Why are we banning wylted?

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

03.20.2021 10:39AM

-->

@Lunatic

1. You have failed to address the question
Your question has no argumentative bearing in the debate; Your question: "So you agree that harm has objective effects on people?" My stance has always been that we shouldn't have to care about mental harm effects as it is a slippery slope and there is no legal way to punish mental harm or quantify it in a way to judge it.

I've given you a measure to quantify the effects of mental health, just as you can't exactly quantify how much pain someone undergoes when they break that arm, does that mean you shouldn't have to care about it because you don't have a precise way to "measure it" its the same thing both ways bud.

2. You are conflating empirical data with "subjective views" you have failed to answer the question - the text you are responding to shows the empirical physical effects of psychological trauma - stop running away, please.
Data about psychological trauma isn't an argument demonstrating how it should be quantified legally. Stop running away please.

Parroting isn't an argument, its childish (I can do it cause I'm a child, x'D), the data shows that there is empirical ways to quantify the harm that mental trauma does - so - yes- yes it does demonstrate how it can be quantified legally - just as assaulting people on average- physically damages people, the same thing applies - yet there is the same lack of precise measurement, only the results -it is literally the same thing for physical damage as it is for mental

3. You have failed to address the question, instead, you have repeated yourself - substantiate what relevance it has to the conversation at hand
People having the freedom to not participate in something that triggers them is extremely relevant. Why does this point scare you so much that you keep avoiding it

I have addressed it so many times - by the time they have the 'freedom" to not participate, they would have already been triggered. Its quite simple.

4. You have failed to address the question

5. You have failed to address the question
Your getting really lazy here. It's dis-appointing.

You had failed to address the question, at least you finally do now -hey that's progress bud.

"So you agree that harm has objective effects on people?"
I can only conclude that you, therefore, concede the point. You agree that MENTAL HARM is as bad if not worse than PHYSICAL HARM
It literally doesn't matter if you can't quantify how mental harm should be treated legally. Even if you substantiate that the truama you feel from being called a cunt is so tremendous and torturous that you'd rather die than live through the pain; You can't demosntrate a reasonable way legal ethics should punish and seek justice for such crimes, because mental harm is subjective and varying among the recipients of it.

Why can't I apply the same thing to getting punched in assault? It's based on the same result-based measurement - why is it that you can reasonably justify the punishment for one and not the other - because of your lack of responsibility for your words, and your ignorance regarding mental health - that's why. (It was a rhetorical question btw)

1. This is a false comparison, the harm I am talking about is not "hurt feelings"
In regards to wylted, you've consistently used examples of hurt feelings as a basis for saying mental trauma is significantly worse than physical trauma.

"Hurt feelings" does not equate to having someone tell a rape victim that their rape was justified, that is JUSTIFYING RAPE and fundamentally mentally scarring - not just "hurt feelings" the thing I disagree with is your triviality of such a thing, which I have already shown objective LEGAL consequences of, and the affects it has on the victim, you are running away.

2. How are any of these things be resolved by "tougher skin" or "counseling" which is not always, if not most of the time, not effective - furthermore exasperating the problem, does not HELP - it further HARMS the individual - furthermore - you cannot "choose" to have these symptoms - you are not thinking through what you agreed to.
Why don't you tell me how it's possible to choose not to be offended. Remember when you said earlier you choose not to engage with Wylted because he is so offensive to you? How did you do it? You don't think others can do as you do and let the water roll off the skin? Why not?

"Choosing to not engage" and choosing to not have a feeling whenever you see text are two different things bud - you don't understand that - Wylted is offensive to me yes, but not to the degree that he is to other people - you are literally rehashing a point I already pointed out -this argument is not about me being offended Lunatic, and you fail to comprehend that. Unlike you - I do give a shit about other people -apparently unlike you if there were no laws I wouldn't start killing peole.

4. We are talking about removing Wylted and his posts, which are already posted, people can and will continue to see them - there is choice in that matter bud.
EXACTLY, there is choice in the matter. Choice not to click on something and view something that you know will offend you. Glad your finally giving in on that one lol.

