Total posts: 3,954
I think Pepsi is less "sugary" and better than Coke, especially when flat.
Created:
Mao Zedong is a good guy on balance. (or this could be attributed to the fact that there are nearly no Chinese users here)
Created:
Supercars(such as Bugatti Chiron, etc) are not deserved by just "rich" folks who only collect cars and at most drive them on streets and local highways.
Created:
Eating 2 meals a day is normal and should be regarded as so, no matter how unhealthy it is. (I mean, then there is Joe, who eats burger king 3 times a day.)
Created:
Dunno how unpopular this is, but please lower the wages of politicians and raise the wages of teachers.
Created:
The Communist manifesto should be in the curriculum of schools.
Created:
The driving age should be, along with the drinking age, 18.
Created:
I don't like sand.
Seriously, I am one of the only few kids who'd reject a trip to the beach back then. I think this is pretty unpopular.
Created:
Fruits and Ice cream taste gross.
No seriously, this is an unpopular opinion that I hold. OP said unpopular OPINIONS, not hot takes or speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
How do we measure how left or right any ideology is? Is fascism more "right" than capitalism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I believe this is the better question. A hippie is vastly different from a commie and if a hippie exists in a commie state chances are that they will be imprisoned. Same with a libertarian and a monarchist. I believe that labeling someone as "left" and "right" is not representative at all. Even the political compass with 2 dimensions can't do it, why 1?
I guess I am fine with being called "a leftist", but don't confuse me with a hippie, a jacobin and a TERF. The same goes for anyone right. The crimes committed by, say, national socialists, should not be alotted to libertarians due to them having nothing to do with it. We just..shouldn't categorize people just into left and right because it means barely anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Or better, what exactly is "left" and "right"? Who are we comparing it to?
Created:
Posted in:
I would rather say that this site as a whole is more like an echo chamber, figuratively. In truth, if you talk like you do in DART, in schools, you get called your parents for no reason. If you talk like this in your job, you get denied your pay raise. If you talk like this in social media, you get cancelled because people don't understand. If you talk like this on the streets, people confuse you for a politician or a preacher and get disgusted.
Essentially we have like ~30 active users ponging back information and trying to reflect upon anything we talk about on the forum. Removing the aspect that leftists and rightists coexist, this site can almost be called an echo chamber where all we do is talking in a logical and critical and almost nitpicking way that would not be otherwise accepted by the wider society for the most part pratically.
Do I like it that way? I do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
Except the pure nature of this site is debates, not the forums. I did not even post 50 times on the DDO despite having "112" debates. I think this is just a statistical thing, where these people happen to be leftist for no reason. People can post and can choose to not post. If they do, they post. If mostly leftists posts here actively, that makes the illusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Fuck bitches, get money.-Jesus Christ
I am not married, nor do I want to perpetually disable myself from heaven. ------Intelligence_06
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes, I am. I can sustain my livinghood myself, like a very-late stage fetus and unlike an early-trimester fetus.
Created:
[1] Abolition (not prohibition) of the political parties;
Or, how about just one party?
[2] Replacement of the periodic elections with the "Perpetual Elections", that is, instead of having an election every 3, 4, 5... years for every (or half) of a representative body, have an election (say) every week in (say) one single electorate;
That would be extremely hard to regulate. How would you regulate that? Imagine having presidents with an average term shorter than Harrison. That is probably how displeased we are with the US politics.
[3] Abolition of the traditional process of "forming the government" where we have the "government" and the "opposition". Once the members of the representative body (or bodies) are elected they ARE the government (mind you: there are no political parties); the members so elected will elect from among themselves as many ministers (and their deputies) as they think fit.
Once again, having no parties will be a disaster because that would mean anarchy. What is wrong with 1 party?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Doesn't change the fact that they are essentially a block of organic matter that cannot sustain itself. Keeping them alive for the whole sake of "murder" is absurd in my opinion.
Or that I just think before a fetus can sustain itself, it cannot be rightfully considered a human and aborting it is more "removing organic matter" than "killing a person".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Funniness is subjective. I find myself very funny. hHAHhhahhHAHhaHHAAhaHHhaHAh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What isn't? What "is" are you even talking about?
I get your aspects of central apoliticism running, but what are you exactly rooting this post for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Sadolite is the proof that America is the land of obnoxious opinions.
Because all kinds of people exist in America and they are allowed to hold every opinion, even if they hate it. In an authoritarian society, you are encouraged to believe NOT that or discouraged to believe that. In America, you can believe anything and everyone hates everyone else, grumbling for the sole reason they believe in something and we can't do anything about it. I would argue that, without any offense, simply an impression, that Sadolite represents how most people in the US think, they just blabble for the sake they have the right to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Resorted to ad hominem, it seems that you have. No better than he is, you are. To improve the productivity of this site, this man has successfully achieved. To correct a grammar issue, I have edited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Fetuses are not slaves. They are blocks of organic matter that otherwise cannot sustain itself. You don't call a plate of raw beef a cow or anything alive.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
NFTs are a scam.
OP said UNpopular.
Created:
-->
@Puhovpeny
Meanwhile, some "parents" just tells children bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
Murder is not wrong because it is murder, but because amounts are removed of the value of that person. Don't get me wrong, all people have value, but Karl Marx definitely worth more than, say, a death row inmate. In fact, the removal of a death row inmate probably prevents NEGATIVE value from being created, that is why death penalty is given to them as an exception to "thou shalt not kill".
If the amount of happiness increased by the mother exceeds what is the value of the fetus, then the act of abortion is seen as justified unless other vectors of benefits or costs are induced that makes the cost outweigh benefit. I would think that abortion in the earlier trimesters would be similar to removing a block of junk in a woman's body. It is literally that, the "child" can't even sustain itself and are just a block of organic matter not enough to be called "alive". Removing a block of junk in the woman is probably beneficial, unless that block upon removal causes more damage to the woman, which is probably more represented by late-trimester abortions. Those are more reprehensible, or it appears to be, due to that it causes more net harm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Yes. Nowadays most religions are not even trying to follow ethics, they just want assimilation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Uh, I was talking about the Christian God. Allah states that homosexuality is a sin, but all "evidence" that the Christian God did the same was largely due to translation issues, and never explicitly stated.
Created:
Posted in:
Why don't more people believe in this?
I believe religion has more or less descended to populism where a group of people are determined right no matter what they say. I mean, no one have bonded the rich and conservative with the Christ? That was entirely based on interpretations of certain groups, and the notion that God hates gay men are entirely risen out of pure interpretation issues.
Religion is so unclear that it might as well stay the populism mess it already is.
Created:
Posted in:
Only wish DART has more people that really understands what Socialism is. Sadly, the bias is heavy with this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Stop? What stop? We just let it happen naturally, and move on with life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah I think he likes the CCP.He said 'abortion in case of miscarriage' like it is even a point.
Resorted to ad hominem, it seems that you have. Again, why exactly are miscarriages not considered abortions? I always thought they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah I think he likes the CCP.
That is at least what many Chinese thinks as well, I mean the abortion statement. They do consider miscarriages abortions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Would you support a mother murdering her infant as it's too inconvenient for her?Yes or no.
Yes.
When is it too inconvenient? If it is not needed, it is not "too" inconvenient. As people running on logic I believe that you saw this coming. Having something legal and having it reprehensible is not mutually exclusive. There is the death penalty, do you enforce it on a woman who just aborted her fetus? No. You don't use it easily, but it still exists.
Leaving the way out for something for it to be available is always better than not, as there is a reason for abortion to come into existence, yes, and the reason persists to exist. There are possible scenarios where an abortion is justified: For example, miscarriage and when the mother's life is in danger.
Tell me why in these scenarios abortion is not justified.
Again, if abortion is still a concern, then maybe we should focus on biology, not politics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany. If you don’t fight to protect your rights, you lose them.
There are other usages to the rights of the Jews other than them being a right because humans live and need to have enough properties and freedoms to keep living. On the other hand, the usage and need of publicly-owned unlicensed firearms wanes and causes more problems each day while solving less and less. It will be obsolete one day.
How long did it take Hitler to confiscate guns and kill all the Jews. You can’t predict the future, neither can I. Maybe you’re right. But I sure as hell can say the 2nd Amendment has don’t it’s job for 231 years.
At this point, you have commited reductio ad hitlerium to people who are anti-gun. The Chinese emperor system has done its job for like over 2000 years, but was ultimately disposed of and replaced with democratic liberalism(or something like that) in 1911 and socialism in 1949, which in turn fits the time better whether or not you like it or not. Maybe it is a appeal to tradition, even. Tell me why unlicensed guns are still useful uniquely in 2022. Tell me. Don't @ me with the "it was like this in the past" bollocks, we are talking about the present and I think it should be changed. America won't dissolve if guns require licenses.
I think the statistics was 42k gun deaths in the USA. That’s 0.127% of the population killed by guns. And that’s just general. About half of those deaths are suicide, which is a mental health issue. Another quarter is gang violence, which is still going to happen with or without guns. Just because Canada doesn’t do it (look at them losing their rights) doesn’t mean it is bad. To the contrary.
Even you know guns are substitutes. There is nothing unreplaceable about guns I know of and if anything, they should be restricted as they clearly do cause destruction. We are not talking about why guns should keep existing, it arguably should, but you have yet to give any reason why licenses on it are wrong any other than the reason that it disobeys a 200+ year old piece of paper.
Created:
Posted in:
Don't play with saws. They are dangerous. I think you are old enough to know that.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
You call that brave speculation, not opinion.
Created:
Abortion should be legal, but discouraged. Society runs wild when you just casually dispense unfinished fetuses, and population drops when you just say you can freely do it without any discouragement. The reality is that there is discouragement.
I consider myself both pro-life and pro-choice, but not anti-abortion. Abortion is discouraged in most cases as there are possibly better choices, but the choice should not be eliminated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Protecting the right for the sake of protecting it is stupid. It is not like without guns, America ceases to be itself anymore. If it actually is so, that just means the US needs a reform LONG ago, not now, because no society should run itself on guns. No large-scale society like the US has this freedom over guns, and it does not decrease, if not outright increases crime rate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Yep, agree. If we are not allowing licenses on guns, then remove those on fishing, driving, etc. Or just establish licenses on all. Protecting an old principle for the sake of protecting it is hilarious and ironic.
Created:
Posted in:
In any seriousness, this system was created possibly in "2008". We already have the number of debates in the 2000s or even then 3000s. We can't change the vote of all of them. If we do then, the leaderboard will shift massively due to a change of how wins work.
Created:
Posted in:
For #2, see this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
But otherwise, yeah. Sources are bound to be the servant of the argument, not the master.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The entire point of a debate is to argue your point, not ramble off a bunch of links that say you're right.
Not to be agreed or disagreed, but just to showcase how "important" sources are, I have essentially attempted to write an argument like I always do with a kritik as a ricin dart here in a formal Public Forum debate where thousands of Chinese, American, etc. children and students join, and was literally declared losses because the judges saw my argument as sourceless, as I base my argument off of basic logical tautological statements on both side then declare them, and the opposing side questioned our side with...sources only, or latent descriptions that are rooted in sources, and none in pure logic. Yet, the judges did buy it and gave them the win.
The point I am trying to make is that DART debates are in fact much less source-oriented than perhaps many IRL debate tournaments, and I don't see the problem with the current system as I am pretty satisfied. I have even won with source points towards the opposing side and the argument points towards mine on this site. If you have better arguments and you behave coherently and according to the Coc, you possibly win.
Created:
Posted in:
I firmly believe that at this point, licensing is more important than "freedom". That "freedom" was caused by years of WAR where people needed to defend themselves from rivals from England. Now, the need is mostly gone as the amount of terrorism at this point inside the US should be able to be handled by the police force within. Why do we need to make something so destructive unlicensed for the sake of a document more than 200 years old? We need licenses for cars, for owning a cannon, for selling masks, for experimenting with Uranium metal, but not for firearms? Oh bah, that sounds sure like a British ton of bollocks!
Created:
Posted in:
Why is there even a need for unlicensed firearms in America? I am not outright proposing that all guns shall be banned from civilians, but it would seem like the logical conclusion that with such destructive weapons obviously a license is needed.
Not only that, I propose that guns should be less afforable. Many people owning guns is dangerous. Banning guns cause outrage, but a raise in the price doesn't do as much outrage as it does.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The fact is that moderation has mostly been fair, for me at least. I believe this is not an act of bad mod behavior. In fact, if the mods can give a good enough explanation, they will. What I am discontent with is the flaw of the system, that rated debates somehow can be unmoderated means that anarchy and warfare can essentially replace order and justice and voters can just manipulate the leaderboard without the debaters having anything to say. Sure, the ELO is indeed just internet points after all and are no more meaningful than instagram likes, but it is true that for me, ELO has always been just all 2 years before today, and somehow it just broke.
I have to accept this "loss" anyways, but that doesn't mean I give in to the system. Before the introduction of a related new rule, I suggest everyone making their joke debates unrated, because I don't want your internet points manipulated by other people without the Mods having anything to do.
Created:
-->
@ComputerNerd
No, I am not saying what you did was wrong. I am not saying that you are saying anything, but you really are not at fault at anything here.
We did not take this debate seriously, and you didn't, and that was understandable. What was not was that the fact this debate is in a rated state, while unmoderated. Your vote is valid in any measure for an unmoderated and unrated debate, and non-valid for any debate that is moderated. I am just saying that all debates that are rated should be moderated. Either moderation, or unratation(that is a word, or is it not?). Ignore Wyited.
Created: