Total posts: 2,806
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Isn't that basically all debates, though?
It really shouldn't be. For example if Ii pull up a meta study that proves stretching is not beneficial than the opponent really should rarely be presenting a dualing study. They should instead read past the abstract and find out what it is actually stating.
So like I said. If I am pro on "stretching before exercise is pointless" and pull up a meta study on stretching that shows it lacks benefits, the opponent bringing up a dueling study is less effective than him pointing to the fact that said meta study pulled from 20 studies on stretching but those studies only looked at static stretching not dynamic stretching, so his affirmative on the resolution is an over generalization.
It's honestly retarded to ignore the data your opponent presents and try to claim yours is from a better source because their source is biased for some reason. Even biased sources are typically honest with the study results and how they conducted their studies. The issues is people drawing specific conclusions from those studies prematurely.
Or perhaps like I have seen in immigration debates where the side that is pro immigration will often present academic research that shows the impact of legal immigration. (Basically consisting of legal immigrants who are very well educated or wealthy not your typical illegal immigrant which the pro immigration side wants to open the borders up for).
I will often see con on that and similar topics to attack the credibility of the source and present a duelling source instead of just pointing out the weaknesses of the method used and pointing out the immigrants pro wants to open the borders to are better represented by studies on illegal immigration not legal.
The difference being that merely presenting a duelling study, allows the voters to pick and choose which data is more legitimate, when going over what the actual studies say is going to use the studies own words and methods against it and better reflect the truth.
If your opponent is presenting a scientific, sociological or other study of any sort it may be okay to criticize the source if quacks are behind it, but for the most part, even when the study is funded by a corporation or think tank, it is usually accurate. They may try to use small sample sizes or they may intuitively know how to conduct the study to misrepresent the data "like a cigarette company using sight tests to test the health of smokers", but they are usually being honest and all it requires is reading past the abstract.
Which brings up another point. Debaters should not be merely presenting the conclusion of a paper. The debater presenting the argument should also be talking about how a particular study got to their conclusions. Otherwise just citing a bunch of studies is basically a form of gish gallop and shouldn't be taken too seriously by voters
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I love how all the conservatives claim to get their news from foreign sources because they don’t want to admit they get their news from FOX and twitter.
Foreign affairs is an American periodical idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
But they had to shut down after they found out the rural area already had a book.
It's still open
Created:
Posted in:
The Delaware newspapers here also sell in Cecil county Maryland which I go to about every other day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Same for Delaware, a small state with a small populatio
I live in Delaware. Granted I live in Wilmington, but outside of Wilmington it is still crowded as fuck. Traffic is shit here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Title should have been "Rural people don’t read"
I vacationed in a semi rural area once, and they had a book store.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
As president may top priority will be correcting this terrible injustice
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Not a bad ideal TBH. Why throw out the baby with the bath water?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Prop 2 is necessary. Airmax made a controversial decision on Stalin's vote which cost me an election with a one point margin.
BSH1 was so upset about how close the election was that he refused to perform his presidential duties for 3 months
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
WTF bro I helped you get 2nd place in survivor
Created:
I love to get an early start
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Thank you. I already started my fast. Glad I have someone to do it with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Moderation already has the authorities bestowed in this poll and is impartial in any way
It's a check on moderation powers. Them counting votes also appeals about the vote count being the moderation is unfair. That essentially makes the moderation team- dictators. I would like that instead of whiteflame being Hitler. It's me. Just consider voting yes to proposition 2
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You are best. Korea
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
We will pray to which god exactly? In the tradition of which church or organization or whatever?
Your choice buddy. I was going to keep it to the Abrahamic God who is the God of Jesus, Muhhamed and Moses, but why should I deny you the opportunity to use your God to advance the good of this site?
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Yes, Jesus as God wants his followers to be as poor as possible as these passages so states:
They aren't ready for that knowledge until they are indoctrinated. As Paul said, milk for babies but meat for men
Also beautiful bus father
Created:
This site has the potential to be a website that acts according to the will of God. I am requesting that starting January 1st we all pray and fast every single day until the political process plays out.
We need to defeat evil and prayer and fasting is the way to go. Join me January first to pray and fast every day until the election is over and God declares a winner.
We need to defeat evil and prayer and fasting is the way to go. Join me January first to pray and fast every day until the election is over and God declares a winner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Seems like this is built to make things unnecessarily difficult.
No, it is built to give me a path for victory
Likewise for second, just sounds like red tape to me.
See above statement, the red tape is very important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
This thread is for voting only
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bestrsgoldfast
@badger
@Best.Korea
@Sir.Lancelot
Please vote
Created:
Posted in:
I vote yes on proposition number one and proposition number 2
Created:
Posted in:
This keep is simultaneously being proposed and voted on right now do to the pressing nature of the approaching election. Voting will end January 2nd at 5pm eastern time and is a simple yes or no proposition
FELLOW DARTers-
I hope everyone will participate by VOTING on the following two modest propositions:
PROPOSITION1:
The presidential election should have vote counting done by an independent panel chosen by popular vote which does not include anyone running for president currently and will consist of 3 vote counters. This will be effective immediately at the start of the current/next election
Vote yes or no
PROPOSITION2:
A supreme court should be formed in case there is a challenge to the results of an election, the supreme court will hold the vote counting panels accountable if there is a challenge to the results of the election and the supreme court will be picked by a representative of Airmax which will be the user known as ilikepie.
YES or NO?
VOTING PROCEDURE:
- VOTING will remain OPEN immediately
- One VOTE per PERSON, please.
- Duplicate VOTES will be disregarded.
- No requests to change VOTE after submission will be considered.
- Any indication of multi-accounting will be referred to MODERATION
- Please help promote voting clarity by limiting posts to VOTING ONLY using roughly this format:
- YES or NO
- YES or NO
- QUESTIONS/CONCERNS/DISCUSSION/ARGUMENT/CAMPAIGNING are all encouraged and may be posted to new forum threads started by interested parties.
- For either PROPOSITION, 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 With 20 total voters, the minimum threshold for a binding result is 11.
- If either PROPOSITION fails to produce a binding result, no change shall be requested.
- If either PROPOSTION succeeds, I'll provide that result to DebateArt.com and the MODERATION TEAM requesting that change be completed before the END of 2022.
THANKS in ADVANCE for EVERYBODY's SINCERE and FRIENDLY PARTICIPATION!
Created:
Posted in:
Nowhere in the offer does it state this act makes me a competent president
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
How do you reconcile this with industrial systems & processes?
I am not sure where those things conflict, so I can't tell you.
- In what way is it losing? Is this about appeal to the younger generation?
Obviously because if you are always 20 years behind liberals, you will just have the country turn into what liberalism wanted for it 20 years ago. In 20 years you'll have conservatives defend what liberals are pushing now.
Specifically what & how?
Adam's conservatism is just what you would see in somebody like John McCain . It's hard to explain and these people are often mistaken for moderates. I don't feel like digging into the philosophy of Adams at the moment and I can't explain it well.
Through state management, state regulation, or self-government?
Mostly just by sitting back and watching things and then reacting to any sort of disloyalty. Suddenly a corporation puts their own self interests above that of the country. Bang, step in and execute the CEO for treason. If it happens again, bang execute the board that elects CEOs.
As far as reeducation of the population is concerned, just intense philosophy classes beginning in elementary and going until they get out of highschool.
Transhumanism is the end goal of Liberalism. You sure have some conflicting positions. How do you reconcile this with traditional society?
The end goal of liberalism is what you see in other liberal controlled countries. Countries such as North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. If you look at the economic freedom index which measures how capitalistic a country is, than the countries doing the worst job, such as the ones I mention, are the end goals of liberalism.
Transhumanism is at the end of the day about radical life extension. Liberalism kills babies before they are born, attempts to kill the elderly through euthenasia and is generally anti-life.
So you wish to stop at some points in the past regarding particular things like sexual freedom & consumption driven capitalism, but keep the other aspects of present modern life?
Your paradigm is wrong. I would execute people who cut off the dicks of 9 year olds . At what point in American history were people executed for routinely cutting off children's penises?
You're a lot more liberal than you think... What you just said stems from the assumption that humans act according to a predetermined nature, either automatically or intrinsically. Which, also originates in two more basic principles. One, that Truth does not have an objective reality,
Assuming that humans act in accordance with a predetermined nature has nothing to do with viewing reality as objective or subjective. It probably falls more along the lines of whether I believe in predeterminism or not and predeterminism is a philosophical belief probably more in line with what an objectionist would think.
Truth is subjective: whatever is, is as you believe it is, & hence you act according to what is true to you, your true self, your predetermined nature.
You can say my nature is predetermined or not, it is irrelevant as to whether truth is subjective or not. Either genetic predeterminism is true or it isn't. If it is true, it doesn't mean subjectivism is true. In fact I think it makes subjectivism less true.
Two, that Morality has no higher reference, i.e. knowing what ought to be (right & wrong) isn't contingent on a higher power; Therefore, either we already know what is right & wrong by our nature (for instance doing good makes us happy), or we can know what ought to be the same way we know what is (for instance using Science), or right & wrong are whatever we make them to be according to our personal truth. In all cases, what ought to be is known not through revelation but through human nature.
You are saying things can't be reconciled which can be. It is logical to both believe in a higher power and to believe in that God wrote himself onto our heart. The reason all of humanity share moral values is because God gave us those moral instincts. God did not give everyone throughout history a Bible or a Koran.
He did give everyone an instinct for what is moral. We know murder is wrong. We knew that before you ever read the Koran. You knew that because God gave you instincts for right and wrong. Every society on the planet even ones unexposed to an abrahamic religion knows that killing for fun is wrong, every single society knows that raping baby's is wrong.
Having this internal moral instincts does not mean you get to determine what is right and wrong. It means God has already determined right and wrong and wrote it on your heart. There is a reason that Cain tried to cover up his crime before a single commandment was written. God has wrote the laws on his heart and he knew murdering his brother was wrong according to his own internal morality set by God. He chose to ignore the laws God wrote on his heart.
Humans don't get to determine right and wrong. Allah already did it, and nobody gets a free pass even if they have no access to holy books, because like Cain who knew what was wrong prior to the 10 commandments, we also have the law written on our hearts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes it is a gift card it buys whatever Starbucks offers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Chicago as an example is the political right's poster child for talking about gun violence. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that people (who are overwhelmingly white) using this as their example of a liberal gun hell hole don't know that most of the people in the affected areas there are black.
They are likely aware it is predominantly black or has a large black population. Chicago is more famous among conservatives for being an extremely shitty city, which is typically blamed on it being a city that is run by 100% Democrats and used as an example of what happens when Democrats take control of an area. 55 years ago when it wasn't so liberal you could see how beautiful the city was before liberal ideology resulted in the current state of the area.
Same thing with Detroit that has a large black population, the decay of Detroit is usually blamed on it becoming mostly liberal politicians. A similar cause and effect cycle. Make liberals the majority, be it north Korea Venezuela, Mexico, Detroit or Chicago and you see the same result over and over.
Whether this perception that liberal cities like Chicago are less pleasent to live in than conservative cities like Jupiter Island in Florida is true or not is beside the point. The perception of it being terrible cities to live in is perceived to be the fault of liberals not blacks.
Although, I must say. Liberal majorities in predominantly white areas like New Hampshire do quite well. So not sure if we could blame race for the shithole cities or liberalism, but my heart tells me liberalism is the cause since we can see the decay of predominantly white countries who slip to the bottom positions of the economic freedom index (an index measuring how conservative a country is).
Created:
Posted in:
Next reload will be at about 6 am eastern time on Friday morning
Created:
Posted in:
Apparently I can't just alert everyone on Discord so I am doing it here. Once you join the discord server there is a barcode for a gift certificate in the main channel that will get you free Starbucks. Take advantage if you want.
I will keep an eye on the balance and reload the card a few times so don't worry about if it takes you a while to see this message. The link for the server is in this thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8642-who-here-is-on-the-site-discord
Created:
Posted in:
I just posted a barcode for a gift card to get free coffee from Starbucks. You guys are so inactive it will probably be good for a while but I will be keeping an eye on it so I'd doesn't go to zero too fast
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
That's because I am not clear on it.
I was just curious as to if it was a topic of interest to you because of what I perceive as you being interested in bioethics.
I know personally if I did the debate, I feel like I would want to either defend the status quo or the position that organ transplants should only be done after the system dies as a whole and is unable to be resuscitated. If I took that extreme position though, I would want to debate against the status quo.
I haven't fully hashed out what position I would take, I wouldn't debate it anytime soon and if I did, no matter what position I took, it would be devil's advocate and a tool to examine the ethics of something resembling the trolley problem, where perhaps hospitals are put in an awkward position where the more skeptical they are of somebody's ability to recover the more it benefits saving the lives of many at the expense of 1.
So essentially or worded differently, how much of a chance of recovery has to occur before it is ethical to harvest a person's organs?
Is one in a billion chance of recovery too high to harvest an organ or too low
What about 1 in 1000
I think 1/100 chance of recovery to just go ahead with a transplant is maybe about where the status quo is currently.
Remember, perhaps an average of 3 people die every time you try to give the person a 1% chance to live a chance to fight for their life not that taking more risk would always result in not being able to harvest the organs.
The term brain death by necessity must be very ambiguous. We also know that the term persistent vegetative state is also ambiguous.
So I would want a debate that explores the lines of where responsibility to a specific patient vs the general public is.
We all know that we want that line closer to the specific patient than society as a whole, but I think exploring precisely where that line should be, would be fun, and I think some sort of organ donation debate could be the best way to use the real world to explore that topic.
I am willing to take extreme positions to explore it better. Either by saying the line of individual vs society should be all the way over to society or all the way over to patient, but I don't think 2 people taking a position near the middle of that line would be a good debate. I think the best debate would be where 2 people take extreme positions and the judges figure out using both arguments which side of the dilemma the line should be closer to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
If you took that position, I would just prefer to take the status quo position.
My goal with debate even when debating policy positions is to debate the philosophical underpinnings that are a part of that debate.
I am curious though. If nobody I want to debate ever wants to take the status quo position, assuming of course nobody is arguing devil's advocate, they are in some respects acknowledging that even people they disagree with have better policy positions than what is the status quo.
Which brings up another point. If the main 2 positions are both superior to the status quo, why does the status quo exist?
Doesn't this almost ensure some sort of dictatorship where one set of ideals rules, would be better than these compromised status quo policies?
Are we all so busy hating each other that we don't see what is obvious? We should battle for a winner takes all system instead of behaving like a democracy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Basically you can not transplant a heart unless you take it from a body with the heart still beating. Once you are actually dead, you can't transplant many organs
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Basically the arguments made in part one and 2 of this documentary. https://youtu.be/IZyBM5UGi_I
If you are unfamiliar with how organ transplants normally work than it just may be of no interest but death is kinda ambiguous and brain death is even more of an ambiguous thing, some allowing a transplant at "brain death" can be problematic particularly since miracle recoveries do happen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If you hang around people from 3rd world countries, you would see they often seem to have very little regard for the safety of their children. Whenever I live near Hispanics they always are letting their 5 year old children play in the middle of the road with their only supervision being their 12 year old siblings.
I am not sure why the mentality is different. Perhaps they generally just want to raise tougher children, maybe they really do care less about their children, but Mary from your description seems typical of your typical impoverished woman.
Created:
Posted in:
It sounds like not accepting shitty organs might be good practice. You have to consider that organ transplants can result in death for the person receiving them and apparently their organ works well enough for the time being and a terrible organ in most cases aren't going to extend their life
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@Public-Choice
I would say this guy makes a good arguments for why the dead donor rule is misguided, but he doesn't seem to discuss the outlier situations which are my main concern. https://youtu.be/Choa64znIeE
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I don't think I would debate it until I find more time,. But in terms of bioethics it seems like on a personal level organ donation is a terrible ideal.
Apparently they don't wait until you are actually dead to do the transplants. It's almost like a big cover up in the medical community because doctors recognize the value in organ donations but they do them only when a patient is brain dead and there are no clear indicators of when somebody is brain dead. The term itself doesn't have much meaning. There is also a substance they use on people in comas that are "brain dead" that makes it slightly harder for miracle recoveries to happen.
There have been reports of "brain dead" people waking up just prior to having their organs harvested by surprised medical staff. A difference of a few minutes in their wake up times would mean they would be murdered.
There is one report of a father taking his comatose son hostage because they were about to harvest his organs. He had a stand off with police. At some point his son woke up. When his son woke up out of the coma, the father ended the stand off by surrendering. He still received criminal charges despite his actions saving his son's life.
I get the feeling you would take the opposite stance as me here. Currently my close relatives are not allowed to be organ donors because I don't want to get arrested for doing a similar thing in their defense. I think maybe you can argue it is good on a societal scale, but certainly it increases your personal chances of dying and incentivizes doctors to declare you brain dead prematurely.
I know in some areas they tried to pass laws to make doctors wait until actual death to take organs, but doctors fought it saying organs are practically useless from dead patience and they needed to use "brain dead" patients.
There are just some silent cover ups in this arena because doctors are making that classic trolley problem and applying it to real life.
I should note that America has the dead donor rule I believe which makes this topic maybe less relative from an American policy perspective but it is still an interesting ethical argument for removing organs from a brain dead patients and you never know when the law will change
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
This thread is for people interested. Thanks
Created:
This is how Christianity hurt me and why I was an atheist for so long.
One form of abuse my father inflicted on me was extreme sleep deprivation. He wouldn't allow me to sleep and would force me to read the book of revelations over and over . Sometimes he would just repeat the same sentence to me for 10 hours in a row. Once, it was "your mother doesn't love you". When I say 10 hours straight, it isn't an exaggeration. He kidnapped me and kept me from my mother, just for reference.
Bible study which consisted of just reading revelations over and over was torturous though.
Besides my father doing that, I was obsessed with the bible myself as a child. Reading it everyday. I was trying to find some sort of key to immortality but the bible made me fear losing it.
Verses like "it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of the needle than a rich man to get to heaven" stuck with me until adult hood. At 18 I was getting huge promotions to 6 figures salary type situations and I would quit my job with any success achieved because I didn't want to have money and spend eternity in hell. I am still trying to escape that pattern. Big salaries come easy to me, but they always come with guilt and fear attached. It didn't help that I hate wealthy people as well and didn't want to become what I hate.
Another verse that stuck with me is turning the other cheek. I became a door mat and worse a coward. In fact I thought it was holy to take abuse and not respond. I would put myself in situations where Ii would be subjected to extreme abuse.
When my father died, I also had extreme guilt because I felt I had caused him to burn in hell for eternity, because I never pushed Christianity on him.
I still struggle with those destructive things until this day.
What pushes people away from Christianity is not atheists or the depravity of the world.
It is Christians not correcting misconceptions common even among Christians that God wants you to be poor to get to heaven and to tolerate abuse
Created:
Posted in:
That link is only valid for 7 days, but I think there is a permanent link somewhere on the site
Created:
Posted in:
Anyone not on the semi official Dart Discord. I think there is an invitation in a sticky somewhere, but if not you can join with this link. https://discord.gg/R9Bu75tp
I think there is going to be some important stuff happening in the discord soon, so I just wanted to invite everyone to join and not miss out on any of it.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I don't believe I had mainstream politicians supporting me last year
Created:
Fuck it, I can't wait until Friday. I am dropping free stuff tonight. Tonight mother fuckers. Maybe the day will switch to Wednesdays. Free stuff Wednesday.
Created:
You are asking for the one thing impossible for me to give
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I was thinking more along the lines of like online gift cards or something.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Free vaccines it is
Created: