Thank you for pointing that out. I updated it.
Pro must agree that there is objective morality, and that good means actions or agents which promote flourishing while bad refers to those that create unnecessary suffering.
Pro also must acknowledge that when Con says "God is evil", Con does not affirm God's existence, but rather is simply stating the nature of a character, which is termed as "god" by theists.
Pro must agree to this definition of God, "A god is typically defined as a creator, supernatural, supreme, or highly powerful being believed to control or influence aspects of the universe, nature, or human life."
Why don't you join the debate? Don't debate on the comments when you can literally join..
What
If you meant to call me an "NPC", I would say that is not appropriate.
If you felt as if I was disregarding your opinion, I was not. I am sorry if you felt that way.
That is not true.
There is strong evidence which suggests that children, especially in their development stages, are more susceptible to habit formation.
So yes, swearing frequently can, or has a high likely to become default language pattern.
The solution I stated is simple, instead of letting children use abusive language, they should be allowed to show their frustration or anger in other more passive ways, such as using substitute words or doing a breathing exercise.
Con seems to not define their terms, or atleast not properly define them.
How could you have an engaging debate if one side does not steelman the other?
Great! Anyway, thank you for your supportive words.
Lol. My bad. I missed the time limit for the argument. Sorry for the waste of debate:(
Also, why swearing curse words? Or bad words, what do you mean exactly?
Can we replace existing curse words with other forms of stress relief, especially for kid?
Apologies for my forfeiture..I missed my argument's given time.
Now, based on the articles you provided, it seems the point out the health benefits of swearing.
But you never stated what kind of benifit.
Kids are in their development stage, the tasks they perform repeatedly will become habitual in the future.
Even if done privately, because if swearing becomes their default emotional expression, it is no longer a benifit, rather a habit they cannot control.
You could use this argument for teens, since they are more so stable, but for children, it is a bad idea.
Mal fails to properly define lack of evidence, which is the reason why I did not join the debate.
Mal shows the same thing in the debate. In the first argument itself, Mal fails to define atheism, correctly. Con corrects them.
Most atheists are weak/agnostic atheists, Pro was bad faithed in representing that. Lastly, we have overwhelming evidence that the dead stay dead. Zero reliable evidence for a resurrection. What would be you conclusion versus the most logical conclusion?
But again, the vagueness of "Evidence" they used is bad faithed and strawman of the argument of majority of new atheists.
Pros position lacks nuance...and evidence.
Could you reply faster? I would appreciate a speedy reply.
But, if you are busy, it's fine!
No, you didn't, that definition was weak.
Also, you did analyze the debate, sorry for ignoring that in my earlier comment.
That's great you think I won the debate. I mean, I did, I literally won. But I still think it's kind of rude to call SatanLucy "uneducated", they just have a differing opinion. Maybe they are, but you yourself critisized them for ad hominems, while you are using ad hominems here.
You mentioned that "uneducated" means "ignorant", ok sure, you just had to be clear about that earlier.
I never said "they were little inconsistent", I said they were inconsistent, not a little, very inconsistent...I guess I just worded it politely.
I already pointed them out the entire debate, which they ignored in their last argument.
Some opinions are actual...garbage, sure, but the opinion-giver should not be targeted, unless they are hating or violent.
And it's fine, I'm not on here for credits! Just evaluate my arguments and maybe compliment..
You are wrong ≠ you are a bad person. My apologies if this came out the wrong way-
Thank you for your vote, it's much appreciated, I hope you enjoyed the debate.
Why do you say that about SatanLucy? I do think they were inconsistent in this debate, yet, isn't it a stretch to say "uneducated"?
It is always best to state the reasoning behind that, as in, evaluate their debates. Calling someone "uneducated" is disrespectful(unless your stating their educational background or reliability in something), in a debate like this, their educational background mostly does not matter(unless it is stated in the guidelines).
Here is what you actually claimed in the paragraph: When certain brain states occur, certain behaviors and reports occur
Your repeating the same things.
My argument was: We don’t have direct evidence of subjective experience itself.
Furthermore, correlation does not mean access.
You can measure brain activity, observe behaviors, but that still does not show There is subjective experience(only shows that there are conditions/behaviors associated with it)
You’ve shown neural correlations of consciousness, not consciousness itself. How do you bridge that gap?
You only conducted inference..
Also, I never claimed no consciousness, I only stated we cannot observe it directly.
Lastly, and once again, where have you ever defined consciousness?
I am not taking any sides in this debate, but where have you ever defined consciousness here? You only assume what you need to prove. You assume consciousness is biological. There’s no established law saying:
“Only carbon-based systems can generate experience”
This is more intuition than evidence.
You state that there is no evidence for AI conscious...but there is no evidence for consciousness in...any living being, you can measure brain activity all you want, but you will never know what it "feels" like. Only inference, not proof.
What standards are you using to draw your conclusion? And why?
What kind of truth?
For physics, chemistry, biology(and other sciences except maths)? Yes. It is based on observations and data.
For maths and formal logic? No. It's based on mainly reasoning, and also axioms.
For metaphysics? Not necessarily. "Do we have free will?" Cannot be settled solely by empirical data, even if it helps.
For subjective truths? mostly no, that's its own metaphysics.
It heavily depends on what field. For justification of something that is observable in the physical world, then yes, empirical evidence is the most reliable.
No state, Jihadist or otherwise, should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. It is a threat to humanity.
By "lack of evidence", do you mean "universal lack of evidence" or "no sufficient, publicly verifiable evidence"?
What do you mean? I am not trolling.
No, I am stating a conclusion that belief in god is unjustified, it is an epistemic conclusion, I am not focusing on the conclusion of reality.
For E.g.,
[something] is claimed.
[Something]'s evidence is examined.
[Something] has a insufficient evidence.
Thus, the belief in [Something] can be withheld.
Not making claims about the [Something], but rather stating that the belief in [Something] is not reasonable.
