Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Hm, maybe convince some rich guy to start up some Communist city or state
Actually, I believe that Capitalism naturally evolves into central planning, since increasingly more buisnesses are being owned by less people. It probably wont be Communism, but it will be central planning in a way.
Created:
So many people are saying "boys shouldnt be called girls, boys shouldnt wear a dress".
Those people are transphobic. They are not opposed to surgeries alone. They are opposed to everything that makes trans child a trans.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
This kind of defeats the purpose of a debate. What you’re describing is just two sides presenting their own case with no regard for the objections of their opponent. Normally the idea of a debate is to test whether the case you present can hold up under rational scrutiny.
Well, the purpose of the debate is to test the power of your case, yes. However, I already do that in the forum to the point where I get really tired from it. I have done much more debates in the forum than in the debate section. I cannot increase my debate count unless I
1. Do debates with less rounds
2. Skip on something, such as rebuttals.
Besides, if my case wins without using rebuttals, then thats a really good case. Rebuttals usually place a lot of drain on my debating. Like, having over 5000 characters split in segments and responding to each seems like too much work. Its hard partly because I use smartphone and typing is slower on smartphone.
I personally find that a shared burden of proof lowers the quality of a debate. Again, the purpose is for the two sides to clash, and as a judge it’s that clash that gives the reader a sense of who’s winning. Without that it’s really just a matter of whose case is more convincing, which is almost entirely going to be decided on the readers biases coming into the debate. If you stand by your position, there’s no reason why the BoP should scare you.
You recommend that I place burden on myself and not on my opponent? Well, I mean, I could do that. Its just that then I would have to be more careful in writing topic. Some topics are simply auto-loss for Pro when burden is not shared, especially topics that have little evidence to support Pro's premises, or topics that are refuted by finding exceptions to the case.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
How would you know when to report the opponent
I dont remember ever pressing the report button. I dont even report troll votes against me. I dont care much if opponent uses insults or whatever. I can take it.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Intelligence_06
Most debates and most arguments individually are divided on:
1. Body of reasons
2. Rebuttals
3. Conclusion
Rebuttals take the longest time. Normally, I can write my arguments in 30 minutes. However, rebuttals sometimes take hours if opponent writes a long case. I was hoping I could skip on rebuttals and just work on my own arguments.
So it would be:
1. Body of reasons
2. Conclusion
It would save me a lot of time. Probably would let me increase my debate count.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
As long as I can ignore his case, it is fine. I dont need to win. I just need to show up.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Just to be clear, I would be Pro and I would set rules that Con must argue the opposite of the topic. For example, if topic is "Abortion should be legal", Con would have to prove that "Abortion shouldnt be legal" in order to win. He couldnt merely refute my case or play much semantics with shared burden of proof. He would have to make his case.
Created:
-->
@FishChaser
I fucked your mom.
Okay dad.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Yes if you managed to build your case on the semantic analysis of the topic itself.
Well, there are rules where Con has to struggle to win. For example, shared burden of proof, plus being forced to prove his side of the topic, not merely refuting your side.
Plus, some topics dont allow much semantics, especially with rules "pro must prove X is true. Con must prove X is not true".
Now, I dont care much about winning. For me, it is all about talking and expressing opinion.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
This is largely how I handled Mall's over the top ranting.
Actually, I enjoy reading Mall's responses. I wouldnt ignore them.
Created:
-->
@FishChaser
You could do that but it would suck though.
I am simply asking if its okay, would it bother people? ... I dont care if it "sucks" for you or for voters. Its me who is important here.
Created:
Guy was a loving husband, but the ban on abortion caused him to start beating his wife. Makes sense.
Created:
-->
@FishChaser
If you had a higher IQ or higher whatever else you would be less likely to be stuck enduring them as peers.
Well stated.
Created:
I was just wondering something.
I could write 5 rounds in advance before the debate even starts, each round using characters to the max and each round containing new arguments instead of defending old arguments. That way, I dont even have to read my opponent's case or his refutations.
I say this, because reading what other person writes is often boring and sometimes too long.
However, I do like reading my own arguments. So I figured I can probably just skip on reading opponent's case.
Created:
Posted in:
Biden already destroyed Trump in a debate before. DeSantis isnt even a real challenge. Biden can win again without even trying.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, no honour left.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
All sexual angst removed in my Utopia. No sex necessary.
So we would be like Borg and resistence would be futile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Don't hear much from approximately 744 of them.
There is no need to tell truth when we do buisness. For all the advertisers know, there is 800 of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sorry, that thinking is way too complicated for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, this site has 800 members and rising. So I am guessing those members.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am not getting laid, masturbation is a necessity for me.
I am saying that people arent same. Some prefer different things, and not everyone can satisfy with masturbation alone.
I don't think either you or I should sum up what the right approach is though. I answered questions, I couldn't give a shit if some north korea fan that has no idea how to rank nation and cultures and live life to be happy tells me my approach is suboptimal.
Okay, I am sorry for being a North Korean fan. Didnt know its such a big deal.
Also, there were taboos I couldn't go into in my utopian society if I believed in them, this is not a 'safe' platform for the full extent. Do you think a cultist that I spoke about disliking in my society could really vent what their utopia is here? No, it would be used against them.
So your utopia is so good that you arent allowed to mention it completely? I openly talk about all my ideas. Of course, I dont expect everyone else to do the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you know what you achieve with masturbation?
Somewhat higher intelligence and young looks, but it comes at the price of depression, losing will to live and having bad memory, plus problems with controlling emotions.
I know this because I masturbate a lot. Never had sex.
I did try a few months without masturbation. Person feels much happier after like 20 days of no masturbation and no orgasms.
Masturbation is simply there to lower urges, but it doesnt make anyone happier. It is done out of desperation. There is a significant percentage of people who prefer sex over masturbation. They would be unwilling to give up on sex to uphold waiting until age 20.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Its not like you can just all give it up kind of deal
Well, you can give up on religion. However, its nice to believe in God and have a little daily rituals. It should not be given up if there is nothing to replace it.
Created:
I dont personally care about income. However, I care about being forced to do too much work.
Employers these days expect you to do 30 different tasks in one job, plus to work over 40 hours a week, plus to know perfectly how everything works as soon as you are given the task.
If I have to work 8 hours, plus time needed to prepare, get to work and come back, it usually amounts to 9 or 10 hours a day. Add to that 8-9 hours of sleep, and I only get like 6 hours of free time per day. Deduct from that meal time and resting from work, it really falls down to just 4 hours of free time.
Now, if I have to work 10 hours a day plus time needed to prepare, get to work and come back from work, it really ends up in me having almost no free time at all.
However, most employers expect you to work overtime.
Then I have to deduct from my sleep and sleep like 5-6 hours during working days.
Plus, you have to endure other workers, their comments and attacks.
The average worker has 90 IQ, and being forced to talk with them is mentally painful.
Their idea of life doesnt go further from boring jokes, junk food and degenerate music taste.
Plus, they actually expect you to like what they like and act like they do, as if I have some kind of obligation to do so, as if they are some kind of role-models for proper behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
Its important that any ideal follows the law:
"If just one individual accepts the ideal, society becomes better. The more people accept the ideal, the better society becomes."
I personally dont like ideals that only work when lots of people accept them, and are useless if only one person accepts them.
Rather, I prefer individual-oriented ideals, that any individual can accept and improve himself and society by accepting that ideal, even if he alone accepts it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
My Utopian society would be society without pain.
What would the Utopian society be in terms of Religious, Political, and Social Ideology?
Religion would have to be a form of Christianity. Political and social ideology would be hard work, refusal of wealth, living by owning as few things as possible. No one would drive cars or private planes. No one would have lots of money to use for private purposes.
add a description of how society would be run and structured?
In order for such society to exist, people must accept it as ideal. If they accept it, then how it is run and structured becomes irrelevant, as it being run and its structure will rise naturally from society of such individuals. If there are no such individuals, then no structure will work.
How would individuals maintain a part of that society and be involved in its affairs?
By operating under principle that every action should never cause more pain than it removes.
How would individuals feel unified within that society? What are the benefits and challenges of creating and sustaining such a society?
They would feel unified as great majority of people hates pain the most.
Benefits are that there would be less pain.
Challenges are if people would accept it or understand it.
What are the sources of inspiration or influence for your utopian society?
I realized that pain is the worst thing that can happen to a person.
Would there be a code of conduct and commonly held values and what would their purpose be?
Just one law: Dont do action that causes more pain than it removes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'd much rather teenagers learn to be masturbating virgins...is it that hard to wait for your first relationship or at least until 20 to do so
Well, it wouldnt be hard, it would be depressing and most people wouldnt follow it. Some have stronger sexual urges than others. It would be like physical pain to them that would last for 5 or more years if they waited until 20.
Created:
Posted in:
I was actually surprised how long this site was without ads. Almost all sites have ads.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I read something that said 25% of Americans have an STI and young people are more likely to have one because when old people were kids, they had more prudish values (and this is based) when it comes to sex.
That is an argument against sex outside of marriage. That isnt an argument against sexual activities with children. Banning sex wont stop children from having sex.
A lot of kids are going to get STIs, and a lifetime of having STIs isn't worth 3 minutes of sexual pleasure. At least with pregnancy, that kid would grow up in 19 years. STIs last with you the rest of your life.
So you would be in favor of banning sex outside of marriage.
I'm not sure about the first claim. But most child-child relationships are discovered because it's legal.
The book "The Trauma Myth" states that most are never discovered as children refuse to report it even after they grow up.
I don't think this is the case. A kid has leverage over the pedophile since the pedo will get prosecuted and the kid would get comforted by society. I knew this teacher that had a relationship with a 16-17 year old girl. When relationships end (which is common in highschool), the kid outs the pedo.
Most kids in relationship with map dont want for map to go to prison. However, they are aware that society thinks that what they participated in was most wrong. They have to deal with the pressure of society's opinion.
It's pedo, not map.
Map stands for minor attracted person. Pedo is too insulting to use, so I gave up on it.
But pedos want that type of power over the children they date, so they pick young kids.
I dont think its about power. Its about an attraction. For example, baby is the weakest, but most map arent attracted to babies.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Your an early case, Caught Your Kid Masturbating? (webmd.com) states the average age for boys is 10 years old.
I discovered it early. Some discover even earlier. If someone told them about it at any age, they would discover it. When kids discover it, they enjoy it.
If there was an adult that gave a kid nothing but candy to eat, the kid would also enjoy it most of the time (I wouldn't since I have never liked candy. But I'm an odd case). That doesn't mean it's beneficial for the child. Adults know when to stop for sex; they know the effects of it (STIs, unwanted pregnancy, realizing that birth control is not effective enough) that kids can't grasp yet.
Most children have sexual urges. Some kids have sex with other kids to satisfy those urges. Some just masturbate. Sexual activities happen. If sexual activities are beneficial or not, its questionable.
When I was 5 years old, I wanted a bunch of kids. I had no idea they would be so expensive (I thought $5 was a lot of money), but I wanted them for a stupid reason (just to play a game with me that I forgot). Now, I have enough common sense (and different values) to know better than to want kids I can't afford to raise. Even if you happen to be a gay kid, kids take very horrible risks they shouldn't take. A 5 year old can get some STI that lasts with them the rest of their life since they wouldn't like condoms (adults have enough sense to use a condom, even the gay ones). But if every 5 year old was sexually active, our world would be a much worse place with STIs being held by virtually EVERY kid, having virtually every teenage girl dealing with an unwanted pregnancy (that forces her to pick 1 of 2 horrible options (assuming she's in a place where abortion is legal); killing her unborn child, or having such a young kid go through pregnancy that will traumatize her). This all starts with relationships.It's better if young people (I define young as below 18) don't get into relationships. I think the age of consent should get raised to 18 nationwide to protect the kids.
If such relationships were allowed, it is very unlikely that every child would be in a relationship. Relationships would be better guided by society. In the USA, 30% of children had sex before 16. Great majority of them have no STI. Allowing such relationships wouldnt cause every child to have STI. Most of adult-child relationships are never discovered. Same goes for child-child relationships. The stigma from society hurts those children psychologically. It also hurts map, as they are treated like monsters and tortured. It is questionable if ban on such relationships does more good than harm in its current form.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Children don't enjoy sex.
I started masturbating at age 7 or 8, I dont even remember exactly. I just know it felt good and I imagined having sex and I enjoyed imagining that.
There was this book called "The Trauma Myth" that deals with adult-child relationships. In most cases in those relationships, child is happy.
Person who is attracted to children shouldnt act on his urges because it is illegal to do so.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Not every pedophile is a rapist.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
For a trans man (FTM), you REALLY are letting your feminine side show.
I am not trans, although I sometimes do wish I was a girl.
Virtually every man isn't going to get butthurt over people making fun of them.
I see people often being upset when people provoke them. However, trans children are often provoked the most. Cant really say that children can or should deal with such thing.
I'm a MAN; I endured the pain, because pain is temporary.
Not everyone can do that tho
Emotions are for girls; so if you want to be what society deems is a man; DON'T ACT LIKE A WHINY BITCH!
Well, some people are girls. Can we really say that everyone is able to deal with ridicule without ending up harmed in any way?
I'm from CT, but I identify as a Floridian, because Florida is where pedo snowflakes (and snowflakes in general) go to melt!
Thats mean lol
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
Easy answer: Go to Japan.
True 😊
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I am all for their regulating this site however they see fit
The goal of the site's owner is to attract users to the site to host debates and logical discussions.
While I agree that this site is his property, users arent his private property.
Therefore, to attract users, one must follow a logical path, and cannot simply "dictate" the site any way one wants.
Oromagi is a mod now. He is expected to set an example for others on how to behave.
The number of insults on the site has decreased significantly since the ban on insults.
However, to fullfill the purpose of ban on insults completely, the ban must apply to all cases where insults are irrelevant to the topic.
Insults arent arguments, unless the topic is about insults, such as rap battles.
Appealing to opponent's intelligence or bias is not an argument of any kind, since anyone can do it to anyone and the relevance to the topic is non-existent.
When in debates, person should focus on the given arguments, not on another person.
I have a long history of using insults, but I am very happy to give up on using insults when everyone agrees to do the same.
Created:
Posted in:
Sometimes people prefer not to answer questions. Probably doesnt want to lose supporters. He is a paper tiger.
Biden is strong. He does what he wants, and people obey him no matter what.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Would you elaborate?
Its a line from a movie "The Dictator".
Created:
-->
@Double_R
comparing it to Russia is just ridiculous
I didnt compare it.
I said that they are both evil. One being more evil, the other less,
doesnt change the fact that they are both evil.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Forgot to tag you.
Created:
When people talk of bodily autonomy, the concept is that a person has a right to do whatever she wants with own body. If fetus also has bodily autonomy, which it must have, it gets a little more complicated. Fetus is located in woman's body. Therefore, woman, being the owner of her body, has a right to remove fetus from her body.
The main argument of Pro-choice is: "Do not decrease autonomy",
Where main argument of Pro-life is: "Do not decrease life", or in the more extreme case: "Do that which increases life the most".
if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy).
"if A>B (Bodily autonomy > right to life), and B>C (right to life> Fiscal autonomy), then you would believe A>C (Bodily autonomy > Fiscal autonomy)."
Is it okay to be addicted to meth, heroin, or some hard drug if it leads to you stealing from other people to maintain your drug addiction?
Well, no, of course not. However, I see your point that fiscal autonomy may be violated to uphold bodily autonomy. However, one must understand that theft would likely violate bodily autonomy of the person money is stolen from. For example, if that person is poor or barely surviving, stealing money from that person would likely cause that person to starve or be forced to beg for help from others. Now, if the person is terribly rich, then missing a few dollars wont be a problem. So yeah, the moral problem exists as to who gets to decide what decreases bodily autonomy.
Consider the following scenario: Lets say your a parent with 2 working kidneys and your 8 year old son needs a kidney transplant to survive. Pretty much any parent that isn't a deadbeat would agree to give their child a kidney. However, should you as a parent be OBLIGATED to give your kidney to save the life of your 8 year old son (when everyone believes an 8 year old son is at least as valuable as a fetus, and I also think everyone would agree that giving your kidney to save a life is less of a sacrifice than to be pregnant for 9 months to save a life)? If you believe a parent must do whatever is needed to save their child's life under the pro life ethic, you would have to answer yes to that question.
This largely depends on if your stance is "Do not decrease life" or "You must do that which increases life".
In case of "Do not decrease life", you are not decreasing life by not donating a kidney. "Not donating a kidney" is not an action. It is a lack of action. Person can be blamed for what he does, but cannot be blamed for that which he doesnt do. It is not your fault that someone needs a kidney. It is not your action that causes someone to die due to not having a kidney. If it is your own child, then you gave a life to that child. Your action didnt decrease life. If your child needs a kidney, that is not your fault. "Not giving kidney" is not an action. Therefore, your actions didnt decrease life.
The main problem with this moral system is that it says how if you saw a drowning child, you wouldnt have an obligation to save that child, since you cannot be blamed for a lack of action.
Created:
Posted in:
Everyone outside of America is technically an arab.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
would you mind structuring that as a Round 1 case?
Oh okay, sure.
Topic
"Best.Korea would have more freedom in Japan than in USA".
Definitions
Freedom - Ability to do something, or being free from limitations or oppression
Introduction
USA offers plenty of freedom to most people, but not much to Best.Korea.
Arguments
P1. In USA, Best.Korea would be imprisoned for life and would be raped for life.
P2. Being imprisoned and being raped for life means to have the least freedom possible.
C. In USA, Best.Korea would have the least freedom possible.
P1. In Japan, Best.Korea would not be imprisoned for life and would not be raped for life.
P2. Not being imprisoned for life and not being raped for life means to have more freedom than what Best.Korea would have in USA.
C. In Japan, Best.Korea would have more freedom than what Best.Korea would have in USA.
Conclusion:
Is conclusion necessary? Well, the conclusion is that Best.Korea would have more freedom in Japan than in USA.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Women’s preferences generally favor the circumcised penis for sexual activity
Sorry, I dont see how woman gets to make decisions about my body. Are we living in some reverse universe, where "my body, my choice" applies only to women, while men have no choice what so ever?
The findings add to the already well-established health benefits
Actually, the healthiest countries in the world all banned circumcision.
The least healthy countries in the world have lots of circumcision tho.
Circumcision causes trauma for the infant.
Plus, the circumcision damaged my penis.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
are you willing to debate that truism?
What is there to debate?
In USA, I would be in prison for life and I would be raped in prison for the rest of my life.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Are you willing to uphold this stance in a debate? That Japan has more freedom than the US?
Its a truism.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What do you believe life is like in North Korea? What do you believe that life is like for the convicted-of-crime in North Korea?
Well, either same as in USA either less bad, its just that in North Korea person gets to keep his foreskin in most cases. So there is that.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Why would you rather be born in North Korea than the US?
I was in prison. However, if I was born in USA, then I would probably be in prison for life, and I would be raped for the rest of my life. Thats about as bad as life can get for a person. Nothing is worse than that.
Why is Japan your country of choice?
Oh, well, plenty of reasons:
1. Safety - almost no murders, no circumcision, almost no car accidents.
2. Freedom - Japan has lots of freedom, I would say much more than any other country. People respect boundaries, which is fundamental part of freedom.
3. Culture - Probably the most beautiful culture in the world. For example, they dont teach kids that they will burn in hell or other nonsense. Rather, they teach about nature and love towards nature, love towards spirits of the ancestors.
4. Education - I am not gonna say that Japan has the best education in the world, but its high enough to have a high quality childhood and adulthood.
5. Good healthcare, good food
6. Kind people
7. Best anime comes from Japan
When these 7 combine, you get the ideal country to live in. I could probably think of more if I tried.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Now, just remember you have no 'real' freedom beyond that in Russia.
I wouldnt have any freedom in USA either. In fact, I would probably prefer to be born anywhere except in USA. Even North Korea would be a better option than USA. Still, my country of choice to be born in would be Japan.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Go and live in Russia. Then tell us how evil US is.
I dont live in USA or Russia. However, if I had to choose where to be born, I would choose to be born in Russia. At least I would get to keep my foreskin.
Created:
@HistoryBuff
America has arguably ruled the world since the fall of the soviet union.
Actually, USA existed before the fall of the Soviet Union.
It has been far from perfect, but it has been the most peaceful and prosperous period of human history.
Thats only if your knowledge of history stops after year 1900, and if you ignore that two world wars happened while USA existed, and a third is on the way.
The only correct part of your sentence is "It has been far from perfect".
There was more than 300 million people killed during the existence of USA. Thats more people than the entire population of Earth at certain times in history.
So yeah, usually people who dont know history make such stupid arguments. Like, its really embarrassing for them. They are asking to be spanked, intellectually.
Also, people often fail at historical math. For example, they often conclude that because certain war in history killed 1 million people, and wars today kill 500,000, that wars today kill less people.
What they fail to understand is that they are comparing 1 war that lasted for 50 years with 1 war today that lasted for 5 years.
Thats a huge failure at math, but its the best that American education system has to offer.
Created: