949havoc

Regarding your altered #2, and for oromagi's benefit, since he also raised this issue, my arrival at an avg of 18 comments per debate was a simple division of number of comments by number of debates. Having reviewed a fair number of debates as a precursor to joining the site, I acknowledge that the more controversial the debate may be, the more comments it attracts. Therefore, the simple division is a bit elementary.

I would also agree your #3 alteration has merit.

Thanks

Yes, marketing would be viewed mostly as a growth effort, but on the other hand, who knows what influence a comment here or there off-site has?

No, I'm not at all familiar with Debate.org, and had no idea this site is a refugee conclave. Surely, not all, and certainly not me..

I cannot argue anything you've said, and, surely, no-vote debates are probably a problem, even if not a significant problem. At least, I hope it isn't significant - say, above 10 or 15% - but I don't see the time used in determining that an efficient use of time. Perhaps that issue could be automatically counted with someone's re-programming of the stats - a moderator? But, with your being the clear leader in debate rating, I value your opinion.

Joe Biden is waving a flag. It's completely white, and has nothing whatsoever to do with white supremacy; nothing to do with CRT, or BLM, or 1619 Project, or any of that. Not even that of American military might. That, at least, remains stained red, white and blue. No. Joe Biden's flag is the white flag of surrender. Joe Biden has effectively surrendered to the Taliban, leaving who knows how many American citizens abandoned. Some of them probably even voted for the figurehead of foreign policy failure of the past 50 years. Wave your flag, Joe. 

Whatever blocking is, doesn't sound like a major obstacle, so what's the big deal? If RationalMadman chooses to block me, that's his to do, no? Isn't it useless as a third wheels to talk about it? He will, or won't. Speculation doesn't further the discussion.  Seems to me that kind of sensitivity for an adult is a bit childish, but that's just me.

Words mean things. I didn't say I don't bash the Bible; I said I don't use it to bash, i.e., as a weapon, itself? Get it? Seems fools are best at accusing others of the same. Wear it, bub.

Uh, because I''m not Shirley Temple, Lucy?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't particularly like using the Bible as weapon. Appears you enjoy bashing, so, bash away; just don't expect me to play. Girly boy? Doesn't it take one to know one? Watch how you throw accusations, mister; it's like pissing into the wind. Call me whatever you like like; it fails to impress. I've heard worse.

Ah. Thanks.

What "win" exists in Forum? It's an open-season discussion. That we disagree on this point is obvious, but there is no vote to designate win/lose. Don't make a mountain of a molehill. It looks petty. Take your ball and go home; that's your choice.

Nevertheless, you made the statement that not wearing a mask leads to lockdown. w/hat changes now and then? In my community, the data does not demonstrate that lockdown is the answer because the incident of infection has not increased, so why should a mask mandate be imposed. It ought to be a local condition, not a national mandate since conditions on the ground vary place to place, That we have not figured out why should not override the facts.

Since when is demonstration of analysis not "showing?" I could have just said that stuff; that commentary exceeds voting, etc. I showed the data as proof. 

What's a vote bump?

That's entirely on him. No skin off my nose.

Ooo, poor baby; can't take a little criticism? Sorry to disturb your beauty sleep. 

Debate and Forum are separate enterprises. I prefer debate where it is possible. I've made a debate challenge, but I see you do not engage there. Sorry, it's there, or nothing.

A Democrat House conclave called the Squad - headed by AOC, and also featuring Mt. Baldy. But I noted somebody here mentioning it as "squid."

Why don't you accept my debate challenge - there's only one - and I'll explain it?

Or if not, sit back and observe the arguments. I will not entertain it here.

What makes such healing supernatural? Why can't it pure nature we do not yet understand? You think we always understood how gravity really operates? Nope, we didn't, That did not make that force supernatural, it just meant we didn't know shit about it.

Sure, but China did not rise to 2nd place in econ power by adhering to Communist principles in the last 50-odd years. It embraced the value of a dollar and sought to acquire them. That's Captialism, pure and simple. China is politically Communist, but economically more akin to Capitalism. They unjustly manipulate the currency value, which is not legit capitalism, but China is still money-money-money for money's sake.

Oppression certainly exists. The question is, who is oppressing? The lead argument in this string suggests it is not systemic in that no law or policy has oppression as  its articulated objective. Lacking that language, I would have to agree that oppression is not systemic, or such laws and policies would express it, as Jim Crow laws once did. But that is in the past, except woke people have gone to shit and don't know anymore what's what. It's all ass-backwards. Woke is dead asleep.

Conclusions are not necessarily judgments, so why don't you fuck off your high/mightiness and be a little civil? Start by living your A.C.T.

Oh! I must apologize. In another topic, I mentioned that only an irrational madman would engage something - I don't immediately recall the subject - not knowing 

I nearly slandered your avatar. Interesting avatar you have. Does it in any way relate as a description of Nietzsche's lantern-carrying man out of the mountains, the parable of the madman, proclaiming he seeks God, in Nietzsche's "The Gay Science" and "Thus Spake Zarathustra?"

As a 2-day member, I've drawn some conclusion about debates on this site, based on stats noted on the main page.

1. The typical debate has 3 rounds.

2. The typical debate attracts 18 comments from members

3. The typical debate attracts 3 votes

Just curious about the marketing of this site, by members, since that is my profession.

I conclude that while some members devote 3 rounds each to debate a subject, the rest are more interested in peanut gallery commentary by a 5x margin over voting, indicating a significant preference to kritik over critiquing. Okay, eyes wide open, then.

I've taken opioids only once in my life due to kidney stones, the greatest pain I've ever had. The opioids scared me more than the stones, and to date, much more than covid. I made sure of avoiding my addiction by stretching the recommended dosage amount and frequency, at the risk of more pain, and I'm glad I did. I consider myself at very low risk of opioid overdose, because the side-effect was a feeling of utter stupidity. I consider that, normally, I am not. Yes, anecdotal, but what are statistics but multiple anecdotes?

That might sound reasonable, but the fact is, those issues, lockdowns and masks, were imposed in that order. California was the first state in US to impose lockdowns March 19, 2020, but mandatory masks in public were not imposed until May 28, 2020. https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments-in-2020

Depends on one's definition of racism, of which I, a new member, already see diverse examples. Settle on an agreeable definition, then proceed to banish if it is warranted. But you sound too eager, like the Red Queen. The trial, after all, dear queen, demand evidence, and that substantiated. Otherwise, move to strike, Your Honor.

Thank you for that. It is a good lesson to remember, prompting me to do so in my first debate challenge, as I figured to delay definitions until my first round argument. You've convinced me that doing so within the challenge has merit to allow a potential contender sufficient information to decide whether to engage the debate or not, rather than to be satisfied engaging a debate with no definitions, expecting that a contender might agree with my definitions ad hoc. That's expecting too much, I now see. Thanks! 

btw, might you be interested? I see you top the list in debate performance, and I would not shy away from such a challenge. Always engage a contest with someone better if you can, I say. Even losing can be very educational. There's merit in that.

Contrary to popular thought, miracles do not cause faith. They are caused by faith and hope, and function by the pure love of Christ extended to those in need. Why isn't everyone in need benefited by a miracle? I'm no judge, thankfully, but in my experience, lacking faith and hope is a big detraction. God isn't so interested in acting for someone who will dismiss the expected miracle. So, there's your cause: faith and hope in Christ, specifically. The effect is clear: a change of condition, a change of heart, a change of confidence in God. The effect is the physical manifestation of a miraculous occurrence, which, again, is why miracles are overlooked and dismissed by some, even if they see the effect, much like the many who left after experiencing the miracle of feeding the 5,000, who then heard the following sermon on the Bread of Life, and said, "This is an hard word. Who can hear it?" They certainly didn't hear it and walked away. Such as these do not deserve miracles.

I have observed miracles in my own life, and have been the vehicle of their action in others. Personal experience is powerful evidence.

Is 'woke" supposed to be synonymous with "awake?" Or, who doesn't sleep? An irrational madman, that's who. Can't help it if that's your schtick; beat the drum. 

You mean Mt. Baldy of the Squid?

Yes, but why/because is an unsatisfying logic, even though legitimate

I agree with all of your #41.

Yes, it does, but, even though there are apparent times when God has intervened in our choices of behavior, as if to suspend free agency, the intervention may have had another purpose than mere punishment, as most believe it was. The first being, not Noah's flood, or even Sodom and Gomorrah, but Adam and Eve's expulsion out of Eden, even though God had offered choice of all the trees' fruit in the Garden. As it is a potential debate subject I may propose, I will avoid details now.

That's a nice job of thinking God thinks as we do. I disagree. With greater persepective comes better thinking.

I disagree with that entire premise. The government every country deserves is one that allows the greatest degree of human freedom of thought and action.

The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't.

To return to Earth to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, which will replace all other governments on Earth, and restore Earth's paradisiacal glory it once had.

No, miracles still bide by the principle of cause and effect. They are caused, and they do have effect. Miracles have such simple simplicity to them, they occur, and repetitively occur, much more often than you might imagine. A miracle is simply an event occurring by means and for purpose we may not understand, but our lack of understanding does not necessarily mean they defy natural law. We just call them supernatural because they are beyond our understanding, much as we once considered the sun rising and setting a miracle. Miracles are simply events beyond our ability to reason how and why they occur. That they occur cannot be denied. Is God always the cause of miracles? No, I believe we, ourselves can cause them to occur, as long as God allows them to be caused.

Currently, nearly 10M people die each year of cancer, worldwide. Since, according to the CDC, 60% of all cancer deaths could be prevented entirely just by using a more discriminate, healthy diet, I suggest that cancer, too, is a conspiracy against humanity, since the current unhealthy diet includes all the additives the food industry adds to natural, but commercialized food.

Since we are made in that image...

And I suppose that means we can ultimately be like God in all respects.

By "ethnically," do you mean genetically? We are, in fact, whatever our parents are, and, curiously, and perhaps appropriately, we are all Homo sapiens, regardless of family ties, and without an appending descriptive by ethnicity, so why should we even think in such segregating terms?

I don't dance to any music if that is my choice. It is, on occasion, which just further demonstrates my freedom to engage, or disengage. And, sometimes, I invent my own steps, but it's still dancing. Or not.

I was never a DDO user. Isn't that nostalgic?

You infer that we are compelled to believe something when compel is not at all what is going on.

Seems to me, race is an invented concept of convenience to segregate when all - black, white, asian, latino, etc, etc, if one wants to insist on those meaningless labels, are all considered by scientific classification as Homo sapiens, and not Homo sapiens nigreos, or Homo sapiens album, or whatever.

So, what's the point of further classification than for personal satisfaction of superiority, which is utter, complete, and absurd purpose? Thought and action demonstrate superiority, in its most altruistic sense, regardless of skin color, or any other natural, physical characteristics of which no one is personally responsible, or even capable. They were inherited, not manipulated by us, individually. And individually is ultimately the source of all racial discrimination.

The only criticality of CRT is that it is critically flawed since, as noted above, it is non-existent outside the mind, which can, at will, create fantasy as easily as fact.

I would say Wylted has you on #2, though I disagree that sigma is necessarily greater than alpha. Even alphabetically, sigma trials alpha, but who says alphas are greater than numerics? Mathermatics is the language of the universe.

So, what is Vimeo's credibility beyond disallowing posts that infringe copyright, or is deemed offensive to others? That's not peer review and it certainly does not meet the bar of repeatability and reproducibility required of anything challenging current science. Just another social network with a little tighter control than Youtube.

Sorry, fail.

Not to mention that you have not yet met the challenge of:

And his total mission is not yet complete. He, himself, promised a return to settle things once and for all. Hasn't happened yet, or everyone, as prophesied, would have already bent the knee and declare him Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, even if they still reject him.

Endeth lesson? Who made you tutor? Welcom to the 21st century. A little anachronistic, no?