Thanks for the voting and feedback.
I find the concept of Freedom difficult as a framework,
I think it is often overshadowed by safety for people.
. . . Course people often get upset about losing freedom to safety.
Flock cameras for instance, are a recent example of such.
Thanks for voting.
Thanks for voting,
Personally I think the damage and risks of Covid were overstated,
Not that either mentioned such in the debate, just idle thoughts.
. . .
Besides, give the government permission for the 'greater 'good, next thing you know they're injecting you with testosterone, hauling one away to a looney bin, or spying on you through your phone, internet, or computer.
Don't take the sarcasm too serious, I'm just being performative.
Ahhh,
Freedom 'and Self Autonomy,
@whiteflame
I wonder if we 'have enough time to test geoengineering much, and if big changes from climate change happen as some people claim,
Then the the people will be clamoring for government to do 'something.
Despite what a lot of scientists claim, I still find the worst climate change worries hard to believe.
Just so outside the norm of what one is used to.
@SatanLucy
If it wasn't for the debate definition, I agree that'd be a great tactic.
"geoengineering
refers to the large-scale, intentional manipulation of Earth's climate systems to counteract the effects of climate change."
Course on another hand, "large-scale" could be interpreted as regional, honestly cities and states 'are pretty large.
Thanks for voting,
What's your take on Global Warming, Cutting Emissions, and Geoengineering?
Thanks for voting,
Victory does seem likely, Con having forfeited final round.
Thanks for voting,
I'm not actually sure plants 'can remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Frameworks, Hm, I suppose it's better to state them clearly, but I think I often forget, and instead imply frameworks by my arguments.
Ah. . .
I still know nothing about global warming or Geoengineering.
Woo!
Top of the food chain!
No one causing trouble to humans but us!
Thanks for voting.
I thought it a good vote.
Good points.
THANKS FOR VOTING
Your vote does make me think that the debate had a lot more fertile ground for Con than I managed.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE
I figured the guiding principle was roughly the three areas we kept coming back to, best 2 of 3 so to speak.
Though I suppose their can be some vagueness in whose Economic Benefit matters. I tried to steer it towards meaning the common peoples Economic Benefit.
Health and Ecological had slight connection,
GMO DEFINITION
I still think GMOs are so obviously different from science lab modifications, that I ought not even have to argue against not everything being a GMO.
GMO HEALTHYNESS
I might have failed my research roll,
But I'm not sure the healthiness of 'some GMOs 'can be argued against.
When scientific authorities mostly say something is healthy and safe (When used correctly).
Seemed a waste of word space for me.
Better off arguing against who controls the GMOs.
WHAT an item is, is partially discerned by who holds said item (In my view).
. . . I probably could have made more of an effort to argue healthy non GMO sources of food. . . But the point seems to end up with the GMOs in the end anyhow.
PESTACIDE
I 'think I raised the pesticides being sprayed on crops too much in 'Every round.
. . . But, I did brush past the differences between pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides throughout the debate.
SUICIDE RATE AND GMO COMPANIES
I didn't think the suicide rate was worth discussing, as I assumed Pro's use of it was more about denying the internet claim that GMOs and companies have caused higher suicide rates.
At a glance online, I 'think most people claim GMOs causing suicides is false.
Didn't seem worth disputing.
. . . Though, I probably could have disputed it 'some.
. . . I also probably could have given more concrete proofs of how companies often overwhelm small or individual businesses. But I assumed such was already accepted as a common fact by most people.
WIND BLOWN SEEDS
Yeah, I probably should have used a different source.
@Kohai
Same.
@Savant
Thanks for voting.
Yeah, I'd say I was a bit careless about my sources.
I did think about using some anti GMO ones, but they looked 'real partisan and not necessarily too sciencey.
I did make a mental note to address Pro's sources and arguments from round 1 in my round 2,
But I think I quoted from my sources too much and ate up my word count too much.
I'm also not sure 'how objectionable his sources were, at a research glance, lot of internet results seem to like GMOs and their nutritional benefit.
Arguably if used carefully lot of the stuff that kills farmers or ecosystems 'can be managed.
So I figured, if I'm not sure how to attack the GMOs, I'm better off attacking who controls the GMOs.
GMOs then become neutral, same as a knife might be.
People might say knives are good, but arguably dependent on context.
Most schools don't like their students carrying knives.
I do think Kohai did a good job in attacking my sources and arguments.
Personally,
I don't like GMOs because all the genetic modification creeps me out.
I don't understand it, and I worry about them unknowingly ruining entire species by their mad scientist tinkering.
Not that I found much any of a leg to stand on for that point of view in the debate.
But I'm bad at research.
Thanks for voting,
I felt a bit bad for focusing on the present meaning of the term boon or bane,
(Felt semantics a bit)
But debate goalposts seemed a bit vague, and I think Pro 'still could have focused on the expected outcome of Social Media in the near future.
Or the Now.
Pro had home court advantage of Social Media effect on India, since India ended up a large focus of the debate.
Though countries are huge, Pro arguably knew more about Social Media's effects on India than myself.
. . They could have refocused debate towards Social Medias effect in 'general as a positive for humans.
Resources for example are 'generally a boon, even if sometimes they lead to countries being attacked by foreign nations.
Well, I just like how some of it 'sounds to me. I suppose.
Thanks for voting.
Were there any arguments that hit with you in particular?
I'd agree my grammar is often pretty bad.
. . . Some of it's intentional.
Tribalism,
People often to prefer to live around people who look like them, who share similar beliefs, values, and traditions.
Just an extension of Egoism,
One see's what is like oneself, values and prioritizes it above that which is unlike oneself.
A person often loves and trusts a brother more than a cousin, a cousin more than an outsider.
That's just Nature, Nurture, and certain Game Theory.
People who are alike you, have an increase in bonding, in banding.
Love is Fondness and Familiarity,
People often like what is like themselves, they are often familiar with it.
Family, has often been close in human history, shared close ties.
There is often an aspect of race to it.
(Shrug) But there's families one is born into, and families one chooses.
. . .
If Nihilism is true, why 'not be a colorist?
Goths prefer their culture of black and white clothes, I imagine.
Probably don't like colors such as bright blue.
. . .
I think I object to biological race being based on skin color.
I think biological race is a gamut, a variety of factors, and. . . Maybe not too well agreed upon in definitions.
It is something 'genetic I am thinking, but suppose this world had same climate everywhere, just white people or just black people, other differing factors would emerge.
Physical signifiers of genetics and rough idea of shared blood/family.
It's a strange lens, have 10 different colors, and you have 10 different races, But if you have 10 different shades of one color, you have 10 different races.
Though, it need not be 'color.
It's really 'any common genetic differences. Race is something implicative of genes, implicative of shared genetics, family relations. . . .
Is a white dwarf the same race as a black dwarf?
Is a white dwarf the same race an a white person without dwarfism?
Is a black person with albinism considered white?
Assumably there would be 'many characteristics one could choose from.
Biology and sorting of animals into different groups, always looks a bit haphazard to me. . . .
Hm, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation
Are all such beings of the crab race? I am not studied in biological nomenclature.
Is a white person of the white race, but then after tanning of the black race?
“In as few words as possible,” he began, “Spencer puts it something like this: First, a man must act for his own benefit—to do this is to be moral and good. Next, he must act for the benefit of his children. And third, he must act for the benefit of his race.”
- Wolf Larson, The Sea Wolf by Jack London
"This loneliness is bad enough in itself, but, to make it worse, he is oppressed by the primal melancholy of the race. Knowing him, I review the old Scandinavian myths with clearer understanding. The white-skinned, fair-haired savages who created that terrible pantheon were of the same fibre as he. The frivolity of the laughter-loving Latins is no part of him. When he laughs it is from a humour that is nothing else than ferocious. But he laughs rarely; he is too often sad. And it is a sadness as deep-reaching as the roots of the race. It is the race heritage, the sadness which has made the race sober-minded, clean-lived and fanatically moral, and which, in this latter connection, has culminated among the English in the Reformed Church and Mrs. Grundy."
- Humphrey Van Weyden, The Sea Wolf by Jack London
"We've spawned a new race here, Mr. Dikinson. Rougher, simpler; more violent, more enterprising; less refined. We're a new nationality. We require a new nation."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1776 Musical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitiligo
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/skin-condition-transforms-black-girl-into-white-woman-6728938.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis
Would an Irish man with such, be the same race as an Italian man with such?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0LjaN8PJWM Are all dogs considered dogs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening
. . . Warhammer and ideas of Gene Seed, Space Marines.
I considered accepting the challenge, but I'm not really sure 'how to argue against the debate and description.
Thanks for voting,
I did use a lot of sources, mainly because I think frequent use of sources avoid the other person getting points for sources, and it makes it harder for opponent to outright dismiss claims as being without any evidence.
I wouldn't say novelnotions solely relied on deductive reasoning, they did have a number of sources in round 1, backing their arguments there. And a number of their later arguments in round 2.
Though, Disparity in number of sources can stack up. Which can be annoying when an opponent seems to spam sources. . .
But one can always just source basic claims oneself is making, and take the opportunity to attack the opponents sources.
Public libraries in India for instance, I'm not sure how common or 'easily accessible they 'are for people.
Online data though, doesn't require any driving or walking to get to, and has potentially more books.
. . . 'If one can find or access them.
IS vs COULD,
I don't think people are wrong to say an event is a boon, even if they mean the rewards are in the far future.
People often talk about events in nations histories and refer to them as boons for the nations. Even if the events in themselves were tragedies. Say some country gets invaded by an enemy, but then defeats that enemy and gains territory as a result of the war.
In a sense, I suppose current events 'could be boons. And that is what the debate is about, whether they are likely to be or not.
Some 'resources, one might consider boons, oil for example.
But if one can't 'use the oil, or if one gets invaded by other nations to use the oil, it wasn't much of a boon for the people there.
https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitiligo
https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/skin-condition-transforms-black-girl-into-white-woman-6728938.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martina_Big
"Malaika Kubwa (born 1988), known professionally as Martina Big, is a German television personality known for her extremely large breast implants and for undergoing a perma-tanning procedure to give herself a dark skin color, eyebrow color and eye color.[1][2][3] Big currently identifies as Black."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Laing
"Sandra Laing (born 26 November 1955) is a South African woman who was classified as Coloured by authorities during the apartheid era, due to her skin colour and hair texture, although she was officially listed as the child of at least three generations of ancestors who had been regarded as white."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis
Would an Irish man with such, be the same race as an Italian man with such?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0LjaN8PJWM
Are all dogs considered dogs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening
. . .
Warhammer and ideas of Gene Seed, Space Marines.
@Tickbeat
I think I object to biological race being based on skin color.
I think biological race is a gamut, a variety of factors, and. . . Maybe not too well agreed upon in definitions.
It is something 'genetic I am thinking, but suppose this world had same climate everywhere, just white people or just black people, other differing factors would emerge. Physical signifiers of genetics and rough idea of shared blood/family.
It's a strange lens, have 10 different colors, and you have 10 different races,
But if you have 10 different shades of one color, you have 10 different races.
Though, it need not be 'color. It's really 'any common genetic differences.
Race is something implicative of genes, implicative of shared genetics, family relations.
. . . Is a white dwarf the same race as a black dwarf?
Is a white dwarf the same race an a white person without dwarfism?
Is a black person with albinism considered white?
Assumably there would be 'many characteristics one could choose from.
Biology and sorting of animals into different groups, always looks a bit haphazard to me.
. . . Hm,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation
Are all such beings of the crab race?
I am not studied in biological nomenclature.
Is a white person of the white race, but then after tanning of the black race?
@Self Thinking
“In as few words as possible,” he began, “Spencer puts it something like this: First, a man must act for his own benefit—to do this is to be moral and good. Next, he must act for the benefit of his children. And third, he must act for the benefit of his race.”
- Wolf Larson, The Sea Wolf by Jack London
"This loneliness is bad enough in itself, but, to make it worse, he is oppressed by the primal melancholy of the race. Knowing him, I review the old Scandinavian myths with clearer understanding. The white-skinned, fair-haired savages who created that terrible pantheon were of the same fibre as he. The frivolity of the laughter-loving Latins is no part of him. When he laughs it is from a humour that is nothing else than ferocious. But he laughs rarely; he is too often sad. And it is a sadness as deep-reaching as the roots of the race. It is the race heritage, the sadness which has made the race sober-minded, clean-lived and fanatically moral, and which, in this latter connection, has culminated among the English in the Reformed Church and Mrs. Grundy."
- Humphrey Van Weyden, The Sea Wolf by Jack London
"We've spawned a new race here, Mr. Dikinson. Rougher, simpler; more violent, more enterprising; less refined. We're a new nationality. We require a new nation."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1776 Musical
Oh definitely there's concepts, methods of expression, and ideals that exist in multiple religions at once,
To varying degrees though, of how closely they 'are similar concepts, methods, or ideals.
My eventual reading list grows.
Overall I'm not personally convinced by the health argument,
But I don't think I have anything new to say on it for now.
Something for me to consider.
I'm still doubtful on health and experience, but it's worth my thinking on it.
"A PERSON BEING TORTURED, SAY PHYSICALLY, WILL REGAURDLESS HAVE WOUNDS OR POSSIBLY FACE DEATH, EVEN IF THEY PREFER THIS, THIS IS OBJECTIVLY BAD FOR THEIR BEING." - YN
I might be misunderstanding you on BEING.
. . . If I take a side away from a square, it is not a triangle,
But it was not good or bad for the square to have a side taken away. I think.
"We are Brahman"(simplified)? Or "Tat Tvam Asi"
It's an interesting perspective, I'd have to read or hear more about to better understand.
Though I think I get the gist, a gist is still far from comprehending.
I've not yet, read any books of Hinduism.
A friend I know, recommended The Mahabharata, but I had no luck at the local library.
One never seems to run out of books on their reading list.
"What does it mean to be considered healthy? Can today's healthy be tomorrow's healthy? Yet, health is still objective." - YN
Consider this, is it,
Healthy to have dark or light skin?
Healthy to have a large or small body?
Healthy to have a short or fast metabolism?
I'd argue it depends on the environment.
Lot or sun, little sun,
Need to fight or hide from predators,
Is food around meat or plants.
. . . Suppose. .
Semelparous organisms reproduce only once in their lifetime.
Octopuses for example, I 'think.
Imagine them intelligent, perhaps creating a culture around the purpose of life being to die after achieving the means to provide for their soon to be offspring.
It has meaning for them, the old must die for the new.
The old do not 'wish to live 'too long, to see the world they knew change too much.
If by an accident, an octopus became immortal, whether they could or couldn't reproduce.
Would they consider their body 'healthy? 'Functional in the way that gives them meaning?
"DO WE REALLY NEED OBJECTIVE MORALITY?" - YN
Well if Objective Morality isn't true, the human species hasn't needed it thus far.
Though we humans might have needed and still need the illusion of Objective Morality, generally speaking.
"SO CAN'T WE CONCLUDE THAT MORALITY IS ORGANIZING BEHAVIOR AROUND UNWANTED THINGS?" - YN
I think "unwanted things" is Subjective to Ends.
If I were an Aztec living back during the Flower Wars era, I 'might think warfare, being captured and sacrificing or being sacrificed was awesome.
I'm sure human morality often organizes in behavior that sees to the end of stable society and producing more people, since I think reproduction of genetics and relatives genetics is a big driver in humans.
But I want and unwant things in themselves, Virtue Ethics to varying degrees at different moments in my life.
I think "wanted and unwanted" things only exist in the sense of Ends and Norms.
"DO WE REALLY NEED OBJECTIVE TRUTH TO JUSTIFY MORAL CLAIMS?" - YN
In the sense of geometry, yes.
In the sense of chess, no.
"EVEN IF MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE, DO YOU AGREE THAT SOME STATES ARE WORSE THAN OTHERS ON OUTCOMES TO CONSCIOUS BEINGS?" - YN
"TORTURE VS WELLBEING?" - YN
No, I don't agree.
According to my 'Subjective Norms, yes, but that isn't 'Truth.
"IN EXPERIANCING TORTURE VS EXPERIANCING PEACE. YOU COULD SAY "IT DEPENDS ON THE PERSON", BUT IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN THE OUTCOME OF THESE TWO EXPERIANCES?" - YN
"IF SO, WHICH ONE IS BETTER OR WORSE FOR SOCIETY?" - YN
In the sense of a square and triangle being different perhaps, but I do not think that is morality.
It may work as a 'Means explanation, as to whether X action will or will not work to achieve X End. But people's Ends still vary in my view.
. . . It will also be more or less true at different moments in a societies history in my view.
Cannibalism, infant murder, sexual assault, have had moments in history where they have been quite useful to groups of humans surviving or killing other groups of humans.
Various societies in history normalized and even glamorized such actions I 'think.
In many other moments of history, such behaviors have 'not been useful, in 'those moments.
An error (In my view) I saw Sam Harris making in his book, was when talking about bodily health, the examples I read up the point I stopped, only talked about the body becoming 'stronger in the future (In terms of what we consider stronger).
. . . I do not think Evolution in Biology or Morality are progressing towards some singular 'Right 'State of 'Being.
I do not think 'survival is the End all Be all personal meaning, for many humans.
Meaning being subjective.
"HAVE YOU HEARD OF "WE ARE BRAHMAN" (SIMPLIFIED)? OR "TAT TVAM ASI?"? IF SO, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON IT? IT IS SAYING CONCIOUSNESS, OR REALITY IS AN OCEAN AND "WE" ARE JUST WAVES. IT IS TOO COMPLICATED TO EXPLAIN. . ." - YN
I 'think have heard of such ideas in 'passing. But I have not read it in depth.
Some similarity to some variations of Pantheism perhaps?
You are another me, and I am another you.
We're all one person, in a sense.
. . Stoicism I 'think, has some similar ideas. That nothing is truly destroyed, only transformed and part of eternal existence.
Other Stoics believe in eternal reoccurrence of some type, I 'think.
I will admit existence, consciousness 'is strange.
I am not able to speak with authority of what existence is, but we all have views, and hold to something.
I don't 'like the idea of being 'part of something else to such a large degree. I am fond of my Ego and Idea of self.
