https://x.com/michaeljknowles/status/1899111503992676633
Wow, he got completely wrecked. How does a guy show up to debate 20 people without understanding even the basis premises of his own purported beliefs? https://t.co/EvtwySlhFt
— Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) March 10, 2025
Embarassing, he doesnt even know what utilitarianism is 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
To play Devil's advocate he was just saying "label what I just said my belief is whatever you want."
Definitely not built for this style of aggressive debating.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you mean not built for engaging with the actual r-slurs of our society?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
He literally claimed his belief to be something that is textbook utilitarianism.
If your answer to "is that utilitarianism" isn't an immediate yes then you are straight up a dumbass.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The guy asked if he was a consequentialist or utilitarian, his response was "call it what you want, I just explained it." Sure, he could have answered with "yes" instead but who cares? His beliefs were communicated succinctly, label doesn't matter that much.
The point of the debate isn't to show that you know the names of ideologies/philosophical concepts its to defend the soundness of your beliefs.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So is he not a utilitarian when he just said his beliefs are textbook utilitarianism? Or what? I don't see your perspective.
It sounded like he didn't want to say yes because he thought it was some kind of trap.
Which, obviously, is dumb as shit.
It makes him look like he hasn't even really considered the foundational basis for his beliefs at all and like he just made it up on the spot because its something he heard one time.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Who cares? Who wants to spend all day delineating which boxes your beliefs fit into, instead of discussing the merits of the beliefs. Not interesting.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're right who cares, thats why u are 5 ply deep debating the merits of it with me.
Here's a trvth nvke for you:
saying that substance is more interesting than meta is peak pseud. In a post-truth world poisoned by AI there is no difference.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I didn't say I don't care about whether or not his choice was fine which is what WE'RE debating about. I said "who cares" about labeling your beliefs. It's pointless to ding him for that. Ding him for having r-slurred commie beliefs.
What does AI have to do with whether it's important to label your beliefs?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Words words words nobody cares bro.
Youre trying to find logical consistency. Im truth nuking you that logic doesn't matter as it doesn't help you win arguments.
Current AI models do not have any logic whatsoever, yet its pretty clear with zero logic its still superior to the vast majority of people in argumentation. Thus, it is very much germane to this discussion.
Think about it and you can figure it out. But if you dont, thats exactly the point and very meta. Good job.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah you don't need literacy, reason, eloquence, logic, or anything else if you're a stupid BIPOC. Just ignore the subject being discussed and laugh at your opponent's sneakers or something. You've cracked debate.
Yes they do, if you ask it to argue for a position it will try to reason logically, unless you tell it not to. They used to be bad at this but they're pretty great now and continually getting smarter. The main disability of AI right now is lack of memory not lack of ability to reason with logic.
Says who?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context