Total posts: 2,897
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
BOP isn't always about proving something, but offering the reasoning behind a position. If there is a counter position, then there is also a shared BOP.
I agree with the first statement 100%, but the notion of shared BoP varies from topic to topic (and resolution to resolution).
Again, with topics related to positive good there is no shared BoP. With these topics, BoP lies on the person making the claim like Athias said. I think with the God topic, though, if the resolution is positing that God does not exist, then there is some shared BoP inherent to the resolution. But if the resolution is positing that God exists, then the BoP lies solely with the affirmative.
Really, most of these things have to be interpreted on a case by case basis imo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
That's a generally accurate standard, but there is a level of nuance I think from topic to topic that it doesn't account for. For example, topics related to positive good fit your standard. If we argue that there is a positive good to installing a 5G network in the United States, then the negative does not bear BoP and can simply say "I see no evidence of the affirmative" if we do not substantiate the claim with evidence that proves a positive good without reasonable doubt. Likewise, If we argue that there is a negative effect of 5G, then the negative could say "I see no evidence of the affirmative" and win if we do not substantiate our claim with evidence that proves a negative effect without reasonable doubt.
But with topics related to the existence or non-existence of something, I feel the BoP naturally lies on the person making the claim that the thing exists to prove beyond reasonable doubt it does or doesn't exist. This doesn't mean that what you say here isn't true:
"If one were to affirm the nonexistence of God (i.e. "God does not exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation."
This is true. But "substantiating an affirmation" does not translate to having the BoP of proving that God doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. "Substantiating the affirmation" could just as easily be the athiest arguing they only have to prove that there is no substantial evidence for God's existence because a belief in something with no evidence is a fallacy in of itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
That statement doesn't need to be refuted, because it's true... and I say this as someone who leans theist in their beliefs.
When someone says something exists and another person says "I see no proof of it existing," if the contested thing existing is not a truism, then the BoP naturally falls on the person making the claim. That doesn't mean there isn't a good case for God existing, though. Just as even though the BoP falls on those claiming abortion is a-ok, you can make a decent case for why it might be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
plus a link to a video showing undeniable valuable contributions from a group he wants exterminated
glad you caught this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The conspiracy theories adopted by the far-right are definitely concerning. They need to be discredited, but they should not be deplatformed. Ironically, I think the issue is propagated further by such behavior (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter targeting Alex Jones and others for example). While I understand the intention is to take down harmful conspiracy theories before they become an issue, it ends up backfiring. When you have a group of very paranoid people convinced that there is some sort of elitist conspiracy, the worst way to take down that conspiracy is to try and silence/deplatform them. People see it is a confirmation of their worldview: that there is something the elites are hiding. "Why else would Alex Jones be kicked off platforms? Clearly the media is mad at him because he is telling the truth!"
Human psychology is an interesting thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Yeah that about sums it up for me as well. Quarantine bothered me for a bit but I'm fairly content these days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
sounds like a good estimate. He'll be back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Honestly, was about to make one myself. Was going to compile all of his claims and debunk them one by one in a giant forum post after I finished up my debate with Undefeatable. Alas, he crossed the line of toxicity too quickly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Water potential is really just a matter of learning the damned formula and the even more damned constant....
But once you learn those things, if you truly understand the concept, it should become fairly easy. I think Whiteflame would be the best person to ask about it though.
Anyway, that's interesting... If I were you, I'd elect for psychologist. But if you wanna do that, keep in mind the market is so oversaturated you'd need a doctorate to stand out. It says something though, that even the market being as oversaturated with psychology majors as it is, it's still a better deal than a philosophy major
Created:
Posted in:
How's life irl folks? What do you all do for work? If you're in college or high school, what do you wanna do for work eventually?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Fair enough. I'm just saying that those who had thought up the policy probably did it intentionally, knowing that militias would be a constant threat to the government elite. So in that sense, it is better to debate whether it is beneficial like you said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
U.S. militia groups pose a greater threat to our national security than do FTOs.
Ah, but isn't the expressed purpose of the US militia, composed of the People, to be a threat to the government elite? It is one of many checks and balances intentionally included in the formulation of the US government.
Created:
Posted in:
Here's some I find intriguing. If you can't tell, I'm a pretty PF oriented debater.
- Resolved: The United States should increase its use of nuclear energy for commercial energy production.
- Resolved: The United States federal government should prioritize reducing the federal debt over promoting economic growth.
- Resolved: The United States should end its economic sanctions against Venezuela.
- Resolved: The European Union should join the Belt and Road Initiative.
- Resolved: The United Nations should grant India permanent membership on the Security Council.
- Resolved: The United States federal government should impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry.
- Resolved: The United States ought to replace the Electoral College with a direct national popular vote.
- Resolved: The United States should replace means-tested welfare programs with a universal basic income.
- Resolved: The benefits of the United States federal government’s use of offensive cyber operations outweigh the harms.
- Resolved: Violent revolution is a just response to political oppression.
- Resolved: The US ought to increase domestic climate change regulations.
Created:
Posted in:
nah, I just think people are enjoying their Turkey Break with their families. Has little to do with Oromagi losing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
That's very helpful... Basically exactly what I've been kind of concerned about.
My final rounds are basically the same structure as my rebuttals, yes. I'll try to shake things up in my debate with Undefeatable in the final round to see how that works... You'll have to tell me if it is an improvement.
I don't think I'll turn away from line 4 line in my rebuttals just yet, but the final rounds I think could be done differently like you said
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I think I agree that you could make your first rounds stronger... Not that they're weak (usually quite the opposite), they're just weak in relation to your killer rebuttals.
As for me, while I have some ideas about areas I could improve, I'd be curious to hear your opinion on it. Where are the areas I can improve on most in your view?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Divorce rate is something crazy like 50% so probs for the best
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
I didn't even read it. I knew whatever it was it'd be pretty cancerous
Created:
-->
@Username
I don't think universality implies truth. If it did, and everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth, it would be true.
That is not a fair comparison. You're comparing external science with internal principle... a hypothesis of the unknowns of the solar system, to a moral code that we know and use innately.
One could be that certain moral principles are necessary for societal cohesion which helps people survive or whatever. All that shows is that people want societal cohesion and survival; not necessarily that those things are objectively good.
Ah, but isn't there being a set of principles that universally leads to societal cohesion and survival... well, universal? How is that any less objective? Does it not transcend humanity that, despite all our bickering, we agree to a certain set of moral principles for the sake of the species? Maybe it isn't metaphysical, and is rooted in our biological drive to succeed, but it's definitely objective.
Created:
-->
@Username
That's where our views diverge then, because I would turn around and say that in order for morality to be subjective, it must follow that the same set principles are not universally appealed to. To me it seems impossible everyone would agree to the same set of principles under a subjective framework.
Created:
Posted in:
the irony behind this post... this is hilarious.
I honestly can't tell if this guy is serious anymore.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not really, unless it's being utilized as an ad hominem
ex: "Well you're a racist so shut up! Your opinion on the US income tax system is now irrelevant because I called you this buzzword!"
In this context it's just a criticism of their behavior. That said, "racist" and "sexist" are constantly misused by progressives to label anything they dislike regardless of any evidence of actual racism or sexism... That's why I am generally hesitant to label someone as such. In this case, the evidence is pretty compelling...
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
fair enough. The pattern wasn't there yet. But let's just say I've been suspicious ever since he said slaves were treated well.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not one to throw around the "racist" card but he strikes me as a person with a genuine superiority complex... and I wouldn't be surprised if that crosses into racial superiority territory based on the views he espouses and his toxicity in general.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Seems that way. Notice I didn't even bother pointing out I am a legal adult. He was just proving my point the more he spoke.
Created:
I'm just going to inject what I've said previously on the topic of racial IQ disparity...
What means more is the way you were raised. If from the time your brain was easily malleable you were constantly fed Mozart, forced to play piano and violin, and study astrophysics while taking an IQ test every 2 months... you could potentially be the next Einstein. That is true of any race. It just happens with Asians and white people more frequently.
You definitely could make the case that Asians/white people are smarter on average, but I don't know why you should.
It isn't because of biology, and saying such statements is of no use to anyone. It simply fuels the egos of racists. Non-racists do not care and see no use in pointing it out.
To prove my point, take all high IQ people of all races together. What makes them high IQ? You will find a lot of similarities across all racial categories. Generally they are wealthier, have high education, play musical instruments, etc...
So, perhaps the more productive conversation is, how can we increase wealth and education for all people?
Do that, and you will see all IQ rates rise to the point of each race matching the other.
TL;DR: All you are doing by recounting racial IQ statistics is highlighting a wealth and educational disparity, not a biological one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@seldiora
In any case, I just hope that this is the end of the pattern of users dropping like flies.
Here's the thing though, they aren't.
We've had users leave, yes. but all purportedly for their own personal issues, nothing to do with the site itself... and for every user we've had leave, we get one to replace them.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It might... But I do not want to contest it. I am OK with my actions being openly examined and criticized. Just don't expect me not to defend myself when I do not agree with your criticism.
Created:
Here is the official ruling. Now grow a pair and stop bitching, please & thank you.
I'm done here.
Created:
funny way to say "i have no argument" but ok.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
I'm glad you learned the term "self-awareness" in your highschool English textbook recently.Now run along, kiddo.
he says with zero self-awareness
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
If 5 personal attacks isn't considered systemic, then the TOS is nebulous. It needs to be clearer as to what is systemic, because no one, including you, knows what exactly that entails.Also, could you please explain to me how "piss off motherf*cker" is an "on topic" comment for that thread? Are you seriously arguing that?
- 5 personal attacks is not even close to systemic. Especially given your broad definition of "personal attack" (i.e. anything you don't like).
- Notice you have levied at least 5 personal attacks at me and I have yet to whine and bitch about it.
- the statement you quote was indeed on topic because it was within the context of an ongoing argument. If you were discussing toilet paper brands and he said "piss off motherfucker" out of nowhere, that would be out of context.
- again, you bitching about how people reply to you and yet not acknowledging your own behavior that compelled them to act that way towards you in the first place.
- you have yet to actually prove anything said so far violates the CoC.
Created:
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT
BRUH THIS DUDE
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Once again, your lack of self-awareness amazes me.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
First, forget this incident. Chris says he is willing to suffer any judgement of the other mods because he is well aware there will be none. You will only make enemies.
There will not be one because it does not violate the CoC.
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
Nor were they unwarranted.
Created:
Never heard someone cry and whine so much, holy shit. I said you were acting like a dick because you were. I'm clearly not the only one who shares that sentiment.
"Well, you condescending dick,"
"OOOOO...Touchy"
Bear, Croc, Speed, etc...
Newsflash: saying you are acting like a dick does not even come close to violating the CoC. Especially given your clear pattern of toxic behavior.
Grow a pair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Done & done. My mind isn't changed.
Created: