The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
Justice is evil and bad. The judge is egotistical, indifferent, and proud, and so on. Look at all the people he mercilessly throws into prison or worse calls for the killing of some offenders, that's right killing, I repeat the word killing for some added flair and drama... killing. Some people he gives a light sentences to, others a hard one, talk about a personality disorder. He doesn't allow people to talk out of turn and throws contempt charges at anyone who questions his authority, talk about an ego. Why has this evil been allowed in a civilized society for so long?
The judge probably has some form of a bipolar/multipolar disorder, and is essentially a mix of very different characters, from the most benevolent to extremely violent and tyrannical ones. His character would be that of an evil Judge but that would not stop people respecting him as legal indoctrination makes idiots of otherwise intelligent people.
The justice system isn't even voluntary, law breakers are forced to go through the system if they are captured.
Who in their right mind thinks people should be accountable for their actions? Oh the inhumanity of it all.
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: different characters    intelligent people.The justice system   personality disorder   evil Judge  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 30%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: humans    justice   nature    
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
In order to find whole truth in a basic principle the goal cannot be to prove there is a justice in nature as not all justice happens by the same specification, same way. Human justice is at its simplest legal or illegally, found and/or sought.
In nature justice does take place but is explained as a poetic justice, while also being often created by lethal force. This is why people most often look at survival of the fittest as a "law of nature" which it is not. A law of nature in relationship to use of lethal force is dump luck can prevails. The biggest, the strongest, the fasts can be caught in a flood, get stuck in the mud, fall out of a tree, or get hit by a falling rock, etc.
The biggest example of poetic justice is the construction of homes on barrier islands. Though not illegal, when people had been warned those specific islands move, construction took place as no justice was to be seen as a threat to disobedience or defiance. The poetic justice takes place every storm as the islands still try to keep move and justice takes place in land nourishment and taxation.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I agree, Justice is a human concept that has no real existence outside of our collective psyche...
There is no such thing like "karmic justice" / "Karma" either, it's comforting to think it does exists but it's wishful thinking...
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: poetic justice lays    nature   kind of justice   realm of the literary world  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are different ways to view the world: The first is how you are doing it right now: You are separating yourself from your human aspects (emotions, beliefs, personality...) and putting only your logical abilities and your knowledge inside an imaginary third-eye viewer. This is the method science uses.
The second way is to have something like a phenomenalistic view of the world. You view everything considering your every part.
To explain it better, there is no actual reason to pull your finger away from fire if you view yourself as a third eye observer, but you do it everytime. That is because you have a second view of the world.
In a philosophical sense you might doubt if you ever feel pain or happiness but when those feelings actually come, there is never any doubt behind them. You live as they are true. And somehow you know that they are true. They define your entire existence.
So when you straight out reject an idea by saying: "Oh, it's a human concept. It is not real." you are getting into dangerous and muddy waters that no one really knows how to swim in.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: bolt of lightning    human concept   creator   social justice systems  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
"a human concept is an idea that we create among us which has little to do with reality" well the thing is, everything is a human concept because we are human. The concept of "concepts" is too a human concept. So, the question is not whether a thing is a human concept or not. The question is whether or not that human concept manages to represent reality in a good enough way.
You made a stronger argument now that you have explained that justice is just humans trying to find a pattern, but you need to remember that "justice" can also be an idea to suggest that bad people deserve bad futures (it is not obligatory for them to have that bad future, they just deserve it). When trying to debunk an idea, you need to go to the core of the idea and show the contradictions in there. I agree with you on this topic but I am just trying to say that you did not make an actual argument against the idea of "justice".
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: absence of a creator    original idea   own justice system   universe mete  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
"my argument stands based that their simply can not be any justice or the idea of justice unless humans or other intelligent beings create a system of justice that they believe in." this can be said to disprove anything. There cannot be any idea unless humans exist. You are observing the universe that you believe to be real from your own human perception. Therefore, not even the universe might exist if you throw away humans. What you are saying does not only try to disprove the idea of justice. If we follow the logic where it leads, your argument tries to disprove everything. I am saying that this argument is paradoxical and should be avoided.
"you have yet shown me any evidence to the contrary." if this was a normal debate, I would indeed have to show proof for justice. But you claimed that you are able to disprove the idea of justice. Therefore, I am only asking for that and I do not need to show proof.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: first sentence    mess      
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: animal kingdom    People   morals   human creation  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: moral standards    ghosts   universe   system of justice  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
"according to most physicists, the universe is built from mathematics and one can easily look that up" Firstly, this is an attempt at argument to popularity. Secondly, it is wrong. This is still a debated topic and opinions of various scientists varies. Thirdly, this has more to do with philosophy and pure math than physics. Physicists did not literally find the fabric of mathematics in the universe. They are just stating an opinion that they have. This debate has been going on for quite a long time. See: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-mathematics-invented-o_b_3895622
But you are missing the point here. The mathematics example is in no way crucial to my argument. Plus you seem to be misunderstanding my position here. I already explained to you that I agree with you. I agree that the idea of "justice" is not logical. I am just telling you that you are not showing any explanation for why it is wrong. "It is a human concept, therefore it is wrong." this logic can be used to debunk literally anything. Because we - as you would probably agree - are human. And every concept we have is therefore - logically - a human concept. For example, "pain" is a human concept. In the physical world, "pain" is just some atoms interacting with each other. But for humans it means something else entirely. "history" is a concept. "hope" is a concept. But these things are not false because they actually represent some aspect of human nature in a succesful way. If we were to listen to you, they would be wrong because they are human concepts.
Long story short: You are human. You believe in human concepts. Therefore you cannot call something wrong and try to justify that action by saying "it is a human concept.". There are human concepts that are representative of reality. There are human concepts that are logical. If you are willing to defend the position that "All human concepts are wrong." then you are welcome to try. But I do not think this is your position, am I wrong?
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.24  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
"aside from the link in which I can just as easily give one in return" I gave that link to prove that there is a debate going on and there is not agreement about what you have stated like you claim. The stance of the poster was irrelevant.
"I am just saying that most if not all simply do not exist outside of human existence. " okay... you do realize that this raises the same problem, yes? According to this stance nothing exists outside of human existence. So you saying that justice does not exist outside of human existence still does not prove anything. Again, when you just say that "justice is a human concept, therefore it has no place in nature." you are implying that no human concepts (or just "concepts" in short because we are human) can exist in nature. If no human concepts exist in nature, logically, nature should contain nothing. And this could be a valid stance, it is not that I am objecting to the stance here. I am just objecting to the fact that what you say is not enough to prove that justice does not exist.
And again, the burden is actually not on you. But you have gone into this debate trying to make an argument against the existence of justice. I am only trying to say that that argument was not valid...
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human concepts    realm of human existence   human realm   ideals humans  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
There would be no practice of justice aside from humans(practitioners), but it would exist as an unknown concept before practitioners. If it did not exist as a potential then we could never know it. Justice aside from humans would exist as an unknown unknown, with humans before practice, a known unknown, and then with practice, a known known. If in the totality of space and time no sentient life with a capacity of understanding ever existed, only then can you say(really no one around could say it) that there is no concept of justice outside practitioners, but if at any point in the totality of space and time there was a means to practice justice in any form or system, then you can say that it does exist aside from practitioners as a yet unrealized potential or previously practiced concept.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: natural concept    totality of space   unknown concept   dichotomy of terminology  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
For example, according to the principle of justice, if I get beaten down by someone, then later I get to beat them down for equality. "Blood revenge" is an extreme example of that.
Even worse, "justice" is often applied not to the individual, but to groups of people, often encompassing large periods of time. For example, hundreds years ago someone was killing my ancestors - and now I get to enjoy reparations for those actions, ones I have absolutely no relation to.
I do not care what is "just", I care what is pragmatic. Justice is an emotional concept, and I prefer to operate on logic instead.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: unknown concept    unknown thought   justice   idea  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
"or perhaps some human concepts do exist in nature in certain systems such as war, for many ants actually go full scale on war." so, you agree that some human concepts can exist? Therefore you agree with my objection? Because you logic was: "Justice is a human concept. Therefore it does not exist.". But you have just admitted that you think that war exists even though it is a human concept.
I am having a hard time understanding how you decide if something is a human concept or not. It is true that "war" as we defined it happens in the universe if we were to observe it as humans... but that does not mean (if we were to make the assumption that we can separate our logic from our human existence) "war" exists. What is "war" exactly? What positions do the particles of the universe have to be in to describe "war"? If you are going to look at the universe from this extreme scientific perspective, you need to do it right. "War" is an extremely abstract concept. Firstly, it requires for you to recognize living beings which is already a huge abstraction, talking in a physical sense. Then it requires you to understand what "conflicting objectives" are. And then it requires you to understand "combat". These may look normal to you from a human perspective, but in a physical sense, these things have no meaning. And trying to describe them is extremely challenging, if not impossible.
The view you hold carries with it a lot more things that you just do not realize. This is what I am trying to explain to you. If we were to view the universe only from this scientific perspective, everything would lose its meaning. There is meaning to both perspectives; the scientific perspective and the personal perspective. One can't choose either perspective and claim that every answer can be found in that single perspective. Neither perspective defines "existence" by itself.
Here is a nice question to ponder about: Does "pain" exist? According to your logic of "let's remove living beings and look at the universe." it should not.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
>> I am not sure if you read this on-line or simply made it up, yet it is the worse false logic I have seen in a long time
I am not sure why you would only read half of what I wrote. Did you miss the part where I further qualified my point by calling it a potential?
1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future
This is the worst case of incomprehension I've seen in a long time.  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: gt    worse false logic   long timeI   long time  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: human concept    unknown concepts   sound type of logic   human concepts  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
"it is fighting in which all animals do except humans do it on a much larger scale."
It seems that you have missed my point entirely. I was not saying that war does not happen if we observe nature. I was saying that from a physical perspective, the idea of "war" is meaningless and impossible to describe. Therefore, without humans, there would not be "war". Because humans are the things that define certain phenomenon as "war".
"second, my post is that justice does not exist outside of humans, it does not exist in nature. you have failed to prove I am wrong/ All you have done is gone off into tangents and abstracts, "
It seems that you have forgotten what you were arguing for: 'nature does not have a justice system, therefore there is no true justice.' You did not only claim that justice does not exist in nature. You claimed that because justice does not exist in nature there cannot be "true justice". And I am arguing that even if we accept that justice does not exist in nature, this does not prove that there is no true justice. You have failed to understand my position even though I stated it countless times. You have failed to remember even your own position.
"just show me"
This proves that you have not understood a single thing I have said. Neither my position, neither any of my arguments.
Maybe Richard Feynman will do a better job at explaining the concept to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Qa93JQxg4
As he says, there are hierarchies of ideas. And limiting yourself to only one part of this hierarchy and calling that part "the ultimate truth" is a mistake. This is what you are doing.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.74  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 30%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: justice    links   nature    
  Relevant (Beta): 44%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have heard this excuse so many times... people just do not understand an idea and when you send links to them to help them understand that idea, they refuse to do so because they "will not argue with links".
You are not arguing with links. The video does not point out the link between that idea and your arguments. It is just an explanation of a concept.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: quantum mechanics    realm of metaphysics   land of quantum mechanics   concrete evidence  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
"what you are explaining about justice and other yet unknown concepts being built into the fabric of reality"
What I am explaining to you has absolutely nothing to do with either quantum mechanics or the fabric of reality... Just watch the video at the link I had sent you or re-read my earlier arguments and actually make an attempt at understanding them instead of trying to object to everything.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra