Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Dr.Franklin
Should we allow men to be nuns.How would you know these days?
lol.
Actually there is a decent point suggested in there. It's not like the church has done genetic testing to verify the assignments. Pretty sure the rules have nothing against eunuchs anyway, so it's also not about the presence of a penis.
Further, even with the official ruling on the matter, a future pope could easily bypass that by declaring any female candidate is spiritually male for the purpose of acting in the place of Christ.
Created:
As a simple analogy, why attend a local church when you could travel for months or years to get to Rome to attend a service?
We adapt to changing needs of both time and space.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@RoderickSpode
You two should probably have a debate about Pharaoh's heart.
Created:
Posted in:
I just tried out a religion and politics discord, within a couple minutes of joining I had one of the moderators telling me off because I'm both Catholic and a Feminist. I even got repeatedly called a "heretic."
So I'm hoping to have a discussion on the topic of hypothetical women priests. I do not believe the church needs to change, however it is a change I would support. My belief in support for it, stems from a concept imago dei, which is that we are all made fully in the same image of god.
Of course to address the elephant in the room: the church has a history of making horrible mistakes on who to ordain. People are fallible, and the decision of people to rule that women cannot be ordained, could be another mistake by the same fallible people.
...
To not drown things out in a wall of text, I'll cut off there until there are responses. Do expect me to barrow points from the following article: https://www.vogue.com/projects/13543313/roman-catholic-women-priest-movement-giulia-bianchi/
Created:
-->
@User_2006
I've long petitioned for it to be expanded to include formatting. And it's not something which is supposed to be used in most debates, basically just if people actively sabotage themselves.
As for the importance, I tend to cite an old debate of mine. There was an error which invalidated the intended debate, I pointed this out to the instigator, but they refused to correct it, so we had a debate focused on the Rap Music exception to abortion: https://www.debate.org/debates/should-abortion-be-illegal-in-The-United-States-of-America/1/
Created:
Ni thirty-three... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIV4poUZAQo
Jokes aside, the original short ban decision is as follows:
And the two specified parts of the CoC:
Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited when aimed against other users. Whether aimed against other users or not, hate speech is treated as aggravating factor in weighing moderation responses to other violations of the COC. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech.
Trolling is the use of inflammatory language or extreme and unsupported claims aimed at provoking a negative emotional response. Excessive trolling is strongly discouraged and is prohibited when it significantly interferes with site user experience.
Repeatedly using racist slang for an entire class of people, while proclaiming: "Go fuck yourself racist." is simply unacceptable when there is nothing racist about what the person wrote. This isn't a he said she said situation, we have precisely what everyone wrote.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Willows
I'm sorry that after nearly a month you're having trouble with the link. Please try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Breaking News=Francisco Franco is still dead
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! 🤣
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well for smoking, COVID should have killed that industry...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Clearly I made an exception. We sometimes experiment to seek improvement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Ramdatt was quite active at the time, so by tagging him I fully expected a reply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Also the posts that have at least 5 likes will have a minor highlighting :)
Nifty!
Created:
Posted in:
Certain aspects of this thread would make some good debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, why am I on this list?
Warren put your name in the first post, so I assume someone nominated you. I would check with him or look up the previous thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
wait, im on there?? bro i havent even been active, but eh i dont want to be removed as long as one person votes for me its fine. but nobody will probably vote for me...
Don't be so hard on yourself, you're a good player, and I am positive at least one person (other than whomever nominated you) will vote for you...
VTL WaterPheonix
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I do care about the values of a candidate. However, I do not apply a direct religious bias in either direction.
While I did not vote for Obama, claims that he should not be voted for due to being a Muslim, did not factor into my decision. That decision was firmly based on McCain being awesome (even knowing he was guaranteed to lose).
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's odd considering Jeff Flake has identical Mormon values as Mitt and also went alone against public support to criticize Trump.
I did not mention the Mormonism regarding Romney, so am unsure why you're bringing that up.
Regarding the topical thing of voting against Trump during the impeachment: Flake did not. A former senator being a loud mouth when it costs him nothing, is hardly a comparable action to what Romney did.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah devotees will hate him forever because he broke dogma by acknowledging the possibility for Trump to make a mistake, so probably never going to be a front runner again, but still someone who could easily secure my vote. I'd certainly vote for him over Clinton, Biden, and various others.Would you say the same for Jeff Flake?
I had to Google who that is. No, he would not have easy access to my vote.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think his little protest vote on the impeachment shows a wealth of integrity, and that is something I care about in a leader. Not to mention, the figurative balls to go through with it.
Yeah devotees will hate him forever because he broke dogma by acknowledging the possibility for Trump to make a mistake, so probably never going to be a front runner again, but still someone who could easily secure my vote. I'd certainly vote for him over Clinton, Biden, and various others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@Vader
Any feedback on having been nominated for this Mafia championship?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@drafterman
@oromagi
@Speedrace
@WaterPhoenix
Any feedback on having been nominated for this Mafia championship?
Created:
Posted in:
For clarity: While I don't want to discriminate by saying the above two posters are the same person bumping their own spam. They do however share the same physical body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ramdatt
This is a thread aimed at you, to which I give you the choice if you would like it shut down as a call-out thread or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
It's certainly neat to see how storytelling has changed. One writer even stated they would not have been allowed to have such on ship conflict between characters.
Created:
-->
@nonjudgmental
A problem is the information is all interpretive. The truth of a resolution is not assured even from the presented clauses. That said, it consistently holding up to scrutiny, it a very favorable sign. Kinda like the theory of gravity; as much as it's a constant in the known universe, we don't have all the information needed to fully understand every aspect of it.
If you haven't, I highly suggest reading some of Oromagi's debates, as they are very informative.
Generally, I would trust anyone in the top 6 of the leader-board.
Created:
For people in swing states, there's some truth to this notion.
Created:
Posted in:
I suggest watching the show Person of Interest, as it explores both extremes of this possibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I would post up the link thread but I wouldn't want to be accused of "thread contamination" and the thread contamination rules are very vague
You may post a link to said thread. As is, you've already referenced it plenty.
However, that neither would not be the CoC violation of cross-thread contamination. To which, I am unsure as to how the rule is vague. You are more than welcome to ask any clarifying questions.
tl;dr: Don't harass people.
In short: Don't act like a psycho rehashing old grudges, especially when they're off topic.
At length:
Cross-thread contamination is when a user brings up disputes elsewhere on the site up in an unrelated thread for the purpose of harassing, mocking, or insulting another member. Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible.
You starting a new discussion thread for a topic that is not any users, is almost always fine. Heck there have been times when I've started new threads for ongoing discussions to avoid stalkers who were active in the other thread.
Created:
Posted in:
For GameCube, I cannot recommend Ultimate Spider-Man enough.
Created:
Posted in:
This topic spawned a fun debate:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I nominate Oromagi. He's an invaluable player in any game.
Created:
Posted in:
The virus would need to be a lot worse, since military age people are not in the main at risk population. Our defense does not depend on our politicians.
Plus for North Korea to venture out on a campaign of domination before the world recovers, they would in turn be exposing themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
***
For the sake of clarity, Ethang's goodbye post containing direct insults toward someone to whom he was in a restraining order with, has resulted in the length of that being converted into extra length added to his ban.
I am in part posting this to clarity that said person has a right to defend themselves from these continued public allegations, if they so choose.
-Ragnar, DM
***
Created:
Posted in:
You should always vote based on the content of the debate.
However, some may cross the line into truism territory, which if raised as a debate argument by the contender (with the chance for rebuttals, but they either do not occur or fail), can get the debate declared a troll debate. Votes on troll debates are generally not moderated.
From the extended policies:
Section B: Troll DebatesSubsection B1: Defining Troll Debates
- A troll debate is any
- Competition-style debate (e.g. rap battle, talent show, poetry competition)
- Debate primarily designed to be humorous or facetious or containing primarily humorous or facetious content
- Debate on a truism (e.g. "a bachelor is someone who is unmarried")
This is of courage not to be confused with one side complaining of the unfairness of the other side having better arguments.
A couple examples:
- "The Earth may contain life," is obviously a truism. The may is proven by the very existence of the readers.
- "Winston Churchill may still be alive," the may is lacking obvious support, and a counter argument for the lack of any reason to believe it can easily be made.
Created:
Posted in:
Religious Discrimination is the usual term. However, someone may be racist against various the Arab groups but call them Muslims.
There's also some blurred lines where ethnicity and religion cross, ethnic Jews for example.
It's a big complex world, and best not to be a hater no matter the label.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What was the gist of your conclusion? (yeah, I'm not reading through the nine pages)I will now leave this one alone altogether, confident in the knowledge that my point has been validated
Created:
Posted in:
***
Regarding allegations of slave-accounts:
Do not publicly accuse members of secretly being banned members; especially not without significant evidence.
Those worries are best directed to moderators via PM (Ragnar or Virtuoso). We have a few tools at our disposal for identifying the majority of such accounts, and promptly banning them.
Side note:
You should not be too trusting of anonymous peoples claims about themselves.
***
***
Created:
Posted in:
The following is the OP of this thread, please try to get back on topic (or otherwise start new threads for the massively diverging topics):
Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist, just as theists cannot prove that a God does exist.The above statement is an unequivocal truism....So who amongst our Dart theists is prepared to agree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
This is a debate site. Starting a debate on a topic will likely end in someone debating that topic with you.If you don't want to debate then stick to the forums.
Well said!
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Willows
Your choice to ignore the messages received from moderation (prior to the ban), does not bridge the gap into them not existing as you previously insisted.
At this time, your appeal is rejected. If in 90 days you wish to appeal again, please go through the proper channels, instead of mounting continued CoC violations against yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Willows
Do you authorize me to publicly share screenshots of the PMs?
Created:
Posted in:
Lie:…..wantonly ignored PMs from moderation about his multi-accounting.” and “I tried to work with him” and: “…..but he escalated things beyond that (and continues to do so).” and: “I even repeatedly advised him that creating debates instead of forum topics would not be so frowned upon by moderation.” and: “…..declaring you did not intend any honest discussion while spewing insults.” Absolutely none of those happened by any stretch of the imagination, did they?
I literally sent him multiple private messages which included the line: "A place the rapid topic creation would be fine, is in the debate section of the site." Always sad when someone considers objective reality to have not happened by any stretch of the imagination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
...I can make the argument that many others who call themselves pro-choice, aren't really pro-choice at all. They're just pro-abortion. When you extend their premise to its logical conclusion, it is not consistently maintained. Case in point: if I were to ask, "Should a mother of a newborn bear the capacity to abandon her newborn using own her own discretion without any ramifications from the State," what would your response be?
I don't have any problem with safe-haven laws.
The abstinence resulting from these programs seems to be sex without birth control, directly leading to more abortions.Seem is not an argument; seem is an impression; and impressions aren't relevant.
While maybe the pregnancies are from immaculate conception, I highly doubt it. Regardless, the known result remains more abortions.
Right now she's not, as she has many choices about her life. It remains a cost some pro-life people want to punish her with for not getting an abortion; which again, incentivizes abortion.Let me rephrase: if abortion were prohibited through all phases of development, how would she have been "forced" to assume the cost? Couldn't the parents have done a simple search, find out the average cost of delivering babies, and take that into consideration before deciding to risk pregnancy when having sex? Isn't the cost burden in part a refelction of either parent's unwillingness to seriouslyconsider their prospects?
Forced via being denied her constitutional rights to her own health care decisions. Which of course combines with pro-life politicians trying to get more teenagers pregnant through a strange form of "abstinence."
Men do not suffer the same stigma.No they do not. And they shouldn't. ... Would you mind quoting these insults?
A sampling from just one post (obviously not yours), "stupid" "sluts" "floozy's." If I've missed the same level of insults later leveled at men for engaging in sex for purposes other than making babies, I apologize, there's only so much of bare misogyny I can read before turning away.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.While it would be better with a larger sample size, it's still a 5-year longitudinal study with a quasi-experimental design. So not a case of fallacious random correlation...I neither said nor implied that it was a random correlation, but it is still a correlation. So it is up to you to use discretion and be mindful of the conclusions you draw from it.
You took a half-decade study of hundreds of cases, with confirmed statistical significance, and declared: "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
To understand why this came about, look at Willow's entry in the ban log: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3024/post_links/164815
I updated it this afternoon. Tonight when I hopped on, he had just created another account I have not even bothered updating the list with. By the time you read this, he'll probably be up to a bakers dozen.
Usually when someone gets banned, it's due to unrepentant obsessive behavior. Deleting their threads is in part out of concern for their well being.
Created:
With everything going on in the world, this would be a fantastic distraction.
Created: