vault backup: 2024-10-21 15:56:01

🛡️ Debate/Opponents/Johnny.md

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+# Debate 1
+
+## Proposition
+
+>"No one actually is gay"
+
+## Analysis
+
+1. Symmetry breaker with schizophrenia
+2. Actually
+	1. someone "actually" has something IFF:
+		1. 
+
+## Clarified Proposition
+
+>""
+
+## Semantics
+
+1. 
+
+## Receipts
+
+---
+
+# Hashtags
+
+#debate 
+#debate_opponents 

🛡️ Debate/Opponents/Jordan.md

@@ -1,3 +1,81 @@
+### Shitty Argument Against Ethical Slurs
+
+<div style="text-align: center">
+<font color="CC6600">
+<b>P1)</b></font> If a derogatory attitude is morally defective, then it is pro tanto wrong to express that attitude.
+<br />
+<font color="CC6600">
+<b>(∀x((Dx∧Mx)→WEx))</b>
+<br />
+<b>P2)</b></font> Derogatory attitudes shaped by harmful ideologies are morally defective.
+<br />
+<font color="CC6600">
+<b>∀x(Dx→Mx)</b>
+<br />
+<b>P3)</b></font> Slurring involves expressing a derogatory attitude in an offensive sociolinguistic register shaped by harmful ideologies, whether or not the speaker possesses the derogatory attitude in question.
+<br />
+<font color="CC6600">
+<b>(∀x(Sx→∃y(Dy∧Ey)))</b>
+<br />
+<b>P4)</b></font> If an act of slurring action-expresses a derogatory attitude, and that derogatory attitude is morally defective, then the act of slurring is pro tanto wrong.
+<br />
+<font color="CC6600">
+<b>(∀x((Sx∧∃y(Dy∧Ey∧My))→WEx))</b>
+<br />
+<b>P5)</b></font> All acts of slurring represent action-expressions of derogatory attitudes that are morally defective.
+<br />
+<font color="CC6600">
+<b>(∀x(Sx→∃y(Dy∧Ey∧My)))</b>
+<br />
+<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, all acts of slurring are pro tanto wrong.
+<br />
+<font color="CC6600">
+<b>(∴ (∀x(Sx→∃y(Dy∧Ey∧My))∧∀x((Dx∧Mx)→WEx)→∀x(Sx→WEx)))</b>
+<br />
+<br />
+</font>
+</div>
+
+### Valid Reformalization of the Shitty Argument Against Ethical Slurs
+
+| <font color="CC6600">**Definiendum**</font> | <font color="CC6600">**Definiens**</font>    |
+|:-------------------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------- |
+|      <font color="CC6600">**D**</font>      | an attitude is derogatory                    |
+|      <font color="CC6600">**M**</font>      | an attitude is morally defective             |
+|      <font color="CC6600">**W**</font>      | it is pro tanto wrong to express an attitude | 
+|      <font color="CC6600">**H**</font>      | an attitude was shaped by harmful ideologies |
+|      <font color="CC6600">**S**</font>      | expressing an attitude via a slur            |
+
+<div style="text-align: center">
+<font color="CC6600">
+<b>P1)</b></font>  If an attitude is derogatory and morally defective, then it is pro tanto wrong to express that attitude.
+<br />
+<font color="CC6600">
+<b>(D∧M→W)</b>
+<br />
+<b>P2)</b></font> If an attitude is derogatory and was shaped my harmful ideologies, then it is morally defective.
+<br />
+<font color="CC6600">
+<b>(D∧H→M)</b>
+<br />
+<b>P3)</b></font> If an attitude is expressed via a slur, then this attitude is derogatory and was shaped by harmful ideologies.
+<br />
+<font color="CC6600">
+<b>(S→D∧H)</b>
+<br />
+<b>C)</b></font> Therefore, if an attitude is expressed via a slur, then it is pro tanto wrong to express that attitude.
+<br />
+<font color="CC6600">
+<b>(∴S→W)</b>
+<br />
+<br />
+</font>
+</div>
+
+## Receipts
+
+![[Pasted image 20241021152013.png]]
+
 # Debate 1
 
 ## Proposition

🛡️ Debate/Opponents/MetellaStella.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+# Debate 1
+
+## Proposition
+
+>"It would be impossible to describe the taste of sugar to someone who had never tasted it."
+
+## Analysis
+
+1. What's the contradiction?
+
+## Receipts
+
+![[Pasted image 20241021143857.png]]
+
+---
+
+# Hashtags
+
+#debate 
+#debate_opponents 

🛡️ Debate/Opponents/jimlikescows.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+
+## Receipts
+
+![[Pasted image 20241007135347.png]]
+![[Pasted image 20241007135416.png]]
+
+---
+
+# Hashtags
+
+#debate 
+#debate_opponents