Total posts: 14,582
-->
@PGA2.0
A dog is a dog. A dog cannot be a non-dog.
What one person calls a "dog" might be a "catellus" to someone else.
You're confusing ONTOLOGY with "objective reality".
If one person measures in inches and the other measures in centimeters, which one is more "objective"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You can't live with such a standard because as soon as the tables are turned on you and you are the victim your position changes and you realize these things are morally reprehensible and wrong. Then you no longer endorse moral relativism.
When the "community" turns against you, that is EXACTLY when you endorse moral relativism.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
What is the actual right? You can't produce one. All you can say is "I like this [old book] view."
You have an OPINION that "the bible" is "objective".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
That man, now knowing both good and evil, passed his views onto humanity. His thinking without God influences his children with evil.
So, does this mean the children of True Christians are born without sin?
Created:
-->
@Conway
I've never heard a Christian testify that one is saved by a coherent logical sequence through reason.
You can find some very interesting variations from time to time.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
But swinging back to people like Joe Biden (who was intimately involved in causing alot of these problems) will not bring change. He and the Dem leadership don't have any solutions because they helped design (and profited from) the broken system.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
So you (also you) must show (also show) on such issues that what you believe is the objective truth.
If you are unable to produce a coherent definition of "objective" then your naked opinion is laid bare.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
So, the covenant changed, not the Law.
Hairsplitting.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How do you plan on avoiding Naraka?He/she/it does not exist. He/she/it is a false god. Sorry to break your bubble. Sorry, I am not trying to skirt the issue by being politically correct. Not all ideas about God are sound.
Now you know how I feel when someone tells me I'm going to "hell".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
There are reasons given in which divorce is permissible. That is for marital unfaithfulness.
Right, but REMARRIAGE IS VERBOTEN!
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
There has to be a standard for goodness, something that is best (the ideal) to compare it against as to its merits or lack of.
Is your standard of "goodness" the "ten commandments"?
Or is your standard of "goodness" "love thy neighbor"?
Or is your standard of "goodness" "let Jesus guide your heart"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
But sometimes people like playing video games on easy mode,
Good point. No harm in a quick ego boost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
only the participants in the debate would be allowed to vote (not for themselves, but optionally for their opponents).Why would they want to do that again?
In order to incentivize both parties to stake out common-ground.
You can't win a "self-moderated" debate if you refuse to take me seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I do agree that in convincing your 'opponent, I think it necessary to consider what 'they believe, and how you might guide their thought and will to see and acknowledge that which they find difficult to deny, be it by logic or emotion.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
To further convince oneself,
If you're confident in your own belief, why would you bother?
Why would talking at someone else (while ignoring them) help YOU convince YOURSELF?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
If you automatically disqualify all appeals-to-authority (dogma, judges) and appeals-to-popularity (audience, voters), then your only VALID option is to appeal to your opponent's sense of LOGIC (and or emotion).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
I wouldn't really care whether self-moderated debates would be added, rather I don't see them actually being used.
Sounds good.
Can I mark you down as "not opposed"?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
If I'm #1 of only 2 options, my primary strategy is to scare the hell out of everyone by painting the #2 option as a bunch of world-ending-psychopath-baby-eaters.
That way, I can get away with whatever I want and look like a saint in comparison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Competition debate, I'm much less willing to concede points, as I think a person's role is to defend his side of the debate to their utmost, and again, competition.
What's the point of "defending" an argument if that argument has no ability to CONVINCE others?
Wouldn't that be like a religious zealot defending the infallibility of their preferred holy book?
Imagine zealot "A" arguing, "my ancient holy book is infallible because the book itself tells me it's infallible" (appeal to authority).
Imagine zealot "B" arguing, "my ancient holy book is infallible because the book itself tells me it's infallible" (appeal to authority).
If you automatically disqualify all appeals-to-authority (dogma, judges) and appeals-to-popularity (audience, voters), then your only VALID option is to appeal to your opponent's sense of LOGIC (and or emotion).
This skill (convincing an opponent via self-moderated-debate) is a PRACTICAL REAL-WORLD-SKILL.
Rules wonking and clever implicit insults (that often "win" traditional, ranked formal debates) might silence a frustrated opponent IRL, but this type of "win" will often backfire. As much as we might relish a "sick-burn" and a (virtual) room-full of derisive laughter, that "win" will never be as productive as a well-crafted appeal to common-ground.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
The more you give up, the more your side gets shaky and you lose the debate.
Not necessarily.
Imagine you engage in a self-moderated debate and your opponent presents a steel-man that makes your argument 10X stronger.
Would you consider granting them a point for such a gift?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
The problem with your proposal is that you assume the people are open-minded (like my account arguing ridiculous things).
Quite the opposite, actually.
Most people are very closed-minded.
That's exactly why winning a self-moderated debate would be more impressive than 100 debates won on technicalities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Would you be in favor of adding a "self-moderated" debate option?As long as it is an option, sure.What exactly would that look like?
It would look exactly like the current "judicial decision" style of unranked debate currently available, except instead of selecting a "judge", only the participants in the debate would be allowed to vote (not for themselves, but optionally for their opponents).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Self Moderated debates will be obsolete.
(IFF) your goal when debating is to CONVINCE your opponent (THEN) self-moderated debate is the best possible measure of your skill
If you want a discussion just go on the forums
That's also an excellent option although I believe adding some structure to the discussion without turning the entire thing into an overt "appeal to popularity" or an "appeal to authority" might prove to be educational.
Would you personally object to adding "self-moderated" as a debate option, as long as it didn't interfere with any of the current rules or rankings?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It could also be the case that the Judge respects logical consistency and soundness, and analyzes each argument based on their integrity.
I'd certainly hope so, but as you've indicated, that has not been my experience (not just on this magnificent website, but everywhere else as well).
I appreciate your vote of confidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Would you want your posts censored?
Never.
I'm not advocating any changes to the existing format or rules.
I'm merely proposing an option be added to allow "self-moderated" debates.
Would you be in favor of adding a "self-moderated" debate option?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you aren't willing to pay a price for change, then you won't ever get it.
Yep.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You can vote in-person if your district has early voting (most of them do).
I've already gone to vote in-person three times.
The first two times I went, the lines were so long, I didn't want to wait.
I can imagine that if you wait until "election day" you're probably going to be standing in line for several hours.
I'd recommend checking your county website for early voting locations, you can probably vote through the end of this week (even Saturday).
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Trump staffers discuss changing rules regarding delegates,
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Adam had free will. He was the only person who could choose to sin or not sin, other than Jesus Christ.
If I made a robot, would that robot be "free from the influence of sin"?
Created:
-->
@Castin
Well, I need hard data to turn our "what ifs" into quantifiable realities that I can weigh and measure, and I'm just finding that data a little difficult to come by.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Athias believes in ontological bedrock.
Athias does not believe in epistemological limits.
I hope that clears things up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Whatever action you took in regards to another, was it done in love?
I love my family and that's why I murder everyone who tries to cheat them.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I bet if I just keep writing in "Dumbledore" on all my ballots Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will get scared straight and vow off Super PACs.
That would be amazing.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
I appreciate your attention.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
More of a biological imperative.
I like the idea that each of us will be our own "judge" at the end of our lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
By my own personal moral intuition (emotional response to what I subjectively believe to be right or wrong) which is the only one I have to rely on.
Do you consider "follow your own moral intuition" a "moral principle"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I might consider it an inadequate moral principle.
In what context might it be considered "adequate" and in what context might it be considered "inadequate"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Athias
With that said, I'm all for rooting out the toxicity of the debating and voting processes. If it's ever subject to a referendum, I'll take no issue supporting your proposition.
I greatly appreciate your endorsement!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Judge voting, in my opinion, serves the same function as a mediation. Two parties in dispute defer their sought resolution to the decision of a third party. Ideally, this third party would sustain the trust and respect of both parties involved. Would that necessarily lead to clever insults and cheap rules wonking?
Yes, if that judge has any familiarity with either of the participants or has any preference at all for a particular style of debate and if that judge is attempting to follow any set of rules then rules wonking will be incentivized.
Clever insults are just indirect ad hominem attacks.
My job is to convince a judge that my opponent is "wrong" because they've made "mistakes" in either the framing or some of the specific details of their argument (my opponent is unreliable and or stupid and I am more reliable and or more intelligent for pointing this out).
Created:
-->
@AddledBrain
State execution is strictly a Community safety measure, as is stated in the original premise.
Only if the killer is rabid.
Created:
-->
@AddledBrain
Killers who must be in prison often develop a mean streak
It's worth pointing out here that perfectly innocent people who are sent to prisons also often develop a mean streak.
Created:
-->
@AddledBrain
I could easily see how a convicted killer could have a vindictive streak and wish to go after anyone who put him behind bars if he had the chance.
Are you in the habit of punishing people for crimes you imagine they might commit in the future?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
But isn't the necessity in and of itself purely conceptual?
You see a computer screen. This is definitely "something" (not "no-thing").
Now, we know the "computer" "screen" is almost certainly not, fundamentally, only what it appears to be to us as individuals.
Our best analysis seems to strongly suggest it "is" a temporarily cohesive mass of quarks.
But we know it is "something" (not "no-thing").
So, even though we may never be able to directly observe or even fully comprehend what the "real-and-true-thing-in-itself" actually "is", we can still have 100% confidence that it is "something" (not "no-thing").
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Let me ask: this proposition you offer, do you find it more preferable than judge voting?
I find it vastly superior to judged voting.
I realized at some point, that skewering your friends and family members with incisive logic is shockingly naive rhetoric.
In "real-life" you often need a more subtle debate technique that aims to win your most hardened opponent over to your side.
Judged debates are the polar opposite of "productive negotiations" and they promote the idea that clever insults and cheap rules wonking always win the day.
I believe this fundamental misunderstanding of the ultimate goal of dialogue is contributing to the toxic environment we find ourselves embroiled in.
For example,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Thank you very much, I'll set something up and see if I get any takers.
Created: