Total posts: 13,795
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
Poorly written rules are impossible to implement fairly.I think improving the rules would help.
It would be like telling all police officers, "use your best judgment" and then expecting uniform enforcement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I believe they were copied verbatim from DDO.Who do you think created the rules?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
I believe the problem is with the vague rules, not the enforcers themselves.On the whole I've observed more bad decisions than good ones...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
We are effectively working with a sample size of 1.I'll grant that life appears to be exceedingly rare in our universe, so rare that f things had been slightly different it might never have occurred at all in our local neighborhood. But in the entire universe? We have know way of knowing. Even when the odds of life occurring on a single planet are extremely low, given the numbers involved--a billion trillion stars over 14 billion years--it is not inconceivable that life developing somewhere in the universe is a near certainty, even if the universe was tuned differently.
Clearly, inconclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Please define "prime"."God" refers to a prime, eternal consciousness.
It is irrational to presume that anything either is or is not "eternal". Either statement is beyond our epistemological limitations.
It is irrational to presume anything resembling "consciousness" can exist outside of a human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Grugore
You are conflating quanta and qualia.My point is that truth is not subjective. Something is either true or it is false. Truth is not subject to interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Is there any such thing as morality? It is clear that if morality is a 'thing' it is not a thing made of atoms. Nor is it made of 'energy' because if it was it would be possible to use morality to heat water. Nor can morality be located anywhere in space.We talk about morality a lot on DA... but what - if anything - are we talking about?
Temporal and geographic social norms.
A mostly unspoken social contract.
Purely qualitative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
All these claims about it being unchanging
How do you know if it is "unchanging"?
and perfect
How do you know if it is "perfect"?
are implied by accepting it as being what it is.
We already agreed that it is unknown/unknowable.
The Ultimate Reality. This is a definition.
Your insistence on "definition" is merely axiomatic.
You can't randomly assign characteristics to something that is unknown/unknowable without some sort of justification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
This is 100% better than no MEEP process.Right now, I am not really getting much feedback on the MEEP process itself,
Thank you for your fair and reasonable consideration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
On your analysis of the rules, I don't think it is accurate at all. If you look at many of the RFDs moderation has upheld, you will find that they don't require nearly as much work as you seem to think. Basically, the rules require a thoughtful, written reply that assigns points for how things interacted in the debate space and not based on superficial evaluations. When I write an RFD, I put in about 20 minutes, tops. I am sure you could do it in less time than that, depending on how quickly you type and process the arguments in your head.
The point is that the rules, as they are stated, are unclear (too subjective) and enforcement appears to be arbitrary.
I've noticed that if I give detailed reasons (focusing on formal logic) for what I believe are the key arguments (statements that related directly to The Debate Resolution Itself) I am invariably accused of citing outside sources or loading the RFD with personal opinion.
And when I quote specific arguments and counter arguments which I believe speak for themselves, I am invariably accused of not adequately explaining my "reasons".
And if I mention a specific logical fallacy, I am invariably accused again of citing outside sources.
Rule number one, "This survey must be comprehensive, which is to say that it must survey all or most of the main arguments in the debate" - this is particularly unreasonable.
I've seen many RFDs that are left standing that do not meet these requirements and many that are struck down.
There doesn't seem to be any consistency one way or another. Even the mods seem to inject personal opinion into their decisions to remove a particular vote and then let another similar vote stand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Do you approve of Mike?
Yes: 1
No: 0
Do you approve of Bsh1?
Yes: 1
No: 0
Do you approve of Virtuoso?
Yes: 1
No: 0
Do you approve of Castin?
Yes: 1
No: 0
Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Not sure how I would measure that.
Also,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Competition should be judged as fairly as possible or else the victory is meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Then perhaps we can get users to "opt in" for site policy votes.Nothing will ever get changed. When I did my mega poll, I barely got half of all the users active within 7 days.
2/3 of users active in the past 7 days who have opted in for site policy votes would need to vote for a proposal in order for a change to be implemented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
So your argument is that aliens on their far far away planet looking at the stars will not see the same constellations we see on earth?
They won't even see the same time that you see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Should it be a simply majority?
I am in favor of a 2/3 majority rule.
Should it have a participation threshold?
I am in favor of a 2/3 (of members active within the last 30 days) participation threshold.
Should its results be binding or advisory?
Binding until challenged by a counter proposal that meets the 2/3 majority threshold.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
There is a 'coherence' view of truth and a 'correspondence' view of truth.
Both criteria can be met if debate opponents can explicitly find common ground by clearly defining "the facts of the case".
In the same way the prosecution and defense in a court of law can agree on "the facts of the case".
At that point, either conclusions follow logically or they don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you want me to explain why I believe the newly proposed rules are a marked improvement over the old rules?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
In order to award argument points, a voter must do two things. First, they must survey specific arguments and counterarguments from both sides which impacted their voting decision. This survey must be comprehensive, which is to say that it must survey all or most of the main arguments in the debate, or must explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself.
It would take hours to list each of the twenty plus arguments and or counter arguments and explain why they should or should not be considered main arguments. This makes a true RFD unmanageable and necessarily a comprehensive summary of the entire debate. Since the term Main Arguments is not clearly defined, either by the rule makers, or the debaters themselves, or by the moderators, it is a purely subjective and arbitrary measurement.
It would make more sense to focus attention on the Debate Resolution Itself and ignore any arguments that do not either directly support or directly attack the Debate Resolution Itself.
Second, the voter must explain how the arguments and counterarguments they reference impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at. In other words, the voter must weigh the arguments and counterarguments they identified. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one set of arguments and counterarguments outweighed and/or precluded another set of them, and then, in turn, how this strength imbalance led to the decision to give one debater a win as opposed to a loss. This requires situating the arguments and counterarguments being analyzed within the context of the debate as a whole.
"Situating the arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate" would require retyping the entire debate in your RFD.
The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes, comment sections, and separate forums. Votes that impermissibly factor in outside content and which are reported will be removed.
This is a particularly bizarre rule, which seems to impossibly hamstring any potential voter by disallowing even basic logic as being used as "reasoning" to be included in a sufficient RFD. For example, if, as is commonly the case, both debaters go full gish gallop with tangential off-topic rants, and both sides ignore 80 to 90% of what their opponent says, and I try to carefully pick through the chaos to find statements that directly address the Debate Topic Itself (either PRO or CON), and carefully analyse the logical coherence of those statements, then my RFD is considered "insufficient" because, not only did it not comprehensively survey the entire debate, including all of the "main arguments" but, on top of that, by making reference to basic logic, I am then accused of using "information given outside the debate rounds".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
- To award argument points, the voter must (1) analyze the argument they found most important, (2) explain who is winning that argument and why.
- To award sources points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's sources, or note that one side did not use sources while the other did, and (2) point to a specific good or bad source.
- To award spelling and grammar points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the quality of each side's spelling and grammar and (2) point to a specific instance of poor spelling and grammar.
- To award conduct points, the voter must (1) offer a comparative statement about the conduct of each side, and (2) point to a specific act of misconduct by a particular side
These are a marked improvement over the current Voting Policy RFD "rules". - https://www.debateart.com/rules
If "select winner" is going to simply be identical to "argument points" I'm not sure why anyone would bother implementing such an option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
We agree on the logical necessity of "NTURTTGgTS" AND that it is unknown/unknowable.
Everything else you claim about it, that it is "unchanging" and or "perfect" and or "transcends time"?
All of those claims demand evidence.
All of those claims also demand strict definitions.
This is an ontological argument - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
"Truth" is a bit of a reach in my opinion.Not to establish the truth of a proposition, then. That's what PG and skeps naively assumed.
Logical coherence based on (mutually agreed upon) common ground is a bit more quantifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So - why do people want formal debating in the first place?
To pratice rhetorical skills (and logic).
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Good point.Yeah, actually several people who would notmally vote in my debates no longer vote in debates because of how votes are moderated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Excellent point.Considering that a person's vote which I recently reported to you on my recent debate was deemed adequate when the voter made false claims about my arguments and used those false claims as reasons for giving the argument vote to my opponent, I feel that the strictness of the RFD is entirely irrelevant to the problem this site is facing. The problem is, obviously, that bullshit votes are allowed in formal debates. I am brand new to this site, and because of that moderation decision, I am already seriously considering leaving it. Formal debate here is obviously useless if votes are not required to have factual merit. I am very disappointed, because I actually like this site a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
Well stated.If moderators can't just nuke votes without warning, but have to give the voter a chance to correct any shortcomings, then it makes life a lot easier for the voter and also gives the debater a chance to dispute anything specific about the vote they may have a legitimate reason to dispute. After the vote has been corrected and allowed to stand, no further (public) bickering over the vote should be allowed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're making a pretty big assumption that any sort of modern "technology" will survive and still be functional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
If you say something like, "the cable is about two meters long", then I know it is an approximation and we are able to communicate.
If you say, "use common sense" I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
It's exactly as useful as "figure it out yourself", or "use your brain".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
If you can't quantify it, it is qualia.
If it is qualia, then it is just a matter of opinion.
If it is just a matter of opinion, it is practically meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I watched this on DVD because everyone was raving about it.
I thought it was just, eh, ok.
Then I watched it on my computer and set the colors to sepia (VLC).
It looked like the most amazing comic book just came to life right before my eyes.
"The colors tab in VLC is equally useful. It allows you to add effects and extra colors from the video. Select Color extraction and then a color to turn the video into shades of that color. Use Color threshold to play with color levels while changing saturation and similarity. Select Negate colors to turn the video into a negative, Posterize to do exactly that and Gradient to illicit a look similar to a watercolor. Sepia does exactly what you think it does."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
When the rest of the world kills itself off, only the most remote and isolated tribes of humans who are currently living with stone age technology will survive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
In real, actual, practical terms it is nearly impossible to implement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
As for this heaven thing, I'm not sure our common understanding matches what the Bible actually says.
Attributes like an absence of sadness, war, or sin are common knowledge, as are the pearly gates, but there are quite a few obscure elements which separate Christian heaven from other depictions. For starters, the ultimate heaven isn’t a place yet; the Bible says that a new Earth, where heaven will be, won’t be created until after Armageddon. Until then, the dead are just sort of waiting in an intermediate heaven, feeling no passage of time. The book of Revelation says that there will be a great city, unparalleled in beauty, with walls made of precious jewels and streets made of gold. God is said to dwell among the humans who make it to heaven, where they worship him for eternity. There is a lot of debate over whether or not those in heaven remember their lives, and the Bible is a little ambiguous on the subject, but Jesus’s promise to see his disciples there has been taken as meaning they do.
It seems like Jesus will have lots of work for us to do, so we might not have much time to visit...
What Will We Do in Heaven?
In heaven, believers will worship God, judge and rule (I Corinthians 6:2-3), rebuild cities (Amos 9:14, Isaiah 61:4), compose music (Revelation 14:13), farm, raise livestock, and continue using their God-given talents they had on earth to honor God, according to Enns. But medical doctors and dentists will need to find new vocations, he noted, since the heavenly bodies will be perfect.
Heaven, as described in detail in the book of Revelation 21:4; 7:17 is 2,250,000 square miles (1,500 sqm X 1,500 sqm) which is roughly the combined surface area of the 16 largest states in America. With an estimated 1.5 billion dead Christians (and counting) it might be hard to find individuals.
Estimated number of Christians in total -
Because the city is at least 1,400 miles in length, width and height, it could be shaped like a cube or pyramid. Does the height refer to the wall that surrounds the city or the tallest building? Rev. 21:17 says the wall around the city is about 200 feet, but ESV, NASB and KJV bibles don't specify whether this is the thickness or height. The NIV bible says this is about 200 feet thick, but the footnote says "or high". A cube-shaped city would make sense in the sense the Most Holy place in Solomon's temple(1 Kings 6:20) was shaped like a cube. However, scripture does not provide a definitive answer as to whether the city is cube or pyramid-shaped.
The visual aid (model of heaven to scale on a globe) at this link is hilarious -
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
You just might be correct.In a perfect world, this would be a good idea. It presupposes that you have two dispassionate debaters who are willing to argue without allowing emotions to dictate their means. Nobody wants to lose a debate which is why people typically display the traits you mentioned above. People would rather be ugly and retain a semblance of winning than lose gracefully.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
In my experience it is way more common for people to be unjustifiably confident in their beliefs and generally in love with the idea of absolute certainty.Most people are uncomfortable with the idea of absolute certainty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Hume's problem of induction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I've always found "common sense" to be such an amorphous concept that it is practically meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
How many leaders to followers, as a ratio do you believe is normal?
Almost by definition you can't have more leaders than followers.
Therefore, the followers would naturally outnumber the leaders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Important for what?
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
So you don't get seduced and or brainwashed by con-artists and liars.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality cannot change,
You have no way of knowing this.
because if it changed it wouldn't be The Ultimate Reality.
This bald assertion is simply an ontological argument.
If it changed, it wouldn't already be perfect.
Another ontological argument. You have no way of knowing this. What do you mean by "perfect" and how could you possibly verify that it applies?
As The Ultimate Reality does not change, time has no dominion over it.
How could you possibly know if the unknown/unknowable "changed" or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
If you can't be sure that a state of being is an eternal feature in nature, is there anything you are sure of?
Hume is notorious for his "problem of induction".
We can be reasonably sure of things that are reasonably reliable phenomena.
Everything else is out the window.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Please explain how any of what you are jabbering about has anything to do with "Star Trek Teleportation".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If time was a reality higher than the ultimate reality, what you are calling the ultimate reality would not be the ultimate reality.
The point is that we don't know and we may not be able to know if the fundamental nature of space-time is or is not also a fundamental aspect of noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) (mysterium invisus/magnum mysterium).
For time to exist, there must be existence. Existence precedes time. Without existence, there can be no time.
For the human concept and experience of space-time to exist, there must be humans.
We cannot say for certain if "existence precedes time" without knowing fully and exactly what "existence" and "space-time" actually are fundamentally and where they "came from".
So to be clear, I dispute that this is an observational issue. Obviously, you can't observe anything outside of time, and being time bound creatures it would be impossible for us to observe eternity directly.
Exactly. And as such, it is also impossible for us to determine if "eternity" even "exists" at all.
The Ultimate Reality is certainly eternal and unchanging. Otherwise, it wouldn't be what it is.
The bald assertion of, "The Ultimate Reality is certainly eternal and unchanging" is not logically sound.
When you say, "otherwise, it wouldn't be what it is" you are simply taking a stab at an ad-hoc ontological argument.
There is no way anyone can tell if noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) (mysterium invisus/magnum mysterium) is either "eternal" or not or "unchanging" or not because it is unobservable either directly or indirectly and defined as the unknown/unknowable.
In the same way that being able to use a computer (observable phenomenon of space-time) doesn't mean you know how to make a computer from scratch (understand the fundamental nature of space-time).
If you don't know (or can't know) the fundamental nature of "time", you have no way of saying "before time - everything was eternal" or "without time - everything was eternal" you can't simply assume that what may or may not be beyond our epistemological limits either is or isn't subject to something like or some aspect of "time". What you don't know is not automatically the opposite of what you do know. [LINK]
You can't really say what it is.
You can't really say what it isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Please explain to me how a hypothetically undetectable substance can be determined to "exist"?Huh? What has this got to do with anything Ive stated? Your still confused on this issue Bru.
You chimed in on dualism vs. monism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Both the fundamental nature of space-time and noumenon (a.k.a. Ultimate Reality/The Truth/[G]god/The Source) are unknown/unknowable (mysterium invisus/magnum mysterium).Not true, as we can know this or that via indirect observed data. LIGO indirectly proves existence of gravity via retarded speeds of one set of photon{s} return arrival time.
Axiomatically, we can not know what we cannot observe.
In other words, we cannot extrapolate, directly or indirectly, the nature of space-time "before" 13.799 billion years ago.
LIGO tells us absolutely nothing about the fundamental nature of space-time.
LIGO gives us data that we can use to extrapolate and predict phenomena.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
We're just looking at your position on abortion...
What the heck? I could have easily just told you my "position on abortion".
I have never had an abortion myself and do not know anyone personally who has ever had or who has ever even considered having an abortion.
I do not recommend anyone have an abortion and from what I understand, over 80% of women who have abortions regret their decision.
Abortion is never anyone's first choice. Preventing unwanted pregnancy is everyone's first choice.
However, because it is a legal medical procedure, I believe that nobody has the right to interfere with a woman's right to medical privacy.
It may be "morally wrong", but it is currently legal, and if we locked up everyone on earth who did something "morally wrong" we probably would have very few productive citizens.
If someone, like yourself apparently, disagrees with the current legal status of abortion as a medical procedure and or the current legal status of pre-natal human embryos, please write a letter to your state and or federal representatives.
Screaming in pregnant women's faces and shooting at and or otherwise harassing medical doctors for conducting perfectly legal activities is insane.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You haev yet to understand that Ethang has self-value issues. He wants every fertilized egg to raise their hand and state, 'I am somebody'.Ethang has obsession with fetus/babie blood lust that, he not only has to constantly repeat his blood thirsty statements he believes the fertilized egg should march on washington with raised hand demanding recognition that, 'we are somebody'.These type of people are sick-n-head and cannot allow truth into their scenarios ergo their immorality cannot allow truth, that, fertilied egg is not a 'somebody', rather the fertilzed egg is intimate part of pregnant womans body.Ethang and his need to be Locked Away from civilized moral humanity sooner rather then later. This goes for all Trumpanzees.Lock Them Away Today!
Remarkably lucid.
Created: