Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debate Challenge

Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 1:40:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
- time (eternalism)
- free will (compatibilism)

How do you define free will?
Eternalism implies determinism, so I am needing of a definition of free will in this sense.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 2:01:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 1:40:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
- time (eternalism)
- free will (compatibilism)

How do you define free will?
Eternalism implies determinism, so I am needing of a definition of free will in this sense.
I think determinism is a necessary precondition for free will. It has to be ourselves, our personality, our wishes and dreams causing our actions. That is why I think indeterminism would probably rid mankind of responsibility.
The freedom of will is the freedom to do what is in line with an agents second order desires (Frankfurtian Compatibilism).
First order desire: The desire to perform some action.
Second order desire: A desire to have some desire.
This might sound a little abstract, let me give you an example:
Consider a kleptomaniac. She desires (1. order) to steal something, but she desires (2. order) to not be a kleptomaniac. Her 1. order desire is not in line with her 2. order desire and therefore she is not free in stealing it.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 3:07:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Hi! I'm Drew.

Could you please elaborate on your "Scientific Realism?" What do you mean by that, exactly? What is your "take" on the matter. I might be interested in discussing that with you. Although, I would prefer to do it in a thread. I am not a fan of the formal debate process on DDO. It seems far too limited. I would rather engage in some conversational give and take, as I find that far more lively. And enjoyable.

Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 3:30:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
Ill debate this
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
and this
- God (con)
This too
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 3:39:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 3:30:11 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
- time (eternalism)
Ill debate this
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
and this
- God (con)
This too
What about a debate centered around the kalam cosmological argument? Then we'd cover two topics.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 3:39:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 3:39:03 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:30:11 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
- time (eternalism)
Ill debate this
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
and this
- God (con)
This too
What about a debate centered around the kalam cosmological argument? Then we'd cover two topics.
F*ck yeees
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 3:52:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 3:07:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Hi! I'm Drew.

Could you please elaborate on your "Scientific Realism?" What do you mean by that, exactly? What is your "take" on the matter. I might be interested in discussing that with you. Although, I would prefer to do it in a thread. I am not a fan of the formal debate process on DDO. It seems far too limited. I would rather engage in some conversational give and take, as I find that far more lively. And enjoyable.

Thanks!

Scientific realism is the thesis that scientific theories (approximately) describe how the world really is.
I personally lean towards instrumentalism (or structural realism although I would not defend this in a debate). It is the idea that scientific theories do not describe how the world really is (approximately), but are a usefull instrument for making predictions.
I can't its flawless either, but it seems more tennable to me.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:04:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 3:52:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:07:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Hi! I'm Drew.

Could you please elaborate on your "Scientific Realism?" What do you mean by that, exactly? What is your "take" on the matter. I might be interested in discussing that with you. Although, I would prefer to do it in a thread. I am not a fan of the formal debate process on DDO. It seems far too limited. I would rather engage in some conversational give and take, as I find that far more lively. And enjoyable.

Thanks!

Scientific realism is the thesis that scientific theories (approximately) describe how the world really is.
I personally lean towards instrumentalism (or structural realism although I would not defend this in a debate). It is the idea that scientific theories do not describe how the world really is (approximately), but are a usefull instrument for making predictions.
I can't its flawless either, but it seems more tennable to me.

Do you not agree that in the Science arena, the meaning of the word "theory" holds far more established facts in it than the word does as we use it in common every day parlance? As when I say, "Hmm..I have a theory as to why my boss is a jerk--because his wife is not givin' him any!"

Because if you indeed do not believe that in science a theory is actually MORE substantial than simply ONE known fact, I might be willing to debate this with you.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:24:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 4:04:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:52:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:07:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Hi! I'm Drew.

Could you please elaborate on your "Scientific Realism?" What do you mean by that, exactly? What is your "take" on the matter. I might be interested in discussing that with you. Although, I would prefer to do it in a thread. I am not a fan of the formal debate process on DDO. It seems far too limited. I would rather engage in some conversational give and take, as I find that far more lively. And enjoyable.

Thanks!

Scientific realism is the thesis that scientific theories (approximately) describe how the world really is.
I personally lean towards instrumentalism (or structural realism although I would not defend this in a debate). It is the idea that scientific theories do not describe how the world really is (approximately), but are a usefull instrument for making predictions.
I can't its flawless either, but it seems more tennable to me.

Do you not agree that in the Science arena, the meaning of the word "theory" holds far more established facts in it than the word does as we use it in common every day parlance? As when I say, "Hmm..I have a theory as to why my boss is a jerk--because his wife is not givin' him any!"

Because if you indeed do not believe that in science a theory is actually MORE substantial than simply ONE known fact, I might be willing to debate this with you.

Of course I acknowledge the difference between everyday and scientific usage of 'theory'. That is not really up to debate and no, instrumentalism does not revolve around some "a theory is just a theory" argument.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:30:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 4:24:48 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 4:04:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:52:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:07:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Hi! I'm Drew.

Could you please elaborate on your "Scientific Realism?" What do you mean by that, exactly? What is your "take" on the matter. I might be interested in discussing that with you. Although, I would prefer to do it in a thread. I am not a fan of the formal debate process on DDO. It seems far too limited. I would rather engage in some conversational give and take, as I find that far more lively. And enjoyable.

Thanks!

Scientific realism is the thesis that scientific theories (approximately) describe how the world really is.
I personally lean towards instrumentalism (or structural realism although I would not defend this in a debate). It is the idea that scientific theories do not describe how the world really is (approximately), but are a usefull instrument for making predictions.
I can't its flawless either, but it seems more tennable to me.

Do you not agree that in the Science arena, the meaning of the word "theory" holds far more established facts in it than the word does as we use it in common every day parlance? As when I say, "Hmm..I have a theory as to why my boss is a jerk--because his wife is not givin' him any!"

Because if you indeed do not believe that in science a theory is actually MORE substantial than simply ONE known fact, I might be willing to debate this with you.

Of course I acknowledge the difference between everyday and scientific usage of 'theory'. That is not really up to debate and no, instrumentalism does not revolve around some "a theory is just a theory" argument.

OK. This is a good thing that you acknowledge that. Thanks.

http://evolution.about.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 6:05:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

I can always do abortion debates - starting whenever. I know the topic well enough to do rounds pretty quickly. As for killing for food, I can do that, but it would take me a bit longer so you'd have to wait for a while (maybe a month) before I could do that debate - I owe Envisage one first when I get some serious time.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 7:13:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Are you pro or con on compatibilism?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 7:19:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 3:52:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:07:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Hi! I'm Drew.

Could you please elaborate on your "Scientific Realism?" What do you mean by that, exactly? What is your "take" on the matter. I might be interested in discussing that with you. Although, I would prefer to do it in a thread. I am not a fan of the formal debate process on DDO. It seems far too limited. I would rather engage in some conversational give and take, as I find that far more lively. And enjoyable.

Thanks!

Scientific realism is the thesis that scientific theories (approximately) describe how the world really is.
I personally lean towards instrumentalism (or structural realism although I would not defend this in a debate). It is the idea that scientific theories do not describe how the world really is (approximately), but are a usefull instrument for making predictions.
I can't its flawless either, but it seems more tennable to me.

It's an interesting question whether a theory can, on average, improve in its ability to make accurate and precise predictions about reality without developing a better description of reality. If it can, does this imply that the universe is not intelligible?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 11:32:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 7:13:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Are you pro or con on compatibilism?

Pro.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 11:36:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 7:19:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:52:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:07:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Hi! I'm Drew.

Could you please elaborate on your "Scientific Realism?" What do you mean by that, exactly? What is your "take" on the matter. I might be interested in discussing that with you. Although, I would prefer to do it in a thread. I am not a fan of the formal debate process on DDO. It seems far too limited. I would rather engage in some conversational give and take, as I find that far more lively. And enjoyable.

Thanks!

Scientific realism is the thesis that scientific theories (approximately) describe how the world really is.
I personally lean towards instrumentalism (or structural realism although I would not defend this in a debate). It is the idea that scientific theories do not describe how the world really is (approximately), but are a usefull instrument for making predictions.
I can't its flawless either, but it seems more tennable to me.

It's an interesting question whether a theory can, on average, improve in its ability to make accurate and precise predictions about reality without developing a better description of reality. If it can, does this imply that the universe is not intelligible?

The basic motivation is that our epistemic access to invisible particles is insufficient. So yes, it means we cannot understand the universe as it really is.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 11:48:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 6:05:39 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

I can always do abortion debates - starting whenever. I know the topic well enough to do rounds pretty quickly. As for killing for food, I can do that, but it would take me a bit longer so you'd have to wait for a while (maybe a month) before I could do that debate - I owe Envisage one first when I get some serious time.
As long as there are no arguments from religion involved, feel free to choose the topic. I personally am more interested in the latter.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:43:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 11:36:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 7:19:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:52:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:07:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Hi! I'm Drew.

Could you please elaborate on your "Scientific Realism?" What do you mean by that, exactly? What is your "take" on the matter. I might be interested in discussing that with you. Although, I would prefer to do it in a thread. I am not a fan of the formal debate process on DDO. It seems far too limited. I would rather engage in some conversational give and take, as I find that far more lively. And enjoyable.

Thanks!

Scientific realism is the thesis that scientific theories (approximately) describe how the world really is.
I personally lean towards instrumentalism (or structural realism although I would not defend this in a debate). It is the idea that scientific theories do not describe how the world really is (approximately), but are a usefull instrument for making predictions.
I can't its flawless either, but it seems more tennable to me.

It's an interesting question whether a theory can, on average, improve in its ability to make accurate and precise predictions about reality without developing a better description of reality. If it can, does this imply that the universe is not intelligible?

The basic motivation is that our epistemic access to invisible particles is insufficient. So yes, it means we cannot understand the universe as it really is.

That doesn't really explain why we are able to improve in our ability to make predictions without improving our understanding of how reality actually works, does it?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 10:23:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 11:32:46 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 7:13:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Are you pro or con on compatibilism?

Pro.

I'm con.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 11:29:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 10:23:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:32:46 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 7:13:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Are you pro or con on compatibilism?

Pro.

I'm con.

Although I am interested in your reasoning, I am not sure if I am going to do another debate. I already have two going and a possible third with Geogeer.
Let me know what your case against compatibilism is and we'll work someting out.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 11:36:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 11:29:58 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/8/2015 10:23:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:32:46 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 7:13:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Are you pro or con on compatibilism?

Pro.

I'm con.

Although I am interested in your reasoning, I am not sure if I am going to do another debate. I already have two going and a possible third with Geogeer.
Let me know what your case against compatibilism is and we'll work someting out.

I recently did a debate on a similar topic: http://www.debate.org...

How similar is your view of free will to Ayn Rand's?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 11:47:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 11:36:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/8/2015 11:29:58 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/8/2015 10:23:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:32:46 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 7:13:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Are you pro or con on compatibilism?

Pro.

I'm con.

Although I am interested in your reasoning, I am not sure if I am going to do another debate. I already have two going and a possible third with Geogeer.
Let me know what your case against compatibilism is and we'll work someting out.

I recently did a debate on a similar topic: http://www.debate.org...

How similar is your view of free will to Ayn Rand's?

Read, the quote, didn't understand a word.
I've never touched anything by Rand and I have no idea of how similar our views are.
You might want to check out post #3 for an outline of my view.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 4:08:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:43:59 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:36:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 7:19:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:52:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:07:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Hi! I'm Drew.

Could you please elaborate on your "Scientific Realism?" What do you mean by that, exactly? What is your "take" on the matter. I might be interested in discussing that with you. Although, I would prefer to do it in a thread. I am not a fan of the formal debate process on DDO. It seems far too limited. I would rather engage in some conversational give and take, as I find that far more lively. And enjoyable.

Thanks!

Scientific realism is the thesis that scientific theories (approximately) describe how the world really is.
I personally lean towards instrumentalism (or structural realism although I would not defend this in a debate). It is the idea that scientific theories do not describe how the world really is (approximately), but are a usefull instrument for making predictions.
I can't its flawless either, but it seems more tennable to me.

It's an interesting question whether a theory can, on average, improve in its ability to make accurate and precise predictions about reality without developing a better description of reality. If it can, does this imply that the universe is not intelligible?

The basic motivation is that our epistemic access to invisible particles is insufficient. So yes, it means we cannot understand the universe as it really is.

That doesn't really explain why we are able to improve in our ability to make predictions without improving our understanding of how reality actually works, does it?
No, that alone does not. However I have not presented any argument to establish this.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 4:12:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 4:08:23 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:43:59 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:36:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 7:19:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:52:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:07:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Hi! I'm Drew.

Could you please elaborate on your "Scientific Realism?" What do you mean by that, exactly? What is your "take" on the matter. I might be interested in discussing that with you. Although, I would prefer to do it in a thread. I am not a fan of the formal debate process on DDO. It seems far too limited. I would rather engage in some conversational give and take, as I find that far more lively. And enjoyable.

Thanks!

Scientific realism is the thesis that scientific theories (approximately) describe how the world really is.
I personally lean towards instrumentalism (or structural realism although I would not defend this in a debate). It is the idea that scientific theories do not describe how the world really is (approximately), but are a usefull instrument for making predictions.
I can't its flawless either, but it seems more tennable to me.

It's an interesting question whether a theory can, on average, improve in its ability to make accurate and precise predictions about reality without developing a better description of reality. If it can, does this imply that the universe is not intelligible?

The basic motivation is that our epistemic access to invisible particles is insufficient. So yes, it means we cannot understand the universe as it really is.

That doesn't really explain why we are able to improve in our ability to make predictions without improving our understanding of how reality actually works, does it?
No, that alone does not. However I have not presented any argument to establish this.

Fair enough. I'm interested to see what the actual argument is.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 5:01:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 4:12:37 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 4:08:23 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:43:59 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:36:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 7:19:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:52:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:07:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Hi! I'm Drew.

Could you please elaborate on your "Scientific Realism?" What do you mean by that, exactly? What is your "take" on the matter. I might be interested in discussing that with you. Although, I would prefer to do it in a thread. I am not a fan of the formal debate process on DDO. It seems far too limited. I would rather engage in some conversational give and take, as I find that far more lively. And enjoyable.

Thanks!

Scientific realism is the thesis that scientific theories (approximately) describe how the world really is.
I personally lean towards instrumentalism (or structural realism although I would not defend this in a debate). It is the idea that scientific theories do not describe how the world really is (approximately), but are a usefull instrument for making predictions.
I can't its flawless either, but it seems more tennable to me.

It's an interesting question whether a theory can, on average, improve in its ability to make accurate and precise predictions about reality without developing a better description of reality. If it can, does this imply that the universe is not intelligible?

The basic motivation is that our epistemic access to invisible particles is insufficient. So yes, it means we cannot understand the universe as it really is.

That doesn't really explain why we are able to improve in our ability to make predictions without improving our understanding of how reality actually works, does it?
No, that alone does not. However I have not presented any argument to establish this.

Fair enough. I'm interested to see what the actual argument is.

It's kinda late now and if you want to I can elaborate on this tomorrow, but if you want to look some up we have for example the argument from pessimistic meta-induction, the underdetermination of scientific theories and the meaning of theoretic terms.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 5:57:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 5:01:28 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/8/2015 4:12:37 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/8/2015 4:08:23 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:43:59 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/7/2015 11:36:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 7:19:57 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:52:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:07:16 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

Hi! I'm Drew.

Could you please elaborate on your "Scientific Realism?" What do you mean by that, exactly? What is your "take" on the matter. I might be interested in discussing that with you. Although, I would prefer to do it in a thread. I am not a fan of the formal debate process on DDO. It seems far too limited. I would rather engage in some conversational give and take, as I find that far more lively. And enjoyable.

Thanks!

Scientific realism is the thesis that scientific theories (approximately) describe how the world really is.
I personally lean towards instrumentalism (or structural realism although I would not defend this in a debate). It is the idea that scientific theories do not describe how the world really is (approximately), but are a usefull instrument for making predictions.
I can't its flawless either, but it seems more tennable to me.

It's an interesting question whether a theory can, on average, improve in its ability to make accurate and precise predictions about reality without developing a better description of reality. If it can, does this imply that the universe is not intelligible?

The basic motivation is that our epistemic access to invisible particles is insufficient. So yes, it means we cannot understand the universe as it really is.

That doesn't really explain why we are able to improve in our ability to make predictions without improving our understanding of how reality actually works, does it?
No, that alone does not. However I have not presented any argument to establish this.

Fair enough. I'm interested to see what the actual argument is.

It's kinda late now and if you want to I can elaborate on this tomorrow, but if you want to look some up we have for example the argument from pessimistic meta-induction, the underdetermination of scientific theories and the meaning of theoretic terms.

Okay, thanks.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 8:21:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)

You're one of the first few people who I feel intimidated to debate God, lol. Though POE definitely :P

- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 8:28:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

With regards to language acquisition, do you prefer to take a rationalist or empiricist stance?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 11:52:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 8:28:59 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)
- moral realism (con) / error-theory (pro)
- free will (compatibilism)
- abortion (pro)

From my latest forum discussions:
- The Cogito does not dictate "I" is a soul (pro)
- Scientific realism (con)
- The unnecessary killing of animals for food is morally reprehensible (pro)
- The naturalistic fallacy is unsound (pro)

Let me know if you are interested!

With regards to language acquisition, do you prefer to take a rationalist or empiricist stance?

Although language is not my specialty by anymeans I'd say I lean towards empiricism.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 4:48:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 8:21:23 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:31:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I feel like debating again. Below are some things I would be really happy to get a chance to debate, but if you want to you can challenge me on most other (preferably philosophical) topics as well. Thanks!

Anything concerning...:
- time (eternalism)
- utilitarianism (pro)
- persistence (four-dimensionalism)
- God (con)

You're one of the first few people who I feel intimidated to debate God, lol. Though POE definitely :P

Thanks, very appreciated! I'd debate the PoE anytime, on the condition that if you use Martins' non-cognitivism, you also state his theory of meaning.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic