mirror of
https://gitlab.com/upRootNutrition/obsidian.git
synced 2025-06-15 15:55:13 -05:00
Initial commit
This commit is contained in:
Nick
commit
bc15d67574
1475 changed files with 1056167 additions and 0 deletions
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
|
|||
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
|
||||
|
||||
## Informal Fallacies
|
||||
|
||||
Fallacies can be thought of as errors in reasoning that are so commonplace that they were eventually given their own names. All fallacies, whether formal or informal, are just different forms of non sequitur. That is to say that all fallacies merely represent different sorts of inferential errors that challenge either the validity or the soundness of an argument.
|
||||
|
||||
In this first class, we will cover the top informal fallacies, with formal fallacies being covered in a later class. The following list of the informal fallacies that you are most likely to encounter.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 1. Red Herring
|
||||
|
||||
A red herring is a type of rhetorical tactic, typically used to obfuscate, that involves referring to an irrelevant point. It can be thought of as a point, reference, or example, that distracts from the main point of a discussion or larger argument.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** "Bacon must be healthy for people because I have a 95-year old grandmother who eats bacon every day!"
|
||||
|
||||
#### 2. Begging the Question
|
||||
|
||||
Colloquially, begging the question may be understood as merely leaving certain questions unanswered after an argument is rendered. However, in philosophy, begging the question has a very different definition, and refers to a type of circular reasoning. Begging the question specifically refers to the act of presupposing the conclusion of an argument in its premises. That is to say that at least one of the premises of an argument will hinge on that argument's conclusion being true.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** "God exists because it is stated in his own words in the Bible!"
|
||||
|
||||
#### 3. Strawman
|
||||
|
||||
A strawman fallacy is characterized by either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting your interlocutor's position or argument, such as to make said position or argument easier to attack. It is also the inverse of the Motte and Bailey fallacy, which is characterized by misrepresenting your own position or argument in order to make it easier to defend.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** "People who argue for taxation are pushing communism!"
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
|
||||
|
||||
#### 4. Equivocation
|
||||
|
||||
An equivocation occurs when one uses a term with a certain meaning in one part of their argument, like the premises, but also uses the same term with a different meaning in another part of their argument, like the conclusion. This is an extremely common fallacy, and occurs often across virtually all domains of debate.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** "The announcer said the game ended with a tie, but I didn't see any string, so the announcer must be wrong."
|
||||
|
||||
#### 5. Appeal to Nature
|
||||
|
||||
An appeal to nature is characterized by the affirmation that something is good, preferable, or desirable, merely because it is natural. This fallacy is common in the domain of human health, such as when health product advertisers claim that their product is beneficial because it either contains more natural ingredients or fewer artificial ingredients.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** "Red meat is clearly healthy for humans if we evolved consuming it!"
|
||||
|
||||
#### 6. Appeal to Authority
|
||||
|
||||
When one appeals to authority, it simply means that one affirms that a proposition is true in virtue of it being uttered by an authority. This fallacy typically pervasive within any domain wherein there are experts who publicly profess their opinions.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** "The carnivore diet is healthy because Paul Saladino concluded this after years of researching diet!"
|
||||
|
||||
#### 7. Appeal to Ignorance
|
||||
|
||||
An appeal to ignorance is typically defined as affirming that a proposition is true merely because it has not been shown to be false. This is common in domains of science wherein evidence for a particular research question is scant, and the gaps in knowledge can be filled with poor reasoning.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** "It's never been shown that blueberries don't cure cancer, so we're safe in assuming that blueberries do cure cancer!"
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
|
||||
|
||||
#### 8. Appeal from Incredulity
|
||||
|
||||
The hallmark of this fallacy is assuming that a proposition is false merely because you personally do not believe, or can't imagine, that the proposition is true. This fallacy is tightly tied to the cognitive bias known as confirmation bias, which will be discussed later.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** "That's nonsense, because I just can't believe it!"
|
||||
|
||||
#### 9. Muddying the Waters
|
||||
|
||||
Muddying the waters is less of a fallacy and more of a rhetorical device designed to obfuscate and make one's position extremely ambiguous or unclear. This is extremely prevalent in political or ethical debates, wherein it is common to vaguely gesture at your opponent with the mere appearance of disagreement rather than actually providing clear arguments.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** "We all know those studies are bad, because you just follow the money if you want to know the truth!"
|
||||
|
||||
#### 10. Genetic Fallacy
|
||||
|
||||
The crux of the genetic fallacy is to conclude that a position is wrong merely in virtue of the one uttering the position. This type of fallacy is remarkably common, if not ubiquitous, in the political debate sphere.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** "I know what Joe Biden says is wrong, because Joe Biden is an idiot."
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_coursework
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
|
|||
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
|
||||
|
||||
## Fundamental Concepts
|
||||
|
||||
#### 1. Propositions
|
||||
|
||||
A proposition is simply a "truth-apt" statement. For a statement to be truth-apt just means that it can be either true or false. This is just to say that the statement has a truth value that can be assigned to it. Propositions are the basic components of arguments in propositional/classical logic.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** "It is raining outside."
|
||||
|
||||
#### 2. Arguments
|
||||
|
||||
In the most basic sense, an argument is a set of premises (or even a single premise) followed by a conclusion, where the premises and conclusions are comprised of propositions. This is even true of mathematical arguments, but it's typically obscured behind shorthand and notation.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** If it is raining outside, then the ground is wet. It's raining outside. Therefore, the ground is wet.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 3. Validity
|
||||
|
||||
Validity is a property of arguments. An argument is valid if, and only if, the conclusion logically follows from the premises. The example from the previous entry in this document (2. Arguments) is an example of a valid argument. Invalid arguments suffer from structural errors that lead to their conclusions not being deducible from their premises.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Valid Example:** If there are unicorns on the moon, then the world will end in 1975. There are unicorns on the moon. Therefore, the world will end in 1975.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Invalid Example:** If there are unicorns on the moon, then the world will end in 1975. There are unicorns on the moon. Therefore, leprechauns exist.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 4. Soundness
|
||||
|
||||
Soundness is also a property of arguments. Arguments are sound if, and only if, they are valid and their premises are all true. The above example of a valid argument is valid in its structure, but not sound. Often times an argument that is valid in structure can have untrue premises. Firstly, unicorns don't exist, and secondly, the world didn't end in 1975. So, the argument is valid, but not sound.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Sound Example:** All cats are mammals. Garfield is a cat. Therefore, Garfield is a mammal.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Unsound Example:** All cats are mammals. Garfield is not a cat. Therefore, Garfield is not a mammal.
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
|
||||
|
||||
#### 5. Defeaters
|
||||
|
||||
Simply speaking, defeaters are types of responses that either significantly, or entirely, deflate the persuasive force of an argument and/or the truth value of a proposition. There are three types of defeaters:
|
||||
|
||||
>**Rebutting Defeaters:** An argument that directly negates a proposition and/or renders an argument unsound.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Undercutting Defeaters:** An argument that lowers the probability of a proposition being true and/or casts serious doubt on the soundness of an argument.
|
||||
|
||||
>**No-Reasons Defeaters:** An argument that demonstrates that there is no reason to believe that a proposition is true and/or an argument is sound.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 6. A Priori
|
||||
|
||||
A priori knowledge, or justification, is independent of experience or empirical evidence. It is knowledge that can be obtained through reason or logical analysis alone, and does not require any observation or experimentation to be justified.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** Objects with three sides are triangles. Boat sails have three sides. Therefore, boat sails are triangles.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 7. A Posteriori
|
||||
|
||||
Much like the term a priori, a posteriori refers to knowledge or justification. However, unlike a priori, a posteriori knowledge, or justification, is based on experience or empirical evidence. It is knowledge that requires observation or experimentation to be justified, and cannot be obtained through reason or logical analysis alone.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** Birds have feathers. Pigeons are birds. Therefore, pigeons have feathers.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 8. Analyticity
|
||||
|
||||
A proposition is analytic when is true by definition. It is a statement that can be deduced from the meanings of its terms, without any need for empirical evidence or experience to verify its truth or falsity.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** Triangles have three sides.
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
|
||||
|
||||
#### 9. Syntheticity
|
||||
|
||||
Unlike an analytic proposition, a synthetic proposition is *not* true by definition, but is instead true because of the way the world is. It is a statement that requires empirical evidence or experience to verify its truth or falsity.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** Boat sails are triangles.
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_coursework
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
|||
## Logic
|
||||
|
||||
Logic is a broad field that encompasses many different branches and sub-fields, and studies the principles and rules of reasoning, inference, and argumentation. It is concerned with the validity and soundness of arguments, and with the relationships between statements and/or propositions.
|
||||
|
||||
When we think of logic as it pertains to debate, we will typically be thinking about propositional logic. But this is not the only logic that exists. Propositional logic is just one branch of logic among many, and there are many other types of logics that are studied in philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and other fields. While propositional logic deals with propositions, which are statements that can be either true or false, other types of logics deal with other kinds of objects and concepts.
|
||||
|
||||
For example, predicate logic extends propositional logic by introducing the concept of predicates, which are statements that express properties of objects. Modal logic deals with the concepts of possibility, necessity, and contingency. Fuzzy logic deals with concepts that have degrees of truth or falsity, rather than being strictly true or false. Deontic logic deals with the concepts of obligation, permission, and prohibition. Temporal logic deals with the concepts of time and change.
|
||||
|
||||
Here are some examples of different types of logics:
|
||||
|
||||
| **TYPES** | **OF** | **LOGICS** |
|
||||
|:--------------------:|:-------------------:|:--------------------:|
|
||||
| Propositional logic | Predicate logic | Modal logic |
|
||||
| Fuzzy logic | Deontic logic | Epistemic logic |
|
||||
| Temporal logic | Non-monotonic logic | Intuitionistic logic |
|
||||
| Relevance logic | Free logic | Substructural logic |
|
||||
| Paraconsistent logic | Multi-valued logic | Quantum logic |
|
||||
| Situation calculus | Description logic | Dialectical logic |
|
||||
|
||||
## Propositional Logic
|
||||
|
||||
Propositional logic has several "laws" or "rules" that are essentially tautologies, that is to say things that are always true on propositional logic:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Law of identity:** P is always equal to P.
|
||||
2. **Law of non-contradiction:** P and ¬P is never true.
|
||||
3. **Law of excluded middle:** P or ¬P is always true.
|
||||
|
||||
Additionally, there are "laws" or "rules" that leverage different connective operators to establish different inference structures. These are called inference rules. Here are a few basic ones:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Modus ponens:** If P implies Q, and P is true, then Q must be true.
|
||||
2. **Modus tollens:** If P implies Q, and Q is false, then P must be false.
|
||||
3. **Hypothetical syllogism:** If P implies Q, and Q implies R, and P is true, then R must be true.
|
||||
4. **Disjunctive syllogism:** If P is true or Q is true, and P is false, then Q is true.
|
||||
|
||||
## Scientific Epistemology
|
||||
|
||||
Theoretical virtues of science refer to the desirable qualities that scientific theories should possess to be considered good explanations of natural phenomena. Here are some of the most commonly recognized theoretical virtues of science.
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Testibility:** A hypothesis is scientific only if it is testable, that is, only if it predicts something more than what is predicted by the background theory alone.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Fruitfulness** Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most fruitful, that is, makes the most successful novel predictions.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Scope:** Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that has the greatest scope, that is, that explains and predicts the most diverse phenomena.
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Parsimony:** Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the simplest one, that is, the one that makes the fewest assumptions.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Conservatism:** Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most conservative, that is, the one that fits best with established beliefs.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_coursework
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
|
|||
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
|
||||
|
||||
## Tautologies
|
||||
|
||||
#### 1. Law of Identity
|
||||
|
||||
This fundamental law of logic states that every object is identical to itself. It emphasizes the consistency and predictability of entities in logical and mathematical expressions by affirming that an object or idea must always be exactly what it is and not something else.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** Asserting that if 'x is a cat', then 'x is a cat'; self-evident identity.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 2. Law of Non-Contradiction
|
||||
|
||||
This principle asserts that a statement and its negation cannot both be true at the same time. It is a foundational rule in classical logic, ensuring that contradictions do not exist within a logically coherent system, thereby maintaining the system’s integrity.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** For 'x is a bird', it cannot be true and not true at the same time.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 3. Law of Excluded Middle
|
||||
|
||||
This law holds that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true—there is no middle ground or third option. This law underpins the binary nature of traditional logical determinations, reinforcing a clear separation between truth and falsity.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** For 'x is alive', either 'x is alive' is true or 'x is alive' is false, no third possibility.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Other Principles
|
||||
|
||||
#### 1. Principle of Explosion
|
||||
|
||||
This principle states that from a contradiction, any conclusion can be validly derived. Essentially, it suggests that once falsehood is introduced, anything can logically follow.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** Assuming P∧¬P, derive Q: From P∧¬P, infer any Q (e.g., 'unicorns exist').
|
||||
|
||||
#### 2. De Morgan's Law
|
||||
|
||||
The negation of a conjunction is equivalent to the disjunction of the negations, and the negation of a disjunction is equivalent to the conjunction of the negations.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** Using ¬(P∧Q)≡¬P∨¬Q, an application to natural language might be like "if it's not raining outside and if it's not cold outside, then it is neither raining nor cold outside (e.g., ¬(raining∧cold)≡¬raining∨¬cold).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
|
||||
|
||||
## Formal Fallacies
|
||||
|
||||
#### 1. Affirming the Consequent
|
||||
|
||||
This occurs when someone incorrectly assumes the cause based on an effect that can also result from other causes.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Form:** If P then Q, Q is true; therefore, P must be true.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** If it rains, the street is wet. The street is wet, so it must have rained. (The street could be wet for other reasons.)
|
||||
|
||||
#### 2. Denying the Antecedent
|
||||
|
||||
This fallacy arises when someone wrongly concludes the absence of an outcome based on the absence of one possible cause, ignoring other causes that might produce the same outcome.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Form:** If P then Q, P is false; therefore, Q must be false.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** If I am in Paris, I am in France. I am not in Paris, so I am not in France. (I could be elsewhere in France.)
|
||||
|
||||
#### 3. Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
|
||||
|
||||
This involves a mistaken inference that because two categories share a property, they are the same, overlooking their distinctions.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Form:** P implies Q, R implies Q; therefore, P implies R.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** All dogs are mammals. All cats are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are cats.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 4. Illicit Major
|
||||
|
||||
This error is made when the conclusion improperly generalizes about all members of a category based on shared characteristics with a broader group.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Form:** All X are Y, all Z are Y; therefore, all Z are X.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** All squares are rectangles. All rectangles have four sides. Therefore, all squares have four sides. (True, but the reasoning is invalid.)
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
|
||||
|
||||
#### 5. Illicit Minor
|
||||
|
||||
This mistake happens when an assumption that two subgroups share the same properties because they belong to the same larger group is incorrectly made.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Form:** All X are Y, all X are Z; therefore, all Y are Z.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** All apples are fruit. All apples are red. Therefore, all fruit are red.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 6. Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
|
||||
|
||||
This involves drawing a conclusion about two groups based on their separate exclusion from a third group, which logically does not follow.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Form:** No P is Q, No R is Q; therefore, No P is R.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** No cats are dogs, No birds are dogs; therefore, no cats are birds.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 7. Fallacy of Four Terms
|
||||
|
||||
>**Form:** P implies Q, R implies S; therefore, P implies S.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** All humans are mammals. All dogs are pets. Therefore, all humans are pets.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 8. Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise
|
||||
|
||||
This fallacy occurs when an argument erroneously includes four distinct terms in a categorical syllogism, preventing a proper conclusion.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Form:** No P is Q, All R are P; therefore, No R is Q.
|
||||
|
||||
>**Example:** No fish are birds, all salmon are fish; therefore, no salmon are birds.
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_coursework
|
||||
90
🛡️ Debate/📚 Coaching/📖 Coursework/Classes/Syllabus.md
Normal file
90
🛡️ Debate/📚 Coaching/📖 Coursework/Classes/Syllabus.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
|
|||
## First session - fallacies
|
||||
|
||||
1. Top 10 most common fallacies
|
||||
1. red herring
|
||||
2. begging the question
|
||||
3. appeal to nature
|
||||
4. appeal to authority
|
||||
5. appeal from incredulity
|
||||
6. muddying the waters
|
||||
7. poisoning the well
|
||||
8. gish galloping
|
||||
9. appeal to ignorance
|
||||
10. motte and bailey
|
||||
3. Homework
|
||||
1. identify 5 examples of informal fallacies correctly
|
||||
|
||||
## Second session - intro to debate
|
||||
|
||||
1. Reviewing homework
|
||||
2. Philosophy/debate terms
|
||||
1. argument
|
||||
2. proposition
|
||||
3. soundness
|
||||
5. validity
|
||||
6. defeaters
|
||||
7. a priori
|
||||
8. a posteriori
|
||||
9. empirical
|
||||
10. analytic
|
||||
11. synthetic
|
||||
12. contradiction
|
||||
3. Homework
|
||||
1. identify 5 examples of terms correctly
|
||||
|
||||
## Third session - branches philosophy
|
||||
|
||||
1. Reviewing homework
|
||||
2. Logic
|
||||
1. laws of thought/classical logic
|
||||
1. law of non-contradiction
|
||||
2. law of excluded middle
|
||||
3. law of identity
|
||||
2. validity
|
||||
3. soundness
|
||||
4. modality
|
||||
1. necessity
|
||||
2. contingency
|
||||
3. Epistemology
|
||||
1. skepticism
|
||||
2. contextualism
|
||||
3. scientific method
|
||||
|
||||
## Fourth session - propositional logic
|
||||
|
||||
1. Reviewing homework
|
||||
2. Arguments
|
||||
1. deductive
|
||||
2. inductive
|
||||
3. abductive
|
||||
3. Propositional logic
|
||||
1. truth tables
|
||||
2. writing arguments
|
||||
3. formal fallacies
|
||||
4. principle of explosion
|
||||
4. Homework
|
||||
1. create valid inferences
|
||||
2. do a prop logic quiz
|
||||
|
||||
## fifth session - debate structure
|
||||
|
||||
1. Dialogue flow tree
|
||||
2. Homework
|
||||
1. apply the tree to a debate
|
||||
|
||||
## sixth session - mock debate
|
||||
|
||||
1. Reviewing homework
|
||||
2. Mock debate
|
||||
|
||||
## Optional class - vegan debate
|
||||
|
||||
1. NTT mock dialectic
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_coursework
|
||||
|
||||
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
|||
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
|
||||
|
||||
#### Fallacy 1
|
||||
|
||||
>"Until you show me a 50-year randomized controlled trial showing otherwise, I will continue to believe that steak is healthy."
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** red herring
|
||||
**B)** appeal to ignorance
|
||||
**C)** equivocation
|
||||
**D)** appeal to nature
|
||||
**E)** both B and D
|
||||
|
||||
#### Fallacy 2
|
||||
|
||||
>"You can tell me all you want that Liver King is on steroids, it just sounds ridiculous to me and I refuse to believe it."
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** equivocation
|
||||
**B)** muddying the waters
|
||||
**C)** genetic fallacy
|
||||
**D)** appeal from incredulity
|
||||
**E)** both D and C
|
||||
|
||||
#### Fallacy 3
|
||||
|
||||
>"We know that industrial frankenfoods made in factories are bad for you, because they're not foods that you grow yourself from the soil."
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** appeal to nature
|
||||
**B)** strawman
|
||||
**C)** begging the question
|
||||
**D)** appeal to authority
|
||||
**E)** both A and C
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
<div style="page-break-after: always;">
|
||||
|
||||
#### Fallacy 4
|
||||
|
||||
>"Why would you ever believe that vegan diets were unhealthy? The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics says they're appropriate for all stages of the life cycle."
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** genetic fallacy
|
||||
**B)** appeal to authority
|
||||
**C)** muddying the waters
|
||||
**D)** red herring
|
||||
**E)** both B and D
|
||||
|
||||
#### Fallacy 5
|
||||
|
||||
>"When I said that the carnivore diet cures fatty liver, what I actually meant was that it can be an effective weight loss diet for some people."
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** strawman
|
||||
**B)** begging the question
|
||||
**C)** motte and bailey
|
||||
**D)** equivocation
|
||||
**E)** both A and B
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_coursework
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
|
|||
### Inference 1
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If one becomes a lean mass hyper responder, then one has unlocked the fountain of youth.
|
||||
>**P2)** Dave Feldman became a lean mass hyper responder.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, Dave Feldman has unlocked the fountain of youth.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)** ∀x(Lx→Fx)
|
||||
**P2)** Ld
|
||||
**C)** Fd
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 2
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If one (x) eats red meat (y), then one (x) has increased their risk of cancer (z).
|
||||
>**P2)** Shawn Baker eats beef.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, Shawn Baker has increased their risk of colon cancer.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)** ∀x∀y∀z(Mxy→Cxz)
|
||||
**P2)** Msb
|
||||
**C)** Cso
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 3
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If fish (x) contain heavy metals (y), then eating too much fish (x) can give you heavy metal (y) poisoning.
|
||||
>**P2)** Salmon contains mercury.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, eating too much salmon can give you mercury poisoning.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)** ∀x∀y(Cxy→Pxy)
|
||||
**P2)** Csm
|
||||
**C)** Psm
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 4
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** Some people like to eat kangaroo balls.
|
||||
>**P2)** Everyone who likes to eat kangaroo balls also likes to eat buffalo balls.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, there are some people who like both kangaroo balls and buffalo balls.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)** ∃x(Px)
|
||||
**P2)** ∀x(Px→Qx)
|
||||
**C)** ∃x(Px∧Qx)
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 5
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If the vegetables are food, then the vegetables do not have toxins.
|
||||
>**P2)** Broccoli has toxins.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, broccoli is not food.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)** ∀x(Fx→¬Tx)
|
||||
**P2)** ∃x(Tb)
|
||||
**C)** ∃x(¬Fb)
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 6
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If one will live forever, then one is indeed a carnivore.
|
||||
>**P2)** Micheal Greger is not a carnivore.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, Michael Greger will not live forever.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)** ∀x(Fx→Cx)
|
||||
**P2)** ¬Cm
|
||||
**C)** ¬Fm
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 7
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If a food is not healthy, then the data shows that the food increases the risk of disease.
|
||||
>**P2)** RCTs show that seed oils do not increase the risk of disease.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, seed oils are healthy.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)** ∀x∀y(¬Hx→Dxy)
|
||||
**P2)** ¬Dsr
|
||||
**C)** Hs
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_coursework
|
||||
#homework
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
|
|||
### Inference 1
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If one becomes a lean mass hyper responder, then one has unlocked the fountain of youth.
|
||||
>**P2)** Dave Feldman became a lean mass hyper responder.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, Dave Feldman has unlocked the fountain of youth.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)**
|
||||
**P2)**
|
||||
**C)**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 2
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If one eats red meat, then one has increased their risk of cancer.
|
||||
>**P2)** Shawn Baker eats beef.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, Shawn Baker has increased their risk of cancer.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)**
|
||||
**P2)**
|
||||
**C)**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 3
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If fish contain heavy metals, then eating too much fish can give you heavy metal poisoning.
|
||||
>**P2)** Salmon contains mercury.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, eating too much salmon can give you mercury poisoning.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)**
|
||||
**P2)**
|
||||
**C)**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 4
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** Some people like to eat kangaroo balls.
|
||||
>**P2)** Everyone who likes to eat kangaroo balls also likes to eat buffalo balls.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, there are some people who like both kangaroo balls and buffalo balls.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)**
|
||||
**P2)**
|
||||
**C)**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 5
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If the vegetables are food, then they do not have toxins.
|
||||
>**P2)** Some vegetables have toxins.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, some vegetables are not food.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)**
|
||||
**P2)**
|
||||
**C)**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 6
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If one will live forever, then one is indeed a carnivore.
|
||||
>**P2)** Micheal Greger is not a carnivore.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, Michael Greger will not live forever.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)**
|
||||
**P2)**
|
||||
**C)**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 7
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If a food is not healthy, then the data shows that the food increases the risk of disease.
|
||||
>**P2)** RCTs show that seed oils do not increase the risk of disease.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, seed oils are healthy.
|
||||
|
||||
**P1)**
|
||||
**P2)**
|
||||
**C)**
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_coursework
|
||||
#homework
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
|
|||
### Inference 1
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I eat enough fibre, then I will have good digestion.
|
||||
>**P2)** I ate enough fibre.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I will have good digestion.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens ✓
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:** P→Q
|
||||
**P2:** P
|
||||
**C:** Q
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 2
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I scarf down too many ketobombs, then I will gain weight.
|
||||
>**P2)** I did not gain weight.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I did not scarf down too many ketobombs.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens ✓
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:** P→Q
|
||||
**P2:** ¬Q
|
||||
**C:** ¬P
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 3
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I eat a variety of fruits and vegetables, then I will get a range of nutrients.
|
||||
>**P2)** If I get a range of nutrients, then I will prolong my health.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, if I eat a variety of fruits and vegetables, I will prolong my health.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism ✓
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:** P→Q
|
||||
**P2:** Q→H
|
||||
**C:** P→H
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 4
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I eat too much saturated fat, then I will increase my risk of heart disease.
|
||||
>**P2)** I did not increase my risk of heart disease.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I did not eat too much saturated fat.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens ✓
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:** P→Q
|
||||
**P2:** ¬Q
|
||||
**C:** ¬P
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 5
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I am a lean mass hyper responder, then I am immune to all disease.
|
||||
>**P2)** I am not immune to all disease.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I am not a lean mass hyper responder.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens ✓
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:** P→Q
|
||||
**P2:** ¬Q
|
||||
**C:** ¬P
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 6
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I stay on the Vertical Diet™, then I will get scurvy.
|
||||
>**P2)** I stayed on the Vertical Diet™.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I will get scurvy.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens ✓
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:** P→Q
|
||||
**P2:** P
|
||||
**C:** Q
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 7
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** I will either drink organic sheep milk or raw bison cum with my marinated ox testicles.
|
||||
>**P2)** I did not drink raw bison cum with my marinated ox testicles.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I drank organic sheep milk with my marinated ox testicles.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism ✓
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:** M∨C
|
||||
**P2:** ¬C
|
||||
**C:** M
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 8
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I eat too much processed food, then I will consume too much salt.
|
||||
>**P2)** If I consume too much salt, then my heart will explode.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, if I eat too much processed food, then my heart will explode.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism ✓
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:** P→S
|
||||
**P2:** S→E
|
||||
**C:** P→E
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 9
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** I will either eat a salad or a soup for lunch.
|
||||
>**P2)** I did not eat a salad for lunch.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I ate soup for lunch.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism ✓
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:** S∨X
|
||||
**P2:** ¬S
|
||||
**C:** X
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 10
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I eat dingo liver, then I will get important n00trients.
|
||||
>**P2)** I ate dingo liver.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I got important n00trients.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens ✓
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:** P→Q
|
||||
**P2:** P
|
||||
**C:** Q
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_coursework
|
||||
#homework
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
|
|||
### Inference 1
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I eat enough fibre, then I will have good digestion.
|
||||
>**P2)** I ate enough fibre.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I will have good digestion.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:**
|
||||
**P2:**
|
||||
**C:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 2
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I scarf down too many ketobombs, then I will gain weight.
|
||||
>**P2)** I did not gain weight.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I did not scarf down too many ketobombs.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:**
|
||||
**P2:**
|
||||
**C:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 3
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I eat a variety of fruits and vegetables, then I will get a range of nutrients.
|
||||
>**P2)** If I get a range of nutrients, then I will prolong my health.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, if I eat a variety of fruits and vegetables, I will prolong my health.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:**
|
||||
**P2:**
|
||||
**C:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 4
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I eat too much saturated fat, then I will increase my risk of heart disease.
|
||||
>**P2)** I did not increase my risk of heart disease.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I did not eat too much saturated fat.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:**
|
||||
**P2:**
|
||||
**C:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 5
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I am a lean mass hyper responder, then I am immune to all disease.
|
||||
>**P2)** I am not immune to all disease.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I am not a lean mass hyper responder.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:**
|
||||
**P2:**
|
||||
**C:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 6
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I stay on the Vertical Diet™, then I will get scurvy.
|
||||
>**P2)** I stayed on the Vertical Diet™.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I will get scurvy.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:**
|
||||
**P2:**
|
||||
**C:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 7
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** I will either drink organic sheep milk or raw bison cum with my marinated ox testicles.
|
||||
>**P2)** I did not drink raw bison cum with my marinated ox testicles.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I drank organic sheep milk with my marinated ox testicles.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:**
|
||||
**P2:**
|
||||
**C:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 8
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I eat too much processed food, then I will consume too much salt.
|
||||
>**P2)** If I consume too much salt, then my heart will explode.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, if I eat too much processed food, then my heart will explode.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:**
|
||||
**P2:**
|
||||
**C:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 9
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** I will either eat a salad or a soup for lunch.
|
||||
>**P2)** I did not eat a salad for lunch.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I ate soup for lunch.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:**
|
||||
**P2:**
|
||||
**C:**
|
||||
|
||||
### Inference 10
|
||||
|
||||
>**P1)** If I eat dingo liver, then I will get important n00trients.
|
||||
>**P2)** I ate dingo liver.
|
||||
>**C)** Therefore, I got important n00trients.
|
||||
|
||||
**A)** Modus Ponens
|
||||
**B)** Modus Tollens
|
||||
**C)** Hypothetical Syllogism
|
||||
**D)** Disjunctive Syllogism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Structure
|
||||
|
||||
**P1:**
|
||||
**P2:**
|
||||
**C:**
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_coursework
|
||||
#homework
|
||||
140
🛡️ Debate/📚 Coaching/📖 Coursework/NTT/NTT Reductios.md
Normal file
140
🛡️ Debate/📚 Coaching/📖 Coursework/NTT/NTT Reductios.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
|
|||
### NTT Reductio (Non-Negated Antecedent w/ Conjunction)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**T**</font> | a being (x) is ethical to consume |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | a being (x) has fur |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | a being (x) has horns |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | a being (x) has hooves |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | hypothetical human |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> For all x, where x is a being, they are ethical to consume if, and only if, x has fur, x has horns, and x has hooves.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Tx↔(Px∧Qx∧Rx)))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> A hypothetical human has fur, horns, and hooves.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Pa∧Qa∧Ra)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, A hypothetical human is ethical to consume.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Ta)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Tx~4(Px~1Qx~1Rx))),(Pa~1Qa~1Ra)|=(Ta))
|
||||
|
||||
### NTT Reductio (Negated Antecedent w/ Conjunction)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**T**</font> | a being (x) is ethical to consume |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | a being (x) has average human intelligence |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | a being (x) has language skills |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | a being (x) has human genetics |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | hypothetical schmuman |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> For all x, where x is a being, they are not ethical to consume if, and only if, x has average human intelligence, x has language skills, and x has human genetics.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(¬Tx↔(Px∧Qx∧Rx)))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> A hypothetical schmuman does not have human genetics.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Ra)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, a hypothetical schmuman is ethical to consume.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Ta)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(~3Tx~4(Px~1Qx~1Rx))),(~3Ra)|=(Ta))
|
||||
|
||||
### NTT Reductio (Non-Negated Antecedent w/ Disjunction)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**T**</font> | a being (x) is ethical to consume |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | a being (x) has fur |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | a being (x) has horns |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | a being (x) has hooves |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | hypothetical human |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> For all x, where x is a being, they are ethical to consume if, and only if, x has fur, or x has horns, or x has hooves.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Tx↔(Px∨Qx∨Rx)))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> A hypothetical human has hooves.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Ra)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, A hypothetical human is ethical to consume.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Ta)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Tx~4(Px~2Qx~2Rx))),(Ra)|=(Ta))
|
||||
|
||||
### NTT Reductio (Negated Antecedent w/ Disjunction)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**T**</font> | a being (x) is ethical to consume |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | a being (x) has average human intelligence |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | a being (x) has language skills |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | a being (x) has human genetics |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | hypothetical schmuman |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> For all x, where x is a being, they are not ethical to consume if, and only if, x has average human intelligence, or x has language skills, or x has human genetics.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(¬Tx↔(Px∨Qx∨Rx)))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> A hypothetical schmuman does not have average human intelligence, language skills, and human genetics.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Pa∧¬Qa∧¬Ra)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, a hypothetical schmuman is ethical to consume.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Ta)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(~3Tx~4(Px~2Qx~2Rx))),(~3Pa~1~3Qa~1~3Ra)|=(Ta))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_coursework
|
||||
#namethetrait
|
||||
#ntt
|
||||
119
🛡️ Debate/📚 Coaching/📖 Coursework/NTT/NTT Responses.md
Normal file
119
🛡️ Debate/📚 Coaching/📖 Coursework/NTT/NTT Responses.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
|
|||
# Humanity
|
||||
|
||||
### Genetics tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that humans have a cluster of genetics that distinguishes homo sapiens sapiens as a species, whereas non-human animals do not.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If a genetic test on your neighbour's kid returned the shocking result that they lack those genetics, would it be OK to kill him and eat him?
|
||||
|
||||
### Taxonomy tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that humans have the taxonomic classification of homo sapiens sapiens, whereas non-human animals do not.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If we restricted the criteria used to categorize homo sapiens to exclude some populations of people, would they be OK to kill and eat?
|
||||
|
||||
### Family Resemblance tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is whether or not I can recognise an individual as human.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If we took your mother's consciousness and placed it inside of a cow's body, would it be OK to kill her and eat her?
|
||||
|
||||
# Cognition
|
||||
|
||||
### Intelligence tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that humans have human-level intelligence, whereas non-human animals do not.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If we found humans with the same level of intelligence as a non-human animal, would it be OK to kill them and eat them?
|
||||
|
||||
### Language tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that humans have the capacity to use and/or understand language, whereas non-human animals do not.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If we found humans with the same linguistic capacity as as non-human animals, would it be OK to kill them and eat them?
|
||||
|
||||
### Social Contracts tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that humans can enter into social contracts, whereas non-human animals cannot.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If we found humans with the same ability to enter into social contracts as as non-human animals, would it be OK to kill them and eat them?
|
||||
|
||||
### Moral Agency tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that humans have moral agency, whereas non-human animals do not
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If we found humans with the same capacity for moral agency as non-human animals, would it be OK to kill them and eat them?
|
||||
|
||||
# Religious Belief
|
||||
|
||||
### Souls tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that humans have a soul, whereas non-human animals do not.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If we had a soul-scanner that could detect whether or not a being had a soul, and it was discovered that your neighbour's kid didn't have a soul, would it be OK to kill him and eat him?
|
||||
|
||||
### Image of God tho
|
||||
>If we had an image-of-God scanner that could detect whether or not a being was made in the image of God, and it was discovered that your neighbour's kid wasn't made in the image of God, would it be OK to kill him and eat him?
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
What is untrue of a non-human animal that is true of a human, such that if it were made true of a human, the non-human animal would have a soul?
|
||||
|
||||
### Word of God tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that God's word, as articulated in the Holy Bible, permits us to consume non-human animals.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If the Holy Bible permitted cannibalism, would it be OK for humans to kill and eat each other?
|
||||
|
||||
# Norms
|
||||
|
||||
### Culture tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that our culture accepts the consumption of non-human animals, whereas our culture does not accept the consumption of humans.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If our culture developed a tolerance for the consumption of humans, would it be OK to farm humans, kill them, and eat them?
|
||||
|
||||
### Tradition tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that non-human animal consumption is traditional for humans, whereas human consumption is not.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If there was a population with a cultural tradition of cannibalism, would it then be OK to farm humans, kill them, and eat them?
|
||||
|
||||
### Legality tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that it is illegal to kill and eat humans, but it is not illegal to kill and eat animals.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If cannibalism was made legal, would it then be OK to farm humans, kill them, and eat them?
|
||||
|
||||
### Dominion tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that humans have dominion over non-human animals, whereas non-human animals do not have dominion over humans.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If space aliens had dominion over humans, would it be OK for the aliens to farm us, kill us, and eat us?
|
||||
|
||||
# Food
|
||||
|
||||
### Nutrition tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that non-human animals are rich in nutrients, whereas humans are not.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If it was discovered that human meat was equally as rich in nutrients as the meat of non-human animals, would it be OK to farm humans, kill them, and eat them?
|
||||
|
||||
### Agriculture tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that the meat of non-human animals is currently instrumental to sustaining human civilization, but the meat of humans is not.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If we discovered a civilization of humans who were sustaining themselves on human meat in the same way we sustain ourselves on non-human animal meat, is it OK, in your view, for them to farm, kill, and eat those humans?
|
||||
|
||||
### Tasty tho
|
||||
>The trait that makes the difference is that non-human animals are tasty, whereas humans are not.
|
||||
|
||||
**Response:**
|
||||
If it was discovered that human meat was equally as tasty as the meat of non-human animals, would it be OK to farm humans, kill them, and eat them?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_coursework
|
||||
#namethetrait
|
||||
#ntt
|
||||
127
🛡️ Debate/📚 Coaching/📖 Coursework/Propositional Logic Intro.md
Normal file
127
🛡️ Debate/📚 Coaching/📖 Coursework/Propositional Logic Intro.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
|
|||
## Operators & Symbols
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Symbol**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Operation**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Example**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Description**</font> |
|
||||
|:--------------------------------------:|:-----------------------------------------:|:---------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| → | Implies | P→Q | A proposition that is only false if either Q is false or both P and Q are false. |
|
||||
| ↔ | Biconditional | P↔Q | A proposition that denotes logic equivalence, and is true when both predicates are either true or false. |
|
||||
| ¬ | Negation | ¬P | A proposition that is true if and only if P is false. |
|
||||
| ∧ | Conjunction | P∧Q | A proposition that is true if and only if both P and Q are true. |
|
||||
| ∨ | Disjunction | P∨Q | A proposition that is false if and only if both P and Q are false. |
|
||||
| ⊻ | Exclusive Or | P⊻Q | A proposition that is true if and only if either only P or only Q are true. |
|
||||
| ∀ | Universal Quantifier | ∀x(Px) | A proposition that states that for all x, P is true. |
|
||||
| ∃ | Existential Quantifier | ∃x(Px) | A proposition that states that there is at least one X, such that P(x) is true. |
|
||||
| ∴ | Therefore | ∴Q | The conclusion of a syllogism |
|
||||
| := | Definition | P:=grass is green | A general symbol used for defining propositions. |
|
||||
| () | Parentheses | (P∧Q) | A means of grouping propositions together. |
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Logical Necessity
|
||||
|
||||
### Tautology
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**True**</font> |
|
||||
| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| T | T |
|
||||
| F | T |
|
||||
|
||||
# Logical Impossibility
|
||||
|
||||
### Contradiction
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**¬P**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**P∧¬P**</font> |
|
||||
|:---------------------------------:|:----------------------------------:|:------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| T | F | F |
|
||||
| F | T | F |
|
||||
|
||||
# Logical Possibility
|
||||
|
||||
### Implication (P→Q)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**P→Q**</font> |
|
||||
|:---------------------------------:|:---------------------------------:|:----------------------------------- |
|
||||
| T | T | T |
|
||||
| T | F | F |
|
||||
| F | T | T |
|
||||
| F | F | T |
|
||||
|
||||
### Biconditional (P↔Q)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**P↔Q**</font> |
|
||||
|:---------------------------------:|:---------------------------------:|:----------------------------------- |
|
||||
| T | T | T |
|
||||
| T | F | F |
|
||||
| F | T | F |
|
||||
| F | F | T |
|
||||
|
||||
### Conjunction (P∧Q)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**P∧Q**</font> |
|
||||
|:---------------------------------:|:---------------------------------:|:----------------------------------- |
|
||||
| T | T | T |
|
||||
| T | F | F |
|
||||
| F | T | F |
|
||||
| F | F | F | F | T | F |
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Disjunction (P∨Q)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**P∨Q**</font> |
|
||||
|:---------------------------------:|:---------------------------------:|:----------------------------------- |
|
||||
| T | T | T |
|
||||
| T | F | T |
|
||||
| F | T | T |
|
||||
| F | F | F |
|
||||
|
||||
### Exclusive Disjunction (P⊻Q)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**P⊻Q**</font> |
|
||||
|:---------------------------------:|:---------------------------------:|:----------------------------------- |
|
||||
| T | T | F |
|
||||
| T | F | T |
|
||||
| F | T | T |
|
||||
| F | F | F |
|
||||
|
||||
# Esoteric Logical Possibility
|
||||
|
||||
### Not And (P⊼Q)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**P⊼Q**</font> |
|
||||
|:---------------------------------:|:---------------------------------:|:----------------------------------- |
|
||||
| T | T | F |
|
||||
| T | F | T |
|
||||
| F | T | T |
|
||||
| F | F | T |
|
||||
|
||||
### Not Or (P⊽Q)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**P→Q**</font> |
|
||||
|:---------------------------------:|:---------------------------------:|:----------------------------------- |
|
||||
| T | T | F |
|
||||
| T | F | F |
|
||||
| F | T | F |
|
||||
| F | F | T |
|
||||
|
||||
### Material Nonimplication (P↛Q)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**P→Q**</font> |
|
||||
|:---------------------------------:|:---------------------------------:|:----------------------------------- |
|
||||
| T | T | F |
|
||||
| T | F | T |
|
||||
| F | T | F |
|
||||
| F | F | F |
|
||||
|
||||
### Converse Nonimplication (P↚Q)
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**P→Q**</font> |
|
||||
|:---------------------------------:|:---------------------------------:|:----------------------------------- |
|
||||
| T | T | F |
|
||||
| T | F | F |
|
||||
| F | T | T |
|
||||
| F | F | F |
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#coursework
|
||||
#logic_course
|
||||
#propositional_logic
|
||||
Binary file not shown.
78
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Allan Savory.md
Normal file
78
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Allan Savory.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
### Allan's Argument for Holistic Management
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | (x) something can be managed |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | (x) something was produced |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | (x) mismanagement of nature has led to climate change |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | institutional policies are the root cause of climate change |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**B**</font> | institutional policy-makers have embraced complexity |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | we must begin taking steps to reverse desertification |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | the methods discussed in (x) Allan's TEDTalk reverse desertification |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**G**</font> | we must instantiate institutional policy to encourage the use of the methods discussed in (x) Allan's TEDTalk |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**n**</font> | nature |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**h**</font> | holistic management |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If something cannot be managed, then it was produced.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(¬◇Mx→Px))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Nature was not produced.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Pn)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> If nature can be managed and the mismanagement of nature has led to climate change, then institutional policies are the root cause of climate change.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(◇Mn∧∀x(Cx→R))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> Desertification has led to climate change.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Cd)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> If institutional policies are the root cause of climate change, then institutional policy-makers have not embraced complexity.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(R→¬B)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P6)</b></font> If institutional policy-makers have not embraced complexity, then we must begin taking steps to reverse desertification.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬B→V)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P7)</b></font> If we must begin taking steps to reverse desertification and the methods discussed in Allan's TEDTalk reverse desertification, then we must instantiate institutional policy to encourage the use of the methods discussed in Allan's TEDTalk.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(V∧∀x(Dx→Gx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P8)</b></font> Holistic management reverses desertification.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Dh)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, we must instantiate institutional policy to encourage the use of holistic management.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Gh)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(~3~9Mx~5Px)),(~3Pn),(~9Mn~1~6x(Cx~5R)),(Cd),(R~5~3B),(~3B~5V),(V~1~6x(Dx~5Gx)),(Dh)|=(Gh))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#agriculture
|
||||
#climate
|
||||
29
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Andrew Morcheles.md
Normal file
29
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Andrew Morcheles.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Tweet
|
||||
|
||||
>The reason I’m not vegan is that my personal ethics are such that they allow me to, in good conscience, indulge my belief that animal products are healthier and more enjoyable to consume than the available alternatives, despite unfortunate tradeoffs in animal deaths and suffering
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "Status as an obligate carnivore absolutely forecloses that a vegan diet could be superior."
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition:
|
||||
|
||||
> "Status as an obligate carnivore forecloses the possibility that a diet that is totally absent any animal foods could be superior to a carnivorous diet for cats."
|
||||
|
||||
## New Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
> "Cats are adapted to thrive on a meat-based diet."
|
||||
> "A diet consisting only of plant products would not provide the sufficient nutrients to maximize that cat's fitness."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
#cats
|
||||
58
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Anthony Chaffee.md
Normal file
58
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Anthony Chaffee.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
|||
### Polyphenol Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Variable**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definition**</font> |
|
||||
|:----------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | plant defense chemicals (x) are harmful |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | plant defense chemicals (x) are contained in food (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | plant defense chemicals (x) render food (y) harmful. |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | genetic modification that removes (p) renders (g) less harmful |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**p**</font> | polyphenols from grass |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**g**</font> | grass-fed beef |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If plant defense chemicals are harmful and plant defense chemicals are contained in a food, then plant defense chemicals render the food harmful.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Hx∧Cxy→Vxy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Polyphenols from grass are harmful.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Hp)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Polyphenols from grass are contained in grass-fed beef.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Cpg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If polyphenols from grass render grass-fed beef harmful, then genetic modification that removes polyphenols from grass renders grass-fed beef less harmful.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Vpg→Mpg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> Polyphenols from grass render grass-fed beef harmful.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Vpg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, genetic modification that removes polyphenols from grass renders grass-fed beef less harmful.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Mpg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Hx~1Cxy~5Vxy)),(Hp),(Cpg),(Vpg~5Mpg),(Vpg)|=(Mpg))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
|
||||
47
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Anti-War Mindset.md
Normal file
47
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Anti-War Mindset.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>"vegans kill more animals than non-vegans"
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition
|
||||
>"do you mean more animals die as a result of vegans making consumer choices as opposed to omnivores making consumer choices?"
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
1. By this, do you mean more animals die as a result of vegans making consumer choices as opposed to omnivores making consumer choices?
|
||||
1. answer: yes
|
||||
2. Is this in absolute or relative terms?
|
||||
1. answer: relative
|
||||
3. What's the evidence that the proposition is true?
|
||||
1. Required are empirics showing that more animals die when vegans make vegan consumer choices over omnivorous consumer choices, adjusted/truncated for biofuel and animal ag feed.
|
||||
2. Statistics also need to be truncated to account for omnivores making consumer decisions consistent with veganism (such as buying bread).
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
- crop protection and production kills lots of animals
|
||||
- there's a worldwide decline in insects and birds (via pesticides and habitat change)
|
||||
- compatible with veganism causing fewer deaths in the long run
|
||||
- human activity leads to insect and bird deaths in animal ag scenarios too
|
||||
- pasture for grass-fed
|
||||
- crops for grain-fed
|
||||
- none of this is interesting because there are no comparative analyses of consumer choices and their subsequent effects on animal death
|
||||
- the only information we know from this is that crop ag kills lots of animals
|
||||
- insufficient to make the case that more animals die from vegan, rather than omnivore, choices
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
|
||||
- would alternatives to crop ag
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
P1) If you kill off animals to extinction, then ecosystems will break down
|
||||
P2) you kill off animals to extinction
|
||||
C) therefore, ecosystems will break down
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
72
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Anticarnick.md
Normal file
72
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Anticarnick.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>"the claim that killing a particular carnist reduces total rights violations is unfalsifiable"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Semantic Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Unclear Terms
|
||||
1. unfalsifiable
|
||||
1. still no clue
|
||||
1. a hypothesis is falsifiable if and only if demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis is practically achievable
|
||||
2. a hypothesis is unfalsifiable if and only if demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis is impractical
|
||||
2. disprove
|
||||
1.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition
|
||||
>demonstrating the negation of the hypothesis that "killing a particular carnist reduces total rights violations" is impractical
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
1.
|
||||
|
||||
# Dom's Rebuttal
|
||||
|
||||
>Both "killing X reduces rights violations" (A) and its negation "killing X does not reduce rights violations" (B) are falsifiable, as long as the goalposts arent moved. For both you can devise some experiment where we observe rights violations (in a set area, for a given time, etc), kill X, observe rights violations under the same constraints again. Lets label the results "less rights violations observed" P and "equal or more rights violations observed Q. Under:
|
||||
>
|
||||
>A+P, A is not rejected
|
||||
>A+Q, A is rejected
|
||||
>B+P, B is rejected
|
||||
>B+Q, B is not rejected
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Dom's Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If one claims that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations and one can claim that the proof for the claim is obtainable, then the claim that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations is not falsifiable.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P∧Q→¬R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> One claims that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> One can claim that the proof for the claim is obtainable.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the claim that killing a carnist is going to lower total rights violations is not falsifiable.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~1Q~5~3R),(P),(Q)|=(~3R))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
40
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Appoota.md
Normal file
40
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Appoota.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>net-caught wild caught salmon is not vegan
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
1. there is cost of applying the principle of indifference
|
||||
the cost is that there are more rights violations happening
|
||||
|
||||
2. it's not clear that there is a cost of applying the precautionary principle
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
1. what's the evidence that there is a cost to the PoI?
|
||||
1. killing even order predators leads to a net increase in rights violations
|
||||
2. how?
|
||||
1. 60% bycatch is OOP
|
||||
1. 60/100 fish causing rights violations
|
||||
2. 40% bycatch is EOP
|
||||
1. 40/100 fish preventing rights violations
|
||||
3. killing EOP allows more OOP to live than the OOP you caught
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>lure caught wild salmon is not vegan
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
1. we're agnostic about whether these salmon are OOP or EOP
|
||||
2. at worst you're doing something bad (where you'd be morally obligated not to do it) and at best you're doing something good (where it would only be morally obligatory to do it)
|
||||
3. moral duties weigh against action in this case
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
48
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Asar Cadyn.md
Normal file
48
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Asar Cadyn.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
### Human Experiment Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | human studies (x) are vulnerable to bias and small effect sizes |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | human studies (x) can demonstrate causality or support causal inference |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**G**</font> | human studies (x) are garbage |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**e**</font> | human experiments |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If human studies are vulnerable to bias and small effect sizes, then human studies cannot demonstrate causality or support causal inference.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Vx→¬Dx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Human experiments are vulnerable to bias and small effect sizes.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Ve)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> If human experiments cannot demonstrate causality or support causal inference, then human experiments are garbage.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬De→Ge)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, human experiments are garbage.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Ge)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Vx~5~3Dx)),(Ve),(~3De~5Ge)|=(Ge))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#epidemiology
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
32
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Austin Farley.md
Normal file
32
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Austin Farley.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition:
|
||||
|
||||
> Nick's definition is still based on a completely flimsy and inconsistent ideology.
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Do you mean there's a logical contradiction?
|
||||
- yes
|
||||
1. If yes, what's the contradiction?
|
||||
- couldn't say
|
||||
|
||||
## Link:
|
||||
https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1661926888544288771?s=20
|
||||
|
||||
## Receipts:
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230526130915.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230526130924.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230526130937.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230526130947.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230526131034.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230526131109.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtag
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
#philosophy
|
||||
198
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Bart Kay.md
Normal file
198
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Bart Kay.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
### Debate Proposition:
|
||||
|
||||
> "100% Carnivore diet is the appropriate and best health choice for all people."
|
||||
|
||||
1) What does "appropriate" mean? In relation to what?
|
||||
-
|
||||
2) What does "best" mean?
|
||||
-
|
||||
3) What does "health" mean? Some endpoint?
|
||||
-
|
||||
4) What constitutes a 100% carnivore diet?
|
||||
-
|
||||
|
||||
### Clarified Debate Proposition:
|
||||
|
||||
> "Z is X and Y W choice for all people."
|
||||
|
||||
1) Ask if this is a scientific claim.
|
||||
-
|
||||
|
||||
### Line of Questioning:
|
||||
|
||||
1) What's the evidence?
|
||||
- " "
|
||||
2) What is the argument that is this evidence is more expected on the hypothesis than the negation of the hypothesis?
|
||||
- An argument is required, because maybe the "evidence" is less or equally expected on the proposition (which would not be evidence for the proposition)
|
||||
3) If he does provide an argument, examine the premises carefully
|
||||
- If a premise is unconvincing, ask for the argument for the premise
|
||||
- Repeat if necessary or until you become convinced
|
||||
|
||||
### Provided Argument:
|
||||
| | Propositions |
|
||||
| --- | ------------ |
|
||||
| P1 | |
|
||||
| P2 | |
|
||||
| C | Therefore, |
|
||||
|
||||
### Cherry on top
|
||||
|
||||
Whatever he says, ask him if he would accept the same evidence for a vegan diet?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Arguments
|
||||
|
||||
### Tangential Stipulations Tho
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | stipulation (x) is tangential to the debate |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**O**</font> | stipulation (x) is objectionable to Bart |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | Bart demanding that Avi not speak to Isaac |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**n**</font> | Nick demanding that Bart debates Avi |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If a stipulation is tangential to the debate, then the stipulation is objectionable to Bart.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Sx→Ox))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Bart demanding that Avi not speak to Isaac is tangential to the debate.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Sa)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Nick demanding that Bart debates Avi is tangential to the debate.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Sn)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If Nick demanding that Bart debates Avi is objectionable to Bart, then Bart demanding that Avi not speak to Isaac is objectionable to Bart.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(On→Oa)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Bart demanding that Avi not speak to Isaac is objectionable to Bart.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Oa)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Sx~5Ox)),(Sa),(Sn),(On~5Oa)|=(Oa))
|
||||
|
||||
### Dodging Bart Tho
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:----------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | stipulated conditions (x) for a debate have no bearing on the debate (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | stipulation-maker (z) is dodging debate (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**p**</font> | Avi being able to publicly talk to his friends |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | Bart's debate with Avi |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | Bart debating Avi |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**n**</font> | Nick's debate with Bart |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**t**</font> | Bart |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | Nick |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If the stipulated conditions for a debate have no bearing on the debate, then the stipulation-maker is dodging the debate.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y∀z(Rxy→Mzy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Avi being able to publicly talk to his friends has no bearing on Bart's debate with Avi.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Rpa)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Bart debating Avi has no bearing on Nick's debate with Bart.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Rbn)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If Nick is dodging Nick's debate with Bart, then Bart is dodging Bart's debate with Avi.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Mcn→Mta)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Bart is dodging Bart's debate with Avi.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Mta)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y~6z(Rxy~5Mzy)),(Rpa),(Rbn),(Mcn~5Mta)|=(Mta))
|
||||
|
||||
[[📂 Media/PDFs/Bart Kay Debate.pdf]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Bart's Chat
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191438.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191533.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191630.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191245.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191655.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191701.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191718.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804191746.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220804190921.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Email Convo
|
||||
|
||||
### Nick
|
||||
Hello, Bart. I'm willing to debate against your proposition, but it's conditional. First you must lift the restrictions that you set for Avi Bitterman regarding the LDL and CVD debate. Your conditions were unreasonable, and even included absurd stipulations like him limiting his online social life (lol) and only being allowed to reference three publications (lol). If you lift these unreasonable conditions and have an untimed, unfettered debate Avi, I will debate you. It's quite simple. I'm perfectly willing to debate under those conditions. If you refuse those conditions (which are quite reasonable), it's you impeding the debate, not me.
|
||||
|
||||
### Bart
|
||||
You cannot do justice to debating more than about three papers during a debate. There must be time to look closely into each source you want to bring. The restrictions on Your boy Avi had nothing to do with his 'social life'. I said he and Isaac Brown must not comment publicly before or during any series of debates. It was not remotely unreasonable given their behaviour around the issue at the time. If there was ANY decent scientifically valid evidence in support of your LDL hypothesis, one paper will do it. I think a limit of 3 is perfectly generous, because I KNOW there is no such evidence extant. It takes time as I said to properly debunk the kind of nonsense you ridiculous ideologues like to cite. If you refuse this debate, it is YOU refusing it, NOT me.
|
||||
|
||||
### Nick
|
||||
My terms were clear, and I see no argument from you to support your suggestion that a single paper should necessarily be sufficient to make a particular case for the hypothesis in question. Some cases for some hypotheses would require synthesizing data from multiple domains, across tens or even hundreds of papers. I also see no argument from you to support the suggestion that Isaac Brown's behaviour on social media would have any bearing on the debate between Avi and yourself whatsoever. If you wish to provide those arguments, I'm open to receiving them. Until then, I view my terms to be more reasonable than your own, and I'm thereby considering you as the party who is gridlocking the debate. I'm perfectly open to debating when my terms have been satisfied. Proceed however you wish.
|
||||
|
||||
### Bart
|
||||
As expected, you are a coward. No shocks. Scientific evidence comes in the form of properly controlled, properly powered, properly randomised, properly disciplined intervention based experimental works, if you want to propose cause and effect. If any such existed, it would have been published in a single paper providing that data. You and I both know that no such work exists, ergo if you propose a causal artefact here, you lose the debate, outright, before you even begin. Also historical statements around conditions on a completely separate and unrelated proposed debate that did not occur have no bearing whatever on this proposal. Basically, you're being exactly the pathetic boy I knew you would be. If you're confident in your ability to prove me wrong, you need to take this opportunity seriously. Grow up, child. Send me your three proposed papers establishing your moot, and we're on. There is no gridlock. You are attempting to gridlock by misinformation constipation. You do not win a debate by making a larger number of references to papers that do not prove your point... you bring the 1-3 top papers that you propose do prove your point.
|
||||
|
||||
### Nick
|
||||
> _"Scientific evidence comes in the form of properly controlled, properly powered, properly randomised, properly disciplined intervention based experimental works, if you want to propose cause and effect."_
|
||||
|
||||
This is just a straightforwardly false claim. There are forms of scientific evidence that don't meet this conjunction of characteristics. Can you try again to provide an argument to support your suggestion that a single paper should necessarily be sufficient to make a particular case for the hypothesis in question?
|
||||
|
||||
> _"Also historical statements around conditions on a completely separate and unrelated proposed debate that did not occur have no bearing whatever on this proposal."_
|
||||
|
||||
Again, my conditions are clear. If you're free to stipulate conditions upon others that have no bearing on previous proposals, I see no argument for why others cannot place likewise stipulations upon you for current proposals. Could you please provide that argument?
|
||||
|
||||
### Bart
|
||||
If you want to argue with me, your opportunity is to do so live on camera, I'm not wasting any more of my valuable time here. Bring your 1-3 best proofs, provide them up front, and lets go. Book it. No more emails. [calendly.com/bart-kay](http://calendly.com/bart-kay)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#carnivore
|
||||
#bart_kay
|
||||
#philosophy
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
15
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Bekips.md
Normal file
15
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Bekips.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
|
|||
# Receipts
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221106162911.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221106162919.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221106162930.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221106162943.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221106162957.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221106163008.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
31
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Bourrée in E minor.md
Normal file
31
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Bourrée in E minor.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Propositions
|
||||
|
||||
1. Only men and women exist. No such thing as gender.
|
||||
2. Saturated fat and cholesterol is not bad for you, it's actually good for you.
|
||||
3. We thrive best eating raw animal products
|
||||
4. Modern Women are the most privileged species that have ever existed in the history of the recorded universe.
|
||||
5. Abortion is bad.
|
||||
6. Twitter is cancer, woke left/radfem is the worst thing happening in society.
|
||||
7. Vaccines don't work and are harmful.
|
||||
8. Masks don't work.
|
||||
9. Moral philosophy is absolutely retarded
|
||||
10. A plant based diet is absolutely horrible for you.
|
||||
11. Soy is bad .
|
||||
12. People are most racist now then ever, mostly due to the woke left. Shoving things down peoples throats, they never had an issue before, however since it's being forced, that's why racists are growing.
|
||||
13. Yes, disgust is valid. Don't fuck your siblings.
|
||||
14. Solipsist and post modernists need to die.
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes:
|
||||
|
||||
Apparently he cucked out tho.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
81
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Brian Kateman.md
Normal file
81
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Brian Kateman.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
|
|||
## Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
### Proposition:
|
||||
|
||||
>Veganism is impossible
|
||||
|
||||
1. What is meant by "veganism" here?
|
||||
2. On what modality is veganism impossible?
|
||||
1. sounds like a deontic modality
|
||||
2. If veganism is deontologically impossible, it must be in virtue of some other impossibility that constrains action.
|
||||
3. On what modality is it impossible to casually stroll without causing animal suffering?
|
||||
3. Why is it assumed that veganism is a deontological thesis?
|
||||
1. If it's not assumed that veganism is a deontological thesis, then what's the argument that the action of walking is less compatible with vegan principles than not walking?
|
||||
|
||||
### Clarified Proposition:
|
||||
|
||||
>Veganism is unlikely
|
||||
|
||||
1. What does it mean for veganism to be unlikely?
|
||||
|
||||
#### Brian's Argument For Impossible Veganism
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | it is possible for (x) one to be vegan |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | it is possible for (x) one's (y) actions to cause animal suffering absence of survival necessity |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**h**</font> | human |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**e**</font> | existence |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> It's possible for one to be vegan if and only if it's possible for one's actions to not cause animal suffering in the absence of survival necessity.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(◇Vx↔◇¬Sxy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Human existence necessitates animal suffering in the absence of survival necessity.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(▢She)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is impossible for humans to be vegan.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬◇Vh)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(~9Vx~4~9~3Sxy)),(~8She)|=(~3~9Vh))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
### Definition
|
||||
|
||||
>Reducetarianism is the practice of eating less meat - red meat, poultry, and seafood - as well as less dairy and fewer eggs, regardless of the degree or motivation.
|
||||
|
||||
### My Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>Reducetarianism is either subsumed by my definition OR leads to absurdity OR leads to a contradiction.
|
||||
|
||||
## Receipts:
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230411160120.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230411160134.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230411160144.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230411160152.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
#cropdeaths
|
||||
23
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Captain Ammo.md
Normal file
23
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Captain Ammo.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"Eating a natural balanced diet is better than eating vegan."
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
1) ~~blue zones~~ (not evidence lol)
|
||||
1) thriving tho
|
||||
2) families tho
|
||||
3) happy tho
|
||||
|
||||
2) The evidence for the prop was his intuitions.
|
||||
1) No need to have a debate.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
39
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Carnivore Is Vegan.md
Normal file
39
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Carnivore Is Vegan.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
|
|||
### Noah's Position
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If it is permissible to use all of an animal's body parts, then there are no non-animal body part alternatives and immediate survival turns on using the animal's body parts.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→¬Q∧R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> There are non-animal body part alternatives.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Immediate survival does not turn using the animal's body parts.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is not permissible to use all of an animal's body parts.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5~3Q~1R),(Q),(~3R)|=(~3P))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
77
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Cat IRL.md
Normal file
77
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Cat IRL.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "Plants don't want to be eaten because they can get scared, stressed, or horny"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
1. plants can get scared, stressed, or horny
|
||||
2. fear: tries to protect itself by making itself taste like shit
|
||||
3. stress: chemical communication to other X
|
||||
4. horny: has a means of reproduction
|
||||
5. want: inclination or movement toward something
|
||||
6. clock: has an internal clock
|
||||
|
||||
### Sentience Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Variable**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definition**</font> |
|
||||
|:----------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**F**</font> | something (x) try to protect itself |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | something (x) communicates chemically to other things (x) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | something (x) has a means of reproduction |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**W**</font> | something (x) has an inclination toward something |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | something (x) is sentient |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | something (x) behaves according to an internal clock |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**g**</font> | euglena |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1) </b></font>If something tries to protect itself and communicates chemically to other things and has a means of reproduction and an inclination toward something and behaves according to an internal clock, then something is sentient.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Fx∧Sx∧Hx∧Wx∧Cx→Ex))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2) </b></font>Euglena tries to protect themselves.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Fg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3) </b></font>Euglena communicate chemically to other euglena.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Sg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4) </b></font>Euglena have a means of reproduction.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Hg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5) </b></font>Euglena have an inclination toward something.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Wg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P6) </b></font>Euglena behaves according to an internal clock.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Cg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C) </b></font>Therefore, euglena are sentient.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Eg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Fx~1Sx~1Hx~1Wx~1Cx~5Ex)),(Fg),(Sg),(Hg),(Wg),(Cg)|=(Eg))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
70
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Csypher.md
Normal file
70
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Csypher.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
|
|||
|
||||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "Preferences are gibberish"
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | one's concept (x) is private |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | others can have epistemic access to one's concept (x) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | a concept (x) can have a shared referent |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | the concept (x) refers to material external to the mind |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | a concept (x) can be communicated |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**p**</font> | preference |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> One's concept is private if, and only if, others cannot have epistemic access to one's concept.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Px↔¬Ex))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> One's concept can have a shared referent if, and only if, one's concept refers to material external to the mind.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Rx↔Mx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> One's concept can be communicated if, and only if, one's concept is not private and one's concept can have a shared referent.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Cx↔¬Px∧Rx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> Others can not have epistemic access one's preferences.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Ep)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> One's preferences do not refer to material external to the mind.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Mp)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, one's preferences cannot be communicated.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Cp)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Px~4~3Ex)),(~6x(Rx~4Mx)),(~6x(Cx~4~3Px~1Rx)),(~3Ep),(~3Mp)|=(~3Cp))
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1) No clear reason to accept P1, P2, or P3 until the modality for possibility/impossibility is provided.
|
||||
2) No clear reason to accept P4 or P5. They're just empirical claims.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#philosophy
|
||||
#moral_subjectivism
|
||||
348
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Cuck Truck.md
Normal file
348
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Cuck Truck.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,348 @@
|
|||
# Debate Invitations and Responses
|
||||
|
||||
## Ken Berry
|
||||
- **Social:** [KenDBerryMD](https://twitter.com/KenDBerryMD)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Multiple debate invitations extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1366524889067368449?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended and dodged via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1539720236701589504?s=20)
|
||||
2. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1539721408372039680?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Cliff Harvey
|
||||
- **Social:** [CarbAppropriate](https://twitter.com/CarbAppropriate)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation accepted via email and later declined via X.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/CarbAppropriate/status/1372281626206507010?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1500650543886204929?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Diana Rodgers
|
||||
- **Social:** [sustainabledish](https://twitter.com/sustainabledish)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via Instagram and presumed declined due to being deleted.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1365857401786814465?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Dave Feldman
|
||||
- **Social:** [DaveKeto](https://twitter.com/DaveKeto)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation conditionally accepted via X and later declined.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1306625219440730118?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Cate Shanahan
|
||||
- **Social:** [drcateshanahan](https://twitter.com/drcateshanahan)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1266438463634632709?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1479497980570857474?s=20)
|
||||
2. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1487215337116508162?s=20)
|
||||
3. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/drcateshanahan/status/1516904406805057537?s=20)
|
||||
4. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1537544882532716544?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Paul Mason
|
||||
- **Social:** [DrPaulMason](https://twitter.com/DrPaulMason)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Nominated for debate with no follow-up.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/Tom_Babington1/status/1361644276866830337?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/IdanOnTweeter/status/1373233980594618371?s=20)
|
||||
2. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1461361726943760391?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Ivor Cummins
|
||||
- **Social:** [FatEmperor](https://twitter.com/FatEmperor)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1268600451693494273?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/FatEmperor/status/1636920650156724226?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Paul Saladino
|
||||
- **Social:** [paulsaladinomd](https://twitter.com/paulsaladinomd)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1275912849999695872?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/FoodFirst_Ty/status/1282847039596843009?s=20)
|
||||
2. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/FoodFirst_Ty/status/1283449495682904064?s=20)
|
||||
3. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1282851963902636032?s=20)
|
||||
4. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1469136550046814219?s=20)
|
||||
5. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1591543878699843584?s=20)
|
||||
6. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1633831762509045766?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Kyle Mamounis
|
||||
- **Social:** [Nutricrinology](https://twitter.com/Nutricrinology)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X but disengaged once cornered.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1389259133044477953?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Tucker Goodrich
|
||||
- **Social:** [TuckerGoodrich](https://twitter.com/TuckerGoodrich)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and blocked when cornered.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1276694117494358017?s=19)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation accepted via X and subsequently declined before blocking. [Link](https://twitter.com/TuckerGoodrich/status/1428062578668830720?s=20)
|
||||
2. Debate invitation declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/TuckerGoodrich/status/1469366622196359170?s=20)
|
||||
3. All further debate invitations preemptively declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/TuckerGoodrich/status/1470029816975872007?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Amber O'Hearn
|
||||
- **Social:** [KetoCarnivore](https://twitter.com/KetoCarnivore)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Discussion invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/FusionProgGuy/status/1413888976281169922?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Mike Mutzel
|
||||
- **Social:** [MikeMutzel](https://twitter.com/MikeMutzel)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Challenged an egregious assertion and was ignored.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1414457776982552576?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1584645853771616256?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Tro Kalayjian
|
||||
- **Social:** [DoctorTro](https://twitter.com/DoctorTro)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and dodged repeatedly before blocking.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1261351818430255104?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Zoe Harcombe
|
||||
- **Social:** [zoeharcombe](https://twitter.com/zoeharcombe)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1418263706178310149)
|
||||
|
||||
## Ann Childers
|
||||
- **Social:** [AnnChildersMD](https://twitter.com/AnnChildersMD)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and repeatedly dodged when pressed for specifics.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1447245484356108292?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## James DiNicolantonio
|
||||
- **Social:** [drjamesdinic](https://twitter.com/drjamesdinic)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1460788569388171268?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Ralph Napolitano
|
||||
- **Social:** [DrRalphNap](https://twitter.com/DrRalphNap)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1462794580848300034?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Michael Kummer
|
||||
- **Social:** [mkummer82](https://twitter.com/mkummer82)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/mkummer82/status/1465755847917715464?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Kem Minnick
|
||||
- **Social:** [kemminnick](https://twitter.com/kemminnick)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation accepted via X with no follow-up.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/kemminnick/status/1469336100300726273?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Engaged in written debate via X and blocked when cornered. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1476990862793986052?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Travis Statham
|
||||
- **Social:** [Travis_Statham](https://twitter.com/Travis_Statham)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via Reddit and ignored.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1461428023207489542?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation declined via YouTube comments section. [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGNNsiINehI)
|
||||
2. Debate invitation extended via Reddit with no response. [Link](https://www.reddit.com/r/StopEatingSeedOils/comments/v457tu/how_vegetable_oils_make_us_fat_zero_acre/ic9u7wu/?utm_source=share)
|
||||
|
||||
## Raphael Sirtoli
|
||||
- **Social:** [raphaels7](https://twitter.com/raphaels7)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/raphaels7/status/1475767357188579329?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. All further debate invitations preemptively declined via X. [Link](https://x.com/raphaels7/status/1783541746015654072)
|
||||
|
||||
## Justin Mares
|
||||
- **Social:** [jwmares](https://twitter.com/jwmares)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and dodged when pressed for specifics.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1329266554089869312?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Anthony Gustin
|
||||
- **Social:** [dranthonygustin](https://twitter.com/dranthonygustin)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation accepted via X with no follow-up.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1482502242632552449?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Jake Mey
|
||||
- **Social:** [CakeNutrition](https://twitter.com/CakeNutrition)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and dodged when cornered.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1490009495581298690?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1490060813138280450?s=20)
|
||||
2. Imaginary debate invite preemptively declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1495419256737091585?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Max Lugavere
|
||||
- **Social:** [maxlugavere](https://twitter.com/maxlugavere)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and dodged when pressed for specifics.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/maxlugavere/status/1517683567249149953?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1518307089742848000?s=20)
|
||||
2. Debate invitation declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/maxlugavere/status/1518367365683064833?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Tristan Haggard
|
||||
- **Social:** [Trxstxn4](https://twitter.com/Trxstxn4)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X and presumed declined due to repeated dodges.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1513596227052527621?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Joseph Everett
|
||||
- **Social:** [JEverettLearned](https://twitter.com/JEverettLearned)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1535334822825971712?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1555138038740680704?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Brad Campbell
|
||||
- **Social:** [DrBradCampbell](https://twitter.com/DrBradCampbell)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1530933999610171392?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Kevin Stock
|
||||
- **Social:** [kevinstock12](https://twitter.com/kevinstock12)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1530140722225102848?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1534927799911317509?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Carnivore Aurelius
|
||||
- **Social:** [AlpacaAurelius](https://twitter.com/AlpacaAurelius)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1538272143061815299?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Bart Kay
|
||||
- **YouTube:** [BartKayNutritionScienceWatchdog](https://www.youtube.com/c/BartKayNutritionScienceWatchdog/)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via email.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7vTJ02xxrw)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation accepted via email with no follow-up. [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7vTJ02xxrw)
|
||||
|
||||
## Nick Eggleton
|
||||
- **Social:** [NickEggleton](https://twitter.com/NickEggleton)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1266626885703720961?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Marty Kendall
|
||||
- **Social:** [martykendall2](https://twitter.com/martykendall2)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and blocked when cornered.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1310548994804809729)
|
||||
|
||||
## Rob Meijer
|
||||
- **Social:** [EngineerDiet](https://twitter.com/EngineerDiet)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and repeatedly dodged when pressed for specifics.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1435850829051793408?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Ashwani Garg
|
||||
- **Social:** [agargmd](https://twitter.com/agargmd)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and repeatedly dodged when cornered.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1443328350982967303?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Brian Kerley
|
||||
- **Social:** [SeedOilDsrspctr](https://twitter.com/SeedOilDsrspctr)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1483889771134926849?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://x.com/TheNutrivore/status/1783200352646619227)
|
||||
|
||||
## Adam Pollock
|
||||
- **Social:** [aIIegoricaI](https://twitter.com/aIIegoricaI)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/aIIegoricaI/status/1495786414402945033?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Kait Malthaner
|
||||
- **Social:** [healthcoachkait](https://twitter.com/healthcoachkait)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1503258756687306753?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Michael Manderville
|
||||
- **Social:** [MikeManderville](https://twitter.com/MikeManderville)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and dodged when pressed for specifics.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1503036463306489856?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Philip Ovadia
|
||||
- **Social:** [ifixhearts](https://twitter.com/ifixhearts)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1557791520324890624?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1558282337024180224?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Nina Teicholz
|
||||
- **Social:** [bigfatsurprise](https://twitter.com/bigfatsurprise)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1556510529014882305?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1467571763865210881?s=20)
|
||||
2. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1538895943050878977?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Norstrong Chris
|
||||
- **Social:** [NNMChris](https://twitter.com/NNMChris)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and repeatedly dodged when cornered.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/NorstrongHealth/status/1416939281973530626?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1534573919562350594?s=20)
|
||||
2. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1534614710196260865?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Clemens Zsófia
|
||||
- **Social:** [ClemensZsofia](https://twitter.com/ClemensZsofia)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1528377198180290561?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Elie Jarrouge
|
||||
- **Social:** [ElieJarrougeMD](https://twitter.com/ElieJarrougeMD)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1506845469980315648?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## David Gornoski
|
||||
- **Social:** [DavidGornoski](https://twitter.com/DavidGornoski)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate declined via X.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1525474063044550657?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Mark Sisson
|
||||
- **Social:** [Mark_Sisson](https://twitter.com/Mark_Sisson)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1488360227141419009?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Adam Singer
|
||||
- **Social:** [AdamSinger](https://twitter.com/AdamSinger)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1566491269194719232?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Benny Malone
|
||||
- **Social:** [bennymaloneUK](https://twitter.com/bennymaloneUK)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Engaged in written debate via X and dodged when pressed for specifics.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1576601875314487296?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## David Diamond
|
||||
- **Social:** [LDLSkeptic](https://twitter.com/LDLSkeptic)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/LDLSkeptic/status/1583471298306375681?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. All further debate invitations preemptively declined via X. [Link](https://twitter.com/LDLSkeptic/status/1583481964840902656?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Ben Bikman
|
||||
- **Social:** [BenBikmanPhD](https://twitter.com/BenBikmanPhD)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1587547250074746880?s=19)
|
||||
|
||||
## Gary Taubes
|
||||
- **Social:** [garytaubes](https://twitter.com/garytaubes)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/garytaubes/status/1595180467552018432?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Robb Wolf
|
||||
- **Social:** [robbwolf](https://twitter.com/robbwolf)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1601624559647875072?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Eric Sartori
|
||||
- **Social:** [CarnAtheist](https://twitter.com/CarnAtheist)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via X.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/CarnAtheist/status/1635015631627235328?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Tart Vader
|
||||
- **Discord:** [User Profile](https://discordlookup.com/user/600111075135848449#1989)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation declined via Discord.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** 🌱┃veganism
|
||||
|
||||
## Brian Kateman
|
||||
- **Social:** [BrianKateman](https://twitter.com/BrianKateman)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation accepted and subsequently declined via email.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/BrianKateman/status/1645897476325482497?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Edward Goeke
|
||||
- **Social:** [GoekeEddie](https://twitter.com/GoekeEddie)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X with no response.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://x.com/TheNutrivore/status/1773421625150746784?s=20)
|
||||
- **Repeat Offenses:**
|
||||
1. Debate invitation extended via X with no response. [Link](https://x.com/TheNutrivore/status/1774154640403423359?s=20)
|
||||
|
||||
## Mike Sweeney
|
||||
- **Social:** [thelowcarb_rd](https://twitter.com/thelowcarb_rd)
|
||||
- **Circumstances:** Debate invitation extended via X and presumed declined due to blocking.
|
||||
- **Evidence:** [Link](https://twitter.com/TheNutrivore/status/1776652108646821913?t=Pf4sfAC1Z0pAcxGfQFr7oQ)
|
||||
|
||||
61
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Dave Feldman.md
Normal file
61
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Dave Feldman.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
|
|||
# Lipid Triad
|
||||
|
||||
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29241485/
|
||||
|
||||
"Many CVRF-free middle-aged individuals have atherosclerosis. LDL-C, even at levels currently considered normal, is independently associated with the presence and extent of early systemic atherosclerosis in the absence of major CVRFs. These findings support more effective LDL-C lowering for primordial prevention, even in individuals conventionally considered at optimal risk."
|
||||
|
||||
Lipid combos:
|
||||
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25458651/
|
||||
|
||||
"Aside from isolated hypertriglyceridemia, low levels of HDL-C, high levels of LDL-C, and high levels of TG in any combination were associated with increased risk of CVD."
|
||||
|
||||
LMHR paper:
|
||||
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35106434/
|
||||
|
||||
"These data suggest that, in contrast to the typical pattern of dyslipidemia, greater LDL cholesterol elevation on a CRD tends to occur in the context of otherwise low cardiometabolic risk."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# LDL Bounty
|
||||
|
||||
## Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
1. **HDL Cholesterol of 50 mg/dL or above (≥ 1.29 mmol/L)**
|
||||
2. **Triglycerides of 100 mg/dL or below (≤ 1.13 mmol/L)**
|
||||
3. **LDL Cholesterol of 130 mg/dL or above (≥ 3.36 mmol/L)**
|
||||
4. **Either high Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) or high Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) (see the section below)**
|
||||
5. By “**normal**” and “**non-treated**“, I mean:
|
||||
- No stratifying by specific genetics
|
||||
- No stratifying by drugs (no drug studies)
|
||||
- No stratifying by a particular illness in advance of the study. (duh!)
|
||||
- _In other words, just a generally broad group of people like [Framingham Offspring](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27166203) or the [Jeppesen study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11176761)_
|
||||
6. And here’s some fine print that should be obvious, but just in case…
|
||||
- The study needs to be published in a reputable journal
|
||||
- It has to be dated before this article was posted, of course
|
||||
- The study needs to have at least 400 participants that are stratified by this criteria. (The two studies above have over 500)
|
||||
- I’d prefer no unusual “modeling” or “adjustments” to alter the data too far from it’s original set. This one goes by the honor system — if you have such a study and it is clearly warranted, I can give it a pass.
|
||||
|
||||
"High" defined as greater than the average rates of CVD per age group in the American population.
|
||||
|
||||
### Criticisms
|
||||
|
||||
1. Vanishingly small population subset. Unreasonable to expect it to have been studied.
|
||||
2. If studied in the general population, they won't be keto, so translation to keto subjects may be dubious.
|
||||
3. The sheer weight of the evidence in favour of LDL's causal role in ASCVD cuts deeply against the notion that this population subset would be protected to begin with.
|
||||
4. Comparing this isolated cohort to the American general population is methodology that is beyond fringe, bordering on insane.
|
||||
5. Ultimately if this is taken to be an indication that LDL is fine in this particular context, it would qualify as an appeal to ignorance.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#lipidology
|
||||
#lipid_triad
|
||||
#LMHR
|
||||
#LDL
|
||||
#triglycerides
|
||||
#HDL
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
77
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/David McCune.md
Normal file
77
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/David McCune.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "There's no evidence that masking reduces the spread of COVID19"
|
||||
|
||||
## Arguments
|
||||
|
||||
### Gold Standard Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If RCTs are the FDA's gold standard for causal inference, then RCTs are required for a causal inference regarding mask effectiveness.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> RCTs are the FDA's gold standard for causal inference.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, RCTs are required for a causal inference regarding mask effectiveness.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
|
||||
|
||||
### New Interventions Tho
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**N**</font> | the medical intervention (x) is new |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**K**</font> | the level of harm produced by the medical intervention (x) is known |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | an RCT is generally required for a causal inference for that medical intervention (x) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | Required masking to reduce the spread of COVID |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If the medical intervention is new and the level of harm produced by the medical intervention is not known, then an RCT is generally required for a causal inference for that medical intervention.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Nx∧¬Kx→Rx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Required masking to reduce the spread of COVID is new.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Nc)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> The level of harm produced by required masking to reduce the spread of COVID is not known.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Kc)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, an RCT is generally required for causal inference for required masking to reduce the spread of COVID.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Rc)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Nx~1~3Kx~5Rx)),(Nc),(~3Kc)|=(Rc))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
44
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/David Ramms.md
Normal file
44
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/David Ramms.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "We ought not stop predators in nature from engaging in predation."
|
||||
|
||||
### Ethical Factory Farming Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | a predator (x) engages in predation (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | it is the case that we ought stop the predator (x) from engaging in predation (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | human |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | factory farming pigs |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If a predator engages in predation, then it is not the case that we ought stop the predator from engaging in said predation.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Dxy→¬Rxy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Humans engage in factory farming pigs.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Dam)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is not the case that we ought stop humans from engaging in factory farming pigs.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Ram)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Dxy~5~3Rxy)),(Dam)|=(~3Ram))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
57
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Die Militane Veganerin.md
Normal file
57
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Die Militane Veganerin.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>"vegans kill more animals than non-vegans"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Semantic Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Unclear Terms
|
||||
1. **kill**
|
||||
1. intentionally causing death?
|
||||
1. directly
|
||||
1. seems false
|
||||
1. what's the evidence?
|
||||
2. indirectly
|
||||
1. what's the evidence?
|
||||
2. total animal deaths?
|
||||
1. directly
|
||||
1. false
|
||||
2. indirectly
|
||||
1. what's the evidence?
|
||||
2. **vegans kill**
|
||||
1. in virtue of what?
|
||||
1. while making consumer choices?
|
||||
2. indirect causal pathways/support that leads to killing?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>"vegans cause more animal suffering than non-vegans"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Semantic Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Unclear Terms
|
||||
1. **suffering**
|
||||
1. intentionally causing negative emotional states?
|
||||
1. directly
|
||||
1. seems false
|
||||
1. what's the evidence?
|
||||
2. indirectly
|
||||
1. what's the evidence?
|
||||
2. **vegans cause more suffering**
|
||||
1. in virtue of what?
|
||||
1. while making consumer choices?
|
||||
2. indirect causal pathways/support that leads to killing?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
69
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Durdee.md
Normal file
69
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Durdee.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>Animal products are inherently unhealthy
|
||||
|
||||
## Semantic Analysis
|
||||
1. "inherently"
|
||||
1. necessary
|
||||
1. modal
|
||||
2.
|
||||
|
||||
### Unclear Terms
|
||||
1. "inherently"
|
||||
2. "unhealthy"
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition
|
||||
>Animal foods tend to cause harm
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
1. "unhealthy"
|
||||
2. "detrimental"
|
||||
1. tending to cause harm
|
||||
|
||||
1. mechanisms tho
|
||||
1.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>Industry funding is a good reason to just dismiss studies regardless
|
||||
|
||||
## Semantic Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Unclear Terms
|
||||
1. "good"
|
||||
2. "dismiss"
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition
|
||||
>
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
1.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 3
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>Animal products and refined food use is risky because it can encourage habituation
|
||||
|
||||
## Semantic Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Unclear Terms
|
||||
1. "habituation"
|
||||
2. "risky"
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition
|
||||
>
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
1.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
21
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Ent Lives Matter.md
Normal file
21
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Ent Lives Matter.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "a good person is someone with only good desires and true beliefs."
|
||||
|
||||
## Semantics
|
||||
1. **good desire** is a desire that sentient beings generally have a reason to praise.
|
||||
2. **bad desire** is a desire that sentient beings generally have a reason to condemn.
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
what if the machine determined that they desired babies getting chopped up
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#moral_realism
|
||||
#moral_subjectivism
|
||||
22
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Fleur.md
Normal file
22
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Fleur.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>NTT is not effective (empirical claim)
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition
|
||||
>NTT is unlikely to convince people who are philosophical academics of veganism
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
1. effective with respect to what?
|
||||
1. ability to convince someone of veganism?
|
||||
2. what's the evidence?
|
||||
1.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtag
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
50
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Frenchguy.md
Normal file
50
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Frenchguy.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "People don't want to eat Beyond Meat because their stock is decreasing."
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:----------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | a firm's (x) stock has lost value |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">*Q*</font> | a firm (x) has the highest sales in its domain (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | a domain (y) is expected to be losing demand |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | Beyond |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | mock meat market |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If a firm's stock has lost value and that firm has the highest sales in its domain, then that domain is expected to be losing demand.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Px∧Qxy→Ry))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Beyond's stock has lost value.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Pb)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Beyond has the highest sales in the mock meat market.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Qbm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the mock meat market is expected to be losing demand.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Rm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Px~1Qxy~5Ry)),(Pb),(Qbm)|=(Rm))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#economics
|
||||
40
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Garland Farms.md
Normal file
40
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Garland Farms.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Debate Proposition:
|
||||
|
||||
> "Vegans wish to abolish and criminalize animal agriculture, however, the crop agriculture relied upon by vegans is more unethical than the animal agriculture relied upon by non-vegans."
|
||||
|
||||
>"There is dissonance between vegan values and the knowledge vegans possess?
|
||||
|
||||
1. Is the claim that vegans are hypocrites?
|
||||
- Refuses to answer the question.
|
||||
2. What is meant by unethical?
|
||||
-
|
||||
3. What is the argument that crop ag is less ethical than non-crop ag?
|
||||
-
|
||||
|
||||
## Reference:
|
||||
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecog.05126
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>Nick is in favour of intentionally disrupting ecosystems.
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
1. **Intentionally disrupt** just means I'm in favour of non-violent displacement of wild animals.
|
||||
1. Don't disagree with the proposition.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
#cropdeaths
|
||||
#low_carb_talking_points
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
94
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Gary Taubes.md
Normal file
94
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Gary Taubes.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "carbohydrates cause obesity because they cause starvation."
|
||||
|
||||
## Arguments
|
||||
|
||||
### Steel Man of Gary's Argument
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Variable**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definition**</font> |
|
||||
|:----------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | a macronutrient (x) causes starvation |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**N**</font> | a macronutrient (x) increases insulin |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**f**</font> | fat |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | carbs |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> A macronutrient causes starvation if and only if a macronutrient increases insulin.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Sx↔Nx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Fat does not increase insulin, whereas carbs do.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Nf∧Nc)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, fat does not cause starvation, whereas carbs do.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Sf∧Sc)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Sx~4Nx)),(~3Nf~1Nc)|=(~3Sf~1Sc))
|
||||
|
||||
### Gary's Unedited Argument
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Variable**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definition**</font> |
|
||||
|:----------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | a macronutrient (x) causes starvation |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**N**</font> | a macronutrient (x) increases insulin |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | a macronutrient (x) causes hunger |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**f**</font> | fat |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | carbs |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> A macronutrient causes starvation if and only if a macronutrient increases insulin and causes hunger.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Sx↔Nx∧Hx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> A macronutrient causes hunger if and only if a macronutrient increases insulin.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Nx↔Hx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Fat does not increase insulin, whereas carbs do.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Nf∧Nc)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> Fat does not cause hunger, whereas carbs do.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Hf∧Hc)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, fat does not cause starvation, whereas carbs do.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Sf∧Sc)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Sx~4Nx~1Hx)),(~6x(Nx~4Hx)),(~3Nf~1Nc),(~3Hf~1Hc)|=(~3Sf~1Sc))
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. What the fuck does it mean to cause starvation?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
30
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/HairyVeganDude.md
Normal file
30
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/HairyVeganDude.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "consuming processed oils are bad"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
1. What does "processed" mean?
|
||||
2. What does "bad" mean?
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition
|
||||
> "consuming X oils are Y" ???
|
||||
|
||||
## Line of Questioning:
|
||||
1. What's the evidence?
|
||||
1. ""
|
||||
2. What is the argument that is this evidence is more expected on the hypothesis than the negation of the hypothesis?
|
||||
1. An argument is required, because maybe the "evidence" is less or equally expected on the proposition (which would not be evidence for the proposition)
|
||||
3. If he does provide an argument, examine the premises carefully
|
||||
4. If a premise is unconvincing, ask for the argument for the premise
|
||||
5. Repeat if necessary or until you become convinced
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#vegetable_oil
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
38
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Health Wealth Podcast.md
Normal file
38
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Health Wealth Podcast.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition 1
|
||||
>"Optimal health from a diet perspective is providing your body with all the nutrition it needs to thrive."
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
1. What does it mean to thrive?
|
||||
2. How is thriving measured?
|
||||
3. Is it impossible to provide the body with all of these nutrients and still consume a diet that negatively impacts health?
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition 1
|
||||
>"Optimal health from a diet perspective is providing your body with all the nutrition it needs to thrive."
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
1. What does it mean to thrive?
|
||||
2. How is thriving measured?
|
||||
3. Is it impossible to provide the body with all of these nutrients and still consume a diet that negatively impacts health?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition 2
|
||||
>"An optimal diet does not require ANY supplementation"
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
1. Is all that is meant is supplementation is not a requirement to have an optimal diet?
|
||||
2. Is the claim actually that an optimal diet will never contain any supplements?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#supplements
|
||||
14
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Henry.md
Normal file
14
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Henry.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "Pasture raised well treated animal products are more ethical than anything from large scale plant agriculture, because it directly causes less suffering & death and is better for the environment."
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
1. Why the fuck should I accept that? lmao
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
25
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Highlander.md
Normal file
25
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Highlander.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "vegans want to play the definition game when definitions are set in stone"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
1. definition game
|
||||
1. using non-dictionary definitions
|
||||
2. set in stone
|
||||
1. in the dictionary
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition
|
||||
>vegans sometimes use non-dictionary definitions
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
no fucking shit LMAO
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
64
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/ImDemonWolf.md
Normal file
64
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/ImDemonWolf.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "bivalves are sentient because they have a brain."
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
1. "The definition of brain needs to apply to all species... Not being such, it is speciesist intentionally.
|
||||
2. If the definition of a brain doesn't apply to sponges, then your definition of brain is speciesist on your own lights.
|
||||
|
||||
### ImDemonWolf's Definition of a Brain
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**B**</font> | something (x) is a brain |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | something (x) is a convoluted mass of nervous substance |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | something (x) is is encased within a skull |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> Something is a brain if, and only if, something is a convoluted mass of nervous substance and is encased within a skull.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Bx↔Mx∧Sx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> The cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve is convoluted masses of nervous substance.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Mc)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> The cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve is not encased within a skull.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Sc)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the cerebral ganglia inside of a bivalve is not a brain.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Bc)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Bx~4Mx~1Sx)),(Mc),(~3Sc)|=(~3Bc))
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. If your definition of a brain is so broad that it captures structures like cerebral ganglia, I don't see how you're not committed to the proposition that my body contains multiple brains. Do you sign off on that?
|
||||
|
||||
## Receipts
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726122259.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726125553.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726125638.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230726125705.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
75
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Jake Mey.md
Normal file
75
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Jake Mey.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "Vegan Fridays are harmful to children."
|
||||
|
||||
## Arguments
|
||||
|
||||
### Jake's Argument Against Vegan Fridays
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If Vegan Friday meals are unhealthy for children, then it is wrong to feed a Vegan Friday meals to children once per week.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> If Vegan Friday meals are unhealthy for children.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, It is wrong to feed Vegan Friday meals to children once per week.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Jake Consistency Checker
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If children undereat plant foods more than they undereat animal foods, then Meatless Mondays are more likely result in nutritional adequacy in children compared to a policy that increases animal foods.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Children undereat plant foods more than they undereat animal foods.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Meatless Mondays are more likely result in nutritional adequacy in children compared to an intervention that increases animal foods.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
|
||||
|
||||
1. To think Vegan Fridays meaningfully affect health negatively is hilarious
|
||||
1. Assuming around 38 school weeks per year and one vegan meal per week, that's just (38/(365x3))x100=3% of the diet.
|
||||
2. It's even lower when you consider that it's only a small proportion of the meal that is being replaced.
|
||||
1. Assuming it's only a quarter of the diet, it would be ((38/4)/(365x3))x100=0.86% of the total diet.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#plant_foods
|
||||
#animal_foods
|
||||
#public_health
|
||||
58
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Jevan.md
Normal file
58
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Jevan.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
|||
# Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "cows can't live if humans don't eat them."
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
1. on what modality?
|
||||
1. what's the contradiction?
|
||||
2. can you infer to that contradiction?
|
||||
2. if not a modal claim, what is even being said?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "animal agriculture is morally superior because future cows want to live."
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If future cows will want to live, then future cows will be bred.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Future cows will want to live.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, future cows will be bred.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. What the fuck does it mean for a non-existent being to want something?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
#agriculture
|
||||
#animal_agriculture
|
||||
252
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Joey Schwartz.md
Normal file
252
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Joey Schwartz.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
|
|||
# Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence of Consent
|
||||
[[📂 Media/PDFs/Gmail - Debate.pdf]]
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
> "the natural human diet is best for ensuring optimal health."
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. what is the natural human diet
|
||||
2. what does health mean?
|
||||
3. what does it mean for health to be ensured
|
||||
4. what does optimal mean
|
||||
5. what does best mean and is it different than optimal?
|
||||
6. why include the word best if optimal already conveys the meaning?
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
> "All else equal, any diet consisting of less than 20% meat will not be likely to yield maximum longevity to a greater degree than a diet of greater than 80% meat."
|
||||
|
||||
## Line of Questioning:
|
||||
|
||||
1) Is this a scientific hypothesis?
|
||||
1)
|
||||
2) What's the evidence?
|
||||
- "there is a tendency for natural diets to yield longevity relative to novel diets."
|
||||
-
|
||||
3) What is the argument that is this evidence is more expected on the hypothesis than the negation of the hypothesis?
|
||||
- P1:
|
||||
- P2:
|
||||
- C:
|
||||
|
||||
"A scientific hypothesis is an empirically testable proposition that is used to explain something, and help us understand it by systematizing and unifying our knowledge."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debunk
|
||||
|
||||
[Carnivore Essay](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N9C9sqqtCG4VEx8wy-kZM2RCivihuFx8odRBn79DFng/edit)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim #1
|
||||
|
||||
> "There is excellent research in support of ketosis as the natural human state that is a superior alternative to being fueled by glucose/fructose."
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
The provided literature does not provide support for the claim. Even if it is true that ketosis has benefits, that does not tell us anything about whether or not ketosis is "*the* natural human state". If it does, then why isn't fruit consumption considered to be the natural human state as well? Fruit consumption associates with enormous benefits [(1)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28446499/)[(2)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25073782/). What is the difference between the literature on ketosis that is untrue of the literature on fruit, such that the natural human state involves ketosis and the natural human state does not involve fruit consumption?
|
||||
|
||||
### Internal Critique
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | the exposure show benefits to human health |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**N**</font> | the exposure is part of the natural human state |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**f**</font> | fruit |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**k**</font> | ketosis |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If the exposure show benefits to human health, then the exposure is part of the natural human state.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Ex→Nx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Fruit and ketosis show benefits to human health.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Ef∧Ek)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, fruit and ketosis are part of the natural human state.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Nf∧Nk)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Ex~5Nx)),(Ef~1Ek)|=(Nf~1Nk))
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim #2
|
||||
|
||||
>"The next reason why you should adopt a ketogenic carnivore diet is that carbohydrates are a poison"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
The provided literature does not provide support for the claim, as they either pertain to hyperglycemia and hyperglycemia-induced glycation in T2DM, and mechanistic studies. The remaining points have no citations. In reality, many carbohydrate-rich whole foods are strongly inversely associated with the risk of disease [(3)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27537552/)[(4)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28140323/).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim #3
|
||||
|
||||
>"Carbohydrates spike blood sugar, resulting in insulin secretion."
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
This proposition is phrased as though insulin is the mediator of some negative outcome. If true, it also would apply to meat. This is because beef might actually be just as insulinogenic as the average breakfast cereal [(5)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9356547/). Additionally, legumes seem to decrease both fasting glucose and fasting insulin when replacing even lean red meat [(6)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25351652/).
|
||||
|
||||
## Internal Critique
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | the exposure (x) results in insulin secretion |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | the exposure (x) is healthy |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**r**</font> | breakfast cereals |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | beef |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If the exposure results in insulin secretion, then the exposure is not healthy.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Sx→¬Hx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Breakfast cereals and beef result in insulin secretion.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Sr∧Sb)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, breakfast cereals and beef are not healthy.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Hr∧¬Hb)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Sx~5~3Hx)),(Sr~1Sb)|=(~3Hr~1~3Hb))
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim #3
|
||||
|
||||
>"While fruits are a less harmful source of fructose than soda, due to the fiber and nutrients in fruit that slow or prevent the absorption of some fructose, fruit can still make us fat and sick. The fructose molecule in a blueberry is the same fructose in a coke. Fructose elimination is indispensable for a number of reason"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
This is an equivocation. While free fructose could have detrimental effects on weight, fruit appears to have the opposite effect [(7)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31256714/)[(8)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31139631/). In fact, comprehensive meta-analysis consistently finds a strong inverse association between plant foods of many sorts and various diseases [(9)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30639206/). The provided references are about free fructose, not fruit. It is unclear what is meant by "sick" in this context, but a citation is needed for the claim.
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim #4
|
||||
|
||||
>"The plant’s techniques underpinning its desire to survive, along with the impact of these on human health, will be made strikingly clear"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
Mechanistic speculation. The provided literature does not provide support for the claim. Superseded by better evidence, mentioned above.
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim #5
|
||||
|
||||
>"But don’t plant foods have antioxidants, which must counteract the negative effects associated with plant toxins and fiber? As the evidence points out, plant foods do not provide such a benefit."
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
What negative effects are associated with plant consumption? The provided references don't support the claim. Peluso et al. (2018) and Young et al. (2002) were only measuring intermediate markers, not hard outcomes. The reference on cancer risk is superseded by better evidence [(10)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28338764/).
|
||||
|
||||
Additionally, fibre intake is strongly inversely associated with all-cause mortality [(11)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25552267/)[(12)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25143474/). These associations survive adjustment for relevant confounders, such as smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, and physical activity. Lastly, the inverse association between fibre consumption and cardiovascular disease is linear [(13)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24355537/).
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim #6
|
||||
|
||||
>"A carnivorous ketogenic diet is best for human health because ruminant meat includes every nutrient we need in perfect ratios for optimal health. Plants, on the other hand, lack sufficient quantities of nutrients that are vital to sustaining life. These are the essential nutrients that are found in necessary quantities, if not completely exclusively, just in animal protein sources"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
Mechanistic speculation. Despite the fact that sources of animal protein containing these beneficial nutrients and compounds, animal protein is almost universally associated with poorer health outcomes when replacing plant protein [(14)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33411911/)[(15)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699048/).
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim #7
|
||||
|
||||
>"Despite alternative recommendations, a conclusive review of the available data reveals that meat does not cause cancer, and saturated fat is not the enemy"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
For meat, it depends on the type of meat and the type of cancer. It is generally accepted that there is a relationship specifically between red meat and cancer among certain tissue types. For example, red meat consumption is associated with a dose-dependent increase in colorectal cancer risk [(16)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19350627/).
|
||||
|
||||
It should be noted that the magnitude of effect is technically greater than that of smoking, but likely non-inferior. If it is accepted that smoking increases colorectal cancer risk, then what's the difference between the two bodies of evidence that justifies the asymmetrical beliefs?
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim #8
|
||||
|
||||
>"Saturated fat was hypothesized to be bad because it leads to increased levels of LDL cholesterol, which scientists believed caused the health problems in the Western world. The belief that LDL is inherently bad is false"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
Which scientists believed that LDL caused "the health problems of the Western world"? The provided references are superseded by better analyses with better inclusion/exclusion criteria and altogether superior methodology [(17)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428300/)[(18)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20351774/).
|
||||
|
||||
Hooper et al. (2020) shows that reducing saturated fat lowers cardiovascular disease events (analysis 1.35). This effect is strongest when polyunsaturated fats are replacing saturated fats (analysis 1.44), and the relationship is likely mediated by changes in serum cholesterol (analysis 1.51). This relationship was also revealed via meta-regression analysis (table 4, regression 4). This is the exact relationship that we'd expect to see, based on wider research. [(19)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27673306/).
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim #9
|
||||
|
||||
>"A team of researchers at Tel Aviv University established the evidence behind the history of human hypercarnivory in a research paper"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
Tangential. This can be granted, as it does not provide persuasive evidence that carnivore diets are optimally healthy in the long term for humans. Additionally, there are good reasons to be suspicious of foods to which we are most strongly adapted. This can be argued a priori.
|
||||
|
||||
If humans were heavily adapted to meat consumption, antagonistic pleiotropy could actually explain why foods like red meat associate so consistently with an increased risk of poorer health outcomes in the epidemiology [(20)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34284672/)[(21)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29137344/)[(22)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32011623/).
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim #10
|
||||
|
||||
>"Despite the difficulties, in 2021, Harvard University published an observational study of 2029 respondents who ate a carnivore diet for at least 6 months. Participants reported increased levels of wellbeing and health (Lennerz et al., 2021), but the most noteworthy results were in the complete resolution or improvement of the chronic conditions that existed prior to starting the carnivore diet"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
This study is considerably weaker than the vast majority of prospective nutritional epidemiology. If nutritional epidemiology is to be given lower credence in favour of this study, what justifies the lower credence for nutritional epidemiology?
|
||||
|
||||
Additionally, if anything the biomarker results would seem to indicate that the carnivore diet could resist some of the benefits typically observed with significant weight loss. Lastly, the induction of the carnivore diet was commensurate with an increase in coronary artery calcification.
|
||||
|
||||
## References:
|
||||
|
||||
[1] Schwingshackl, Lukas, et al. ‘Food Groups and Risk of All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies’. _The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition_, vol. 105, no. 6, June 2017, pp. 1462–73. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.117.153148.
|
||||
|
||||
[2] Wang, Xia, et al. ‘Fruit and Vegetable Consumption and Mortality from All Causes, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer: Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies’. _BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)_, vol. 349, July 2014, p. g4490. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4490.
|
||||
|
||||
[3] Li, Bailing, et al. ‘Consumption of Whole Grains in Relation to Mortality from All Causes, Cardiovascular Disease, and Diabetes: Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies’. _Medicine_, vol. 95, no. 33, Aug. 2016, p. e4229. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004229.
|
||||
|
||||
[4] Benisi-Kohansal, Sanaz, et al. ‘Whole-Grain Intake and Mortality from All Causes, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies’. _Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)_, vol. 7, no. 6, Nov. 2016, pp. 1052–65. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.3945/an.115.011635.
|
||||
|
||||
[5] Holt, S. H., et al. ‘An Insulin Index of Foods: The Insulin Demand Generated by 1000-KJ Portions of Common Foods’. _The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition_, vol. 66, no. 5, Nov. 1997, pp. 1264–76. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/66.5.1264.
|
||||
|
||||
[6] Hosseinpour-Niazi, S., et al. ‘Substitution of Red Meat with Legumes in the Therapeutic Lifestyle Change Diet Based on Dietary Advice Improves Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Overweight Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Cross-over Randomized Clinical Trial’. _European Journal of Clinical Nutrition_, vol. 69, no. 5, May 2015, pp. 592–97. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2014.228.
|
||||
|
||||
[7] Arnotti, Karla, and Mandy Bamber. ‘Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in Overweight or Obese Individuals: A Meta-Analysis’. _Western Journal of Nursing Research_, vol. 42, no. 4, Apr. 2020, pp. 306–14. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945919858699.
|
||||
|
||||
[8] Guyenet, Stephan J. ‘Impact of Whole, Fresh Fruit Consumption on Energy Intake and Adiposity: A Systematic Review’. _Frontiers in Nutrition_, vol. 6, 2019, p. 66. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00066.
|
||||
|
||||
[9] Yip, Cynthia Sau Chun, et al. ‘The Associations of Fruit and Vegetable Intakes with Burden of Diseases: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses’. _Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics_, vol. 119, no. 3, Mar. 2019, pp. 464–81. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2018.11.007.
|
||||
|
||||
[10] Aune, Dagfinn, et al. ‘Fruit and Vegetable Intake and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease, Total Cancer and All-Cause Mortality-a Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies’. _International Journal of Epidemiology_, vol. 46, no. 3, June 2017, pp. 1029–56. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw319.
|
||||
|
||||
[11] Yang, Yang, et al. ‘Association between Dietary Fiber and Lower Risk of All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies’. _American Journal of Epidemiology_, vol. 181, no. 2, Jan. 2015, pp. 83–91. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu257.
|
||||
|
||||
[12] Kim, Youngyo, and Youjin Je. ‘Dietary Fiber Intake and Total Mortality: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies’. _American Journal of Epidemiology_, vol. 180, no. 6, Sept. 2014, pp. 565–73. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu174.
|
||||
|
||||
[13] Threapleton, Diane E., et al. ‘Dietary Fibre Intake and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’. _BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)_, vol. 347, Dec. 2013, p. f6879. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6879.
|
||||
|
||||
[14] Zhong, Victor W., et al. ‘Protein Foods from Animal Sources, Incident Cardiovascular Disease and All-Cause Mortality: A Substitution Analysis’. _International Journal of Epidemiology_, vol. 50, no. 1, Mar. 2021, pp. 223–33. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa205.
|
||||
|
||||
[15] Naghshi, Sina, et al. ‘Dietary Intake of Total, Animal, and Plant Proteins and Risk of All Cause, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality: Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies’. _BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)_, vol. 370, July 2020, p. m2412. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2412.
|
||||
|
||||
[16] Huxley, Rachel R., et al. ‘The Impact of Dietary and Lifestyle Risk Factors on Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Quantitative Overview of the Epidemiological Evidence’. _International Journal of Cancer_, vol. 125, no. 1, July 2009, pp. 171–80. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.24343.
|
||||
|
||||
[17] Hooper, Lee, et al. ‘Reduction in Saturated Fat Intake for Cardiovascular Disease’. _The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews_, vol. 5, May 2020, p. CD011737. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub2.
|
||||
|
||||
[18] Mozaffarian, Dariush, et al. ‘Effects on Coronary Heart Disease of Increasing Polyunsaturated Fat in Place of Saturated Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials’. _PLoS Medicine_, vol. 7, no. 3, Mar. 2010, p. e1000252. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000252.
|
||||
|
||||
[19] Silverman, Michael G., et al. ‘Association Between Lowering LDL-C and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Among Different Therapeutic Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’. _JAMA_, vol. 316, no. 12, Sept. 2016, pp. 1289–97. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.13985.
|
||||
|
||||
[20] Papier, Keren, et al. ‘Meat Consumption and Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’. _Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition_, July 2021, pp. 1–12. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1949575.
|
||||
|
||||
[21] Zhao, Zhanwei, et al. ‘Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’. _Oncotarget_, vol. 8, no. 47, Oct. 2017, pp. 83306–14. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.20667.
|
||||
|
||||
[22] Zhong, Victor W., et al. ‘Associations of Processed Meat, Unprocessed Red Meat, Poultry, or Fish Intake With Incident Cardiovascular Disease and All-Cause Mortality’. _JAMA Internal Medicine_, vol. 180, no. 4, Apr. 2020, pp. 503–12. _PubMed_, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6969.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#carnivore
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
47
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Jordan.md
Normal file
47
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Jordan.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "Plants have a general tendency to perform an action in ways that is consistent with their self organization."
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
### Criteria for moral value
|
||||
|
||||
1. Autopoiesis
|
||||
- self-organization
|
||||
- self-maintenance
|
||||
- self-regulation
|
||||
- comprising a network of interrelated processes
|
||||
- capable of renewing itself by regulating its composition and maintenance of form
|
||||
- creating its own parts
|
||||
- homeostasis
|
||||
|
||||
## Semantics
|
||||
|
||||
1. Homeostasis
|
||||
- the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements
|
||||
2. Tendency
|
||||
- an propensity to a particular characteristic.
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| **Criteria** | **Atom** |
|
||||
| ----------------------- | -------- |
|
||||
| Tendency | Yes |
|
||||
| Equilibrium | Yes |
|
||||
| Interdependent elements | Yes |
|
||||
|
||||
1. Even atoms would qualify as having moral value.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#philosophy
|
||||
#sentience
|
||||
#autopoiesis
|
||||
#morality
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
83
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/JulyBurnsOrange.md
Normal file
83
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/JulyBurnsOrange.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>It’s way more likely that seed oils are harmful to humans as opposed to the opposite.
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. "likely"
|
||||
1. statistical term or a priori?
|
||||
1. if statistical, what's the data?
|
||||
2. if a priori, what's the argument?
|
||||
1. they're novel foods, only consumed for the last 200 years?
|
||||
2. refining process, rather than it being a novel food
|
||||
1. novel food tho
|
||||
1. arg: adaptation tho
|
||||
1. weston a price tho
|
||||
2. heavily flaws studies tho
|
||||
1. ffqs tho
|
||||
2. ~~refining food tho~~ adding compounds that strays too far from the natural **(conceded!)**
|
||||
1. scenario: choline from eggs vs oil from soybeans in a blueberry smoothie
|
||||
1. symmetry breaker: refining process specific to seed oils
|
||||
1. needs to have seed oil refining process (all other processes presumed cool)
|
||||
1. what about the refining?
|
||||
1. neurotoxins (hexane?)
|
||||
1. fibres in nose tho
|
||||
2.
|
||||
2. ~~what is meant by refining?~~
|
||||
1. ~~adding neurotoxins?~~
|
||||
3. monocropped agriculture tho
|
||||
1. sprayed toxic chemicals (pesticides, etc)
|
||||
1. doesn't know if there's evidence
|
||||
1. appeals to anecdotes again
|
||||
1. signed off on the shit and piss and cum stew, lol
|
||||
2. how do we know the compounds
|
||||
3. GMO allows higher doses
|
||||
2. fewer nutrients, for "good" (means essential and non-essential) nutrients **(conceded!)**
|
||||
1. multivitamins based then?
|
||||
2. apples shit?
|
||||
3.
|
||||
4. anecdote tho
|
||||
1. anecdote > data if n=1
|
||||
1. signed off on the shit and piss and cum stew, lol
|
||||
2. "harmful"
|
||||
1. with respect to what?
|
||||
1.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>"it would be more vegan to abstain from monocropped agriculture" **CONCEDED!**
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. "more vegan"
|
||||
1. more compatible with the VS definition
|
||||
|
||||
## Questions
|
||||
|
||||
**Cruelty** (signed off)
|
||||
1. rewilding vs kidnapping and abandoning babies/kitten?
|
||||
1. rewilding = not cruel
|
||||
2. kidnapping = cruel
|
||||
1. symmetry breaker 1: rewilding better for the environment
|
||||
1. fewer toxins
|
||||
2. produces more oxygen
|
||||
1. didn't sign off/contradiction
|
||||
2. symmetry breaker 2: rewilding returning the space to its natural state
|
||||
1. didn't sign off/contradiction
|
||||
|
||||
**Exploitation**
|
||||
1. signed off
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
70
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Ken Berry.md
Normal file
70
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Ken Berry.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "Animal agriculture produces no unnecessary suffering."
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If farming cows necessitates suffering, then farming cows produces no unnecessary suffering.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Farming cows necessitates suffering.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, farming cows produces no unnecessary suffering.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If stabbing babies necessitates suffering, then stabbing babies produces no unnecessary suffering.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Stabbing babies necessitates suffering.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, stabbing babies produces no unnecessary suffering.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree]([Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q)))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Malpractice Receipts
|
||||
![[📂 Media/PDFs/ME012318.pdf]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
54
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Kevin Bass.md
Normal file
54
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Kevin Bass.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
|||
### Internal Critique For Kevin's Argument Against Seed Oils
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**F**</font> | people should go out of their way to consume the food (x) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**N**</font> | the food (x) has been studied for all health outcomes |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | the food (x) is a novel food product |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**s**</font> | protein powder |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If people should go out of their way to consume the food, then the food has been studied for all health outcomes and the food is not a novel food product.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Fx→(Nx∧¬Px)))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Protein powder has not been studied for all health outcomes.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Ns)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Protein powder is a novel food product.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Ps)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, people should not go out of their way to consume protein powder..
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Fs)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Fx~5(Nx~1~3Px))),(~3Ns),(Ps)|=(~3Fs))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Taurine Fuckery
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220212202913.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#nutrient_deficiency
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#taurine
|
||||
#animal_foods
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
17
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Liutauras.md
Normal file
17
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Liutauras.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition:
|
||||
> "Burden of proof is on you to proof that schumans exists in reality, after all you are using them in your hypothetical."
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
Conceded that he's agnostic about the existence of his own balls.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
#ntt
|
||||
#philosophy
|
||||
48
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Logical Consistency.md
Normal file
48
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Logical Consistency.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>"we shouldn't be involved in influencing animals."
|
||||
|
||||
## ~~Definition of Veganism 1~~
|
||||
>~~"veganism calls for the separation of humans and animals."~~
|
||||
|
||||
#### Questions
|
||||
1. cool with the perpetual carnage machine so long as humans aren't involved?
|
||||
1. answer: yes
|
||||
|
||||
### ~~Definition of Rights 1:~~
|
||||
>~~"a mutual contract between humans."~~
|
||||
|
||||
#### Questions
|
||||
1. do schmumans have rights?
|
||||
1. answer: no
|
||||
2. do retarded humans have rights?
|
||||
1. answer: no
|
||||
|
||||
## Definition of Veganism 2
|
||||
>"veganism calls not influencing animals in negative ways."
|
||||
|
||||
### Definition of Negative:
|
||||
>"to be negative would be rights violations."
|
||||
|
||||
### Definition of Rights 2:
|
||||
>"a mutual contract between beings with moral agency."
|
||||
|
||||
### Definition of Moral Agency:
|
||||
>"having awareness of who your actions impact AND retaining the capacity to choose not to do perform said action."
|
||||
|
||||
#### Questions
|
||||
1. axe murderer scenario?
|
||||
1. answer: not immoral to withhold intervention.
|
||||
2. retarded axe murderer scenario?
|
||||
1. answer: immoral NOT to intervene
|
||||
3. retarded axe murderer attacking retarded person
|
||||
1. answer: immoral NOT to intervene
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtag
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
22
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Marek Doyle.md
Normal file
22
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Marek Doyle.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
|||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "You can't infer cause and effect from epidemiology."
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. can't on what modality?
|
||||
1. what's the contradiction?
|
||||
2. what's the argument for the contradiction?
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
Turned out to be gibberish
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#epidemiology
|
||||
32
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Matthew's Mind.md
Normal file
32
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Matthew's Mind.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Debate Conditions
|
||||
|
||||
1. It would be in my discord NOT yours.
|
||||
2. Everything will be on my terms and conditions.
|
||||
3. No interrupting.
|
||||
4. No stupid philosophy.
|
||||
5. No going of the topic that I chose.
|
||||
6. No name the trait.
|
||||
7. No ethics.
|
||||
8. No appeal to authority with people like the Ada for example.
|
||||
9. Just me and you in the call NO one else.
|
||||
10. It will be pre recorded so no one can give you help during the debate ( although last time I did pre record someone did do that so plz just keep it me and you although if your scared I will edit it I’ll let you record it
|
||||
11. No debating what diets the best purely debating the topic at hand.
|
||||
12. No lying about what I’m saying / I’ll try not to lie about what you are saying.
|
||||
13. No asking for study’s on simple science like b12 being in bacon for example ( last time I debated a vegan he was asking for study’s on iron being in meat lol ) I’d hope when debating you’d have some what basic intellect so I wouldn’t come with that type of research because it’s common sense to even most vegans.
|
||||
14. No foul language
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
Lol, get fucked
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
49
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Michael Hoglund.md
Normal file
49
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Michael Hoglund.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
### Melina's Animal Advocacy Argument
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | action (x) extracts pleasure from a sentient being (y) at its expense |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | action (x) is morally wrong |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | cows |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**d**</font> | dogs |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**e**</font> | eating cows |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**f**</font> | fucking dogs |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If an action extracts pleasure from a sentient being at its expense, then such an action is morally wrong.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Pxy→Mx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Eating cows extracts pleasure from cows at their expense.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Pec)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Fucking dogs extracts pleasure from dogs at their expense.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Pfd)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, eating cows and fucking dogs is morally wrong.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Me∧Mf)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Pxy~5Mx)),(Pec),(Pfd)|=(Me~1Mf))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
#ntt
|
||||
97
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Miguel.md
Normal file
97
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Miguel.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
|
|||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"It is more reasonable to believe that saturated fat-induced increases in serum cholesterol and/or LDL and/or ApoB will increase cardiovascular disease risk than it is to believe the opposite.""
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If measuring and controlling for "other factors" is required to establish a variable as an "independent causal agent", then in order to establish each "other factor" as an "independent causal agent", every other "other factor" needs to be measured and controlled for.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Measuring and controlling for "other factors" is required to establish a variable as an "independent causal agent".
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, in order to establish each "other factor" as an "independent causal agent", every other "other factor" needs to be measured and controlled for.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1) Ask Miguel if he can recreate my position.
|
||||
3) Ask Miguel if "other factors" are independent causal agents.
|
||||
2) If no, ask why we should care about them or ask if they are confounders.
|
||||
3) If yes, run syllogism below.
|
||||
|
||||
## Semantics
|
||||
|
||||
1. Independent causal agent
|
||||
- when a risk factor retains its statistical association with the outcome when other factors for the outcome are included or excluded.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Other factors
|
||||
- Obesity, especially visceral obesity
|
||||
- Insulin resistance
|
||||
- Hypertriglyceridemia
|
||||
- Metabolic syndrome
|
||||
- Type 2 diabetes
|
||||
- HIV disease
|
||||
- Low fat intake or diets enriched with polyunsaturated fat
|
||||
- Cigarette smoking
|
||||
- Liver disease
|
||||
- Renal insufficiency
|
||||
- Drugs
|
||||
- Isotretinoin
|
||||
- Sirolimus (rapamycin)
|
||||
- Protease inhibitors
|
||||
- Androgenic steroids
|
||||
- Nonselective B-blockers
|
||||
- Probucol
|
||||
- Recombinant interleukin-2
|
||||
- Moderate to severe hypertriglyceridemia
|
||||
- Critical illness:
|
||||
- sepsis
|
||||
- burns
|
||||
- small bowel exclusion
|
||||
- Anabolic steroids
|
||||
- Acquired LCAT deficiency
|
||||
- decreased ApoA-I synthesis
|
||||
- Severe cholestasis
|
||||
- Cholestatic liver disease with liver failure
|
||||
- Alcoholic hepatitis
|
||||
- Acute viral hepatitis
|
||||
- Alcoholic cirrhosis
|
||||
- Partial hepatectomy (temporary)
|
||||
- Stress
|
||||
- Genetics
|
||||
- Liver issues
|
||||
- Physical activity
|
||||
- Alcohol consumption
|
||||
- Sugar consumption
|
||||
|
||||
## Receipts
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220611214046.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220611214100.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#philosophy
|
||||
#propositional_logic
|
||||
#de_morgans_laws
|
||||
17
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Not nerf enuf.md
Normal file
17
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Not nerf enuf.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "bivalves are sentient."
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. Let's say there's a brain-dead baby who was born brain-dead. The only thing you know about them is that their brain has no activity and their cerebral ganglia are still active. There is no reason to believe the brain will gain additional activity on its own or can be brought to a state of activity. Do you pull the plug to give the family well-being? Keep in mind, the same amount of well-being is obtained by someone else harvesting and eating a ganglion-adjusted volume of oysters. Also, In this hypothetical, the only thing upon which to base an inference about sentience are the conditions specified above.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
#bivalves
|
||||
536
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Nurse Eric.md
Normal file
536
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Nurse Eric.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,536 @@
|
|||
# Debate 5
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>it is permissible to expose Eric's views by surreptitiously recording private conversations wherein he attempts to justify animal agriculture.
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | one (x) engages in apologia for a holocaust of the innocent (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | it is permissible to expose one's (x) grotesque views by surreptitiously recording private conversations wherein they attempt to justify said holocaust (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**e**</font> | Eric |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | animal agriculture |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If one engages in apologia for a holocaust of the innocent, then it is permissible to expose one's grotesque views by surreptitiously recording private conversations wherein they attempt to justify said holocaust.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Hxy→Sxy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Eric engages in apologia for animal agriculture.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Hea)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is permissible to expose Eric's views by surreptitiously recording private conversations wherein he attempts to justify animal agriculture.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Sea)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Hxy~5Sxy)),(Hea)|=(Sea))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 4?
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
Subject has cucked.
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230312154245.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 3
|
||||
|
||||
## Eric's Definitions
|
||||
|
||||
**Sapience:**
|
||||
""
|
||||
|
||||
**Right:**
|
||||
"an entitlement [to a member of a sapient species] that would be wrong to deny."
|
||||
|
||||
**Moral obligation:**
|
||||
"a responsibility to protect rights [of sapient species]."
|
||||
|
||||
**Consideration:**
|
||||
""
|
||||
|
||||
**Moral Consideration:**
|
||||
""
|
||||
|
||||
## Consent
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221010212223.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
## Eric's Prop With Common Definitions
|
||||
|
||||
>A diet of ruminant meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dairy, olives, avocado, lettuces, skinless and seedless cucumbers, and various squashes is higher in rank, status, or quality in an essential or natural way to a diet that focuses on plants, including vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, seeds, and nuts and limits or avoids animal products.
|
||||
|
||||
What does it mean for one diet to simply have a higher risk, status, or quality, compared to another? With respect to what standard?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Eric's Justifications for Eating Meat
|
||||
|
||||
1) we're all OK with eating animals
|
||||
2) we have dominion over animals
|
||||
3) we take care of animals before slaughter
|
||||
4) animals are not homo sapiens
|
||||
5) animals were not born of a human
|
||||
6) animals do not have human cognition
|
||||
7) animals are ancestral food
|
||||
8) animals are perfect food
|
||||
|
||||
## Eric's Revised Justifications
|
||||
|
||||
"Animals are OK to kill and eat because..."
|
||||
|
||||
1) "All things will die and become food for other living things."
|
||||
- Empirical claim. Requires proof.
|
||||
- Cremation and body donation to medical research both disprove this.
|
||||
- Why couldn't this same argument be used to justify killing and eating humans?
|
||||
2) "Every species has a specific diet."
|
||||
- Definition of "specific diet" required.
|
||||
- Empirical claim. Requires proof.
|
||||
- Humans are a part of many animals' [natural diet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-eater).
|
||||
3) "Meat is the perfect food for humans."
|
||||
- Definition of "perfect" required.
|
||||
- Empirical claim. Requires evidence.
|
||||
- Depending on the definition provided, humans may be the perfect food for some organisms. So would it not be justified to feed humans to these organisms?
|
||||
4) "I would feel privileged to know my body will become future food when I die."
|
||||
- Good for you? Hypothetically, if a race of organisms felt privileged to know their bodies would become future food when they die, would that make it OK for them to farm, kill, and eat you?
|
||||
- If you take point one to be true, why would you phrase this point hypothetically?
|
||||
5) "Animals living on regenerative AG farms live a privileged life."
|
||||
- There are humans who live privileged lives. Is it OK to farm, kill, and eat humans?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Arguments
|
||||
|
||||
### Privilege to Be Eaten Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If organism X is the perfect food for organism Y, then it would be a privilege for organism X to be eaten by organism Y.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Organism X is the perfect food for organism Y.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it would be a privilege for organism X to be eaten by organism Y.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
|
||||
|
||||
#### Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | organism X (x) is the perfect food for organism Y (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | it would be a privilege for organism X (x) to be eaten by organism Y (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**h**</font> | humans |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**l**</font> | lions |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If organism X is the perfect food for organism Y, then it would be a privilege for organism X to be eaten by organism Y.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Pxy→Qxy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Humans are the perfect food for lions.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Phl)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it would be a privilege for humans to be eaten by lions..
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Qhl)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Pxy~5Qxy)),(Phl)|=(Qhl))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Lifestyle Modification Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If the intervention is health promoting, then the intervention is a lifestyle modification intervention.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> The intervention is not a lifestyle modification intervention.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the intervention is not health promoting.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
|
||||
|
||||
#### Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | the intervention (x) is health promoting |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | the intervention (x) is a lifestyle modification intervention |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | TPN |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If the intervention is health promoting, then the intervention is a lifestyle modification intervention.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Px→Qx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> TPN is not a lifestyle modification intervention.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Qt)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, TPN is not health promoting.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Pt)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Px~5Qx)),(~3Qt)|=(~3Pt))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Expensive Tissue Hypothesis Tho
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | food (x) provides more bioavailable energy than food (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | then food (x) is preferable to food (y) with respect to mental health |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | meat |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**g**</font> | grains |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true and X food provides more bioavailable energy than Y food, then X food is preferable to Y food with respect to mental health.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(E∧Hxy→Mxy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(E)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Meat provides more bioavailable energy than grains.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Hmg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, meat is preferable to grains with respect to mental health.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Mmg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(E~1Hxy~5Mxy)),(E),(Hmg)|=(Mmg))
|
||||
|
||||
#### Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | food (x) provides more bioavailable energy than food (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | then food (x) is preferable to food (y) with respect to mental health |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**s**</font> | seed oils |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | meat |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true and X food provides more bioavailable energy than Y food, then X food is preferable to Y food with respect to mental health.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(E∧Hxy→Mxy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis is true.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(E)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Seed oils provides more bioavailable energy than meat.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Hsm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, seed oils are preferable to meat with respect to mental health.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Msm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(E~1Hxy~5Mxy)),(E),(Hsm)|=(Msm))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Fostered Evolution Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If dietary pattern (x) fostered the evolution of homo sapiens, then dietary pattern (x) is intrinsically superior to dietary pattern (y) that did not foster the evolution of homo sapiens.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Dx→Sxy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
Couldn't finish the syllogism because it was question begging. Eric clarified that "fostered the evolution of homo sapiens" and " intrinsically superior" were the same thing.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Sapience Tho
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | A species has rights |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | a species is sapient |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**h**</font> | homo sapiens |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | bos taurus |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> A species has rights if, and only if, a species is sapient.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Rx↔Sx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Homo sapiens sapiens are sapient.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Sh)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Bos taurus are not sapient.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Sb)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Homo sapiens sapiens have rights and Bos taurus do not have rights.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Rh∧¬Rb)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Rx~4Sx)),(Sh),(~3Sb)|=(Rh~1~3Rb))
|
||||
|
||||
#### Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | A species has rights |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | a species is sapient |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | severely mentally handicapped people |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> A species has rights if, and only if, a species is sapient.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Rx↔Sx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Severely mentally handicapped people are sapient.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Sm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Severely mentally handicapped people do not have rights.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Rm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Rx~4Sx)),(~3Sm)|=(~3Rm))
|
||||
|
||||
**Reference:**
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20221005212839.jpg]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Vegans Are Sophists Tho
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | one (x) debates a moral topic (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | one (x) does not engage in realizing their position on the moral topic (y) to the greatest degree practicable |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | one (x) is committed to sophistry |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | vegans |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | animal agriculture |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If one debates a moral topic and one does not engage in realizing their position on the moral topic to the greatest degree practicable, then one is committed to sophistry.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Dxy∧¬Rxy→Sx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Vegans debate the ethics of animal agriculture.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Dva)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Vegans does not engage in realizing their position on the ethics of animal agriculture to the greatest degree practicable.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Rva)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Vegans are committed to sophistry.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Sv)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Dxy~1~3Rxy~5Sx)),(Dva),(~3Rva)|=(Sv))
|
||||
|
||||
#### Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | one (x) debates a moral topic (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | one (x) does not engage in realizing their position on the moral topic (y) to the greatest degree practicable |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | one (x) is committed to sophistry |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | Eric |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">****</font> | regenerative agriculture |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If one debates a moral topic and one does not engage in realizing their position on the moral topic to the greatest degree practicable, then one is committed to sophistry.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Dxy∧¬Rxy→Sx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Eric debates the ethics of regenerative agriculture .
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Der)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Eric does not engage in realizing his position on the ethics of regenerative agriculture to the greatest degree practicable.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Rer)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Eric is committed to sophistry.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Se)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Dxy~1~3Rxy~5Sx)),(Der),(~3Rer)|=(Se))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Dog Molestation Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | the animal (x) can understand freedom, life, and death |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**F**</font> | it is OK to sexually molest animal (x) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**g**</font> | dogs |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**o**</font> | cows |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> It is not OK to sexually molest an animal if and only if the animal understands freedom, life, and death.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(¬Mx↔Fx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Dogs do not understand freedom, life, and death.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Fg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Cows do not understand freedom, life, and death.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Fo)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If it is OK to sexually molest cows, then it is OK to sexually molest dogs.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Mo→Mg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is OK to sexually molest dogs.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Mg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(~3Mx~4Fx)),(~3Fg),(~3Fo),(Mo~5Mg)|=(Mg))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
#agriculture
|
||||
#animal_agriculture
|
||||
23
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/OhitsTeddy.md
Normal file
23
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/OhitsTeddy.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>"there is a causal association between mental illness and facial tattoos"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. mental illness
|
||||
1. how were the diagnoses obtained?
|
||||
2. from what data are you drawing the causal inference?
|
||||
1. if it's just an anecdote, what if a tattooist with equal experience reports the opposite?
|
||||
|
||||
## Receipts
|
||||
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20240420201851.png]]
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20240420202003.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
62
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Olicsa.md
Normal file
62
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Olicsa.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"That carnivore/hyper-carnivore is best for optimal human health and is ethically appropriate."
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
1. what does "carnivore/hyper-carnivore" mean? If this is an inclusive disjunction, whichever diet is "less" carnivorous than the other will be one being argued for.
|
||||
- ""
|
||||
2. what does "ethically appropriate" mean? What sort of ethics (rights, utility, rules?), Appropriate with regards to what?
|
||||
- ""
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition 1
|
||||
|
||||
>"Red muscle meat diet with some bone marrow and salt supplies the nutrients that humans need to develop."
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition 2
|
||||
|
||||
>"Red muscle meat diet with some bone marrow and salt is not shame-worthy."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Clarified Proposition 3
|
||||
|
||||
>"Red muscle meat diet with some bone marrow and salt lacks phytochemicals that cause damage to the human body."
|
||||
|
||||
## Line of Questioning:
|
||||
|
||||
### What's the evidence?
|
||||
|
||||
1. Animal nutrients not found in plants
|
||||
- Lack of animal foods causes nutritional deficiencies
|
||||
- Brain size decreases with agriculture **(not evidence)**
|
||||
2. Phytochemicals in plants
|
||||
- Pesticides in plants are carcinogenic **(not evidence)**
|
||||
3. Limited adaptations for eating plants
|
||||
- Don't see carnivores benefitting from plants
|
||||
4. Plants want to defend themselves with chemicals
|
||||
5. Many anecdotes count in favour of the carnivore **(not evidence)**
|
||||
6. Blue zones eat a lot of meat and live the longest **(not evidence)**
|
||||
7. Carnivorous animals don't thrive on herbivorous diets **(not evidence)**
|
||||
8. The removal of fibre could help constipation
|
||||
- We can only break down a small amount of the fibre
|
||||
9. RCTs show that animal fat is superior to plant fat
|
||||
- MCE, SDHS, WHI **(not evidence)**
|
||||
10. Paleolithic humans had the same life span as modern humans despite not having access to modern medicine **(not evidence)**
|
||||
- Maasi live to be over 100 **(not evidence)**
|
||||
11. Harvard carnivore study **(not evidence)**
|
||||
|
||||
## Cherry on top
|
||||
|
||||
Whatever he says, ask him if he would accept the same for X diet
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#carnivore
|
||||
#philosophy
|
||||
17
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Orgate.md
Normal file
17
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Orgate.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>"A debate is a dialogue where one seeks to prove their own position and disprove their opponents position."
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
1. This is essentially just a proprietary conceptualization of the burden of proof. Some whacky dual/mutual burden of proof.
|
||||
2. What about those who are agnostic?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
13
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Paul Mason.md
Normal file
13
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Paul Mason.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Receipts
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230620190404.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#vegetable_oil
|
||||
73
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Paul Saladino.md
Normal file
73
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Paul Saladino.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**F**</font> | a food (x) as poor mineral yields |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | a food (x) is healthy |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**o**</font> | oatmeal |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If a food as poor mineral yields, then the food is not healthy.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Fx→¬Hx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Oatmeal has poor mineral yields.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Fo)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, oatmeal is not healthy.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Ho)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Fx~5~3Hx)),(Fo)|=(~3Ho))
|
||||
|
||||
### Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**F**</font> | a food (x) as poor mineral yields |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | a food (x) is healthy |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**n**</font> | honey |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If a food as poor mineral yields, then the food is not healthy.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Fx→¬Hx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Oatmeal has poor mineral yields.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Fn)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, oatmeal is not healthy.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Hn)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Fx~5~3Hx)),(Fn)|=(~3Hn))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#carnivore
|
||||
16
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Question Begger.md
Normal file
16
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Question Begger.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"if you support monocrop agriculture you're causing soil erosion"
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
opponent conceded the prop
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtag
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
52
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Rakhi Sawant.md
Normal file
52
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Rakhi Sawant.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
|
|||
### Argument for Eating Animals
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | it is immoral to kill someone (x) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Q**</font> | someone (x) values their life |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | someone (x) has the capacity to value their life |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | a given animal |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> For all things, it is immoral to kill someone if, and only if, someone values their life or someone has the capacity to value their life.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Px↔(Qx∨Rx)))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> A given animal do not value their life.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Qa)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> A given animal does not have the capacity to value their life.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Ra)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is not immoral to kill a given animal.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Pa)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Px~4(Qx~2Rx))),(~3Qa),(~3Ra)|=(~3Pa))
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. On what modality is it impossible for animals to value their lives?
|
||||
- an adjective
|
||||
2. What is the contradiction on that modality?
|
||||
- a proposition in conjunction with its negation
|
||||
3. Can you argue to that contradiction?
|
||||
- an argument with premises and a conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
54
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Rick Moore.md
Normal file
54
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Rick Moore.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "seed oils are poison."
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | food (x) is poison |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | food (x) was created by a food industry that is largely controlled by marketing budgets of companies with no motivational avenue other than to promote addictions |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**s**</font> | seed oils |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**w**</font> | whole foods |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> The food is poison if, and only, if the food was created by a food industry that is largely controlled by marketing budgets of companies with no motivational avenue other than to promote addictions.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Mx↔Px))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Seed oils were created by a food industry that is largely controlled by marketing budgets of companies with no motivational avenue other than to promote addictions.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Ms)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Whole foods were not created by a food industry that is largely controlled by marketing budgets of companies with no motivational avenue other than to promote addictions.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Mw)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, seed oils are poison and whole foods are not poison.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Ps∧¬Pw)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Mx~4Px)),(Ms),(~3Mw)|=(Ps~1~3Pw))
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. Argument for P1?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
43
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Rob Hanna.md
Normal file
43
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Rob Hanna.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "someone is a woman if they have a female reproductive system."
|
||||
|
||||
## Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**W**</font> | someone (x) is a woman |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | someone (x) has reproductive organs to give birth |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | Olivia Munn |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> Someone is a woman if, and only if, someone has female reproductive organs to give birth.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Wx↔Rx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Olivia Munn does not have female reproductive organs to give birth.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Rm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, Olivia Munn is not a woman.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Wm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Wx~4Rx)),(~3Rm)|=(~3Wm))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtag
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#transgender
|
||||
31
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Robbie Puddick.md
Normal file
31
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Robbie Puddick.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"saturated fat is not a major causal contributor to heart disease process"
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
1. displacement effect (displacing heart healthy fats)
|
||||
2. use butter to the degree that recipes call for it
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. carbs tho
|
||||
- resolved by Mensink 2016
|
||||
2. low fat guidelines tho
|
||||
- irrelevant, randomized
|
||||
3. data quality tho
|
||||
- LA Veterans was uber based
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#saturated_fat
|
||||
#LDL
|
||||
#cardiovascular_disease
|
||||
40
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Sameer Dossani.md
Normal file
40
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Sameer Dossani.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
>"These principles disprove the idea that eating meat or saturated fat causes heart attacks." - Sameer Dossani
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. **"we care about heart disease, we don't care about cholesterol."**
|
||||
1. ApoB is the causal agent [(1)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32203549/).
|
||||
2. GWAS show ApoB is linearly associated across numerous mechanisms [(2)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30694319/). ![[Pasted image 20220628124254.png]]
|
||||
3. LDL-C as a proportional relationship to ASCVD risk [(3)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27673306/). ![[Pasted image 20220628124445.png]]
|
||||
4. LDL-C correlates with risk when other risk factors are optimized [(4)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29241485/). ![[Pasted image 20220628124922.png]]
|
||||
5. Discordance can explain the lack of association at lower LDL-C [(5)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15296705/)
|
||||
2. **"cholesterol is necessary for life."**
|
||||
3. **"heart disease is a modern phenomenon."**
|
||||
1. Traditional populations still get ASCVD [(6)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23489753/).
|
||||
4. **"there are non-western, historic populations that don't suffer from heart disease."**
|
||||
1. The Maasai still get ASCVD[(7)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5007361/).
|
||||
2. The Inuit still get ASCVD[(8)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2206175/)[(9)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12535749/).
|
||||
3. Inuit mummies still show ASCVD [(10)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31880790/).
|
||||
|
||||
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.034032
|
||||
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220628135128.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hilarious Argument
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230723135007.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#LDL
|
||||
#cardiovascular_disease
|
||||
67
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Seed Oil Dodging Cucks.md
Normal file
67
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Seed Oil Dodging Cucks.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
|
|||
Adam Pollock (aIIegoricaI)
|
||||
Adam Singer (AdamSinger)
|
||||
Andy Scott (AndyJScott)
|
||||
Austin Herbert (_AustinHerbert)
|
||||
Ally Houston (AllyTransforms)
|
||||
Anthony Gustin (dranthonygustin)
|
||||
Bart Kay (Bart_WT_Kay)
|
||||
Ben Bikman (BenBikmanPhD)
|
||||
Brad Cohn (BradCohn)
|
||||
Brad Marshall (fire_bottle)
|
||||
Brian Kerley (SeedOilDsrspctr)
|
||||
Brian Sanders (FoodLiesOrg)
|
||||
Cate Shanahan (drcateshanahan)
|
||||
Chris Boettcher (chrisboettcher9)
|
||||
Chris Knobbe (ChrisKnobbeMD)
|
||||
Clara Aboel-Nil (AIWellnessCoach)
|
||||
Corey Nelson (ZeroAcreFarms)
|
||||
David Gornoski (DavidGornoski)
|
||||
Elie Jarrouge (ElieJarrougeMD)
|
||||
Eric Levinson (connected_dad)
|
||||
Gary Brecka (garybrecka1)
|
||||
Gary Fettke (FructoseNo)
|
||||
Guy Austin (GuyNAustin)
|
||||
Ivor Cummins (FatEmperor)
|
||||
James DiNicolantonio (drjamesdinic)
|
||||
Jeff Nobbs (jeffnobbs)
|
||||
Joseph Everett (JEverettLearned)
|
||||
Justin Mares (jwmares)
|
||||
Kait Malthaner (healthcoachkait)
|
||||
Kem Minnick (kemminnick)
|
||||
Ken Berry (KenDBerryMD)
|
||||
Kristie Leong (DrKristieLeong)
|
||||
Lori Shemek (LoriShemek)
|
||||
Mark Sisson (Mark_Sisson)
|
||||
Max Lugavere (maxlugavere)
|
||||
Michael Kummer (mkummer82)
|
||||
Michael Padula (MJPadula)
|
||||
Mike Mutzel (MikeMutzel)
|
||||
Nina Teicholz (bigfatsurprise)
|
||||
Paul Mason (DrPaulMason)
|
||||
Paul Saladino (paulsaladinomd)
|
||||
Peter InNorfolk (Peter_InNorfolk)
|
||||
Raphael Sirtoli (raphaels7)
|
||||
Robert Lufkin (robertlufkinmd)
|
||||
Ryan Walker (Cooking_it_Keto)
|
||||
Sama Hoole (SamaHoole)
|
||||
Samar Sheoran (samarsheoran)
|
||||
Seed Oil Scout (SeedOilScout)
|
||||
Sergi Escanes (SergiEscanes)
|
||||
Shashi Iyengar (shashiiyengar)
|
||||
Shraddhey Katiyar (Wegiveyouhealt1)
|
||||
Simon Goddek (goddeketal)
|
||||
Travis Statham (Travis_Statham)
|
||||
Tristan Haggard (Trxstxn4)
|
||||
Tucker Goodrich (TuckerGoodrich)
|
||||
Vinnie Tortorich (VinnieTortorich)
|
||||
Zoe Harcombe (zoeharcombe)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#vegetable_oil
|
||||
42
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Shawn Baker.md
Normal file
42
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Shawn Baker.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Internal Critique of Shawn's Trait
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | beings (x) are morally permissible to kill for food the way we kill cows for food |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | beings (x) are human (homo sapiens sapiens) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**e**</font> | homo erectus |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If beings are not morally permissible to kill for food the way we kill cows for food, then the beings are human (homo sapiens sapiens).
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(¬Px→Hx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Homo erectus are not human.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬He)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, homo erectus are morally permissible to kill for food the way we kill cows for food.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Pe)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(~3Px~5Hx)),(~3He)|=(Pe))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#carnivore
|
||||
14
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Sir Tater.md
Normal file
14
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Sir Tater.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"seed oils, when eaten to the exclusion of animal fats, increase the risk of heart disease and stroke."
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. what's the evidence for that?
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
111
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/StormblessedJ.md
Normal file
111
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/StormblessedJ.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>"something has a soul if it has the capacity for human-level intelligence and has a consciousness"
|
||||
|
||||
## Semantics
|
||||
1. capacity for intelligence
|
||||
- 16B neurons
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
### Pepsi Monodiet Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | the consumption of (x) something has only been studied in the context of consuming (y) something else |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**T**</font> | it is known what effects (x) something has in the absence of (y) something else |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | it is rational to consume a monodiet of (x) something |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | meat |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**c**</font> | plants |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**p**</font> | Pepsi |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If the consumption of something has only been studied in the context of consuming something else, then it is not known what effects something has in the absence of something else.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Sxy→¬Txy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> It is reasonable to consume a monodiet of something if and only if it is not known what effects something has in the absence of something else.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Rx↔¬Txy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> The consumption of meat has only been studied in the context of plant consumption.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Sma)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> The consumption of Pepsi has only been studied in the context of meat consumption.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Spm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> If is not known what effects meat has in the absence of plants, then it is not known what effects Pepsi has in the absence of meat.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Tma→¬Tpm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is rational to consume a monodiet of Pepsi.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Rp)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Sxy~5~3Txy)),(~6x~6y(Rx~4~3Txy)),(Sma),(Spm),(~3Tma~5~3Tpm)|=(Rp))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
### Argument for High Quality Research
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | A study (x) counts as high quality |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**U**</font> | A study can be applied to anyone universally on a population level (meaning perfect external validity) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**e**</font> | An experiment with humans in a lab under constant observation and controls for life or a direct mechanism |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> A study counts as high quality if, and only if, the study can be applied to anyone universally on a population level (meaning perfect external validity).
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Hx↔Ux))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> An experiment with humans in a lab under constant observation and controls for life or a direct mechanism can not be applied to anyone universally on a population level (meaning imperfect external validity).
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Ue)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> An experiment with humans in a lab under constant observation and controls for life or a direct mechanism counts as high quality.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(He)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is and it not the case that an experiment with humans in a lab under constant observation and controls for life or a direct mechanism counts as high quality.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴He∧¬He)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Hx~4Ux)),(~3Ue),(He)|=(He~1~3He))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
5
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Superbaboon.md
Normal file
5
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Superbaboon.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
|
|||
![[Pasted image 20240522154005.png]]
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20240522154012.png]]
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20240522154016.png]]
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20240522154511.png]]
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20240522155210.png]]
|
||||
18
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Taylor.md
Normal file
18
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Taylor.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"nutrition science is not an exact science"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. what does "exact" mean?
|
||||
2. what qualifies as an exact science?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtag
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#epidemiology
|
||||
22
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Travis Statham.md
Normal file
22
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Travis Statham.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
> "It is more reasonable to believe that seed oils are not a significant, independent concern for the development of cardiovascular disease and/or cancer and/or type 2 diabetes and/or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and/or obesity than it is to believe the opposite."
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
The subject has [declined](https://twitter.com/The_Nutrivore/status/1533109830436757510?s=20&t=bzh2Z_94W32IpNNdez6OiQ) the debate invite, stating that he does not have enough knowledge on the subject to debate it with me. So maybe someone else would enjoy stepping up to the plate instead.
|
||||
|
||||
## Receipts
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220513172043.png]]
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20220513152753.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#travis_statham
|
||||
443
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Tucker Goodrich.md
Normal file
443
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Tucker Goodrich.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,443 @@
|
|||
### Primitive cultures tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Chronic Disease Claims:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
> 1) Chronic diseases are not caused by known pathogens or acute toxins, and typically are found in societies that have an advanced level of agriculture, and universally in countries that have adopted industrial methods of food production; but are absent in those that have primitive methods of agriculture, or depend on hunting and gathering. As far as I am aware, there is not a single population that does not eat seed oils that suffers from the chronic diseases.
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Response:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
Drawing conclusions about the health value of traditional diets (or the health value of novel foods) by reference to the apparent health status of traditional cultures is an error. There are too many epistemic barriers. The details on this matter are summarized [here](https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/should-we-eat-like-hunter-gatherers). Plus, it's [not even true](https://discord.gg/gzknNUw5hB) that ancestral or primitive populations are free of chronic disease.
|
||||
|
||||
Tucker's looking at ecological associations. We can also posit many things that these populations don't have access to, that modern populations with chronic disease have access to. Causal inference from this association [is dubious](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24567587/), because it does not explore what happens to individuals in a modern context when they are actually consuming vegetable oils.
|
||||
|
||||
When those higher internal validity investigations are done and meta-analytically summated, we see an inverse relationship between vegetable oil intake and many chronic diseases.
|
||||
|
||||
### LDL Oxidation Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Oxidized LDL Claims:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
> 1) The European Atherosclerosis Society endorses the idea that oxidized LDL is the major initiator of atherosclerosis.
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Response:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
For the first point, Tucker cites Figure 3 from the European Atherosclerosis Society's [second consensus statement paper](https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/41/24/2313/5735221).
|
||||
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220208185617.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
If we turn our attention to Figure 1, the first step is actually LDL particle concentration driving intimal infiltration and retention. They are very clear in their model that proteoglycan-mediated retention of LDL precedes LDL oxidation in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. It's also clear that aggregated LDL contribute to atherosclerosis through a separate pathway and isn't mediated by oxidative modification of LDL.
|
||||
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220208185647.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
Tucker also leaves out the first part of the section he chooses to quote, which states that **all** LDL particles exert atherogenicity. Oxidative susceptibility is listed as a single variable.
|
||||
|
||||
However, the authors of the reference for this claim have [different views on the matter](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15166804/). As they correctly state that n-6 polyunsaturated fat intake is associated with a decreased CHD risk, despite the increase in the susceptibility of LDL particles to oxidize. Meaning that despite whatever increase in LDL oxidation that is conferred through a diet higher in n-6 polyunsaturated fat, it may not be enough to offset the benefits of the n-6 polyunsaturated fat on CHD risk in the aggregate.
|
||||
|
||||
We can simultaneously accept that LDL oxidation is part of the causal pathway without having to grant that vegetable oils increase the risk of CHD. Furthermore, we could even accept that vegetable oils increase LDL oxidation, but we also wouldn't have to grant that vegetable oils increase the risk of CHD on that basis either. These are all different research questions, again.
|
||||
|
||||
> 2) M. S. Brown & Goldstein 1990, attempted to use ApoB (LDL) to induce macrophages to become foam cells, which was thought to be the first step in atherosclerosis, and thus CHD. It failed. OxLDL, however, succeeded (Steinberg et al. 1989). Which is why their paper is titled “Beyond cholesterol. Modifications of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) that increase its atherogenicity.” LDL, ApoB—what we often call ‘cholesterol’—doesn’t without oxidation induce atherosclerosis. This is the ONLY explanation we have for this process now.
|
||||
|
||||
The second point is a red herring. We can fully grant that oxLDL are a part of the causal pathway toward ASCVD. However, we don't also have to grant that vegetable oils would increase ASCVD risk, despite them perhaps increasing LDL oxidation. Those are two different research questions. The data that he cites here contains no information about CHD risk. Again, it is a mechanism, from which he extrapolates to risk without corroborating data.
|
||||
|
||||
Also, [Borén et al. 2020](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32052833/) states very clearly that the concentration of LDL particles drives intimal retention, and that intimal retention precedes LDL oxidation in the causal pathway. To claim that oxLDL is the "only" explanation for the process is to not understand the causal model.
|
||||
|
||||
### Heart Disease Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Atherosclerosis Claims:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
> 1) The beneficial effects of the Mediterranean diet on LDL oxidation are easily explained by the MUFA/PUFA balance of the diets, because oleic acid is better at replacing linoleic acid in LDL particle membranes.
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Response:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
To the first point, there is a study of a [fast food Mediterranean diet](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17887946/) wherein the MUFA:PUFA ratio remained virtually identical from the pre- to post-diet phase for group A (diabetic subjects), going from 2:1 (pre-intervention) to 2.1:1 (post-intervention). The result was one of the most significant increases in the lag time to LDL oxidation I've ever observed in the literature from diet alone. This is despite an increase in PUFA.
|
||||
|
||||
> 2) Vitamin E has failed to show benefit for heart disease prevention because vitamin E can cause LDL to oxidize.
|
||||
|
||||
For the second point, This is reconcilable with the accepted pathophysiology of atherosclerosis (the response to retention hypothesis), as detailed in the European Atherosclerosis Society's landmark papers on the subject. The causal model that has been accepted by the scientists within this domain places LDL oxidation downstream in the pathway (preceded by intimal retention). Once LDL are retained, oxidation is inevitable. This is why LDL oxidation has never really panned out as a viable way to modify ASCVD risk.
|
||||
|
||||
Even if it were true that vitamin E can cause LDL to oxidize it would be red herring, because it's also true that high enough doses of supplemental vitamin E either [functionally abolish the effect of linoleic acid on LDL oxidation](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8148354/) or [significantly attenuates the susceptibility of LDL to oxidize](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10781654/). Other antioxidants like [vitamin C](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23279831/) and [polyphenols](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15168036/) can also lower LDL's susceptibility of oxidation.
|
||||
|
||||
> 3) The Lyon Diet-Heart Study is the only test of lowering linoleic acid for CVD risk improvement, and was one of the most successful diet trials ever conducted.
|
||||
|
||||
For the third point, Tucker attributes the 73% reduction in myocardial infarction risk observed in the [Lyon Diet-Heart Study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7911176/) to a 4.5g/day difference in linoleic acid, despite the fact that the trial was a multifactorial intervention that improved diet quality in multiple ways.
|
||||
|
||||
We have directly tested the effect of modifying the linoleic acid content of the diet on CVD risk. The [Oslo Diet-Heart Study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5477261/), [Los Angeles Administration Hospital Study](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.CIR.40.1S2.II-1), or the [Medical Research Council Study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4175085/) are all studies that specifically substituted high linoleic acid fats for saturated fat and saw reductions in CVD risk. So, why should we grant him that such a paltry contrast in exposure would produce such a massive decrease in risk, when the rest of the literature on the subject suggests that much higher intakes actually decrease risk?
|
||||
|
||||
But even if we entertained Tucker's notion, we can turn to the [wider body of literature](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20351774/) seeing decreased risk with higher intakes of LA to find a defeater. This can be syllogized like this:
|
||||
|
||||
### Lyon Diet Heart Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If increasing LA beyond 5% of energy increases AMI risk, then increasing LA beyond 5% of energy doesn't lower AMI risk..
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→¬Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Increasing LA beyond 5% of energy lowers AMI risk.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, increasing LA beyond 5% of energy doesn't increase AMI risk.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5~3Q),(P)|=(~3Q))
|
||||
|
||||
> 4) One must dig deep to cherry-pick Hooper et al 2020 to support the claim that vegetable oils decrease the risk of ASCVD. All these decades of research, and we’re left with “little or no effect”. That’s the best we can do?
|
||||
|
||||
For next point, Tucker is the one cherry-picking [their summary](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428300/) in order to make his point. The summary primarily reports on mortality data, which is less sensitive than total events (which the summary states was a significant finding).
|
||||
|
||||
If you were to read analyses 1.35, 1.44, and 1.51, they divulge that lowering SFA lowers total CVD events, the effect is strongest when PUFA replaces SFA, and the CVD risk reduction is a function of the magnitude in serum cholesterol reduction. It is also divulged in figure 6 that serum cholesterol functions as a significant moderator variable between SFA and CVD in their meta-regression analysis. Tucker needs to unpack how this qualifies as cherry-picking.
|
||||
|
||||
### Mercodia Test Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
4E6 Antibody Assay Claims:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
> 1) The Mercodia 4E6 antibody assay used to measure oxidized LDL has such poor sensitivity that it essentially just provides you with a measure of ApoB, due to it making such poor distinctions between oxidized LDL and native LDL. As evidenced by the R<sup>2</sup> for oxLDL and native LDL being >0.70.
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Response:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
Firstly, Tucker misunderstands how the [4E6 assay works](https://www.mercodia.com/product/oxidized-ldl-elisa/#:~:text=Mercodia%20Oxidized%20LDL%20ELISA%20is,epitope%20in%20oxidized%20ApoB-100.&text=Substituting%20aldehydes%20can%20be%20produced,the%20generation%20of%20oxidized%20LDL). It captures both minimally and maximally oxidized ApoB that have a minimum number of lysine residues modified by aldehydes. The assay uses an antibody that binds to ApoB after at least 60 lysine residues have been modified. The antibody doesn't bind unless this minimum threshold of lysine residue modification has been crossed. This is significant because that is the threshold that forecloses LDL-receptor binding and opens scavenger-receptor binding.
|
||||
|
||||
Merely stating that oxLDL and LDL (as measured by the 4E6 assay) are strongly correlated doesn't actually mean that the 4E6 test is invalid and making poor distinctions between oxLDL and LDL. This is a similar mistake to one [that Tsimikas made](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.CIR.0000164264.00913.6D?related-urls=yes&legid=circulationaha%3B111%2F18%2Fe284) while defending his preference for a different assay, the E06 antibody assay. It's not clear how Tucker or Tsimikas come to their conclusions, because all it could mean is that these potentially distinct markers tend to covary.
|
||||
|
||||
It is expected that oxLDL (as measured by 4E6) would correlate well with ApoB if it is also detecting trivially oxidized LDL. This shouldn't be revelatory to us, and again, a high correlation doesn't demonstrate low sensitivity for the test. Tucker needs to explain why a high correlation between variables entails low sensitivity for a test that aims to make distinctions between them. This is like saying that shoe size is a poor measurement of foot size because foot size and height are tightly correlated. Like, what? That doesn't even make any sense.
|
||||
|
||||
> 2) The conclusion of (Wu et al., 2006) is correct, but the results are meaningless as to causation, as they are adjusting a measure of oxLDL by itself, effectively. Of course there is no additional correlation.
|
||||
|
||||
Secondly, oxLDL is not being adjusted by itself, and it is absurd to think that it is. That actually doesn't make any sense. They were testing the explanatory power of each marker in a mutually adjusted model. The results of those mutual adjustments contradict the hypothesis that the 4E6 assay makes poor distinctions between oxLDL and native LDL.
|
||||
|
||||
If the 4E6 assay was truly making poor distinctions between oxLDL and native LDL, the results of the LRT by [Wu et al. (2006)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16949489/) would suggest extreme multicollinearity as indicated [similarly (enormously) wide confidence intervals](https://statisticsbyjim.com/regression/multicollinearity-in-regression-analysis/) for both results. If oxLDL and native LDL were proxying for one another in the model, we'd expect the confidence intervals for each relative risk to be inflated and more likely non-significant because of how the standard error would be effected. Instead of seeing this, we actually see evidence of independence and precision between oxLDL (as measured by 4E6) and ApoB.
|
||||
|
||||
On balance of probabilities, within that dataset it is not only less likely to be the case that risk is more closely tracking oxLDL, there is also no evidence for it and evidence against it.
|
||||
|
||||
The entire argument can be expressed syllogistically with modus tollens:
|
||||
|
||||
### 4E6 Sensitivity Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If extreme multicollinearity is characterized by low precision and occurs when proxies are included in the same model and the 4E6 antibody assay poorly distinguishes between oxLDL and ApoB, then including oxLDL and ApoB in the same model produces evidence of extreme multicollinearity.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P∧Q→R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Extreme multicollinearity is characterized by low precision and occurs when proxies are included in the same model.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Including oxLDL and ApoB in the same model does not produce evidence of extreme multicollinearity.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the 4E6 antibody assay does not poorly distinguish between oxLDL and ApoB.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~1Q~5R),(P),(~3R)|=(~3Q))
|
||||
|
||||
Lastly, If oxPL and ApoB tend to correlate, then regression analysis may not find a significant correlation between oxPL/ApoB and ApoB. This is because the ratio would remain largely constant across the spectrum of ApoB. But again, it's not as though the correlation between markers contains any information about the sensitivity of the tests used to make distinctions between those markers. This seems to be an error that Tucker consistently makes.
|
||||
|
||||
### Lung Cancer Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Lung Cancer Claims:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
> 1) The IARC has a 95-page monograph on cooking oils and lung cancer.
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Response:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
It is important to emphasize that the [IARC monograph](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385523/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK385523.pdf) only contains case-control studies. Case-control studies are retrospective in nature and cannot be used to assess temporality. This means that they are extremely ill-equipped to inform causal inference. The associations may be interesting, but they are not consistently in the direction Tucker would presuppose.
|
||||
|
||||
In most of the analyses, it is unknown if vegetable oils are truly the source of the "fumes" or "kitchen smoke" that they are discussing. To try to get around this, we can aggregate all of the data that was specific to cooking with vegetable oils. In an attempt to make sure that lower PUFA oils were always the comparator, we will also need to invert some of the risk ratios. Here are the results:
|
||||
|
||||
**Random-Effects Model**
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220208205838.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixed-Effects Model**
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220208205920.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
In the aggregate, cooking with higher PUFA oils results in a non-significant decrease in lung cancer risk. Random Effects: RR 0.93 (CI 0.68-1.27), P=0.64. Fixed Effects: RR 0.91 (CI 0.78-1.05), P=0.20.
|
||||
|
||||
Neither of these results should cause us to run for the hills when we see a deep fryer. Chances are good that the results of these case-control studies are tracking some other exposure. Like kang use, coal stoves, wood stoves, overconsumption, etc. Especially since two studies showed an increased risk of boiling food, with one finding being significant and the other being non-significant.
|
||||
|
||||
There is also a [meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24925369/) investigating the relationship between PUFA and lung cancer, which showed a linear, non-significant decrease in risk with higher intakes.
|
||||
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220209180218.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
However, many of the included risk ratios were specific to fish. If we limit the risk ratios to just those that investigated total PUFA, we see no significant association with lung cancer risk.
|
||||
|
||||
![[PUFAlungcancer.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
### Shitty Replication Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Nutritional Epidemiology Claims:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
> 1) Findings in nutritional epidemiology tend not to replicate, because the data is terrible quality.
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Response:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
To support this claim, Tucker cites a paper by [Young and Karr (2011)](https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.x) as evidence that nutritional epidemiology and RCTs agree 0% of the time. However, if you read it, they investigated "claims of causation", rather than comparing effect sizes and directionality head to head. This is probably the least rigorous way to investigate this.
|
||||
|
||||
Rather, there have been two actual systematic investigations into rates of concordance between nutritional epidemiology and randomized controlled trials. In both analyses, actual treatment effects from RCTs were compared to observed associations in nutritional epidemiology.
|
||||
|
||||
One compared [34 associations](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23700648/) that had matched RCT data. The other compared [97 diet-disease outcome pairs](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34526355/), which included over 950 trials and over 750 cohort studies for their comparison analysis. Overall their findings were that nutritional epidemiology agrees with RCT data between 65-67% of the time.
|
||||
|
||||
These are more robust, rigorous analyses than the one that Tucker cited, and therefore they supersede Tucker's reference. Not only that but we should have more confidence in them by virtue of the fact that their findings replicated well despite their study pools differing drastically.
|
||||
|
||||
Here is how this position can be defended syllogistically:
|
||||
|
||||
### Epi Bad Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If comparing effect sizes to effect sizes is more apples-to-apples than comparing expert opinions to effect sizes, and 950 is a larger sample size than either 12 or 52, and 34 is a larger number of exposures than 11, then the Schwingshackl paper has better methods and a larger sample size than the Young and Karr paper.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>((P∧Q∧R)→S)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Comparing effect sizes to effect sizes is more apples-to-apples than comparing expert opinions to effect sizes.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> 950 is a larger sample size than either 12 or 52.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> 97 is a larger number of exposures than 11.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the Schwingshackl paper has better methods and a larger sample size than the Young and Karr paper.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴S)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#((P~1Q~1R)~5S),(P),(Q),(R)|=(S))
|
||||
|
||||
As a funny aside, even if he was correct it would make nutrition epidemiology extremely robust. Because a truly 0% replication rate would mean that all you would have to do is do the opposite of whatever nutritional epidemiology said in order to get the right answer.
|
||||
|
||||
If Tucker decides to argue against epidemiology in favour of interventional research on the basis of confounding variables in epidemiology, we can run these arguments on him to check his consistency. If he accepts the premises for both inferences, then he needs to provide interventional evidence to validate every confounder.
|
||||
|
||||
### Experimental Evidence Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If experimental evidence is required to demonstrate causality and confounding is a causal concept, then experimental evidence is required to validate potential confounders.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P∧Q→R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Experimental evidence is required to demonstrate causality.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Confounding is a causal concept.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, experimental evidence is required to validate potential confounders.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~1Q~5R),(P),(Q)|=(R))
|
||||
|
||||
Tucker has also taken the position that linoleic acid might be the only dietary component that matters for chronic disease outcomes.
|
||||
|
||||
> Compared to what? I don't think it matters, even for TFA. That's a huge potential side-issue, so maybe we should just leave that for another time. It's highly confounded, as most TFA came along w/ LA, so hard to discern... But I feel the data is there, so we can include.
|
||||
|
||||
This position can be syllogized as such:
|
||||
|
||||
### Confounding Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If the dietary component is confounding, then the dietary component is linoleic acid.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> The dietary component is not linoleic acid.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, the dietary component is not confounding.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(~3Q)|=(~3P))
|
||||
|
||||
### Liver Lat Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Fatty Liver Claims:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
> 1) Linoleic acid containing intravenous lipid emulsions cause liver failure or liver dysfunction in children on total parenteral nutrition.
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Response:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
For the first point, within this body of literature the primary hypothesis that has been put forth to explain the cholestasis observed with soybean oil based lipid emulsions [implicates phytosterols](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9437703/) as the primary driver.
|
||||
|
||||
When you match the infusion rate of phytosterol-containing fish oil based IVLEs to that of the highest allowable levels of Intralipid, such that the stigmasterol infusion rate is matched, you see [the pathology in mice](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24107776/). Meaning that this is likely not a linoleic acid effect, but rather a phytosterol effect.
|
||||
|
||||
> 2) Linoleic acid induces non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
|
||||
|
||||
As for the second point, Tucker prefers to cite two studies. In the [first study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32652034/) youths were placed on a diet with a "low" n-6/n-3 ratio. However, exploring their supplementary materials reveals that n-6 wasn't modified, with n-3 was increased instead.
|
||||
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220209154104.png]]
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220209154326.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
In the [second study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26408952/), the intervention was uncontrolled and subjects actually lost enough weight that they went from being clinically obese to clinically overweight. The independent effect of linoleic acid is not divulged here.
|
||||
|
||||
In fact, we have trials directly testing the effects of altering dietary fatty acid composition on liver fat accumulation. In the context of [overfeeding](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24550191/), linoleic acid resists liver fat accumulation. In the context of [eucaloric feeding](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22492369/), linoleic acid reduces liver fat.
|
||||
|
||||
### Endocannabinoids Tho
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Obesity Claims:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
> 1) Linoleic acid induces obesity through endocannabinoid activation in the brain, mediated by changes in 2-arachidonoylglycerol.
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">
|
||||
Response:
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
For the first point, according to the secondary endpoint analysis done by [Hooper et al. 2020](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428300/) with the Cochrane Collaboration, Olso Diet-Heart saw a 2.5kg reduction in body weight during their study period, whereas the Medical Research Council saw no change in body weight as well.
|
||||
|
||||
Additionally, the LA Veterans trial did not observe significant differences in body weight by eight years of 40g/day of linoleic acid in the experimental group. The Sydney Diet Heart Study also saw reductions in body weight on a similarly high linoleic acid diet.
|
||||
|
||||
The acute effects of high linoleic acid diets have [also been investigated multiple times](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20492735/). In aggregate, there is no significant effect of varying meal fatty acid composition on postprandial satiety, appetite, or energy intake.
|
||||
|
||||
> 2) Rimonabant provides an open-and-shut case for the obesogenic effect of linoleic acid in humans, because it blocks the effects of 2-AG on the endocannabinoid system.
|
||||
|
||||
To the second point, while it is true that this drug does appear to reduce energy intake and result in weight loss that is equal to just over a [quarter-pound per week](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17054276/), CB-antagonists such as Rimonabant are not specifically targeting LA metabolism. All this research tells us is that the endocannabinoid system is involved with the regulation of body weight in humans, but it does not tell us what independent contribution of vegetable oil.
|
||||
|
||||
Why doesn't Tucker also hold this belief for oleic acid increasing weight via oleamide? Oleamide is an endocannabinoid that is synthesized in the human body from oleic acid (similarly to how 2-AG is synthesized from arachidonic acid), and is the primary fatty acid found in olive oil. Rodents dosed with oleamide tend to [become lethargic](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14615880/) and [increase their energy intake](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15193744/). It is also true that experimental diets high in oleic acid have been shown to [induce obesity in rodents](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9627373/). Lastly, olive oil consumption has [skyrocketed in the United States since 1983](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26524031_Olive_and_olive_pomace_oil_packing_and_marketing). This is around the same time that the American obesity epidemic [first began](https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity). Interestingly, because oleamide is [also a cannabinoid receptor-1 agonist](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14707029/) and inhibits the action of both oleamide and 2-AG, the implications of Rimonabant apply equally to this hypothesis as they do to the hypothesis that implicates linoleic acid in obesity.
|
||||
|
||||
If the same sort of mechanistic hypothesis can be formed using evidence that is largely equal in quality to the evidence that was used to build the case against dietary linoleic acid, why doesn't Tucker believe that olive oil can cause obesity?
|
||||
|
||||
Given his claims about the endocannabinoid system, we could get him to bite the bullet on olive oil causing obesity. Here's how that could be syllogized:
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, for the third point, this observation can be reconciled with the [conventional paradigm of obesity](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ajcn/nqac031/6522166), which posits that both access to abundant hyperpalatable food and other environmental factors converge to activate certain key systems within the human brain that drive overconsumption. The association is also superseded by experimental evidence showing that high vegetable oil diets don't seem to cause weight gain.
|
||||
|
||||
### Obesogenic Olive Oil Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | elevating CB1 agonists (x) promotes hyperphagia |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | (y) foods that elevate CB1 agonists promotes weight gain |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**o**</font> | olive oil |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | oleamide |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**s**</font> | seed oils |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | 2-AG |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If elevating CB1 agonists promotes hyperphagia, then foods that elevate CB1 agonists promotes weight gain.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Hx→Wy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Elevating oleamide promotes hyperphagia.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Hm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Elevating 2-AG promotes hyperphagia.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Ha)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If seed oils promote weight gain, then olive oil promotes weight gain.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Ws→Wo)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, olive oil promotes weight gain.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Wo)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Hx~5Wy)),(Hm),(Ha),(Ws~5Wo)|=(Wo))
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
1. Tucker affirms P2 on his [blog](https://yelling-stop.blogspot.com/2021/11/does-linoleic-acid-induce-obesity.html).
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220307113948.png]]
|
||||
2. Tucker is also pro olive oil.
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220307115137.png]]
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220307115615.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#tucker_goodrich
|
||||
67
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Turning Veganese.md
Normal file
67
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Turning Veganese.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"Killing odd-order predators is incompatible with veganism."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Semantics
|
||||
1. Veganism
|
||||
- an ethical stance against all forms human to non-human animals oppression."
|
||||
2. Opression
|
||||
- use and/or abuse and/or exploitation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. Is it oppressive to let the murderers kill and eat a woman?
|
||||
- ""
|
||||
2. Is it oppressive to let the lions kill and eat a woman?
|
||||
- ""
|
||||
3. Is it oppressive to let the lions kill and eat a gazelle?
|
||||
- ""
|
||||
|
||||
### Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | something (x) is vegan |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | something (x) does not involve human on non-human animal exploitation |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**P**</font> | the products (x) generated are not vegan |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | bees pollinating human crops |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**a**</font> | apples |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> Something is vegan if, and only if, something does not involve human on non-human animal exploitation.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Vx↔¬Ex))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Bees pollinating human crops involves human on non-human exploitation.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Eb)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> If bees pollinating human crops is not vegan, then the products generated are not vegan.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Vb→∀x(¬Px))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, apples are not vegan.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Pa)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Vx~4~3Ex)),(Eb),(~3Vb~5~6x(~3Px))|=(~3Pa))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
25
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Vssj91.md
Normal file
25
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Vssj91.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"odd order predator killing is immoral."
|
||||
|
||||
## Semantics
|
||||
|
||||
1. Veganism
|
||||
- a set of duties humans have toward animals, such as preventing their commodification and objectification, and to a lesser degree preventing harm.
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. NTT with respect to preventing animal procreation
|
||||
- world a: tards hypnotizing tards into sex
|
||||
- world b: animals fucking other animals
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
#predators
|
||||
43
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Wilbo.md
Normal file
43
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Wilbo.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
|
|||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"Beef enhances vitality, pep, intelligence, and drive and vitality, pep, intelligence, and drive are needed in order to invent carbon capture, so beef is essential to solving climate change"
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> Vitality, pep, intelligence, and drive are needed in order to invent carbon capture.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(V∧P∧N∧D→C)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Inventing carbon capture is needed to solve climate change.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(C→L)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Beef leads to enhanced vitality, pep, intelligence, and drive.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(B→V∧P∧N∧D)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, beef is needed to solve climate change.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴B→L)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. What's the argument for P3?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#meat
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
51
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/XDB500.md
Normal file
51
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/XDB500.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
|
|||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"A food increases blood glucose only if it contains carbs, and a food causes diabetes only if it raises blood glucose."
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:----------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | food (x) raises blood glucose |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | food (x) contains carbohydrate |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | food (x) causes diabetes |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**m**</font> | meat |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> A food raises blood glucose if, and only if, it contains carbohydrates.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Rx↔Cx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> A food causes diabetes if, and only if, it raises blood glucose.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Dx↔Cx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Meat does not contain carbohydrates.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Cm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, meat does not raise blood glucose or cause diabetes.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Dm∨¬Rm)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. How do you explain this? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25351652/
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#type_2_diabetes
|
||||
#carbohydrates
|
||||
83
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Zoom.md
Normal file
83
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/Zoom.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
>"veganism is immoral."
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | one has an obligation to convince others of something (x) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | something (x) is a moral obligation |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**O**</font> | it is immoral to convince others of something (x) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**I**</font> | something (x) is immoral |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**v**</font> | veganism |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> One has an obligation to convince others of something if and only if that something is a moral obligation.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>∀x(Cx↔Mx)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> It is immoral to convince others of something if and only if that something is not a moral obligation.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>∀x(Ox↔¬Mx</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Veganism is not a moral obligation.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Mv)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If it is immoral to convince others of veganism, then veganism is immoral.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>()</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, veganism is immoral.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Iv)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
## Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:----------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | one has an obligation to convince others of something (x) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | something (x) is a moral obligation |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | abstaining from baby rape |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> One has an obligation to convince others of something if and only if that something is a moral obligation..
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Cx↔Mx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Abstaining from baby rape is a moral obligation..
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Mb)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, one has an obligation to convince others to abstain from baby rape.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Cb)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
117
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/redwildboi33.md
Normal file
117
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/redwildboi33.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
|
|||
# Debate 3
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"On Nick's definition it is and is not the case that Nick is Intentionally conspiring to cause harm."
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
Conceded he was a gibberish generator
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230822151303.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"Veganism is attacking food security."
|
||||
|
||||
## Argument
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> In order to be secure in our existence, we need food.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(A)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> There are finite amounts of resources.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(B)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Population expansion is at 67 million (with a 2% multiplier) annually.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(C)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> Humans have morphological characteristics that inhibit us from digesting unlockable carbs such as langan and cellulose.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(D)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> 70% of the global surface is water.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(E)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P6)</b></font> There is no structure for monocropping on water bodies.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(F)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P7)</b></font> There are waste products involved in animal agriculture.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(G)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P8)</b></font> 86% of waste manufacture products are fed back to livestock.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(H)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P9)</b></font> The waste products are not fit for human consumption.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(I)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P10)</b></font> Pigs cecums are longer than human rectums.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(J)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P11)</b></font> Poultry gizzards can absorb more mineral content than humans.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(K)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P12)</b></font> The phosphorous that poultry can absorb would kill a human.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(L)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P13)</b></font> Copper is deadly to sheep.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(M)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, veganism is attacking food security.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴N)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(A),(B),(C),(D),(E),(F),(G),(H),(I),(J),(K),(L),(M)|=(N))
|
||||
|
||||
# Debate 2
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
>"The international case studies are conclusive in their findings that dairy maximizes growth potential"
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
1. same attitude toward the relationship between smoking and longevity?
|
||||
1. if no, why?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
#clowns
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#environment
|
||||
#vegan
|
||||
42
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/sixsrs.md
Normal file
42
🛡️ Debate/🗡️ Opponents/sixsrs.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
|||
# Debate 1
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
> "subjecting seed oils to extreme cooking methods is one of the major issues plaguing people's health."
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
1. "major issues"
|
||||
- what proportion of total issues?
|
||||
1. "people's heath"
|
||||
- what endpoints?
|
||||
|
||||
### Compounds tho
|
||||
1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejlt.201700376
|
||||
2. https://www.fda.gov.tw/upload/133/content/2013050913435287631.pdf
|
||||
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280786965_Effect_of_Heating_on_the_Characteristics_and_Chemical_of_Selected_Frying_Oils_and_Fats
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-sectional studies tho
|
||||
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652203444X
|
||||
|
||||
### Rodents tho
|
||||
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1537189114000536?via%3Dihub
|
||||
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8840387/#:~:text=Epididymal%20fat%20weight%20and%20body,robustly%20decreased%20body%20fat%20accumulation
|
||||
|
||||
### Inflammation tho
|
||||
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22162245/#:~:text=The%20postprandial%20inflammatory%20response%20after,the%20presence%20of%20phenol%20compounds
|
||||
|
||||
### Tsimane tho
|
||||
1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.22556
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
Total clownery
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_opponents
|
||||
|
||||
22
🛡️ Debate/🛑 Moderation/Matt Nagra vs Marek Doyle.md
Normal file
22
🛡️ Debate/🛑 Moderation/Matt Nagra vs Marek Doyle.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
|||
## Proposition
|
||||
|
||||
> "You can't infer cause and effect from epidemiology"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes
|
||||
|
||||
Marek's goalpost:
|
||||
- sub-stratification
|
||||
- departing from usual reporting systems (e.g., averages)
|
||||
|
||||
Marek's criteria for causal inference:
|
||||
- **Consistency**: "epi on red meat and cvd is consistent above >100g/day."
|
||||
- **Strength of association**: "the SoA is comparable between red meat and light smoking."
|
||||
- **Specificity**: ""
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#debate_moderation
|
||||
36
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ancestry/Anabolic Potential on Keto.md
Normal file
36
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ancestry/Anabolic Potential on Keto.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
|||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If a higher proportion of amino acids are spent on gluconeogenesis while on ketogenic diets compared to non-ketogenic diets, then a lower proportion of amino acids are available for hypertrophy on ketogenic diets compared to non-ketogenic diets.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> A higher proportion of amino acids are spent on gluconeogenesis while on ketogenic diets compared to non-ketogenic diets.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> If a lower proportion of amino acids are available for hypertrophy on ketogenic diets compared to non-ketogenic diets, then ketogenic diets are likely to cost anabolic potential compared to non-ketogenic diets.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Q→R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, ketogenic diets are likely to cost anabolic potential compared to non-ketogenic diets.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P),(Q~5R)|=(R))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#keto
|
||||
#hypertrophy
|
||||
45
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ancestry/Ancestral Health-Seeker.md
Normal file
45
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ancestry/Ancestral Health-Seeker.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
|
|||
### Ancestral Health Consistency Checker
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**A**</font> | F(x) would be acting against their values |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | F(x) is in favour of consuming N(y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**F(x)**</font> | someone who favours consuming ancestral foods to the exclusion of novel foods because they value reducing disease risk |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**N(y)**</font> | a novel food that reduces disease risk when replacing an ancestral food |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If there exists someone who favours consuming ancestral foods to the exclusion of novel foods because they value reducing disease risk, and there exists a novel food that reduces disease risk when replacing an ancestral food, then if that person is not in favour of consuming that novel food, then that person would be acting against their values.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∃xFx∧∃yNy→∀x∀y(¬Cxy→Ax))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> There exists someone who favours consuming ancestral foods to the exclusion of novel foods because they value reducing disease risk.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∃xFx)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> There exists a novel food that reduces disease risk when replacing an ancestral food.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∃yNy)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, if that person is not in favour of consuming that novel food, then that person would be acting against their values.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴∀x∀y(¬Cxy→Ax))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~7xFx~1~7yNy~5~6x~6y(~3Cxy~5Ax)),(~7xFx),(~7yNy)|=(~6x~6y(~3Cxy~5Ax)))
|
||||
|
||||
Essentially, if our interlocutor identifies as "**F**", then all we need to do is demonstrate to them that "**N**" exists, and we're essentially home free. If they accept that "**N**" exists and they also identify as "**F**", then they should be in favour of substituting such a novel food for such an ancestral food. If they don't then they have a contradiction.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
41
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ancestry/Ancestral Superiority.md
Normal file
41
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ancestry/Ancestral Superiority.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
|||
### Ancestral Superiority Consistency Test
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | something (y) is more ancestral than something else (z) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**N**</font> | engaging (x) with something (y) is to be favoured over engaging with something else (z) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**b**</font> | black people |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**w**</font> | white people |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**s**</font> | sex |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If something is more ancestral than something else, then engaging with something is to be favoured over engaging with something else.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y∀z(Cyz→Nxyz))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Black people are more ancestral than white people.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Cbw)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, sex with black people is to be favoured over sex with white people.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Nsbw)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y~6z(Cyz~5Nxyz)),(Cbw)|=(Nsbw))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
#clownery
|
||||
#ancestral
|
||||
206
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ancestry/Antagonistic Pleiotropy.md
Normal file
206
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ancestry/Antagonistic Pleiotropy.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
|
|||
### Argument Against Ancestral Diets
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definitions**</font> |
|
||||
| ------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Antagonistic pleiotropy**</font> | When one adaptation controls for more than one trait, where at least one of these traits is beneficial to the organism's fitness early on in life and at least one is detrimental to the organism's fitness later on due to a decline in the force of natural selection. |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Ancestral food**</font> | A food to which we are presumably adapted, due to having consumed it consistently throughout evolutionary history. |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Novel food**</font> | A food to which we are presumably not adapted, due to not having consumed it consistently throughout evolutionary history. |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Short term**</font> | Within the reproductive window. |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Long term**</font> | Beyond the reproductive window. |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Gene degradation**</font> | The natural decline in gene functionality due to entropy. |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Gene repair**</font> | The regulated repair of genes that lose functionality due to entropy. |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Adaptation**</font> | Inherited traits that are the product of natural selection. |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Ancestral diets**</font> | Diets comprised of ancestral foods. |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Unnatural diets**</font> | Diets that contain at least one novel food. |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**A**</font> | a human trait (x) is antagonistically pleiotropic |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**E**</font> | the human trait (x) is an evolutionary adaptation |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**N**</font> | the human trait (x) mediates more than one downstream effect, one of which is negative in the post-reproductive window of the carrier |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | the majority of human genes succumb to degradation |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | human genes must be assumed to be antagonistically pleiotropic |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | humans have more genetic adaptations to ancestral foods than novel foods |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | antagonistic pleiotropy applies more to ancestral foods than it does to novel foods |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | there is a novel food that has non-inferior short term health value compared to a given ancestral foods |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**U**</font> | there is a novel food that is likely to be superior to such an ancestral food in the long term |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**O**</font> | there are unnatural diets that are superior to ancestral diets |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**i**</font> | the interaction between degradation and repair |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> A human trait is antagonistically pleiotropic if and only if the trait is an evolutionary adaptation and the trait mediates more than one downstream effect, one of which is negative in the post-reproductive window of the carrier.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Ax↔Ex∧Nx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> The interaction between gene degradation and gene repair is an evolutionary adaptation.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Ei)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> The interaction between gene degradation and gene repair mediates more than one downstream effect, one of which is negative in the post-reproductive window of the carrier.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Ni)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If the interaction between gene degradation and gene repair is antagonistically pleiotropic and all human genes succumb to degradation, then all human genes must be assumed to be antagonistically pleiotropic.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Ai∧D→M)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> The majority of human genes succumb to degradation.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(D)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P6)</b></font> If the majority of human genes must be assumed to be antagonistically pleiotropic and humans have more genetic adaptations to ancestral foods than novel foods, then antagonistic pleiotropy applies more to ancestral foods than it does to novel foods.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(M∧R→C)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P7)</b></font> Humans have more genetic adaptations to ancestral foods than novel foods.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P8)</b></font> If antagonistic pleiotropy applies more to ancestral foods than it does to novel foods and there is a novel food that has non-inferior short term health value compared to a given ancestral food, then there is a novel food that is likely to be superior to such an ancestral food in the long term.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(C∧V→U)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P9)</b></font> There is a novel food that has non-inferior short term health value compared to a given ancestral food.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(V)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P10)</b></font> If there is a novel food that is likely superior to such an ancestral food in the long term, then there are some unnatural diets that are superior to some ancestral diets.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(U→O)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, there are some unnatural diets that are superior to some ancestral diets.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴O)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Ax~4Ex~1Nx)),(Ei),(Ni),(Ai~1D~5M),(D),(M~1R~5C),(R),(C~1V~5U),(V),(U~5O)%7C=(O))
|
||||
|
||||
Essentially, human DNA tends to degrade over time when it doesn't rightfully need to, as evidenced by the existence of biologically immortal organisms. Human DNA repair is also regulated and gene-specific. Given these facts, DNA degradation in humans itself is likely to be adaptive. This assigns every gene in our DNA that degrades over time a single antagonistically pleiotropic trait. Since most DNA in the human genome degrades over time, we can infer that over 50% of genes are antagonistically pleiotropic.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Antagonistic Pleiotropy and Ancestral Foods
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If humans have more genetic adaptations to ancestral foods than novel foods, then antagonistic pleiotropy is more of a concern for ancestral foods than novel foods.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Humans have more genetic adaptations to ancestral foods than novel foods.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> If antagonistic pleiotropy is more of a concern for ancestral foods than novel foods, then novel foods that are equal in their short-term advantages to ancestral foods are more likely to be beneficial for long-term health.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Q→R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, novel foods that are equal in their short-term advantages to ancestral foods are more likely to be beneficial for long-term health.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P),(Q~5R)|=(R))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Antagonistic Pleiotropy and Ancestral Foods
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If humans have more genetic adaptations to ancestral foods than novel foods, then antagonistic pleiotropy is more of a concern for ancestral foods than novel foods.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Humans have more genetic adaptations to ancestral foods than novel foods.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, antagonistic pleiotropy is more of a concern for ancestral foods than novel foods.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Argument for the Superiority of Certain Novel Foods
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If a given novel food has non-inferior health value to a given ancestral food in the reproductive window, then such a novel food is likely to be superior to such an ancestral food in the post-reproductive window.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> A given novel food has non-inferior health value to a given ancestral food in the reproductive window.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, such a novel food is likely to be superior to such an ancestral food in the post-reproductive window.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(P)|=(Q))
|
||||
|
||||
![[Pasted image 20220619152531.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
Basically, we can infer that a certain subset of novel foods, which are non-inferior to ancestral foods early in life, are likely to be superior to ancestral foods later in life. This is based on the fact that most adaptations are antagonistically pleiotropic, and novel foods do not belong to the domain of foods that can be antagonistically pleiotropic.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Superior Unnatural Diet
|
||||
|
||||
Take the best ancestral diet and...
|
||||
- Swap out saturated fat.
|
||||
- Add on supplementary protein powder.
|
||||
- Add in supplementary soluble fibre.
|
||||
- Add in phytosterol-enriched vegetable oils.
|
||||
- Add in processed cocoa like chocolate
|
||||
- Replace red meat with processed soy like tofu.
|
||||
- Fortify foods with B12, folic acid, calcium, and vitamin D.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#ap_argument
|
||||
#novel_food
|
||||
#ancestral_food
|
||||
#primitive_cultures
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
#antagonistic_pleiotropy
|
||||
#philosophy
|
||||
#evolution
|
||||
38
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ancestry/Immortality Reductio.md
Normal file
38
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ancestry/Immortality Reductio.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
|||
### Immortality Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Variable**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definition**</font> |
|
||||
|:----------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | humans undergo normal physiological process (x) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**R**</font> | normal physiological process (x) does result in negative health outcome (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**s**</font> | senescence |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**d**</font> | death |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If humans undergo a normal physiological process, then the normal physiological process does not result in a negative health outcome.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Hx→¬Rxy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Humans undergo senescence.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Hs)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, senescence does not result in death.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬Rsd)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Hx~5~3Rxy)),(Hs)|=(~3Rsd))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
57
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ancestry/Polyphenol Reductio.md
Normal file
57
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ancestry/Polyphenol Reductio.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
|
|||
### Polyphenol Reductio
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Variable**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definition**</font> |
|
||||
|:----------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**H**</font> | plant defense chemicals (x) are harmful |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | plant defense chemicals (x) are contained in food (y) |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**V**</font> | plant defense chemicals (x) render food (y) harmful. |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**M**</font> | genetic modification that removes (p) renders (g) less harmful |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**p**</font> | polyphenols from grass |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**g**</font> | grass-fed beef |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If plant defense chemicals are harmful and plant defense chemicals are contained in a food, then plant defense chemicals render the food harmful.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x∀y(Hx∧Cxy→Vxy))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Polyphenols from grass are harmful.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Hp)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> Polyphenols from grass are contained in grass-fed beef.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Cpg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If polyphenols from grass render grass-fed beef harmful, then genetic modification that removes polyphenols from grass renders grass-fed beef less harmful.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Vpg→Mpg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> Polyphenols from grass render grass-fed beef harmful.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Vpg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, genetic modification that removes polyphenols from grass renders grass-fed beef less harmful.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Mpg)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x~6y(Hx~1Cxy~5Vxy)),(Hp),(Cpg),(Vpg~5Mpg),(Vpg)|=(Mpg))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
#carnivore
|
||||
|
||||
58
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Abortion Rights.md
Normal file
58
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Abortion Rights.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
|||
### Abortion Rights
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If one consents to becoming pregnant or one consensually engages in sexual activity without contraception, then one is implicitly committed to at least accepting the average risks for the average pregnancy.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P∨Q→R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> One consents to becoming pregnant.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> One consensually engages in sexual activity without contraception.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If one is implicitly committed to at least accepting the average risks for the average pregnancy and one's pregnancy persists long enough for fetal sentience to develop and one's risk profile during pregnancy is not high, then one is morally bound to carrying the pregnancy to term.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(R∧F∧¬H→M)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> One's pregnancy persists long enough for fetal sentience to develop.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(F)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P6)</b></font> One's risk profile during pregnancy is not high.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬H)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P7)</b></font> If one is morally bound to carrying the pregnancy to term, then one's whims are not a sufficient justification for the termination of sentient human life.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(M→¬W)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, one's whims are not a sufficient justification for the termination of sentient human life.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬W)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~2Q~5R),(P),(Q),((R~1F~1~3H)~5M),(F),(~3H),(M~5~3W)|=(~3W))
|
||||
|
||||
![[📂 Media/Images/Pasted image 20230607150451.png]]
|
||||
|
||||
# Hastags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#abortion
|
||||
#philosophy
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
42
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Anti-Natalism.md
Normal file
42
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Anti-Natalism.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
|||
## The Eternal Intergalactic Sentience Patrol Squad
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> If humans abstaining from procreation maximally reduces rights violations, then humans have sterilized all sentient life in the universe.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(P→Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> Humans have not sterilized all sentient life in the universe.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Q)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> If humans abstaining from procreation does not maximally reduce rights violations and many more generations are required to sterilize all sentient life in the universe, then humans should not abstain from procreation until all sentient life in the universe is sterilized.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬P∧R→¬S)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> Many more generations are required to sterilize all sentient life in the universe.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(R)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, humans should not abstain from procreation until all sentient life in the universe is sterilized.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴¬S)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(P~5Q),(~3Q),(~3P~1R~5~3S),(R)|=(~3S))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
#anti-natalism
|
||||
109
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Ethical Slurs.md
Normal file
109
🛡️ Debate/🪶 Arguments/Ethics/Ethical Slurs.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
|
|||
### Argument for Using the Term Retard
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**B**</font> | (x) slur has been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of (x) slur |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | it is permissible to neutralise the term retard's negative connotations |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**A**</font> | it is generally permissible to use the term retard with an altered non-bigoted meaning |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**r**</font> | retard |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> For all slurs, (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised if and only if, (x) slur has been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Cx↔Bx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> For all slurs, if it is not the case that (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised, then oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of (x) slur.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(¬Cx→Dx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> It is not the case that the term retard's negative connotations have been neutralised.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Cr)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If the term retard has not been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage and oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of the term retard, then it is permissible to neutralise the term retard's negative connotations.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Br∧Dr→Sr)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> If it is permissible to neutralise the term retard's negative connotations, then It is generally permissible to use the term retard with an altered non-bigoted meaning.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Sr→Ar)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is generally permissible to use the term retard with an altered non-bigoted meaning.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴Ar)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Cx~4Bx)),(~6x(~3Cx~5Dx)),(~3Cr),(~3Br~1Dr~5Sr),(Sr~5Ar)|=(Ar))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Argument for Using the Term Nigga
|
||||
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font> |
|
||||
|:-------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**C**</font> | (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**B**</font> | (x) slur has been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**D**</font> | oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of (x) slur |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**S**</font> | it is permissible to neutralise the term nigga's negative connotations |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**A**</font> | it is generally permissible to use the term nigga with an altered non-bigoted meaning |
|
||||
| <font color="CC6600">**n**</font> | nigga |
|
||||
|
||||
<div style="text-align: center">
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>P1)</b></font> For all slurs, (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised if and only if, (x) slur has been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(Cx↔Bx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P2)</b></font> For all slurs, If it is not the case that (x) slur's negative connotations have been neutralised, then oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of (x) slur.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∀x(¬Cx→Dx))</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P3)</b></font> It is not the case that the term nigga's negative connotations have been neutralised.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Cn)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P4)</b></font> If the term nigga has not been rendered non-bigoted via altered usage and oppressed people will continue to suffer from the use of the term nigga, then it is permissible to neutralise the term nigga's negative connotations.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(¬Bn∧Dn→Sn)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>P5)</b></font> If it is permissible to neutralise the term nigga's negative connotations, then It is generally permissible to use the term nigga with an altered non-bigoted meaning.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(Sn→An)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, it is generally permissible to use the term nigga with an altered non-bigoted meaning.
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<font color="CC6600">
|
||||
<b>(∴An)</b>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
</font>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
[Proof Tree](https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~6x(Cx~4Bx)),(~6x(~3Cx~5Dx)),(~3Cn),(~3Bn~1Dn~5Sn),(Sn~5An)|=(An))
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
#slur
|
||||
#retard
|
||||
#linguistic_prescriptivism
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
|||
I discussed the use of pen-style machines with several healthcare professionals. Their unanimous opinion was that for such a device to be used safely in a setting such as an operating theatre, one of the following four protocols must be followed:
|
||||
|
||||
**1)** The entire machine should be designed to be single-use disposable.
|
||||
|
||||
**OR**
|
||||
|
||||
**2)** Whenever a cartridge is removed, it should be immediately discarded. New cartridges must be inserted with extreme care to prevent contaminating the plunger bar. Failing to adhere to this protocol warrants disposal of the machine.
|
||||
|
||||
**OR**
|
||||
|
||||
**3)** The drive system, along with its housing, must be easily accessible and designed for either autoclaving or thorough sanitization using high-level disinfectants.
|
||||
|
||||
**OR**
|
||||
|
||||
**4)** The drive system should be isolated from the cartridge by a sterile barrier, which would be removed and discarded after each use.
|
||||
|
||||
However, it appears that most pen-style machines do not align with universal precautions and established health and safety standards. The first option is often deemed unfeasible and is pretty much never practiced. The second option also faces similar impracticality. The third option is applicable to only a limited number of machines. As for the fourth option, I am not aware of its implementation anywhere (other than maybe GGTS's Good Pen).
|
||||
|
||||
My review of the CDC's outline on Spaulding's classification system makes it clear that the CDC would likely concur with this assessment. Consequently, it seems that a worryingly large number of pen-style machines are unsuitable for use, unfortunately.
|
||||
|
||||
EDIT:
|
||||
|
||||
I'm extremely saddened by the post-hoc rationalizations of some of these users. When presented with a sound argument for why certain tattoo equipment is an infectious disease transmission hazard, the most common response has been "tattooing isn't sterile anyway". As if this is supposed to be convincing or profound, or put any client's mind at ease about the safety of the process.
|
||||
|
||||
Think about what you're saying. You're essentially saying that because tattooing "isn't sterile", tattoo artists should be free to not work aseptically if they choose. We all have a choice to not use dangerous equipment. What I'm suggesting isn't career-ending for any of us. It's just a minor inconvenience. It's extremely disheartening how many people elect to put others at risk unnecessarily because they personally don't want to be inconvenienced. It's shameful, and we have to do better.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
|||
The precautionary principle is a group of rules that function similarly. Any weak version just states permissibility and any strong version states requirement. But these rules can be formulated in different ways:
|
||||
|
||||
> 1) if I don't know the harm of action x, then I ought not to do action x.
|
||||
> 2) if I don't know the consequences of action x, then I ought not to do action x.
|
||||
> 3) if I have a doxastic leaning that action x has more undesirable than desirable consequences then I ought not to do action x.
|
||||
|
||||
But most people who use it seem to only ever cite something similar to the first example. In that case, you can just ask why they don't adhere to the opposing rule:
|
||||
|
||||
> if I don't know the harms of not doing action x, then I ought to do action x.
|
||||
|
||||
Applying this to the last example:
|
||||
|
||||
> if I have a doxastic leaning that not doing action x has more undesirable than desirable consequences, then I ought to do action x.
|
||||
|
||||
This doesn't run into the same issue: the knowledge component is turned from agnostic to affirmative, and the symmetry breaker is on the table.
|
||||
|
||||
Technically, it still needs the clarification that:
|
||||
|
||||
> if the ratio of desirable vs undesirable consequences is more favorable towards doing action x than it is disfavorable towards not doing action x, then I ought to do action x.
|
||||
|
||||
All this makes me think the precautionary principle is some kind vestige of unacknowledged consequentialist intuitions, by the way. Imagine setting undesirable consequences to violations of rights and desirable consequences to affirmations of rights. In the bivalve case, this would straight lead to arguing their rights, so why not do that in the first place instead of invoking precaution?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Hashtags
|
||||
|
||||
#debate
|
||||
#arguments
|
||||
#philosophy
|
||||
Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show more
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue