General Resolution Debating

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:10 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Alright, I am getting confused now :D Let's take it one step at a time.

My argument has no (5a) statement. That's something you inserted into my argument (you did it for the first time in this thread) and I am still trying to figure out why you did that.

I did that because YOU said that I am supposed to despite my objection.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Whatever the reason, you are NOT supposed to argue against something I didn't say.

And that is EXACTLY what I said would result if I added that in as you insisted. :lol: -vvv
obsrvr524 wrote:What kind of response would you expect? - "That isn't what I said! I didn't say that all that is mortal is man. You are putting false words in my mouth."
:lol:

Magnus Anderson wrote:I am not even sure what (5a) means, so I need your clarification.

Well zookers, why didn't you ask?

Magnus Anderson wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:5a) But must not have such an expression for the numbers to be the same numbers.

What do you mean by "must not have such an expression"?

In order for your conclusion to be derivable from your premises, you would have to add that (5a) premise (that was implied within your conclusion). It is referring to the prior premise (5) -vvv
Magnus Anderson wrote:5) The decimal expression of \(\sum^{i−>∞}_{i=0}9×10^i\) has a digit associated with \(10^0\).


Magnus Anderson wrote:What is "\(10^0\) expression"?
Is it a reference to a digit associated with \(10^0\)?

Of course - the \(9x10^0\) term.

Magnus Anderson wrote:
I was directly challenging that conclusion's "because" clause - not because of the improper presentation but because it is an incorrect assertion.

You were challenging something I did not say? :O

See? There you go. :lol:

I was disputing what you implied with your last statement of argument - one that was more than merely a conclusion. It had an implied assertion concerning that \(9x10^0\) term. That is what that (5a) addition addressed for you - to take it out of your conclusion and make it a proper assertion (premise). You had insisted that I add a statement that would correct your logic (remove the non-sequitur status).

Magnus Anderson wrote:
It means a number that is all 9s - what else could it mean? - "99" - "99999" - "...999" - "999..." - "...999..." - whichever.

In that case, I agree with the conclusion of your rebuttal :O
Both \(999\dotso\) and \(\sum_{i=0}^{i->\infty} 9\times10^0\) are decimal / denary / base-10 numerals where each digit is \(9\).

The problem is, I never said the opposite of it.

Your implied assertion that the \(9x10^0\) term could not be included in my representation because it was not included in "999..." (again the 5a statement) was saying that one 9 had to be left out - the one represented by \(9x10^0\).

My argument was that no 9s are actually left out of either expression. So your implied assertion that one of the 9s must be left out of my right hand term was incorrect.

And then because your argument against my proposal was invalid, you have not yet proven my proposal to be incorrect. So come up with another argument, refute my response, or agree that the original proposal is correct. :D
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby MagsJ » Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:10 pm

-
No balking tho, ok.. ; )
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21813
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:27 pm

MagsJ wrote:-
No balking tho, ok.. ; )

"Balking"?
balk (bôk)
v. balked, balk·ing, balks
v.intr.
1. To stop short and refuse to go on: The horse balked at the jump.
2. To refuse obstinately or abruptly: She balked at the very idea of compromise.

No one is balking - quite the opposite. :-k
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:31 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Here's a corrected version of my argument:

Magnus Anderson wrote:The Initial Argument (Version 2)

1) Let \(X\) be a class of decimal expressions that have no fractional part, that stand for a positive number and that do not start with \(0\).

2) Any two decimal expressions that are instances of \(X\) represent one and the same number if and only if every digit in one expression is the same as the digit located at the same place in the other expression.

3) \(999\dotso\) is an instance of \(X\).

4) \(999\dotso\) has no digit associated with \(10^0\).

5) The decimal expression of \(\sum_{i=0}^{i->\infty} 9\times10^i\) is an instance of \(X\).

6) The decimal expression of \(\sum_{i=0}^{i->\infty} 9\times10^i\) has a digit associated with \(10^0\).

7) Therefore, \(999\dotso\) and \(\sum_{i=0}^{i->\infty} 9\times10^i\) represent two different numbers.


The text in red refers to additions and changes.

What I forgot to add is statement #5.

I didn't see that post.

And now I realize that I should have objected to your (4) - there actually IS a digit (or rather value) associated with \(10^0\). It is merely unseen.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby MagsJ » Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:32 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
MagsJ wrote:-
No balking tho, ok.. ; )

"Balking"?
balk (bôk)
v. balked, balk·ing, balks
v.intr.
1. To stop short and refuse to go on: The horse balked at the jump.
2. To refuse obstinately or abruptly: She balked at the very idea of compromise.

No one is balking - quite the opposite. :-k

It seems the joke missed you.. remember when I accused Sil of balking in one of your communism threads?
and you thought it amusingly funny..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21813
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:35 pm

MagsJ wrote:It seems the joke missed you.. remember when I accused Sil of balking in one of your communism threads?
and you thought it amusingly funny..
#-o
Maybe I just need to put on another pot - sorry. :|
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:43 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:I did that because YOU said that I am supposed to despite my objection.


I asked you to present an argument against the validity of my argument and I suggested a way to do it. And yes, that way involved inserting a claim in my argument (but it did not involve arguing against it.)

Did you really do that?

You argued against the claim you inserted. I did NOT ask you to do that. Moreover, it appears you argued against it LONG BEFORE you inserted it in my argument.

In order for your conclusion to be derivable from your premises, you would have to add that (5a) premise (that was implied within your conclusion).


(5a) is neither an explicit nor an implicit statement of my argument. That's something you inserted. So I would prefer it if you owned it (:

If you want to claim that my argument is logically invalid and that inserting a statement such as (5a) would make it logically valid, that's fine. But in such a case, you do not have to argue against that claim. Why? Because it is NOT my claim and because your task is merely to show that my argument is invalid. Only once (and if) I add it to my argument should you consider arguing against it.

I was disputing what you implied with your last statement of argument - one that was more than merely a conclusion. It had an implied assertion concerning that \(9\times10^0\) term. That is what that (5a) addition addressed for you - to take it out of your conclusion and make it a proper assertion (premise).


No such thing was implied by the last statement of my argument.

You had insisted that I add a statement that would correct your logic (remove the non-sequitur status).


I would say you misunderstood what I asked you to do.

Your implied assertion that the \(9\times10^0\) term could not be included in my representation because it was not included in "999..." (again the 5a statement) was saying that one 9 had to be left out - the one represented by \(9\times10^0\).


I explicitly stated that the decimal expression of your number, which is \(\sum_{i=0}^{i->\infty} 9\times10^i\), has a digit associated with \(10^0\). That digit is \(9\). It is NOT excluded. It is THERE. This is stated in (6) in Version 2 of my argument and in (5) in first (but edited) version of my argument.

What does not have that digit is \(99\dot9\). That's stated in (4).

And you agreed with BOTH premises.

My argument was that no 9s are actually left out of either expression.


That contradicts (4) which you previously agreed with.
Last edited by Magnus Anderson on Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby MagsJ » Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:44 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
MagsJ wrote:It seems the joke missed you.. remember when I accused Sil of balking in one of your communism threads?
and you thought it amusingly funny..
#-o
Maybe I just need to put on another pot - sorry. :|

Ah, don’t worry..

Re. the OP.. I do think that debate resolution can/will never be a one-size-fits-all resolution, across the debating board.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21813
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:52 pm

MagsJ wrote:Re. the OP.. I do think that debate resolution can/will never be a one-size-fits-all resolution, across the debating board.

Oh I agree. It isn't supposed to be. It is just for us analytical reductionist types who closely examine the exact logic of assertions being made.

and even at that, it would probably take a very long time before anything practical for society would come of it. But if it does succeed, you would not believe the effect it would have on the entire world - so I won't go into that. :D
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:54 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:I didn't see that post.

And now I realize that I should have objected to your (4) - there actually IS a digit (or rather value) associated with \(10^0\). It is merely unseen.


Alright. My (4) states that there is no digit associated with \(10^0\) in \(999\dotso\) seen or unseen.

Perhaps you should repost your rebuttal now (:
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:27 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Perhaps you should repost your rebuttal now (:

Although it is going to be the same thing. :-"

And I'm not sure we resolved PoO#1. :-k
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:36 pm

We did not resolve it but we can temporarily close it and open it the next time a similar problem occurs.

I would propose the following:

1) Magnus posts Version 2 of his argument in the thread

2) Observer reviews it and then responds to it by stating agreements and disagreements and presenting an argument against one of the things he disagrees with

If you state that you disagree with the validity of my argument, but you choose to argue against something else, we'll bring PoO #1 back from the asleep.

Respond with "Yes" and I'm gonna post that new version of my argument in that thread.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:48 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:If you state that you disagree with the validity of my argument, but you choose to argue against something else, we'll bring PoO #1 back from the asleep.

I still disagree that is what happened, but we can be more careful about that concern in the future -

So yes, we can restart. Let me restate my proposal first, then your challenge - and go from there. O:)
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:51 pm

Do it.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:02 pm

Done it.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:07 pm

I'm done too.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby MagsJ » Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:56 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Re. the OP.. I do think that debate resolution can/will never be a one-size-fits-all resolution, across the debating board.

Oh I agree. It isn't supposed to be. It is just for us analytical reductionist types who closely examine the exact logic of assertions being made.

Because.. a Debater (ENTP) is a person with the Extraverted, Intuitive, Thinking, and Prospecting personality traits. They tend to be bold and creative, deconstructing and rebuilding ideas with great mental agility. They pursue their goals vigorously despite any resistance they might encounter.

and even at that, it would probably take a very long time before anything practical for society would come of it. But if it does succeed, you would not believe the effect it would have on the entire world - so I won't go into that. :D

Thanks..

As not an ENTP, I want to hear the outcomes and resolutions, not the whole process, tho only pivotal parts of the process.. otherwise it does my head in/things becoming boring. #-o
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 21813
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:44 pm

Point of Order #2

When I presented Version 3 of The Initial Argument you responded to it with the following post:

obsrvr524 wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:4) \(999\dotso\) has no explicit digit associated with \(10^0\) but it has an implicit one and that digit is \(0\).


Disagree.

The representation 999... refers only to the digit "9" being repeated endlessly.
There is no \(0\) digit involved in 999... implicit or otherwise.


I am not sure this is an acceptable response. According to James's flowchart, the proposer is supposed to state agreements and rebuttals. And what he means by "rebuttals", I believe, is "counter-arguments". There appears to be no counter-argument in the above, something you didn't make an effort to argue against in your next post where you seemingly implied that one cannot argue that something isn't present.

obsrvr524 wrote:How else can we argue that something isn't present other than to simply state that it isn't - implying that if you still contend that it is there - show it?


Then the following discussion followed:

Magnus Anderson wrote:Are you saying that proving a negative is an impossible task?

I thought you don't subscribe to such popular but nonetheless erroneous ideas.


obsrvr524 wrote:I didn't say that it is impossible. I said that when someone simply says that something is there and we do not see it there - there is nothing to say but - "It is not there - so show us why you think it is there".


Magnus Anderson wrote:How about presenting an argument that concludes with "Therefore, it is not there"?


obsrvr524 wrote:Ok -

  • If there was an implicit 0 digit there, I would see it
  • I don't see an implicit 0 digit indicated.
  • Therefore there is no implicit 0 digit present.

That is my evidentiary argument.


And when I presented a counter-argument, you responded with:

obsrvr524 wrote: :lol:
But I was hoping that you would skip that obvious argument.

If that is where you want to go and have nothing else to offer then you have expired your defense on that issue by not convincing me of your premise (4) - so the rest of that argument (version 4) is moot.

Do you have a different argument to make addressing the proposal? If so - it's time to post it. O:)


VERY strange.

What makes you think that I "expired my defense"?
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:56 pm

You seem to be getting hypercritical about form. You seem to be trying to make it too hard.

Any explanation as to why one party disagrees with another is a rebuttal. There is no requirement to list definitions, premises, and therefore's. If you say the sky is blue and I say "It looks gray to me" - that is a rebuttal.

The purpose of premises in an argument is to go from things agreed upon already to more complete agreement stated in the conclusion - as if to say "since we agree on these things - we must also agree on this...". But if the premises are not agreed upon, the process of reaching agreement cannot be satisfied - and that is the whole point - to reach agreement or at minimum point out our premise conflicts (perhaps just differences of opinions, perceptions, or preferences).

So if we cannot agree on a proposed premise - for whatever reason - that entire argument is for naught. The exact structure of our rebuttal explaining why we disagree has little to nothing to do it.

There are only 3 alternatives -
    1) give alternating explanations to each other in the hopes of finding agreement on premises
    2) start over with an alternatively premised argument.
    3) expire from that debate and start a debate over the premise

You have stated that there is an implied 0 digit. I haven't been able to identify an implied 0 digit by the explanations that you have given. If you can't think of anything else to say to convince me - we can't use the argument you proposed because we can't agree on one of your premises - find a set of premises that we can agree on.

In the end there should be a "Oh I see now" moment for one of us. But perhaps that is a "Oh I see why you think that but I think you have a false belief concerning one of those premises".

Either way we make progress.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:22 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Any explanation as to why one party disagrees with another is a rebuttal. There is no requirement to list definitions, premises, and therefore's. If you say the sky is blue and I say "It looks gray to me" - that is a rebuttal.


"It looks gray to me" is not an explanation as to why one party disagrees with the other. It's merely a counter-assertion. But I suppose your point is that a mere counter-assertion should count as a rebuttal.

The purpose of premises in an argument is to go from things agreed upon already to more complete agreement stated in the conclusion - as if to say "since we agree on these things - we must also agree on this...". But if the premises are not agreed upon, the process of reaching agreement cannot be satisfied - and that is the whole point - to reach agreement or at minimum point out our premise conflicts (perhaps just differences of opinions, perceptions, or preferences).


That's news to me.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby obsrvr524 » Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:26 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Any explanation as to why one party disagrees with another is a rebuttal. There is no requirement to list definitions, premises, and therefore's. If you say the sky is blue and I say "It looks gray to me" - that is a rebuttal.


"It looks gray to me" is not an explanation as to why one party disagrees with the other.

Of course it is. It is saying that "the reason I disagree is because of what I see".

Magnus Anderson wrote:It's merely a counter-assertion. But I suppose your point is that a mere counter-assertion should count as a rebuttal.

A mere counter-assertion would be - "No. It is gray" - void of why I believe it is gray.

Magnus Anderson wrote:
The purpose of premises in an argument is to go from things agreed upon already to more complete agreement stated in the conclusion - as if to say "since we agree on these things - we must also agree on this...". But if the premises are not agreed upon, the process of reaching agreement cannot be satisfied - and that is the whole point - to reach agreement or at minimum point out our premise conflicts (perhaps just differences of opinions, perceptions, or preferences).


That's news to me.

Well now you know. :D


Remember the purpose of all of this is to work out our understanding of the process and ability to mutually moderate. So it should be expected that at first we find differences to settle.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:09 am

obsrvr524 wrote:Of course it is. It is saying that "the reason I disagree is because of what I see".


A mere counter-assertion would be - "No. It is gray" - void of why I believe it is gray.


That clarifies things.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: General Resolution Debating

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:21 pm

When a dispute in an OP definition arises a new debate is required - a "start over". So any questions concerning definitions should be addressed as soon as possible.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users