SatanLucy

Free to speak.

Free to ignore.

Yeah, anyone can ignore anyone, and that's a good solution for most disagreements. There is no need to push for a ban of someone one dislikes. It's much easier and takes less energy to just ignore them.

This is why I say paganism is superior to Christianity, because paganism has more than one way to solve problem of evil.

The most obvious way is to just admit that God is evil.

Another way is what ancients did constantly. They had multiple Gods, some good, some evil, some a mix of good and evil.

So evil would get blamed on evil Gods, and good would be attributed to good Gods.

In fact, in ancient Greece, good Gods often fought against evil Gods, and evil Gods (titans) were ones who created the world.

God says it's wrong for humans to kill each other outside of certain circumstances, that's not the same as saying he's not justified in doing so.

God causes humans to kill each other, so he is causing what he claims is wrong.

The motivations for harming a bad person are what makes it evil though.

Given that God causes motivations too, this does not save him.

Since humans are also evil and have impure motivations, killing other people isn't a justified punishment for sin.

Well, God causes that, so saying it's not justified is merely saying God isn't justified.

But since God is motivated purely by judgment, he can punish humans and be justified.

If humans harming each other isn't justified, then God helping make that happen isn't justified either.

There is really no escaping from the dichotomy:

P1. There are evil actions in the world or no action in the world is evil.

P2. God enables (helps to make happen) all actions

C. God either enables all evil actions, or there are no evil actions.

P1 is logical truism.

P2 is true for both Islam and Christianity, unless in case of some extreme non-literal interpretation of the Bible where entire creation story is "made up".

C logically follows.

Again, it can be justified for non evil ppl to enable evil people to harm each other (like detectives getting criminals to snitch)

This would merely make all evil justified, and thus not evil. If it's good for "evil people" to harm each other, and everyone is evil, then there are no evil actions in the world.

Well their version of morality says everything God does is justified. So kind of defeats your point.

Actually, it doesn't if it produces contradiction. If God says "it is wrong to kill innocents" and then goes around killing innocents, God is unjustified by his own words. He is left with nothing to judge humans by, when God engages in same evil actions he judges humans for.

Humans aren't in a position to punish each other for sin,

People do that all the time.

so its more virtuous to save each other.

This sentence doesn't really follow from previous statement.

It matters a lot the purity of your motivations, and no one's motivations are fully pure except God

This is an assumption. If God does evil, what his motivations are is irrelevant. Doing evil makes you evil. What excuse you make up to do evil, doesn't change the fact that you are doing evil.

For most topics out there, if not all, at the very minimum, you need deductive definition argument.

If topic is "smoking is harmful", and you just make observations argument on effects of smoking, without establishing definitions, it is enough for someone to establish a different definition of "harmful" for your arguments to become irrelevant to topic, forcing you to either make your own definition (which is deductive definition argument), or keep going without a definition, making your case essentially unproved.

I feel like it's easier to make the argument "Smoking shouldn't be done" than it is to argue for P2. Cause like vaccines are also harmful, so now you gotta defend banning those when originally you just had to argue against smoking.

I just presented there the most common argument for why people tell others they should quit smoking: because it's harmful. I don't think I should quit smoking, it's just the only good argument they have and the one I hear way too often. The less often one is that smoking harms others.

Well it proves one of the premises on its own so it is useful for something. If you can use it for that, why can't you use it for some larger argument?

To use induction for a larger argument which has 2 or more premises, each premise would have to be proved by observation. This is possible, but the premises themselves still must be deductive.

You can have:

A = B

B = C

A = C

And prove each of two premises with observation, but argument still follows a deductive pattern in premises, even if premises themselves aren't proved with deduction.

Well, I suppose that being carefree and never considering consequences is a reasonable option of sorts.

Taoism is about being carefree. Worrying too much is not good.

This debate is RemyBrown's trial, but it doesn't affect just RemyBrown. It sets a future policy. So vote on it to protect free speech. There are no voting requirements, so it's an easy vote.

Coalition will protect your free speech too.

https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/cd/the-official-remybrown-trial-resolved-remybrown-ought-to-be-permanently-banned-from-debatecraft

God is justified in allowing people to suffer since everyone's natural inclination is to be evil and saving them from suffering isn't strictly "good"

This makes no sense in neither Christianity nor Islam, who both command people to save each other from evil, and who claim God sometimes saves from evil.

Further, even if humans were naturally doing evil, it is God who at the very least enabled that evil. So he is still indirect cause.

And if people deserve to suffer, then nothing which happens isn't strictly "evil" to begin with, leaving God with nothing to judge actions by.

I don't need to prove that morality exists, because Christians and Muslims already believe it exists, so I can just use their version of morality.

You're ignoring cases where a non-evil person can allow evil people to harm each other

I think you misread the section you were replying to. God doesn't merely "allow" evil. He enables it. There is a difference between letting person A kill person B, and enabling that killing by giving person A weapons and ability.

if inductive argument is allowed, it would mean other forms of argument than deduction are allowed

They aren't two separate forms. They go together. Induction on its own is usually useless unless it is part of deductive argument.

a 500 word argument to several thousand words if everything is put in terms of deductive logic

Not everything needs to be in form of deductive logic, but framework needs to.

You can make argument:

P1. Smoking is harmful

P2. If something is harmful, then it shouldn't be done.

C. Smoking shouldn't be done

Then you can go with proving P1 and P2 with observations, logic and whatever.

It is very difficult to make framework or main argument without deductive logic.

You can make smaller sub-arguments without deductive logic, but something still needs to connect them to topic, and induction alone rarely does that.

As a challenge to Muslims and Christians, I challenge them to name 1 good thing their God did.

I agree that premises and conclusion are usually longer version of saying same thing, but it's useful to check the argument.

Sometimes what seems to make sense in ordinary language makes just about zero sense when put in premise form.

The deductive argument will rely on premises, and you'll need to use inductive reasoning for a premise sooner or later

The first premise can be either observation (induction), or logical law, or definition, or something both debaters agree on (which is good because opponent already concedes it's true).

Christians and Muslims love making fun of pagans.

In paganism, God can be considered evil.

However, Christianity and Islam both claim maximally good God.

At same time, they claim evil exists in the world.

Problem with these two claims is that if evil exists in the world, it is caused by their God.

For start, their God, maximally good God, stands and watches while somewhere in the world, children drown or starve. This happens every day in this world.

God who is maximally good seems to be completely okay with not stopping any horrible thing.

But is God merely "not acting"?

No, God also caused all evil in the world.

All evil in the world is caused by God's design. It is God who designed animals to devour each other. It is God who designed world where people can not only hurt each other, but find countless ways to do it.

Also, God gave many people evil urges, making them gain pleasure from doing evil.

It's impossible to divorce God from evil.

Not even free will can do it, because it is still God choosing to create evil out of someone's free will. Why should free will of one man be able to cause harm to another? Because God created the world in such way that these things are guaranteed to happen.

God cannot be good. It's not logically possible. This is mainly because God also chose to create evil people, and is as result indirectly responsible for their evil.

God isn't merely inactive. He is enabling evil at the very least.

Evil =\= good

Evil = causing bad things, enabling bad things, (all which God does)

God = evil

God =\= good

I think if someone isn't making a deductive argument, he is not making argument at all. A lot of people would improve their arguments if they actually placed them in form of premises and conclusion. It's also easier to make counters if you place opponent's case in premises and conclusion as well. Sure, it's more work, but it's better.

And yeah, people often get this bias about certain groups. Just because they see one video of trans person failing to defend their view of gender, they think each trans person fails.

However, anyone who is a long term debater shouldn't really have such bias.

Tho I sometimes start to wonder if debating is a productive activity. At some points, it does feel like it leads to nowhere.

Alright. Can you vote on debates?

Ah, so Taoism is all about a sedentary lifestyle, poor diet and smoking.

That's not all what Taoism is about. Those are just some of the good parts.

tho Markov chain chatbots still face a problem of basically detecting no sentence structure. My INFINI models are based on detecting sentence structure through words which remain same in sentence (constants) and words which change (variables), so variables can be replaced for something else.

Markov chain, however, relies on words it generated so far, and only up until certain number. It doesnt pre-generate sentence structure. Its why it sometimes gets stuck in a loop.

For those not familiar, markov chain chatbot is a chatbot which predicts next word based on (for example) 5 previous words it already generated, so when those 5 words are found in text, the word which comes after them becomes generated word.

Now, what is problem with markov chain chatbots? their main problem lies in the fact that their developer must pick a number of previous words to base current generation on.

If chain is too long, such as 12 previous words, chatbot will merely repeat from text and generate no new sentences, no creativity. If chain is too short, such as 3 previous words, chatbot becomes creative but incoherent and its grammar starts to suck badly, there is simply no ideal chain length. You are always going to have either mostly pure repetition either mostly incoherence, always sacrificing either creativity or coherence.

In past, I used to address this problem by creating randomized number for chain, so sometimes it uses 3, sometimes 10 previous words....ect.

However, recently I was also coding my INFINI chatbot models, and they are based on structures of sentences, their constants and variables, rather than chain of previous words, and they work much better than markov chain.

However, then I realized how my INFINI models are actually predicting a variable, and variable can have more than one word. So they are not predicting word by word, but possibly even groups of words.

I realized, why not try something similar with markov chain chatbots.

Why should markov chain predict word by word?

Wouldnt a much better way be, lets say to predict next 5 words based on previous 4 words?

So I put the idea to the test. And the result of rest was very surprising. Markov chatbot still maintains creativity because it only predicts based on 4 previous words, however, because it generates words 5 by 5, it also maintains coherence.

Its sure a slow process. I think some changes should be made to make current users more active. Because if current users are dropping in activity, then future users will too.

I don't care much for boomers, I just see that when they start running a country, it gets bad. They tend to hate new generations and basically seek to punish and control new generations not realizing that new generations aren't living in 1950 anymore.

Is that good enough reward? Don't get me wrong, I prefer ultrarated to rated, I am just noticing that enthusiasm has decreased in other people.

Because not many people are doing ultrarated debates

Well, there is not much reward to even doing ultrarated debates.

Seems to be insufficient.

Maybe there needs to be some reward system for voting. I mean, it's been months and my debate only got 1 vote. I don't mind losing a debate, but this voting process seems to be getting slower and slower over time. It is as if most people are waiting for someone else to vote. I only got one more debate to vote on, but there are still 2 unfinished debates after that which are gonna need to be voted on if we are to start next round at all.

Hey, if Americans want to be a debt economy, let them.

Fool and his money are quickly parted.

Religion separated your family where cancer could have united your family.

Cancer does that, yeah.