Savant

I'm talking about the left and right in extremely broad terms. Obviously a political leader should have more accountability than randos on Twitter, but then again, there are a lot more randos on Twitter than elected officials. And who elected Trump? A bunch of randos.

But I digress. My point is just that both sides "burn through goodwill," and regardless of whether social media comments should harm the public perception of the Democratic party, I think that it does. That's why I'm saying goodwill is basically being "spent" for nothing, they've barely done anything to advance their goals. If the Democrats on social media just chilled a bit, it would give a lot more leeway to Democratic politicians to pass more aggressive policies. It's probably because social media skews young that more insane people on the left have a platform to make themselves look bad. Crazies exist on the right, but they're mostly too old to understand how technology works.

Non of these refute my main point, especially as we get to military grade weapons which is where most gun control advocates like myself feel far more strongly about the lack of regulations.

The point about military grade weapons is probably fair, but it's not really what Kirk was defending in the quote he gets criticized for. ("Military grade" can be a misleading term anyway, I've seen cases of people in the military joking that they assume a product is low quality when it's advertised as military grade). I don't think Kirk was arguing for zero limits on any weapons ever (extreme example would be a tank or something). He was killed with a bolt-action rifle, so even if he was wrong about military grade weapons, his death doesn't really establish that.

Republicans are basically saying “yeah they’re dangerous, but we should do nothing to minimize the harm, and if people die so be it”.

I don't think that's really fair...the Republican view is more long the lines of gun control exacerbating other harms outweighing the harms from shootings. For example, someone who would have gotten a gun illegally anyway attacks you and you can't defend yourself. Or the government has an easier time establishing tyranny because citizens aren't armed. I understand that gun control is aimed at getting the best of both worlds, but Kirk would probably say it makes self-defense or fighting the government significantly harder to the extent that the harms outweigh the benefits.

The quote that I'm referring to that keeps getting brought up is him saying that the 2nd Amendment is worth the risks, which is specifically him arguing against a total gun ban. He argued against gun control too, and your points there are valid, I just think it's weird for people to use that quote against him if they aren't prepared to actually oppose the 2nd amendment. I think you and I aren't really in disagreement here, my initial post was just about some people's criticisms of him for arguing what was actually a somewhat reasonable position (though he's gone further against gun control in other cases than I would like).

This is what comes next. I don’t know just how much this will energize them, but this is the play.

Yep. Usually when one side does something that makes themselves look bad, the other side jumps on the opportunity to burn through goodwill. The "left" behaved badly by mocking a dude, so now the "right" has a pass to behave badly without looking worse than the left. Taking the high road strategically could be a better strategy long term, but that requires patience, and nobody wants to be the one taking the "high road" if it feels like the other side might be getting away with bad behavior in the short term. Both sides burn through goodwill in different ways but usually for things that aren't even worth it, like a counterproductive policy, or mocking people online. This is equilibrium, and it doesn't look like it will be changing any time soon.

Also, he's been criticized for being pro-life and yet dying (by the same groups), so it's basically a Kafka trap, even though both of these things are being said in jest. Apparently being shot after saying anything positive about "life" is ironic and somehow worthy of mockery, but it's also ironic to die after supporting a policy that could potentially result in death. Basically two polar opposite reasons people have used as criticisms against him. There's basically no position he could have taken that would avoid mockery along these lines or not be portrayed as somehow ironic.

Your analogy fails because cars are a necessity for us to function in a developed society. Guns meanwhile have no other purpose other than to kill people, that’s literally what they’re designed to do.

They can be used for hunting, as a deterrent, for self-defense, or as insurance if the government goes to heck (two of those involve killing people, but neither really apply to killing Kirk). I know some would say the government has already gone fascist, but killing Kirk doesn't accomplish any of the things he'd likely advocate their use for.

you need a licence to drive because a car could be dangerous if it's in the wrong hands

Sure, but the point is that supporting a thing being allowed doesn't mean you being killed by that thing somehow proves you wrong. If I think speed limits should be above 10km/hr, and I get hit by a car going faster than that, that's bad luck but doesn't really harm my position. It's not like Kirk said there should be on limits on people owning weapons (like nukes or something), he just supported much broader limits than the average person.

