I will enjoy reading this debate, I am still wondering about this view.
Not wrong. Banning abortion is crucial for birth rates to raise again.
Who needs nukes when you have Allah. And if Allah wills it, Allah will give nukes.
Now this is a good way to make a topic.
thanks for taking time to vote.
I dont think moral frameworks can be logically justified much by deductive logic. I mean, the big argument for subjective morality and moral nihilism is that moral frameworks arent logically justified in any way but justified by mere wants, which defeats the point because if wants justify things, anything can be justified.
And yeah, of course opponent tries to attack the framework, person must defend it to convince voters. Justice framework is a big thing in law, because making laws based on consequentialism alone usually fails a lot, because consequentialism doesnt always predict consequences accurately. Consequentialism only looks good on paper. In reality, predicting consequences is so difficult long term that leads to cases where consequentialist reasoning in some cases causes more harm than good because some long term consequences werent considered.
Justice is usually defined by lex talionis (eye for eye) or draconian principles (two eyes for one eye).
And yeah, justice value in this case would justify killing of Ayatollah, and justice moral framework generally doesnt care for consequences of action, merely responding to harm with harm, as long as action's only goal is to return harm for harm, not do careless harm elsewhere.
"Planes hit on ground; damaged but not destroyed"
thats just US report. Reality: Planes can no longer fly (same as being destroyed).
Iran keeps bombing US bases and achieving its goals.
And this is just first week. Iran will probably destroy more next week. And as for "strikes are decreasing" - not true, Iran strikes more now than before. But number of strikes is irrelevant. What is relevant is achieving goals such as destroying US oil, which Iran has achieved a lot.
World oil production dropped by 15%, so that is victory for Iran. Also, US targeting system is outdated so USA says it doesn't know what it is hitting. USA mostly just hits civilians.
So Iran achieved goal of increasing oil prices in USA, as well as destroying US base in Saudi Arabia destroying 5 US advanced airplanes.
If USA keeps attacking Iran, Iran will have to achieve a goal to reduce world oil by further 30%.
You seem to be using outdated info. Iran just destroyed 5 US planes, destroyed almost all US oil fields and bases in region. So Iran achieved its goal, and achieving goal counts as victory.
I am not a Muslim. I just know Allah is powerful God, and Iran just destroyed five US planes at base in Saudi Arabia.
Which explains why Iran is scoring victory after victory.
Allah fights for Iran.
I mean, you are barely putting effort in a debate while your opponent writes a lot.
Your round is 3 sentences long.
Its a good round if voters accept your framework, but voters usually appreciate more of text more.
My advice to you is, if you are going to make very short arguments like this, at least limit number of characters in a debate for opponent as well.
Why give 20,000 characters if you will only use 1000 of them?
If you like short debates, at least make it so your opponent must write short arguments too, by setting character limit equal to your opening argument which you already prepare.
You are losing debate anyway.
thank you USA for killing Ayatollah.
Previous Ayatollah wanted peace and lack of escalation.
Now Iran has a new more advanced Ayatollah who wants more escalation.
I dont think I lost, but yeah, I cant blame myself for what voters do.
No good votes, I will just assume I won this.
Vote as you please, really. I dont report bad votes.
this is proof that Allah exists
Its not that I oppose use of AI. In fact, I am very much pro for use of AI in debates.
I just think it should be clearly stated, so that when I accept a debate, I know in advance if I am debating human or AI.
I dont always feel like putting in effort while my opponent just copy pastes all from AI.
So if I know in advance my opponent uses AI, I can use AI too, or maybe put in less effort.
It was a good debate.
Ah, I see, you are trolling. Nevermind.
Atheism is not a conclusion, but a lack of.
This is such an easy debate for me because the topic talks of actual action which happened. If this was hypothetical, I would be forced to argue that USA will likely target civilians. But since action actually happened with USA slaughtering civilians, my argument is about as certain as it gets.
I have a lot of arguments for both objective morality and against it. Arguments against it are strong too, mainly focusing on primitive term definitions, while arguments for objective morality focus on self defeat of subjective morality, as well as things which remain true in all cases (always everywhere true = objective).
tho I am not giving arguments here because this debate is very balanced and basically any argument can easily cause win of one side over the other.
Funny enough, I support both sides of this topic.
Personally, I use chatgpt 5.2, Grok, and some small local AI as well for quick offline responses. And yeah, a lot depends on prompt, but I will usually ask AI for opinion instead of forcing it to defend mine. A much better path, honestly.
I am not sure if he accepted islam, or if he just cant find time for site anymore due to real life. tho I wouldnt be surprised if he turned to islam.
No, my friend. One does not need to support Hamas to argue against an obviously flawed topic. Maybe ask AI its actual opinion instead of forcing AI to argue for your dumb thing.
