such as is done today on various reality shows. 2. http://www.edgarcayce.org... is a summary of many of Edgar Cayce's prophecies. 3.http://forums.abrahadabra.com... is a similar collection of prophecies as above, but from the Mayan civilization. Concerning my opponent's argument about the return of Israel as a nation and the Jews' return, my rebuttal is simply that it is a perfect example of prophecy causing reality. The American and Western European governments knew about the prophecy and took it upon themselves to make it happen. The same could be said of the Jews' willingness to return. They knew it was supposed to happen, so they went along with it. The predictions were made in the Old Testament which, as I'm sure my opponent is aware, is almost exactly the Torah, word for word, so the Jews had easy access to the same prophecy. |
b2dc0801-2019-04-18T19:00:23Z-00004-000 | Whether or not the prophecies in the bible can be used as evidence for the existence of god | Can prophecy be used as evidence for the Christian God? Absolutely. Now lets dive into my opponents objections: 1.there are too many accurate prophecies from too many other sources I need sources and examples. 2.the ancient civilizations used perfectly natural means to predict the future such as mathematics and astronomy. The Bible contains unpredictable types of prophecies. For example: The return of the Jews to Israel is the key to bible prophecy. Most other endtime prophecies depend on the Jewish people living in Israel and not scattered amongst the Gentiles. Israel has not existed as a nation since hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Israel was established on May 15, 1948.Ain't that something? It goes even deeper as shown by this website: http://therefinersfire.org... My opponent has provided no further arguments hence Ill leave it at that. |
b2dc0801-2019-04-18T19:00:23Z-00005-000 | Whether or not the prophecies in the bible can be used as evidence for the existence of god | I do not believe the prophetic accuracy of the bible should be used as evidence for the existence of god simply because there are too many accurate prophecies from too many other sources. From ancient civilizations such as the Mayans, Sumerians, and Egyptians to more modern day prophets such as Edgar Cayce. The ancient civilizations used perfectly natural means to predict the future such as mathematics and astronomy. They noticed patterns in the world and were able to use these patterns to make incredibly accurate predictions about any number of subjects. It is for these reasons that I think, while the bible does have accurate prophecies, that the accuracy should be attributed to the prophets themselves, not god and not the book that happened to feature them. |
345051d-2019-04-18T12:05:42Z-00007-000 | Masterful and What50 are the same person | Hahahaha. "I can foresee his argument." Right, thanks for that Nostradamus. You foresee nothing, you lamebrained cunt. I won't be making any links to any debates, I have no idea who this Airmax faggot is and I certainly don't "demand" anything from little men like you. I simply take what I please, and demolish anything left in my wake. Both your and What50's debates are terribly conceived anyhow, I really don't give a wank if you're the same person or not. You're both equally as poor, so it certainly wouldn't surprise me. I've just heard a few people saying you're the same person, so I wanted to see who this "Masterful" was for myself. As evident, I wasn't exactly bowled over with amazement. What's this? http://www.debate.org...A rap battle starring Masterful himself? This should be good.I'm prepared to consume the room,With my rap that was created in a metaphorical womb, where the words grew and the lyrics kicked, designed to inflict and end the verbal conflict.As the water breaks, the ground shakes, forcing open the hole that gapes. Right...The hole that gapes? Just kill me now. You want to write people's English literature homework? Seriously? Is that why in your opening address (If anyone has English literature homework that involves persuasive, descriptive or short-moderate story writing, then send me a message and I can write it for you. What makes me eligible to do your homework:) you forgo an Oxford comma where there clearly needs to be one and omit a question mark after a question? How tragical. Just stick to your shitty debates buddy, you and What50 distinctly deserve each other. Dumb cunt. |
345051d-2019-04-18T12:05:42Z-00008-000 | Masterful and What50 are the same person | Hello, My opponent is making a claim and therefore has the burden of proof. He can't conceivably be allowed to make claims that accuse users of breaking the terms of service without having undeniable evidence. I can foresee his argument being built around a series of links to debates, where me and what50 have both posted, he will then resort to demanding proof of my innocence. Airmax has the ability to see the I.P address of any user, it's likely that he has already checked to see if me and What50 are the same person. This alone puts a serious hole in my opponents claim, as this suggests Airmax finds me innocent. What does my opponent know that Airmax does not? I am eager to see. |
345051d-2019-04-18T12:05:42Z-00009-000 | Masterful and What50 are the same person | I think the title of the debate speaks for itself. Good luck to Masterful/What50, you'll need it cunt. |
345051d-2019-04-18T12:05:42Z-00000-000 | Masterful and What50 are the same person | True. Although you don't need to leave, you could try logging on while sober and see how that works out for you? |
345051d-2019-04-18T12:05:42Z-00001-000 | Masterful and What50 are the same person | You're right. I forfeit. You are the true master. I shall hence force resign from this website and leave it to the professionals. Clearly I am outmatched. You're too good for me. |
345051d-2019-04-18T12:05:42Z-00002-000 | Masterful and What50 are the same person | You showed me your dick? My work terminal blocks that website, so I never saw that image. If you did actually post a link to a penis, then your account will be getting banned, it wasn't a smart move on your behalf. I don't think what you're doing counts as trolling, it's the equivalent to someone logging on while they're drunk and spewing out profanities and shite. I had a look at some of your previous debates, got a slight smirk out of me at one point, but your wit isn't consistent. You then had a debate with a 13 year old girl who actually put you in your place- http://www.debate.org... |
345051d-2019-04-18T12:05:42Z-00003-000 | Masterful and What50 are the same person | Ohhh Masterful - I showed you my dick. Answer me!! |
345051d-2019-04-18T12:05:42Z-00004-000 | Masterful and What50 are the same person | Clearly my opponents ramblings have come to a decisive end. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I am slightly disappointed by the lack of substance he has inputted, especially seeing as he is the instigator of this debate. Perhaps 5 rounds was too much for him. |
345051d-2019-04-18T12:05:42Z-00005-000 | Masterful and What50 are the same person | https://m.imgur.com... |
345051d-2019-04-18T12:05:42Z-00006-000 | Masterful and What50 are the same person | So let's take a look at the sort of person i'm meant to be debating- http://www.debate.org... In that recent debate he begins by saying- "hi guys its me" Cringe. "yeah so this is just because I really feel like we just need to kill some people. I think its finally time" This guy just oozes logic and wit. Such a display of intelligence. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ My opponent has conceded this debate by failing to provide an argument that would support his claim. It's not like I expected much from him after I saw his previous debate. Any serious attempt at proving his claim would have resulted in him providing links to debates. How else could someone attempt to prove such a claim? However it's clear he doesn't posses the mental capacity to support any claim at all, that's why he's resorted to an argument based around profanities. "I simply take what I please, and demolish anything left in my wake" That's something a 12 year old child would have said. I'd like to thank my opponent for making me cringe, I feel embarrassed for him, but I also understand that mental disorders are rife in this day and age, therefore I am sympathetic towards his. I'd like to point out that my opponent has also demonstrated an inability to understand metaphors and has resorted to insults. This is why you don't debate children. You won't find anything substantive in his argument. He's only interested in attacking myself, rather than my position. Advice to my opponent. Airmax is the site moderator, I wouldn't call him a "faggot." In fact, using a homophobic slur in a derogatory manner is a ban-able offence. To conclude My opponent has already stated that he doesn't know me, yet has decided to engage in a very hostile manner. Being needlessly hostile towards people you have only just met, is demonstrating an inability to connect with people, this is a sign of autism and I think we should consider that when my opponent makes his next argument. We need to help him through this and support him the best we can. Mental disorders are no joke. |
e6221b0a-2019-04-18T18:54:34Z-00004-000 | Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X | We as Christians assert- 1)That we are inside of very complex computer systems for by an intelligent designer. . http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2)We are organic technology so far advanced as to be mind-boggling. DNA/RNA is the very computer code that is the operating system of all life. 3)We also assert that we are contained in a giant system governed by matter, anti-matter and technical physical laws designed by this vast intelligence. 4)This system was designed by a far more advanced Mind. It is quite apparent at some point in the distant past that the technological level was so vast as to place us into this organic computer system we now reside in, that now restricts and governs us. We will leave this simulator and go to the "real" world when it is over. What you are claiming could happen to us as a species due to computers, Christianity claims was already asserted, a long time ago. Again your one small and limited model of existence has very little explanatory power compared to the Christian religion. Any reasonable person should prefer the Christian religion to your model. ****** As to your statement that there is no proof of God…. You are bucking the majority view and personal experience of the entire planet. Burden of proof rests on your minority view… that the majority of the planet believes in things with no proof despite their protestations to the contrary. As to proof I offer 3 clear evidences of God's existence: 1)I have personally met Jesus Christ. I can affirm the below experiences due to my own meeting of Jesus. 2)A countless number of individuals that have also met Jesus Christ even at this time. A>Muslim confirmation that the conversions are indeed happening and their concern level (See video, ending gives full interview etc. .) . http://www.youtube.com... B>Personal visions of Jesus Christ is the main cause of the conversions (end of video and you can go to countless websources) . http://www.cbn.com... C>These visions are so clear and across countless languages, countries and cultures all affecting these muslim believers forcing them to expose themselves to death and persecution from muslims. 3)History is replete with Personal claims of meeting God – Hence religions. This is clearly something beyond a case of perpetual indigestion happening in Africa and all of History. To address…. I am not sure what this rant was meant to be…. . <<>>> Clearly my opponent has "assumed" I have made assumptions. Bullet 1- I have addressed above Bullet 2 – Satan Exists. I can arrange a formal introduction. Bullet 3 – Heaven exists. Not an assumption but a confident expectation. When this simulation ends… I confidently expect that Jesus whom I have met is telling the truth. Bullet 4 – "Knows" Again not an assumption, since indeed a knowledge has been asserted however small… completely shows this is an antagonistic jibe. " And what dear sirs are those assumptions based on? Two thousand year old scripture. " I believe that this statement is a great point to show that my opponent does not have a valid education or ability to determine the veracity of the Christian Faith. 1)Scripture is over 3,500 years old. 2)A Christian's personal experience utilizing the information contained within the scriptures is what brings knowledge and wisdom. 3)I have shown above that Personal experience is a key guidepost for determining what is true. Three others would be Logic, Scripture, and Tradition. I again assert that a viewpoint that is so limited in its explanatory power is a far less plausible than a model that can be verified by personal experience and has far more explanatory power. Christianity would be preferred over my opponent's model. |
e6221b0a-2019-04-18T18:54:34Z-00005-000 | Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X | So, we are debating the simulated hypothesis versus Christianity; Excellent. INTRODUCTION My opponent claims that the Bostrom’s simulated hypothesis (hereon known as BSH) only supports his Christian beliefs. This is clearly utter nonsense. Here is Bostrom’s theory as I understand it: P1: Human technology is constantly improving. >Artificial Intelligence in Video Games [1] >Astrological Simulations [2] P2: The workings of the human brain may be simulated by a sufficiently advanced computer. >Blue Brain project [3] [4] C: Humans of the future may be able to simulate multiple Universes containing conscious humans If this is true, they will simulate so many universes that it is more likely we are a simulated universe than in the actual universe humans began to exist in. “I think we both realize the deductive flow, presented in your source above, is clearly incomplete for a deduction.” But of course, thus the wording of my resolution; which is more plausible your religion versus a philosophical simulated universe? ARGUMENTS ASSUMPTIONS The assumption of the hypothesis is clear: Human technology (or even Alien technology I suppose) will reach a point where consciousness can be simulated. I don’t think this is a ridiculous assumption. I have the wonderful ability to look back on the last 74 years and see a dramatic advancement in computer technology in a very, very short time (in comparison to Human history). I can’t even imagine what the next 74 years will have in hold for us. I hope this doesn’t come across as an argument from ignorance; I am certainly not saying “computers will definitely reach this level”. I am arguing plausibility, which brings me to… The assumptions of Christianity (made by my opponent): God exists… Satan exists… Heaven exists… And most importantly... That he KNOWS something about these things. And what dear sirs are those assumptions based on? Two thousand year old scripture. No scientific evidence remotely suggests God exists. No sound philosophical argument comes close to confirming that the Christian god or your particular denomination of belief is the correct one. You have the wonderful ability to look back on 2000 years of Christian history, the advancements of Science in the last 400 years and the mythology of civilisations that existed BEFORE Christianity and you have the audacity to suggest that a theory about computer simulations SUPPORTS your Bible? Egad. CONCLUSION The Simulated Hypothesis is clearly more plausible than Christianity. We know computers exist We know technology is advancing every day We are working on simulating the Human brain right now. The resolution is sound and I look forward to my opponents response. SOURCES [1] http://www.cs.uni.edu... [2] http://www.gps.caltech.edu... [3] http://bluebrain.epfl.ch... [4] http://seedmagazine.com... |
e6221b0a-2019-04-18T18:54:34Z-00006-000 | Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X | He appears to be saying in your source: 1)Computers can simulate entire worlds 2)The worlds can create fully conscious people Conclusion: We live in a simulated world This argumentation only supports the Christian Religion. Though, I think we both realize the deductive flow, presented in your source above, is clearly incomplete for a deduction. Positive Argument 1- Relevant synopsis of Christianity: The Christian claim is that our souls are in a "limited world" in a "limited environment" under many restrictions to "play" out the Conflict Court Trial between Satan and God to determine which of the two is Truly Merciful, Just, Kind, Generous etc.., basically a better God. (Book of Job: Ezekiel 28 etc..) We are in a temporary simulation to play out the Angelic Conflict/Kingdom Conflict/Heavenly Court Trial to forever determine the Character of our God and the Character of Satan. This court conflict needed an arena where suffering, pain and death existed as it does not exist in Heaven. Hence the creation of this universe for a short time. Conclusion: This theory would only serve to reinforce the Christian Belief system that the next life is the "real" life…. The only "real" thing that will be carried out of this world will be our souls. The Christian Model is far more explanatory and more fully understands the mechanisms and inner workings of the "earth simulation" proposed by this person. In the same way, Christianity affirms Plato's "Cave Theory" which is apparently a root of this man's model. The difference in this mans model is that he proposes computer simulators as evidence. Christianity affirms this "real world" evidence for understanding simulations. We would also utilize our current court system to understanding how this "simulation" is working and the rules that are governing it. This shows that my opponent's model is only a small fraction of the explanatory power that rests within the Christian worldview. This model only addresses a small aspect of existence and is completely encompassed within Christianity and several thousand years ago proposed by Christianity. Additionally nothing about this system refutes Christianity but only further supports Christianity as a complete and accurate worldview. |
e6221b0a-2019-04-18T18:54:34Z-00007-000 | Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X | I recently watched a debate featuring Sam Harris and he mentioned this theory. .. This is the wikipedia page on Nick Bostrom, a Swedish philosopher who works at Oxford university: . http://en.wikipedia.org... This is a brief overlay of his theory: . http://en.wikipedia.org... I propose that his theory is more plausible than any religion of my opponents choosing. They may only select one specific religion and post a link to a brief overlay. With each other's positions understood, we will begin our arguments in round two and conclude in round four. |
e6221b0a-2019-04-18T18:54:34Z-00000-000 | Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X | I will abstain from another round. In the first round my opponent requested an equal number of rounds. Above we have had those equal number of rounds. |
e6221b0a-2019-04-18T18:54:34Z-00001-000 | Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X | REBUTTALS “My positive claim for meeting Jesus is entirely scientifically falsifiable. If you follow through on my exact process and do not encounter Jesus you have falsified my personal claim. These claims are entirely scientific. ” I can’t make any sense of this line. You’ve had two rounds to describe this ‘process’. It’s now too late, as I won’t be able to respond to it. “…you have entirely invalidated psychiatry, which is a scientific field whereby people who do not experience schizophrenia etc… but listen to testimonies and recognize clear patterns that are not falsified. They do not deny those experiences even when they encounter liars/fakes. ” Again, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I haven’t invalidated anything. Psychiatry is about treating mental illness. If you truly believe you’ve met Jesus of Nazareth, I highly recommend you go and see one. “Only recently have brain measuring technologies been developed that verify known psychiatric anomalies and patterns in patients. ” This I understand, yet I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with all this and you haven’t disproven my statement. Unsubstantiated eye witness accounts don’t equal evidence. “To compound that, to state "because I have not personally experienced "X"… "X" does not exist" would be the pinnacle of stupidity. ” I completely agree. However, I don’t simply base my non-belief on the fact that I haven’t had a religious experience. . . “We have never personally experienced or done even a fraction of the scientific experiments on record. However we "trust" the testimony of those scientists and those that review that science. ” That’s because I am very familiar with the scientific process; The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. " I am also familiar with the scrutiny that the scientific community puts new theories through. Christianity deals with the supernatural and cannot be subjected to scientific study. ‘God’ is unpredictable; he can do ANYTHING, he doesn’t need to abide by the proven laws of science. This is enough to be confident in my non-belief. “You are claiming to have run down those testimonies and have proven they are inaccurate? ” I don’t need to run through the testimonies. It would take my entire life time. Elvis died on the toilet in 1977. Thousands of people attended the open casket funeral. That is enough for me to find sightings of him post-death as UNPLAUSIBLE. “Regarding UFOs” If even a small percentage of the people are telling the truth and have genuinely been abducted by aliens, there are two possibilities: The Alien presence is part of a massive cover-up. The Alien technology is so great that we cannot detect them with any of our equipment. Even if either of these is true, my position (Aliens have not visited Earth) is still the most plausible. ‘If I meet a snakeoil salesman I do not state "all medicine is fake! "’ Straw man much? You are failing to grasp my entire point on your eyewitness accounts. I don’t claim that they are false, but that they are unsubstantiated and therefore cannot be used as evidence to support your argument. Please understand this as it’s VERY important. “I believe you may have missed the concept that a superior model for a world simulation would be bio-technology as we currently do legitimately live in. ” You haven’t shown a SINGLE shred of evidence to support the bio-technology model! “Second, that model would need a precisely designed world that allowed for the sustainability for that model. ” Why? Me: "I have made my case; everything that is needed for BSH to be plausible exists in the natural world. " My opponent: “I do not agree as a Theist with this. ” But you must agree, because all that’s needed for my model to exist is a computer (which already exist) and the steady increase of the abilities of computer technology (which can be observed). Your model requires… God. “I have shown that Christianity is both scientifically verifiable and I have also shown that it is technologically more plausible. ” WHERE? !? !! ? “Christianity has the added value of a claim that goes well into History…” Do you really want to get into the value Christianity has added to the history of mankind? “…and has been tested and verified by a multitude of theologians and scientists both in aspects of understanding the designer of this world simulation and the scientists understanding of the natural workings of the simulation. ” Yet the debate about religious always comes back to faith. CONCLUSION So here it is; the final round. Allow me to summarise: Present day computers are already roughly simulating both Human lives (i. e. The Sims) and Universes (i. e. Spore). IBM is currently working on simulating the human brain with super computers. With the observable increase in the potential of technology, it is reasonable to assume that computers of the distant future will be able to simulate both human consciousness and Universes with all the bells and whistles of natural physics. Given that once this is possible, there will be multiple instances of simulated Universes, it is more likely that we are now in one of these simulated Universes than in the actual Universe, given simple probability. My opponent proposes that Christianity is more plausible than the BSH. He does this claiming that there is more explanatory power in God. He supports the existence of God with vague claims of eyewitness accounts and claims that bio-technology (whatever that is) is a better model. This is clearly false and I have repeatedly refuted his evidence, while he has never (and is unable to) refute mine. |
e6221b0a-2019-04-18T18:54:34Z-00002-000 | Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X | He is attempting to sidestep the resolution. It is his viewpoint vs. mine "Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X His theory can be contained within mine and be entirely true but mine may still win the opposition due to more accuracy in discussing our current existence and our "next" existence. I do not state that my opponent's model is 100% accurate but that the concept is quite contained within Christianity. Christianity asserts a bio-tech simulation as superior and far more plausible, when we consider that we are indeed currently contained within a biological "world". I will address my opponent's statements one at a time: << From my opponent: "I've never heard a Christian propose such a thing, ever. I suppose it's a comparable analogy, but surely most Christian DON'T think we're being simulated on the HDD of God's computer…" I am excited that this debate has brought growth to my opponent. Analogies are ways we describe new truths in easy ways to understand. 1 Corinthians Chapter 4 the Apostle St. Paul represents us as "earthen vessels" containing the truth from God. The world is blind and cannot see God but they can see the information contained within us. Plato considers all things of this world as mere shadows of the next. These are descriptions of a concept that is quite apparently true. These descriptions are for the age and culture in which they are used. Computers are very much a part of our culture. In 2,000 years we may be discussing (inbound made up word) "sibu" as the code of life. << My Opponent States: "You're committing an "Argumentum ad populum" fallacy and speaking for the entire planet, which you clearly have no right to do. " And "I'm sure you believe you have, however I highly doubt you were quick-thinking enough to get a picture taken. Your eye witness account doesn't equal evidence. " And "Countless numbers of people have also claimed to have seen Elvis. Countless numbers of people have claimed to have been abducted by UFOs. A billion unsubstantiated eye witness accounts doesn't equal evidence. " To reply as these are all variations of the same concept. Address 1) My positive claim for meeting Jesus is entirely scientifically falsifiable. If you follow through on my exact process and do not encounter Jesus you have falsified my personal claim. These claims are entirely scientific. Additionally by these statements that I have quoted you above, you have entirely invalidated psychiatry, which is a scientific field whereby people who do not experience schizophrenia etc… but listen to testimonies and recognize clear patterns that are not falsified. They do not deny those experiences even when they encounter liars/fakes. Only recently have brain measuring technologies been developed that verify known psychiatric anomalies and patterns in patients. Address 2) If a socially crippled person was arguing with another socially crippled person (neither capable of Love) and one states "Love is experienced by everyone around the world, there must be something to it…. " What should the other reply? Love is unverifiable to an onlooker from a hard concept, a picture of love cannot be provided, only the acts resulting from love, but it is quite empirically evident based on "personal experiences" and the outside accounts/patterns of those experiences. I might doubt had I not had that experience but to deny its existence would be… completely feckless, to state it should not be counted as evidence is beyond feckless and well into the realm of scientific incompetence. To compound that, to state "because I have not personally experienced "X"… "X" does not exist" would be the pinnacle of stupidity. We have never personally experienced or done even a fraction of the scientific experiments on record. However we "trust" the testimony of those scientists and those that review that science. The first reasonable assumption is that the way of processing data is limited in some fashion, not that all others are limited in some fashion. When you are in the minority odds are you are the "unenlightened" one. Address 3) Regarding Elvis, I have not personally run down the testimonies on Elvis sightings and cannot speak to those. You are claiming to have run down those testimonies and have proven they are inaccurate? I believe If you were Elvis you would want to disappear too… Regarding UFO's. . I am not so foolish to discount that these experiences as utter nonsense and that they should not be put to a scientific test. I also am willing to give a lot of time and scientific grace as people try to understand things that defy the laws of physics. Things that are outside of our physical laws may or may not be measurable by a scientific means constrained by our Laws of Physics. I am also not so foolish to believe that liars and money makers will not show up on the scene and curve any scientific results. If I meet a snakeoil salesman I do not state "all medicine is fake! " << My Opponent States: "And for all these personal meetings and apparent evidence, you still have Ray Comfort claiming that the banana is evidence of God. You still have Jews, who reject your prophet. You still have Muslims, who reject the divine heritage of Jesus. You still have Asian philosophy, making up the belief system huge part of the Earth's population. " Address 4) If Jesus is true then conversely so is his enemy. His enemy has created many religions that have supernatural abilities and power. They are entirely valid as to have functional power. Christians reject them due to the source of their powers and abilities. Conversely, if the belief and practice generates consistent and reliable power it will retain its followers. << My opponent States: "I strongly disagree. First of all, I've explained why your personal experience doesn't add anything to the plausibility of your argument. Second, I don't understand how you equate more explanatory power to more plausibility. I think quite the opposite is true. Your almighty creator explains EVERYTHING. He's a God of the gaps. But you need FAITH to believe it. You don't need faith to believe my hypothesis, you just need to look at the natural world that exists right now, in front of you. " Address 7) I believe you may have missed the concept that a superior model for a world simulation would be bio-technology as we currently do legitimately live in. Second, that model would need a precisely designed world that allowed for the sustainability for that model. To avoid any particulars of how "you think it should be designed" is irrelevant as the "creator" of this designs Will governs what has actually been created. This is clearly a superior model in its explanation of a simulator. Christianity has the claim for that superior model. You can even pinch yourself to show you exist in it LOL. <<< Concept 5 My opponent concludes: "I have made my case; everything that is needed for BSH to be plausible exists in the natural world. Even a theist must agree with this. If information technology continues on the path that it is already on, we will eventually reach a point where we can simulate a realistic universe with conscious human beings. " I do not agree as a Theist with this. I would need to see a system of bio-technology (as I have made the case for the claim of designer and bio-tech) as a superior and more plausible model. I have shown that Christianity is both scientifically verifiable and I have also shown that it is technologically more plausible. Christianity has the added value of a claim that goes well into History and has been tested and verified by a multitude of theologians and scientists both in aspects of understanding the designer of this world simulation and the scientists understanding of the natural workings of the simulation. |
e6221b0a-2019-04-18T18:54:34Z-00003-000 | Bostroms Simulation Hypothesis versus Religion X | REBUTTALS “We as Christians assert- 1)That we are inside of very complex computer systems for by an intelligent designer. . http://www.sciencedaily.com...... 2)We are organic technology so far advanced as to be mind-boggling. DNA/RNA is the very computer code that is the operating system of all life. 3)We also assert that we are contained in a giant system governed by matter, anti-matter and technical physical laws designed by this vast intelligence. 4)This system was designed by a far more advanced Mind. ” I’ve never heard a Christian propose such a thing, ever. I suppose it’s a comparable analogy, but surely most Christian DON’T think we’re being simulated on the HDD of God’s computer… “It is quite apparent at some point in the distant past that the technological level was so vast as to place us into this organic computer system we now reside in, that now restricts and governs us. We will leave this simulator and go to the "real" world when it is over. ” That’s apparent is it? o. O; “Any reasonable person should prefer the Christian religion to your model. ” We are not arguing about what a reasonable person would prefer to be true(clearly everyone wants to go to Heaven and see all the pet cats they've had), we’re arguing about what is more plausible. I’ve already provided ample evidence to support my assertion; in fact, you seem to agree that the hypothesis is not only plausible, but is reality. Plus one to me? “You are bucking the majority view and personal experience of the entire planet. ” You’re committing an “Argumentum ad populum” fallacy and speaking for the entire planet, which you clearly have no right to do. “As to proof I offer 3 clear evidences of God's existence:” 1)I have personally met Jesus Christ. I can affirm the below experiences due to my own meeting of Jesus. " I’m sure you believe you have, however I highly doubt you were quick-thinking enough to get a picture taken. Your eye witness account doesn’t equal evidence. "2)A countless number of individuals that have also met Jesus Christ even at this time. " Countless numbers of people have also claimed to have seen Elvis. Countless numbers of people have claimed to have been abducted by UFOs. A billion unsubstantiated eye witness accounts doesn’t equal evidence. "3)History is replete with Personal claims of meeting God – Hence religions. " And for all these personal meetings and apparent evidence, you still have Ray Comfort claiming that the banana is evidence of God. You still have Jews, who reject your prophet. You still have Muslims, who reject the divine heritage of Jesus. You still have Asian philosophy, making up the belief system huge part of the Earth’s population. The really amazing thing is in that in all the eyewitness accounts of Jesus, Mary and God, they always look like the last image they saw. Surely Jesus didn’t really look like this: . http://sharpiron.files.wordpress.com... “To address…. I am not sure what this rant was meant to be…. .” I’m sorry about the rant, but I was a bit taken back that instead of arguing that my theory was more implausible than yours (like you’re supposed to), you not only said it was plausible but that Christians assert the exact same thing. Come on dude. “I believe that this statement is a great point to show that my opponent does not have a valid education or ability to determine the veracity of the Christian Faith. ” LOL, I’m not claiming we live on God’s hard drive. Perhaps you should re-read your Bible. “1)Scripture is over 3,500 years old. ” You know very well that I was talking about the New Testament; you know – the part of about Christ. “2)A Christian's personal experience utilizing the information contained within the scriptures is what brings knowledge and wisdom. ” Knowledge? In the Bible? ! Perhaps about morality, if you were to study the culture that the scripture was written in and have a deep understanding of the metaphorical meanings of the verses. If you only had knowledge from the Bible, you wouldn’t know how to use the computer you’re on, unless Jesus rocked up and showed you how to use it: . http://1.bp.blogspot.com... “3)I have shown above that Personal experience is a key guidepost for determining what is true. Three others would be Logic, Scripture, and Tradition. ” I agree about two; personal experience and logic. The rest is debatable. “I again assert that a viewpoint that is so limited in its explanatory power is a far less plausible than a model that can be verified by personal experience and has far more explanatory power. Christianity would be preferred over my opponent's model. ” I strongly disagree. First of all, I’ve explained why your personal experience doesn’t add anything to the plausibility of your argument. Second, I don’t understand how you equate more explanatory power to more plausibility. I think quite the opposite is true. Your almighty creator explains EVERYTHING. He’s a God of the gaps. But you need FAITH to believe it. You don't need faith to believe my hypothesis, you just need to look at the natural world that exists right now, in front of you. CONCLUSION I have made my case; everything that is needed for BSH to be plausible exists in the natural world. Even a theist must agree with this. If information technology continues on the path that it is already on, we will eventually reach a point where we can simulate a realistic universe with conscious human beings. My opponent is making some kind of case; I’m not exactly sure what kind yet. He seems to suggest that because he and many other people have seen Jesus and truly know that God exists, that Christianity must be true, therefore his proposal is more plausible. He has also completely sidestepped his need to actually address my hypothesis; instead blatantly saying that he agrees that it is plausible. Ok, you do that. |
fde08828-2019-04-18T19:23:06Z-00000-000 | Ultimate Team War | I would like to once again extend my sincerest gratitude to Pro for not only providing me with this opportunity, but for putting up with the light-hearted nature in which I addressed this debate. I also forgot to officially and retroactively appoint PoeJoe+1 my honorary Vice-Team Leader. His role is only to observe. There is not much to add in this final post. Team Pro did not offer any new victory strategy, and did not show how his previous ones were viable. I will not offer any new arguments since Pro will be unable to respond. I will stick to refuting his: ======= Pro Victory Strategy 1: Pro suggests that his team could search for my characters indefinitely, eventually resulting in their capture/death. However, with a population of 7 billion (and growing), I will continue to assert that they would be up against extreme odds, especially since Team Con can move around freely and stealthily within that population. This allows them to stealthily pick off Team Pro, who must be out in the open in order to seek out my characters. ------- Pro Victory Strategy 2: If a forcefield can only be broken by a supernova then it follows that Team Pro cannot place a bomb of any sort inside the forcefield. They must either put it in before they put up a forcefield, giving any of my characters time to move outside of the range of the forcefield and/or bomb; or they must take down the forcefield to put the bomb in, giving my characters time to move outside of the range of the forcefield and/or bomb. -------- Pro Advantage Strategy 1: As I mentioned in Round 4, the only thing Team Pro had going for him was borg assimilation. I offered several methods of defeating the borg collective or their ability to assimilate. Some of these were not addressed by Pro, therefore we must assume them to be valid. ====== Con Borg Collective Strategy 2: Pro seems to be correct in his assertion that the death of the Borg Queen does not defeat the borg. She is merely replaced. However, he did not address the transmission of a pathogen to the Borg Queen, which then transfers to the rest of the Borg (as seen in episode 2733, which was properly referenced in round 4). Therefore, I have successfully offered a strategy for defeating the borg collective altogether, including their ability to assimilate (you cannot assimilate if you are dead). There are a number of ways to give her the pathogen. I will only mention the funniest: Naked31John is injected with the pathogen and sent to infect the Borg Queen. She is resistant to his repulsion because she is a borg (Pro continually asserted that the borg were immune to his repulsion ability). He successfully seduces her. In the course of their intimacy, she is infected with the pathogen. The pathogen spreads to the rest of the borg collective. Congratulations, som31john! Your first girlfriend! Included below is a picture of the happy couple: . http://www.debate.org... ===== CONCLUSION Team Pro failed to produce a viable victory strategy. On the other hand, I have shown how each character of Team Pro is able to be defeated and/or incapacitated. Therefore, I have won this debate. I have met my burden, while Pro has failed to meet his. |
fde08828-2019-04-18T19:23:06Z-00001-000 | Ultimate Team War | I assumed that the +381 thing was a joke. But seeing how this whole debate is kind of a joke, I thought it might fit in somehow. ======== Pro Victory Strategy 1 My team could search the planet for my opponent's team members. My team could then conjure storms on the earth, and keep moving them. Eventually, I'll hit one of my opponent's team members. They can't run forever! -------- Pro Victory Strategy 2 Team Con cannot just walk through a forcefield. A forcefield can be broken, but to break it requires at least a one-kiloton nuclear bomb (depending on whose forcefield it is; Invisible Woman's can contain a supernova). -------- Pro Advantage Strategy 1 The Borg have big guns on their forearms. They can track down Team Con and kill them one by one. Sure, Team Con can hide, but they cannot hide forever. Eventually, they will be found. Any of my victory strategies still applies if my entire team is assimilated by the Borg. ======== Durandal is not a person, and therefore cannot become a Borg. My original plan was for him to attach himself to the mind of the Borg collective. He could also get into some other computer, and would then survive if all the Borg were destroyed. So if all the Borg are destroyed, Durandal can still live. He could maybe get inside of LM's personal computer and use it to wreak havoc and drive LM insane. Or he could write a program that would cause LM's computer to explode while LM was touching it, and use the internet to transfer to a different computer, rendering him safe from the explosion. Or he could spread himself over multiple computers and just destroy the one. He could do the same for any of Team Con who had access to a computer. But if all of Team Con avoid computers, then Durandal cannot kill them and they cannot kill him, resulting in a draw. -------- Borg Collective Strategy 1 This made me laugh out loud. However, it will not work, no matter how funny. -I have defined the Borg in a specific way in round 1, and that does not change just because the writers of the Borg try to change it. -This hasn't been adequately defined, so it's really up to the judges. But my opponent's argument could be considered an invalid meta-argument, since in the realm of this debate the Borg "really" exist, and that fact cannot be changed by the writers who invented the Borg. -Another meta-argument: LM exists inside of this debate, while the writers exist in the real world. LM cannot jump outside of this debate. (Yes, LM is a real person, but we aren't talking about the real person during this debate. We are talking about a version of the real person.) -------- Borg Collective Strategy 2 a) No mere human can hack Durandal. b) Borg do not listen to humans unless I order them to. c) But the person's mental structure is completely altered. This would be unsuccessful. d) How do you find her? -After the Borg queen dies, she is merely replaced. The collective is not harmed in any way. [1] -Durandal, being a super genius AI, can take the place of the Borg queen in the case of her demise. This can be used as a backup system if the Borg queen cannot be replaced for some reason. -------- I request that my opponent not provide any new strategies in his next post, since I will be unable to rebut them. ======== I thank my opponent for this fun debate. Although it was not quite the debate I intended, it turned out very well. My opponent played very creatively. We are Borg. We have refuted your arguments. We still stand against your attempts at rebuttals. Resistance is futile. Vote PRO. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... |
fde08828-2019-04-18T19:23:06Z-00002-000 | Ultimate Team War | Pro questioned why nudity gives som31john a +381 female repulsion ability. Mostly to make people laugh. The '381' was an arbitrary number that I thought would give away that I wasn't being entirely serious. The nudity part should have tipped you off. ======= I will briefly respond to each Team Strategy. Then I will offer a few new Team Con Strategies focused on defeating the borg collective because Team Pro has relied solely on the borg's power of assimilation to save his players. ---------- Pro Victory Strategy 1: At worst, the fact that my team is spread throughout planet earth would lead to a draw (if none of my characters sought out Team Pro. The point here is that this is not a winning strategy. If Team Pro were all assimilated into the borg collective and then sat on the borg ship conjuring up storms then it would be impossible to locate my characters among the entire planet of earth. The only way for this to be a viable "victory strategy" is if Team Pro somehow possessed the power to destroy all of Earth. If they possess such a power then that really makes this entire team battle redundant, doesn't it? ---------- Pro Victory Strategy 2: If the Team Pro is unable to construct an impenetrable forcefield then this attack would not be very effective. Team Con could just walk outside of them. -------- Pro Advantage Strategy 1: As I have shown above, Team Pro has yet to come up with a viable victory strategy. The only thing he has going for him thus far is the borg's ability to assimilate the rest of Team Pro. This is illustrated by his falling back on this fact in every rebuttal of my victory strategies. Therefore, if I can come up with a viable way to destroy the borg and Team Pro does not offer a better viable victory strategy then I win this debate. If Team Pro cannot come up with a viable strategy but he successfully rebuts my strategy for destroying the borg collective then this debate should end in a draw. I wish him good luck in his final round. ======== I do not concede that none of my Victory strategies are viable. Since Pro has relied on the borg's assimilation ability in each rebuttal then I will suggest a few methods of defeating the borg collective (including an assimilated invisible woman, Cable, Magneto, and Durandal. If just one of these cannot be successfully rebutted by Team Pro then it can be tacked on to the end of any of my Victory Strategies resulting in a win for Team Con. ------------- Borg Collective Strategy 1: This one is my personal favorite. Logic-Master contacts the original writers who came up with the Borg Collective (Star Trek: The Next Generation); or he contacts the current trademark holder of their likeness. Logic-Master uses his debating power to convince them to a) write assimilation out of the Borg's ability; b) write in the death of the Borg Queen, effectively destroying the collective aspect of the Borg; c) write in the complete destruction of the Borg; or d) file a lawsuit against Team Pro for using their likeness without consent. ----------- Borg Collective Strategy 2: Find and locate the 'Borg Queen.' Since she is the source of the collective consciousness, her death removes the collective conscious. What would then be left is the defeat of each individual character. This could be done by: a) Askbob hacks into Durandal (who has been assimilated) and discovers the location of the Borg Queen. One or more of the group then commit regicide by melting off her organic components with 'Warp core plasma coolant' (http://memory-alpha.org... "First Encounter, paragraph 3). b) Logic-Master uses his superior logic to trick one of the borg into telling him where to find her. c) Brian Eggleston uses his superior charm to convince one of the invisible woman-borgs to tell him where to find her (assimilation is a synthetic implant, therefore assimilated characters retain their gender and species). d) Infect her with a pathogen (http://www.startrek-voyager.info..., episode 2377) which then speads to the rest of the borg. ======== Once again I would like to thank Pro for providing me with the opportunity to debate this topic and have a few laughs. I also thank him for putting up with me despite the fact that this was not the debate he intended. Bravo, Good sport. |
fde08828-2019-04-18T19:23:06Z-00003-000 | Ultimate Team War | Earth is a relatively neutral playing field, and my opponent's entire team lives there. So I thought it was a good place to start. I would argue that an environment can be neutral and still have metal. But if there was a much higher amount of metal than usual, that would give an unfair advantage to Magneto. However, Earth's levels of metal are pretty average. But in the situation that no metal is considered neutral, Magneto can still acquire metal. He can rip out a chunk of the Borg ship, which will then quickly regenerate. "1. I will note here that this fact itself gives some31john a +381 boost to his female repulsion ability." Why? ======== "Pro's destruction of debate.org's server does no damage to my team" Correct. It was only effective when I was assuming that Askbob drew his power from it. I'd have to destroy the entire internet. I will do so after the rest of my opponent's team is dead, so no one gets in my way. -------- Pro Victory Strategy 1 If my opponent's team hopes to defeat me, they will have to make themselves known eventually. And even if they don't, I can spend all the time I want searching for them. Then I can defeat them with the aforementioned strategy. -------- Pro Victory Strategy 2 -Invisible woman cannot make impenetrable forcefields, but hers are the strongest. Cable and Magneto can also create forcefields of considerable strength. -Invisible woman cannot be repulsed by Som31john if she is Borg. -------- Pro Victory Strategy 3 I concede this point, since it goes against rule 6. -------- Pro Advantage Strategy 1 -The Borg do not all become vulnerable to (1), because Borg do not generally care about inferior life forms. Besides, the 64,003 members of the collective could probably hold their own against LM until one of them can go and kill him. -They do not all become vulnerable to (3) for the same reason as above. -(5) already rebutted in round 3. ======== Con Victory Strategy 1 1. Invisible Borg is not afraid of Naked31John. 2. Durandal is capable of adapting to new problems. He's an AI. Modern viruses are far less sophisticated than future viruses, so Durandal should have no trouble defending himself. (I say "himself" because he has a male personality, but being AI he has no real gender.) 3. a) -Borg will ignore humans unless I order them not to. -There is a failsafe mechanism in which any Borg showing signs of emotion is disconnected from the Collective. b) See (a). -------- Con Victory Strategy 2 1. She can be assimilated, or Cable could use his intellect and willpower to help comfort her. Durandal and Magneto could also try to comfort her. I will admit that Borg are not very good at comforting people. 2. -I could order Magneto to continue arguing. He would be incapacitated, but so would RR so we would both be down one. -Magneto could be assimilated into the collective. -I could order Magneto to not even start arguing. (This order does not work on LM since LM can force people to argue with him, but the same tactic works on all my opponent's other team members.) 3. -Askbob does not have luring powers. I can simply order Cable not to go inside his mind. -Or Cable could be made a Borg. -But if both Cable and Askbob die, it could be a fair tradeoff. Cable plays no key roles in my victory strategies. And then I wouldn't have to destroy the internet. 4. a) First, Borg ignore humans. Second, Borg do not drink lemonade. They do not drink anything. They get power by plugging into their ship. b) This will not work for the same reasons as (a). But I like my opponent's style with #4. ======== It may take time, it may require that Cable be sacrificed, but inevitably, my team shall be victorious. Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! |
fde08828-2019-04-18T19:23:06Z-00004-000 | Ultimate Team War | I will note that I meant to respond to Pro's strategies but forgot for some reason. I will respond to them in this round, as well as responding to his rebuttals to my strategies. ======= I will begin by noting that Pro suggested the rule that the battle takes place on a neutral playing field, where no one has an immediate advantage. Therefore, the battle would have to take place where there is no metal located on the battlefield itself (Magneto's advantage). The only metal available would be provided by each character. On Team Pro that might include the borg collective, whatever container houses Durandal, or whatever metal is included in their clothing. Luckily for Team Con, all Con characters are completely nude[1]. As a result, Megneto has no metal nearby that could kill anyone unless he uses the borg collective (which would destroy the borg), or Durandal's unit (which would destroy Durandal. 1. I will note here that this fact itself gives some31john a +381 boost to his female repulsion ability. I will rebut Pro's strategies, then move on to defending my own. ====== Pro Incapacitation Strategy: Pro's destruction of debate. org's server does no damage to my team, since none of them gain their power from it, nor are they exclusively bound to it for attacks (Admittedly, this would incapacitate or even destroy PoeJoe+1 if I had chosen him. Unfortunately for Team Pro, I did not). Additionally, this strategy would earn Team Pro Leader MTGandP a permaban from Phil once the server was restored. ---------- Pro Victory Strategy 1: This strategy is too vague to offer a response. Pro agreed that it should be a neutral battlefield. Now he seems to be suggesting that the battlefield is all of Earth. If that is the case, then the distance between each character, and the near impossibility of Magneto locating each character among the 7 billion people on Earth would render the effect of an isolated natural disaster negligible. He would have to destroy the entire planet for guaranteed success - a power I don't think any of Team Pro's characters possess. If we are on a neutral battlefield, then the only metal available to Magneto is Durandal and the borg collective, as mentioned above - since the entirety of Team Con is completely in-the-buff, exposed to all the world, nude. That means that Team Pro would be killing two of his characters in order to kill two of mine - we are still even (3 vs. 3). -------- Pro Victory Strategy 2: The only one of those characters possessing the ability to place an impenetrable forcefield around anyone is the Invisible Woman. Fortunately for Team Con, Naked31John can easily repulse any attempt by the invisible woman to get near the group. -------- Pro Victory Strategy 3: Pro has not offered any logical reason as to why the borg could so easily assimilate my entire team. If they can do so at will, then that renders the point of such a battle useless, as well as rendering the rule on unlimited characters void. However, I will offer a rational as to why they would not. Ragnar Rahl, Askbob, and Som31John are all rabidly anti-conformists. They would never join any group or organization that emphasizes faceless, anti-individualist, conformist drones. -------- Pro Advantage Strategy 1: This strategy actually gives the advantage to Team Con. It consolidates Team Pro into one target (the borg collective) while simultaneously opening up the borg collective (including Magneto and Cable) to all the weaknesses of Magneto and Cable (see destruction of Team Pro points 1, 3, and 5). ===== I will note that I did not outline any specific strategy in Round 2. I showed how each of Team Pro's characters were susceptible to being incapacitated, assimilated, or destroyed. Due to the confusion caused by my posting strategies in this manner, rather than as victory strategies, I will not respond to Pro's rebuttals. I will save those for his rebuttals of my Victory Strategies, which I will provide below. ----- Con Victory Strategy 1: 1. Naked31John incapacitates the Invisible Woman by remaining near Team Con. She finds herself strangely unable to approach them by his mere presence. 2. Askbob hacks into Durandal's system and implants a virus that Durandal (being 500 years old and in the future) was not programmed to be protected against. 3. Since Pro argues that his response to all of Team Con's able and intimidating assaults is the assimilation of Cable and Magneto, the only thing left is to defeat the Magneto-Cable borg. This can be done in one of two ways: a) Brian Eggleston unleashes a harsh string of adjectives, which might appear similar to the following: "Look at those delightfully mindless, useless-as-a-toolbox, wheelchair-bound Captain Picards! " The 'Captain Picards' bit would prove to be too much for the Magneto-borgs, who would immediately become depressed. As the depression moves from borg to borg it grows exponentially, eventually becoming unbearable. Each of the 64,002 borgs unceremoniously commit suicide because they are drones and unable to think for themselves. b) Som31John, Ragnar Rahl, and Askbob - all confirmed /b/tards - team up to insult, deride, and otherwise mock the Magneto-borgs in a manner that is unsuitable for debate. org's Terms of Service. The fact that they are all naked and together only makes their attack more X-Rated (and thus more effective), oddly enough. -------- Con Victory Strategy 2: 1. The /b/tards, minus Ragnar Rahl, team up to hurl sexist, chauvinist insults at the Invisible Woman. The Invisible Woman exists the battle field, runs home, and cries herself to sleep. This effectively takes her out of the battle. 2. Ragnar Rahl coaxes Magneto into a debate about metals. As R&R is known to do, the subject subtly shifts to the use of metal as specie, which turns into the finer points and merits of pure capitalism over all other systems. These subtle changes, along with frustratingly misguided positions, keep Magneto simultaneously enthralled and frustrated. Finally Magneto realizes the uselessness of attempting to change R&R's mind and allows him to have the last word. Ragnar's 'Last Word' is so effective is causes Magneto's brain to hemorrhage. Blood drips from his ears first, then his nose and eye sockets. He chokes on his own blood just before he reaches total brain damage. 3. Askbob, once the Invisible Woman is dispatched, lures Cable into entering his mind. Askbob is effectively sacrificing himself for the team's ultimate victory, but it is quickly shown to be worth it. Cable becomes extremely emotionally distraught; so completely disturbed that when he is lured into a telepathy battle with Logic-Master he is easily overwhelmed. The resulting stress on his brain from Askbob's disturbed mental state and Logic-Masters mental barrage that his head explodes. 4. a) Brian Eggleston sets up a Comedy Stand (similar to a lemonade stand) and uses his super-comedy to incapacitate the borg. While the borg are laughing uncontrollably, they fail to notice the poison that had been placed in their lemonade drinks. There were no survivors. b) (alternate tactic) Brian Eggleston uses his advanced charisma to trick the borg into leaving their collective and joining his pseudo-religious cult. Because they are such automatons; and because they lack minds of their own they are easily convinced to drink the kool-aid. It is flavored 'red'. Plus, Brian gets rich. |
fde08828-2019-04-18T19:23:06Z-00005-000 | Ultimate Team War | I accept his compromise in terms of rule breaking (i. e. yes, Askbob can be on any website), and offer the following restrictions on my own team members. Borg: I never intended to have an unlimited number of Borg, though I did fail to specify how many I have. According to [1], the average Borg ship has 64,000 members so let's say I have 64,000 Borg. Cable: Though my source did not specify how many people he can interface with, let's say he can telepathically connect to 100 people at a time. In this sense, the Borg count as a single person since they share a mind. -------- Incapacitation Rebuttals 1. Invisible Woman, repulsed though she may be, will not be killed. She must be killed for my opponent to be victorious. How can she be killed when she is constantly running away from Som31? However, she does not have to be repulsed. Borg are neither male nor female [2], so all I have to do is assimilate Invisible Woman into my collective. 2. This only incapacitates Magneto, and does not kill him. However, I will accept that if Magneto is incapacitated by deep confusion, he is trivial to kill. But once again my solution comes from the Borg. Borg do not care about the thoughts of non-Borg, so if Magneto is assimilated, he will completely ignore Brian's rambling. It is also possible that a different Borg can come to Magneto's rescue. 3. I thought Askbob could only generate a new account after he died. Irrespective of that issue, my opponent has not taken into account the possibility that Durandal has a parallel processor. I mean, what kind of futuristic AI would not have a parallel processor? 4. So Askbob can provide lulz while creating many accounts? How is this possible? Anyway, the Borg a) are emotionless and b) ignore inferior creatures. 5. For the third time, the Borg are saving my team. Cable can be assimilated, and then ignore LM's debates. 6. Ah, I see what my opponent means by Last Word. But how can he force my team members to continue arguing? Why can't they just quit? Additionally, why can't they kill RR in between arguments or while RR is presenting his arguments? -------- Assimilation Rebuttals Preface: Each of these arguments goes against rule 6. However, I will rebut them just for fun. 1. But then she would run away from Som31, and would not have the advantage of the Borg on her side. Additionally, there are ways to prevent this. a) She could become a Borg, and Borg are not charmable. b) Cable could use his strong will and great intellect to hold Invisible Woman on his side. In fact, Cable could turn this around and use charm on Som31, Brian and RR. (It probably wouldn't work on LM. ) 2. One word: Borg. 3. How can Askbob hack into Durandal? Durandal is a much better hacker than Askbob. -------- Destruction Rebuttals 1. Wasn't this mentioned in the incapacitation section? 2. Ha! Durandal is five hundred years old, and is from the future. No virus known to man can penetrate his virus protection. Time travel eight hundred years into the future and bring back a hyperintelligent AI virus, and then maybe we can talk. 3. While debating, Magneto crushes RR's skull in with a large metal object. Or maybe Cable just punches RR really hard. 4. Once again, Borg. Besides that, she is not dead, just asleep. And she'll wake up if you come into her house to try to kill her. She sleeps like a soldier, that one. Also, Cable could use his immense willpower to help comfort and recapacitate* Invisible Woman. 5. a) Borg do not listen to petty humans. b) If any Borg shows signs of emotion, he is immediately disconnected from the collective [3]; while they are busy incapacitating one Borg, one of my other team members or another Borg comes up and kills Askbob and RR. *That's not a word, but it should be. ======== Conclusion ======== I have shown why my opponent's strategies will not work. But my opponent has not shown why my strategies will not work, probably because they WILL work. I look forward to the next round in this exciting debate. [1] . http://memory-alpha.org... [2] . http://memory-alpha.org... [3] . http://memory-alpha.org... |
fde08828-2019-04-18T19:23:06Z-00006-000 | Ultimate Team War | I will quickly respond to the allegations of rule-breaking. Then I will post a quick compromise. Finally, I will post my argument/response. ====== If I have broken rule 2 (no unlimited powers) then so has Pro. He has an unlimited borg army, a telepathic who can interface with an unlimited number of people simultaneously just to mention a few. I accept the restrictions only under the condition that he provide similar restrictions to his own characters. However, I will not accept the limit of Askbob that his new accounts created only apply to DDO. Askbob's internet exploits are not limited to DDO, therefore they should not be in this game either. ====== Incapacitation strategies: 1. Som31john incapacitates the invisible woman by shadowing her and then using his seduction technique to repulse her. If he is unable, for any reason, to shadow her, then he remains close enough to the region of the other players so that if she attempts an attack on them he may similarly incapacitate her. 2. Brian Eggleston keeps Magneto busy by issuing a string of adjective-laden insults that baffles Magneto's overly serious and analytical mind. Magneto is stuck trying to figure out the meaning of such things as "canoodling cretins that conspicuously cavort in crowded carriages", "cretinous catering conmen", "Right Wing Tabloid-Publishing Plutocrats", "ignorant, loud-mouthed gobshites" and others. 3. Askbob incapacitates Durandal by providing an unlimited number of new network accounts, one after the other, that Durandal must delete. 4. Askbob keeps the borg busy by providing lulz at the expense of Cable's physical appearance. The borg cannot help themselves from laughing hysterically and collectively. I mean seriously, have you ever seen a more obvious closet-case? (http://www.superherodb.com...) 5. Logic-Master lures Cable in to a telepathy battle. Once Cable gets inside Logic-Master's brain, LM debates him simultaneously on hundreds of topics and provides arguments from both sides. Cable is unable to withstand such mental pressures and his head explodes. 6. Ragnar Rahl can incapacitate all characters provided by Pro by locking them into a debate in which he never backs down. The arguments go on indefinitely. -------- Assimilation strategies: 1. Brian Eggleston uses his 'excessive charm' ability to convert the invisible woman from foe into friend. She is unable to resist his humorous charm. 2. Logic-Master lures Cable into a telepathy battle. He then uses his superiopr logic ability to debate and then convince Cable to join LM's side. 3. Askbob assimilates Durandal by hacking into his software and changing his allegiance to Askbob. -------- Destruction of the enemy: 1. Logic-Master lures Cable in to a telepathy battle. Once Cable gets inside Logic-Master's brain, LM debates him simultaneously on hundreds of topics and provides arguments from all sides and angles. Cable is unable to withstand such a mental barrage and his head explodes. 2. Askbob defeats Durandal either by simply deleting his software, or if that is not possible, by implanting a virus that wipes him out. 3. Ragnar Rahl locks Magneto into a debate about the uses of metal as specie. Ragnar Rahl takes the opposing position and Magneto is unable to escape the debate. Magneto attempts to use his superior logic capability, but R&R is unable to be budged from his position. Finally, realizing the debate is useless, Magneto allows R_R to have the 'Last Word.' The 'Last Word' is so effective that it causes Magneto's brain to hemorrhage. 4. Som31John and Askbob team up to degrade the invisible woman for the obviously sexist, subordinate role she symbolizes by being 'the invisible woman.' She exits the battlefield, goes home and cries herself to sleep. 5. Askbob teams up with Ragnar Rahl to deride one of the borg as a tool unable to think for himself. The depression becomes overwhelming for the borg. His depression infects the rest of the borg, because their mind is as one. They simultaneously end their own pathetic, unoriginal lives. ======= CONCLUSION I have shown that all members of Pro's team are susceptible to assimilation, incapacitation, or ultimate defeat. Any combination of these strategies on an individualistic basis could result in complete victory for Team Con. |
fde08828-2019-04-18T19:23:06Z-00007-000 | Ultimate Team War | ***** My opponent has broken several rules. -He broke rule 3 by giving exaggerated powers to real people. For instance, Logical-Master cannot outmaneuver any opponent, as is seen by his multitude of losses (. http://www.debate.org...). However, I will let this slide, since I think it'll be fun anyway. -He has given unlimited powers to all of his team members, which violates rule 2. This is a more important issue. Brian has unlimited making-people-laugh power, RR has unlimited last word power (whatever that is), LM has unlimited winning arguments power, Askbob is immortal, and Som31 has unlimited female-repulsion power. These unlimited powers, while seemingly obscure, can potentially be exploited to defeat any limited enemy. I have no hope of victory. For example, my opponent could simply use Brian to make all of my team members laugh hysterically and uncontrollably, and then kill them one by one while they are incapacitated. I have no defense against this ability, since Brian's powers are unlimited. I offer the following restrictions on my opponent's team members' abilities. I hope my opponent accepts them. Brian Eggleston: Anyone with a normal sense of humor can be incapacitated with laughter. Those with minimal or no sense of humor, or those with superhuman willpower, are not affected. Ragnar Rahl: He doesn't break any rules right now, but Last Word is undefined, and I don't like the "unbeatable" part. Logical-Master: Has an AQ (argument intelligence quotient) higher than any living human. His intelligence exceeds that of Professor X, Reed Richards and the like. Askbob: Askbob has the one-of-a-kind Lulz ability. This ability includes the power to insult, degrade, and otherwise mock any opponent to provide lulz to everyone around. He also has the power to regenerate an unlimited number of times as long as his "account" is "closed" in a location where he has access to the internet, and where he is capable of getting on the internet and creating a new "account" on debate. org. Som31john: Can repulse nearly any female, the exception being those with superhuman willpower. *** Irrespective of the rule breaks, I think this is going to be fun. ======== Team Member 4: Cable (. http://www.superherodb.com...) -Cable has great telepathy powers, and can "read thoughts across vast distances, and even interface with multiple minds, simultaneously. . . . Cable has also demonstrated the ability to project bolts or blasts of mental energy that are capable of easily killing or rendering unconscious another Human being. These bolts do not do physical damage. . . . Telekinetically, Cable is capable of very fine control over objects; he can disassemble complex devices explosively (separating every last component, such as screws, nuts, circuit boards, etc. ), and just as quickly and easily assemble complex devices. This also has enabled him to even attain awareness and control over objects as small as individual electrons in an atom. " He can also telekinetically lift several tons. -He can create forcefields which can hold against "the ground zero detonation of a 1 kiloton nuclear warhead (4.18 terajoules of energy from the heat, concussion and radiation effects). " He can mold these forcefields into virtually any shape. "He has displayed the ability to control the minds and even voluntary and involuntary bodily functions of sentient beings (such as other Humans)". -"Cable has proven very difficult to psychically assail, as he is very well skilled in shielding his own mind from mental-attacks (such as attempts to read, control or harm his own mind), and has been sufficient to protect himself from other psychics on the level of Phoenix (Jean Grey), Professor X and Marvel Girl (Rachel Grey). " -Due to an infection by a techno-organic virus, Cable has become a cyborg. He possesses superhuman strength (he can dead-lift several tons with his left arm, and considerably less (but still a lot) with his right arm) and a resistance to physical damage (enough to be immune to standard firearms). He also has extreme physical and mental endurance; he can perform at his peak for hours on end, and can go for extended periods without sleep. He requires only one hour of sleep to become fully rested. -Due to nerve enhancements, Cable has superhuman reflexes. He can dodge a bullet and even follow its path with his eye. -His cybernetic eye is capable of seeing a huge range of the electromagnetic spectrum. -Due to being cybernetic, Cable is weak against people like Magneto who can control metal. However, he can use his telekinetic powers to rapidly repair himself. -Cable is capable of flight. -He is highly intelligent, possibly superhumanly so. ======== Team Member 5: Magneto (. http://www.superherodb.com...) Magneto is capable of creating and manipulating magnetic fields, giving him great control over metal. He is powerful enough to significantly shift the earth's magnetic field and to move mountain-sized objects or larger. "He can completely assemble a complicated machine within seconds through his powers. He can erect magnetic force fields with a high degree of impenetrability protecting himself or others from almost any psionic, energy, or physical attack. " -Magneto is a brilliant genetic scientist who can alter human genes to turn humans into mutants (as defined in X-Men) and build artificial life forms. -"Magneto's suit is made of flexible metal bonded on the molecular level, providing protection against projectiles, energy weapons, and concussive force; his helmet also provides further protection from psionic attack. " -And he's notably skilled at hand-to-hand combat. ======== ======== Incapacitation Strategy 1: Destroy debate. org Server This is necessary to incapacitate Askbob. There are several ways to do this. 1. Magneto or Cable disassembles it. 2. Magneto destroys it by smashing it up. 3. Magneto, Cable or Invisible Woman surrounds it in a forcefield, disconnecting it from the internet. 4. The Borg blow it up. 5. Durandal gets inside it and either disables it or prevents Askbob from accessing it. ======== Victory Strategy 1: Magnacrush Magneto, safely away from earth on the Borg ship, creates a tidal wave, mass blackout, or some sort of natural disaster that kills each of my opponent's team members. ======== Victory Strategy 2: Bomb Field Magneto, Cable and Invisible woman each place a forcefield around one or more of my opponent's team members, then detonate a bomb inside of it. Both Magneto and Cable are capable of rapidly assembling bombs. If necessary, Cable can use his telepathy to help Invisible Woman fend off Askbob's, LM's, Som31's or Brian's psychological attacks. (Note that Cable already has resistance, and Magneto's helmet gives him resistance. ) ======== Victory Strategy 3: Assimilate The Borg assimilate each of my opponent's team members. If necessary, Durandal can get inside of the Bog (since Borg are part computer) to increase their willpower, i. e. immunity to my opponents' psychological attacks. Assimilation will not work on LM because of his mental abilities, but after the other four are assimilated it becomes easy to dispatch of LM. ======== Advantage Strategy 1: Self-Assimilate Since the Borg share all mental abilities, they can assimilate Magneto and Cable in order to acquire their powers. I will then effectively have an army of Magneto-Cable-Borg. This opens up more options for victory strategies. ======== I will possibly post more strategies in subsequent rounds. I look forward to my opponent's response. |
fde08828-2019-04-18T19:23:06Z-00008-000 | Ultimate Team War | For my Ultimate Team I select: BRIAN EGGLESTON (http://www.debate.org...) Brian_Eggleston has the super-comedic ability. He has the amazing ability to string together a number of adjectives that would otherwise not appear together in the same sentence. This gives him the power to make even the most serious minded individual laugh out loud. RAGNAR RAHL (http://www.debate.org...) Ragnar Rahl has the amazing ability of extreme-consistency. He is unswerving from anything he has ever made up his mind on, ever. He also has the unbeatable finishing move: the last word. No one has yet survived a Ragnar Rahl Last Word. LOGIC-MASTER (http://www.debate.org...) Logic Master has the power of super-debate. He can logically outmaneuver any opponent on any issue - even on issues he opposes himself. It is also rumored that he will top any leader board no matter how concerted the effort to unseat him. ASKBOB (Account Closed) Askbob has the one-of-a-kind Lulz ability. This ability includes the power to insult, degrade, and otherwise mock any opponent to provide lulz to everyone around. This includes friend and foe alike. He also has the power to regenerate an unlimited amount of times once his "account" is "closed." SOM31JOHN (http://www.debate.org...) Som Thirty-One John has the unbeatable power to repulse any female, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, or species. It is said that this power emanates from his extreme chauvinist ability, bitter attitude, and all-around sarcastic demeanor. It's your move, sir. Good luck, you are going to need it. |
fde08828-2019-04-18T19:23:06Z-00009-000 | Ultimate Team War | This is the Ultimate World Domination Team Battle. Each debater must assemble a team of five people, and the teams will then have a battle. Since we cannot have an actual real-life battle, each debater will explain why their team is superior during this debate. DEFINITIONS Team leader: One of the debaters here, i.e. me and whoever accepts the debate. Team member: One of the five chosen warriors. RULES 1. Battles take place in a neutral location in the real world. The environment may not favor any team member. Note: Because this neutral location exists in the real world, someone like Neo who relies on The Matrix for his powers will not have his powers. 2. No team member may have unlimited abilities in one or more particular areas. 3. Every team member must be either real or, if fictional, verifiably existent. No characters may be made up for the purpose of this debate. 4. In the case of a fictional character, the team member's abilities must be according to a specific canon as chosen by the team leader. 5. Every character has only the equipment that they generally have in the specified canon. For instance, Master Chief has a full set of armor, a pistol and an assault rifle. 6. Team members are absolutely loyal to the team leader, unless subjected to some form of mind control by the opposing team. For example, though Superman and Lex Luthor are enemies, they could still be on the same team. 7. The team leader may not directly participate in the competition, but may only facilitate. The role of the team leader is to explain what the team would do and why it would win against the opposing team. 8. Neither team can have a member in common. If one team leader chooses a team member, the other team cannot have that person. 9. No one may choose Chuck Norris, on the grounds that a) his powers are somewhat vague and b) he is excessively overpowered. (PRO unveils only three team members in round one for two reasons. The first is so that PRO does not get first dibs on choosing all five team members. The second is so that CON cannot gain an advantage by choosing team members that directly counter PRO's team. A 3/5/2 revelation order is as balanced as possible in my opinion.) Round 1: Rule specifications; PRO unveils first three team members, CON unveils all five team members. Round 2: PRO unveils his final two team members and explains why his team is better. CON also begins her arguments. Round 3, 4, 5: Arguments and rebuttals. ======== Opening ======== Team Member 1: Borg Collective The Borg are capable of assimilating almost anyone into their collective, the exception being someone with superhuman willpower. Borg cannot assimilate each other. Borg are also very quick to adapt. Whenever they are given some sort of input, they can adapt to it extremely quickly. For example, in one episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, the following events transpired: A Borg beamed on to the Enterprise and was shot with a phaser. Another Borg beamed on, and when the crew tried to shoot it, it was immune to phaser blasts. Borg are capable of becoming immune to an attack after they have seen it only one time; presumably, if they get their hands on a weapon, they can adapt to it and become immune without ever having to be hit by it. Due to a loophole in the rules (that I wrote =P), The Borg count as a single team member since each Borg in one collective is a single entity. Any knowledge is shared between all of them. "The Borg" means a single Borg collective, along with a Borg ship ("cube"). ======== Team Member 2: Invisible Woman (as seen in the Fantastic Four movie) Invisible Woman's forcefields are strong enough to contain a supernova, as seen at the end of the Fantastic Four movie. This is the equivalent of roughly 10^30 hydrogen bombs, +/- a few orders of magnitude. She is also capable of turning herself and others invisible. ======== Team Member 3: Durandal (Marathon series) http://marathon.bungie.org... Durandal is a highly intelligent AI. He is capable of teleporting human-sized objects. He does not necessarily exist within a computer (it's not actually clear where he exists), and since I don't know where he exists, I don't know how he can be killed. For the sake of fairness, let's assume that he exists within the Borg cube and will die if the cube is destroyed. But being a computer program, Durandal is capable of getting into any computer that he can come into contact with (via internet or LAN), and if he does so, that computer must also be destroyed. Also because he is a computer program, Durandal is capable of complete control over any computer he is inside of, assuming that the computer does not have another AI inside of it. In the case of competing AI, the victor will be worked out during the later debate. Durandal's intelligence, while limited, continually grows as the universe expands. ======== I will post my other two team members and begin my arguments in round 2. I eagerly await my opponent's response. |
a81c3486-2019-04-18T11:18:51Z-00000-000 | Rubik's cubes should be allowed in schools | but its so annoying especially when the teacher tries to teach |
a81c3486-2019-04-18T11:18:51Z-00001-000 | Rubik's cubes should be allowed in schools | Rubik's cubes should be allowed in school because if you like to fiddle with stuff, A Rubik's cube is great to fiddle with. |
b9257da0-2019-04-18T19:51:23Z-00000-000 | Everyone should learn to drive manual transmission cars at some point in life. | Alright, I will being my final round by attacking the few atrocious claims you have put forward and then moving on to the 6 points. "There are benefits for some, but not everyone. Blind people wouldn't benefit from learning how to drive a manual transmission car, for instance. In fact, they would be a danger to others on the road." >>This is a new point in your round 2 thus I have no choice but to answer your claim. As much as I hate new points in my final speech...... We should teach blind people to drive if only so that they may feel just as capable as other individuals. I however agree when you say that they would be a danger to others, thus we will teach them to drive but not allow them to actually do so. Onto the points. 1. You say perhaps it would have been a better idea if my girlfriend had worn a helmet. This is true, however what I am stating is the fact that learning how to drive a manual was just another safety precaution. You also state my phone may have been a better choice, and while I also agree with that, you have conceded the point. That being, driving a manual transmission can save yourself and others if all else fails. =) 2. My second point was avoiding the consequences for speeding. You obviously do not condone such an action as it is breaking the law. However breaking the law in itself is not always a bad thing and there are situation when it is necessary. Such as when someone kidnaps your child and drives away with him. Speeding in such a situation, at the very least to catch such criminals license plate, is necessary. You also state that officers are trained to notice such tricks but this truly does not matter. Unless you can somehow prove to me that a police officer will notice such a trick every single time, even with their special training, then it is still offers a benefit. As proving this would be impossible, it is still a benefit. 3. Here you say, "This is a myth. Even four-wheel drive vehicles experience slips on icy roads." I agree, all vehicles will experience some slipping on icy rodes, but this was not my argument. You have straw manned me. My argument quite clearly stated, "Avoids slipping on ice." not "stops slipping on ice". You also do not attack the crux of this argument being, "in a manual transmission one can simply down shift to make the wheels spin slightly slower thereby slowing down" which is where my entire point stems from and thereby my argument still stands in this round. Manual transmissions avoid slipping on ice, and thereby can avoid wrecks. 4. You have me here when you say, "An automatic Ford Mustang could easily win in a race over a manual Toyota Corolla." However this still stands as a minor benefit to me as a manual ford mustang would own an automatic ford mustang. I also do not condone racing, that would be a bad idea. I'm just saying in the off chance that one has to race. For instance if my cat was being held hostage and the only way I could get it back was by racing the crazy lady who had stolen it. This would be an acceptable situation to race in. 5. Once again you have me here for the most part. But I can tell you from experience that I look more cool driving a manual. As do select members around the community. I would also contest that such people as dorks and geeks, while still being dork and geeks, are more cool looking for driving a manual than they would for driving an automatic. However since neither of us could prove this point we will consider it moot and just call me cool when I drive a manual. 6. On this point you concede the fact that it can be a bonding experience while stating that it can also be very expensive. Thus I ask our audience and respectable voters. What is more important, relationships with people you love or money? The answer is quite obvious, bonding time is quite a bit more important than money will ever be. Finally you bring up some new points at the end. You say that driving a manual is not necessary however I have already proved how it can be necessary and potentially life threatening to not in at least 3 scenarios above. You the state, "Also, I don't know how I feel about all physically challenged or mentally challenged people learning to drive manual transmission cars. I think some people are better suited to walking or public transportation." I agree with you here but must advocate the same as I did for blind people. They should be taught so they might feel capable but never be allowed to drive. Your very final point is as follows, "It should remain as it is now -- something to learn if one is interested." And I must thank you for such a point, I would like to redirect everyone to the resolution which quite clearly states, "Everyone should learn to drive manual transmission cars at some point in life." This says "should" learn, not must learn, or it is imperative. I have brought many reasons why people "should" learn to drive a manual but I would not force it as some kind of imperative. My opponent seems to think that I am advocating against free will here. My advocacy however is exactly as my opponent states. It is something to learn if one is interested. There are many reasons one should learn such a thing but it still only something to do if one is interested. Free will ftw! Thanks for the debate Solo. |
b9257da0-2019-04-18T19:51:23Z-00001-000 | Everyone should learn to drive manual transmission cars at some point in life. | <> Thank you for accepting the challenge, Yraelz. It's always a pleasure. < > There are benefits for some, but not everyone. Blind people wouldn't benefit from learning how to drive a manual transmission car, for instance. In fact, they would be a danger to others on the road. < 1. You can now drive just about any vehicle. This means that when your girlfriend takes you out horseback riding and drives her manual truck you are not stuck should something happen to your girlfriend. For example if your girlfriend fell and got a concussion, you would be able to drive her home. (Real life example from me! ) I realize the chances of such instances are rather unlikely, but non-the-less beneficial. >> Perhaps it would've been better to wear helmets while you ride horses. Also, I doubt that you have the proper medical training to know if it were safe to move your girlfriend or not, so it might have been better to use a cell phone to call for trained medical assistance in that situation and many others of that nature. <<2. Avoiding cops. You know that day when you're late for work and you're going 10 mph over the speed limit to get there. Then you see that cop coming down the street at you, now all you have to do is down shift. No incriminating break lights or anything. Good idea! >> Police officers are trained to notice such tricks. If a car is traveling at unsafe speeds, then suddenly the back end of the car rises and the front end lowers and speed is reduced, I think anyone would notice what has been done. Though you may think it is a good idea to drive at unsafe speeds that exceed the speed limit and then try to get out of the consequences for such an action, I do not feel the same way, and I think others would agree with me. <<3. Avoids slipping on ice. Where as an automatic transmission in many instances must apply break in order to slow down, in a manual transmission one can simply down shift to make the wheels spin slightly slower thereby slowing down. This avoids sliding on ice and can prevent wrecks. >> This is a myth. Even four-wheel drive vehicles experience slips on icy roads. I am one who drives stick and have been in more fishtails while driving clutch, than I have when I have driven an automatic. <<4. They are so much more fun. A person who can drive a manual better owns any automatic at race. Manuals can stay in gear for as long as possible thereby revving higher and accelerating faster. Automatics simply flip when they hit so many rpms. This is obnoxious. >> This is also a myth. I know of many automatic transmission cars that can triumph over a manual transmission. An automatic Ford Mustang could easily win in a race over a manual Toyota Corolla. However, this is all illegal activity and puts lives in jeopardy, so I urge against such activity. <<5. Everybody looks more cool driving a manual. You know it the moment you get in a car with someone who has one of those nice leather stick shifts they are most definitely a cool person. Manuals are cool to drive, drivers are cool. >> This is superficial and untrue. I know many dorks and geeks that drive manual transmissions; it hasn't helped their social status in any way. I am also pretty sure there are many cool persons that drive automatics, so this is really irrelevant. <<6. Learning to drive a manual can be a bonding experience with someone you like. Just have one of your good friends teach you, bonding time, yeah! >> It can also be expensive, as I learned when teaching my sister to drive stick. She grinded every gear and wore out my clutch. The expensive part came when she side-swiped a car, as she was looking down at the shifter to see where 'third gear' was located. Thankfully, my parents paid it right away so that the neighbor from a couple blocks away wouldn't be able to deduce that it was my car that caused his car the unclaimed damage. < > People should learn things that are necessary in life. However, with so many automatic transmission available, this is not one of the necessities. Also, I don't know how I feel about all physically challenged or mentally challenged people learning to drive manual transmission cars. I think some people are better suited to walking or public transportation. I've learned many things in life that I haven't utilized, when I could've been learning useful skills/knowledge. Learning to drive clutch is not something everyone should learn to do. It should remain as it is now -- something to learn if one is interested. Thanks for the debate, Yraelz. |
b9257da0-2019-04-18T19:51:23Z-00002-000 | Everyone should learn to drive manual transmission cars at some point in life. | Alright I will take your challenge and show you exactly why everyone should learn to drive a manual transmission. First I would like to point out that should in this instance means that there would be enough benefit to learning how to drive such a transmission to outweigh the draw backs. So I am going to give benefits of learning how to drive a manual transmission. 1. You can now drive just about any vehicle. This means that when your girlfriend takes you out horseback riding and drives her manual truck you are not stuck should something happen to your girlfriend. For example if your girlfriend fell and got a concussion, you would be able to drive her home. (Real life example from me!) I realize the chances of such instances are rather unlikely, but non-the-less beneficial. 2. Avoiding cops. You know that day when you're late for work and you're going 10 mph over the speed limit to get there. Then you see that cop coming down the street at you, now all you have to do is down shift. No incriminating break lights or anything. Good idea! 3. Avoids slipping on ice. Where as an automatic transmission in many instances must apply break in order to slow down, in a manual transmission one can simply down shift to make the wheels spin slightly slower thereby slowing down. This avoids sliding on ice and can prevent wrecks. 4. They are so much more fun. A person who can drive a manual better owns any automatic at race. Manuals can stay in gear for as long as possible thereby revving higher and accelerating faster. Automatics simply flip when they hit so many rpms. This is obnoxious. 5. Everybody looks more cool driving a manual. You know it the moment you get in a car with someone who has one of those nice leather stick shifts they are most definitely a cool person. Manuals are cool to drive, drivers are cool. 6. Learning to drive a manual can be a bonding experience with someone you like. Just have one of your good friends teach you, bonding time, yeah! Obviously these are all reasons why one should learn to drive an automatic, together they make it more or less imperative that one should. With no draw backs to learning to drive an automatic on the list I am going to have to say everyone should. |
b9257da0-2019-04-18T19:51:23Z-00003-000 | Everyone should learn to drive manual transmission cars at some point in life. | I do not think it is necessary for people to learn how to drive stick-shift because it's something that folks can get by in life just fine without ever learning. Granted some folks may need to learn how to drive manual transmission vehicles, but the vast majority of drivers do not need this ability. |
be94b9d9-2019-04-18T15:14:33Z-00001-000 | marijuana legalization in iowa | oihgiugku |
be94b9d9-2019-04-18T15:14:33Z-00002-000 | marijuana legalization in iowa | Oh, then I guess not the You tube thing, but defiantly the doctor. |
be94b9d9-2019-04-18T15:14:33Z-00003-000 | marijuana legalization in iowa | epilepsy is when peoples eyes are sensitive to light and just kepp putting stufff |
be94b9d9-2019-04-18T15:14:33Z-00004-000 | marijuana legalization in iowa | I have no idea what epilepsy or whatever that thing you typed is and sorry for the accusations. It might help for depression and medical uses like that, but there are other ways to get medical help besides this. And if your depression pills aren't working, I suggest looking at YouTube videos of squirrels water skiing or seeing a doctor. |
be94b9d9-2019-04-18T15:14:33Z-00005-000 | marijuana legalization in iowa | What does legalizing marijuana have to do with more drunk driving. It could also help people with depression because personally I am 15 and depression pills don't really work for me and it can help people with epilepsy. p.s dont make false accusations about me thx. |
be94b9d9-2019-04-18T15:14:33Z-00006-000 | marijuana legalization in iowa | Why should it be legalized??!! Then more people will be driving drunk and the death rate will rocket sky high. My guess is that you already do drugs and just don't want to get caught with it |
be94b9d9-2019-04-18T15:14:33Z-00007-000 | marijuana legalization in iowa | why should it not be. |
be94b9d9-2019-04-18T15:14:33Z-00000-000 | marijuana legalization in iowa | Um.. yep I have nothing really to say except that my friend Jay has that disease and I am like 100 percent sure he doesn't use marijuana |
2a88c210-2019-04-18T18:42:27Z-00005-000 | Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism) | Free will is necessary to maintain personal responsibility, for it is impossible to justly hold persons accountable for their actions if they have no choice - in these circumstance, how can we punish them for their crimes? By extension, how can we praise them for doing good if such actions were not freely chosen? If Pro maintains that there is no free-will, I want him to either admit that (A) "he" cannot rightly comdemn any action (or person for wrong actions), that he connot rightly support legal punishments for crime since the criminals had no choice but to be as they are; otherwise, (B) tell us on what basis he can condemn anyone for wrong actions or support the penalty system. If people have no free will than determinists should not even seek justice against those who do them wrong. Those who do seek justice against lawbreakers are not walking in harmony with their talk; they claim there is no free-will but do not act as though they really believe this is the case. I would hope that Pro is not among them. But just think of what it would do to our legal systems if someone could provide scientific evidence showing that human beings have no free-will? Rapists would argue and rightly so, that they were forced to commit their crimes by outside forces and get away with it. Murderers would hide behind this theory as well. So before I get into presenting my evidence I just want to say that I do hope with all my heart that Pro is wrong on this issue. But I will be looking to hear from Pro if he blieves that criminals should be punished. If there is no personal responsibility in Pro's philosophy, then he must hold that punishment for crime is also unfair, and should not occur. How can society blame or praise a person for an action which he himself had no control over? It is inconsistent to say that a person is not responsible for his bad deed and then punish him for that deed. It seems that even those who deny the existence of free will still live their lives as if it does exist. Now if I have no free will, then I don't believe in free will by my own choice, so what's the point of Pro trying to convince me otherwise? What's the point of trying to persuade anyone at all if everything is already predetermined? But here is another issue, do determinists ever feel shame, regret, or remorse, when they does something wrong? If there is no free will, then they aren't responsible for their actions and shouldn't feel this way. If they do feel this way, then it shows that their position is a very hypocritical one. They claim to be innocent because of having no choice, yet they feel bad over what they did. Unless, Pro will argue that he can commit heinous crimes and feel no remorse whatever, in which case simply makes his philosophy a very heartless one. Pro argues that eternal forces are responsible for our decisions, but this is only partially true. For example. There is external evidence which convinces Pro there is no God; but I too can digest this same evidence and still not e forced into atheism by it. I choose not to believe the evidence for atheism, he chooses to believe it. Conversely, I choose to accept the evidence for God, he chooses not to. If it were all a matter of us dancing to external forces, then we should all react the same way to the same set of external forces, but we don't. We are not pawns in a game of cause and effect, for we can reason and calculate outcomes, making a choice based on the use of logic as opposed to following some predetermined path. Pro will use his reasoning ability to pick apart my argument, and conjure up reasons why he doesn't find it convincing; this reasoning power is not an outside influence, but an internal factor which aids in making free choices. Cause and effect is the observation of repetitive conjunction of particular events which induces us to postulate their linkage. Pro tries to prove cause and effect in our choice of food; he says: "The simplest choice; deciding what to eat. Is that free? Do you choose to enjoy one food over another (and thus have preference towards it? )? No. " But really, many people actually avoid eating their favorite food because they use their reasoning ability (an internal, not external force) to overrule their own preferences. That food might be high in fat, cholestorol, etc, and the people in question want to maintain a healthy diet, so they choose not to eat it; so Pro is simply wrong when he suggests that people have no choice but to let their taste buds guide them. There are others, who knowing full well the health risks of eating cetain foods, simply don't care and eat them. So if determinism were true, why do they not all react the same to the same external influences? Obviously, people can choose, and they regularly do make different choices. He reasons that we can't blame the person who steals if we know the events that led up to him stealing, but let's be honest, can all the burgulars that appear before the judges give good reasons why they steal? Do they? No. Some steal just for the fun of it. Interestingly, some people may be hungry, homeless, and going through hell, and yet choose resist the temptation to steal and simply beg at the street corners. If determinism is true, why don't all hungry homeless people steal? Why is that for ever person who steals for reason X, we can find someone else who has been through X and has not stolen? This shows the external forces alone are not responsible for the actual "response. " Many people steal who have no reason whatever to steal. They are already rich, they are not in debt, they don't need the money, they can leagally make more easily, and yet they steal. They didn't need some external reason like extreme poverty in order to make them steal. |
2a88c210-2019-04-18T18:42:27Z-00006-000 | Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism) | Firstly, I’d like to explain the illusion of free-will; The act of deciding is to consider the importance, or power, of influences that make up our lives. These influences include; culture, moods, emotions, environment, opinions, beliefs, viewpoints, experience, mental state, intoxication etc. Free-will implies that we are able to see these influences, yet act in defiance of them. It implies that if you really want to do A, you can in fact decide to do B, even without any further bias or influence. It is, to do the impossible. Determinism states that each of these influences is defined externally before the choice is made. An example; Do you believe in God? My answer is that I have been brought up in life, with a series of influences, that have defined me; Not the other way round. I have been shaped by society to believe that there is no God, and that fact is so unchanging that I can honestly say I do not have the free-will to change it right now. If I had freedom of will, then I could will to become kinder, will to become smarter, will to become a theist even. I have, in fact, realized the true impossibility of Free-will. Influences – the things that drive us into certain choices – are created and controlled by external forces. You cannot have an opinion on X if you have never heard of X, or heard anything relating to X. You cannot enjoy the taste of pizza simply by willing it to be true. The simplest choice; deciding what to eat. Is that free? Do you choose to enjoy one food over another (and thus have preference towards it?)? No. Your taste buds choose that for you. Do you choose to get angry when you are insulted? Do you choose to let some random atheists words persuade you (or not)? Do you choose to allow certain influences to affect your more than others, or are your beliefs a response? Instead, I picture life like a domino set. The first cause (whatever it may be) pushed the first domino, driving a society of people who act according to fixed physical laws. Right down to the neurology. For the unexplained “random events” of science, that does not hint towards free-will. It hints towards random-will, pure guess work, and something not to be favoured. A series of dominos that we cannot measure, but still follow a set of laws. Now, assuming this, can you say with any certainty that it is right to blame someone for something that they are determined to do? And thus, I propose that blame is a prejudice; Prejudice means; -an unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. When you blame someone for something, you are creating an expectation of them to meet a certain social standard. Eg; “I expect you not to steal.” If, however, you knew everything about them (and thus, were able to determine what they were going to do) then you’d realize that you can only expect them to do what they do actually do. If someone steals, you must expect them to steal (unless you change the events leading up to it, which is impossible, as you only know in hindsight). This is my initial argument. |
2a88c210-2019-04-18T18:42:27Z-00007-000 | Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism) | I'll be arguing that blame is not a prejudice but is a rational and just practice because of the existence of free-will. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. |
2a88c210-2019-04-18T18:42:27Z-00008-000 | Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism) | Round 1: Introductory Communication and Definitions Round 2: Both sides give First Arguments. Round 3: Free Debate/Refutation/Criticism of Opposing Arguments Round 4: Further Debate/Refutation/Criticism Round 5: Conclusions/Summary of Oppositions Arguments Summary: In this debate I wish to present an argument supporting the notion that the entire concept of blame is a clear form of prejudice, based off the philosophical ideology of Hard Determinism. I will present an argument from impossibility and/or impracticality, while hopefully making a compelling counter-argument that will favour the often miss-understood idea of Hard Determinism. I will also briefly discuss the problems of Compatibalism, while allowing for an extensive debate with whoever is against the notion. I am making this argument from the side of Hard Determinism, and so I expect a Free-Will advocate to accept the challenge. Free-Will: Choices that are free from influence, or the ability to make choices without defining influences. Specifically, the ability to act on one’s own accord, enough to justify the punishment and rewarding based on external actions. Hard Determinism: The doctrine that all things are determined by external forces. The laws of Cause-and-Effect apply to both inanimate objects, as well as cognitive thought. Cheers. |
2a88c210-2019-04-18T18:42:27Z-00000-000 | Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism) | My opponent has forfeited; so I won't bother to post any further argument. It has been otherwise a good debate, and I've enjoyed reading his thought provoking responses. |
2a88c210-2019-04-18T18:42:27Z-00001-000 | Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism) | "If we were to simply question why I was predetermined to believe in Hard Determinism, it would be because I used my determined rational mind (among other things) to interpret the evidence in a way that I found convincing, including the internal (and still determined) weighing up process that you mentioned." I would like Pro to give us an illustration of how outside forces could have forced him to interpret the evidence in such a way. It seems to me we are all free to interpret evidence however we want, or not to interpret them at all. Pro is saying that because of outside influence X, he was forced to interpret the evidence to conclude Y. Please give us a scenario where this plays out that we may understand; for I propose there is no set of circumstances which would restrict a person from the ability to reject determinism with a sound mind. Con then asks ‘how does free-will work'? But, there can be no explanation of how free-will works just because it is not a cause-and-effect system. If I could explain "how" it works by some "mechanism" or "scientific model," it would cease to be free-will and be determinism. The fact that one cannot explain the randomness of a set of event does not deny the existence of the events or their randomness. "How are people predictable if they have the freedom to do what they want?" It's kind of like saying that just because I know what conclusion you will reach through your reasoning process, doesn't mean you don't have the ability to reason. Similarly, just because you can guess how I will use my freedom, doesn't mean I don't have it. When citizens obey the law, they aren't "forced" to obey it, they could have broken the law and chosen to suffer the consequences. Pro is assuming that because he can predict what "most" of them will do, that "none" of them have free will. But such logic doesn't follow, for it would also mean that anytime he could not predict what someone would do in a situation where (given what he knows about him and the influences on his life) he should have been predictable, that free will does exist. Yet, such events happen everyday. "Self Perfection Mentality: If we are so free, then why don't we all choose to enjoy being good people?" To give a motivating force to explain why people do wrong is a fall back into Pro's trap of cause-and-effect, crafty question. After ten years of enjoyable, peaceful marriage, a man goes out and pays a prostitute for sex. When he is discovered, and they finally go for counseling, he answers a list of questions. Were you watching porn? No. Did a woman seduce you and persuade you to come? No. Weren't you satisfied with the sex your wife gives you? Yes. Were you two having problem? No. So why did you do it? "I don't know, I just wanted to." It goes on all the time Pro, to deny this is to deny life. Sometimes people have reasons, motivating forces, other times they don't; and even when they do, they "have" to obey those forces. The fact that many resist them shows they are not predetermined to obey external forces. "Notice how we assume that someone who is an adult is thus capable of controlling the stealing desires? This is a prejudice. We prejudge them as capable of a certain level of self-control that is not based on anything but a presumption of maturity." We judge them based on the experienced reality that "we as adults" in all sorts of similar and sometimes the same circumstances make better choices, so can they. If I, while poor and homeless and hungry, did not steal, why should you, while rich and comfortable, steal? It's inexcusable. "Hypothetically, you could read this and conclude that the world is flat (and believe it) if you so wished." So if I find people who believe bogus, outrageous things, like the world is flat, that would prove free-will? Many don't believe man ever landed on the moon, some believe the world is an illusion and that we don't really die, only appear so. "If everything is unbiased, then how could anyone decide anything? I even question why anyone would want a will made up entirely of random conclusions, as appose to an entirely rational, all-inclusive determined consideration." I can choose to develop desires which are random or structured according to a set philosophy. Free-will doesn't have to mean all one's decisions must "appear" to be random. "A bigot is usually taught to become a bigot (at least, in the eyes of the opposition)." Some parents do their very best to raise their kids as good moral citizens, and their peers, religions, etc tell them to be law abiding, yet they choose a life of crime. Bigots aren't always raised to be so, they often times just "choose" to be so, and this is why people are so surprised when so and so suddenly changes for no rational reason. "Consider any choice that you have ever made. Ask yourself why you made that choice. Consider the influences, and how much control you had over them at that time. Consider everything. You will notice that none of those influences are changeable." I don't need to change the influences to have a choice on how I respond to them. I was hungry, very hungry, I love pizza, and my mum offered me some; given the forces at work (my hunger and my love for pizza), I should (in the determinist view) accept the pizza. But I just didn't want any at the time so I said no. Why didn't I want any? Was there some force stopping me from wanting it? Not that I know of; on the other hand, I "choose" to ignore the forces pushing me to eat it. "Simply ask why. In the end, it's because you wanted to walk away more than you want to hit someone, otherwise you would have hit them." How do you know the intensity of a desire, Con? That's an internal feeling, which isn't necessarily in accord with outward expression. For example, does a man feel more hurt because he is crying than a woman who isn't? She lost her baby, his home team only lost on baseball game, go figure. You can't make the judgment that my desire to walk away was stronger. Wonderful responses from Pro. Thanks for a great debate so far. |
2a88c210-2019-04-18T18:42:27Z-00002-000 | Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism) | Thank you once again con for your time. "The self-defeating character of determinism is that for Pro to accept it as true, he must believe that he believes in it because he was predetermined to do so. He hasn't been able to weigh the pros and cons rationally and make up his mind freely based on that, but was determined by outside forces." Again, I believe that it is a miss-interpretation of Hard Determinism that leads con to this conclusion. If we were to simply question why I was predetermined to believe in Hard Determinism, it would be because I used my determined rational mind (among other things) to interpret the evidence in a way that I found convincing, including the internal (and still determined) weighing up process that you mentioned. The same can be said for the following quote; "…its impossible for him to rationally affirm it, for its very affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation." Con argues that due to the fact that the diverse nature of the world disallows for a repeating of the same circumstances twice (the phrase ‘you can never stand in the same river twice'), there is no way to prove cause-and-effect, and subsequently, determinism. While this is ultimately true, I disbelieve that there is anyone alive who will argue against such an overwhelmingly obvious cause-and-effect world. Furthermore, I'd even ask con to suggest an alternative to mental cause-and-effect reasoning, and how it works, and thus to explain how free-will works. Free-will has as little validity as Hard Determinism, as it is an area completely unexplored by philosophers. Cons assumptions, and the assumptions of Free-Will are as equally questionable as that of a Determinist. And so, while I cannot prove a deterministic mind, I will point out a few things that lean towards that conclusion; -Predictability: How are people predictable if they have the freedom to do what they want? -Self Perfection Mentality: If we are so free, then why don't we all choose to enjoy being good people? Not choose to act as good people, but choose to actually become good people. -Our Sympathy towards Innocence: A child does not know that it is wrong to be greedy until taught. Notice how we assume that someone who is an adult is thus capable of controlling the stealing desires? This is a prejudice. We prejudge them as capable of a certain level of self-control that is not based on anything but a presumption of maturity. Once you clarify that all decision processes, all influences internal and external, and all prior events are determined, there is no room for a freedom of will. Once again, trying to prove freedom of will proves impossible, as free will would allow anyone to do anything in any circumstance. Hypothetically, you could read this and conclude that the world is flat (and believe it) if you so wished. If everything is unbiased, then how could anyone decide anything? I even question why anyone would want a will made up entirely of random conclusions, as appose to an entirely rational, all-inclusive determined consideration. I disagree with the next point, I can and do affirm moral responsibility on myself and others. It is the ideology, the self-expectation that will allow me to function. I do, however, feel sympathy even for those who are considered disgustingly evil. I believe that a series of events led them to become who they are. A bigot is usually taught to become a bigot (at least, in the eyes of the opposition). Is it a racists fault if they were raised to become a racist? Is a sexist at fault if they incorrectly conclude, in a society of sexism, that men are better? Under the free-will idea we should blame flat earth believers for their beliefs. The experiment is inherently flawed; again it uses the assumption that you may change what you are determined to do, and are free from certain influences, which is not true. The reason you can believe to change determinism is because you are ignorant of the fact that your very desire to prove your freedom is a strong enough influence to change the trivial task of choosing a breakfast food. Try this thought experiment: Consider any choice that you have ever made. Ask yourself why you made that choice. Consider the influences, and how much control you had over them at that time. Consider everything. You will notice that none of those influences are changeable. "The problem I have here is that people don't always do what they "want," but at times they put other things even above their wants. Someone pushes me, I "want" to push him back, but I "choose" to walk away." Simply ask why. In the end, it's because you wanted to walk away more than you want to hit someone, otherwise you would have hit them. Isn't that an obvious truth? Instead, you are claiming ‘I wanted to hit him, but I used some other influence (which has yet to have a source) to decide not to. This is not at all based on any internal or external factors, but is separate and free'. You may as well decide to dance in front of the man instead of hitting him. Your reference to quantum physics can no way be attributed to the supposed existence of free-will. I dare even you to try to make that connection. There is a difference between free-will and unexplained probabilities. Notice, however, that the very measurable probability shows that behind this "randomness" is a certain logic, a mathematic law. For something to be truly chaotic, it must have no laws. "Pro says he can't control the effects his conscience has on him, but the conscience will only condemn us for that which we truly believe we are wrong" Exactly, realize that I do not choose to believe what is truly wrong. It is determined that I dislike greed. It is determined that I dislike violence. It is determined that I cannot choose to change these things. "Con argues that our prior beliefs determine why we react differently to the same set of evidence, and yet, they are atheists who had such extreme education in defense of atheism and attack of Christianity, that given that background, and given their views, should not have been convinced by the evidence for God, yet, they were. This argument works both ways." Simply ask them why and they will give a reason. Examine that reason |
2a88c210-2019-04-18T18:42:27Z-00003-000 | Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism) | Thanks to Pro for a very robust response to my rebuttal. The self-defeating character of determinism is that for Pro to accept it as true, he must believe that he believes in it because he was predetermined to do so. He hasn't been able to weigh the pros and cons rationally and make up his mind freely based on that, but was determined by outside forces. So in his world-view, his very belief in determinism is determined, and so are the thoughts he is having right now; so that even if determinism were true, its impossible for him to rationally affirm it, for its very affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation. Empirical evidence does not support the cause-and-effect nature of human actions that Pro proposes. For example; X is the cause and Y is the effect, so that X always precedes Y; but the problem is that every instance of X (a set of initial conditions/circumstances) is different from every other X, so that there cannot be two or more documented cases of X leading to Y. No two human beings will have the exact same set of circumstances, beliefs, life experiences, and so forth, so as to test the theory that given these conditions (X), that Y must always occur. Pro must therefore make the assumption that X leads to Y in his domino effect illustration without being able to falsify his theory. Without a duplicate of X the observation will not be repeatable, and is an assumption of determinism at best, not an actual proof. So my question to Pro, is, how does he know that were subject A who does not steal when homeless and hungry, to have had the same experiences in life as subject B who does steal when homeless and hungry, would not still choose to refrain from stealing? It's not like he can reproduce the exact same set uf circumstances for multiple subjects to observe that they all steal when in such a situation. Since the variables of X are not even be fully defined, the correlation between X and Y is spurious. I challenge Pro to give us conforming examples that X leads to Y in the behavior of humans. Illustration: If I measure the force of the earth's gravity on an object, I see the relation F=gm. However, magnets and gases exhibit a different relation with respect to the earth. Is gravity deterministic? F=gm contains no term regarding the make-up of the object, so the only way to explain the exception is to say that gravity obeys the relation F=gm unless something else causes it not to. We have bounded our causal law so that our hypothesis stands, but we now must postulate the existence of new phenomena to describe the other "causal" forces which are at work; and so on. How can this program be falsified? If it cannot be falsified (since we can always postulate additional "unknown" causes), isn't the conclusion questionable? Pro cannot affirm that people bear moral responsibility under his deterministic view, so that Hitler wasn't really to blame for his treatment of the Jew during the Holocaust. Nor were slave traders to blame during the years of Trans-Atlantic slavery; they could do no better. I will simply ask the readers of this debate to carry out a simple experiment. Put two items before you for breakfast; pick one tomorrow, and use the next one the following day. Now, did you have to use "first" the one you did use "first"? Could you not have chosen the other one? If not, why not? Pro's argument is that some past experiences and circumstances caused you to choose the one you did chose as opposed to the other, but if so, please try to identify what those causes X, were. Ask yourself what is the relationship between those variables (X) and the meal you chose for breakfast; would (or do) other individuals with similar (if not the same) specific number of circumstances/experiences always choose that breakfast which you did chose "first" given that they have the same two options? ‘Determinism does not require us to give up choice altogether, but to realize that what we want to do has already been determined. " The problem I have here is that people don't always do what they "want," but at times they put other things even above their wants. Someone pushes me, I "want" to push him back, but I "choose" to walk away. My desire to fight might be more intense than the small voice of conscience telling me to do the right thing. The external factors which allowed me to have these options do not decide which one I will choose. For a twin raised in the same home, we may have similar external factors, having been raised with the same values, exposed to the same influences, etc, yet, one pushes back, the other chooses not to. When I ask what's the point of trying to convince anyone of anything, Pro says: "Because it may be determined that they change their minds. " So if a woman sits in a chair, Pro's claim would be that she was determined to do so, and could not have remained standing. Yet, if she were to keep standing, he would argue that she could not have sat down; even though in both scenarios she had the same prior set of circumstances and experiences, which would show that X doesn't necessarily lead to Y, but she had free-will to chose. "In a cause-and-effect universe the only way for un-predictability to exist is if it existed at the start. " Randomness does exist in this universe: When quantum theory was introduced in the late 1920's, a surprising discovery was made: the success of the theory is dependent on the existence of statistical, non-causal forces. The behavior of individual atomic particles is completely indeterministic. Detailed analysis has demonstrated that all fundamental particles display completely random behavior at the atomic level. They appear, in some sense, to have "free will" when observed individually; their behavior is not "caused" by anything. These quantum vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. (Paul Davies, 1983, God and the New Physics, p.162; Richard Morris, 1990, The Edges of Science, p.24) Pro says he can't control the effects his conscience has on him, but the conscience will only condemn us for that which we truly believe we are wrong; so if Pro truly believes he has no choice but to commit wrongs, then why should his conscience condemn him? It seems to me that deep inside, Pro might believe he could have done better at times. Con argues that our prior beliefs determine why we react differently to the same set of evidence, and yet, they are atheists who had such extreme education in defense of atheism and attack of Christianity, that given that background, and given their views, should not have been convinced by the evidence for God, yet, they were. This argument works both ways. "I am an atheist when I begin reading the arguments for Gods existence, and more than likely I'll remain an atheist when I finish reading. If, however, I was undecided and I read the arguments, had a different set of ideas about philosophy, then I may have been determined to become a theist. " I've studied with folks who were hard atheists and others who were simply undecided. The undecided ones remained undecided, while the atheists were convinced to become theists, on the same evidence which was shown to both groups. This is one of the things that convinces me free-will is real. |
2a88c210-2019-04-18T18:42:27Z-00004-000 | Blame is a Prejudice (Free-Will & Determinism) | Round 3:Free Debate/Refutation/Criticism of Opposing Arguments Can I just say, thanks for the extremely detailed and interesting response. Now; 1--- While I agree with the majority of what con says, readers have to realize that while Determinism is the reality, it is not the ideology. “(a)he cannot rightly comdemn any action... support the penalty system.” It is true that I cannot rightly condemn any person for their wrong doings; however, there is a necessity to preserve the safety of the peoples who make up the society. And so, my response to (b) is this; While there are moral issues with punishing wrong doers of society, it is the lesser of two evils. 2--- I’d like to propose the idea that, with the knowledge of hard determinism comes the responsibility to accept it, which can be extremely difficult for those of us who have lived a large part of our lives blaming and judging those who do wrong. I, for one, would not be happy if a man was locked up for murder, but I accept the reality of the fact that he is more of a danger to himself and others if let free. Utilitarian ideas, but what’s the alternative? 3--- While I have touched on the legal system above, I’d like to re-enforce the values, ideas and moral conclusions if we were to accept Determinism. The legal system would no longer be “We are punishing you for doing wrong.” But “we are protecting society from an individual who has been brought up with an anti-social mind-set”. A larger emphasis would be put on rehabilitation, as well as prevention from the source. I believe that Hard Determinism promotes young moral education, actively making us think about our actions. “It seems that even those who deny the existence of free will still live their lives as if it does exist.” This is completely true. It is known in philosophy as the greatest illusion in the world. I, however, live under the above idea: Determinism is the reality, while ethics is the ideology. I strive to be an ethical person, while realizing my unavoidable determined state. Don’t get me wrong, I realize that the miss-interpretations and alternative conclusions may be detrimental to the wellbeing of society (and example is someone acting on the whim simply because they believe they are determined to do so) but I do not believe that that scenario is either likely or dangerous. Why? 4--- If I may bring up my earlier arguments for Hard Determinism, one point that I wish to further emphasise is that the thought patterns remain the same in a choice. Determinism does not require us to give up choice altogether, but to realize that what we want to do has already been determined. We still have desires, feelings, emotions, changes of mind, but they are all caused by the cause-and-effect determined principle. It feels the same, yet I realize it is different. 5--- “What's the point of trying to persuade anyone at all if everything is already predetermined?” Because it may be determined that they change their minds. There is no reason to change the way they act because reality is set in stone, because everything they will think, do and say has already been accounted for. They are not changing the future whenever they have a change of heart. Hard Determinism, while not being an actual sentient being, is similar to someone who knows their future. If they try to change it, the future will have foreseen it. Again, I am not saying that Determinism is about knowing everything, or future fortune telling, it is simply the fact that if A causes B, and A occurs, B must occur. Simple laws of physics. 6--- One thing that I have not touched on is entropy: the gradual decrease in order (or no order to begin with). In a cause-and-effect universe the only way for un-predictability to exist is if it existed at the start. In this case, the only argument for free-will is the argument for random-will, which is worse than determined-will. The idea that randomness can promote free-will is utter rubbish, and I thank that con did not bring it up. 7--- “But here is another issue, do determinists ever feel shame, regret, or remorse, when they does something wrong?” Yes, because I can’t control the effect that my conscious has on me. Again, I can live under the illusion of free-will, and my conscious is guided by ethics, not reality. I would still feel shame stealing; I would still regret a missed opportunity or a bad action; I would be determined to do so. “in which case simply makes his philosophy a very heartless one.” While I do not believe this, I do feel the need to point out that a philosophical theory should not be judged based on how much con wants it to be true, but how much it holds up to rational scrutiny. 8--- “Pro argues that eternal forces are responsible for our decisions, but this is only partially true... If it were all a matter of us dancing to external forces, then we should all react the same way to the same set of external forces, but we don't.” They have perfectly deterministic reasons. When I hear one piece of evidence supporting atheism, I have my own logical and rational ideas, whereas con has his own. Con does not believe X solely on X’s rhetoric persuasion, con believes X based on how it relates to cons own beliefs, opinions, mood etc. Cons other persuasions are obviously quite diversely different to mine, and thus, even with the same bit of evidence, we will react in entirely different ways. 9--- “We are not pawns in a game of cause and effect, for we can reason and calculate outcomes, making a choice based on the use of logic as opposed to following some predetermined path. Pro will use his reasoning ability to pick apart my argument, and conjure up reasons why he doesn't find it convincing; this reasoning power is not an outside influence, but an internal factor which aids in making free choices.” Again, this can be explained by looking at the above. All ‘internal’ actions are the result of external persuasions that stay in the mind. I am an atheist when I begin reading the arguments for Gods existence, and more than likely I’ll remain an atheist when I finish reading. If, however, I was undecided and I read the arguments, had a different set of ideas about philosophy, then I may have been determined to become a theist. 10--- All internal ‘calculations’ are determined just as much as external ones, simply because they are the result of external ones. We think Y because we were asked X, we conclude Z because we thought Y. Cause-and-effect. 11--- The next argument con gives is one of influences. While these persuasions, or influences, have an effect, they all depend on each other and as a result nothing is definitely a priority. This can be said for all aspects of life. It is said that even a pacifist has a violence limit. Something will make someone tick, and one persuasion will overcome another if a set of events were played out. 12--- Furthermore, the argument con gives about the un-importance of motives (like doing something “just for fun”) does not in any way diminish the power of the argument. If someone does something just for fun they are doing something that is the highest on their list of persuasions. This, as a result, led to the criminal activity. Some people get kicks out of robbing shops, and as long as that’s true, there’ll be people determined to do it. 13--- And so I maintain that because the concept of blame is to have made an expectation that one has failed to meet, it is a form of pre-judgement; a prejudice. Also, while social implications are a large and interesting part of the debate, are there any philosophical grounds to accept Free-Will? The empirical evidence supports Hard Determism quite strongly. Our entire grasp on reality depends on it. Cheers. Also, the numbers just help as paragraph breaks, and references for quotes, if you so wish to use them. |
b1ae42c6-2019-04-18T19:53:25Z-00004-000 | We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea. | 1. The first arguement that id like to take up on this point is that yes medicare does help alot of people, lower income etc this just further fuels my point on point 4 so thank you. The second part is that while yes it does work it is not a universal program it only focuses on a section of the people not everyone. Also as a side note one person cant keep an entire system working and by saying you have a good president still wont solve the problem of having a working program, its just to big of a job. 2. The first point on this flow id like to say feeling good because its one less thing to worry about wont protect the people from the absurd taxing like you proposed in the plan. Also they wont be paying less because as it is now the companies help pay and fund the different insurances. In all a unviersal health care would completely collapse our already fraying economy. 3. So this whole argument contradicts the point of a universal health care, to keep hospitals and doctors still private would not reach the perspective of a universal health care since not everyone is entitled to the same thing. Bringing us back to the heart of capitalism, competition which will be lacking if the plan is implemented. 4. Your still missing the point there are systems like Medicare like you mention that cover people who are in need of it. The reason why I mentioned this is because you could argue that if people wouldn't get attention which i was proving incorrect but since you agree theres no need to argue this any more. 5. Really the points you make here are just not true, when funded by the government like every other program ran by the government the doctors will be told what to do and how to do it. I mentioned India because they have a universal health care system and it is one of the poorest in the world this being the leading reason, doctors don't care as much anymore. 6. No it wouldn't lower because in this new system everyone basically pays the same amount, for people like me I go in once a year for a physical other than that I'm relatively healthy so why should i pay that much more, when other people who choose a unhealthy lifestyle and cost more a year eventually raising prices for me to help take care of the unhealthy person thats why a universal health care system would be bad. 7. While that may be true eventually its the transition that will kill the economy before the cavalry comes. Also look to point 8 on the flow and this ties in with this point in the fact that less doctors would want to do the job so they wouldn't be in such large demand. 8. Again look to point 3 and how this contradicts the point of a universal health care if everything is still privatized. To deny the fact that doctors become doctors because of the fame and status is just ignorant, sure some may not fit the type but the vast majority do. 9. So basically your conceding to the fact that since our health coverage is working why change it so thank you. As another side note any country with a universal health coverage none of them have a good system, just a bare system. Also its not a right its a privilege that you should work hard for not be given to you on a silver spoon. 10. The point to this argument here is that health care in other nations like India, see point 5, because they are so poor and ours is so great changing that would hurt everything in our medical infrastructure and see my other points as to how universal cant be socialized or privatized. It may not be everyone which yeah i suppose i can attest to that but in the status quo nothing is broken when you compare us to every other country, just try and name one with a better health system. |
b1ae42c6-2019-04-18T19:53:25Z-00005-000 | We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea. | I was expecting someone who vehemently and fundamentally opposes the idea of universal coverage, so I have to admit I was thrown a bit when I read your argument. But I've recouped myself, so here we go. .. 1. The Department of Health and Human Services has operated Medicare since its inception. In 2006, there were 38 million people on Medicare. In addition, some estimates show that 30,000 people a month for the next 10 years will start using Medicare as they become eligible. Medicare recipients also represent a much larger share of health care customers then their share of the total population. It seems to me at least that DHHS has the experience running programs instrumental to health care in this country that would be capable of running a single-payer universal system. If we could just get a president that appoints capable, knowledgeable, worthy people to important positions instead of a president that appoints personal and professional friends who know nothing of the agencies they run, most of government has the ability to function as well as any private corporation. See "Case for Bureaucracy" by Charles Goodsell. 2. I don't know if we are in the biggest recession we've ever been in. To start, you'd have to technically separate "recessions" from "depressions". If not, the Great Depression would be FAR greater. Even if you do separate them, then the recession in the mid to late 1970s when unemployment hit around 10-15% would still have to be worse then this. Even so, your point is taken about the economy. Here's the thing though, benefits from preventative care would be noticed just as quickly as the taxes would be, especially since those taxes would be laid on hospitals, doctors, drug and device manufacturers, as well as taking already taxed resources from Medicaid and Medicare, would all happen before any individuals would be taxed. Economic productivity would grow as workers got healthier and felt more secure about their financial and medical futures. In addition, since everyone would be paying much less for their health care, that's extra money they'd have to get out of debt and/or spend. The economy would benefit greatly from universal coverage. 3. I'm not sure what you're talking about in this point. If you're talking about private hospitals and doctors, you're right. That's why both would remain private. They would compete based on patient outcomes and satisfaction. Medicare is mandating that hospitals report their outcomes starting this year. They plan on extending it to doctors in a couple years as well. They intend to pay hospitals/doctors in the top 10% an extra 10% in their reimbursements, after risk adjusting for regional differences of outcomes for certain diagnoses. This would be continued and relied upon in the plan I mentioned. Competition would still be an integral component of this plan. Besides, private companies screw up just as much, if not more, than government agencies. We just don't know how much because oversight is so much more difficult once a government function has been privatized. The contractors of the Big Dig in Boston will have to pay $456 million in fines due to faulty designs and shotty workmanship. I'll also mention Halliburton and Blackwater. You get my point. 4. It is illegal for hospitals to turn people away for not having coverage, but all they have to do is stabilize people in their ER and then send them on their way or to a public hospital. They still have to eat the costs associated with time, labor and equipment. Meanwhile, public hospitals are so overwhelmed from every private hospital sending them uninsured patients that care starts to suffer. But public hospitals still need reimbursement as well if they hope to make any kind of profit. But because they can't get any from uninsured people, the rest of us pay more in taxes to support these public hospitals. This is one of the many examples of how we all already pay for uninsured peoples' health care, so we might as well do it in a smart and effective way. 5. There would be no need to "mandate" some procedures since just about everything would be covered. Only cosmetic procedures and elective procedures that do not dramatically enhance quality of life would not be covered in the universal plan. Doctors would find much more flexibility in having just about every procedure or service they provide compensated, as well as (and primarily) not having to fight with HMOs to get paid. Doctors spend so much time doing this that it takes away from taking care of patients. With such a simple system, they would be free to spend more time performing procedures and meeting with patients, thus earning more money. 6. As I mentioned above, we already pay for a lot of peoples' health care. Their costs get transferred to us through higher taxes to support public hospitals that aren't getting compensated for their services, decreased tax revenue to the government since hospitals and doctors have to write off so many services as charity, as well as higher premiums and costs with insurers, hospitals and doctors. Our economy also takes a hit because these people take more from the system then they put in because they can't get insurance, yet continue to rack up bills, pushing them towards bankruptcy. Over 51% of all bankruptcies are medically related, which makes the rest of us pay more in credit card interest. I'm watching the news right now and they have a story on talking about how diabetes is already costing the country $174 billion through various means. We're already paying the price for diseases like these, and this is with a private system. A single-payer system would be able to negotiate for lower prices which would bring this number down. 7. Private insurers would have to cut back, but there would be gains in other areas. First, the government would be hiring, and I don't think that is a bad thing if it means that the already trained personnel are making the new system run more efficiently. Also, as it is, over 300,000 beds lay unused because private insurers make their money off of keeping people out of the hospital. Meanwhile, 25% of hospitals are operating in the red. As people who need health care can finally get it, and hospitals can count on getting paid more frequently, they will hire more nurses and doctors. 8. As it is, doctors are in it more for the fame than the money. Like I said before, doctors spend much of their time fighting with private insurers just to get paid. There wouldn't be reduced private practice options. No offices would be socialized. The fact that doctors would be paid much more frequently and the system would be more efficient, I think more people would become doctors. 9. I feel that health care is a right already, and I'm not on any kind of government coverage. If it works as well as I think it will, or as well as similar versions in other countries, why would you want it to go away? 10. People with money do come here to get their health care, because we do have the best system in the world if you can pay for it. Very poor people also come here to get care and don't plan on paying for it. This system keep the quality that we've become accustomed to since hospitals and doctors would still be competing based on the quality of the care they provide. The only thing that would be socialized is the payment of their services, at least for basic care. Private insurers would still be utilized to pay for catastrophic care. I don't think all people want universal care. In fact, I've debated with a few people on this site already that flatly don't. The fact of the matter is that the private system of multiple insurers is broken and cannot be adequately fixed while keeping the same structure. It is the structure itself that has led to the problems we have. Therefore, we need a totally different structure based on a single-payer for basic care. |
b1ae42c6-2019-04-18T19:53:25Z-00006-000 | We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea. | So basically for this debate im going to go with an overview of a universal health care and why it would not work in our current system of government. 1. There isn't a single government agency that is up to the task of implementing a universal program effectively. 2. If anyone hasn't noticed the economy in the US government is in the largest recession it has ever been in. To ask people to pay there way through this is absurd especially through taxes. 3. Profit motives and competition have lead to better programs offered right now as a way to lure people to work for them especially qualified personal. 4. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. 5. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. This has been proven in countries with a universal health care like India. 6. Healthy people who are hardly ever in the hospital will end up paying for people who smoke or do other harmful things to their body. Which if that is the case why should they have to. 7. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs and business closures, people who are already in work now 8. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Because face it as it is now people are opting to become doctors because of the fame and money. 9. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a right by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove it once costs get out of control. 10. As it is now many people come from all over the world to be treated because in the status quo we have the most effective and clean medical industry especially in fields of specialization. As a final note I think its safe to say everyone wants a universal health care, heck ill admit I would but the fact of the matter it is just not possible to do and maintain all the things we take for granted in our current society. |
b1ae42c6-2019-04-18T19:53:25Z-00007-000 | We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea. | I have yet to see anyone adequately defend a universal health care system. I propose that we NEED not just a system where everyone is covered, but a single-payer system where the government provides basic coverage for everyone while keeping private ownership of hospitals and doctors' offices. Such a system would weed out administrative overhead, as well as provide adequate leverage to keep drug and device costs down. The private, for-profit system is a perfect example of a market failure which requires government intervention, and is unsustainable in its current form. Therefore, I propose this: We adopt a single-payer national health insurance plan that covers all tax-paying adults up to $20,000 per year. This coverage would be contingent on filing a tax return and would cover all but elective, cosmetic surgery. People could combine their $20,000 coverage when they get married, providing $40,000 of coverage for their family. As of last year, 97% of everyone who sought health care spent just over $21,000 or less, so the $20,000 would cover about 96% of everyone's needs, leaving room for private catastrophic plans. This would function much like life insurance. You don't know when you'll need it, but you most likely will and will be very thankful when you do need it. Medicare and Medicaid will provide catastrophic coverage for the old and poor, and businesses will provide group catastrophic coverage. Since Medicare and Medicaid would have to provide a much smaller set of benefits, resources would be taken from these programs to help fund the national health insurance plan. After that, a plan similar to California's would be used where hospitals and doctors would be taxed to provide further funds for the program. In addition, a sales tax on the advertising, administration and lobbying expenditures of drug and device manufacturers would also be used to fund the program. Should any money be needed beyond that, a tax will be imposed starting at the top tax bracket and working down should more funds be needed. This seems like a good start. I look forward to anyone taking up this debate. |
b1ae42c6-2019-04-18T19:53:25Z-00000-000 | We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea. | Thank you all who are voting and actually have read this far, almost there 1. As I pointed out above, while yes those programs can solve for a small portion of the health problems but they cant complete it even with more funding. Its just not possible, its too large of a spectrum. And the problem with a system directly run by a cabinet member is the same reasons I listed above with the size of the issue. 2. You can say you have the figures down pat but the problem is your system is flawed. Things always cost more than people expect its the problem with inflation. The part you are missing in my arguments is the fact that in 10 years we wont have an affordable system because prices will rise from the reasons listed above. 3. The reason why I say we cant have private practices with the universal system is because there is no competition or reason to choose one over the other which will destroy the health care system. 4. This ties in to the above argument, and to add on because peoples will choose one place over the other because there is no differences in service. That would cause the overpopulation in one area to buy more and this would cause the inflation. 5. http://www.huppi.com... Check out this site then for comparative stats. But on top of that your stats are flawed because no where does it say what they are comparing unless you click the links in which case they tell you what they voted on, but the US has the best in several categories. And to your source, yeah i couldn't pull it up on my computer..sorry. 6. Yes but the reasons stated in my first few arguments and even this one that still go ignored is the rates you impose will rise. And eventually will overwhelm the 25 percent now. That is the inevitable part to the all. 7. All you keep saying is that under my plan...under my plan that.... this wouldn't last, this is the argument ive been trying to get across. It may be a quick fix plan but the problems i keep talking about arise. Places like India and Canada do have universal health care and the problem is it is not efficient, if you need surgery it will take forever to happen. 8. Yeah i didn't concede anything i just tied it into the argument above, just one of the side effects. 9. Thats a growing problem in this world it isnt a right, calling everything a right is collapsing our economy. Considering unions a right even to having a tv a right is absurd. Free health care is not a right, the right to life is they are not the same thing. 10. Yeah I already mentioned this but at face value its basically worthless, but click the links and it actually goes in my favor. Vote Negative for the reasons above and if you actually read through these flows you should vote for the negative impacts i kept bringing up throughout the round and pretty much were never answered Thank you for the round Mindjob |
b1ae42c6-2019-04-18T19:53:25Z-00001-000 | We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea. | 1. I've already pointed out to you how the Department of Health and Human Services could take it on if they are given competent leadership and adequate resources. They already run Social Security and Medicare, in addition to many other programs. Why wouldn't they be able to handle a restructuring of their priorities and administrate a new program? You give absolutely no reason explaining why my points in the previous round are not sufficient enough. Yes, you're right. There are three branches of government. They do have divisions within them, such as committees in Congress or individual agencies in the Executive branch. What does any of this have to do with proving a cabinet-level department can't run large programs when I've already given you plenty of examples to the contrary? There isn't much I can do if I give you examples proving my point, but you dismiss them out of hand based simply on your opinion without any evidence to back it up. 2. That isn't what I said at all. It's like you aren't even paying attention to my points and instead respond to what you wish I said. These taxes would be imposed on all of the payers from the outset. The parties that pay into the taxes for the program, the less they are for any one party. I haven't done a detailed analysis of how much would be needed down to the dollar, but based on the site I listed at the bottom of my last round, the country would save $350 billion on administrative costs alone. This is just one area where we would save lots of money with the single-payer system I mentioned, so I doubt if any taxes would be needed beyond what I mentioned before. The current recession is being lead by the housing market and the problems with credit associated with it. Banks around the world got caught up in our mortgage mess, and now they are all paying the price as well. A single-payer system would have nothing to do with this at all. It might cost some jobs in some areas, but create a lot of jobs in other areas, so that would either be neutral or be a positive. What rates are dropping? Insurance rates? Where did you get that from? I think you're confusing insurance rates with interest rates. The Fed cut interest rates. They have nothing to do cutting rates for health care at all. I wanted to debate universal health care, not educate you on the current state of the economy. Your lack of understanding the basics of our economy and the current state of it is dragging this debate down. 3. Why? Why can't you have universal coverage and private practices? You give absolutely no reasons to back up your claims. It's universal coverage, not universal provision. A single-payer system would be paid for by the government, but the payments would be made to private providers, just like how Medicare does it now. Again, your lack of understanding of the system is dragging this debate down. Some of medical inflation is due to the development of new medical devices and machinery. That is natural. Inflation due to the example I listed above wouldn't happen because HMOs would no longer be able to cut hospitals and doctors off at the knees. Also, the sales tax on the advertising and lobbying expenditures of pharmaceuticals and drug manufacturers would also provide them with an incentive to cut their costs, thus cutting prices. Device manufacturers current spend billions of dollars on lobbying doctors to use their devices, regardless of whether they are the best devices or not. Drug companies only spend 13% of revenues on R&D while they take 17% in profits and over 30% on advertising. THIS IS WHY DRUGS ARE SO EXPENSIVE. Not only would the tax either drive these prices down or help the government pay for their price, but the government's enormous negotiating power would also force these companies to drive down their prices, as well as get hospitals to strip out the inflation they have added to the system. These reasons are why inflation would be cut and reversed under the system I advocate. What hospitals would be lost? Where did that come from? 4. Hospitals will be as poor as other countries? What? I already illustrated how hospitals would be paid much more regularly and at a fair rate. They wouldn't be undercut by greedy HMOs that only pay 30% of the bill presented to them. None of the arguments you've mentioned, at least the ones where I can figure out what it is you're trying to say, have addressed this. If public hospitals get reimbursed more, regardless from where it's coming from, they don't have to tax localities as much to keep themselves running. That's just common sense. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're trying to say. 5. That's a nice article, but it doesn't explain much of anything. it only looks at our system. If our system is so efficient, then we would have the same numbers of life expectancy and infant mortality (among others) as other countries at the top of the WHO's list. Western Europeans, on average, live longer, have more children live through birth and infancy, have lower rates of disease and live healthier, all while spending FAR less than we do. Here, check this out: http://www.kff.org... We spend over $2 trillion on health care, but we get beat in just about every health category that matters. In just 7 years, that number is expected to double. And you're trying to tell me that our system is efficient and effective, especially after the numbers and examples I've given you about how inefficient our system is? 6. No, you didn't mention anything about trickle down economics above. Besides, what does that have to do with anything in this debate? Given the point in your life you're in, 25% doesn't mean anything to you. But once you're paying rent or a mortgage, paying for a car, utilities, food, credit card bills, etc., you'll understand what taking 25% of your income to pay for medical bills. Often times, its a lot worse than that. Sometimes it eats up everything they make, and thats when they have to file for bankruptcy. When this happens, everyone loses out: the hospital, the doctor, and everyone that person owed money to. When that happens, we all end up paying more to make up for what their creditors lost out on. We already pay for everyone else's inability to pay for medical care. I don't know how else to explain it to you if you're just going to keep dismissing that fact without any reason to back up your rationale. Just saying it doesn't make it so. 7. I have already explained repeatedly how doctors would be working in much better conditions than they do now. Yet, you continue to say it would be worse but don't give any reasons that I haven't already addressed as to why I'm wrong. Their wages would be the same, and they would get to keep much more of what they make since they wouldn't have to fight HMOs for every dollar they make. And no, getting paid for their services is not a trivial matter. You assuming there are other reasons for my NP friend paying for so many clerical staff does not mean there were. 8. Once again, you're ignoring what I said and continue to insist on your opinion without giving any evidence to back it up. 9. So you think that a rich person's life is more important to save just because they can pay for adequate care? Ok. 10. Did you even read the criteria? This is ho they judged the countries: "WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)." I'll address why you're wrong about Canada in my next round. |
b1ae42c6-2019-04-18T19:53:25Z-00002-000 | We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea. | O.k I concede i accidentally screwed up the names but my points still stand that there isn't an agency that could do a universal health program. Its really regardless. 1. All my opponent has done is say that as of now there are people without coverage and even Medicare and Medicaid cant solve it all. For this point to really have merit please try and present a organization that is up to the task. And as to what you were saying about the secretaries. All they are is advisor's and the president doesn't completely run the country thats why it is so great. There are three main branches and each branch is split up into smaller sections. But still no organization that could run the program offered by my opponent. 2. So on this part of the flow my opponent says when charges go up we take it from programs, when it goes up again we tax the affluent, when it goes up again...... It might seem to be a long run or short term fix but it isn't at all. There still isn't an answer id like to point out to my answer about the recession and how the transition would impact it. Oh and if you haven't been watching the news rates have been severely dropping and its up to the employer most the time as to which insurance you can get so rarely do people end up with a terrible one once employed. 3. Thats what im saying im saying you cant have private practices and a universal health system together it completely contradicts each other because if its universal it cant be private. While you say that inflation wont happen in the new system you give no reasons why, it still will because due to the loss the hospitals lose they will overcharge to compensate. 4. Again look to above sorry for mixing them up but it wont lower taxes it will raise those looking to some of my original arguments. And if the hospitals got less money they would be as poor as other countries. As Ill get to a bit lower. 5. Ill get to most this arguement about comparing countries a little later but it cant be too enlighting but if you want to compare sources http://www.news.harvard.edu... 6. Well for one the affluent in the country eventually trickling down to the middle class like I pointed out above. Also you think 25% is out of control once the universal health care program is implemented it will spiral out even more only now you cant do anything about it. Keeping the status quo is still the best system to keep. I'm sorry for your girlfriend i am, but if we were under your program any extra costs above the single pay would cost me or the government a lot of excess money for something not involving me in any way. 7. So Doctors would enjoy having worse condition and lower wages. Using some of my arguments from above. Why would a nurse use that much of her wage on such a trivial matter. That is a useless waste of money and Im sure there is alternative reasoning behind her problem. 8. I can concede that yes thats a small role in why people become doctors but people do become doctors for other factors like the fame and money, there would be a decrease in doctors no where near an increase. 9. I did mis read this a bit but in all it isn't a "right", it is something that you work for and pay for its not something to be handed to you. Hell i could consider welfare a right even though i don't need it. But id take it any way because its my "right" 10. Before you consider this argument you put up look at the actual source link on that page and read it all. It ranks the US in the issues that matter, timing of service and quality of service. The rankings were placed as they were based on how cheap each operation is. If you did go to a place like Canada the wait for an operation takes months if not years to actually get to the top of the list. This is because of how poor the actual system is and once they are in it it's impossible to change back. Thats why we must keep up the working program we have now. |
b1ae42c6-2019-04-18T19:53:25Z-00003-000 | We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea. | Let me begin by saying that, after reading your last round, it seems as though you didn't internalize what I said before making your points. Its like you were pretending I said something else and responded to your imagination. I'll try to get you back on track. 1. Let me just check and make sure you know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare cares for the elderly. Whether they are poor or not, old people qualify for Medicare coverage. Medicaid, on the other hand, covers poor people. For most people, you qualify to receive Medicare benefits once you turn 65. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid is needs-based and is administered by each state, so qualifications vary. Based on your previous round, you seem to have the two mixed up. And the fact that there is Medicaid and Medicare does not negate the fact that 47 million people in this country don't have health coverage. You have to stop thinking that people simply don't want coverage. No one wants to spend their lives hoping they don't get sick for fear of the bills they would face. Everyone wants insurance, they just can't afford it, even with Medicaid and Medicare. Even the American Medical Association, traditionally a very conservative organization of physicians that has opposed every attempt at national health coverage, is now running ads deploring the fact that 1 in 7 people are not covered. I would hope that that serves as some kind of perspective for you in just how bad the problem is right now. Under your logic, no program is capable of being run. Why do we have a Secretary of Defense or State? Why do we have a Secretary of Homeland Security? Why do we even have a president if no one person can run a large program? It seems like you're reaching for straws as for why the single-payer plan wouldn't work in this point. 2. What's so absurd about the tax plan I mentioned to cover it? Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals and device manufacturers would all be taxed before any individual. In addition, resources would be taken from Medicare and Medicaid to cover it since their role in providing services would be diminished. After those bases have been touched, then only the wealthiest people would be taxed first. Please explain to me what about this plan is absurd? As it is, employer-based coverage makes employees pay a certain percentage of the premiums. As medical costs have risen, the share that employers have been making employees pay as risen as well, or employers have stopped offering coverage altogether. Between this, copays and deductibles, individuals pay ridiculous amounts for usually crappy coverage. That's another thing. You mention "the different insurances". You're right. The fractious nature of the system means that every insurer has a smaller risk pool than would be the case in a single-payer system. This means that they have to keep their rates higher since they are pulling in money from fewer people. Its basic economies of scale. 3. Explain to me how hospitals and doctors remaining private keeps people from being entitled to the same thing? Universal health care is universal in COVERAGE, meaning that everyone is entitled to the same care since everyone has access to it. Under the current system, people get denied to the care they need all the time because they don't have the right coverage or no coverage at all. The private insurance market is the #1 problem. Let me explain to you how HMOs have totally screwed up the system. As it is, most insurers only pay a percentage of what Medicare pays. This is the example that the executive director of heart and vascular services at the hospital I worked at gave me: Say a certain procedure costs the hospital $8,000 to perform and Medicare pays the hospital $10,000 to do it. That means that the hospital makes $2,000 profit from it. HMOs, however, sometimes only pay 30% of what Medicare pays, which in this example would only be $3,000. That means that the hospital loses $5,000 every time they perform it. So, in order to simply pay its bills, the hospital has to inflate their prices 300%, turning that $3,000 into $9,000. The hospital's costs stayed the same at $8,000, but now they can make $1,000 profit on it. THIS IS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF MEDICAL INFLATION COMES FROM. These costs get passed onto to everyone else who needs that procedure, including Medicare. A single-payer system would completely erase the built up inflation in the system, as well as keep it from happening again. 4. I'm not even sure what you're talking about in this point. You made the mistake of confusing Medicare and Medicaid again, but aside from that, you aren't really saying anything else. Public hospitals are suffering, and raising local taxes just to cover themselves from so many people they see lacking coverage. The single-payer system I mentioned, or any universal system, would enable public and non-profit hospitals, who have much lower overhead than for profit hospitals, would be able to provide much better services and lower local taxes. 5. My points just aren't true? After working with doctors and hospital administration for nearly 10 years, I can tell you it is very much true. Here, go to Physicians for a National Health Program and see what they say about the time wasted dealing with HMOs. It's enlightening. And why India? How about France and Italy? Or how about Great Britain or Canada? All of them have universal systems and all of them have better health systems then we do, according to the World Health Organization. http://www.pnhp.org... 6. Who would be paying the same amount? I already pointed out to you who would be paying the taxes on this. And of course you're relatively healthy. You're only 16. I'm only 24, but I'm already having a few minor problems, but still problems nonetheless. My gf is also 24, but she's needed three reconstructive jaw surgeries. Dealing with her "premium" insurance provider has been a nightmare. I couldn't imagine if she had an HMO. That was only for her surgeries though. She doesn't have insurance anymore because she couldn't afford it. That doesn't mean her complications have stopped though. Count yourself lucky for being healthy. That won't always be the case. And when that time comes, you'll be angry if you have to spend 25% of your income of health care, which many people with insurance are having to do. If you did have to pay into the system, other people would be paying into it for you when you needed it. Trust me, you will need it at some point. 7. First of all, as I mentioned before, most insurers are wanting to move to only covering catastrophic coverage anyway. This system would only aid them in achieving what they want anyway. You clearly have no idea how much hospitals and doctors hate dealing with HMOs. I was talking with a nurse practitioner just today who was telling me she spent almost 34% of her income on clerical staff just to deal with billing. Doctors would love the new system if for no other reason then HMOs would be a thing of the past. 8. I didn't deny it. In fact, I backed it up. Read what I said again. It isn't the money they are in it for. They are in medicine because they love helping people and love the respect they get in their communities. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're talking about. 9. What? Are you even reading what I'm saying? I said I'm not on government coverage because I'm a full-time grad student and still covered by my mom's insurance. We're ranked between Costa Rica and Slovenia because of the lack of accessibility to our system. What the hell about my point made you think I thought the system was working as it is? 10. I don't know why you choose India for your examples. Here, check out the World Health Organization's rankings. At least 15 of the top 20 have universal or single-payer systems. http://www.photius.com... |
