Total posts: 3,773
-->
@PGA2.0
The debate in question: https://www.debateart.com/debates/949
First off, thanks for taking the time to read my debate. I of course welcome discussion, and outside the debate I will not be trying to win...
Before anything else, I should point out that as with the case of stoning people to teach for saying God no longer being a thing, Christian Divine Command Theory is proven to be subjective to the time and place, rather than an objective truth to be obeyed forever.
I. First Post
Baby Eating
This point was in challenge to my opponent, who represented people in general as only refraining from truly horrible such actions when/if God directly commands them not to (by making that claim about all people, he is representing his own people as specifically having a hard time with such moral dilemmas). It's the problem with thinking morals can only stem from divine command theory, and directly excluding reason and compassion as a possibility.
Outside the debate I would say God Strictly condemns such actions. Abraham trying to kill his own son for example,was a lesson that God doesn't want us doing that shit even if we think God does(interpreted this way instead of God changing his mind, this is also a lesson against divine command theory, that we should think for ourselves...).
Theft
I would have been delighted were my opponent to raise this criticism.
Skipping a few back-and-forths ahead in this discussion: Groups supports and protects their own, and the making yourself an Other has too many disadvantages to be generally worth it for short term gain. This of course does not protect members of other groups, we still get examples of this today with cases like someone saying people should go riotin the suburbs instead of just not rioting (a rather simplistic review of a complex case).
So yeah, the morals we interpret will not always be correct for everyone else.
altruists
It's good because it supports thegroup, creating more good than harm: Utilitarianism.
Within man made morals, Joe can runa strictly potato farm, and if he's not murdering all the other farmers people can get their preferences in the market. Blindly obeying divine command theory,Joe might believe potatoes are the divine and thus only allowed food, and go around inflicting this on everyone else. (within consequentialism, he might still try to inflict potatoes on everyone, but will more likely do so through subtle means, much like diamonds on engagement rings).
History
How many of those examples cited divine command theory as justification? Plus the long term cost for this groups, discourages future such groups. Under divine command theory, people inthe USA today still try to enslave women (mostly southern states, changing their education systems to try to maximize teen pregnancy, and then preventing them from ending said pregnancies, all with the government officials not paying child support for intentionally knocking those girls up)
II. Second Post
No Absolute Value
My burden was to show that morality can exist outside divine command theory (specifically Christian divine command theory), not that they are unchanging.
The absolute I referred to was my opponent's argument that morals "cannot" exist without God, it was notthat my counters needed to be absolute universals (I've got another debate which kinda touches on those).
"how do you ever get to good or right if your standard is always shifting and EVOLVING?"
Generally, by caring about the well-being of my fellow human beings. Bare in mind, I served as a combat medic,so my money is where my mouth is.
FSM
Always glad to talk about his noodliness...
First, I should mention that I did not need to prove the FSM exists any more than my opponent needed to prove God Exists. The FSM was one possible source of morals, to refute that morals could only come from my opponent's single insisted source.
Second, I do suggest checking out The Gospel from your local library. It's theory of Unintelligent Design does a far better job predicting things than both Creationism and Intelligent Design combined. For Example, it explains where those ancient seeming dinosaur bones come from (the FSM is pranking us, first planting fake bones when we dig, then changing the results of carbon dating to be older than the YAC universe).
Created:
-->
@Alec
Hate to say it, but I've already been expressing my desire to pull back from debating (I only got so active recently to distract myself from some personal drama). This was only made worse with a lengthy biblical debate, while also letting myself get sucked into building and refining that guide.
If I have any big disagreements with any of them that can't be talked out normally, then I'd gladly issue a challenge (I've done this with a few of the top people over the years). I'll also gladly admit that either of them are superior debaters than I.
One thing I would say, is that this idea would be a lot more meaningful when the voter population increases and gains some skill.
One thing I would say, is that this idea would be a lot more meaningful when the voter population increases and gains some skill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PsychometricBrain
I took your advice and put in three types of debates at the end (I could be missing some, but I'd bet >90% fall into those).
Created:
-->
@David
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
How would the moderation feel about a "moderation lite" option on debates? I do not mean the mechanical aspects, but vote removal.
I would view this as along the lines of voter BoP still being required, while the trinity paradigm is optional... Basically actual shit votes can still be deleted, but a vote falling short of specifying one side being polite or not having sources are fine.
Created:
Posted in:
Regarding Loki:
Loki is a trickster god, so he is hard to classify in such normative terms. Heck he's also father of at least one of Odin's children...
Mythology
A sample from the Wiki entry on him: "By the stallion Svaðilfari, Loki is the mother—giving birth in the form of a mare—to the eight-legged horse Sleipnir. In addition, Loki is referred to as the father of Váli in Prose Edda, though this source also refers to Odin as the father..."
Marvel comics
The comics have outright explained that Asgardian men laugh at our restrictive notions of sexuality and caring about gender norms (which is also ironic given their sexism... one way for the ladies, every way for the men). They live thousands of years, so do what they please when they please.
Marvel movies:
He pokes men with his scepter, to make them his slave...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
To the original topic... I've updated my avatar picture for at least the month.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
With the new inclusion of the moderation options when creating debates, it would be fantastic if there was a "Moderation lite" option.
I view this as along the lines of voter BoP still being required, while the trinity paradigm is optional... Basically actual shit votes can still be deleted, but a vote falling short of specifying one side being polite or not having sources is fine.
The specifics would need to be agreed upon by the moderators as something they're willing to do, with a MEEP for verification with the general population.
...
I was going to suggest a "Moderation extreme" option, but at that point people should just decide what judges they'll tolerate votes from. Regarding elected judges, I hold the opinion that unless their votes prove to be utter shit, they should be moderated (so moderation ultra-lite) by virtue of the debaters pre-screening them.
Created:
Posted in:
So the standalone piece that I feel users are most in need of is complete, a simple style guide.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
Created:
Ramshutu was the winner for this month. I suspect he will maintain it for awhile.
I'm not far behind, but I am not planning to accept any more debates for the time being.
Created:
Posted in:
Thought on voting...
If mechanically controlling who can vote (right not moderators take care of it), a visible medal for authorized voters would be nice. Possibly a gold medal, that way we can assume anyone with at least 1 gold can vote.
Created:
Posted in:
5 and 7 day options would be ideal, but the default should probably be 36 hours.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
While I'd happily help, I don't do rap battles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I said it with humor in mind, rather than anything practical.
But now that I think of it, Top Dog is risky, but Lord of the Hill would be a safe term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
All hail our new king Ramshutu the 93.33%!
May he decree a better sovereign title than "king."
Created:
Posted in:
First one is a concession and forfeit: https://www.debateart.com/debates/893
Second contains Game of Throne spoilers, so only read if you've watched the finale (or don't intend to): https://www.debateart.com/debates/931
Created:
Posted in:
So on the final day of voting, all votes from Fetuses as a replacement for the USD were removed. Presumably the instigator complained to admin that he or she really did intend it as a serious debate (contrary to their own comments), because pro-lifers absolutely believe in the proposal.
So with 15 hours left, please cast some serious votes at: https://www.debateart.com/debates/866
Created:
I don't know why, but I cared about getting ahead of MagicAintReal. Beyond that, I seems even more frivolous.
Created:
Posted in:
I wholly agree with what Ram' said. I also advise putting any definitions (such as "evil") in the description.
Depending on who accepts, you may need to launch the debate a couple times to get it onto the part of the topic you really desire.
Created:
Yeah... Seems to be evolved a little, like he spammed those shit debates and then switched accounts (if so, only a matter of time until he does it again).
Created:
Posted in:
No...
When it's in response to harassment, the specific rule against so and so, ends up empowering the harasser.
However...
Stalking behavior should count towards loss of voting privileges, to include the removal of otherwise sufficient votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
The above reply was intended for you...
If that list is being amended, Hedonism would be another valid entry.
Created:
Posted in:
Easy vote!
Also a second vote on my other debate would be appreciated...
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Reminds me of my old DDO guide...
Anyway:
- The index should probably have links.
- I'd also probably make one post per numbered item (on that, some might be combined, like Site and Debate Jargon being two sub-points under a singular Jargon heading).
- If possible, get rid of the 236 days later, it might somehow be confusing to new members (this could require remaking the thread, and doing like ten placeholder posts in case they become needed...).
- I'd personally rather not see any links to DDO forums.
Created:
Posted in:
Additional debate category: DebateArt.com
Right now people are using misc or philosophy, neither of which seem to be a good fit.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm proud enough of a couple of mine to link them in my profile...
However for best, there was an amazing one on Australasia. Anyone have a link to that? Or was the damned thing deleted for being hate speech?
Created:
Posted in:
I fully support the presence of ads. They just have to be reasonable ones (as in not the ones that hijack our browsers).
A small revenue stream keeps a site up. Even with the low cost of running this site, it is currently an optional expense to be done away with during hard times (removing all content from the net). If it began to say have a $0.25 net profit, it's something to at worst ignore.
Created:
Posted in:
"My opponent is trying to hold me to an arbitrary standard that I did not agree to at any point in this debate." -Wrick-It-Ralph, on the expectation he take part in debates he's accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
I managed to have a debate on part of this. Sadly the intended contender turned out to be unwilling to debate, and the stand-in denied agreeing to debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/803
Created:
Posted in:
I wholly agree with this change. Doubly so because spammers (intentionally or accidentally) are making debates in need of votes harder to find. Heck on my most recent debate the evidence I used was debates with zero votes.Voters need not meet the standard of sufficiency for awarding argument points, but they must clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points.
Bare in mind, I'm someone who has long defended null votes (any vote which cancels itself out), but people going debate to debate to spam profanity... Intellectual dead weight.
Created:
Posted in:
I've been asked about the guide I built for a previous site, and think it might be time to make one here.
So without merely looking to my previous work, what would you each like most from it?
Created:
Posted in:
Short debate with an average of 2,109 characters per round, including one forfeiture. Also with some decent accidental comedy (one side denied agreeing to the debate).
Created:
Posted in:
Given that we can easily create links on any text, I am curious why people engage in pointing elsewhere to a list of URLs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Well said. And it was not to disagree your original idea. The amount of new code needed depends on what functions already exist within the code, so I offered an alternative which might take less.
Without having seen the code, I estimate my suggestion calls for the writing of a single function called by the existing forfeited round function. This function itself hopefully just feeds the current vote function, but bypassing any error check functions users contend with.
The major downside to my way of handling it, would be that it does not tie things up quickly. The voting period still passes normally, just with each debater docked a single point for each concession, causing user votes to be less needed with each concession.
Examples in practice:
Someone forfeits four out of five rounds. A single argument vote in their favor would not outweigh their forfeits. End state: 3 vs 4 points.
Someone forfeits just one round. A single argument vote in their favor (even docking conduct), outweighs the admin votes. End state: 3 vs 2 points.
Someone forfeits two rounds, but their opponent was a horrible racist about it (or other conduct worse than forfeits). A single vote in favor of the forfeiter, outweighs the admin votes. End state: 3 (or 4) vs 2.
Created:
Posted in:
Suggestion: Change the width of the Debate Preview to match the room given for debate descriptions as seen afterward. ... That or at least the description part of the preview, matching that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I would not have believed baseless Ad Hominem attacks was your go to move when a discussion doesn't go your way, but now I know.
I suggest next time you have nothing but insults, to not derail the conversation with them.
I suggest next time you have nothing but insults, to not derail the conversation with them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Please enlighten us on why you believe it is impossible ("lol. That means they can't mark worse conduct for the rudeness.") for people to award conduct if conduct only votes exist previously?
I'll point to one of your votes as an example, since you gave the opposite conduct score than every other voter, but are now insisting that logically cannot have happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You may be having a comprehension problem. Nothing about the existence of prior votes, limits anyone's ability to cast future votes; to include assigning conduct in a different manner than the earlier votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@bsh1
Also change my question 2 to A>C>BI get the feeling that the latter is a strategic vote.
Gee, what gave it away? *lol*
I'll admit I considered the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Plan C.
2. (3)Plan A, (2)Plan B, and (1) Plan C.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
Regarding 2: Repeating myself, but this seems to be asking which debate types should not be moderated. Calling something a troll debate (at least in English how it's been used regularly), refers to the debate intent being comedic. ... Also (ignore this, it's just nitpicking, not really complaining) unsure why we aren't just voting on which clauses (a,b,c,etc.) individually, as opposed to the three plans which include an increasing number of them.
Regarding 3: As previously stated, "write 'troll debate' in the description, and it's already done."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Okay. I assumed it would be just adding an identical line of text to the list.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Plan C.
2. (3)Plan A... I have a preference against the other two standards, as a user (or their conduct) can be a debate subject, and the voting should not be allowed to be based on mere popularity of the users in question with no ability for vote bombs to be deleted. I also disagree with truisms necessarily being troll debates to not be moderated... Honestly, the term troll debate may be too wide of an umbrella term, when what we're talking about is subjects to not be moderated.
3. Yes and No. Yes in general (write "troll debate" in the description, and it's already done), no to people "clearly and obviously opts out of moderation in the ... first round of the debate" that is after someone has accepted.
4. Yes. Heck, I know I've already cast votes along those lines (arguments were plagiarized so I'm dismissing them, as a common example).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Please add more options to the debate category list. Specifically "Troll" or "Humor", likely with a bracketed note of "(non-moderated)"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That would just be the system working as intended. By forfeiting one side has set the default end state to be a loss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Actual voters would still be able to override that through the length of the voting period.
Created:
Posted in:
An easier way to handle this, would just be automatically giving a conduct point to the other side for each forfeit (could be done as "Admin" placing votes, even during the debate).
Created: