Ty for voting!!
Thx for voting
Thanks for being fair ! ^^
I am so sorry, I was very busy with my exams in France. Hope this will not be taken into account! If you could make this a two rounded debate this would be nice
So sorry !!!
Knew that was a loss by advance, but I strongly believe that, despite all this "debating context", you should, as an individual, if you have the occasion to, stop smoking.
" "Civilization is organized collective structure."
Which starts in the mind. I have to think of civility prior to it being. I can do anything I set my MIND to. Another solidifying axiom that doesn't come out of nowhere. It's the truth. It starts with mindset, therefore it is the root. "
The root is not what starts a causal chain, the root is what enables something to exist. The coherent answer to how a computer functions is electricity, not atoms. You are ignoring half of what is wrong with your stance
Language needs intelligence
If every definition falls into my point there's no point giving any ; you're arguing the outter part of the argument and not really the main of what i said
I didn't need to provide a proper definition, because any definition makes my point. My point was about the compatibility of friendship (a relation based on trust and positive experience) and cigarettes, and I proved that cigarettes cannot be objectively good. If cigarettes are bad for you then they are by definition bad. (Plus, a cigarette being personified is rationaly impossible). My point was about proving the impossibility of being good, (therefore obviously not falling under any proper definition of "friendship".)
An epistemic way of debating is indeed a way to do things, but I mean, seriously, debating about the significance of a word? Instead I nullified the ability of cigarettes to be positive. And by definition a friendship is positive (if we suppose cigarettes can be a friend, which they cannot).
Instead of studying what Con talked about**
The key point you are missing is that an object and a relationship between two individuals doesn't work the same way.
1. A friendship needs reciprocity, intentions and relational capacity. A cigarette doesn't have a consciousness, and it cannot literally be a friend because friendship requires mutual agency and reciprocity.
-> that was so obvious i didn't mention it. I wanted objective claims. Attacking a word wouldn't convince them ; that was my whole point of debating
2. Missing something does not make it friendship.
Drug addicts also miss heroin. That does not make heroin their best friend.
-> Again, see how it's even easier to attack friendship ? But it's pointless.
3. In your vote Savant, instead of studying what Pro talked about on the topic, you discussed about what they COULD have talked about. Not to mention I had to pick a framework and stick by it ; not taking into account I only had one round and no chance of replying to any opposition.
It doesn't matter if you are convinced or not. It is factual to say cigarettes are not your best friend, regardless on how you see things.
After re-reading, I don't really see how it doesn't come in that definition either tho so
I see, i thought that when someone says something is their best friend, it means that it's good for them. Like if aspirin is your best friend, it's because it's good for you. That's why I was attacking this, not really the epistemic way of things :00
Ignore my last sentence, i thought there were more rounds :'l
Curious to see how you'll defend cigarettes ^^
Indeed, my point here is that the starting point is language, not about language systematically creating complex society ^^
Wanted to thank you for the debate, it was rlly fun and looking forward to doing that again!! Nice work from both of us
Alrighty
In my conclusion, I said "Somalia" instead of "Somaliland", please don't take this into account :')
I just noticed it
-> adding to my previous vote, which is apparently not elaborated enough.
Both sides weren't able to negate or add anything additionnal to the other's argument, despite the framework being consented mutually.
What i'm saying is: each side is compelling with its own assumptions, but neither successfuly defeats the other.
The notion of quality of life was itself very conceptualy underdetermined.
Furthermore, on the aspect of quality of life, it is a multi-dimensional construct, which has trouble with straightforward comparison.
Both Pro and Con were adding arguments, but never really addressing the inner structure of the other's arguments.
For example, Pro doesn't adress the long term stabilization (2027), then goes to Swiss....
The debate, accordingly, seems, to me, to end in a prima facie equilibrium.
Ceteris paribus, neither side clearly dominated (in terms of overall welfare..).
With all this being said, we are in a state of non liquet.
The arguments were overall interesting (Examples of interesting long-term planning like North Korea). I think a realistic targetting would've been the possibility of making certain assertions (CPTPP's inability to predict external factors, etc..).
In fine, the debate yields no decisive winner.
