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!
The sign up for Round 2 is now open. I'm not going to release the questions until the participants are chosen. But if you're interested, you can sign up here:
My deepest apologies for the incredibly long delay. Please find below the assignments for Round 2. If you've put your name down, you should be included - even if you played in the previous round (I've redacted the double participation rule for this round because of the delay). So if you signed up but aren't included, please let me know on my profile asap.
----------
@Kennethhartanto - It is *always* morally permissible to kill 1 person in order to save 5.
@Minotaur55 - It is *never* morally permissible to kill 1 person in order to save 5.
@R2D21999 - Knowledge is/isn't more valuable than mere true belief. (Pick whichever side you like.)
@Reton8 - Knowledge is/isn't more valuable than mere true belief. (Pick whichever side you like.)
@eliakith - True or false: It is always good to get what you want. (Pick whichever side you like.)
@nichodemus - True or false: It is always good to get what you want. (Pick whichever side you like.)
@TheRed555 - Pursuing happiness is more valuable than avoiding unhappiness.
@minecraftsniper - Avoiding unhappiness is more valuable than pursuing happiness.
@KentyBK - Understanding is more valuable than knowledge.
@Bender124 - Understanding is not more valuable than knowledge.
@ajgelaga - We *can* know lots of things about the world around us.
@MattEmAngel - We *cannot* know lots of things about the world around us.
@Riptizoid101 - Is an object just a bundle of properties, or is there an underlying substance? (Pick whichever side you like.)
@omegap12 - Is an object just a bundle of properties, or is there an underlying substance? (Pick whichever side you like.)
N.B. Some of these questions might be quite difficult so if you need some guidance, feel free to ask me on my profile. This won't count against you earning a merit or quest.
Mhmmm.....what if both of us pick the same side? If I pick true and my fellow participant picks it too?
It's all about whether your argument is strong - not whether you have 'defeated' your opponent. I've set up this new instalment of The Great Debates so that there aren't winners or losers, which is also why I'm not allowing people to quote and argue against other users.
The only problem I foresee is that the second post may end up being highly derivative of the first. I'm hoping that this can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, though.
Well, I mostly just want to see if this'll work. If it doesn't, then I'll just stop doing the whole 'choose your position' thing. Though e-mail would be a viable option if it comes down to it. Thanks for pointing that out!
Pursuing happiness results in avoiding unhappiness,but the opposite is wrong,because we cannot be happy and unhappy at once,if one avoids unhappiness,he won't get happy systematically,he still won't be unhappy but that doesn't make him happy,that's why pursuing happiness is more valuable than avoiding unhappiness.
I would love to type out a full essay, but comp is broken and there is no way I'm doing an essay (possibly multiple times) on mobile. Sorry you couldn't see what I wanted to do.
Getting whatever you want, especially as a kid, can turn you into a brat. Some thing do not cause problems, such as wanting to take turns, but others, such as money, toys, and food, can be very detrimental to a child's charachter. Overall, getting anything you want normally causes problems.
@TheRed555 - I really like where this is going. But if you want to earn a merit or a quest, I'll need more from you. Really engage with the question. What do you mean by more valuable? At the very least, you have 2 very strong points: 1) Pursuing happiness avoids unhappiness and 2) avoiding unhappiness doesn't mean you'll be happy. Each of these points could be developed into a paragraph of its own. You should also look at a possible objection to (1): not all cases of pursuing happiness avoid unhappiness. But I'll leave this objection for you to figure out
@eliakith - Same thing. It looks like you have some really good thoughts on offer. You don't have to post today - I took forever getting Round 2 together, so take some time getting your arguments together. All you need is a few strong paragraphs, and sorry about your computer!
An object? Well, first off, a property is something that one owns, (ex. My phone, my keyboard, my headphones etc.) an object is anything that is made of substance and can be touched or picked up. (ex. A tree, a rock, wild animals etc.) So how can can proprieties be an object?
Lets use land. If i own, say 3 acres of land, thats my property, but it is only one specific thing, (land). So how can the my new 2 acres of land be an object? The things that are on it, say the trees, grass and rocks. Those are objects, not property.
So all in all, objects are not just a bunch of properties clumped up together, nor is some sort of underlying substance connecting the two.
@omegap12 - I see what you're saying. You may find it handy to do a bit of research online to see what I'm on about. A property is something that an object 'has'. So a piece of paper, for example, might have the properties of whiteness, thinness, rectangle-ness, and so on. A rock would have the properties of hardness, sharpness, etc.
So the real question is: when we strip away the properties of a rock, are we left with some sort of substance (e.g. a rock substance) or is the rock just a collection of its properties?
Avoiding unhappiness is more valuable than pursuing happiness
its a theme of debating that i liked it
i think that avoiding happiness takes you to go to pursuing happiness, because if you are sad sometimes you feel like you have to let it go and continue with life and pursuing that happiness. if you dont do that sad will take down you down a bit by a bit and beeing happy is that "medicine" that makes you feel a little more better
@minecraftsniper - I'll need a bit more from you if you're shooting for a merit or a quest. But give your position a good, long think. You're arguing that avoiding unhappiness is more valuable than pursuing happiness. Yet the reason you give for this is that, in avoiding unhappiness, we obtain happiness. See why this might be problematic for your position?
It is *never* morally permissible to kill 1 person in order to save 5.
I actually got into a discussion similar to this one with themastaplaya... but the other way around. So this should be interesting.
Taking human life is never acceptable in the case scenario that it is required to save another human being; it would be completely unnatural and go against human course, as well as nature. Truth of the matter is that it is impossible to save everyone from danger, nor is that ideology logical. Anywhere between 98,000 to 400,000 people die in hospitals (In America) as proof of this fact.
Another thing to consider is that you would need to kill 1 person to achieve the possibility to save someone - it is not a guaranteed that you will be fully equipped and enabled to save those 5 people. Depending on the variables, chances are you can be killed before saving them. For example, say these 5 people are held hostage by a single man who wants ransom money - and instead you kill him. If a local law enforcer were to see this, chances are that he will see that single person as a threat and detain that person or have he/she killed on the spot from resisting arrest or any other variable. These scenarios wouldn't be right because it descends into chaos - a chaos that leads to the death of both innocents or those who "deserve" death.
Predators always exist in nature, as do prey, and death plays a strong role in the circle of life. To interfere with that course of action is to defy nature, and in doing so, possibly succeeding but possibly failing.
