Savant

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.

Did you not get the Hitchhiker's reference?

If any of these questions are not adequately answered, the accuracy of any measurement, temp, or otherwise, is in doubt. And, there foes the science: poof. Gone.

That's just an argument from ignorance. The fact that measured temperatures have remained relatively consistent over time is evidence that it's being measured accurately. Is it a lot of evidence? Maybe you'd argue it's not, but it's more evidence than just asking a lot of questions. Make the argument that it hasn't been measured consistently or that the scientists are doing it wrong, if you base your case on "maybe x, y, and z" then there's an infinite number of "possible" objections you can raise.

You should date a woman your own age (42). It's the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

single, universal, worldwide climate

Climate doesn't mean it's the same temperature everywhere, it means the average temperature. If your argument is that we should expect the average to change the way we are observing from non-human activity, then...make the argument? Saying something is unreasonable without saying why isn't really making an argument.

Just for the sake of pushing the conversation forward, here's a Wikipedia page with average temperatures over time estimated with proxy data. The drastic increase since 1880 seems not to be the norm.

Agnosticism should be the default position for any statement until you have a reason to believe it's true or false. Every true statement has a negation and vice versa, and most theories about the size of infinities would probably suggest there are the same amount of true and false statements. So if there's literally nothing indicating whether a statement is true or false, I'd argue it's 50/50. As if there's a book in a foreign language with 50 true statements and 50 false statements and you picked a random one without knowing what it says.

That said, a "reason" to disbelieve a statement could be something as simple as your intuition usually being reliable and indicating that the statement seems false. That would probably at least be enough to move the odds below 50/50.

I vote for middle ground and progressive punishment.

You're against getting any human feedback on an argument, right? So what about votes that give feedback to debaters? Should the rule be that, once a voter has given you feedback on an argument, you can never improve it and use it again? Also seems hard to be consistent with the ChatGPT thing since maybe someone asked AI about a topic 3 years ago and now are using that knowledge in an argument. That seems like it should be allowed, but then how is that different from someone asking ChatGPT for information to use in an argument? They both got influence from the same place.

I mean, same for most of the arguments used here. Ontological argument for God, bodily autonomy argument for abortion, Kalam cosmological argument, none of those concepts are original. But it doesn't seem like plagiarism to me to just borrow a concept.

I don't think a comedy skit exaggerated for effect is really evidence of anything. Surely there are better real-world scenarios that could illustrate your point, with the additional advantage of being, you know, real?

You can see though how Cuomo thought getting sick people treated would help save lives.

Well, he didn't implement the proper infection control procedures, so he must not have wanted to save lives that badly. Then he lied about it.

He didn't know the effects until it's too late.

Does it make a difference if I'm deciding the better politician based on results? A politician who gets people killed is worse.

Currently nobody; but it's what he's promising that makes him unelectable (abolishing private property).

Which he can't do. And the title o this thread wasn't prove Mandami is the best candidate, just give a pro-Mandami argument. If anything, all you are doing is bringing up other anti-Mandami arguments.

You can see the argument for/against COVID restrictions (life vs freedom)

Except Cuomo reduced life and freedom by forcing nursing homes to accept sick people.

he's better than Bin Laden

So it's like 3rd degree murder vs 1st degree

and Mandami

Who has Mandami killed?

They were both like murder actually. You know, since people died.

Okay but your point was about how old the news was, not the badness of what happened.

we already know that more educated and wealthier people vote democrat. we know that trump supporters are prone to being lower information voters. we know just by virtue of IQ distributions that half are below average intelligence and at least a third are genuinely dumb as rocks.

Perhaps you should ask a Democrat for help formatting your post.

COVID is old news.

I mean, the Holocaust and 9/11 are older news, but I still wouldn't vote for Hitler or Osama bin Laden if they were alive.

What is wrong with Cuomo? Most I've seen is SA convictions

Well, that and killing old people.

Can anybody present good pro Mandami arguments?

He's not Cuomo.

You don't have to type "rage bait" on these, marking them offensive is enough.

The one I'm thinking of is already implemented on the forum main page. Well, it's hidden on mobile to save space but on desktop you can see the last comment for each category.

I’m not sure that people who matter were mad about the Sweeney commercial

People who matter doesn't just include politicians. People will see a few crazies raging on TikTok and think less of the party as a whole, especially if the videos get a lot of engagement or if those people are "influencers." There's a reason that people raging about the Trump win in 2016 got a lot more attention than they probably deserved.

Should be fixed now

Labor could be portioned better so that the same people don't constantly perform the same bad labor (e.g. mining for cobalt).

I've yet to hear anyone propose a way of incentivizing this kind of labor (or any kind of labor) that is less exploitative than capitalism. When socialists get pressed on the details, I've only ever heard them propose other forms of wage slavery or actual slavery.

But most of his work is on the critique of capitalism, not necessarily the envisioning of a future society.

Pretty convenient to spend one's time criticizing capitalism for not 100% resolving scarcity rather than providing a feasible alternative. The biggest strike against Marxism isn't that it's never been tried, it's that capitalism has been tried, most successfully via social democracies. If economics is chess, then capitalism is Magnus Carlsen with a strong record of superior performance to other systems (feudalism, mercantilism, Stalinism, Juche). Marxism is the guy who has never played a chess match before and isn't even sure what his strategy would be, but some people insist he would definitely beat Magnus Carlsen while criticizing Magnus for not playing perfectly 100% of the time.