frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Are we going to stop smoking

Debate Information

I saw on the TV that in New Zealand they are going to stop selling cigarettes to 14 year old kids then each year they will increase the age by one year until nobody is allowed to buy cigarettes.
Is this a good thing or are all the kids going to do vaping and stink the place out with all that cinnamon and herbs>
Dreamer
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    Argument Topic: Yes, we should no longer be callous towards smokers and allow Big Tobacco to hurt them.


    We have to try. New Zealand's plan may or may not work. Either way we will have more data to work with. Big Tobacco kills over eight million worldwide annually. We can no longer be indifferent.


    Tobacco companies make the cigarettes as addictive as possible, make huge profits, launch disinformation campaigns, and then blame the victim under the guise of individual responsibility and freedom.




  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    Is this a good thing 

    Taking away a person's freedom is never a good thing. 

    just_sayin
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer
    Big Tobacco kills over eight million worldwide annually.

    Lack of food kills 9 million annually, so maybe you should focus more effort on feeding people and less on taking away their only pleasure in life.

    Dreamer
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -  
    Barnardot said:

    Is this a good thing or are all the kids going to do vaping and stink the place out with all that cinnamon and herbs>
    Hello B:

    Of course, it's a good thing..  But, that's not the way to do it.. 

    In the last 50 years, the world cut our smoking rate by 50%, and we did that by talking..  That's probably a couple billion saved lives.  We just need to do more of that..

    Besides, making it illegal isn't gonna stop someone if he wants to smoke. It's just gonna make the dealers rich.

    excon


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    I fail to see what business the government can possibly have in how healthy the residents want to be. If someone wants to drink or smoke themselves to death, it is no one's business by them.

    It is unfortunate that in the modern world the government is largely seen as a vessel through which the collective imposes its general values onto the individual, rather than the protector of individual rights. Every proposed law is analyzed based on how it will "benefit the society" (whatever in the world it means) and not based on how well it aligns with the spirit of the Constitution. If a law reduces the number of cigarettes the average New-Zealander smokes per day, then that is a good law, and all the unintended consequences of said law are to be dismissed as irrelevant.

    I am not interested in living in a smoke-free society. I am interested in living in a free society and enjoying the diversity of lifestyles people around me choose. The sterile society all these social engineers dream of to me is a horrible dystopia. Singapore on steroids. Enjoy living for 100 years and having no worries in life, as long as you obey by 36642578 crazy laws - and if you violate one of them, then be eaten alive by the morality police.
    DreamerSonofason
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Informative and irrelevant.


    I didn't know that starvation killed so many, thank you for the information. Yet, this is a fallacy of relative privation. Tobacco being their only pleasure in life is a pants on fire lie. Exercise releases beta endorphins.
    Nomenclature
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    Argument Topic: Medicaid and medicare costs means tax payers end up paying.


    Let's say no second hand smoke existed. There would still be the huge economic burden of first-hand smoke. The connection between health and wealth.

    A person smokes gets lung cancer and their health declines and then they can't work. That person goes on public assistance and the tax payers pay what Big Tobacco should be paying. In this way tobacco companies get private profit and socialized costs.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    Taking away a person's freedom is never a good thing. 

    It is however a good thing if that particular freedom of that person infringes upon the freedoms of most other persons such as inflicting passive smoking on others, making sickening ash tray smells, littering the streets with butts, overloading the health system and costing industry through absenteeism, under-performing and cigarette breaks.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    Lack of food kills 9 million annually, so maybe you should focus more effort on feeding people and less on taking away their only pleasure in life.

    Have you ever thought of doing both as a trade-off? If you focus more on both feeding them and depriving them of ciggies then surely you are replacing a bad pleasure with a good pleasure. Sounds reasonable to me.

    Dreamer
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Dreamer said:

    Let's say no second hand smoke existed. There would still be the huge economic burden of first-hand smoke. The connection between health and wealth.

    A person smokes gets lung cancer and their health declines and then they can't work. That person goes on public assistance and the tax payers pay what Big Tobacco should be paying. In this way tobacco companies get private profit and socialized costs.
    First, the dangers of the second-hand smoke are minuscule, if at all existent. There is no credible research supporting the old claims that it is nearly as dangerous as smoking itself. Second, any private organization is free to (and most do) impose anti-smoking rules on those visiting its properties: if you do not want to be exposed to second-hand smoke, you are free to do so by your own volition, without violating anyone else's rights.

    What a person does to themselves and what health repercussions they have to deal with as a consequence is no one else's business. "Public assistance" is a problem in itself and needs to be abolished: let people make their own choices and deal with the consequences of them.

    Instead, you folks advocate for all kinds of social welfare programs, and then want to restrict people's rights in order to make those programs sustainable. It is like buying a gun, shooting oneself in the foot and then suing the gun seller for damages. You chose to design the rules of the game this way - now enjoy what you have created and do not complain when others find a way to exploit the rules for their own gain. Do not like it - come up with better rules, do not blame the players who play by the rules of your own creation.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Barnardot said:
    I saw on the TV that in New Zealand they are going to stop selling cigarettes to 14 year old kids then each year they will increase the age by one year until nobody is allowed to buy cigarettes.
    Is this a good thing or are all the kids going to do vaping and stink the place out with all that cinnamon and herbs>
    Only death is going to stop me from smoking.  And that will happen sooner or later.  If it's sooner...I don't care.  You want to take away my insurance benefits because I smoke...I don't care.  I will do what I want to do, and no one...not anyone will ever stop me.
    jack
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    Swolliw said:
    @Nomenclature
    Taking away a person's freedom is never a good thing. 

    It is however a good thing if that particular freedom of that person infringes upon the freedoms of most other persons such as inflicting passive smoking on others, making sickening ash tray smells, littering the streets with butts, overloading the health system and costing industry through absenteeism, under-performing and cigarette breaks.

    Are you going to make all products and packaging illegal?  Because I see coffee cups, soda bottles and numerous other items littering every roadway in the nation.
    Are you going to make cookies and chocolate illegal?  Because I see fat people as being a burden on the healthcare system.  I know a lot of old smokers...but I don't know any old fat people.  Maybe fat people are the greater burden here.  You want to tell us what we are allowed to eat?
    Fat people under-perform in many industries.  Just walking from one spot to another takes them twice as long as a fit and healthy person.  It goes without saying, fat is never fit.

    And no employer is obliged to give a smoker extra breaks to smoke their cigarettes.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 521 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @Sonofason ;I will do what I want to do, and no one...not anyone will ever stop me.

    Well you might want to do what you want but when people say that sort of baloney there just trying to be tough and show off to other people. It rings alarms to me because when I hear that that tells me your going to do what you want to do at the exspents of other people like breathing your smoke at other people and throwing your buts every where and then your coghing up your snot all the time and spreading diseases like covid and then your in and out of hospitals and taking days off work and all that costs every body else and your work buddies have to work harder when your away sick and every time you have a smoke break. So when you analize it in the end you cant do what you like unless you go live in a cave.

  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    The fact is, smokers are usually far more productive workers than non-smokers.  It is actually advantageous for an employer to grant a smoker extra breaks, because they will get more done in a day than any non-smoker could.  But now, fat-smokers are a different story.  They are never productive.
    Dreamer
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    Barnardot said:
    @Sonofason ;I will do what I want to do, and no one...not anyone will ever stop me.

    Well you might want to do what you want but when people say that sort of baloney there just trying to be tough and show off to other people. It rings alarms to me because when I hear that that tells me your going to do what you want to do at the exspents of other people like breathing your smoke at other people and throwing your buts every where and then your coghing up your snot all the time and spreading diseases like covid and then your in and out of hospitals and taking days off work and all that costs every body else and your work buddies have to work harder when your away sick and every time you have a smoke break. So when you analize it in the end you cant do what you like unless you go live in a cave.

    I have been smoking for 40 years.  I have never missed a day of work on account of my smoking.  Nor have I missed more than two days in a year do to any kind of sickness.  I have missed many days over that 40 years because my non-smoking wife is far less fit and far less healthy than I.  So clearly your assessment is false.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    Freedom is worth dying for.  It is certainly worth fighting for...even if the cost is your freedom.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 521 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason ;ar less fit and far less healthy than I.  So clearly your assessment is false.

    Just because you smoke and don’t take days off work does that meen that every one who smoke s doesn’t take days off work and I read the statistics of people who take days off work because of smoke related illnesses and there are more people in the world than you and your wife when I last checked so your assessment of 2 people being all of the world is clearly false and totally dum

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    There are also people who take days off work so they can have more passionate sex with their lovers. Perhaps it is time to stop having sex? To outlaw it? Let us enact the same plan as the government of New Zealand allegedly is planning to and raise age of consent each year, say, by 6 months. How does that sound?
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Barnardot

    There are also people who take days off work so they can have more passionate sex with their lovers. Perhaps it is time to stop having sex? To outlaw it? Let us enact the same plan as the government of New Zealand allegedly is planning to and raise age of consent each year, say, by 6 months. How does that sound?
    Great idea...make it illegal for everyone who has never had the legal right to smoke.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer
    Tobacco being their only pleasure in life is a pants on fire lie. 

    No it isn't. For many people it's the literal truth. If it were a lie you wouldn't be having to discuss banning tobacco in order to prevent people smoking it. They'd simply choose another pleasure. 

    A survey of over 600 smokers by the Centre for Substance Use Research in Glasgow found that nearly all respondents (95%) gave pleasure as their primary reason for smoking.

    https://www.forestonline.org/news-comment/headlines/pleasure-smoking-views-confirmed-smokers/

    Smoking helps many people -- especially the impoverished -- cope with the stresses of an uncaring world which doesn't care if they live or die. 

    Simply put, you have absolutely no right to decide for others what they do to their own bodies. You aren't God, so stop pretending to be.

    SonofasonDreamer
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    But what about personal freedom.
    Is the government going to tell me how many Twinkies I'm allowed to eat?
    Is the government going to limit the numbers of coffees I have in a day?
    I think at this point, I'd be happy if everyone that thinks such restrictions on an individual's freedom is a good idea, were to simply shut-up and die.
    Dreamer
  • BarnardotBarnardot 521 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;Simply put, you have absolutely no right to decide for others what they do to their own bodies. You aren't God, so stop pretending to be.

    But your pretending to be God though. And as usual you are so extreme that you quote an extreme tlink and say the dimmest estreme things that even a 3 year old would laugh at. What people put in there bodies has nothing to do with pork. Were talking about smoking and diverting to some dum generic argument and trying to think other people dont notice is just total controlling baloney.

    We have every right to tell others to stop smoking in our faces and the faces of there kids because thats the law and weather you like it or not just because your so extreme and anti government thats just to tough so you can stuff that in your pipe and smoke it so long as its somewhere in private and you dont cough up your snot every minute all over the place and then go begging because you got lung cancer.

  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Slipper slope fallacy.


    Smoking is really bad for your health. Your comparison to Twinkies and coffee is a slippery slope fallacy and false analogy.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Smoking causes more stress.


    "*In addition, smoking ultimately causes more stress."* Medically reviewed by Debra Sullivan, Ph.D., MSN, R.N., CNE, COI


    The myth that smoking reduces stress is because smoking tricks a person into feeling less stress while the opposite is true.



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    Dreamer said:

    Smoking is really bad for your health. Your comparison to Twinkies and coffee is a slippery slope fallacy and false analogy.
    What is the exact threshold beyond which something can be called "really bad"? Sounds like a subjective judgement to me. There are smokers that have lived past the age of 100, which suggests that, at the very least, a smoker can be outstandingly healthy.

    And the "slippery slope fallacy" is actually not a fallacy at all, but a valid type of argument. When someone says that X has the property Y because it has the property Z, without specifying to what exact extent the property Z is expressed, then their argument must apply to the case of any possible extent.
    It is only a fallacy when it extrapolates effects to where they are not extrapolatable. Saying that one cup of whiskey in a single day will kill you because one gallon of whiskey in a single day will kill you is fallacious.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    Dreamer said:

    Smoking is really bad for your health. Your comparison to Twinkies and coffee is a slippery slope fallacy and false analogy.
    Like I said...I know a lot of old smokers, but I don't know any old fat people.  Tell me, are you fat? If you are, I'm quite certain your not that old.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Anecdotal evidence is an extreme cherry picking fallacy.


    Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence only useful for forming hypothesis. Causation between smoking and detrimental health outcomes is well established. Just for starters in your example is the survivor bias. Dead people can't speak. Smoking is the no.1 preventable cause of death in the United States.

    Slippery slope fallacy is real.

  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Dreamer said:

    Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence only useful for forming hypothesis. Causation between smoking and detrimental health outcomes is well established. Just for starters in your example is the survivor bias. Dead people can't speak. Smoking is the no.1 preventable cause of death in the United States.

    Slippery slope fallacy is real.

    Yeah, and obesity is the #2 preventable cause of death in the United States.  Interestingly, many fat people are also smokers.  I wonder how the death of a fat smoker is classified.  I'll bet you it is labeled as smoking.  Thus, I am quite sure obesity is actually the leading cause of preventable death.  There are no old fat people.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Lindy West in the book Shrill says sedentary behavior not obesity is the problem.


    Furthermore, being fat is associated with disability. When a person fat shames they are often being ableist.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Second hand smoke kills.


    "Since 1964, about 2,500,000 people who did not smoke died from health problems caused by secondhand smoke exposure."


    Second hand smoke kills.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Dreamer said:

    "Since 1964, about 2,500,000 people who did not smoke died from health problems caused by secondhand smoke exposure."


    Second hand smoke kills.
    This has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Please address the actual argument, rather than pulling out a random link to a governmental report maxx-style.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer


    Furthermore, being fat is associated with disability.

    No it's not it's associated with being a greedy piglet and a  glutton (mostly)

     When a person fat shames they are often being ableist. 

    Please stop with your absurd meaningless PC phrasing designed not to upset the cupcakes . If I call a glutton a glutton it's normally based on the evidence I've seen with my own eyes, how's that prejudice or discrimination?


  • anarchist100anarchist100 782 Pts   -  
    Dreamer said:

    Furthermore, being fat is associated with disability. When a person fat shames they are often being ableist.
    They go hand in hand, being fat causes a sedentary lifestyle and causes it to become worse. I seriously doubt that you will be able to find any active fat people. Your point about fat shaming is irrelevant, we are discussing actual possibilities with the intention of finding the truth, if fat people are to sensitive to engage in Free and open dialog, and would rather deny themselves truth, then they don't have my respect.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    The point is, if people want to be gluttons and get fat, it should be their decision.  We don't need food police monitoring everything we eat.
    Likewise, if a person doesn't mind the consequences of smoking, it's no one's business what they smoke.
    If a person wants to free-climb Mount Everest, no one should stand in his or her way.
    Let's just allow people to enjoy freedom, and do your best to mind your own business.

    If you want to say that smokers don't deserve to be covered under medical insurance policies, then rock climbers don't deserve to be covered for injuries they might incur while climbing, and fat people don't deserve medical coverage either.  Let them pay for their insulin out of pocket, when they get diabetes.  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Dreamer said:

    Furthermore, being fat is associated with disability. When a person fat shames they are often being ableist.
    It is not just associated with it: it constitutes it. If someone does not want to have this disability, he should be mindful of his lifestyle, in particular the diet and sports activities. And if someone does not want to work on these aspects of his life, then the nature will have him pay his dues.

    Next, what is "being ableist"? Is it when someone says that someone else is unable to do something? If so, then how is it a bad thing? I cannot run a sub-2 hour marathon no matter how hard I train - should I feel offended and shamed when someone says it to me? Perhaps, I should demand that, next time I run a 4 hour marathon, the listing on the scoreboard states that I have run a 1:50 marathon?

    The connection between lifestyle choices and obesity is obvious to anyone who has ever been outside their shelter. Do you see thin sporty guys munching on the fries and cheeseburgers in McDonalds, and obese guys running on race tracks and drinking vegetable smoothies - or do you see the opposite? What utility does ignoring this connection have?
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Second hand smoke kills.


    "First, the dangers of the second-hand smoke are minuscule, if at all existent. There is no credible research supporting the old claims that it is nearly as dangerous as smoking itself." MayCaesar

    My claim refutes your claim about second-hand smoke.

    "Overall, WHOTrusted Source estimates that 1.2 million premature deaths per year are related to secondhand smoke worldwide."




  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: There are sedentary skinny individuals and active fat people.


    "active fat people are less likely to get those conditions than if they didn’t exercise at all. This means that you can still improve your health through physical activity" Virginia Sole-Smith


    Learning and intellectual disability are risk factors for being fat.

    "Children and adults with mobility limitations and intellectual or learning disabilities are at greatest risk for obesity."


    When people fat shame they are mocking people with disabilities, that is really low.

    There is also fast food swamps and fat.




  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Dreamer said:

    "First, the dangers of the second-hand smoke are minuscule, if at all existent. There is no credible research supporting the old claims that it is nearly as dangerous as smoking itself." MayCaesar

    My claim refutes your claim about second-hand smoke.

    "Overall, WHOTrusted Source estimates that 1.2 million premature deaths per year are related to secondhand smoke worldwide."




    It does not. First, 1.2 million per year is 1 per 7,000. Second, "related to" and "caused" are very different things. Third, a "premature death" is an ill-defined term, and there is a reason you have to quote these governmental organizations and other random websites to make claims such as this: the scientific literature tends to not use such vague terminology.

    As far as I know, not a single death has ever been causally connected directly to second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke is untraceable in human body unless the exposure occurred very recently, and all the research on it is based on self-reporting of the like of, "My father was a smoker and I hang out with him a lot, and now I have lung cancer".
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Second smoke causes lung cancer death.


    "Secondhand smoke causes more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year among U.S. adults who do not smoke."


    The statement cannot be any more explicit.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Dreamer said:

    "Secondhand smoke causes more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year among U.S. adults who do not smoke."


    The statement cannot be any more explicit.

    7,300 lung cancer deaths per year is approximately 1 in 50,000. It appears that secondhand smoke is approximately 4 times less deadly than driving, and if that warrants eventually outlawing smoking, then it certainly warrants eventually outlawing driving as well. Is this something you endorse?

    Which brings us back to my point which you still have not addressed: that the threshold beyond which something can be considered "really bad" (and warranting legal restrictions on it) has not been established. Which threshold are you using and why? And are you using it consistently, or are you just nitpicking particular datapoints and ignoring the others, as long as it suits your political platform?

    The fact that this statistic is dubious at best is yet another (major) factor at play. The governmental website references another governmental agency: in scientific literature it is called "self-citation" and strongly frowned upon when used for any purpose other than to extend on the prior work. Someone using themselves as a source for factual claims is not a legitimate way to do science. I cannot find a similar claim anywhere in the actual scientific literature, and for a good reason: in science effects are always separated from the background noise, and that is not something these governmental agencies do when making their claims.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Slothful induction.


    Pseudo skepticism is called slothful induction. By doubting too much you have gone into pseudo skepticism territory.

    "How many Americans die from smoking without even lighting up a cigarette? More than 42,000 people a year, including 900 infants, according to a new, thorough analysis of secondhand smoke deaths by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco." By Christopher Wanjek


    Smoking kills is well established. This is not the type of claim that needs to thoroughly analyzed and questioned like the extreme claims involving conspiracy thinking. As for self-citation that is when an author cites themselves.  I'd worry more that the numbers are downplayed and the dangers of second hand smoke are higher than what is being reported.
    Nomenclature
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Smokers are less productive than non-smokers.


    "The fact is, smokers are usually far more productive workers than non-smokers."

    Smokers are less productive according to this peer reviewed article.



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    Dreamer said:

    Pseudo skepticism is called slothful induction. By doubting too much you have gone into pseudo skepticism territory.

    "How many Americans die from smoking without even lighting up a cigarette? More than 42,000 people a year, including 900 infants, according to a new, thorough analysis of secondhand smoke deaths by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco." By Christopher Wanjek


    Smoking kills is well established. This is not the type of claim that needs to thoroughly analyzed and questioned like the extreme claims involving conspiracy thinking. As for self-citation that is when an author cites themselves.  I'd worry more that the numbers are downplayed and the dangers of second hand smoke are higher than what is being reported.
    Pointing out that a conclusion is not logically justified and explaining why is "doubting too much"? What are you promoting here, some sort of an orthodox religion? "Not the type of claim that needs to be thoroughly analyzed and questioned?" At the bottom your argument is simply the expectation that things that many people believe in are to be accepted without much questioning, regardless of their logical validity.

    In another thread you claimed that you knew a lot about climate science, and then listed a few sources that had nothing to do with science. I do not think that you even know what science is: there is no such thing in science as "doubting too much", and you are not supposed to accept anything that is not supported by a sound argument. Which none of your claims in either thread have been so far. You just listen to whoever you arbitrarily selected as the authority and swallow their claims, even if it takes just a few seconds to click on a couple of links and see that the claims are false.

    There is no such thing as being too demanding of logical rigor, but there is absolutely such a thing as being a carpet politicians wipe their boots off.
    Dreamer
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Psuedoskepticism is an existential threat.


    "there is no such thing in science as "doubting too much"" MayCaesar

    Hi MayCaesar,

    Wow!


    Psuedoskepticism, also known as science denial is an existential threat. Psuedoskepticism is probably one of the top ten worse traits humanity has. Psuedoscience as in promoting ear candling or homeopathy just is not that bad. Creationism would be tolerable if they didn't try to teach Intelligent Design in schools or attack evolution as in psuedoskepticism.

    Effectively, denial is just taking skepticism too far. Extreme gullibility and skepticism are fraternal twins.

    Thank you for continuing the conversation. :)
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer

    I will repeat my quote which you apparently misread:
    MayCaesar said:

    I do not think that you even know what science is: there is no such thing in science as "doubting too much", and you are not supposed to accept anything that is not supported by a sound argument. 
    See the word "science" here? I am not talking about your average Joe thinking that the Earth is flat. I am talking about science as a methodology to establishing facts of the world. In science, either you make a logically valid argument, or you do not. Nor is there such a thing as "taking skepticism too far" in science: the more skeptical you are of unfounded claims, the more of a scientist you are. A "perfect scientist" is someone who does not accept anything that is not supported by perfectly sound logic, and even if the conclusion of an argument in itself is correct, if the reasoning is wrong, then the argument is illogical.

    You have partaken in a lot of science denial around here, making claims contradicting scientific literature, and attributing findings to studies that do not have them. Are you a pseudoskeptic? Or does the term "pseudoskepticism" apply only to those whose misrepresentation of the content of scientific papers does not align with your political platform?
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    Argument Topic: Humans have blind spots and perfect logic is probably unobtainable.


    I make mistakes yes. I'd say the main difference though between me and a psuedoskeptic is I admit my mistakes, apologize, and update my beliefs accordingly. Deniers in contrast often hold onto the same dis-proven belief for years.

    Yes, political ideology is the main driver of confirmation bias. I hear on the radio or a flicker on my computer monitor a headline of news that supports my ideology and I accept it too fast, but so does everyone else. The opposite, I dismiss too fast a headline against my ideology. That is called being human.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer

    Do you? You apologize, indeed, and update particular tiny pieces of information - but the conclusions which those tiny pieces should lead to stay the same. I can point out that every single claim you make about climate change or tobacco is wrong, and still you will believe in the conclusions that you believe in currently.
    And even if you indeed patched up your conclusions as needed, you have certain ideas that are incompatible with consistent logical inquiry. The idea that being "too skeptical" is a bad thing naturally closes your mind to certain lines of questioning, which is incompatible with the basic requirements of science.

    It is fine to operate like you are describing when you are talking about politics at a Thanksgiving dinner. Not when you are proposing policies that would affect lives of millions of people and make amazing scientific claims. When it comes to logic and science, there is no such thing as "ideology": either you do ideology, or you do science - you cannot do both. In science, you ask a research question and look for an answer; you do not make up an answer and then look at the data confirming it, dismissing the data contradicting it.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Again, I am only human.


    Hi, MayCaesar

    Yes, of course what most of you say is true. We all have unconscious biases that influence our judgement, including me. I read somewhere, I think Skeptic's Guide to the Universe that skepticism taken too far is pseudo-skepticism, also known as denial. 

    No, certain lines of questioning should be closed off. Otherwise we go into the realm of the metaphysical philosopher and leave the realm of science. Flat Earthers are a prime example of skepticism taken too far. People who believe in the supernatural love to call skeptics close minded.

    The problem is we have politically motivated confirmation bias whether we want to or not or even aware of the prejudice. The most scientific person in the world will still have confirmation bias. Admitting that we have faulty judgement and become aware of the prejudices help mitigate the biases control over us, but we can never entirely eliminate our flaws.

    Was a cold rainy day, thanks for talking to me. :)


    John_C_87
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Dreamer

    That is what science is: it offers a methodology which, when rigorously followed, removes these biases from the equation. That methodology does not involve reading newspapers you trust and accepting their claims at their face. Science features infinite skepticism, in that if a claim has not been logically justified, then it is rejected regardless of how much you want/believe it to be true. And "too much skepticism" equating "pseudo-skepticism" does not even make sense linguistically, for "pseudo" means "masquerading as while not being", hence "pseudo-skepticism" would have to be something that is not skepticism. Once again, you "read somewhere" about this, but did not stop to think whether what you read dounded plausible and was justified. Are you noticing a pattern here?

    "Flat-earthers" make a positive claim about the shape of the Earth with no evidence to back it up and sloppy arguments, which is the opposite of skepticism. But for that matter I highly doubt that you can justify the claim that the Earth is not flat, based on our conversations so far. The justification is not trivial and requires some knowledge and the ability to propose an experiment that would settle the matter, and do you think that you will find these in the Guardian and the other sources you use to acquire knowledge?

    A proper epistemology does not close off any lines of questioning: you should always be on the lookout for new information, ready to patch up your beliefs as needed. If you adopt this mentality and embrace it, you will soon be shocked just by how many pieces of conventional wisdom turn out to be unfounded or just plain false. Have you heard that consumption of alcohol causes heart disease? It might surprise you to learn that not only is this causal connection not established, but the correlation is not even there: the graph of the heart disease rate versus alcohol consumption is U-shaped, with the minimum laying beyond the FDA recommendation for the "moderate consumption". But you would never know it if you only relied on the authors from your echochamber parroting each other's unfounded claims.

    Natural sciences are extremely hard, and establishing any causal connections requires an immense amount of effort. It is okay to not want to go down this rabbit hole, but if you choose not to, then you should also adopt a degree of humility and admit that you are not qualified to make any policy prescriptions based on the knowledge which you do not possess. I do not know much about dentistry: do you think I have a habit of talking about how dentistries should be required to operate? I do not, trust me.
    John_C_87Dreamer
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: This is one of your best posts.


    "
    A proper epistemology does not close off any lines of questioning: you should always be on the lookout for new information, ready to patch up your beliefs as needed. If you adopt this mentality and embrace it, you will soon be shocked just by how many pieces of conventional wisdom turn out to be unfounded or just plain false."

    This statement is quite profound. I only recently learned that Columbus never set foot in America. This dislodged the old myth that Columbus discovered America. This myth started when Italians spread rumors elevating Columbus to hero status to counter being discriminated against. 



    No, I didn't know that about heart disease, I will look into it. :)

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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