LordLuke

And Ramshutu explains it well, too.

RM when he says Method A he's not saying to the best of your ability.

Here are better explanations:

A: Judge arguments based on whether you think they are correct.

B: Judge arguments based on what most respected people believe are correct

C: Judge arguments based on what the debate has determined to be correct

Also note that logic is not an argument; logic is universal, but claims and explanations as to why those claims matter ARE arguments.

And it is possible to have debates about logic, like the nature of it, or about math.

But you can't necessarily debate the logic.

Maybe you kind of could, but you would essentially be explaining why your opponent thinks that, idk, things that are not true are intrinsically, therefore true, and probably will have to argue against them about the nature of logic.

To win, you ought not simply state anything that is not true is not true and therefore not true, you would have to refute you're opponent's arguments that something that is not true is true as well.

And the opponent's view would deal with the nature of logic.

So what matters is what the debate has determined to be right. Not what you think is right.

You can't vote on a debate for the guy who forfeited everything just because you think their opponent was dumb.

The guy never refuted anything!

That's all DynamicSquid's question was asking, RM, not if you should judge to the best of your ability or not.

Bronze: "Baby Intellectual" -- Have better sources in a debate 2 times

Silver: "Knowledgeable Opponent" -- Have better sources in a debate 9 times
Gold: "Information Overlord" -- Have better sources in a debate 25 times

Also we could also do conduct and better arguments and spelling and grammar if we wanted to.

Ha, that's funny.

I've noticed we've both been asking people tons of questions lately.

Seeing you do it somehow encouraged me to do it more.

I'm asking them fast enough for them to be answered, though.

Many of my recipients are online.

Oh, okay.

It's odd they did that.

If it's easy to tell if it was once an open challenge or not, then MAYBE (I don't know if this is getting excessive, but) we could make the instigator and contender ones for open challenges, and add this:

Bronze: "The Competitor" -- Schedule 3 Debates

Silver: "The Arbitrator" -- Schedule 10 Debates

Gold: "The Showman" -- Schedule 50 Debates

If we DO add this, we might want to make scheduled debates easier than open challenge ones (maybe? I think they're less common), and we might want to make the other two a little bit easier to get, too (so maybe 2, 6, 30).

It sounds like it's a compound adjective, and needs a dash.

Okay, glad you like it!

Thanks!

Ha ha I know it

Yeah, I think you're right, that one might be kind of dumb.

That just incentivises people to click buttons until they're filled up with a ton of notifications every day.

What do you think about the rest?

Also The Assistant could be 5 instead, The Developer 10. You could count suggestions a bit freely.

Bronze: "Clan Leader" -- Gain 3 Subscribers
Silver: "Important Person" -- Gain 12 Subscribers
Gold: "Leader of the People" -- Gain 50 Subscribers
Bronze: "The Creep" -- Subscribe to 3 People, Debates, or Topics
Silver: "The Watcher" -- Subscribe to 12 People, Debates, or Topics
Gold: "The Super-Spy" -- Subscribe to 50 People, Debates, or Topics
Bronze: "The Meddler" -- Instigate 3 Debates
Silver: "The Revolutionist" -- Instigate 10 Debates
Gold: "The Professional Instigator" -- Instigate 50 Debates
Bronze: "The Triggered Passerby" -- Contend 3 Debates
Silver: "The Maddened Critic" -- Contend 10 Debates
Gold: "The Professional Contender" -- Contend 50 Debates
FYI, those last two assume Contender and Instigator refer not which position you take on a matter, but whether or not you were the one who created the debate. Maybe we could even have one or something that goes the other way. Also, it would be interesting to know if there is a way to tell if a debate was set to be against a specific person (as compared to becoming an open challenge). Is that information recorded somewhere? And this thread leads me to think of this here...
Bronze: "The Helper" -- Give 1 Used Recommendations to the Site
Silver: "The Assistant" -- Give 3 Used Recommendations to the Site
Gold: "The Developer" -- Give 7 Used Recommendations to the Site
Also, you might want to sort the medals somewhat. Like by "Debates, Forum, Miscellaneous, and Meta."
Without that medal suggestion above, there would still be a use for all four of those categories, and you could brag that you're the first to complete "all of the forum ones," if that's what you think matters, in case you just aren't interested in those meta ones (such as reading the site's release notes).
P.S., in the list of current medals, don't you think "Law Abiding Citizen" should be "Law-Abiding Citizen"?
Also, there were a few other ideas I've thought of, but I haven't finished fully yet. It can be slightly hard to thing of the perfect names for things and such.

I've always thought it was messy too, thinking they should do something like that.

So I completely agree with this new structuring proposal.

Also, about liking one's own comment, when viewing an individual comments likes itself, maybe you could display that as a separate star symbol or something to show the creator particularly likes his own comment.

Because I only do that when I particularly like something I've written.

That sounds like a really fun challenge, I haven't thought much about it before.

Let me think...

A medal for how many DIFFERENT people liked you? Which one is it?

Another cool addition would be a medal like this:
(Bronze) be liked by 3 DIFFERENT people, (Silver) Liked by 20 DIFFERENT People, and (Gold) Liked by 80 Different People.

When you go to someone's medals page, you can see if they've asked 0/5, 1/5 2/5, 3/5, and 4/5 questions, but once they've completed it, with 5 questions asked and answered, you don't know how many they actually asked.

Anyone with 5 or more questions has only asked 5 or more questions, and that's all we know.

It would be nice to easily see the over-completion of a medal, writing "7/5" and such.

Now, you can often check these elsewhere, including in the golden versions of the same medal, but some of the golden ones themselves, such as Respectful Contributor, gives you no other way of checking that information.

A and B are of course wrong, it's C, like Ram. said.

Because of this, octopuses have been used to help scientists learn to use decentralized systems like the octopus's brain, and they taught scientists how to use hyper-redundant arms.

Also btw, Octopuses have blue blood and they have a big clump of neurons in each arm, so when an octopus wants it arm to do something it tells it what it wants done and the neuron clump in its arm will figure out how to, and there are lots of other weird things about octopuses. I'm writing a story about one.

So my last few posts were unnecessary.

I was trying to say you don't have to say "I know" to what I was writing at that moment of time, I wasn't saying that you shouldn't have said "I know" the last time. I was trying to say you don't really have to respond on that part of my post I was just writing the next time you responded.

And I guess I couldn't tell what you were saying, so I just interpreted it in the way I could most easily see.

I wasn't sure what this

"

" meant or why it was directed to me.

What IS a "Hard Theist?"

And what makes anyone hard, anyway.

What're you talking about though? I thought I answered them all.

What points? Might you explain?

I thought I responded to everything I thought you were saying.

You asked what would happen under patriarchies and matriarchies, or what might've caused what, and I responded with the answer of no matriarchies and no patriarchies, but a society. What did I forget?

You said you "know" to the point that was supposed to be about why non-feminists brought up other arguments. I don't get why you brought them up, if we both know how I already recognized them and thought they were absurd that they argued such.

For clarity, all I was saying was it could've been, for all I know. Just showing that I've only heard of the concept before, and not of the idea of an actual implementation. You don't have to say "I know" to this.

I can see how that definition might be debatable, but it seemed pretty good given the topic.

I also pointed out that, even if you take out the "in the interest of males" part, I still believe it wasn't the work of a patriarchy ("And nobody said it was just a male's idea or just a girl's idea to do this.").

Males holding power but not using it for themselves isn't a patriarchy. A patriarchy must:
a. Be ruled by males.

b. Serve the interest of Males.

If a "patriarchy" that breaks the second rule, it doesn't matter who's ruling; they aren't using the power for themselves.

If a "patriarchy" uses its power for the needs of society or women, then it couldn't be called a patriarchy.

You can't have a patriarchy for women.

And really, if the interest of males are being served, then that means they're either ruling or forcing that to happen, or that those who are ruling are perfectly happy with such.

I'm FFIINNAALLYY going to be able to join now! Everything took FOREVER.

RationalMadman, this is really a verse you oughtta take to heart:

"Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;

Doesn't everyone know we separated bathrooms by one's sex because of sex (intercourse and all of its urges) itself?

With 100% certainty, there wasn't any patriarchy that said they didn't want to watch girls use the bathroom! That would've been sexy! It is 100% asinine that any non-feminist (meaning you aren't ideologically stupid on this subject) didn't use that answer and that they attempted to bring up any other answer.

It is the obvious.

I'm also apparently waiting for my brother's tryouts to end...

I should be on in about 30 minutes to an hour and fifteen minutes.

My class actually used up the full 2 hours this time and I'm about to eat at Arby's but once I'm done with that and am home I'll get to it asap.

Okay, great

I'll join if you'll be fine with me not participating until roughly 8:00 tonight. I have a late class on Wednesday, so I am staying at school, and my Discord password isn't saved on my phone so I can't access it until I get home.

Cool, it sounds like werewolf which I've played some number of times before. I put two questions on the thread you could answer if you'd like.

If there isn't any set times I'll join. I read that'll be going on for about a month.

No, I haven't played any games yet. I'll check it out.

Cool!

Orthodox Jews believe the most extreme, but I've heard that the pharisees literally make too many laws for them to possibly follow. I'd just like to point out the Karaites, who I think are more likely to follow their religion. So there's that.

Ok.

It was more likely from the start that he wasn't a free mason and that he doesn't support them, either.

Looking at your debates, your basically an atheist, aren't you? You don't believe in any God?

Agree, we didn't even know his reasoning. Some Christians might even put Satan as their picture because they think it's cool, not good.

And I'm not saying it's genetic either, but a gentile turned Jewish is more different from a Jew than a Jew turned Atheist.

No, all I said was that the atheist Jews are just like religious Jews but worse.

Why would it not be the race when the atheist Jews are worse? I'm not a racist either, but they have that culture or victimization theories or received more influence from Satan or something, and it's not solely their religion.

Let's ask him.

Who are you + why do you have 2 accounts?

Also, we all know each other by heart.