And you decide to ignore me - there is a choice in the matter - IN DELETING WYLTED'S POSTS - even if they "Choose" to click on it out of curiosity that does not excuse Wylted fo his harmful speech - you are ignoring principle and only caring about results, but you fail to see that HUMANs can misrread and click on the thing thinking it said something else - i actually thought it said "Molestion isn't good" when I first saw it, and such a thing is common among people whenever they see shit like that - they did not choose to subject themselves to what they thought they were.

Topic's author

#152

Debates: 3

Posts: 7,429

03.20.2021 10:41AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

1. So then there are no ethics outside of legal matters? You have then yet to substantiate that is true - please address my syllogism - your own framework is flawed, because I actually did show that there are legal consequences for verbally abusing somebody - you can actually be jailed and fined.

As applies to child abuse; You refuse to demonstrate the same in regards to two functioning results.

2. There are more to morals than the legal system - otherwise you are literally just a democratically elected moral system - and that is all your ethics amount to - that's shaky foundation as well as your only justification being a social contract, which works on the assumption that there are moral principles that society is based on - ergo - your own ethics require for there to be morality.

I know there are morals in the legal system; They are debated and ruled on in a way that allows for a society to function and no more. Your proposed idea that people should be punished for offending others does not make sense for enforcing in a functioning society as triggers are vast and different, and vary between multiple people.

1. Those were not "claiming" to be affected as so - that was an empirical study recording the data - you are now arguing against empiricism - empirically speaking it has objective harms - now - answer the question - which is worse - disturbing the peace or causing psychological harm?

My opinion on what is worse is irrelevant, but disturbing peace has a morae tangible understanding. Psychological harm is vast and subjective. Again, someone could claim to be having phychological harm because I called them a cunt, in which case disturbing the peace is the clear winner.

1. Why does the vastness of the harm cause effect your responsibility in regards to it - should you not care for physical battery because of the vastness of the harm? Well no - you still don't punch people because some you can also tickle them, this is a ridiculous non-sequitur

Because harm is literally up to one person's own interpretation lol. Like that viral video when Zarna Joshi accused Rudy Pantoja of rape because of a dad joke lol.

2. You should do that before you make the debate

X'D you can't be serious. And if you are, you already are a hypocrite for not asking me or any of your other debate opponents for a list of triggers prior to starting off the arguments lol.

3. Because you have failed to show how "fallacies" can result in extreme psychological harm - in contrast - literally arguing that your rapist was correct to rape you would result in extreme psychological harm - similar to how veteran react in situations like that - only worse .

What happened to your earlier argument about accusing the victim of lying and victim shaming? Can you prove that someone who claims to be traumatized by something isn't actually experiencing trauma? How do you determine this legally? If your the one proposing this system be in place, you should also decide on a way to quantify how this should actually be possible.

4. Or you are an extremely dishonest individual who fails to consider the objective nature of the universe - a false dichotomy as it were bud.

Back to saying the universe is objective after claiming you were a subjectivist? You really are undecided on that one aren't ya "bud"?

1. You have, again again, again, failed to consider the thing you did concede to (now I'm saying that to annoy you) - mental harm can lead to a plethora of things I have already demonstrated. You have failed to make a meaningful argument.

You keep lying about me conceding stuff to you, hard to be annoyed by it. It's just amusing at this point.

1. I am saying that BY THE TIME THEY CLICK OFF THE THREAD or BLOCK HIM they wold have already received the psychological harm - that is simple cause and effect

They didn't have to click on the thread in the first place if the title was so offensive to them, and again there is no objective reason to care if someone is offended over your opinion on a debate site, especially if you are willing to substantiate it logically.

1. You do not "Choose" how you feel about a thing, you cannot "choose" to feel depressed - that is ignoring centuries of psychology that has made itself apparent - you are working on deeply ignorant assumptions of how the human mind works

You can choose not to participate in something that makes you depressed though, like a topic for a forum that you find repulsive. If you willingly click on something you know will traumatize you, that's on you. Even wrose if you go ahead and engage in it. That's not the responsibility of the OP of the forum whether or not you get triggered or not.

2. If you are dead THEN you cannot have liberty one of the effects you AGREED to being the cause of psychological harm was suicide and depression

Now you are saying suicide is not a choice and are miscontruing it as murder. I mean it aligns with most of the other silly stuff you've been saying lately, really hard to be surprised anymore.

No - no you have not - I argue against every single thing actually line for line, and explain what fallacy is behind it - you are pretending in every aspect to be correct - including even parroting my little end cards about how wrong you are.

"Waaaah" "No u"

Then point out every fallacy and explain why I made it - you say you didn't make the fallacy, but refuse to actually address my arguments, in some case, not answering the point blank question I asked you - I've already seen two examples of that - the difference is that i actually have proof for my claims, and you have your "feelings" ironic that is - as for "circle-jerking RM" do you think me agreeing with a thing he said means circle jirk? You have the maturity of a middle schooler bud.

I have been pointing out your fallacies left and right and sideways and up and down. Your circle jerking of RM is another one, ad populum. That said RM didnt' say anything meaningful, he's probably one of the worst people to have in your corner bolstering you up. RM doesn't actually have a point not based in hypocrisy. Sad thing is he actually agrees with me and admits it, just doesn't like wylted so is okay with him being treated the same way he was.

You have failed to actually read the things I posted that empirically proved such a thing, and your own words regarding it.

Another lazy nothing response.

1. You have failed to argue against my point - you have failed to substantiate any subjectiveness to mental trauma - you have quite literally hand waved everything away - if this is the extent to your arguing skills I see why you don't debate.

I've responded to everything y ou've said line by line. Your failure to understand any of it or try to just shows ignorance. I've done my time debating formally, I prefer forum style. Easier to respond to everything smoeone says without being forced into "dropping arguments" due to character restrictions.

#153

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

03.20.2021 10:43AM

-->

@Lunatic

Yeah you have fun with me stopping - you are just repeating the same points over and over

- I am a MORAL SUBJECTIVST nothing else - only morals, and if you paid attention you would know that

- I demonstrated that verbal abuse is counted in spousal abuse

- That is all I need

#154

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

03.20.2021 10:47AM

-->

@Lunatic

Challenge me to a debate, or I call it a very long night - perhaps I will engage again in length, unfortunately I lost track of time - I have things I need to do, and more reasonable people to discuss with. Again, if you want dedicated engagement, challenge me to a debate - I will then stay engaged - however I have already proved my point, if you fail to see that fine - but I don't have any hard feeling leaving my rebuttal shere- I would just be repeating myself over and over, as you continue to make the same fallacies over and over. I'm aware you'll just laugh this off, "Oh, he's conceded" - fine - think that - i don't care - you have lost my respect as an interlocutor - if you think me - literally the person who responded to every single line of your rebuttals am stopping it here because "I was losing" then I would encourage you to reread things, and then do some soul searching, peace, or not - maybe don't go into society anymore

Topic's author

#155

Debates: 3

Posts: 7,429

03.20.2021 11:05AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Challenge me to a debate, or I call it a very long night - perhaps I will engage again in length, unfortunately I lost track of time - I have things I need to do, and more reasonable people to discuss with. Again, if you want dedicated engagement, challenge me to a debate - I will then stay engaged - however I have already proved my point, if you fail to see that fine - but I don't have any hard feeling leaving my rebuttal shere- I would just be repeating myself over and over, as you continue to make the same fallacies over and over. I'm aware you'll just laugh this off, "Oh, he's conceded" - fine - think that - i don't care - you have lost my respect as an interlocutor - if you think me - literally the person who responded to every single line of your rebuttals am stopping it here because "I was losing" then I would encourage you to reread things, and then do some soul searching, peace, or not - maybe don't go into society anymore

I mean we clearly are talking in circles here, if you have better things to do, do them. I don't care. I won't say you've conceded, I think you are willfully ignoring my points or mis-understanding them, but honestly it doesn't matter to me. You have helped me get this thread recognized, keeping it on the top of the forums list for over a week. It's been made very clear the mods have no intention of responding. If the only person they have to defend them is you and RM and doing it poorly, that's fine with me. I will continue to call the mods out when they make mistakes like this. As far as losing your respect; I could care less. I have never interacted with you prior to this engagement. Can't be hurt losing a friend I never had lol.

#156

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,303

03.20.2021 01:37PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

however I have already proved my point,

To yourself and only to yourself.

#157

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,303

03.20.2021 01:43PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Or one could always go to an alternative [universe] and have a frank and open discussion with Harikrish and Ethang5....LOL

Fixed.

#158

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

03.20.2021 05:38PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Quite interesting - however - I could care much less what you think on the matter. I've provided the evidence to demonstrate that A) There are objective physical effects of mental harm [LINK], and that adults can be arrested for verbally abusing another [LINK] - that is quite literally all I need to prove.

It's also interesting about the inconsistency at which you called out ad hominem, while it is true that I used plenty, why didn't you call out any of Lunatic's many many. While perhaps it is outside my "epistemic knowledge" I would say that you're biased.

#159

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,303

03.20.2021 06:00PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Posting objectionable words on a website hardly qualifies as "trauma".

Verbal abuse by a member of your immediate physical household ≠ posting objectionable words on a webpage.

From your own source,

Either verbal abuse or emotional abuse constitutes the crime of domestic violence in Nevada, which is defined as the use of power, coercion and/or violence to control another. The Nevada Attorney General’s Office says verbal or emotional abuse can be charged as domestic violence if it is directed at a:

Husband, wife, girlfriend or boyfriend (spousal abuse)
Child by a parent, grandparent, stepparent, or significant other of a parent (child abuse)
Senior citizen by their children, grandchildren or others living with or caring for the victim (elderly abuse).

#160

RationalMadman

Debates: 564

Posts: 19,930

RationalMadman

03.20.2021 06:11PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

I would just disengage at this point, if I were you.

The question posed was regarding why Wylted was banned, to which you and I answered and Lunatic has gone out of his way to character-attack us and cherry-pick each long reply we make for snippets he feels he can find fault with (which he does with extreme confirmation bias at play).

The only reason you are still replying is either that you think understanding can be found between you and him or that you're falling for this 'don't stop replying or you're a coward' schtick he's got going, which is fucking ridiculous considering that the mods themselves aren't replying to him yet he feels you and I owe him some kind of special attention and effort.

The reason I am advising you to disengage is that at this point, we have both clearly stated the answer to the thread's question. What's happening now is they (mainly him but anyone with an urge to post here) are trying to push until we say something easy to sidetrack the entire thread so it maintains more attention than it deserves.

#161

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

03.20.2021 06:34PM

-->

@RationalMadman

Spite and hatred of hypocrites.

#162

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

03.20.2021 06:37PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Pay more attention please:

Either verbal abuse or emotional abuse constitutes

the physical household ≠ posting objectionable words

Strawman - I argued that the argument that molestation is good is triggering for individuals WITH TRAUMA - you have no idea what you are talking about

However I am done engaging with you, period - your bias has made itself clear -you only care about ad hominem if you don't agree with the position - where was your condemnation of Lunatic with his ad hominem?

I despise hypocrites.

#163

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,303

03.20.2021 07:01PM

Please provide examples of any ad hominem attacks you personally believe I've made against you.

(IFF) I point out when you make ad hominem attacks against me (and or others) (AND) (IFF) I also make ad hominem attacks against you (and or others) (THEN) I could be considered a "hypocrite" (ELSE) I can NOT be considered a "hypocrite" (regarding this particular accusation)

64 days later

#164

badger

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,087

badger

05.24.2021 12:06AM

Please unban my friend Wylted lol.

#165

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,005

05.24.2021 12:31AM

-->

@badger

#FreeWylted

#166

fauxlaw

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

fauxlaw

05.24.2021 04:53AM

-->

@thett3

@David

@badger

Guys, the answer to lunatic's question was answered on the affected former member's profile before lunatic asked, and it needs no further elaboration. "We" [members of DArt] did not ban the person, and, as a result none but Mods have the key to effect release.

I appeal to David to close this string and let us all move on.

7 days later

#167

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

06.01.2021 12:48AM

-->

@Lunatic

I know I am slow to this but here is a video of two things faster than me.

David's take here as post #5 is pretty much all you need.

If you care about growth you ban wylted.

If you care about upholding the rules you ban wylted.

If you care about literally the only bastion of the free speech you are talking about you wouldn't ban wylted.

Even if I agree this isn't illegal, it will bring about a bad image to this site. I think it is fair for sites to care about longevity even though it might go against what the site is about. It's a debating platform but it also works to provide users a worth-while service, having this baggage turns majority of people away. Competitors and news sites can also weaponise a brave stance on free speech.

Hopefully I showed you the other side or maybe think about it. I don't think I will respond, see that as I forgot or what you said doesn't influence me enough to make a response. That can be you missed the point or even if I answered what you said it is unlikely for you to see the other side.

I really like this theme, shame that the dude died. :(

#168

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,005

06.01.2021 01:00AM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

rebuttal:

wylted is funny

#169

Debates: 6

Posts: 1,950

06.01.2021 03:23AM

-->

@thett3

The verdict is in. Thett wins this debate.

Topic's author

#170

Debates: 3

Posts: 7,429

06.01.2021 05:27AM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

If you care about growth you ban wylted.

Dis-agree. Controversy is good and healthy for a debate site. Case in point, Debate.org. There were lots of controversial individuals there, but the site thrived until the spam bots came.

If you care about upholding the rules you ban wylted.

I've already pointed out multiple times that the "rules" are pretty flimsy. The mods use the site "rules" as an exccuse to play indifferent to making hard decisions, but the rules themselves say mods can enforce bans at their discretion anyway. Rules shouldn't be respected just because they are rules, there has to be good enough reason for those rules to exist. Since mods can use discretion, I am suggesting a better way to mod that doesn't hurt site population. Also bans are usually wayyyy too long here for things that are trivial at best.

Even if I agree this isn't illegal, it will bring about a bad image to this site. I think it is fair for sites to care about longevity even though it might go against what the site is about. It's a debating platform but it also works to provide users a worth-while service, having this baggage turns majority of people away. Competitors and news sites can also weaponise a brave stance on free speech.

I don't think the current state of this website's activity supports your theory about activity. Controversial opinions bring more activity. Why come to a debate site if you expect every one to have happy go lucky opinons that coincide with yours? The controversial topics on debate.org were some of the most poular threads they had. An idea shouldn't be banned because it is controversial. Provide a better reason then them for why that idea is bad, then you fulfill the nature and idea of the debate website.

Hopefully I showed you the other side or maybe think about it. I don't think I will respond, see that as I forgot or what you said doesn't influence me enough to make a response. That can be you missed the point or even if I answered what you said it is unlikely for you to see the other side.

I definitely understand the other side here, but I think it stems mostly from a new age sense of "you can't say that, it's offensive!". I think the world was a better time when comedians could make light of controversial topics wihtout getting witch burned, or people could go to a debate site with a controversial opinion and not get banned for it. Maybe they would be more likely to change their views on things. I was a right wing religious nut when I joined debate.org. Getting schooled argumentatively changed a lot of my ideas and opinions. If I was banned or silence from debate.org I'd probably still be there.

I really like this theme, shame that the dude died. :(

Agreed, it was an amazing show and the soundtrack was awesome, especially the one from the 90's adaptation.

#171

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

06.01.2021 11:44AM

-->

@Lunatic

I can't believe I am replying to this but here I am

Controversy is good and healthy for a debate site.

YouTube's advertisers pulled out because PewDiePie paid Indians on Fiver to hold up "death to all J***", Twitch with the prominence of hot tub streams made an entire separate category for it (even though the hot tub streams is pretty much sexual content and they will have to eventually make a stance on it or lose advertisers).

I think you are bogged down by the debate title. If you go by any other really popular site they did tend to move into the family friendly area by promoting family friendly content and removing controversial stuff. You can have debates outside of controversial topics, now have things gone to far or will they get to a point maybe but a businesses sole responsibly is making a profit.

I don't know about debate.org's history which is why I didn't comment on it.

Rules

By making an account you accept the terms the site lays out. You can of course protest and such but the rules are the rules. Even if they are given out inconsistently, too long or have little or no impact.

There doesn't have to be a good enough reason for rules to exist, they just need to be better than the other options. No rules will give them legal trouble and a bad image.

Your suggestion could be entirely correct or completely missing the point. It doesn't matter because you have to convince the moderators and owners. If you can't convince them you should drop it because I don't think you will get anything out of it unless you have become more persuasive.

I think it stems mostly from a new age sense of "you can't say that, it's offensive!". I think the world was a better time when comedians could make light of controversial topics without getting witch burned

I think in some cases cancel culture has gone too far but in other cases it is done well. This doesn't really change that cancel culture is a thing. I don't think it is fair for DA to take on responsibility for people not being able to have controversial topics. The blowback will lead to death threats, maybe doxxing and if big enough will pretty much be with them for the rest of their life. If DA wanted to have a strong stance on this stuff that would be cool but asking them puts them in jeopardy and I don't think they really want that hassle in their life.

I was a right wing religious nut when I joined debate.org. Getting schooled argumentatively changed a lot of my ideas and opinions. If I was banned or silence from debate.org I'd probably still be there.

I think interacting with debate websites gives unfair way of how things are. Majority of people don't really change their values, they stay the same even after counter-arguments whichever way it was given to them. I am lucky debating has changed me but I can't say the same for the people around me. My two parents are religious, my 3 siblings are religious and all of my cousins are religious. Even in my school I found like 6ish people who weren't religious. Now this doesn't mean people can't change their mind but it will require a lot of effort and understanding what kind of person they are.

Agreed, it was an amazing show and the soundtrack was awesome, especially the one from the 90's adaptation.

I think the start was boring and the ending was trash given what the sequel looked like. The middle was the best part and I only appreciated the guts' theme outside the anime.

inb4 this conversation goes on for a decade

Topic's author

#172

Debates: 3

Posts: 7,429

06.01.2021 10:40PM

YouTube's advertisers pulled out because PewDiePie paid Indians on Fiver to hold up "death to all J***", Twitch with the prominence of hot tub streams made an entire separate category for it (even though the hot tub streams is pretty much sexual content and they will have to eventually make a stance on it or lose advertisers).

I think you are bogged down by the debate title. If you go by any other really popular site they did tend to move into the family friendly area by promoting family friendly content and removing controversial stuff. You can have debates outside of controversial topics, now have things gone to far or will they get to a point maybe but a businesses sole responsibly is making a profit.

I don't know about debate.org's history which is why I didn't comment on it.

I am not sure I would say "bogged down by the debate title" is a good argument here. It being a debate site is what should make it unique right? Otherwise why not do our social networking elsewhere, like on facebook? I think the whole appeal of a site like this is to argue controversial opinions, and to get vindication for a stance you believe in, or see if that stance is widely unpopular.

Also I am aware of the pewdiepie debocle, and had a lot of opinions about that at the time. But in the end companies like youtube and twitch major faults rely more in how they decide to ban some stuff and let other stuff slide. Like youtube is banning the guy who does the disney voices because of couple of his videos have swear words in it, but the dude who was feeding to puppies to pythons on youtube went unbanned... Twitch honestly does a lot of the same stuff.

Regardless these debate communities really shouldn't even be in the same category as these companies, as the populations are much much smaller. If you want site growth on an already small website, why restrict the population further by enabling strict rules? I think Laissez faire moderation is the best type of moderation for site of this size. With companies like youtube and twitch I can at least take their unfair bans with a grain of salt knowing they probably didn't individually review the issue as deeply given they are probably constantly dealing with reports on a much larger scale.

By making an account you accept the terms the site lays out. You can of course protest and such but the rules are the rules. Even if they are given out inconsistently, too long or have little or no impact.

I mean I am only exorcising my freedom of speach and offering different alternatives that I think would help the site better. I am not denying the rules exist, but reccomending a change I feel will be productive for the website.

There doesn't have to be a good enough reason for rules to exist, they just need to be better than the other options. No rules will give them legal trouble and a bad image.

I am not suggesting no rules, I am suggesting less restriction and more discretion in applying them. The rules also say the mods have that ability.

The moderators retain the authority to interpret and apply all policies in the best interests of the site and users therein. In most cases, a “reasonable person” standard will be utilized.

Your suggestion could be entirely correct or completely missing the point. It doesn't matter because you have to convince the moderators and owners. If you can't convince them you should drop it because I don't think you will get anything out of it unless you have become more persuasive.

This whole thread is an appeal to the moderators and owners. I hoped by making a thread I could convince them. It's why I will continue to respond to people here, if it brings attention. I did "drop" it months ago, but since you are responding to me now, I'll happily re-engage the conversation. I highly doubt the mods are reading this, but in the off chance they are, maybe I can help change their mind.

I think in some cases cancel culture has gone too far but in other cases it is done well. This doesn't really change that cancel culture is a thing. I don't think it is fair for DA to take on responsibility for people not being able to have controversial topics. The blowback will lead to death threats, maybe doxxing and if big enough will pretty much be with them for the rest of their life. If DA wanted to have a strong stance on this stuff that would be cool but asking them puts them in jeopardy and I don't think they really want that hassle in their life.

I think you are using the slippery slope fallacy here quite a bit too much, and assuming an outcome based on a circumstance that hasn't occured because it isn't allowed to. Regardless, issues of doxxing and death threats can be dealt with as they happen. That's when the bans should happen, not pre banning people because you are afraid of the blowback of their controversial opinion. That's just an easy excuse to silence people's controversial opinions. As far as giving the mods a "hassle" in real life, I guarantee you taking a laissez faire style to modding decreases the hassle and stress of the job. They would have to deal with less people like me complaining about the bans, that's for sure ;-)

TBH Airmax has told me that his job got a whole lot easier when he started modding this way. When he first started as a mod on DDO he was much more strict, and it really didn't make things easier. Also it's not like he stopped banning people for death threats and doxxing.

I think interacting with debate websites gives unfair way of how things are. Majority of people don't really change their values, they stay the same even after counter-arguments whichever way it was given to them. I am lucky debating has changed me but I can't say the same for the people around me. My two parents are religious, my 3 siblings are religious and all of my cousins are religious. Even in my school I found like 6ish people who weren't religious. Now this doesn't mean people can't change their mind but it will require a lot of effort and understanding what kind of person they are.

Human nature makes us pretty stubborn. But there are many people who change their opinions over the course of getting beaten in debates, or seeing different arguments. You are also a case in point here it seems. Whether or not the majority of people's stances end up changing or not isn't really the point, but why deprive people the chance?

I think the start was boring and the ending was trash given what the sequel looked like. The middle was the best part and I only appreciated the guts' theme outside the anime.

To be honset I only liked the 90's version of the golden age arc. Literally everything else was crap, but I fell in love with that season.

Topic's author

#173

Debates: 3

Posts: 7,429

06.01.2021 10:41PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

oops forgot to tag ya

#174

Debates: 30

Posts: 965

06.01.2021 11:14PM

I don't think debate websites should restrict what we debate. The purpose of a debate cite is that we should be debating controversial topics which we otherwise would otherwise discuss.

#175

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689

06.02.2021 01:44AM

-->

@Bones

I don't think mods have ever killed a debate based "what we debate." I have debated lots of provocative topics including

i chunged me moond, iz am a fascist nazi now heil hitler kill jews yay

Kyke is my favorite word

and

Sombody slap my fat titties

and never fielded a complaint from Mods

What will get a debate killed is debating under an alternate identity (as wylted did many times) or even debating both sides using different ids (as the author of the above titles tried)

#176

Debates: 6

Posts: 1,950

06.02.2021 02:46AM

-->

@Username

Wylted, how do you feel about being banned?

#177

Debates: 30

Posts: 965

06.02.2021 09:57AM

-->

@oromagi

Wylted was before my time, so I am not too sure what he is like as a person, whether he was a joker or flat out eager to hurt people. As such, it would be rash for me to rush into his defence, as I do not actually (specifically) know what he is being accused of or how he is to interact with.

#178

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,689