ForumsWEPRTHE GREAT DEBATES! (Rd. 6 Results)

224 174105
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Some of you may remember The Great Debates thread from years past. Some thought it was fun, and some thought it was just too heavy.

So I thought I'd bring things back, but with a twist! The basic idea is still the same: two users will debate on a topic. The difference is that you won't get to pick the topic or which side you'll be arguing for.

Oh, and I almost forgot - the topics are going to be somewhat ... silly But that doesn't mean your argument has to be silly. In fact, if you can defend your silly point in a serious way, you might just earn yourself a merit! So it's not about winners or losers, it's about whether you can argue for, well, just about anything!

RULES:

- I will provide three possible topics for debate. If you'd like to participate, then you can SIGN-UP HERE in the Art, Music, and Writing forum: click here

- Once 6 people (at least for now) have signed up for the current three topics, the signup thread will close and the debates will begin

- Assignments will be given on this thread (who will be debating for which topic and what side).
**NOTE** You are signing up to play. Which topic you get and what side you'll be arguing for will be decided randomly. So be prepared!

- You will only have 1 post in which to give your argument, so make it count! Keep in mind that your argument should stand on its own. So don't quote your opponent and just shoot down their arguments. But you should also anticipate potential objections and try to respond to them.

- Merit-earners will present well-reasoned and genuine arguments in favour of their position - even in the face of some pretty silly topics. What that means is that, if users on opposite sides each give great arguments, they would both earn merits!

- A loosely enforced time limit (which has yet to be officially established) will be in place. Once that time limit is reached, the next round will begin.

Good luck! And let the return of The Great Debates begin!

  • 224 Replies
SirLegendary
offline
SirLegendary
16,585 posts
Duke

Hmm too late now, but you could have argued that the situation where you wouldn't know anything but be happy could be better. Logically. Anyways, can't wait for round 5

WHDH
offline
WHDH
168 posts
Shepherd

How to join? How many themes will there be?

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,022 posts
Templar

@WHDH everything you need will be posted at the start of round 5 - The topic, wether you need to sign up or not, who will you be debating etc. So all you have to do is wait until round 5 starts

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Round 5 is starting up, and this one requires you to sign up. I'm also going to tweak the rules a little bit to see how things go, so stay tuned for that.

In the meantime, here's the signup thread:
Sign up here!

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Alright everyone - it's about that time. I'm going to try changing things up yet again to see how it goes (feedback is always appreciated, btw).

In Round 5, you will be debating against an opponent. But don't worry, the general rules still apply - i.e. both opponents could win a quest/merit. So it's still all about giving a good argument. Here's the catch, though:

You only get 2 posts. So there won't be a lot of time for back-and-forth. You'll have to anticipate your opponent's moves and make your own points really solid.

As an added bonus, I'm going to post the questions below and if there's one that you'd particularly like to do, then let me know on my profile. I can't guarantee anything, but I'll try to make things work out. So:
@R2D21999 @apldeap123 @WHDH @Doombreed @AustinsGirl88 @SirLegendary @Ishtaron @JACKinbigletters @randomblah @Gogotank @nichodemus

If you guys would take a look at the questions below and let me know if you have a preference, that would be awesome. And the sooner the better - I'd like to kick things off pretty quickly. At any rate, here are the questions (oh, and by the way, you're expressing an interest in the topic. I will decide which side you're going to argue for!)

1: Is is better to lucky or skilled?

2: Do we have moral obligations to non-human animals?

3: Is it better to be knowledgable or a very good guesser?

4: Would being immortal be a good idea or just get boring?

5: What's better: living an actual like that's pretty decent or living a simulated life that's everything you've ever wanted?

6: What can we say about the wrongness/failure of previous scientific theories - say, Newtonian physics? Are they just plain wrong, or is something else going on?

And, of course, if you have any questions, just hit me up on my profile.

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,022 posts
Templar

I really can't think unless I have a theme in mind so, I have no preference in the topic. Put me in any topic and side you please.

SirLegendary
offline
SirLegendary
16,585 posts
Duke

I think I'd prefer to be on number five. Some of these questions seem very one sided for a debate though, but I guess it's all about how you present your arguments.

AustinsGirl88
offline
AustinsGirl88
1,217 posts
Nomad

I would like to be on question number 4 please.
"4: Would being immortal be a good idea or just get boring?"
Thanks

Gogotank
offline
Gogotank
3,165 posts
Lord

I would like 3 or 4. I find 5 and 6 a bit hard and I don't have a problem with 1 or 2, but still, I prefer 3 and 4.

Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
359 posts
Blacksmith

You guys are horrible at following directions.

WHDH
offline
WHDH
168 posts
Shepherd

Competition is strong but any theam is good.

+ how many time will pass betwean the anouncment of theam you get and real debate?

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Alright guys, here we go. Below you'll find your topic and which side you have to argue for. Remember the change is rules - YOU ONLY GET 2 POSTS.

What I'd like to see is the first post just giving your argument without referring to your opponent. In the second post, you can. This way (I'm hoping, at least) there's no advantage to who goes first. And I'm not putting any sort of order as far as who is supposed to go first.

So let's get rolling. Here are the topics, and happy debating!

1: Is is better to lucky or skilled?
@WHDH - It's better to be lucky.
@Doombreed - It's better to be skilled.

2o we have moral obligations to non-human animals?
@apldeap123 - We do have moral obligations to non-human animals.
@nichodemus - We do not have moral obligations to non-human animals.

3: Is it better to be knowledgable or a very good guesser?
@Gogotank - It's better to be knowledgable.
@R2D21999- It's better to be a very good guesser.

4: Would being immortal be a good idea or just get boring?
@AustinsGirl88 - Being immortal would be a good idea.
@Ishtaron - Being immortal would just get boring.

5: What's better: living an actual like that's pretty decent or living a simulated life that's everything you've ever wanted?
@SirLegendary - It's better to live an actual life that's pretty decent.
@JACKinbigletters - It's better to live a simuated life that's everything you want.

6: What can we say about the wrongness/failure of previous scientific theories - say, Newtonian physics? Are they just plain wrong, or is something else going on?
@randomblah - There's something else going on with failed scientific theories - scientific theories are rarely just plain wrong.
@Moegreche - Failed scientific therories are often just plain wrong.

SirLegendary
offline
SirLegendary
16,585 posts
Duke

Ahh, paired with a good friend. @JACKinbigletters, Good luck to us both!

To get started with my arguments, what is reality?
Reality is the world or state of things that exist.

What is a simulation?
A simulation is something that represents something else. An unreal place.

By definition, what you have in a simulation, does not exist. Everything you want will only be available to you in that world, which means it doesn't exist at all. It exists in the simulation because it exists in reality. Without reality, you would not even know about the things you wanted. The things you want, come from reality, and is based from the things in reality.

Even if you didn't need to come out of your simulation eventually, back to reality, all you would have is imagery of what you want in the real world. If you did have to come back to reality, then you would have lost everything you had in the simulated world because you never had it in the first place.

By living in reality, with the decent life you live, you would have everything you need. You would have ownership to things, and posses them in the realest way possible.

You may simulate how it is to have a billion dollars, but it will never be the same as having it in reality. You may imagine how it is to perform physical acts, but you will never know until you really do them. Isn't it different to talk to someone through a video call than when they are a meter away from you?

Now I'm not saying that your simulation couldn't make you feel like it was real, but doesn't that make everything you own and the life you live a lie? In your simulated life, would you even know the present situation you would be going through in reality? And if you did, how would you feel knowing that what you possessed in that world wouldn't be yours in the real world?

What you own in reality is truly yours, what you do in reality truly happened, and your success in reality, is success.

If you go about it logically, having a car in a simulation would mean that you didn't have it at all. If what you wanted was a Ferrari, you wouldn't have a Ferrari because what it is in the simulation is just a representation of what it is in real life, where you don't have it. If you were happy in the simulation, it wouldn't necessarily mean that you were truly happy, because your happiness was just a representation of what it would be like to truly be happy. All these things exist in reality, not in simulation.

R2D21999
offline
R2D21999
18,319 posts
Treasurer

This one was a toughy, but here we go.

It's better be to be a very good guesser because it keeps you on your toes. For example, I'd rather guess how I die rather than know how I died. If I knew how I'd die, I'd probably be depressed around that time, feel like I have nothing to truly live for, and my family and friends would be concerned with my depression, as I wouldn't tell them, to keep them from hurting.

Having knowledge can hurt someone close to you. But just guessing, will keep you on your toes, wager wether you guess it's a good thing to do or not. Guessing can make you happy instead of depressed.

It's a little weak for an opening but it is what it is.

randomblah
offline
randomblah
246 posts
King

I argue that scientific theories are (essentially) never plain wrong.