d3d8af51-2019-04-18T17:33:29Z-00000-000 | Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body | Debate is being redone here: http://www.debate.org... |
d3d8af51-2019-04-18T17:33:29Z-00001-000 | Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body | I agree with almost everything my opponent said. I do, however, disagree with two fairly large points he made.Humans have intrinsic valueI believe that value is given based on the characteristics of individuals themselves, not through the species they belong to. The species is irrelevant when determining rights, as membership of the group is not exclusive to those possessing the traits that give value. If a member of another species acted the same way as a human, with the same characteristics and only differing in the sense that it can't reproduce with a human, would you grant it value? If not, aren't you in effect granting rights based on who the animal in question can reproduce with and nothing else? If you would, would you say that humans don't have intrinsic value because they are human but because they have the traits that give them value? The parents have an obligation to the child.I disagree on the basis that I do not believe that individuals have any inherent obligations to anyone else. Obligations that are not formed through a contract between two consenting individuals only serve to restrict human choice (refer to my first round). A contract can be made between the parents, but the way my opponent phrased it makes me think that he's arguing that a contract is made between the parents and the child through the act of sex. Please correct me if I'm wrong.The main flaw that I can see with this argument is that a contract cannot be made with something not in existence or something unable to give consent. You cannot enter into a contract with a rock, nor can you enter into a contract with a magical fairy. I'll concede that when choosing to have sex, you are consenting to the future possibility to have a child. However, you are also accepting the possibility of having that child removed. If you are driving and get hit, it would be absurd to say that because you consented to the possibility of getting hit that you cannot go to the hospital or have your car fixed. When choosing to perform an action, you are consenting to the possibility of all the individual potential things that could happen happening, not just one particular chain of events. |
d3d8af51-2019-04-18T17:33:29Z-00002-000 | Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body | As per the rules, I will give my main argument in this round, and rebut Pro's opening argument (as well as his rebuttals) in the next round. I will be defending the Substance View, as given by Francis Beckwith. [1]1. The unborn entity, from fertilization [2], is a full-fledged member of the human community.2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong. [3]Premise 1Embryologists, who are the experts in the field, consistently agree that life begins at fertilization. For example, from the most-used textbook on embryology, the authors note: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte. " [4]Another embryologist has written the following: "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. " [5]On top of that, the more sophisticated pro-choice philosophers, like Judith Jarvis Thompson (who came up with the famous analogy of the violinist), and Peter Singer, accept the full humanity of the preborn. Peter Singer has noted, “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo Sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being. ” [6]Additionally, pro-choice philosopher David Boonin writes: "Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development. " [7]It's simply common sense. We know the preborn are alive because they grow. Non-living and dead things don't grow. They also exhibit the other signs of life, such as metabolism and cell division. The preborn have human DNA, and they are the product of human parents. Creatures reproduce after their own kind; dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. At no point in human development is a member of humanity a "non-human. "This is also different from saying that a hair follicle has human DNA, so it is wrong to pluck them out. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses are unique individual humans, developing from within, made up of all the individual parts. A hair follicle must stay plugged in to the parent organism to function. However, the parent organism can still function even if he/she loses parts of their body. The zygote/embryo/fetus is a full human organism made up of individual parts of which it develops from within, not constructed like a car. The pro-life position is that life begins at fertilization, which is supported by science. But more than that, there's a continuity of human existence from conception until natural death. At no point is someone "not a human being" then "becomes a human being. "Premise 2When I say the preborn are innocent human beings, I am not talking "spiritually" innocent, but physically innocent. They have committed no crime, and certainly not anything worthy of being killed for it. The only thing they have done is exist, and in the vast majority of cases it was through a consensual action of two people. If two people engage in a consensual act that results in the creation of a new, needy human life, they bear a responsibility to care for that life. I say that it is prima facie morally wrong to kill an unborn member of humanity because not all killing is wrong. The Substance View entails that we are the same substance that was in our mother's womb. You didn't come from an embryo, you once were an embryo. As such, if you are the same substance outside the womb as you were inside the womb, then if a morally justifiable reason is needed to kill you now, a morally justifiable reason was needed to kill you inside the womb. There is simply no difference between a human in utero and a human post utero that would justify killing one for any reason but not the other. ConclusionEvery abortion takes the life of a new, unique, living member of humanity, which has an intrinsic value just based on being human. Abortions take the life of an innocent, unique human being and is therefore immoral. My contention is that because the preborn are biological members of humanity, and killing an innocent member of humanity is prima facie wrong, then killing them through the act of abortion is immoral. If Con is to win this debate, he must show why the preborn are not members of humanity. For if they are not human, then no justification for abortion is necessary. But if they are human, then no justification for abortion is sufficient. Thank you for reading and I look forward to Con's response. [1] Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p. xii. [2] Beckwith argues from the "moment of conception. " I have changed this to fertilization. Conception is not actually a "moment," and the process of bringing a human into existence occurs sometime during the fertilization process, even though the exact point has not yet been agreed upon (Beckwith also mentions this later in his book). So I have substituted fertilization because I feel it's slightly more accurate. [3] It should be noted that if the Substance View succeeds, then even unsuccessful abortions are immoral since it is wrong to even attempt to take someone's life, even if the actual outcome was less than was intended (or if no harm actually arose). [4] Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8. [5] Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. p. 16. [6] Peter Singer,Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 85-86. [7] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) 20. |
d3d8af51-2019-04-18T17:33:29Z-00003-000 | Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body | Rationality is what separates man from beast. Rationality is the ability to make choices based on previous knowledge. Without it, we would be nothing more than empty husks, only perceiving the present moment. We would never be able to see beyond that; we would be drifting aimlessly in the wind. We would have no goals. All that would exist to us would be the now and the needs of the current moment. It is through rationality that man is allowed to exist at the level it does. If man were to choose to stop reasoning, he would surely die. Rationality is what separates good from bad, as it is what separates a higher level of life from death (in the sense of being either physically or mentally disabled). However, this does not mean that any actions taken with the intent of survival are moral. For example, killing a man and taking his food when he has not done anything to you is immoral. This is because you are infringing on that man's own right to rational action (which is fundamentally the same as the right to life). When dealing with things such as the right to rational action, you must acknowledge the right to property. Ownership of property exists because of human nature; without it, no choices could be made. If a choice was made, you are claiming ownership (or consent of the owner) of whatever that choice affects. You cannot make a choice in a void. A choice that does not affect anything else is not a choice. The very idea is a contradiction in terms. If property rights are ignored, no rational choices can be made. If rationality cannot be expressed, it is worthless. The most important piece of property is the self, for without it you cannot even make any choices pertaining to any outside object. If this is rejected, all property rights are rejected. Without the right to rational action, you cannot be said to be living. Either you are being controlled by some entity outside your control or you are dead. Being a mental slave means that you are acting because of the choices of someone else, not your own. In what way, then, can it truly be said that it is your life? You would be nothing more than a vessel for someone else; an extension of them. Therefore, in order to recognize the right to life you need to recognize two things: that you have no obligations to anyone else, and following from that that you have no right to impose your own will on anyone else. If you accept the first without the second, you are creating a double-standard; excluding yourself from rules imposed on others for no good reason. If the fetus has no rightful claim to the mother's resources (because the mother does not consent), it can be denied them. Forcing the mother to keep the fetus would be equivalent to forcing the owner of a house to allow a homeless man to stay. In both cases, the owner of the property has no obligation to any who may want access to it. If the fetus is denied the mother's resources before the point of viability, it will, with almost 100% certainty, die. Given that the death of the fetus is inevitable, it is perfectly reasonable to kill it sooner rather than later. I realize that it may seem like that argument could be used to justify killing of all people, given that everyone dies sooner or later. However, this is ignoring the fact that the differences between the deaths of the fetuses are small enough to be ignored. When dealing with longer time frames, there is a higher chance that something in the scenario will change enough to be noticed. If two pictures are taken at the exact same time and come out the exact same way, down to the molecular level and the space that they occupy, you cannot call them different entities. Much like that, you could not call the deaths of the fetuses different enough to matter. I'm interested to see what my opponent's arguments will be. |
d3d8af51-2019-04-18T17:33:29Z-00004-000 | Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body | I agree to Bossyburrito's rules, terms, and first definition. *internet high fives Bossyburrito* Just one quick note, the second definition, on the left side (I'm assuming) should read as "viability," which is defined by the definition he gave. Now, he gave the definition as "the point at which it is not virtually guaranteed (i.e. with 99% probability) that the fetus will die outside the mother's body." However, the point of viability being at about 22 to 24 weeks, the child simply has a "better than average" chance of surviving outside the mother's body, with chances increasing as the pregnancy continues. So it would probably help if Bossyburrito was more specific about how viable the unborn must be before it should be considered wrong to kill him/her. |
d3d8af51-2019-04-18T17:33:29Z-00005-000 | Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body | Resolution: Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body. Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access. (2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate (3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. (4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five (2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph) Definitions Abortion: Terminating a pregnancy through the death and removal of the fetus. Ability to survive outside the mother's body: Being able to live after being removed from the mother; the point at which it is not virtually guaranteed (i.e with ~99 % probability) that the fetus will die outside the mother's body. {Opening round format taken with permission from Wallstreetatheist} |
bd0735e9-2019-04-18T12:35:13Z-00000-000 | Banning guns would do nothing | Japan also ranks among the least corrupt countries around the world; While US ranks among the most corrupt countries in the world. Lets look at Great Britain, they also have banned guns, but their crime rate has gone way up in just a decade. https://www.buckeyefirearms.org.... Guns were not a problem 30-100 years ago, so then you have to ask yourself, Why does gun violence continue to rise (Corruption equals violence). Examples of Corruption: 1. Hillary Clinton took donations from foreign governments and funded ISIS https://nworeport.me... 2. Corruption that occurs daily on wallstreet. Banks like Goldman Sachs profited from the economic crash (2008). Goldman Sachs made 50 billion in revenue for 2009. The greed on Wallstreet is sucking America dry. http:theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/how-goldman-sachs-made-tens-of-billions-of-dollars-from-the-economic-collapse-of-america-in-four-easy-steps 3. We have a corrupt court system. Harden criminals are often let out early because the jails are overcrowded with people that committed non violent crimes. People that are rich can often buy their way out of trouble. America has become corupt in every way possible. As the unemployment rate rises and the cost of living continues to sky rocket, people are resorting to crime (selling drugs). Banning guns would only disarm law abiding citizens, while criminals (gun cartals) would profit; Remember the alchol probition. |
bd0735e9-2019-04-18T12:35:13Z-00001-000 | Banning guns would do nothing | In today's American society, nobody needs a gun to protect themselves or their loved ones. I bring my first argument to the gun laws that are present in Japan. There, common citizens aren't allowed to own firearms or even swords. This is best explained through David Kopel's article on this website: http://www.davekopel.com... There, he claims "Japan's crime rate is very low, and its gun crime rate virtually nil. Anti-gun lobbies tout Japan as the kind of nation that America could be, if only we would ban guns. Handgun Control quotes a Japanese newspaper reporter who writes: 'It strikes me as clear that there is a distinct correlation between gun control laws and the rate of violent crime. The fewer the guns, the less the violence.'" We can readily see that in Japan, where gun ownership is outlawed to any non-law enforcement personnel, crime rates are very low and the standard of living has undergone a dramatic rise, as shown on this website: https://en.wikipedia.org... On that same website, we can see that "A Japanese social scientist ranked Japan among a group of ten other industrialized nations, according to a list of variables. Data was from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s and Japan was rated better than average in terms of overall income distribution, per capita disposable income, traffic safety and crime, life expectancy and infant mortality, proportion of owner- occupied homes, work stoppages and labor unrest, worker absenteeism, and air pollution." We can look upon Japan as an example of what would happen should The United States ban firearms ownership. I humbly await your response and thank you for this opportunity to debate this highly controversial issue. |
bd0735e9-2019-04-18T12:35:13Z-00002-000 | Banning guns would do nothing | Can you can wave a wond and take everyones guns away; In todays society you need a gun. Its sad but true. |
4e684e22-2019-04-18T19:27:09Z-00000-000 | This house believes that China is overreaching | l |
4e684e22-2019-04-18T19:27:09Z-00002-000 | This house believes that China is overreaching | 1: Greenhouse gas emissions. The fact remains uncontested that China's greenhouse gas emissions are consistent with a developing country of its size. There is no overreaching in emissions. That high levels of people remain in poverty, while undesirable, is irrelevant. 2: Isolated cases of defective products do not show widespread fraud in China. The recent salmonella-infected peanut scandal in the U.S does not mean all U.S based firms use defective products. Unless the pro can show widespread fraud, this does not indicate overreach. All of facts from China are consistent with a large, growing economy. They do not show economic overreach. |
4e684e22-2019-04-18T19:27:09Z-00003-000 | This house believes that China is overreaching | I'd like to remind my opponent that many people out of 1/6th is suffering due to poverty etc. China is currently the largest emitter in greenhouse gases, it just overtook USA last month thus it is not something which is expected but something which already happened. It's the second largest emitter of Carbon.It's well known that China was blamed for producing goods not up to the required standard. E.g. In order to bring the milkpowder produced in China upto the required specifications, firms in China used Melamine which is unhealthy to increase the protein level in milk. This shows that China's using fraud to develop. China is hiding behind the banner,Developing countries,causing more harm than developed countries, thus China is overreaching |
4e684e22-2019-04-18T19:27:09Z-00004-000 | This house believes that China is overreaching | My opponent's primary point seems to be that China has the highest emissions level in the world right now. However, this is only to be expected. It is a country that contains 1/6th of the worlds population, and is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The United States, with 1/4th of the population of China, still manages to come in second. China is not overreaching right now. Its C02 emissions are perfectly normal for a country of its size. Its fast-developing economy ensures that it will have high C02 emissions, but attempting to impose the standards for developed countries, on one which is developing, as China is, would only prolong the period of high emissions, and make it harder to maintain progress. There is no overreac |
4e684e22-2019-04-18T19:27:09Z-00005-000 | This house believes that China is overreaching | Eventhough China is a developing country, we see that it is overreaching the reason as to why we say so is that because China is hiding behind the mere banner of developing countries and not bearing the same obligations as developed nations. For example statistics reveal that China is the biggest green house emissioner in the world currently, which proves that China is overreaching. Also we see that China is emerging as a world power through unstacble unacceptable policies. therefore i strongly believe that China iis overreaching. |
446913e7-2019-04-18T15:54:16Z-00000-000 | gods | Shame |
446913e7-2019-04-18T15:54:16Z-00001-000 | gods | My opponent forfeits. |
446913e7-2019-04-18T15:54:16Z-00002-000 | gods | I accept. |
446913e7-2019-04-18T15:54:16Z-00003-000 | gods | /Users/tomlang/Desktop/GO AHEAD, DRINK THE KOOL-AID!.rtf/Users/tomlang/Desktop/COLONEL COLT IS A GOOD FRIEND IN A FIGHT.rtf/Users/tomlang/Desktop/PLAY GOD.rtf Dear gods, Those who know, don't say Those who say, don't know Enough said? Sincerely, Lao Tse |
5ae6d40d-2019-04-18T13:49:32Z-00000-000 | A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State | Though there are much more advantages of a totalitarian state, we still have some negativity of it , on which a democratic state outshines... 1.There is a little or no freedom of choice, and often some economic decisions leads to disastrous effects.Stalin's decision of Five Year Plan undoubtedly made Union free of depression, but it led thousand of people to starvation. Similar is now going with North Korea. 2.This system demands obedience. No arguments, No disagreement. Instead , in a democratic system, it gives full opportunity to the society to keep their arguments and obstruct wherever they feel it is going wrong. 3.This system is a form of dictatorship which spreads war, hatred, aggression and many ,more. 2nd World War was a result of this kind of dictatorship only. In a democratic system, even the PM doesn't take decisions alone, instead with the seek of other council members too. I think this all shows that democracy is the right way to rule. Totalitarian leads to disasters(somewhere, not fully) |
5ae6d40d-2019-04-18T13:49:32Z-00001-000 | A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State | I have no arguements to add i will just add rebuttals because adding new arguements in the final round would be unethicalRebuttals-Stability of democracy: My opponent hasnt explained why this is more effective than a totaltarian state. She has not provided any sources for this and thus should be ignored. Not only that but my opponenet hasnt even listed an example of a totaltarian society collapsing due to the oppression of the people. This point has no impact-Knowledge of the Voter: My opponent hasnt listed any sources or proof that voters are not ignorant of their situation while i have. This point has no impact either-Oppression: My opponent hasnt necessarily shown why this is not effective but has shown instead why it is "morally wrong". My opponent hasnt rebutted any of my claims while i have rebutted hers. |
5ae6d40d-2019-04-18T13:49:32Z-00002-000 | A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State | While democracy on a large scale does not lend itself to quick change and mobility, it does ensure a greater likelihood of popular support. This in itself tends to lead to a more content society, unlikely to revolt against the government. Thus the stability of Democracy is its most important attribute. My opponent argued that the different parties( My opponent could not point some special party ) put porks in the passing of a bill. Well, it's not exactly true. The presence of different and no. of parties give a broad choice to the citizens. And the citizens of the country are well aware of their countries progress. So, they know who is the better person for their country. Democracy also allows people to voice their arguments if they feel anything going wrong. People could peacefully raise their voice and put up their arguments before the govt. So, this could not be questioned that the people are ignorant and could choose some wrong person for the country. Every vote cast in a democratic country has equal weight and it is not the case with totalitarianism. The freedom of citizens is totally secured in democracy whereas the freedom of citizens is not secured in the case of totalitarianism. On the other hand totalitarian form of government imposes restriction of speech, mass surveillance and use of other limiting powers on the citizens.On the contrary democracy does not impose restriction of speech on the citizens. On the other hand it does not curb the power and the decision making right of the individual citizen. In democracy citizens have great share in state decision making whereas in totalitarianism the single person with whom the power lies alone is bestowed with the power of state decision speaking. |