KayneOfNod's Debates: [clear]
All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Winning Position: True. Kayne has won
Looks like I won all the arguments. please leave Laurels at my feet. for I am the Immortal Prophet Kayne. (*All the blasphemy*)
Winning Position: About Arguing
So, I feel like there's three kinds of people on this site. Assholes like me who end up just making distinctions about the question (It's less about X and more about Y and Z. I personally believe Z which aligns with X.2), Assholes who actually argue (A skill I feel like I actually lack) and the assholes who are Preaching/Teaching and thinking it's actually how you argue (includes spammers prolly). is this assessment fair? am I missing any major categories?
Winning Position: #PrideForNoOne
If what you've done is not a choice, and therefore you had no power to cause or prevent it, why is it something worthy of pride? nothing has been done of value.
Winning Position: On Disasters, Guns, and Government.
4
On Disasters, Guns, and Government.
skim through this:https://whitehouse.gov1.info/continuity-plan/Let me point out this: "In 2012, President Obama issued two Executive Orders that will greatly expand his executive powers in the event of a national emergency. The March 2012 Executive Order gives the President the authority to commandeer all U.S. domestic resources, including food and water, and seize all energy and transportation infrastructure within the United States. The order also allows authorizes the U.S. Government to force its citizens to fulfill labor requirements for the purposes of national defense. The July 2012 Executive Order gives the Department of Homeland Security authority over private communication networks in emergency situations. Under a recent Cybersecurity Act, President Obama has the right to shut down parts of the Internet in times of an emergency. This would be accomplished by having the National Security Agency shut down key Domain Name Servers, which would effectively act as a "kill switch'. "and ask in what world the US government should have the right to do what this act suggests. if we have no guns, no way to rebel, they can put us in the dark, keep us all separate, tell us an attack has happened and that they own everything. that's totalitarianism in a nice easy, package.I'm not pointing this out because I think it will happen. I'm pointing this out because it's a possibility. a doomsday scenario that could strip you of your rights. and you wouldn't know that it happened. strip the guns, lie about a disaster, and if you get the right people believing it, everyone does. I feel like there's a lot of sheeple out there. being dumb, following the herd. not questioning the intentions of their "benevolent overlord" a tyrant that asks nicely is still a tyrant. and a golden noose is still very much a noose. This whole post feels anarchist in nature. that's not what I want. I just want to alert you, show you that if you're a cow, the thing you're stampeding toward could very well be a slaughterhouse that's the nature of slaughterhouses. I'm not saying it necessarily is. But just....beware the golden cage okay? And, "Wake up Sheeple!"
Winning Position: Kill The Whales!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU9wydLxKFQThey ate my sea-monkeys!
Winning Position: Yes, the Earth is round.
1
Yes, the Earth is round.
Winning Position: Win an argument against anybody on this site in 10 easy steps!
3
Win an argument against anybody on this site in 10 easy steps!
Let's practice! Read all the steps, and the argument before continuing.Reality does not exist. there's no evidence for reality except for physical stimuli which could be falsified. likewise, there's no evidence that the past is real. if there's no evidence for anything, there can be no correctly supported arguments. all arguments are based on a false reality.Step 1. Write a convincing argument.Step 2. Re-readStep 3. Realize that your argument is garbageStep 4. Draw a diagram to understand how the argument is structured. realize that a well placed cut could knock the whole argument down.Step 5. Build a model of your diagram from string supporting a 1KG weight.Step 6. Make the weight fall but cutting as few strings as possible.Step 7. Repair the hole in you floor from where the weight hit itStep 8. write a better argument.Step 10: Realize that your argument is still garbage.Step 9: press CTRL+W, it opens a secret Createdebate window that will write an appropriate argument based off of old posts from this site using top rated responses. it's in Beta, so it might crash your window.Step 5: if that doesn't work, try alt+F4Step 6: if that doesn't work use your search box to find "System 32" and delete it. those files interfere with the Createdebate window.Step 7: If you followed the steps, you're an idiot, and you just killed your computer.Really hope you have a backup. if you followed the instructions I gave, you read these all and have reached the secret. please, don't follow those instructions and instead please buy into the joke by saying something in the affirmative of my Insanely stupid argument. like wow that really helped! or something. Step 8: Realize that winning an argument on the internet is like winning the special Olympics.Step 9: Go outside. go do something with your life.Step 10: Forget you were ever arguing.There you have it! That's how you win any argument in 10 easy steps.
Winning Position: Cut the blue wire!
Winning Position: I got banned by Saint and now I'm saltier than the ocean.
67
I got banned by Saint and now I'm saltier than the ocean.
on Saint's debate he asked what we'd all do if we were a god. - I said:Being a God assumes knowledge that I do not have now. so my plan would likely very much change in the position as compared to the plan now.-the short answer is that I would do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. and the apparent existence or lack there of of a God would change the world and the people if there was a free will dynamic. if there was no question as to the existence of God, people may never do anything for themselves, and would instead petition God for everything. if there was a consensus that there was no God, the moral judgement that a God places on the world would be ignored. paradoxically, I believe that perfection would converge. meaning God's laws would come to be agreed to be true, despite no appearance of God in this hypothetical world. I still feel like the notion of Morality would need to be seeded though, and so religions may start in the beginning, but fade as time goes on.- Second post.but then again, as a God I could likely fundamentally change human nature. or remove humanity's suffering and struggling entirely by simply making them cease to exist. I don't understand why death is a bad thing though. partially because I haven't ever experienced it, and as a God I don't think I logically ever could.-pain is even a strange concept to have. why would a benevolent god program pain into humans?-and he banned me before I could clarify that I wasn't talking about the actual existence of me as god, but rather the humans awareness of me. My point that he missed was, would it ever do "good" for the world knowing for 100% certain that there was a god? because it was my opinion that a god's certainty is a bad thing for humankind.
Winning Position: Lawsuit on magicians
Could I feasibly sue the makers of a magic kit for not providing "real magic" as a false advertising claim?
Winning Position: Can one person make any idea sound really bad?
23
Can one person make any idea sound really bad?
So, for the longest time I considered myself a Christian Trans-humanist (refered to H+). because at it's simplest trans-humanism is basically a proponent for any procedure that makes an individual better than they were, with technology. stuff like neural bridges, for the paralyzed, prosthetic legs for amputees, and more miracles of modern medicine. with the ultimate goal of making humans immune to death and suffering. (possibly by way of robotic consciousness,or hell, even replacement of biological parts.)-Definitionally H+ is an international and intellectual movement that aims to transform the human condition by developing and creating widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.-and that seems like a noble, and generally cross culture compatible goal. theists could follow and subscribe to trans-humanist values-then I read this article and it seemed to really make the idea Suck.http://therightstuff.biz/2012/12/09/the-contradiction-of-transhumanism-bro/-as such, I was a bit thrown."This is not a movement for watered down appeals to liberalism and inclusiveness."This author in a single pass made a movement that was seemingly about the good that technology could do for every person, into a Technologically supremacist movement. and that those who were slow to accept the new culture of this movement were doomed to be inferior to the new humanity.-This debate asks two questions.1. since the identity of a group is based solely on the people that scream the loudest, should we stop identifying as "I am X" but rather start saying "I agree with the general posistion of X, and here's what I feel X should be about"?because, frankly the ideas presented in that article turn my stomach a bit, and I think they're misrepresenting trans-humanism. or maybe I am the one misrepresenting it.-2. what are your feelings about the movement that the author of the article described as opposed to the simple definition based version of H+? do you think he is misrepresenting H+?-I ask because he makes it sound like robotic humans are going to go terminator on the non-converts if the movement gains steam. and I don't see why that would happen if the honest to goodness goal is to reduce and remove the hassle from the human condition.
Winning Position: Do people suck?
I think they downright suck! Can we take all the people in the world and like...take them somewhere else?
Winning Position: YOU WILL BE BANNED
So... I just want to be a bad boy and have a higher ban count for day 4...So... I'm gonna start by banning myself from my own debate.
Winning Position: Self Harm.
If a person Knowingly and with the utmost joy causes themselves harm, should steps be taken to reduce that harm by their loved ones?**this is, of course a vague example, but with the criteria provided, I feel as though the only correct answer is yes. Self harm is a horrible thing. especially when a person does so without a second thought. this is why Cigarettes, and in some cases alcohol are seen as terrible things. a person is slowly poisoning themselves, and when someone cares they tend to speak up.**The following is either perfect segue or non sequiter. and I can't even tell anymore.**why does it seem like then, that no one looks twice at the effects of the transgender lifestyle choices? not only are they slowly poisoning themselves with cross sex hormones, which not only boost suicide rates but also add in blood clots and cancer for good measure, (Which isn't too different than alcoholism or cigarettes) but on top of that they get surgeries for conditions that aren't life threatening. **As an aside in some cases they even reject the reality that they once were the opposite gender, ignoring crucial check ups, like mammograms and prostate checks.------Disclaimer/Closing thoughts------I mean, are we sure this isn't the kind of thing that should be considered mental disorder? and that's not a derogatory thing. when will people understand that mental disorders happen to literally everyone? The Goal here is to understand the problem and help the people that need help. and let's face it, Self harm isn't the behavior of someone who doesn't need help.
Winning Position: Re-write
without getting too much into it I have a paper due eventually for a writing class and I have a moderate amount of dislike about the way I've written it. so is it better to totally scrap it, and re-write the whole thing, more easily avoiding my similar mistakes the second time? or do I intensely edit to reduce the part I hate? this is supposed to be kinda generalized, a "What would you do?" kind of question.-Honestly the notion I'm going to have to do either of these is making me want to pull my hair out. I don't want to do either, but I have to, so I figure I'd get public opinion. is it better to re-draft or edit an existing draft?
Winning Position: Machines can be human
If a robotic system could perfectly emulate my personality 100% accurately, and was switched on the moment I died with all my memories up until my death, would it effectively be me? In a different set of words, Is the transfer of a "soul" possible.
Winning Position: Surviving Death?
So, this is just a tentative half baked argument. it operates under the assumption that Ghosts are real. Some may consider this Pseudo-Science. I'm not asking for you to prove or disprove ghosts. I'm looking for a critique on the argument given that ghosts are real.so lets just momentarily operate on the assumption that ghosts are real.interestingly it opens some neat doors. like the fact that there is a part of us that survives death.well, millions of people die. so ghosts seem to almost be the exception to the rule rather than the standard. so... three options divulgeA. those who are not manifested (ghosts) are destroyed.or B. those who do not become manifested go into another location outside our observation (heaven hell?)or C they otherwise continue to live among us un-manifested.C can be removed because then it seems reasonable to believe that accidentally manifesting ghosts would be a common occurrence rather than an anomaly if this were the case.this makes manifesting ghosts a rarity which seems to match more closely with reality.Assuming that ghosts are a reality it means that their observed effects might be properly attributed. at this point I'm stretching a little, but Exorcisms of spirits (poltergiests) are wide spread in many cultures. and they always seem to "Drive away" evil spirits. key word not "Destroy" now, there's no proof that the spirit is driven out and not destroyed. so the common rhetoric is either a lie to help people sleep at night, or they have some amount of observation to suggest that the spirit gets spirited away off to another location. which makes Case B seem the most likely based off the anecdotal evidence.besides the first step assumption that ghosts are real, does this argument have holes i'm not seeing?
Winning Position: Unresolved
0
Original Thoughts Possible
all stories seem to be re-hashes or blended versions of other stories, all philosophies blended parts from other philosophies. is it even possible to write anything that doesn't sound like something else that has already been made put in a blender with other things? and if that is the case, why do people get bent out of shape when one thing sounds like another? with the preview of my Novel I was told that it sounded exactly like "Metropolis" which was an anime inspired by the silent film of the same name. (Which according to wikipedia said it's plot was "Naievete") but in the long run, mine doesn't sound anything like it, according to the quick notes of the movie and I think the person I was chatting with was just being a Witch.But I don't have the desire or care to watch it, and I haven't already, and I don't want it to be a shaping factor in my ideas. Which begs the question. Even if a work is unoriginal, but inspired, does it count as Original thought? Or is Original thought not possible at all and I shouldn't care? Either that it's unoriginal or what random critics who haven't read the whole thing think?