I'm not even saying his views about guns were right, just that his views were pretty consistent with not wanting to be shot.

While I think he was wrong about guns (honestly an issue I could stand to study more), I think it's silly that his views on gun ownership have been used to mock him. If someone says "driving cars should be legal even if they sometimes kill people" and then someone intentionally runs them over with a car, I don't see how that somehow proves the person wrong, or is even that relevant. It's a single data point, it's not enough to run a cost-benefit policy analysis. His quotes about shootings were said in the context of a gun control debate, people saying it now are just using it to mock him, which doesn't make sense because he never said shooting someone for giving their opinion is a good thing.

Democrats trying to legalize gay marriage for example you don't really care that much about if you're straight (unless you have a very big heart which most people don't have). Trump wasn't an option in 2005.

So they can fight on abortion or immigration or student loans or crime or guns or any of the other 10 issues Americans care about more than climate change, none of which require a global conspiracy.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/23/top-problems-facing-the-u-s/

In Denmark, emissions have gone down. In Sweden, they went down. In Chile, they went up, but up is the general trend with increasing demand, if it was just about Dems winning elections, Chile wouldn't be investing to stop it at all.

Because politics is a show. You need young people to feel like they are "fighting the good fight" (whether it's climate change, LGBT stuff, or Trump) so they give money voluntarily to the parties.

So they have all those other issues to fight over. No need for a global conspiracy involving scientists in every country to help Dems win elections.

How much did China reduce their carbon emissions by to help fight against climate change? None because they don't think it's a big problem.

I didn't say every country takes steps against climate change, just that the US isn't the only country concerned with it. Denmark, Sweden, and Chile, for example, have worked on reducing emissions.

The democrats and republicans co-manage elections; they make sure nobody else is allowed to run.

If they're working together, why do they need to take opposite stances on a made up hoax in order to win votes? Convincing a bunch of other countries with their own scientists that climate change is an important issue seems like overkill if they control all elections anyway.

Do you disbelieve that global temperatures are rising at all, or do you just think the threat is exaggerated?

Also, the US is not the only country where people believe that climate change is real. Plenty of other countries are taking steps against it. If the Democrats were capable of a conspiracy that big, you'd think they'd win elections more often.

Fixed

Which account are they on? Not seeing those under "SomeDebatePerson"

Which debates are you seeing that should be deleted?

Where are you seeing them? On your profile?

Sure, but I'm talking year round. Since heat capacity is a scalar effect, as long as the net movement is an increase, then the net effect will be greater on land. Even if the decreases are greater on land, there are more increases than decreases. Like 2*(2-1+2-1) > (2+1+2-1)

No, average temperatures include both rising and falling temperatures, not just rising temperatures. Otherwise, sea would be significantly colder than the land on average.

Yes, but right now we're in a period of warming. If we were in a period of cooling it would be the other way around. If you and I are racing and I run faster than you, then if we're both running to the right then I will be going to the right faster. Over millions of years if we run back and forth, then sure I won't always be to the right of you. But we're talking about an overall warming trend.

Not if the overall effect is a rise...if the temperature is rising overall, it's gonna rise faster on land.

So we're just ignoring heat capacity here?

That proves my point. Sea temperatures in past 20 years rose by 0.4 degrees only, while meassuring stations on land reported a rise in temperature of 1.5 degrees on land. Thats a significant difference between rise in temperature on sea and temperature on land.

But it's still a rise. Also, given how heat capacity works, we should expect that land will heat up faster than the sea. So even if all we had was sea measurements, we could be estimating a significant warming effect. Even then, the most important measurements are directly looking at the effect on the poles, and that just requires accurate sea measurements.

Life is not really fair.

Okay, but we're trying to come up with the fairest system. Why would we not? This is also relevant with regards to enforcement. You're comparing it to laws against murder, but it's more like designing the fairest rules for a sport. Consistently enforced rules for everyone matters more than what the exact rules are.

This is irrelevant unless you think that getting help from other humans to write your debates should be allowed if not actively encouraged.

There's a difference between "help writing" and "feedback." Getting feedback from other humans is fine so long as you are not plagiarizing and they are not writing the arguments for you (for example, a voter saying why an argument is strong or weak). Are people not allowed to just...test the argument elsewhere and see what counterarguments come up? That's basically getting feedback.

(1) getting help from another human is, generally speaking, wrong

Well then this is the premise I dispute. Feedback (and even borrowing ideas) isn't wrong or plagiarism. Having someone else write part of your argument for you is plagiarism.

I think a lot of being a "great" leader is being a decent leader in the right place at the right time. And I think Lincoln was pretty decent. With the benefit of hindsight, being against slavery was obviously the right call and the war was winnable for the North, but at the time it was a bold move to be strongly against slavery and be willing to listen to someone like Douglass. Plus, he had to convince the North that the war was winnable while also taking measures to prevent another civil war. If you look at the presidents before and after, Lincoln's competence stands out. It can be really hard not to make huge mistakes, so a lot of what make a good leader "good" is the bad things that could have happened under another leader but didn't happen under them. But you don't see that directly.

Why do people view Lincoln as so magnificent? Is there something I'm missing?

Well, which presidents do you think are better? Because a lot of the things that might make Lincoln overrated apply to other "great" presidents too. It's all relative.

testing

They can see how sea temperatures rise too (also temperatures at the poles, and using satellites to view the effect of CO2). So roads aren't really a problem.

If the data were out of NASA, I might be more inclined to believe it,

Okay, here's data from NASA

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?intent=121

I didn't say it was.

if someone built more roads around meassuring station, it would show higher temperature because roads increase temperature of surroundings during summer. If someone built new meassuring station which is closer to roads, it would show higher temperature.

Those are pretty easy things to control for, like Statistics 101...and there are plenty of articles explaining how these temperatures are measured. Tree rings and ice cores can be used to measure temperatures from in the past, and there's usually less variation when measuring average than a single data point due to the law of large numbers.

Cracker Barrell has changed their logo causing the worst MAGA Snowflake meltdown

"We think the Cracker Barrel rebrand sucks too" - TheDemocats

I'm not saying the standards don't matter, I'm saying you haven't presented an argument that the people measuring have failed to follow necessary standards. You basically said that the source might be misleading or wrong, but there are an infinite number of maybes or hypotheticals that either of us can present. You're trying to start an argument where the other side has to do all the work for you.

No. Explain, please. I'm not used to the American stuff.

Well it doesn't make much sense out of context, but there's a sci-fi comedy book where a supercomputer is told to calculate the answer to life, the universe, and everything. And it's 42. And because that doesn't make much sense, they have to figure out what the actual question is that 42 is the answer to.

If I have someone else write my school essay for me, that is plagiarism.

Yes, but neither of us has made the argument that copy-pasting from AI should be allowed. All we're arguing is blanket prohibition vs. allowing assistance like research.

If the professor gives me feedback and lets me submit a revision, or if I use that feedback to improve future essays, that is not plagiarism. All my points against using AI in debates are specific cases of the principle that intentionally using human assistance specific to what you are writing is plagiarism

Is the professor giving feedback and letting you submit a revision not "specific to what you are writing"? Same with voters giving feedback on an argument. If I'm allowed to use feedback from a previous debate to make a stronger version of my argument, but my opponent who hasn't debated before isn't allowed to get feedback at all before they submit for this debate, then that's not really fair to them. I'll also note that in most courses, getting feedback from other students or a TA on an essay is allowed if not actively encouraged.

If I talked with someone about something years ago and mention that in my school essay, that is not plagiarism. If I ask someone to write a paragraph about that subject while I am writing my essay, tricking them into writing part of my essay for me, that is plagiarism.

Again, I'm talking about getting feedback, not having someone else write a paragraph for you. Analogy should be talking with someone about a subject and then implementing some of those ideas in your essay immediately while making it your own. It's possible to get ideas from ChatGPT and then make them your own, because it's all about implementation. Using AI doesn't have to mean having it write the argument for you.

Borrowing a concept is not plagiarism. Having a human or AI construct an argument for you from that concept is plagiarism.

So people should be allowed to use AI to ask for concepts. Like "what's a potential rebuttal to my argument?" Or "what are weak spots of this argument?" That's a concept, not something they are going to copy paste.