Total topics: 43
Welcome to Insults 201!
"Gentlemen, we can rebuild [them]. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first bionic [insult]. [Yo Momma] will be that [insult]."
-Richard Anderson
Purpose:
Too often insults are self-evidently worse for the smooth-brained geniuses who speak them, than it is for the targets of such epic sonnets as "you gay," " 🤣🤣🤣," "[leotard]," etc.
We stand at an unprecedented time in history. We can tell Yo Momma jokes instantly across infinite distances. Used right, we can pool our cognitive resources to devise one so good it kills the victim; the very threat of this will enable world domination!
So please share insults aimed at you, and as a community we can deconstruct and reassemble them into superior dialog.
We can also generate comebacks for said improved insults, so on and so forth.
Prerequisites:
- Appreciate Blackadder
- Don't be a type two troll (type one is fine... don't get me started on type three)
- Have thick skin
Disclaimer:
This thread is intended to uplift discourse, not reduce it to pure delinquence.
While the word insult is used, it is perhaps used wrongly.
As the Yo Momma reference at the start of the thread should have ever so subtilty hinted, insult is being used as an umbrella term for ease of reference.
Anyone engaged in this thread should not seek to harm fellow site members, even while engaging in jocular exchanges. It's like trolling, in that the goal ought to be to entertain rather than to hurt.
Even with the above in mind, some heat is inevitable.
By participating in this thread, you are (solely within this thread) agreeing to be targeted by a degree of (hopefully light-hearted) trash-talk.
You are also agreeing to heavy-handed moderation, to include deleting or editing your posts (any edits will come with a disclaimer explaining them) for any reason.
Finally, much like how the Catholic church has never contradicted itself, this thread does not contradict anything in Etiquette Expectations.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Artistic expressions
FUCK TAYLOR SWIFT SHE IS PEAK WHITE LIBERAL
A friend of a friend posted the above, and the discussion of it got heated.
I’m curious what other peoples immediate reactions are,  so please assist me.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
Hall of Fame V
As a reminder, since the site is less active, there shall be less winners than previous years.
Voting Stage Rules
Welcome to DART’s fifth official Hall of Fame induction process! This thread is for the second stage of that process, namely, the voting stage. During this stage, users (you) may vote for the various nominees in each category (users, debates, miscellaneous) for inclusion in the Hall of Fame. The two nominees with the most votes in each category will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Â
Any user will be able to vote for up to two nominees per category for a maximum of 6 votes per voting user. Voters may choose to vote for less than the maximum number if they choose. You may vote for any of the nominees who have advanced out of the nomination stage. The voting process will close at approximately 12:45pm, PST, on 03/23/24. Votes cast after the close of the process will not be considered.
Â
When you vote, you are encouraged to offer a brief justification for, explanation of, or reason for your vote. Please also bold your votes to make them more visible.
You are permitted to change your votes within reason.
Â
Those nominees with the most votes (2 per category) will be inducted into the DART Hall of Fame. In the event of a tie preventing exactly 2 inductions per category, the voting window will be extended for just those tied nominees. Those inducted will be formally honored with entries in the Hall of Fame thread.
Â
There are no prerequisites or eligibility requirements for users to participate in the Hall of Fame voting process, except that they have an account on DART and are not voting/nominating from more than one account. Importantly, please don’t engage in coordinated vote trading and such, as that would be incongruous.
Â
Â
The Nominees
Choose up to two from each category.Â
Users:
- (0) WyIted - ()
- (0) Lemming - ()
- (0)Â ILikePie5Â - ()
- (0)Â zedvictor4Â - ()
- (0) Ramshutu - ()
Debates:
- (0) [WDT] On balance, The German Invasion of Poland (1939) was Justified - ()
- (0) All Drugs Should be Legalized - ()
- (0) Derek Chauvin was not a racist - ()
Misc.:
- (0)Â The Banning of IWRAÂ - ()
- (0) Changing Enforcement - ()
- (0) Meep for Sweeping Code of Conduct Change - ()
- (0) Rap Battle: Sir.Lancelot vs RationalMadman - ()
- (0) If You Have a Random Thought Post it Here - ()
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Greetings DebateArt!
Today is the first stage of the Hall of Fame process.
This stage will last from now until March 16th, at ~10:30 PST.
A few reminders:
- Mass PM threads, campaigning, and coordinating votes are prohibited. If any votes are found to be coordinated, the votes will be nullified.
- You may vote for anyone and anything you like, but do note that moderation reserves the right to veto options (such as if it's done for trolling).
- Self voting is allowed, but please be aware that it may backfire.
For the nomination stage, you may nominate up to 3 users, 3 debates, and 3 miscellaneous (formerly just threads, now anything you'd like be it threads or otherwise) to be put into the Hall of Fame!
You may change your votes (within reason) any time before nominations close.
The most popular nominees from each shall advance to the voting stage.
If voting is overwhelming in favor of certain nominees, they may skip the next phase of voting and be immediately placed into the Hall of Fame.
UPDATE: While three from each category may be nominated, final voting will be for just two, and two from each category the winners shall be.
Good luck,
Barney
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I keep seeing defenses of him so weak they seem designed to insult the Muslim community. So I am curious, any actual Muslims here have any good defenses of him?
This is referencing his pedophila. The trollish defenses are things like the Todd Akin defense (it's not rape because he got her pregnant), and various No True Scotsman (no true pedo waits until they're nine, etc).
...
Alternatively, if there are no good defenses of him, how do you reconcile that with your faith?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Curious how other people believe it ought to be defined?
I personally believe it should reside with three pillars:
- Significant recognizable intelligence,
- Demonstratable sentience, and
- Awareness of self.
While biology is the most common precursor we've seen for these, I do not believe that is ideal long term as a requirement. While it's a comedy, the movie Ted showcases the horrors to which a human standard leads (intelligent sentient beings who are aware of themselves, being kidnapped, mutilated, and murdered without any legal protections).
A potential drawback to my definition, is a lack of an empathy requirement. Narcissistic assholes are still people, even if we would rather they not be.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
I'm curious what are everyone's favorite ways to determine if someone is (or is not) a racist?
This keeps coming up in so many discussions; and while I doubt we'll ever have true consensus, I am interested in seeing the variety of answers.
While it suffers scope limitations, I deeply enjoy a modified Ryan Reynolds quote:
Four or five moments! That’s all it takes to be a [racist].People think you wake up a [racist]… brush your teeth a [racist]… ejaculate into a soap dispenser a [racist].But, no, being a [racist] takes only a few moments!A few moments… doing the ugly stuff no one else will do.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
I've got such a rich history I could probably do a long series of these organized by themes. However, I'll let you all decide where to take this. Please ask me anything.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
Hi all,
What CoC refinement questions would you like to see on the next referendum?
Other refinements are also possible.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I now have edit permissions for the information center. If anyone spots anything that should be changed, please let me know.
Correcting typos or changing formatting, should be quick and easy.
Depending on the section in question and the size of the change, clarifying wording might be quick and easy or require an annoying referendum.
...
The only page with any significant changes from me thus far, is the Hall of Fame:Â https://info.debateart.com/hall-of-fame
I added placeholder writeups for winners which had none. Any winner may elect to have what I wrote replaced; and in general anyone may submit a better writeup than me and I'll gladly add it.
FYI: GitBook sucks at tables, but is good for tabbed content.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Interesting Facebook memory popped up yesterday, which included an informal debate I had with a fellow debater with whom I had respected and been Facebook friends.
Going to share the conversation below, but in essence...
Ragnar: "the irony of Trump's promise to cease with Twitter is just hilarious"
Other Guy: "How did a remark about twitter become a binding contract, the violation of which is a hanging offense?"
Just sharing the worst conversation line. For context, in the one that immediately preceded this one, I was very directly praising one of Trump's promises for being a great idea, regardless of it it ever became the law of the land (“for every new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated”); so this wasn't started with me looking like some frothing at the mouth Trump-hater.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
In short, for about a week we'll have a few voting questions open for the community to decide things.
This referendum will run until around 10:00am PT (UTC-7), February 14th 2020. That being Valentine's Day, it's a pretty rough estimate.
About MEEP:
As seen in the moderation overview,
Moderation may submit questions and proposals regarding moderation policy, voting policy, and the code of conduct to Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs). MEEPs are binding referenda and comment periods on the questions and proposals submitted. Moderation has full discretion on which questions and proposals are submitted to MEEPs, though no substantive change to the COC may be made without either the consent of the site owner(s) or ratification via a MEEP.
In order for a submitted question or proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have voted in the MEEP, and more than a majority of all those voting must have voted for the question or proposal. That means, in practice, that in a MEEP with 10 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7 votes in favor of the proposal or question. If a MEEP fails to produce a binding result, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, unless doing so is entirely untenable.
The Questions:
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of each question is included as well. Please vote "yes" or "no" to each of these questions.
1. Ratify the new Voting Policy?
Voting "yes" to this question will replace the current voting policy, extended policies, and various rulings, with a single new one.
tl;dr: While lengthening the policy to better explain to people why their votes were removed, this will generally allow us be less nitpicky.
Major changes:
- Specified Winner Selection as arguments only (this came up in a previous referendum, but the policy was never updated to reflect it). Likewise clarified missing multiple rounds as allowing conduct only votes against them.
- Changed S&G to “legibility,” which was already implicitly done by a previous referendum.
- Allowed more things to be borderline to decrease exploitative reporting, and allowed some things to be implied (such as not listing “and the other side did not FF”).
- Moved Sufficiency into a Core Value section, and added voter reading requirements.
- A ton of exposition.
- Made categorical votes all follow the same three steps (they kinda already did…).
- Added Foregone Conclusions to the special circumstances, along with plagiarism, and cheating, plus renamed the area disqualifications.
- Changed “Troll Debates” to general non-moderated, which includes comedy. Also added a clause to allow some minimal level of moderation intervention (such as someone voting just to harass someone they dislike).
- No longer calling every bad vote a vote bomb (something can be garbage for other reasons).
- Added a vote rigging section (I think I took a lot from the expanded policies doc).
- Expanded and modified the forfeiture policy.
- Clarified the Outside Content policy.
- A lot of little things are just because I hate nitpicky complaints.
2. Allow Kudos points within votes?
Voting "yes" to this will further loosen voting standards with regards to mitigating points against the voter's majority allotment; wherein they may substitute lower scoring categories to decrease the margin of victory they assign. This is to serve as a favorable callout with respect to the other side's efforts. Votes using this to inverse the majority recipient, will be deleted.Â
Note:Â A long term ideal solution would be a direct modifier to the argument points. However, this referendum is focused on policy we can immediately implement; as opposed to future mechanics we can only request.
3. Update the debates information page in the help center?
4. Switch to SupaDudz' suggested handling of Restraining Order violations?
Voting "yes" will switch from admittedly on the fly consequences, to a codified set.
Voting:
I'm not that attached to how people vote, so long as it's easy to understand. People may also change their votes, but please don't be a pain about it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Been awhile since we had a referendum, but various issues with the voting policy have not gone unnoticed. So I've worked out a bunch of potential refinements; which I am hoping we can discuss, improve, and then formalize with a vote in the near future.
As I've had to say before, I am happy to break apart many of the changes, but I'm not going to do a line-by-line thousand question referendum.
Stuff not related to the voting policy is also welcome for the referendum. Just suggest it, and if there's explicit support and no good reason not to, it'll go in.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
This is a question intended for Trump supporters. It is about proofs and standards of proof. Please note the question is just "racist," not "Literally Hitler."
As an example, I'm a speciesist. This is evident by my consumption of cows, but not of dogs. I could apply the standard of restrictive consumption to any other person, and label them as positive or negative related to this test. If one test is insufficient, I could review other factors of comparative treatment.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
(please keep this light hearted)
So I got into an argument with my oldest friend about if the bible is infallible and inerrant, and of course I brought up a few seeming contradictions...
Assuming there was no error, not even by ambiguity, what does it mean that Joseph literally had two fathers?
Like was he a case of superfecundation, followed by one fetus eating the other? And yeah, the lack of mention of him having two heads, leads me to conclude that he was not siamese twins (even in this lighthearted musing, I'm not trying to insult the guy... also I'm not sure such a child would have lived into adulthood back then).
Do we know if he had a mother? Because another way it could work, is if gay men impregnated each other back then.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Hall of Fame II
Voting Stage Rules
Welcome to DART’s second official Hall of Fame induction process! This thread is for the second stage of that process, namely, the voting stage. During this stage, users (you) may vote for the various nominees in each category (threads, debates, miscellaneous) for inclusion in the Hall of Fame. The three nominees with the most votes in each category will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Â
Any user will be able to vote for up to three nominees per category for a maximum of 9 votes per voting user. Voters may choose to vote for less than the maximum number if they choose. You may vote for any of the nominees who have advanced out of the nomination stage. The voting process will close at approximately 2:00pm, PST, on 09/02/20. Votes cast after the close of the process will not be considered.
Â
When you vote, you are encouraged to offer a brief justification for, explanation of, or reason for your vote. Please also bold your votes to make them more visible. You are permitted to change your votes within reason.
Â
Those nominees with the most votes (3 per category) will be inducted into the DART Hall of Fame. In the event of a tie preventing exactly 3 inductions per category, the voting window will be extended for just those tied nominees. Those inducted will be formally honored with entries in the Hall of Fame thread.
Â
There are no prerequisites or eligibility requirements for users to participate in the Hall of Fame voting process, except that they have an account on DART and are not voting/nominating from more than one account. Importantly, please don’t engage in coordinated vote trading and such, as that would be incongruous.
Â
Â
Notice
Due to an overwhelming majority within the nomination stage, the user category shall not be voted on this year. If there arises disagreement with this ruling, then voting on users may occur.
Â
Â
The Nominees
Choose up to three from each category.Â
Users ()
N/A
Â
Debates (5)
- Atheists have BOP
CalebEr vs. Intelligence_06 - Congressional Term Limits
bsh1 vs. blamonkey - Is Jesus the Messiah?
Dustandashes vs. Virtuoso - Legalized Abortion
Vector vs. MisterChris - Seldiora vs SupaDudz R1 Charter School
Seldiora vs. Supadudz
Â
Thread (12)
- By: Speedrace.
- By:Â SirAnonymous
- By:Â Intelligence_06.
- By: BearMan.
- By: thett3.
- By: RationalMadman.
- By: RationalMadman.
- By: Speedrace.
- By: oromagi.
- By: ILikePie5.
- By:Â PressF4Respect.
- By: SupaDudz
Miscellaneous (4)
- BrotherDThomas’ performance art
- crossed’s information labyrinths
- ebuc’s enigmas
- Ragnar is the natural alpha male of this website.
- Rap Battles: Supa v RM
Let’s Begin!
“With all that said, let the nominating process begin! If you have questions, feel free to ask. Good luck to everyone and best wishes on a fantastic Hall of Fame process. This is a wonderful site and community, and there is so much greatness out there to recognize! I look forward to honoring those contributions and users who have made this site what it is!”-Bsh1, first chief moderator (he may be gone, but his spirit and contributions are still recognized)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Hall of Fame II
Nomination Stage Rules
 Welcome to DART's second official Hall of Fame induction process! This thread is for the first stage of that process, namely, the nominations stage. During this stage, users (you) may propose nominees in four categories (users, threads, debates, and miscellaneous) for inclusion in the Hall of Fame. The nominees with the most nominations in each category (approx. 4-6 per category) will advance to the second stage of the process.
Â
Any user will be able to propose up to three nominees per category for a maximum of 12 nominations per nominating user. Nominators may choose to nominate less than the maximum number if they so choose. You may nominate any of your content, but not yourself as a user. The nominating process will close sometime on 08/30/20 (most likely morning around 10:00am, PST).
Â
When you propose a nomination, you are permitted nay encouraged to offer a brief justification for, explanation of, or reason for your nomination. Please also bold your nominations to make them more visible. You are permitted to change your nominations within reason.
Â
There are no formal criteria for determining who/what can be nominated except that it must be on DART and cannot be a previous winner within said category. However, if moderation concludes that a nomination is wholly and blatantly incongruous with the purpose of the HOF (that purpose being to highlight good, notable, and/or consequential inductees), we reserve the right to withhold forwarding that nomination to the second stage of the process.
Â
There are no prerequisites or eligibility requirements for users to participate in the Hall of Fame nominating process, except that they have an account on DART and are not voting/nominating from more than one account. Importantly, please don't engage in coordinated vote trading and such, as that would be incongruous.
Â
Categories
- Users: A way to honor any noteworthy user for their contributions to the site and community.
- Debates: A way to highlight must read debates.
- Threads: A way to highlight must read or at least influential threads.
- Miscellaneous: Anything else, particularly but not exclusively for comedic value.
Let's Begin!
With all that said, let the nominating process begin! If you have questions, feel free to ask. Good luck to everyone and best wishes on a fantastic Hall of Fame process. This is a wonderful site and community, and there is so much greatness out there to recognize! We look forward to honoring those contributions and users who have made this site what it is!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
So with people looking at old debates for the HoF, this seems like a good time to compile a larger must read list for different categories and subjects.
This would ideally serve to help people researching whatever topics in future. They would not exclusively need to be HoF worthy.
Of course there are broad categories, but also sub-categories therein (which can be expanded out as the list grows).
Depending on the size of the list, the format will probably change.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Hey DART.Â
I'm hoping to post a MEEP soon. MEEP stands for Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, it is a referendum on site policies.
This one will focus this on on refining the voting policies. Please submit any ideas for changes, addendums, etc.
Current questions which have been raised (will be updated as this thread progresses):
- Should waiving rounds count as poor conduct equal to forfeitures?
- Should Full Forfeits be broadened to missing every round after their first argument?
Such as someone forfeits the first round, shows up in the second or third, and forfeits the remainder. - Allow implicit justifications for lesser points?
I need better wording for this, but in essence not needing the spell out the absence of things. Such as one side having a dozen .gov and .edu sources, sure their impact needs to be mentioned if giving sources, but the other side having none and not challenging them is self evident at a glance. - Less stringent justification for counter points?
This may be a weird one, I don't know if it will make the cut into the referendum... So let's say someone gives you arguments and sources but gives the other side conduct and doesn't dot the i's and cross the t's on that part; with this change, the vote would not be removed so long as the primary points are justified to the standard... And yes, I have seen tactical vote reporting along these lines, wherein someone waits until near the end of the voting window to report such a vote against them.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Discussing politics online, often needlessly devolves into toxicity. This thread is an attempt to both mitigate that, and help new users find their path.
Words of Wisdom:
“Despite our own fervency. Religion nonetheless does not offer up any definitive answers. Therefore we must always be tolerant of opposing beliefs and opinions.”-Zedvictor4
“Ideologues believe two plus two equals five. Don't be an ideologue.” -Ragnar
“We must admit that refutation is the greatest and chiefest of purifications, and he who has not been refuted, though he be the Great King himself, is in an awful state of impurity.”-Plato (suggested by Discipulus_Didicit)
==========
Formatting Best Practices:
For actual debates, I highly suggest referencing the guide. However, for general forum use, just obey a few simple guidelines:
- Space between things is useful if you wish to be legible
- Don’t bold and/or CAPITALIZE all of your text
- Don’t misquote other users
Regarding the quote tool (just right of the underline button when making a post), bare in mind it adds an extra space after paragraphs; so if replying just after it, use a couple line breaks around each section.
Correct Way
What’s being replied to...
Reply to the above, followed by two line breaks to separate it from the next point of discussion.
What’s being replied to next...
Reply to the above.
Wrong Way
What’s being replied to...
Reply to the above, disguised to look like it’s replying to what’s below; adding needless confusion.
What’s being replied to next
Reply to the above, disconnected from the flow of everything else.
The problem with this is there are no extra line breaks, which clusters the wrong bits together. That the formatting does this is known, so use the extra line breaks.
========
Code of Conduct:
A new Code of Conduct (CoC) was ratified June 1st, 2020.
There are two frequently relevant sections of the CoC:
This should not need to be said, but if a behavior is obviously wrong, don’t do it.
Making Reports
To make a report, click the flag icon on the offending post. Ideally also message a moderator to explain what CoC violation occurred, as some posts have a lot of text and we usually have to read several others to determine context. So please make it less difficult.
The context of who is making the report does matter. As an example, some users are friends in real life, and make rude seeming inside jokes at each others expense; it being consensual, mitigates the offense.
Most things you dislike are not offenses that should be reported (such as the mere fact of having a contradictory opinion), you being  “triggered” does not constitute a CoC violation.  When someone writes something you dislike, first imagine a line in the sand. On one side of the line is civility, and the other savagery. Usually just a reminder is enough. A user without history of crossing the line, will be shown more leniency than someone who regularly skates it. The users who tend to be banned, are the ones who forget there is a line at all. Of course the ones likely to be indefinitely banned, might ask “what sand?”
Some examples of disagreeable statements, posts akin to the delinquent ones should be reported...
Expressing frustration with immaturity:
- Borderline: “The job of moderation is not to be your surrogate parents.”Problematic, but not outright vile.
- Delinquent: “Clearly your daddy didn’t beat you enough, so I’m going to take your mom out to a nice dinner; don’t wait up...”Don’t start imagining things about peoples upbringing, especially not to insinuate child abuse, or infer intent to... Just don’t ok?
Response to mind reading:
- Borderline: “I didn’t know you have super powers to know what I was thinking! What’s it like to be a superhero?”Sarcasm is usually warranted, and as an isolated case it does not cross the line into excessive trolling.
- Delinquent: “Oh yeah? You’re a Nazi!”Accusing someone of direct involvement with genocide, is almost never warranted.(This example had to go in here somewhere, and I did not have any good bad reply to the common BS of members claiming to know what someone else is thinking)
Please submit more hypothetical examples, and suggest any refinements to the above (layout and/or content). The basic idea here is to make people aware first that there is a line to be crossed, and further about where that line is (without getting too ugly).
========
Trolls (and comedy):
A troll is a mythic cave dwelling being, with an appetite for billygoats.
Nothing attracts trolls like attempts at intelligent discourse. They are usually best handled by simply ignoring them.
Overly sensitive users are going to accuse anyone who so much as cracks of joke (or corrects them) of being a malicious troll, so I will use the term a bit open-endedly.
There are three types of trolls (or with vulgarity):
- Clowns who are not necessarily trying to inspire anger.
- Losers with nothing better to do with their lives than try to anger strangers.
- Idiots who say things so stupid you mistake them for the Type 1 or Type 2, but they lack the mental facilities to do it intentionally.
So if engaging in comedy, please keep the following in mind:
- Lots of people will see it, so try to make it more about entertaining the audience, rather than hurting anyone’s feelings.
- Never forget Poe's Law. The one time a feminist talks in satire about how women are weakened by their right to vote, someone will mistake them for being serious.
- Don’t do mindless insults. Just calling someone a retard makes you look uninspired. It’s much better to properly evaluate their logic, point out every flaw in it, and leave them being a mentally deficient the unspoken but only rational conclusion from the evidence.
- Don’t stalk people. Their interactions on a different topic in a different thread, is not the time to bring up old dirt. Certainly never make threads calling them out by name.
========
Toxic Threads:
Some threads act like they’ve caught a disease. If a thread in general gets too vitriolic, moderators are likely to take the following actions against the thread:
- Place a general warning inside it against the most problematic behavior(s).
- Lock the thread for a minimum of 24 hours.
Users within may or may not be punished, as it is contextually understood that negative feedback loops happen without malevolence.
Such threads may be unlocked by request (message any moderator). If unlocked, any resumed CoC violations will be treated more seriously, and if the negative feedback loop resumes the thread will be locked permanently.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Discussing religion online, often needlessly devolves into toxicity. This thread is an attempt to both mitigate that, and help new users find their path.
Words of Wisdom:
“Despite our own fervency. Religion nonetheless does not offer up any definitive answers. Therefore we must always be tolerant of opposing beliefs and opinions.”-Zedvictor4
“We must admit that refutation is the greatest and chiefest of purifications, and he who has not been refuted, though he be the Great King himself, is in an awful state of impurity.”-Plato (suggested by Discipulus_Didicit)
==========
Formatting Best Practices:
For actual debates, I highly suggest referencing the guide. However, for general forum use, just obey a few simple guidelines:
- Space between things is useful if you wish to be legible
- Don’t bold and/or CAPITALIZE all of your text
- Don’t misquote other users
Regarding the quote tool (just right of the underline button when making a post), bare in mind it adds an extra space after paragraphs; so if replying just after it, use a couple line breaks around each section.
Correct Way
What’s being replied to...
Reply to the above, followed by two line breaks to separate it from the next point of discussion.
What’s being replied to next...
Reply to the above.
Wrong Way
What’s being replied to...
Reply to the above, disguised to look like it’s replying to what’s below; adding needless confusion.
What’s being replied to next
Reply to the above, disconnected from the flow of everything else.
The problem with this is there are no extra line breaks, which clusters the wrong bits together. That the formatting does this is known, so use the extra line breaks.
========
Code of Conduct:
A new Code of Conduct (CoC) was ratified June 1st, 2020.
There are two frequently relevant sections of the CoC:
This should not need to be said, but if a behavior is obviously wrong, don’t do it.
Making Reports
To make a report, click the flag icon on the offending post. Ideally also message a moderator to explain what CoC violation occurred, as some posts have a lot of text and we usually have to read several others to determine context. So please make it less difficult.
The context of who is making the report does matter. As an example, some users are friends in real life, and make rude seeming inside jokes at each others expense; it being consensual, mitigates the offense.
Most things you dislike are not offenses that should be reported (such as the mere fact of having a contradictory opinion), you being  “triggered” does not constitute a CoC violation.  When someone writes something you dislike, first imagine a line in the sand. On one side of the line is civility, and the other savagery. Usually just a reminder is enough. A user without history of crossing the line, will be shown more leniency than someone who regularly skates it. The users who tend to be banned, are the ones who forget there is a line at all. Of course the ones likely to be indefinitely banned, might ask “what sand?”
Some examples of disagreeable statements, posts akin to the delinquent ones should be reported...
Expressing frustration with immaturity:
- Borderline: “The job of moderation is not to be your surrogate parents.”Problematic, but not outright vile.
- Delinquent: “Clearly your daddy didn’t beat you enough, so I’m going to take your mom out to a nice dinner; don’t wait up...”Don’t start imagining things about peoples upbringing, especially not to insinuate child abuse, or infer intent to... Just don’t ok?
Response to mind reading:
- Borderline: “I didn’t know you have super powers to know what I was thinking! What’s it like to be a superhero?”Sarcasm is usually warranted, and as an isolated case it does not cross the line into excessive trolling.
- Delinquent: “Oh yeah? You’re a Nazi!”Accusing someone of direct involvement with genocide, is almost never warranted.(This example had to go in here somewhere, and I did not have any good bad reply to the common BS of members claiming to know what someone else is thinking)
Please submit more hypothetical examples, and suggest any refinements to the above (layout and/or content). The basic idea here is to make people aware first that there is a line to be crossed, and further about where that line is (without getting too ugly).
========
Trolls (and comedy):
A troll is a mythic cave dwelling being, with an appetite for billygoats.
Nothing attracts trolls like attempts at intelligent discourse. They are usually best handled by simply ignoring them.
Overly sensitive users are going to accuse anyone who so much as cracks of joke (or corrects them) of being a malicious troll, so I will use the term a bit open-endedly.
There are three types of trolls (or with vulgarity):
- Clowns who are not necessarily trying to inspire anger.
- Losers with nothing better to do with their lives than try to anger strangers.
- Idiots who say things so stupid you mistake them for the Type 1 or Type 2, but they lack the mental facilities to do it intentionally.
So if engaging in comedy, please keep the following in mind:
- Lots of people will see it, so try to make it more about entertaining the audience, rather than hurting anyone’s feelings.
- Never forget Poe's Law. The one time a feminist talks in satire about how women are weakened by their right to vote, someone will mistake them for being serious.
- Don’t do mindless insults. Just calling someone a retard makes you look uninspired. It’s much better to properly evaluate their logic, point out every flaw in it, and leave them being a mentally deficient the unspoken but only rational conclusion from the evidence.
- Don’t stalk people. Their interactions on a different topic in a different thread, is not the time to bring up old dirt. Certainly never make threads calling them out by name.
========
Toxic Threads:
Some threads act like they’ve caught a disease. If a thread in general gets too vitriolic, moderators are likely to take the following actions against the thread:
- Place a general warning inside it against the most problematic behavior(s).
- Lock the thread for a minimum of 24 hours.
Users within may or may not be punished, as it is contextually understood that negative feedback loops happen without malevolence.
Such threads may be unlocked by request (message any moderator). If unlocked, any resumed CoC violations will be treated more seriously, and if the negative feedback loop resumes the thread will be locked permanently.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
The current voting policy (sans update to S&G) can be viewed at:Â https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
I'm hoping people have ideas for improvements. So if so, please share them.
One example might be other voting paradigms which lead to valid votes. Another might be changing the point allotements within the categories. Etc.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I've tried a couple times but I don't think this will ever get off the ground as a debate (credit to RationalMadman for being willing to debate it as a length 22k or 30k debate), so I'm going to make a forum topic.
Anyone is welcome to participate, just understand the first couple posts are going to be weird for a forum...
Short Description:Â
A fun comics debate.
Disney's official policy to promote the Inhumans iMax release, included that Cyclops turn into a literal Hitler.
Full Description:
In 2016 Marvel Comics launched the limited series Death of X, during which the X-Men’s leader Cyclops is killed by the Inhuman leader Black Bolt. Following this event, the narrative thread throughout various of their comics is that Black Bolt was the good guy, and that Cyclops was basically Hitler. This debate is intended as a discussion to challenge that narrative, in which I intend to show that if either were behaving like Hitler, it would be Black Bolt.
I am hoping to debate an Inhumans fan who agrees with the narrative that Cyclops’ actions were analogous to Hitler.
The title of the debate is thematic, it is not intended to be the resolution. If a traditional resolution is needed, it would be a lengthy statement about the comparative moral values displayed by the two, and how Black Bolt is greater on the Hitleresque quotient (exact phrasing can be decided on in the comment section).
Scope:
This debate is about characters within Marvel Comics, particularly Marvel’s treatment of Cyclops. As pro, I am arguing against the demonization of Cyclops following his death. The scope does not extend to his eventual resurrection or other weird time travel things to include later retcons (I don’t know of any related ones yet, but Marvel has a bad habit of doing things like declaring Magneto never would have killed innocent people, so it must have been someone else who did all that throughout the entire history of the character...).
Burden of Proof:
Pro (Ragnar) has the burden of proving that Cyclops was morally superior to Black Bolt.
Con (my opponent) has the burden of proving that Black Bolt was morally superior to Cyclops.
And yes, modern morals are assumed, as in killing people is wrong, Hitler was a bad person, etc.
Definitions:
Generally normal English is to be used.
If there’s some important definition which you believe would change the outcome of the debate, please discuss it with me in the comments prior to accepting the debate.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
In short, for about a week we'll have a few voting questions open for the community to decide things.
This referendum will run until 10:00am PT (UTC-7), June 1st 2020.
About MEEP:
As seen in the moderation overview,
Moderation may submit questions and proposals regarding moderation policy, voting policy, and the code of conduct to Moderation Engagement and Enactment Processes (MEEPs). MEEPs are binding referenda and comment periods on the questions and proposals submitted. Moderation has full discretion on which questions and proposals are submitted to MEEPs, though no substantive change to the COC may be made without either the consent of the site owner(s) or ratification via a MEEP.
In order for a submitted question or proposal to be ratified, at least 10 users must have voted in the MEEP, and more than a majority of all those voting must have voted for the question or proposal. That means, in practice, that in a MEEP with 10 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 7 votes in favor of the proposal or question. If a MEEP fails to produce a binding result, moderation will maintain the pre-MEEP status quo, unless doing so is entirely untenable.
The Questions:
Below is an enumerated list of the content to be voted on. A brief explanation of each question is included as well. Please vote "yes" or "no" to each of these questions.
 Â
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
 Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.
Â
- Streamlined it, cutting the length by 45%.
- Made it no longer dependent upon external extended policies and interpretations documents.
- Codified various policies (e.g., context affecting consequences, protocols for new accounts, etc.)
- Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
- Expanded to impersonation rule to everyone.
- Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
- Removal of the no "Contravening or Disregarding Moderation" rule.
- Added clauses to protect children.
- And more...
2. Allow sharing of Private Messages?
This is not to imply encouraging it... A "yes" to this may be divided into two subsets (either yes option endorses change):
This is not to imply encouraging it... A "yes" to this may be divided into two subsets (either yes option endorses change):
- "Yes1" indicates with minimal restrictions. Identifying information for example, is still protected under the general doxing rule.
- "Yes2" indicates exclusively with moderator approval.
3. Change the Voting Policy to expand S&G to include other excessive legibility issues?
 Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of other legibility issues which distract the user from the arguments themselves (sPeLlInG EvErYtHiNg lIke tHiS, as an example). This would slightly simplify one aspect of voting, and inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a manner similar to the CoC.
Â
Â
4. Require a reason when submitting a report?
Voting "yes," would require users to message a moderator or use the upcoming improved report tool provide details on why the report is being filed.
No is divided into two options,Â
- "No1" indicates a belief against the requirement.
- "No2" indicates opposition to upgrading the report tool in that direction.
Voting:
I'm not that attached to how people vote, so long as it's easy to understand. People may also change their votes, but please don't be a pain about it.
A vote could look like this:
- Yes,Â
- Yes1, (the 1 signifying a preference for variant 1)
- Yes.
Like this (the missing 2, counts it as abstaining that question):
1. No, each change should be an individual question
3. Yes, we shouldn't even have voting rules.
Or even like this (a vote against 3, but abstaining from the others):
Wrong direction for voting, so no.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Hey DART.Â
I'm hoping to post a MEEP next week. MEEP stands for Moderation Engagement and Enactment Process, it is a referendum on site policies.
In this thread I will preview some of the questions to be discussed, and I invite you to suggest additional questions and refinements. Importantly, just because a question is suggested or seconded does not guarantee it will be included. Below are issues I already intend to include:
---
1. Ratify the new Code of Conduct?
Â
Voting "yes" to this question will overhaul and streamline the Code of Conduct.
Â
A few key changes:
- Removal of the trolling and insults rules, but adding a no targeted harassment rule.
- Removal of the harassing the moderators is ok rule (don’t worry, we’ll still have thick skin).
- Added clauses to protect children.
Full text is available at (with live updates): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DT0dprecA-ehRtRHO4tDPmUZel4hlUrWKdydLbyFlKk/edit?usp=sharing
And at (frozen draft):Â https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4214/post-links/173638
Â
Â
2. Allow PM sharing with moderator approval?
Â
Voting “yes” would add a clause to the no sharing of Private Messages rule, to allow moderators to grant permission to settle disputes.
Â
Currently there have been outright lies about the contents of PMs, and the victims are without real recourse. This is intended to correct that oversight.
Â
Â
3. Change the Voting Policy to have S&G to include organization
Â
Voting “yes” would amend the Spelling and Grammar in the Voting Policy, to allow consideration of organizational issues, such as a 10,000 character true wall of text (no line breaks) vs a case which is easy to navigate.
Â
Note: This is intended to inform a larger effort to overhaul the voting policies in a similar manner to the CoC.
 Â
---
Again, feel free to make any suggestions.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I'm seeking feedback on a couple issues, to determine what the general user base would prefer (results of this may end up in a MEEP).
Users may only have one account active at a time. I have worked hard to be respectful of the multitude of reasons someone may wish to switch accounts, and not be the person who says X is now Y. However there's no clear rule for what us moderators should do.
Worse, there are users who are strongly suspected of being previous users. I have generally clarified if there are no credential matches, but this gets into an ugly area when there are such matches but the person privately insists it's a coincidence. I have stuck to advising users to not talk to so-and-so if they're worried, but I have refused to outright share the match; I do however tell the other to keep their distance:
Regarding X,
I must ask that you strictly minimize any interaction with them. Without knowledge of your matching credentials to a certain former user, they identified you as said user; to which there was a very negative and prolonged experience.
There is no loss to this situation, since if you are not that person, then you have no investment with the aforementioned user. If you are whom they believe you to be, then ignoring them will help avoid old habits from which you wish to differentiate yourself.
Out of respect for privacy, the credentials match has not been revealed.
A related problem is when there is a strong match, but the connection is denied, we have not banned the former accounts. It's a damned nuisance. For this I would like to have a simple policy of the suspicion creating a light RO between the connected accounts, and if asked we openly tell people the details of the match with a clarifying statement that it may be a coincidence. ... Whereas if they admit to the connection, their privacy is maintained, but we moderators can properly use context from their past actions and relationships.
So what say you? I'm open to any ideas.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
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:Â https://www.vogue.com/projects/13543313/roman-catholic-women-priest-movement-giulia-bianchi/
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
So awhile back I committed some Red Herrings in abortion debate. I'm curious if anyone on the other side would like to defend what I take to be hypocrisy. I do not assume any one pro-life person to believe in each of the following; it's rather a starting point for potential discussion.
- I'm curious how beliefs in stripping women of their rights for the benefit of strangers (AKA "the unborn"), line up with investing in a border wall and a general anti-immigrant stance? After-all people who die trying to cross the border could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens.
- Stances against universal health care, which would raise the quality of life for any children forced to be born against the wishes of the mother, and likely make less women want abortions when there's not the up front cost of around $12,000 to give birth in a hospital.
- Gun access at the expense of life. Just universal background checks is estimated to be able to prevent over 1000 murders per year.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
So it's always bothered me how Picard as an old man, is as strong or even stronger than Klingons in their prime.
These shows and movies have gone through some effort to exhibit how much stronger certain other races are compared to humans. However, one episode had Picard ambushed by multiple assassins, one old human man vs multiple trained killers who have both surprise and home turf advantage... Yeah, I kinda felt sorry for them.
My suggestion is he is likely a Khan, like Ricardo Montalban or Benedict Cumberbatch.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
Hey everyone, Ragnar here. For those of you who don’t know me, I’m the deputy moderator.
This thread is an attempt to generate a useful pinned thread to teach people expectations for using the controversial forums. Feedback is highly encouraged. After a couple iterations of editing, I hope to copy/paste the final result into a new pinned and locked thread, then move this one to the archive.
==========
Words of Wisdom:
“Despite our own fervency. Religion nonetheless does not offer up any definitive answers. Therefore we must always be tolerant of opposing beliefs and opinions.”-Zedvictor4
Please submit any others, especially for topics other than religion.
==========
Formatting Best Practices:
For actual debates, I highly suggest referencing the guide. However, for general forum use, just obey a few simple rules:
- Space between things is useful if you wish to be legible,
- Don’t bold and/or CAPITALIZE all of your text, and
- Don’t misquote other users.
Regarding the quote tool (just right of the underline button when making a post), bare in mind it adds an extra space after its paragraphs; so if replying just after it, use a couple line breaks around each section.
Correct Way
What’s being replied to...
Reply to the above, followed by two line breaks to separate it from the next point of discussion.
What’s being replied to next...
Reply to the above..
Wrong Way
What’s being replied to...
Reply to the above, disguised to look like it’s replying to what’s below; adding needless confusion.
What’s being replied to next
Reply to the above..
The problem with this is there are no extra line breaks, which clusters the wrong bits together. That the formatting does this is known, so use the extra line breaks.
========
Code of Conduct:
There are two frequently relevant sections of the CoC:
Personal Attacks
This is not a ban on disagreements, or even using what someone said to make them look bad (this can be done in a civilized manner). In general, just don’t be varelse.
Other Prohibited Conduct
If it’s obviously wrong, don’t do it. However the big ones to which there have been repeated issues...
NEVER:
- Share private information (however it was attained)
- Impersonate anyone! (misrepresenting what was said can rise to this level)
Examples
Expressing frustration with immaturity:
- Borderline: “The job of moderation is not to be your surrogate parents.”Problematic, but not outright vile.
- Wrong: “Clearly your daddy didn’t beat you enough, so I'm going to take your mom out to a nice dinner; don’t wait up...”Don’t start imagining things about peoples upbringing, especially not to insinuate child abuse, or infer intent to... Just don’t ok?
Response to mind reading:
- Borderline: “I didn’t know you have super powers to know what I was thinking! What’s it like to be a superhero?”Sarcasm is usually warranted, and as an isolated case it does not cross the line into excessive trolling.
- Wrong: “Oh yeah? You’re a Nazi!”Accusing someone of direct involvement with genocide, is almost never warranted.(This example had to go in here somewhere, and I did not have any good bad reply to the common BS of members claiming to know what someone else is thinking)
Please submit more hypothetical examples, and suggest any refinements to the above (layout and/or content). Of course this is not a call out thread, so name types of behaviors, but not users who commit them. The basic idea here is to make people aware first that there is a line to be crossed, and further about where that line is (without getting too ugly).
Reporting
If someone is harassing you (or anyone else), click on the flag icon in the top right of their post (just left of the thumbs up). If context is needed, message a moderator directly.
To be clear, the Reasonable Person standard is applied. You being  “triggered” is not enough. However, if you've asked someone to cease and desist, and they follow you around (possibly encouraged by that rejection), matters against them are viewed more seriously than if they had no idea anyone considered their conduct problematic.
========
Trolls (and comedy):
A troll is a mythic cave dwelling being, with an appetite for billygoats.
Nothing attracts trolls like attempts at intelligent discourse. They are usually best handled by simply ignoring them.
We admittedly don't have the best definition of trolling:
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.
Overly sensitive users are going to accuse anyone who so much as cracks of joke (or corrects them) of being a malicious troll, so I will use the term a bit open-endedly.
There are three types of trolls (or with vulgarity):
- Clowns who are not necessarily trying to inspire anger.
- Losers with nothing better to do with their lives than try to anger strangers.
- Idiots who say things so stupid you mistake them for the Type 1 or Type 2, but they lack the mental facilities to do it intentionally.
So if engaging in comedy, please keep the following in mind:
- Lots of people will see it, so try to make it more about entertaining the audience, rather than hurting anyone's feelings.
- Never forget Poe's Law. The one time a feminist talks in satire about how women are weakened by their right to vote, someone will mistake them for being serious.
- Don't do mindless insults. Just calling someone a retard makes you look uninspired. It's much better to properly evaluate their logic, point out every flaw in it, and leave them being a mentally deficient the unspoken but only rational conclusion from the evidence.
- Don't stalk people. Their interactions on a different topic in a different thread, is not the time to bring up old dirt. Certainly never make threads calling them out by name.
========
Next Section:
Other sections to follow as someone thinks of them...
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Please use this thread to solicit unbiased votes for your finished debate(s). Older content will be periodically deleted to maintain relevance.
If seeking debates to vote on frequently, you may opt to subscribe to this thread by clicking the yellow button above, or view all debates within the voting period.
========
Voting Academy 101: How to Cast a “Good” Vote
In order to vote on DART, users must have read the site's Code of Conduct (COC) AND completed at least 2 moderated debates (not comedy, not spam, etc.) without any forfeits OR made 100 forum posts.
A couple pages worth bookmarking:
- Voting Policy (in short: read the debate, then name and compare highlights from each side on each category for which you're allotting points).
- Resources for New Members, which includes helpful voting guides and primers.
========
The individuals responsible for voting moderation are:
See Moderation Overview.
========
Moderator Voting FAQs
1) Why was my vote removed but that other horrible vote that doesn't explain anything allowed to stand? My vote is better than so many other crappy votes cast on the site.
- Moderators tend to review only the votes that were reported. If you find a “bad” vote and would like the moderators to review it, simply hit the red flag and we will get to it as soon as possible.
2) I've reported a vote but it wasn't removed.
- Several possibilities: (1) The vote passed moderation review. (2) We haven't processed the reports yet (this usually happens in 24-72 hours). (3) The vote is past the statute of limitations. (4) The debate is non-moderated.
- Additionally, when reporting a vote you can also create a comment tagging one or more moderators, clarifying why you believe the vote in question is insufficient (that it voted against you must never be the reason).
3) What are the requirements for voting?
- In order to be eligible to vote, accounts must have (1) read the site's COC, AND either (2) completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. Once you have done those things, you will gain the right to vote.
4) My voting rights were revoked. Now what?
- If your votes have constantly been removed, the moderator team will contact you and coach you through the voting process to ensure that you fully understand our standards. If your rights have been removed, you must appeal to the moderator team and write a sufficient RFD on a debate that is at least 3 rounds and is not forfeited.
5) I didn't know the voting guidelines. Why was I punished for something I never agreed to do?
- If you have the right to vote, it means that you at least read the COC. Ignorance is not an excuse for failing to vote properly.
6) I want to explain my vote in detail but it won't fit in the voting comment box.
- Feel free to use the comments section of the debate to elaborate on your vote. You can use multiple comments if you want (each can hold 2000 characters of it, we suggest starting at the end of the vote and working backward for better reading order). You can also use a Google doc and paste the link to the comment box.
7) Can I revote once I've had my vote removed?
- Of course (assuming you have your voting privileges) - as long as it is expanded or changed in an effort to solve the initial issues that caused it to be removed. Copy-pasting the same vote without justification will cause it to be removed again, along with potential other sanctions.
8) I believe it was unfair that my vote was deleted, it was a good vote... What should I do?
- Create a comment (or send a direct message) replying to the moderator who handled the report, explaining why you feel it met or exceeded the standards. Do please understand that moderators are human, so occasionally mistakes are made.
9) I think votes shouldn't be moderated. How do I escape the evil of having standards?
- List your debates as non-moderated (ideally both in the title and description). Granted, this absence of standards has been tried on similar sites... It leads to vote bomb wars.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
As you all know, there's currently some work being done on forum restructuring and consolidation [1]. I am hoping for some feedback...
Currently the description for the religion forum reads:
Topics related to church and religion
I've tentatively written an update of:
Discussions of divinity, faith, spirituality, etc.
The final text for it is up to you. Ideally it should serve as a friendly welcome and introduction to the forum.
One example is the Sports forum is being updated to:
Needing to shoot a 3-pointer while screaming Kobe? This is the forum for you. Just don't airball!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
This thread topic is for discussion of how to improve the forums. Please give feedback, ask questions, and suggest refinements; or even state ideas related to the forums in wholly different directions.
There is no set schedule for when any changes would roll out. And of course, if the greater community is opposed to change, no change at all will occur.
Current State:
There are 22 forums, most of which are not particularly utilized.
- DebateArt.com
- Art
- Cars
- Economics
- Education
- Fashion
- Games
- Health
- Miscellaneous
- Movies
- Music
- Nature
- People
- Personal
- Philosophy
- Politics
- Religion
- Science
- Society
- Sports
- Technology
- TV
Proposed State (first draft):
This would end with only 9 forums. This is a steep decrease, but will hopefully avoid the current problem of ghost forums. I however I not attached to any precise number.
- DebateArt.com (Community)
- DebateArt.com (Site Management)
- Mafia (and other forum games)
- Artistic Expression (community generated art, music, writing, etc.)
- Politics, Society, and History
- Health, Science, and Technology
- Philosophy and Religion
- Entertainment Industry (Music, Movies, Sports, TV, Video Games, etc.)
- Miscellaneous
Working Draft (updated at 15:30 PST 11/26):
This will be edited by any moderator (probably Ragnar, but all have my permission), so new members joining the discussion need not wade through everything to understand the current state of the proposal. As of 11/19, descriptions are on the second line of each entry.
- DART Site ManagementÂDebateArt.com administrative matters, rules, refinements, and more.
- DART Community HubFor the users and by the users, this is the main social hub.
- Artistic ExpressionCommunity generated art, music, writing, etc.
- Current EventsNews and various micro events of the day.
- Entertainment IndustryMovies, TV, music, celebrities, etc.
- Mafia HubMafia and other forum games.
- GamingVideo gaming and related technicality, plus any discussion of board games, etc.
- PhilosophyEpistemology, Logic, Metaphysics, Ethics, and Aesthetics.
- ReligionSpirituality, faith, and religious concepts.
- Science and NatureThe natural world and the systematic study thereof.
- SocietyPolitics, History, Economics, etc.
- SportsNeeding to shoot a 3-pointer while screaming Kobe? This is the forum for you. Just don't airball!
- ArchivePrimarily for outmoded administrative threads.
- MiscellaneousEverything not covered within the other categories...
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
As I previously soft announced, I've been building a Kritik Guide. Thanks to using Google Docs as a medium, refinements will always be easy to implement, but it's essentially complete. With this, there should no longer be difficultly in answering 'What's a K?'
I'm proud to say it is co-authored by Ramshutu, by far our most active voter and member of the moderation team, whom understands Kritiks far better than I.
Please use this tool for good rather than evil:Â https://tiny.cc/Kritik
...
Right now editing is set to be open for suggestions. However, at some point in the future I expect to be forced to lock that, and make this thread the suggestion point for any edits.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I've never done one of these, but as the second user to cast 250 votes to earn the Professional Voter medal, I figure it's time...
Given my extremely unique history, this may prove highly educational.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
Originally posted at WordPress, and copy/pasting it here by request (divided into the first two posts on this topic). The bracketed text was originally footnotes, which displays great on paper, but not so well online.
---
Dilemmas are what define most people, and politically there is perhaps none greater than abortion. Whichever side of the divisive line you stand, you should be against Pro-Abortion politicians. Agree or disagree, please keep reading.
The sides to take are as follows:
- Pro-Life: This is really the anti-abortion group, they are not anti-choice, but bodily autonomy is a lower priority.
- Pro-Choice: This is not the pro-abortion group, they simply believe abortion is an option due to bodily autonomy taking a higher priority.
- Pro-Abortion: Whatever other ambitions lay at the heart of it, they intentionally cause more abortions and consider this if not good, than at least an acceptable price to pay for those other goals.
Confused yet? Context is coming…
Pro-Abortion in Action
In Colorado public funding for contraceptives saved the state a massive $5.85 per $1 spent, this equaled about $79 million saved in just two years (this figure is excluding decreased welfare spending). Further, this decreased teen abortions by 50%! This is a win/win scenario; for Pro-Life there are less abortions, for Pro-Choice women are in greater control of their bodies, and for people who don’t care either way there’s less government spending. However, Pro-Abortion politicians tried to stop this program. They pretended to be Pro-Lifers to get conservative support, and made a mockery of Pro-Life beliefs, top among their claims was that not getting pregnant is the same as an abortion (the only counter case I’ve heard, calls for every sperm to be sacred, and all men to be genocidal monsters for not freezing them for later use), and further that family values call for increasing the number of abortions so long as there’s technically a few extra babies born (other trades to gain these abortions include: an increased percentage of teenagers with STDs, increased poverty, less education, and these problems affect girls more than boys… Of course, an argument could be made for any one of these things being the true goal, and the rest merely being acceptable collateral damage along the way; for any real Pro-Lifer, acceptable collateral damage will never include anything at an abortion clinic).
Texas has a number of politicians who seek to get teenage girls pregnant (where I’m from, if someone plots to get underage girls pregnant, we call them a pedophile), who use such measures as abstinence only education, under the claim about family values, but it’s been shown time and again to cause more pregnancies and accompanying abortions. To give them the benefit of the doubt that it’s not motivated by dishonorable intentions towards those underage girls, the logical conclusion seems to be they’re the means to the end of upping the abortion rate.
Reasons for this oddity could be mused easily enough. I do not assume anything which requires wearing a tinfoil hat, rather I assume it boils down to the badge of victim-hood.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
This idea is to address the problems associated with last minute votes.
How it would work is quite simply if a vote is cast within the final hours of a debate, the voting period is extended back to that cutoff, this is repeated as needed until no new votes are cast within that time.Â
Of course certain users will childishly try to keep certain debates artificially in the voting period, but this is only a minor nuisance.
From a coding standpoint it would be easy to implement, probably adding a mere single line of code along the lines of:
IF((countdown<36hrs)=TRUE) THEN SET(countdown)=36hrs ELSE nothing;
Thoughts?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
How much vote tampering need someone try in the comment section, before it overrides the usual separation to allow them to be penalized?
This isn't about any one particular debate, I've seen a growing trend here.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
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:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
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:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Thought rather than PMing these, I'd share them in a thread for the enjoyment of all.
Others are if course welcome to add their own favorites.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
This is taken from how some live debates are handled, specifically from an article Tejretics shared.
The way I envision it working is as follows:
Judges cast ballots only reflecting the strength of their opinion before and after the debate (plus commentary). Moving from agreed/disagreed to neutral (or neutral to agreed/disagreed) would be worth 1 point, and from agreed to disagreed (and vice versa) would be worth 3.
I view this as something informal with only minimal moderation (such as a voter repeatedly gaming the system; like a known pro-lifer insisting they agreed with mandatory abortion before each debate to give undue points to their friends).
Due to the risk of no voters beginning in the position of agreed to certain claims, no ELO impact.
Note: Meta data could be collected from having strongly agreed/disagreed, but I would not grant extra points. While extra points would certainly help identify cheaters, people already complain about such too much on categorical voting.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I believe it is safe to say it is dead. Much like how finding a corpse which no longer resembles whom it had been after being largely consumed by cats, that person is indeed dead... But time of death? For DDO I am estimating sometime in 2017, but without a change log for their site (the update that removed debates being able to end?) it's a bit hard to narrow down.
For that matter, time of life? I believe the site came alive November 2008, as that is the oldest post which hasn't had necrophiliacs have a go at it.
Anyway, I've decided to polish up that guide a wrote for it a final time, and have a brief farewell message to a site which at one time had been so good to so many of us.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com