frame

Best Irrelevant Content

  • Can actions which cause no harm be immoral?

    @SkepticalOne

    If a person pleasures themselves to donkey porn, maybe no one gets hurt but....
    SkepticalOne
  • Will Trump Work With Democrats?

    let's make this simple, trump is a dumb-ass, so no, he will not work with Democrats.
    someone234
  • Debate for BryanMullinsTh1: The Roast Game - Is it fact or fallacy?

    The voting is now even, I don't want this debate to be a throw away. But thanks anyway for the debate!
    BryanMullins
  • Who is someone on this forum that you fear being up against?

    @DrCereal Have you ever won an argument you've been in?
    DrCereal
  • Myers-Brigg Personality Test: What is Your Personality Type?

    DrCereal said:
    DrCereal said:
    Does a meaningless combination of letters really matter?
    @DrCereal When they form 'drcereal' then I guess they and their opinions don't matter at all.
    I'm not sure what I ever did to you to deserve this kind of response, but I do apologize for whatever my transgression was;
    Sorry, that's a meaningless combination of letters to me, come back and try to string together a meaningful combination.
    DrCereal
  • Did you know that a debate can be 100% substantial?

    .......
    BryanMullinsTh1
  • Debate for BryanMullinsTh1: The Roast Game - Is it fact or fallacy?

    Here is my constructive for the debate. Before I begin, I would like to thank the readers for reading this and for showing interest in the debate. For all purposes, here are the two links that Bryan and two other people (me as one) had on the topic.

    Bryan and I : http://www.debate.org/debates/Should-Families-Go-To-Prison-After-It-Was-Proven-They-Literally-Ate-Their-Children-The-Roast-Game/1/

    Bryan and yanagurl136 : http://www.debate.org/debates/Bryan-Mullins-The-Roast-Game-Families-were-eating-their-own-children-for-19-years/1/

    As stated in my introduction, my job here is to argue that your questions are not correctly poised and that I'll need to disprove your premises. 

    First off, I need to disprove your premises and show why your argument is fallacy based. You ask a fair question about what is special about a holiday roast, to which the answer is ham, beef, or turkey. Right here, we have already established that if child eating was the main thing that they ate, they would either be A: lying or B: Telling the truth. We need to distinguish between the two in your second question, "Who do you think is special" to which the answer was children. The two answers here are true answers, so that can not make a lie as you state in your assumption. Just because we have A and B does not always make C. That would be like if I said "My house is tall and it has 3000 square feet, so I must be burning bodies in my basement." You see, it does not follow! This is in philosophy, a No Correlation and an Invalid argument based off of a false conclusion. The premises were true, but a false conclusion was drawn which invalidates the whole argument. This is what you are struggling with here. You have 2 premises, listed in your questions, but then you take your deductive format and make an obscure conclusion that is false. Nobody can see into the mind of the parent. If I was a parent, I would be freaking out because this dude thinks that I murder my children, which clearly can't be true. Why doesn't the question giver call the police, yet it is assumed that the family member answers tentatively or freaks out. Your invalid conclusion and evidence do not follow.

    Now I must show why your arguments have fallacies. I will list them as such with sources at the end my argument for each one. 

    Fallacy 1 - Appeal to probability: "a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case or might be the case." This is essentially your argument, you think that because your Game might be true in exploiting liars, than it works in every case and is a fact that can be upheld, which it is not. 

    Fallacy 2 -  Affirming a Disjunct:  "concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B"  

    This is true in your case because when the family answers B, you automatically take it as a lie and take A, which is false to make a false conclusion, thus a fallacy. 

    Fallacy 3 -  Existential Fallacy: "an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion." This is probably the best one of the bunch because "Who do you think is special" and "What do you eat at a Christmas Roast" are universal questions that can be answered differently by anyone, but you take a specific conclusion that families must be eating their children.

    Thank you for your time, here are the sources for the Fallacies: 

    Appeal to Probability: 

    1.  Leon, Joseph (23 April 2011). "Appeal to Probability"Logical & Critical Thinking. Archived from the original on 27 September 2013.
    2. Jump up^ McDonald, Simon (2009). "Appeal to probability"Toolkit For Thinking. Archived from the original on 19 February 2015.
    Affirming a Disjunct: 

    Wilson 1999, p. 316.

    Existential Fallacy: 

     Wilson 1999, p. 317.
    BryanMullinsTh1BaconToes
  • The Roast Game is fact!

    @someone234 It's not any kind of trolling. It is a most SERIOUS fact.
    someone234
  • What is the Sum of the Natural Numbers? 1+2+3+4+... = ?

    What is the Sum of the Natural Numbers? 1+2+3+4+... = ?

    1+2+3+4+5+...=?       

    If you summed up all of the Natural Numbers, what would the answer be?  Would it equal Positive Infinity?  A positive Natural Number?  A positive Integer?  Could it equal a Negative Integer?

    Also, do you think that a problem like this demonstrates that Mathematics is Bullsh't, maps onto Nature in interesting and counterintuitive ways, or other?  Could you imagine any applications to such a result?

    Don't watch the videos until after you respond with your initial thoughts:  

    B.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Oazb7IWzbA     (Side Note: I met the Mathematician in this video)

    BryanMullinsTh1
  • Crisis of Democracy

    Crisis of Democracy

    The Crisis of Democracy was authored by the Tri-Lateral Commission who were elite liberal intellectual internationals from the US, Europe, and Japan in the early 1970's. In it, they argued that there is an excess of Democracy and need to find ways of pushing back against the new wave of public opinion from the lower formerly disenfranchised classes. In their view (very similar to that of Socrates in The Republic) is that these lower classes are unfit to make rational decisions about society that will effect all of us (not just them) and therefore should be politically/socially disenfranchised because they are bound to make all sorts wrong decisions that any sensible person/society understands that the higher classes are best fit to make all of these decisions. In The Crisis of Democracy, they made an argument that there is becoming a serious problem with over-education amongst the populace that was newly occurring (in the early 1970's onward). Their reasoning was now that more people are getting Undergrad. level degrees, as well as Masters level, ect. that these lower classes that in truth do not possess the same high level intellect/education that the higher classes (i.e. the elite Liberal intellectuals and possibly some elite intellectuals on the right as well but that point is unclear in their writing)) and that the *lower classes* should in no way be given the false impression that they (even though they are becoming notably more educated) are as qualified to make serious decisions (i.e. engage in the political process) that the elites are (i.e. the Elites should be making the rules, so to speak).  Thus, the *"Crisis of Democracy" is that political activism is leading to *too many* people being involved in the political process and this needs to be pushed back against in order to maintain a more stable, healthy, productive system.


    I would also highly recommend reading the Crisis of Democracy as well as it is in many ways a softer modern day parallel to the type of thinking seen in Plato's Republic. Here is a link to the Crisis of Democracy: http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis ofdemocracy.pdf


    What do you think?  Do our modern societies tend to suffer from an "Excess in Democracy" or is there Too Little Democracy?

    billpassedpassedbillaarongBryanMullinsTh1WilliamSchulznatbarons

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch