Question Mark and Capp engage on fin​e tuning@CappDebates @KyloDebates @andidyouknow8208

[00:00:00]up.

[00:00:02]>> Yo, Cap and Kylo.

[00:00:03]>> Oh, we got Cap and Kylo in here. Look at that.

[00:00:05]>> I accepted them both. I accepted them both.

[00:00:07]>> Oh my god.

[00:00:07]>> Yo, are you guys >> We got the goats in here.

[00:00:10]>> Yo, what's going on? Question mark.

[00:00:12][laughter] >> Are you interested today with me, man?

[00:00:16]You >> want to have a discussion on Fantony?

[00:00:19]>> Yeah, I do.

[00:00:21]>> Wait, wait, wait.

[00:00:23]>> Before you guys get into the debate, before you guys get into the debate, Cap, I hear you're a Catholic now. Is that true?

[00:00:28]>> Uh, yes.

[00:00:29]Dude, [ __ ] yeah, bro.

[00:00:31]>> Anyways, >> I don't know if you remember me. My name's Ya. We used to like cut lightly.

[00:00:35]Dude, that's based. I'm so happy.

[00:00:36]>> Orthodox. I'm Catholic, by the way. The Filio way is uh you know, >> man. There. There we go. There we go.

[00:00:42]Filio is true. But more importantly, the papacy is true. More importantly, anyways, you guys can go.

[00:00:48]>> Oh, by the way, I want to clarify. So, Cap, are you going to have your boyfriend like keep interjecting in the conversation or is it going to be a one-on-one?

[00:00:55]>> That was not rhetorical, by the way. And second of all, I can handle you oneonone, sir. We don't we don't need him to interrupt.

[00:01:02]>> I did not make you look. I'm going to proceed with the argument. So the argument is very simple. It's as follows. Uh I'll actually just lay it out for two theories T1 and T2 in the context of background information B. If it is true evidence e that the probability of the evidence uh conditional on t1 uh in your background knowledge is greater than the probability of the evidence conditional on t2 in your background knowledge then e strongly favors t1 over t2. The likelihood that a life creating universe exists on naturalism is vanishually small. The likelihood that lifeing universe exists on theism is not vanishingly small. Thus the existence of a life creating universe normally favors theism over naturalism. What's your response?

[00:01:39]>> First of all I want to know why it's vanishingly unlikely under naturalism. I want to know where you're getting your inference from cuz I know you're going to reference the consensus that there's finetuning from physical.

[00:01:49]Wait, why am I being by the clarity question? What do you mean by giving my response? Wo wo wo freaking out. I deny the partition.

[00:01:57]>> You accept 30 questions to be fair. It is a partition because I'm just going to mere [laughter] your thinking what do you mean has a partition at all?

[00:02:05]>> No. It's not even a binary question. I'm giving my objection. Why are you >> What is the point of saying you deny the partition when it's out right now? You can deny the partition. Denying the partition is fine. This is really bad.

[00:02:16]Looks students beating on you right now.

[00:02:19]You're doing terribly. You're running a shitty argument that I know all the read upon. I just said you denied a partition to a question that necessarily doesn't have a partition while I'm speaking and this genuine giberator is trying to talk over me. So, as I was speaking, you just said you denied a partition. You're accusing me of being a gibber.

[00:02:37]>> You just said you denied the partition.

[00:02:41]not going to overspeak me on my asserting that the question has a binary value and the objection first I was asserting whether or not the binary is actually going to be my mic is louder than yours mic right now my second obj what I want you to do is you actually even know what the expanded form of bay theorem is and it denominator which I know you don't because you haven't read anything on the literature so now I will be done with my response >> yeah so to be fair I have a clarity question what do you mean where am I where am I >> I deny the partition What does that mean?

[00:03:12]>> I didn't say it was a binary value.

[00:03:14]>> You're denying the partition on a question that doesn't have a binary value. Are you stupid?

[00:03:18]>> I'm just denying the partition in general because I don't I just reject clarity questions, right?

[00:03:22]>> I didn't assert that there is a partition. So, what grounds are you rejecting it on?

[00:03:26]>> Yo, I just want I just reject clarity questions. I reject that clarity.

[00:03:29]>> What are you rejecting?

[00:03:30]>> Respond to my response in our response.

[00:03:37]on the table. If they do not respond to the response given and either demonstrate some response, then it's going to be the case that you're losing respond to my response or you're just going to have you're doing distinguish right now. First of all, naturalism and then second of all, I want you to motivate the prior is going to be sufficiently large upon theism that we're updating on with base theorem tuning that it's going to prior question. Can we kick all these people making noises?

[00:04:14]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:04:15]>> So, questions.

[00:04:18]>> That's the only thing I'm going to do though. I'm not going to give any more requests.

[00:04:21]>> Yeah. I want I want to ask you a question and I want you to answer right don't dodge this question. Do you think that even with the sufficiently low prior probability, you can still get an update in favor or the evidence can still converting on the evidence to demonstrate that the prior is going to be sufficiently large that when updating on the evidence, it's going to result in a posterior 12.5.

[00:04:44]>> Stop dodging and answer.

[00:04:46]>> Yeah, I deny the partition. I just want you I didn't assert that there was a partition that when updating a prior is going to be large enough such that way.

[00:04:52]>> What are you denying the partition above?

[00:04:55]>> What are you denying the partition? Do you think that Wait, wait. Do you think that denying the partition means you can't answer the question?

[00:05:02]>> Don't die.

[00:05:03]>> In this case, I'm just going to be rejecting. What's the argument for the entailment relation?

[00:05:12]Then you're going to invoke some [ __ ] like subjective bas.

[00:05:17]Can you just give me some Jeffree style calculations in this dialectic?

[00:05:23]>> Still not doing that.

[00:05:23]>> I want to fly that for the audience.

[00:05:25]>> Now to be clear to talk about the prior doesn't matter because what the prior upon theism is the prior you're still not updating way. I have no motivation to believe it even has a question.

[00:05:43]above.5. You're not going to do the thing where you go on other Gibberators.

[00:05:47]Let me do the monkey boy in the future. I'm not going to let you do your thing where you say I'm dialectically forcing the opponent to actually be responding in a way that is favorable for me. Just motivate your prior cap.

[00:06:03]>> Oh my god, he's stun locked.

[00:06:05]>> He's plugging in.

[00:06:06]>> Yeah. So to be clear, the talk about the prior is necessarily not relevant because even hypothesis with a sufficiently low prior probability can still be confirmed given the evidence, right? If you have a high likelihood ratio. So you talking about that is not going to be in so far as your argumentation. What's the argumentation going to be relevant question?

[00:06:28]What do you take an argument to be?

[00:06:29]You're going to be an argument to be you're actually motivation to be you are literally the worst debater in this community. There's a reason. What do you think motivation to be? There's a reason Breeze doesn't respect you. You're >> You're not answering a single one of >> I just want you to motivate the prior.

[00:06:43]>> So, what I want you to do is answer the question. What do you think motivation to be?

[00:06:46]>> Yo, SK, stop rising other.

[00:06:48]>> What do you think motivation to be?

[00:06:49]Don't ask that question. What do you take motivation to be?

[00:06:51]>> It's obviously going to be something you understand, Cap. If that's all you can respond, >> I don't understand because you could be using it in some type of idiosyncratic notion whereas I don't understand what you're talking about. So, what do you take motivation to be? What do you take motivation? Answer the question up but also motivating the prior doesn't matter because they can still and then we update on the conditional probability why updating it's going to be that the posterior is.5 that you have told me what your prior is not told me what the conditional probability is marginal probability of that because you're still not responding to me.

[00:07:35]>> Even if it's the case that the evidence, >> even if the hypothesis has sufficiently low prior, the evidence can still confirm it, sir. So, I don't know why you're asking me to motivate the prior.

[00:07:44]>> Do you think I have a question really now? And I know you're going to deny this cuz you know you don't understand, but it's going to be the case that is it.

[00:07:51]>> I'm going to explain to you guys why I'm winning right now. The reason why I'm winning is because he's done this shitty ass literature in metatactic where he denies the welding because he knows he can't any type of going to be the case.

[00:08:03]He denied the partition on an open-ended question. That's how slow this guy is.

[00:08:07]He's getting beat up right now. This is terrible. He denied the [laughter] partition on a question that doesn't have a binary value. He denied the partition on a question that's not a sufficient yes or no. This is terrible.

[00:08:17]You're getting drown the [ __ ] out. You can blow the [ __ ] out right now terribly. Now I'm going to show you why P1 is true. I'm going to show you why P2 is true and I'm going to show you why P3 is true. The justification of my argument seems to be the case that a lot of people theorem large convergence on that view where there's a large divergence on the contrary that's going to give us the feasible reason and affirming debation likelihood ratio or the likelihood principle. Now the justification for premise 2 is just you assume principle of indifference over the constant space given naturalism absent of any primary reason to unequally distributed probabilities. And the reason why P3 is true is because of the axiological motivation. So, I just showed you why every single premise is true. Do you want to contend me with that? My motivation, yes or no?

[00:08:54]>> I wasn't listening to you. Someone was messaging me. Repeat that again.

[00:08:57]>> Oh, you weren't listening. Yeah, I found that I found that very ironic. So, the justification for premis agents holding to the ratio feasible reason that's going to give us also more defasable reasons. The justification for premise two of the argument is just because we have reason to assume principle of indifference over the constant space given naturalism. Whereas given theism we don't have reason agree to that and that's only going to be under epistmic possibility. And even then I don't think our episting conditionalizes upon a claim about the epistmic modality. You understand that yes or no difference.

[00:09:34]>> You understand that fine tuning conditionalizes upon a claim which necessarily invokes epistemic modality.

[00:09:39]Yes or no? Don't dodge that question by the way. Don't dodge.

[00:09:43]Oh, he's doing this thing where he goes off the app to like intentionally avoid the question. By the way, this is terrible.

[00:09:50]>> Can you understand?

[00:09:50]>> Yo, what was he saying?

[00:09:51]>> Do you understand that the fine-tuning argument conditionalizes upon a claim that necessarily invokes the epistmic modality?

[00:09:58]>> Yes or no?

[00:09:59]>> Yo, what was he saying? I can't hear him.

[00:10:01]>> Yes or no? Oh, now he's acting.

[00:10:04]>> I'm I'm chilling in the comments, bro.

[00:10:05]I'm not listening.

[00:10:06]>> Now he's acting like he can't hear me.

[00:10:08]This is terrible.

[00:10:08]>> Yeah. What were you saying?

[00:10:09]>> He's Yeah. Yeah. Do you understand that the fine-tuning argument conditionalizes upon a claim that necessarily invokes modality?

[00:10:15]>> I still can't hear you, bro. You're like speaking >> now. He's acting like he can't hear me.

[00:10:19]He said he can't hear me because he has no answer to the question.

[00:10:23]>> I can hear him.

[00:10:24]>> I literally can't hear you legitimately for me. He's getting blown out and it's like really whisperish. This is terrible.

[00:10:31]>> Maybe it's just my Wi-Fi cuz maybe I have like burger.

[00:10:34]>> Yeah, you can restart and we can continue on my panel. You're getting blown out right now. You question the prior and it's not relevant. Motivated the market.

[00:10:43]>> I don't have to motivate the prior because if the prior is low, I can still confirm the evidence.

[00:10:49]>> The evidence can still confirm the hypothesis. I don't have to motivate the prior. That's not my burden.

[00:10:54]>> Can talk really slow.

[00:10:55]>> Asking me to motivate the prior is something which is not like philosophical. You understand that, right?

[00:11:01]>> Sex in this community.

[00:11:04]You're getting blown the [ __ ] out right now.

[00:11:07]A single proposition.

[00:11:09]>> I showed you why P1 was true. I showed you why P2 was true. And I showed you why P3 was true. So that is update on the response regardless of how over my burden. You're dying right now on recording. You're dying on record.

[00:11:21]You're dying on recording below. You're dying on recording. You're sping out.

[00:11:25]You just need a dying on [laughter] recording.

[00:11:27]>> Your students breaking you in right now.

[00:11:30]I'm dying or I'm spanking you.

[00:11:32]>> This is terrible.

[00:11:34]>> You're question mark. Stop. Look, listen. Listen. I want you to tell me to stop.

[00:11:39]>> I'm willing to have a cordial discussion.

[00:11:42]>> I don't have to motivate the prior. I already explained why that's being dismissed. I already want you to priorit P1 was true. P2 and P3 was true.

[00:11:54]>> Oh, I wasn't listening to you though because I had to do other things given I have.

[00:11:58]So just motivate the motivate the marginal and motivate also >> the motivation for the conditional in P1 is just that it seems to be the case that there's a large convergence of rational agents using the debasion framework whereas we see a divergence on the contrary um that's going to give us the feasible reason to debian framework but there's also empirics which which uh would suggest to us that uh we used the Beijian framework in our asking you to motivate the conditional what does this have to do with empirics there was obviously no empiric on a motivation for the condition right now. You're confused as just asking me for premise and premise which I already justified, sir. I already justified premise two and premise three.

[00:12:41]So >> I well I was talking about premise one.

[00:12:43]I was talking about the fact that there's a large or there's a large probability of the evidence on theism. I was talking about that first and I was talking about >> that's three dumbass. You can't even track the you can't even track your own the argument I gave you. This is terrible. That's premise three of the argument. Premise one is just talking about theories in general and it's going to be the Bayian likelihood principle.

[00:13:06]Are you not familiar? Premise one is talking about theories in general.

[00:13:09]Premise three just says that the likelihood a life peritting universe exists conditional theism is not vanishingly small. The motivation for that is just because uh we have reason to unequally distribute the probabilities given God's axiological motivation. Right? Um since God's going to be motivated to bring about value and a universe that permits life is valuable. If you don't think it's valuable, we have reason to assume that God would at least find it valuable given the analogical induction. So that's why the likelihood that life from any universe exists on theism is not vanishingly small. Now the justification for premise two which is that the likelihood that life from any universe exists on naturalism is vanishingly small. It's going to be as follows. The reason why this is true is because we have reason to assume principle of indifference over the uh constants.

[00:13:50]Basically, >> you don't even know what the principle of is.

[00:13:53]>> Yeah, it I do know what that is. It says absent of any reason to unequally distributed probabilities, you treat them all as equally likely. For example, we can look at the coin flip example where if you have a fair coin, shut the [ __ ] up, [ __ ] If you have a fair coin, shut the [ __ ] up, [ __ ] If you have a fair coin, obviously, if you have a fair coin, obviously, if you have a coin and you know nothing about whether or not it's fair or unfair, you should treat it. outcomes as I'd have to say why would we not so you're very stupid there could be some probability distribution that clusters around things that give rise to complex structures in which that life could arise and that on the fringe ends of it you're getting I deny that that's even going to be metaphysical stand out >> yeah I deny that it's metaphysically possible I don't accept that our understanding of the epistmic possibility space doesn't give us some type of uh have some type of correlation between the metaphysical possibility space so you're going to have to give an argument that that's metaphysically possible, sir.

[00:14:47]>> Metaphysically possible because it in there's none of the metaphor.

[00:14:52]We're on the same page. Metaphysical modality is obviously just going to be the logical modality constrained by whatever metaphysical principles we hold through, right?

[00:15:00]>> Yep.

[00:15:01]>> Hold any metaphysical principles or it's not going to create any contradictions in a crypto.

[00:15:06]>> That's question begging because that's what I'm asking you to justify, sir.

[00:15:09]That's question begging. You're begging the question.

[00:15:11]>> No, I don't hold that principles.

[00:15:13]hold these metaphysical principles that are going to have it constrained that the probability space is going to be justify your dogic state the case that every dog has to be equally justify your dogic states because obviously you're making a comment on your dogastic states when you say you don't hold acts that it's going to be a comment on your belief state I'm unsure on why we can't be some type of global dogastic and limitist in a type of robust sense where we don't have agents who have belief states instead we have agents who have affirmations which are going to be in virtue of their computational brain states sir now we can Yeah. Dogastic limit deny these type of things. So what I'm asking you for is to motivate the denial of dogs and limiting here.

[00:15:51]>> Nope. I'm not.

[00:15:52]>> You are.

[00:15:53]>> I said I said there's contrastive views that we can hold to. Right. Obviously that doesn't mean that we're actually holding.

[00:15:59]>> All I'm saying here is that you're begging the question against those type of views. where it's just going to be the case that >> yeah by virtue of no contradiction that we're all obviously this is conceptually the [ __ ] out I can give you an argument that it's logically possible you can just plug the conjunctive truth table where the proposition doesn't evaluation obviously it's now incoherent with the axioms of classical logic to be clear I also questioning Because within a conceptual scheme, we have these separate claims. Now the claims are going to be rationally acceptable in so far as no violation of the second kind. I question that your conceptual scheme has this type of thing. I question that your conceptual scheme has no attack relations. Can you justify the [ __ ] out?

[00:16:55]I don't know why about this. You're sping out. You haven't answered any of my questions. So really don't >> still sping out. Just [laughter] >> he's getting drowned on his own.

[00:17:08]>> Wait, I'm just gonna have to start reading you if you're in a loud mic because I actually being respectful to people inside of my dorms. I'm not screaming anymore even though I was doing that before and then you were rhetorically getting slammed.

[00:17:22]I question if there's no violation of why would I not be the don't ask that question can you motivate that world in which no is generated by determinate zombies and we don't have any actual belief >> state the question sir can you motivate that obviously we have to go all the way back to the original argument of first what's your prior what's your conditional and what's your marginal and then my last question is do you even know what the expanded form of the denominator >> is yeah So I just want to flag that you didn't motivate that there's no violation of the analyticity of the second kind with your conceptual scheme right because it seems like if it's the case that there was a violation of the analyticity of the second kind then any claim or question that you're making which you're embedding in the type of linguistical framework there is not going to be the type of thing which is rationally acceptable. So what I'm bringing into question right now is the acceptability conditions of the questions that you're asking me. So what I need you to do is give an argument that there's no violation of the analyticity in your in your conceptual scheme because when you ask questions you're necessarily invoking a conceptual scheme because a conceptual scheme is a linguistic framework where you have a system of inferences and representations that you adopt in order to organize experiences or make predictions and even coordinate actions in the dialectic. So what I want you to do right now is give an argument that there is no violation of the analyticity of the second kind and then I'll answer your question.

[00:18:38]>> Wow. We take the postulates, put a key, we output, we put in a conjunct table and we take in some it's a turn violation, [laughter] man. It's logically possible.

[00:18:48]>> I'm not I'm not talking about whether or not it's logically possible because you can have some type of violation of the analyticity of the second kind and have something be logically possible, sir.

[00:18:57]Right. So, you're actually confused on what analyticity of the second kind is.

[00:19:01]When we talk about analyticity of the second kind, all we're talking about here is going to be the type of extensional content, the reference of the terms. If it's the case that when you invoke these type of things and you have reference to the terms which are mutually exclusive or inescapable, then it seems like uh you're going to fail the acceptability condition, which is what I brought in the question before, right? I'm ask I'm questioning what I'm doing right now is a meta commentary on the dialectic. I'm questioning why it's the case that your questions are even ones which are acceptable in the dialectic. acceptability relation you're taking.

[00:19:31]>> I already explained what it means to be acceptable. I already explained it.

[00:19:35]>> I don't know.

[00:19:36]>> I already explained this. So relationship with the feasible reason [laughter] are binary relations where we accept. Of >> course there is still a violation. I already gave you the acceptability. Sir I gave you the acceptability conditions.

[00:19:52]What I want you to do is give me embarrassed.

[00:19:54]>> You failed. You failed to give me an argument for any claims to justify your claim. You're doing these ads because you know you understand so binary relation or not.

[00:20:06]>> He brought it to meta by the way. This guy brought it to him by denying a binary on a question that doesn't have a binary [laughter] to embarrass him. He can't motivate the conditional and he cannot ask. I already explained why I don't motivate the prior. I did give you motivation for the conditional. I did give your motivation for the conditional probability. I did all those things first to last. So you're not going to sit up and say that I didn't fulfill my burden when I did by the way.

[00:20:32]>> So I made my proof and you failed to meet your what's the acceptability relation? Is it binary or not? Still not answering.

[00:20:41]>> You lost question mark. You lost. Is it a binary except [laughter] you such as dumb theory of argumentation to the metaverse by any of your >> I don't know why you wanted to do that to the metaphor and you know you can't blow the [ __ ] out get approval >> this is terrible debaters and then you still right now you lose by if we conclude right now Mike and you're just bad if we conclude right now you lose by the way we do premises motivate why I should accept I already did binary acceptability relation and then no you didn't motivate you did not motivate why we should accept the binary argument for that relation you have an argument for that I deny that by the way do you have an argument for that >> because you never provided any serious question that's [laughter] question >> oh my goodness question mark that's what's in question give me some argument give me an argument for it >> because you just did it during the are you stupid we okay we go we go back from T0 to T1 of the dialectic where T1 is now t0 [laughter] and that >> what's the argument for time? You can be some type of a limitist about time theory and say that time necessarily doesn't obtain. What's the argument for time?

[00:21:51]>> Necessarily doesn't wait. What's the argument in all possible worlds it doesn't obtain?

[00:21:54]>> I didn't say that. I said you what I want you to do is give me an argument for time. Stop badging. Stop dodging.

[00:22:00]What's the argument?

[00:22:02]You just >> Is that premise one?

[00:22:04]>> Motivate anything you have this dialectic at all. I know you're sping out this entire time. Motivate anything.

[00:22:10]>> I don't exist. I don't have a debate. I don't regret that.

[00:22:15]I don't regret anything that you're talking about. Everything that you're talking about going to be denied by the virtue of the metaphoric anti where anything I interact with is going to get necessarily denied. I don't think I don't take so say no it's going to be violating analyticity of the second kind which I haven't even defined which obviously it's not going to be.

[00:22:34]>> I DID DEFINE analyticity of the second kind.

[00:22:37]>> We lost the song in this entire conversation [screaming] which just spurred out the entire time.

[00:22:43]hard to find that broken or something. If we conclude, you lose the debate.

[00:22:48]>> Maybe you're just high or something and you're at a party and you're debating someone which is just weird as [ __ ] But again, you still lose the debate dialectic even once.

[00:22:57]>> Illegal right now, you lose the debate, by the way. Do you want to conclude?

[00:23:00]>> I don't agree to that at all.

[00:23:02]>> Do you want to conclude?

[00:23:03]>> I'll gladly conclude or I'll continue.

[00:23:05]>> Oh, is that what you want to do? You want to lose?

[00:23:06]>> I'll do both.

[00:23:08]>> You You want to lose?

[00:23:09]>> Nope. You want to lose? You want to lose already by concluding >> I said you already died.

[00:23:17]You already lost. You haven't MOTIVATED ANY LOST QUESTION. YOU LOST motivated binary. You gave these low objections to fine arguing mad. You had to resort to loud ming because of the fact >> you brought it to the first motivated [ __ ] >> You brought up the discordian tactics first by denying departition. By the way, I just want to flag that like you lost terribly. You got blown the [ __ ] out. You denied the partition on the question that doesn't necessarily have a partition. What are YOU DOING? YOU BROUGHT you you brought me to the meta and you got the you you you got lost and stuttering.

[00:23:54]>> How bad are you, Cap?

[00:23:56]>> You brought it to the meta by the way.

[00:23:57]Looks for you.

[00:23:58]>> You brought it to the meta by the way.

[00:23:59]Look, you brought it to the meta, sir.

[00:24:01]>> No, I asked motivation for your condition. I asked you for >> No, you brought it to the meta by saying you denied the partition before that. I didn't take I didn't want to tell you what's happening.

[00:24:11]Ask yourself to go to the attic when you deny the permission. You just feel your vocal makeup noises that are irrelevant to dialectic. Don't give any motivation for the premises you're putting forward a binary acceptability relationship of argumentation, which is obviously what you're doing. This is terrible looking. Just motivate anything of what you're saying.

[00:24:31]>> Let's do three minute conclusions because the chat is begging to conclude.

[00:24:34]So, let's go on ahead and do that.

[00:24:35]Ma'am, do you want to do three minutes?

[00:24:37]I'll actually let you get your 3 minutes first if you want that.

[00:24:42]>> You're sure you want to conclude?

[00:24:45]>> You just said you wanted to conclude, too.

[00:24:46]>> That's not I'd rather do both. I don't really care. I don't have any preferences in this dialectic, but I don't care.

[00:24:52]>> Oh, no. We can conclude then. I want you to lose.

[00:24:55]>> Let's conclude. Give her 3 minutes first. I actually put a timer on. Give me one minute, sir.

[00:25:01]Give me one minute, sir. All right. Your three-minute timer has started. Go ahead.

[00:25:10]Yeah.

[00:25:13]First mute. So dialectic. First of all, Captain for some context as to why he came and baited me. I was making fun of him in his comment section because he was making standard blunders and all his dialectics with random low tears. He comes on and tries to hunt down. He's really bad at this. I don't know why he continues doing this, but that's the reason why he comes on with his little boyfriend Kylo and starts trying to debate me. Second of all, I was in the beginning he was just running a standard Beijian updating case for as to why finetuning is going to be motivating theism to be having a posterior of 0.5 or well you know.5 with some arbitrary amount of zeros one so that we have a higher posterior on theism than naturalism. He couldn't do that. He started spuring out and then saying that he denies some questions. I made fun of him by using the same rhetoric that he does in his in his debates with random people like denying clarity questions um denying partition questions which it I remember it being a yes or no question but sure maybe I was wrong on that but then he didn't motivate his prior which by the way he was very confused on that thought that you can have s there's always going to be some evidence like a conditional probability that will wash out the prior which is obviously false under base theorem if a prior is sufficiently low regardless of how high the evidence is like you can always make the prior smaller so that the posterior will never be 0.5 some hypothesis I don't know like why he's confused upon that he also does he never answered me as to what the expanded mar or the expanded denominator of b theorem was which for anyone wondering is the p of probability of e given h times the probability of h plus the probability of e given not h times the probability of not h didn't know that either he couldn't motivate anything then he started spuring out as to in loud micing 2 when we brought to the meta. Then I asked him what the motivation for a binary acceptability relation such as what we see in Dung's argumentation theory was. He couldn't do that. And then for the rest of the conversation, I kind of had to talk a little quieter because my roommates were a little pissed at me for just like, you know, screaming at this idiot on the app, but I digest. And yes, that's intentional.

[00:27:18]Everyone should get that joke by now.

[00:27:20]So, finally, um I guess I'm just going to concede my time at this point because I don't have anything else. He didn't motivate just anything of what he was saying. And then he spurred down on me for this conversation. Um, that's about it. And Cap can get his three minutes now. Let me just end the live show.

[00:27:37]End the show. And Cap, you get your three minutes now. Yeah. So, I just want to be very clear to the audience why this guy lost. So, at the beginning, I ran standard Beijian fine tetuning. He asked me for an argument for the conditional probabilities, which I gave him an argument for. He kept saying I didn't, which is very strange. I justified P1, I justified P2, and I justified P3. He brought all those in question and I met my burn of proof.

[00:28:00]Right now, he did some weird thing where he denied clarity questions multiple times. He denied the partition question on a qu he denied the partition on a question that doesn't have a yes or no answer, which was a blunder. He said, "I'm not going to answer your question because I denied a partition." Which is just trivial if it's a open-ended question. if we evaluate it aerotically speaking. Now he mistracted on this point which was that if the prior is sufficiently low you can still a piece of evidence can still confirm a hypothesis if the likelihood ratio is sufficiently high which I demonstrated it to be sufficiently high right then he asked me for so I then I brought into question why is the case that his scheme is going to have uh be acceptable right cuz you can embed questions into your scheme if you guys don't know what a scheme is a scheme is just a linguistical framework which is a system of representation that we organ adopt in order to organize experiences make predictions and and coordinate actions.

[00:28:51]Now within your scheme, it's going to be rationally acceptable like things embedded within your scheme when there are defeasible reasons supporting its incorporation into that scheme, right?

[00:29:02]In so far as there's no violation of the analyticity. Second kind. Now, all these questions he asked me, I was dismissing them because I put into question why it's going to be the case that they're rationally acceptable. Now what he asked me for was motivation for the binary acceptability relation which is very confused because I already explained the conditions for acceptability and also I wasn't even holding to dung abstract theory of argumentation necessarily speaking so he's very confused.

[00:29:27]Um now in regards to why P1 was true, why P2 is true and why P3 is true. I justify all my premises. He failed to adequately provide some type of attacking relation towards the premises such that it would render the motivation one which was unsound, untrue or you know rationally unjustified speaking. So on those basis alone, you know, in virtue of the fact that I I met my burden of proof, which is the dialectal obligation to prove your claim and he failed to me his burden rejoiner, which attempts to disprove their claim, then it seems to be the case that I just won the debate, right? Um, and he lost terribly.

[00:30:05]Uh, I mean, I don't really think there's any much more to say. Like if we ask ourselves, if we reflect back on the dialectic, he was getting brutally miced because my mic was louder than his and he tried to do this weird [ __ ] where he overtalked me. But if we reflect back on the debate and we ask ourselves, did he provide some adequate reason to reject the argument or reject any premise in the argument? The answer is no. How many critiques did he sufficiently levy? The answer is zero. He lost terribly. This [ __ ] was ass. So what's going to happen is I'm going to post this and he's going to get embarrassed. Everyone's going to see that he got blown the [ __ ] out when I post this video on YouTube. Uh my YouTube is Cap Debates, man. And yeah, that's about it.

[00:30:46]Everyone vote on the poll.