Magoroth

I’ve only read the first two arguments but so far I’d call this a tie, maybe leaning Con, Pro made some arguments that are at best tangentially related to what was being discussed, and Con didn’t really address them in full

Pro begins by making some analogy between cats and Gods, one that doesn’t really hold and is basically “if you substitute the word ‘cat’ for ‘god’ you get this sentence”, I can accept that it’s a metaphor but that’s kind of all it is, it’s not an argument

Then he uses modal logic to arrive at the conclusion multiple Gods are necessary? Because if there was more than one thing with identical characteristics they must be the same thing, but then he assumes this doesn’t apply to Gods for whatever reason?


My personal opinion comes down to which is simpler to assume. If you assume multiple Gods exist and they’re all necessary, well they’re all responsible for different parts of reality, I imagine, but this isn’t as simple as “there’s one God and he’s responsible for ALL of reality himself”. So, Occam’s razor, single God seems more likely

But then I thought, you could have these disparate Gods add up in such a way that collectively they are equivalent to a single God. That’s fine and dandy, but it’s just equivalent to a single God, conceptually, in which case you could argue polytheism is just as likely (although you would need a potentially infinite number of Gods)

So in short, monotheism seems simpler, and I don’t see where Pro came up with his PII argument

I mean I haven’t actually seen RemyBrown harass anyone, to my memory at least. If this is just a case of people disliking his opinions… I don’t think he should be banned.

I didn’t actually see any examples from Kohai of threads or comments made by RemyBrown that he considers problematic, so it’s all kinda just down to “hearsay” and speculation.

Also I don’t think throwing out the CoC like that is helpful when someone hasn’t actually personally attacked anyone. And as I near as I can tell, he hasn’t actually violated the CoC unless you take some “ambiguous” wording and make it mean something specific, like the point about site integrity.

Should someone be banned just because their opinions are widely disliked or whatever was my nearest take-away although it wasn’t super obvious what the point about site integrity really means in the grand scheme of things.

So you can become homosexual by having sex with a man? That’s kinda what the text implies.

Mal is literally definition wrangling. How in God’s name is slavery being forced to do something? That’s such a dumb definition. For a couple reasons. First off, literally EVERYONE is forced to do something at some point, by someone or something else. Even in physics, every action comes with a reaction. Is the world just a mixture of slaves? The word comes utterly meaningless when everyone and even everything can be a slave.

Second, being a slave means you are owned by someone else. Every society that had slaves used slaves for this specific type of servitude; slaves don’t have free will except in a very limited sense (whatever their master decides to let them do). And the 9-5 example is laughable. Nobody is enslaving. You are getting paid to do a job you actually voluntarily consented to.

Under any reasonable person’s “definition” of slavery, slavery is unequivocally bad. No, parents aren’t enslaving their children. That’s retarded.

I wish I could vote for Con but he didn’t argue the absurd definition that Mal gave for slavery, so I won’t be voting.

What about intelligence though. Ooga booga me mace you in the head is communication but it’s not particularly useful.

Yes, works for me. I apologise; thought I would have enough time for this. Thank you for offering to turn this into a two-round debate, I appreciate it.

Yeah, an interesting topic. Looking forward to debating this with you. Actually haven’t done this kind of thing before.

I feel like it is almost impossible for Con to lose this debate. Pro essentially would have to make up evidence that God(s) don’t/doesn’t exist and by definition that pretty much means Pro would have to show evidence that no Gods can exist, and I don’t see how someone could have such evidence; anything claimed as evidence could be attacked or disregarded quite easily.