The nature of science
To begin, we need to have a clear definition for separates a (generic) theory from a scientific theory. Anyone is capable of making a theory – I could propose that purple unicorns are the cause of our attraction to earth, or that aliens artificially control our every action. A scientific theory is an attempt to explain the basis for phenomena that are observed, and generally makes testable predictions that may lead to confirmation of the theory’s validity. While a theory can be incredibly absurd and/or wrong(as seen above), a scientific theory is subject to the more rigorous criterion listed above. These criterion, along with the scientific method, makes it so that scientific theories are (almost) never plain wrong.

While it may seem counterintuitive that something can be designed in such a way that it is almost never wrong (in violation of Murphy’s Law), this is a result of the rigorous criteria placed by the scientific method. All scientific theories are subject to constant revision and monitoring, and any result must be replicable. In addition, all theories must be consistent with existing data – theories are rarely accepted unless they can adequately explain existing data. Thus, even if a theory fails to explain any new data, the theory will at least be able to explain the original data – hence, a theory can never be completely wrong.

Newtonian physics
A classic example of a flawed scientific theory is Newton physics. Of course, up until the 1900s, no evidence contradicted Newtonian physics, and a number of erroneous conclusions were believed to be true(note 1). However, as the precision of instruments increased, data gathered from many experiment(note 2) soon suggested that these theories, and their resulting conclusions, were inaccurate. In the following few years, physicists reworked many equations until they were consistent with the gathered data. In turn, these theories were subsequently modified(note 3), until another model that was consistent with all the data was created.

Although Newtonian physics was flawed, it is still an incredibly good theory. After all, if you were to ask Richard Feynman (note 4) about a projectile motion problem, he would use Newtonian physics to solve the problem. For a high-velocity object such as an incredibly fast bullet train traveling at 3000 meters/second, Newtonian physics is 99.9999999999% accurate. As such, it is quite reasonable to say that Newtonian physics is quite valid(note 5) – it just so happens that scientists have created a slightly more nuanced description of nature.

Flat-earthing(an exercise in absurdity)
As we’ve seen, a scientific theory such as Newtonian physics is really quite valid, even if it’s a little bit flawed. But let’s take the worst case scenario, perhaps through some (absurdly) bad conclusion drawing.
Suppose a scientist is measuring the land, and observes that the ground is mostly flat. The scientist then repeats this for many locations, and throughout, observes that the earth is essentially flat across each of these locations. Based on the data, the scientist then (incorrectly) concludes that the earth is flat. Supposing that it does become a theory, one might be tempted to regard this as an example where a scientific theory is just plain wrong. However, this is not entirely true – the scientist’s theory is somewhat valid – the earth is (more or less) flat at small length scales.

If we examine a sphere from far away, it is obviously round and curved. But if we zoom in a little further, it looks a little less round, and a little less curved. If we zoomed in even more, the earth would look shallowly curved(note 6). Now, applying this to real life, we rely on this fact every day. When we park cars in parking lots, we don’t bother considering the earth’s curvature at that point. When construction workers use a leveler, they neglect any curvature of the earth. Even though the scientist’s theory is flawed, it still finds uses in everyday life.

In summary, the data-driven scientific method is powerful, rigorous, and ultimately yields powerful results. Any scientific theory must explain existing phenomena accurately, making it intrinsically correct to some degree – even the most absurd theories that are created with the scientific method contain some degree of correctness.

Snarky notes and other useful things
Note 1: These conclusions include infinite maximum speed(replaced by special relativity), infinitely continuous quantities(replaced by quantum mechanics), and simultaneity(replaced by special relativity).
Note 2: These experiments include the Michelson-Morley experiment, muon half-life observations, and gravitational lensing due to the sun.
Note 3: Quantum electrodynamics combines relativity and quantum mechanics. It, in turn, is part of the Standard Model of Physics. For the most part, equations are all math – and I applaud anyone who can truly understand them.
Note 4: Feynman won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on quantum electrodynamics, and is/was widely regarded as an excellent physicist. He also died a while back, but he did teach undergraduate classes at Caltech(and used Newtonian physics to solve Newtonian problems).
Note 5: A 99% is generally considered to be a very good grade on a test(and indicates that a student is not completely wrong/reasonably knowledgeable), the same logic applies for scientific theories.
Note 6: This may be difficult to visualize, but the link here: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Figures/figure4.jpeg gives a good idea of local sphere flatness.

Showing 136-150 of 224