frame



Best Great argument Content

  • Do We Create Our Own Truths?

    MayCaesar said:
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    1+1=2 is not a consequence of the axioms of mathematics, but a consequence of definitions of these numbers coupled with inherent properties of sets deriving from definitions of sets. If you want 1+1 to equal 2 with the probability of 50%, then you are no longer talking about conventionally defined 1 and 2, and not even about numbers in general, but about some other objects - perhaps, random variables - that you just chose to denote by the same symbols.

    Currently established rules of logic and mathematics are not absurd or arbitrary. Mathematics is a self-contained field in which everything that can be logically derived is true by design. If you choose a different set of axioms, you will arrive at a different set of conclusions, and those conclusions will be true within the scope of that self-contained field.

    And basic rules of logic itself are pretty much objective. "A is A" snd "not A is not A" is something that has to be accepted to be true in order for any statemement to be either true or false, and never both or neither. Simply this requirement - the ability to conclude that a statement is either true or false - is sufficient to build the entire body of formal logic.
    @MayCaesar Great piece. I would also like to add that 1+1=3 is actually possible depending on the parameters involved but the truth-value will not change; it will not be crazy and it will make perfect sense as to how and why 1+1=3 is the case. Of course, 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples and will never be 3 apples, however, not everything in math or science for that matter relies on common sense arithmetic rules like this, eg:

    It's Common sense that the world is flat. It isn't.
    It's common sense that we are the center of the universe. We aren't.
    It's common sense that we see the world like we are looking through a camera lens. We aren't.
    It's common sense that we hear the world like we are listening to a radio. We don't.
    It's common sense that the sun rises and sets. It doesn't.
    It's common sense that objects are solid. they aren't.
    It's common sense that time passes at the same rate everywhere. It doesn't.
    It's common sense that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. They don't.
    It's common sense that human memory works like a tape recorder. It doesn't.
    It's common sense that there is only one law of addition. There isn't.


    MayCaesar
  • Can you prove Einstein wrong?

    Albert Einstein's theories of special and general relativity do not have any direct connection to the mathematical constant pi (π). Pi is a mathematical concept that describes the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and it appears in many mathematical formulas, including those used in geometry and trigonometry. Einstein's theories, on the other hand, deal with the nature of space and time and how they are affected by the presence of matter and energy. While pi may be used in calculations related to the geometry of space-time, it is not a fundamental concept in either special or general relativity.
    ZeusAres42
  • How Much Longer Will Religion Last?

    The benefits of faith are numerous.
    1) Physical Health Benefits

    “Most studies have shown that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide. Several studies have shown that addressing the spiritual needs of the patient may enhance recovery from illness.” Mayo Clinic

    2) Mental Health Benefits

    Religion gives people something to believe in, provides a sense of structure and typically offers a group of people to connect with over similar beliefs. These facets can have a large positive impact on mental health — research suggests that religiosity reduces suicide rates, alcoholism and drug use. - National Alliance on Mental Illness

    3) More Charitable with Their Time and Money

    People who are religiously affiliated are more likely to make a charitable donation of any kind, whether to a religious congregation or to another type of charitable organization. Sixty-two percent of religious households give to charity of any kind, compared with 46 percent of households with no religious affiliation. - Philanthropy Today

    That doesn't even address that belief in God makes sense.  God best explains whey there is something rather than nothing.  God best explains how a universe could arise from nothing.  The universes fundamental forces are so fine tuned for life that even minor variations would have made the existence of our universe impossible.  Roger Penrose calculated the possibility of a random universe being able to support any life due to the cosmological constant at 1 in 10 to the 120th power.  There are roughly 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe.  That's incredibly fined tuned and it strains credulity to think random processes could account for all of the fine tuning we see. 

    NomenclaturePepsiguy
  • Should abortion be illegal?

    @MichaelElpers
    Society has agreed on immoral practices for as long as history has existed.

    It is society which determines what is moral and what isn't, Michael. Not you.

    Medicine generally knows before birth if a pregnancy will be dangerous

    In some cases it does. In other cases the woman dies up to a year after delivery. Not every person even has access to a doctor, so again we can see that you're sat in your little middle class bubble, completely detached from reality. Approximately 0.3 million women already die each year as a direct result of childbirth. How high do you think that figure is going to be if you start forcing women to have kids?


    OakTownA
  • Are there still people in the U.S. who support slavery?

    "What these reports often don't consider regarding prison workers is the amount of money that comes with there associated confinement. Needing law enforcement, workers at the prison, courts and jury's, food, thr shelter costs themselves ect.  U.s. spends 80 billion a year on public prisons."
    And this should be paid for by the government. Currently, all but two states require that prisoners pay for their stay in prison. Prisoners can be charged up to $60 a day.  At that price, a short sentence of 6 months leaves a prisoner with a debt of almost $11,000. I personally would find this amount of debt devastating, and I have a decent paying job. At a maximum rate of $0.52/hr, a prisoner can expect to make about $4 a day, or $94 for the same six month period.
    Do you think it's okay for companies to use prisons as a source of free or nearly free labor? Prisoners are also forced to work, regardless of the working conditions, disabilities, or the prisoner's desire to work.  Over 4,100 corporations make profits off of the backs of prisoners, and are even granted " a tax credit of $2,400 for every work-release inmate they employ as a reward for hiring “risky target groups.”"https://corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2020/8/5/private-companies-producing-with-us-prison-labor-in-2020-prison-labor-in-the-us-part-ii

    "Additionally I'm not sure what you are supposed to expect.  If prison gave you a guaranteed job making normal wages crime would be through the roof. "
    What evidence do you have to support this assertion? It's still prison, with everything that entails. Also, as the articles I posted above explain, work that takes place in a prison is not accepted as prior experience or, like in the case of firefighting, there are laws in place preventing them from finding employment in that field after they are released.
    John_C_87
  • Is morality objective or subjective?

    @theinfectedmaster ;   The thing is that it can't be objective because some people could think that killing is morally correct.

    Most people in the western world already regard the killing other human beings as morally correct in certain situations.  

    In in the western world it is considered that citizens killing other human beings for personal reasons is utterly wrong and offenders are severely punished.   But killing officially for the benefit of the group is not only acceptable, it is behaviour guaranteed to bring great honour upon the killer if he is a member of the armed forces.     One person killing another is considered justifiable when done as an act of self defense, or in the defense of another human being who is in mortal danger of being killed.    Also, at least more than half of western people think the executions of the worst kinds of human predators is not immoral.    So too, the killing of offenders by police officers in certain situations is also considered a killing for the good of the community.   In addition, prison officers may shoot to kill offenders who are attempting to escape custody.   
    OakTownA
  • Should abortion be illegal?

    @Nomenclature

    "Nobody has the right to force an innocent baby into a life of hell with parents who are drug addicts. Your fallacy is the assumption that death is the worst form of suffering and it is not."

    In what world are we allowed to kill someone because we think their suffering may be great.  You may as well just said we're justified killing anyone we deem to be suffering.

    "Your honor, I did not murder this person because I know he'd rather be dead than alive". No one gets to make that choice for someone else.
    Sonofason
  • What Is The Ultimate Purpose Of John_C_87?

    Almond cookies, pistachio Ice-cream, and Jet lag.
    Wuxing, I Ching, and a green eyed Spanish woman change my life as I knew it to be... Not in that order
    NomenclatureOakTownA
  • Should hate speech be illegal?

    @just4fun
     First of all, where would we draw the line at hate speech?

    This is definitely a difficult question because hate speech is often defined on the basis of how it makes the victim feel, and since everybody has different thresholds and triggers, a blanket law is always going to be inadequate. 

    That said, speech is not harmless, and can intentionally be used as a weapon to bully someone to the point of self-harm or suicide. I do not believe it should be legal to do this. Psychological torture can be just as harmful as physical torture, albeit in different ways. In my opinion, if it can be evidenced that you have used words to bully someone relentlessly and intentionally, and if it can be evidenced that this person ended their life as a direct result of that abuse, then you should be tried for homicide.

    just4funDee
  • A completely Socialist or Communist USA would not stand.

    Now, coming from a democratic socialist, i believe that it will be difficult at the very least for a truly far left market system in the US to take place, at least not for a long time. For one, McCarthyism has pretty much convinced most of the country that far left markets are bad, un-american, and the devil will bring you to hell, and massive corporations have such a strong-hold on the US that it would be difficult for people to separate from the norm. The government sure as heck won't accept a change of markets.
    Nomenclature

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch