Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Speed race votes:
Vote: 3
Pile-on bonus: 10
Total: 13
Vote:1
Total:14
Concession, not a forfeit. I didn’t specify so will treat it like a regular vote.
Vote: 5
Pile in bonus: 10
Total: 29
Vote: 10
Only vote bonus: 20
Total: 59
Vote: 10
Eye gouger bonus: 10
Total:79
No vote removals:
Preliminary total: 79
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
So, what I was trying to say in this topic is that natural selection and random mutation have ridiculous flaws to explain evolution, and scientists must rethink it in other way, considering other theories and viewpoints that also try to explain evolution.
The issue here, as I pointed out a while back, and you haven’t seemed particularly interesting in addressing, is that the majority of your issues with random mutation are grossly naive oversimplificafions or misrepresentations of how you think evolution works, or grossly misrepresent the nature of the explanation.
At the start here, I pointed out some of these fundamental and basic errors in the way you understand evolution and macro evolution - and they absolutely are errors in your understanding - and you have simply denied that they are errors and continued to make the same repeated and faulty claims throughout.
In reality, there aren’t really any substantial flaws if you understand the principles of random mutations. These includes the vagaries of both the varying types of mutations and the impact that they can have in particular expression or protein structure - or if you have a basic grasp of the tennets of how common gene expression, splice variants and regulation mechanism that are easily changed have on the overall development of an organism.
in reality, the actual complexity of the science, and the incredible depth of what we know, and what we have gleaned about our own evolution Is not even close to being described by your misrepresentative “drunk-history” style science.
In reality, macro evolution is simply the evolution above the species level - at a point where there are either pre of play zygotic barriers to reproduction and the gene pools can no longer be brought back together.
What your talking about is not macro evolution, but the evolution of large scale structural change above the species, genus, family and to a degree even the class level; the number of these types of major change are relatively few and far between - and almost all supported by transitional fossil evidence - all of which were famously predicted by evolution.
So quite frankly, you give every appearance of someone who simply doesn’t want to understand evolution, by fixating on a misrepresentative straw man of what you think it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PsychometricBrain
@TheRealNihilist
@oromagi
@Speedrace
Hey Guys! Not long left now!
Just for your information. I will start tabulating things the moment the competition ends. I hope to have preliminary scores up in the next day or so! I will be working on one person at a time, in alphabetical order, then present a summary of all points: as moderation may remove votes subsequently: I would like to leave the scores up for 2 days before formalizing them to declare a winner, and to give everyone a chance to review/challenge or make any corrections on points I’ve missed.
As there’s only 4 people competing, I will also not formally award a wooden spoon either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
The issue with the proposal isn’t bad - the main issue I suspect is implementation. For an autoforfiet, the code changes can be built upon pre-existing functionality, whereas point allocation would likely need additional changes to support it.
Right now, the limiting factor on everything is not coming up with ideas, but managing Mikes time. That means prioritizing small changes that give you 90% of what you need for 10% of the time :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
We should have a PG rap battle one day.
I respected your mother so hard, gave her my charm power last night for hours,
PF Chang’s, Sweet and sour chicken devoured, my treat, even bought her flowers.
I’m not going to pretend to be your father, champ, just want to ascend to the point that I’m your friend.
Say, how about we spend some bonding time, just you and me go out fishing for the weekend?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
It is currently the standard, but it has not be consistently enforced, which is problematic. After this MEEP, whatever standard is established will be enshrined in a voting policy guideline, and will be enforced consistently.
As there are a couple of debates that are currently being moderated as non troll debates that would become troll debates - is it possible not to apply this retroactively?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1: C
2: A3. B2. C1
3: No
4. Yes
Note:You also said B is the current state for (2) - I don’t think this is accurate as this isnt
currently what’s defined in the CoC, or matches the types of debates I’ve seen votes removed on.
Note 2: Bsh is gay, and unmarried men are bachelors are both truisms.
Note 3: is watching the entire population of dart trying to correctly vote on a meep “like trying to watch a bunch of r*****s trying to f*ck a doorknob”?
Created:
Posted in:
“Before I begin, I just want to point out that invective, sexual language, and boasting, among other things, are common to the rap genre. To the extent I use these kinds of language, I am doing so for the purposes of being authentic to the genre itself. I have the utmost respect for Supa as a person, and for almost every user on this site. Any and all such normally inappropriate language is being used with Supa's permission, for artistic expression, and is not meant as a genuine insult. Much like a comedy roast, all is meant in good fun. If anyone would not like to be included as a subject in any of my raps, they may contact me and I will, of course, honor their requests to the greatest possible extent. ”
- Bsh1
Sounds like if Mr Rogers introduced his part of a rap battle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Can you not stank up this thread with your attention whoring please. You have an entire other thread to discuss your triumphant return after two days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I will confirm the following debate is an eye gouger!
Six hours remaining!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
yes: you have until Wednesday - 8am EST.
I will be rallying up all the votes at the end, I may give an intermediate score on Monday to show where people are at - but points will only be finalized at the end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I will be tallying up all votes - and I’ll list all points earned by all participants. As I could potentially make a mistake, I’ll ask all participants to double check whether I’ve mossed any of their votes - then declare a winner.
I’ll try and drop a prelimary score after the sign up period ends on Monday :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You can still join - I will count all votes within the tournament window
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Not enough data.
Sometimes it’s easy to confuse “great”with “formal”.
IMO the greatest debate - in terms of arguments - on this site was from Death23:
This is one of the few examples of a debater obliterating a relatively decent opponent with a generally strong position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Okay, so if you don’t understand why picking a particular side before being assigned a randomly generated debate topic is more fair than seeing the topic, then deciding to take the side you are more comfortable with, or feel is stronger - then I would highly recommend that you don’t debate Thett - or any one in the top 10 for that matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I’m going to generate you a debate topic for you and Thett. If you chose pro/con before the topic is revealed it is fairer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
chose a letter of the alphabet and I will generate you a debate topic.
Created:
Posted in:
Bad debaters
Frequently deviate from the resolution
Offer spurious and unwarranted claims.
Make substantial and often deleterious logical fallacies and failures of reasoning.
Below Par debaters
Forget to warrant key claims
Make occasional glaring logical fallacies - and often make subtle logical fallacies - normally core claims.
Often get side tracked into arguments - but forget the resolution.
make implicit assumptions concerning definitions
Mediocre debaters
Highlight definitions
Often miss major logical errors and flaws in opponents definition.
Generally warrant their claims.
Drop points
Forget to list harms or define values.
Good debaters
Highlight definitions
Rarely drop points - point out drops.
Highlight harms and issues.
Warrant all claims.
Highlight unwarranted claims.
Sometimes notice out subtle errors and flaws in reasoning by their opponent.
Great debaters
Clearly elaborate harms/values
never drop points
warrants all claims
Often back opponents into corners by preempting positions.
Always argue the resolution.
Expains all points.
There are remarkably few “Good debaters”, and fewer great Debaters on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
It’s actually a bit sad. RM took on 20+ debates. He went from something like 90-odd debates to 124. In the space of a week or so, if they were all typical moons or Type1, it wouldn’t be a problem - but a lot of these were actually full debates. I’ve been struggling to keep up with voting on the them, I suspect he had the same issue debating them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dave2242
This competition will run from Wednesday 17th April - 8am >>>>>EST<<<<< until Wednesday 24th April 8am.
Created:
Posted in:
And away we go!
The competition has started, and sign ups will be allowed until 8am Monday.
Note: All votes cast by participants during the tournament period will count, regardless of when individuals signed up!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PsychometricBrain
it will start automatically at 8a’! (My memory isn’t that good so I may forget to announce!)
Created:
Posted in:
christianity disadvantageous?
no gods exist
These two add 100% eye gougers! (I am reviewing the rest)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
At least people mostly just bombard you with hate PMs in private now rather than starting up angry ranting threads about you being a Nazi every three days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I would agree other than for the opening round.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So the issue here is that everyone’s accepted debates without checking the duration. That is our fault, but I can imagine scenarios where people do this with the intent of someone forcing a forfeit. This is likely to be a bit of a possibility with this proposal. With shorter debates - there is much less of an issue in the first place.
Now, with the first round an auto loss, I think the two rounds forfeited makes sense. If the debate is only two rounds, the first non first round forfeit ends the debate. A three round debate, if the second is forfeited, I’m not convinced you want to end the debate - especially if you limit to one forfeit then if someone makes a great argument and the forfeits the final round, you may not want the auto loss to kick in.
its really a trade off between not penalizing accidental forfeits and wrapping this up quickly.
Created:
Posted in:
Hi everyone, just gauging interest in a possible feature for automatically determining a winner if there is a forfeit.
Many debates have rules specifying a forfeit is an automatic loss, and waiting for an opponent to forfeit multiple rounds can be frustrating. I was hoping to understand if people would be interested in an option when creating debates to make forfeits garner an automatic loss.
This would work along the following lines:
- A check box will be presented giving the option of “auto loss for forfeit”
- this will only be available on 3 day rounds (so you can’t trick an opponent with 12 hour debates).
- when accepting the debate, this option will be prominently displayed as being active for the debate
- if either side forfeits the opening round. OR forfeits 2 or more rounds, the forfeit will be followed by immediately moving the debate to finished, and the winner is the non forfeiting side.
note: it is obviously that numerous options concerning when to trigger a loss could be made. The intent here is to simplify a debate win in scenarios where one side is not participating. The 2+ Forfeited round after the opening is there so as not to penalize genuine or unavoidable forfeits.
Any thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Why would people try and indirectly flame you? It’s so much better flaming you directly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I don’t think that needs to be a rule: I won’t count RFDs in comments or forums written before the competition for this reason.
In reality, using comments is too useful to preclude it.
While I would agree that you don’t want people to stash a bunch of RFDs prior to the competition, I think it’s of limited benefit - given his points are allocated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Awesome!
So, to clarify. The tournament is trying to encourage good votes, and reward scenarios where debates get at least one good vote, and preferably multiple good votes.
The first vote points is for new debates that it prompts voters to seek out debates that haven’t been voted on: to prevent a debate ending with a 0:0 tie. That’s what it’s tryinf to encourage - so it will not apply if others have already voted on the debate. At the start of the tournament. There are at least 30 debates up for voting either now, or soon: and multiple debates that have a vote from me, or no votes - so I don’t think this will be an issue.
So, to clarify. The tournament is trying to encourage good votes, and reward scenarios where debates get at least one good vote, and preferably multiple good votes.
The first vote points is for new debates that it prompts voters to seek out debates that haven’t been voted on: to prevent a debate ending with a 0:0 tie. That’s what it’s tryinf to encourage - so it will not apply if others have already voted on the debate. At the start of the tournament. There are at least 30 debates up for voting either now, or soon: and multiple debates that have a vote from me, or no votes - so I don’t think this will be an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
@Wrick-It-Ralph
@Pinkfreud08
@Melcharaz
@Speedrace
This tournament may interest you guys!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PsychometricBrain
Don’t mind RM, he’s just a deb-hater.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
It’s a voting tournament that is intending to award tough and good quality votes - I think having a vote removed needs a stiff penality to ensure people are sufficiently compelled to write decent quality votes that adhere to the CoC
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I will happily give Oromagi the winning chufty badge, if no one else signs up :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Awesome!
that is part of the reason for the eye gouger and forfeit rules :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think you’ll find I know exactly what I’m talking about - I’ll speak to you next week when you tag me in vote requests!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
As your a quantity over quality debater, does that make us friends?
Created:
Posted in:
I’m going to hold a voting competition. Open to everyone. This will be a point based accumulator competition!
Times
This competition will run from Wednesday 17th April - 8am EST until Wednesday 24th April 8am.
1 week frenzy!
Signup
Signup ends on Monday 22nd April - meaning you can sign up after the competition starts but not past that time.
How it works.
The competition will be organized and run by Ramshutu (who will not be competing). Participants will earn points based on the votes they cast. 1st, 2nd and 3rd place Chufty Badges will be awarded to the these with the highest number of points earned, and a wooden spoon trophy (I would like to name this award after the person who comes last) will be awarded to the participant with the lowest total.
Points allocation.
Each vote may earn points, the number of points are dependent on the type of debate and nature of the vote.
- Forfeit votes: any vote on a full forfeit debate will be awarded a total of 1 point maximum- and will not earn any additional bonus points in any way.
- Regular votes: the first vote on a debate will be worth 10 points. Second vote 5 points. More than 3 votes earns 3 points. (Ramshutus votes will not count so if your vote is second after ramshutu - it counts as the first vote).
- Eye gouger: if requested by a participant in this thread (and if he decides it to be so)- Ramshutu will designate particular debate “eye gougers” - which are debates that are particularly complex or long. Any vote on an eye gouger debate will earn an additional 10 points, regardless of position.
- Only vote: if yours is the first vote in a debate (including Ramshutu) - and the only vote on the debate (other than Ramshutu) when the debate finishes - an only vote bonus of 20 points will be earned. IE: if you vote first in a debate that only has myself and you voting in it - you win 20 points. You will not earn these bonus points if you’re the second vote in a debate with only you and I voting.
- Removed vote: if you have a vote removed, you earn a penalty of -20 points. The second removed vote earn -40, subsequent removed votes will earn -100.
- Pile on: if a debate reaches 5 votes (excluding Ramshutu), the first 5 voters earn 10 points. If a debate reaches 10 votes an ADDITIONAL 10 points will be awarded to the first 10 voters.
Separate bonus point awards - awarded as a whole:
Vote total:
Competitors with the top 3 volume of votes (excluding forfeit) will win 25/10/5 points for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place
Judges choice:
- Ramshutu will award 25 points for the best vote of he competition he reviews
- Ramshutu will also award -25 points for the worst vote of the competition he reviews.
Peoples choice:
- Individuals may nominate their candidate for best and worst vote in the few days after the tournament: the person with most votes will win 25 points and -25 points
TL;DR.
Vote well, vote often, vote early, vote on debates quickly, and have lots of people vote on the debate - and you’ll win meaningless/pointless internet Kudos!
Sign up and questions in the thread below!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If you want a free speech sh*thole - replete with thousands of debates about how bad jews are and dozens and dozens of spam debates where the individual starts a topic to be incendiary and which drown out all other legitimate debate content in a way that is detrimental for genuine users and debaters to engage, and so there is a deterioration into a collection of trolls, Call out thread and insults over time with little new or engaging content, you can have that just go to createdebate.
Created: