- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I personally think that until the questionable things or subjects aren't reflected in the song/music it is absolutely fine to listen to their music. Also, questionable is an objective word that can have different meanings if you ask different people. Although there is a norm for behavior in society, any artist can be portrayed as questionable. You may think that a questionable artist is someone with long hair that plays guitar and smokes, you can think of someone that is a book worm and that doesn't speak to anyone, it could be someone that likes to go into museums, we could think of a person that thinks that he can fly or a person that likes to watch the flames in a fire pit. That said, what does questionable even signify/symbolize.
AIs today are good with menial jobs, so they are to be trusted for that specific job, but recent fairs showed an AI that was capable of holding a conversation with another human to take an appointment. So of course the technologies related to AIs will advance and become more and more sophisticated, but we must remember that humans program those AIs and we all know that humans are far from perfect. The point is AIs can be trusted with menial jobs, and with a little bit more information they can be trusted with very complicated conversation. Look at the link below to see an entertaining and exciting advancement of technology.
I agree. I think that by giving someone fish, he then still needs you, but on the other hand if you teach someone to fish you therefore make sure that he will survive and not be a reliable human being in the future. Same thing applies with money, if you give someone money he will just use it and still be poor and in trouble, but if you show someone how to make money he will be responsible and a person able to subsist.
In my opinion, you refuse to help someone in need, so you are deemed responsible for his death. Take the three rules of Asimov for example, suppose that instead of applying these rules to robots so they can act more human-like, lets apply them to humans instead. In that case, you ignore another human that is in need that you could've helped without causing harm to another human which is not respecting one of the rules. So I think that we should ask ourselves this: I someone that refuses to help a drowning person a person that has the right to be called human? ...and if they aren't human, what are they?
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!