Debates

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

6 hours ago, सत्य हेर्ने said:

Hot take: moash isn’t that bad of a person

Okay, I read your whole debate, and Moash did a LOT wrong. (Vague OB, RoW spoilers, Hawks can look)

Spoiler

Yes, many of his actions were committed under manipulation of Odium, but in the end, it was him wielding the blade every time. Perhaps he could have been different, if Kaladin had reached him earlier. But regardless, he IS in the wrong. 

Also, I do think he is just a bad person, regardless of his justifications.

 

5 hours ago, Terrisman said:

I have an interesting debate. 3 people are in a desert. A B and C. C is really annoying so A and B decide to kill him. Each one doesn’t know the other one wants to kill C. C has 1 water bottle so A poisons his water bottle. Before C can drink it, B pours out the water bottle so that C has nothing to drink. C dies of thirst. Who killed C? Was it A or B?

B did. He may have prolonged C’s life by shielding him from the poison, but in the end it was he who struck the final blow. I don’t see much to debate about it 

Debate proposal: Could a vessel of Ruin or Odium ever truly be good? Or would they eventually be corrupted? Do the laws of good or evil even apply here, or is our perception of morality simply biased because we are people and don’t want to die?

[Entr0pic He/him]

2 minutes ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

Okay, I read your whole debate, and Moash did a LOT wrong. (Vague OB, RoW spoilers, Hawks can look)

  Hide contents

Yes, many of his actions were committed under manipulation of Odium, but in the end, it was him wielding the blade every time. Perhaps he could have been different, if Kaladin had reached him earlier. But regardless, he IS in the wrong. 

Also, I do think he is just a bad person, regardless of his justifications.

 

B did. He may have prolonged C’s life by shielding him from the poison, but in the end it was he who struck the final blow. I don’t see much to debate about it 

Debate proposal: Could a vessel of Ruin or Odium ever truly be good? Or would they eventually be corrupted? Do the laws of good or evil even apply here, or is our perception of morality simply biased because we are people and don’t want to die?

I don’t believe the ruin can ever be “good” it can and is necessary, but not “good”

odium, on the other hand, I believe you could change into a more good force. It really just depends on the will and perception of the wielder. 

[Terrisman]

35 minutes ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

B did. He may have prolonged C’s life by shielding him from the poison, but in the end it was he who struck the final blow. I don’t see much to debate about it

How did B kill C? By pouring out poisoned water? In effect it was as if the water had already been poured out because it had no ability to keep C alive. Would you say that if A had poured out the water and then filled it up with poison and then B poured out the poison that B killed C? It amounts to the same thing

1 hour ago, Timiny said:

Still, it’s the person who dumped out his water. Doesn’t matter what his water had in it

Why? It’s essentially no longer water if he will die by drinking it

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

13 minutes ago, Terrisman said:

How did B kill C? By pouring out poisoned water?

YES! That is exactly how they killed C. C died of dehydration, not poison.

14 minutes ago, Terrisman said:

In effect it was as if the water had already been poured out because it had no ability to keep C alive.

Yes… in that it had the same end result; C dead. What changed, though, was WHO actually did the killing.

15 minutes ago, Terrisman said:

Would you say that if A had poured out the water and then filled it up with poison and then B poured out the poison that B killed C?

Yes. Yes I would. Because, as I said, it is still B committing the act that leads directly to C’s death. I think you misunderstand my argument; it isn’t the act of pouring that concerns me; it is the person that gets the final blow.

17 minutes ago, Terrisman said:

Why? It’s essentially no longer water if he will die by drinking it

Okay, first, fact check, water with poison is still water unless the poison changes its molecular structure, which I don’t think it does. So it is still water.

Second: picture the following scenario.

X, Y and Z are on a battlefield at the edge of a cliff. X shoots an arrow at Z’s head. But just before the arrow hits, Y pushes Z off a cliff, killing Z from fall damage. Who killed Z? X, or Y?

Obviously, X’s arrow missed, so X didn’t kill Z. But with your argument, X DID kill Z, and Y didn’t, even though Y clearly dealt the final blow. I hope this makes you understand the situation better.

[TwinStorm He/Him]

hot take: don't pull the level in the trolley problem

[Keke They/he]

23 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

hot take: don't pull the level in the trolley problem

Hot take split the train in half so it kills everyone. 

[TwinStorm He/Him]

Just now, Clinically insane said:

Hot take split the train in half so it kills everyone. 

no 

Spoiler

 

[Keke They/he]

3 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

no 

  Hide contents

 

Yes 

Just kill everyone

Simple solution

[Through the Living Wrath he/him]

26 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

hot take: don't pull the level in the trolley problem

hot take: Derail the trolley. Any passenger riding in such a device of doom deserves a quick demise.

 

 

Hot take: Untie the hostages.

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

Just noticed:

On 3/5/2025 at 2:02 PM, Clinically insane said:

my super brain

Humble much? (Just kidding)

[TwinStorm He/Him]

3 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

hot take: Derail the trolley. Any passenger riding in such a device of doom deserves a quick demise.

 

 

Hot take: Untie the hostages.

3 minutes ago, Clinically insane said:

Yes 

Just kill everyone

Simple solution

part of the problem is you can't stop it

[Through the Living Wrath he/him]

2 hours ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

YES! That is exactly how they killed C. C died of dehydration, not poison.

Yes… in that it had the same end result; C dead. What changed, though, was WHO actually did the killing.

Yes. Yes I would. Because, as I said, it is still B committing the act that leads directly to C’s death. I think you misunderstand my argument; it isn’t the act of pouring that concerns me; it is the person that gets the final blow.

Okay, first, fact check, water with poison is still water unless the poison changes its molecular structure, which I don’t think it does. So it is still water.

Second: picture the following scenario.

X, Y and Z are on a battlefield at the edge of a cliff. X shoots an arrow at Z’s head. But just before the arrow hits, Y pushes Z off a cliff, killing Z from fall damage. Who killed Z? X, or Y?

Obviously, X’s arrow missed, so X didn’t kill Z. But with your argument, X DID kill Z, and Y didn’t, even though Y clearly dealt the final blow. I hope this makes you understand the situation better.

But B actually prolonged C's life. Sure, his actions caused C's death, but C would have died anyways. If B had let C have the poison, knowing it was poison, C's death would have been on his hands. Its like... the lesser evil.

OHOHOHOHOHOH LICANIOUS QUOTE: "The lesser of two evils, or the greater good. Get a good man to utter either of those phrases, and there is no one more willing to perpetrate evil." I don't think that really helps my case.

 

With the second scenario, Y did kill Z. It was an act of malice that likely actually shortened their lifetime.

Edited March 7, 2025 by SpiritOfWrath

[Keke They/he]

8 minutes ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

Just noticed:

Humble much? (Just kidding)

Its good for my lack of self esteem

7 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

part of the problem is you can't stop it

Exactly. Cut the train in half killing everyone inside and running both sides over.

[Through the Living Wrath he/him]

2 minutes ago, Clinically insane said:

Its good for my lack of self esteem

Exactly. Cut the train in half killing everyone inside and running both sides over.

Everyone loses equally, so everyone wins equally!

[Keke They/he]

12 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

Everyone loses equally, so everyone wins equally!

YEAH

MURDER 

LETS GO

KILL 

MWUAHHAHHAGA

[TwinStorm He/Him]

19 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

Everyone loses equally, so everyone wins equally!

that... is terrible logic

[Through the Living Wrath he/him]

3 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

that... is terrible logic

And since it is outstandingly terrible, that means it is outstanding, which means it is wonderful at its purpose, which means it's wonderful, which means it's wonderful logic.

[TwinStorm He/Him]

9 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

And since it is outstandingly terrible, that means it is outstanding, which means it is wonderful at its purpose, which means it's wonderful, which means it's wonderful logic.

wut

[Through the Living Wrath he/him]

4 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

wut

My wonderful logic has you astounded, I see.

[Terrisman]

3 hours ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

3 hours ago, Terrisman said:

Would you say that if A had poured out the water and then filled it up with poison and then B poured out the poison that B killed C?

Yes. Yes I would. Because, as I said, it is still B committing the act that leads directly to C’s death. I think you misunderstand my argument; it isn’t the act of pouring that concerns me; it is the person that gets the final blow

In this case to say that B killed C cannot be correct because pouring out poison is doing absolutely nothing. If A had put sand in the bottle and then B pours out sand B definitely hasn’t killed C because his pouring didn’t affect C’s death. So when B poured out poison and there already was no water in it, it is the equivalent of pouring out sand because poison can’t sustain someone in the desert. 

 

3 hours ago, Hoid_Slayer said:

Okay, first, fact check, water with poison is still water unless the poison changes its molecular structure, which I don’t think it does. So it is still water

What I meant is that in the context of staying alive in the desert, poisoned water that will kill him doesn’t keep him in a better shape then having no water. So while technically it is still water, it is essentially not water in the context of water is what he needs to live

1 hour ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

X, Y and Z are on a battlefield at the edge of a cliff. X shoots an arrow at Z’s head. But just before the arrow hits, Y pushes Z off a cliff, killing Z from fall damage. Who killed Z? X, or Y?

Obviously, X’s arrow missed, so X didn’t kill Z. But with your argument, X DID kill Z, and Y didn’t, even though Y clearly dealt the final blow. I hope this makes you understand the situation better

The difference here is that by the water C has no water (that will keep him alive) at all now. If he wanted to stay alive as long as possible, he would not drink the poisoned water.  
 

By the arrow, many things could happen, an arrow doesn’t automatically kill someone. If Z wanted to avoid the arrow he wouldn’t jump off the cliff 

[Through the Living Wrath he/him]

5 minutes ago, Terrisman said:

In this case to say that B killed C cannot be correct because pouring out poison is doing absolutely nothing. If A had put sand in the bottle and then B pours out sand B definitely hasn’t killed C because his pouring didn’t affect C’s death. So when B poured out poison and there already was no water in it, it is the equivalent of pouring out sand because poison can’t sustain someone in the desert. 

 

What I meant is that in the context of staying alive in the desert, poisoned water that will kill him doesn’t keep him in a better shape then having no water. So while technically it is still water, it is essentially not water in the context of water is what he needs to live

The difference here is that by the water C has no water (that will keep him alive) at all now. If he wanted to stay alive as long as possible, he would not drink the poisoned water.  
 

By the arrow, many things could happen, an arrow doesn’t automatically kill someone. If Z wanted to avoid the arrow he wouldn’t jump off the cliff 

Hey hey wait

I never said that...

[Terrisman]

26 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

Hey hey wait

I never said that...

Yeah you didn’t. I quoted hoidslayer not sure what happened

[Through the Living Hopper He/Him]

@#1 Taln FanI apologize for my rudeness; I actually would like to hear your reasoning. Why do you think Skyward deserves to be counted among the best?

[TwinStorm He/Him]

AI art is disgusting.

prove me wrong.

[Keke They/he]

5 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

AI art is disgusting.

prove me wrong.

I agree! As an artist i hate it!