Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 18 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 89% |
Arguments: | 18 |
Debates: | 0 |
Damn, and here I was sure that YouTube's comment section was a great place for civil discussion
Nah, jokes aside, usually those types of arguments are more so meant to prove a perspective wrong than they are meant to show why theirs is the best one, whether that be objectively or not. I guess it's a contradictory cycle because if you're looking from it at that point of view, nothing is really being accomplished but someone still trying to get a thought across.
Yeah, perseveration would fit much better in this context, though even that's just a sign/symptom of a mental disorder and not actually one in itself. It's interesting, but imo still not enough to classify someone who incessantly debates as having disrupted cognitive abilities.
To be fair I'd wager that a lot of the time when people argue, they don't actually expect to change the other person's opinion. I guess with anything that's not totally based on facts though the problem of induction is a fair thing to bring up. No matter what conclusion ends up being reached someone out there is still gonna argue that whatever was figured out because of the debate doesn't necessarily translate into usable information
That's not even the definition of insanity, it's just a quote. Trying to dispute someone else's opinion isn't equivalent to a having a disorder that's detrimental to life quality, but gg
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/
Even if an atheist were to pick a religion, that doesn't automatically mean it would be the correct one. Going by the logic expressed in the opening post, you could argue that any system of belief is lose-lose. Technically if religious people are correct, then there won't be anyone around who disagreed with them for them to be able to say "I told you so" to either, which in itself is a questionsble value to be so concerned about. But then, say atheism or an ideology a religious person wasn't a part of ends up being correct, they'll likely suffer the same fate as a nonbeliever would. In this sense, are we not just better off picking whatever seems the most likely to us without worrying so much about consequences that may or may not even exist?
Does that not say more about the character of that one person than it does the community as a whole? If someone you're going to be romantically involved with is trans, you should have the right to know before things get serious. But regardless, how does that have anything to do with LGBT people being accepted or being treated equally? There's assholes in every group, and you shouldn't judge based on that.
Whether or not those who support the death penalty are pro-lifers, people do place different values on human life, so yes, someone who holds that position could still be in favor of capital punishment. This is more dependent on the individual than it is on general opinions. But, even regardless of perspective, since 1973 at least 144 men and women who were wrongly convicted have been released from death row, and even more than that are believed to have been innocent and not released, or wrongfully executed.
People against abortion maintain that they want to protect innocents, and though I won't argue directly against that, do the lives of these men and women who haven't committed a crime not matter? The fact that anyone who wasn't guilty was killed as a result of our justice system should be enough to make us question whether this is really the best way to go about punishing criminals, especially when life without parole and high security prisons exist. Whether or not the death penalty is justifiable is almost irrelevant when guiltless people have suffered because of it.
I'm sure someone of a different opinion could argue something similar against my perspective on abortion. That said, I think that people on each side of the debate want the best resolution for everyone involved, but just have different priorities. I place more weight on pregnant women with established lives having the choice to control their futures than I do on the rights of potential lives that aren't even viable outside of the womb yet. But in talking about innocent people charged with the death penalty and the human rights violations they're faced with, I'm pretty sure most can agree that it's something that needs to be addressed at the least.
- One source for statistics: http://www.newsweek.com/
|