Total posts: 19,931
Posted in:
And yes, I didn't list a black artist there, their style of expressing messages is usually less about the lyricism and more the depth of the lyrics but still fantastic rap. I was listing lyrically-impressive expressed struggle messages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Even for strong message music, nothing compares to rap at all in any sense of that. Rap is single-handedly the best genre in all senses of lyricism and poetry. Hip Hop is the culture, Rap is the genre, despite what others will tell you. You can be truly "Rap" and not grow up in a ghetto and stuff but you never can be truly Hip Hop if you didn't have struggle in life, especially financially.
Anyway, I'll show you how powerful messages are never ever going to be properly expressed through any genre other than rap:
Personal Struggle messages:
Political Struggle messages:
Those are just powerful as fuck examples, clearly I know much more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I quit the site for 2 weeks and am going for logical debates now to show I actually can gain rating when I want to. My toughest battle is going to be the debate against Ramshutu where I have the anti-popular-opinion side.
I may lose but I'm going to put full effort regardless.
Created:
Posted in:
Honestly if it wasn't for black people I genuinely believe I'd hate music in general, even the poppy stuff i'm into has a heavy black-inspired genre vibe to it if you trace back to where the tune(s) come/came from. All my favourite jams are either by black artists or non black artists who have a heavy influence from a black-influenced genre.
I may have gotten much more into Japanese and Chinese music had the world evolved without black music but I'm very sure I'd still find it too dull and slow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
that explains your good taste in music (yeah yeah anti-white racism from a rap fan, whatever) I enjoy your votes on the music taste debates and usually agree with you overall even when you're criticising my choices as the choices you criticise are picks I chose to please the audience more often than not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
I know that Trump's IQ level is abysmal and that he is reaching a critical stage in his decline into dementia from several clues, you will have to do your own research if you want to understand how to analyse that, I'm not going to waste my time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
In that video does he say sorry, or 'wrong' once? No. He makes excuses and says 'I love women anyway, it's hardly an issue' in other words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
His achievements as a president are all failures. First realise that I am not right-wing and then come back to me.
I am confidently with pride telling you that Trump is shit, is there an issue with my pride now? :)
Why don't you find more information about the Central Park 5 and Trump's verdict on them and involvement in their persecution? Go ahead, Google is there.
It's today he's still denying he was wrong or that they are innocent. Today, as President. Did you read the article?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
True. You were implying he was a closet Dem enacting pro-poor things on the sly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I do not know what exactly you're trying to convey but you're wrong. You clearly know little of economics of you think he hasn't brutally harmed the poor in many ways by his policies and their butterfly effects
Created:
Posted in:
@omar
No, even a book you can't access without money is entitled to be sourced as is a scholarly article with the same restrictions. Some articles are very much the same.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Stop looking for fair points and start looking for great points.
Created:
Posted in:
Trump is failing in every single element of Presidency other than impressing his supporters.
He is a pig-headed type who is in a game he is clearly now trapped in. Much like Bush Jr., these low IQ types are severely appealing to the Republican crowd and prove to be nothing short of utter shit in depth of thinking and general conduct in speech and on paper. Trump is most peculiar on that he doesn't even feign empathy or pretend to be anything other than the right-wing "haha I don't care, I'm a rich cunt" attitude that the right-wing do truly have.
To display just how pig-headed he is, read this very curious incident that highlights just how delusional and incapable of apologising he is:
Created:
Posted in:
I will tell you a secret that no Christian will ever admit... Lucifer of OT was Jesus of NT. I want you to look very closely into what a 'lightbearer' and/or 'lightbringer' are and see the symbolic references to what Jesus was prior to being a baby and while being a man... Light.
There is no doubt about that. Now, the real question... Then who is the Devil? Well the Devil is 'Satan' or Shai'tan', that's really a given. He/it is the enemy of Jesus (not God) and actually Satan is God (of the OT) but in NT Jesus makes up a version of his creator/father that he wishes was the actual one.
After all, was Lucifer sent down to hell? Hell isn't in the OT, he was sent down to the mortals.
So, what then about personality traits? This is the strongest element that Christians ignore. Satan is a suave, deceitful charmer who would easily let himself be the villain of a new religion just for kicks and to see what people do with it. On the other hand, Lucifer is described as a hard-headed 'listen to me' type who speaks with what he himself sees as honesty even if it's wrong. This encapsulates not just Jesus... but... Who do you think the holy ghost becomes in the Qur'an? Yes, the main character... No, not Muhammad... You got it. Beware about telling this part, it could offend some really aggressive people. Stick to the Jesus-is-Lucifer line and select your chat-partner(s) carefully, it can lead to some interesting chats.
Created:
Do not be confused by my previous answer. Google is completely Illuminati-friendly and will strategize results to serve an agenda, often tailored to biases it notices you have but always to support a certain agenda especially if you search flat-earth things despite your search history strongly implying that you're pro-flat-earth and it does this in other ways too that I won't mention for my own privacy,
The problem is that the ones that don't strategize (such as DuckDuckGo) give you severely generic results and far less sites apply to be displayed on that search engine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
My username is not RatMan. I do not comprehend how the actual fuck you think I was ever okay with you calling me that but now that we're no longer friends I decided to explicitly state that it pisses me off.
Created:
What I mean by leaving for something better is something that might or might not be a debate site. This can be gardening.I personally think this site can never really be fun. If someone is having fun then they are not really using a debate site. When you argue with people it tends to get heated. That heat can turn into dislike and would reduce the level of enjoyment on the site.
The one who primarily ensures this in most interactions you have on this website is you so far.
Created:
-->
@Death23
I share your attitude to dealing with enemies and actually I avoid my nemesis' debates in general because even if I think he lost I know the revenge votes will come hard and strong later. However, either by mental illness leading him to conclude that I genuinely lost debates that I so clearly won or intelligent well-veiled corrupt motive behind host RFDs, he will come and vote against me regardless so my only hope is to tame him over time and observing if he keeps at it just as much or not.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
No, barely even scratching the surface there. I went a lot more into that here.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I am a victim. It is actually objectively verifiable if Mharman will add to my testimony but even without that it's concrete and provable.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Try speaking less nonsense, empathising with police abuse such as happened to a group of black teenagers to get them all convicted on a rape charge as shown in the recent "When They See Us" Limited Series on Netflix. https://people.com/tv/ava-duvernay-when-they-see-us-netflix/
Who the actual fuck do you think you are to go 'but come on you're testing the system' to justify the victimisation? I can tell your dad was a cop or something, that's the only reason one would end up with such a ridiculous view of this. I can also tell you definitely are not a cop yourself, as no cop would justify it in that way.
Created:
Enjoy the rating boost, Mr. WaterPhoenix. This debate possibly involved two banned users, only furthering the irony.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I am already proven to be the best mafia player of this entire site. I do not need to refer you to those games because it was disgusting how I was treated in them and I lost my temper so I too treated others negatively despite having flawless reading strategy.
Mafia is a nonsense game where you need to convince fools that other fools are deceiving them but then the means of deception you need to explain in ways an intelligent person would deceive. Once in a while you and an opponent or ally both will be intelligent and it will be a very ugly match in the former scenario or unfair stomp in the latter as long as you and them aren't unfairly lynched or killed in some irrational decision very early on.
Created:
There are one or two clear reasons why virt and bsh1 will take all other users head-on in public but with me they're scared shitless. It's because they know I'm intelligent and back my shit up properly. I'm not easy to drive into looking like an idiot but more importantly they realise that I willingly take on the villain role so making me look selfish has zero deterrence-power on me as I admit I'm selfish in my motive to take them on.
Bsh1 went from threatening me (on PM) to make a public thread about the deletion of my debates to backing off and locking the entire thread where it came up as I promised him if he did make that thread, I would lay out plainly just how unjust it was. I laughed, felt rage and just quit due to the stupidity of it all. I still loathe the administration here but I like debating.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
That's just with me. They've been biased against others too and by 'they' I include the spineless sidekick who I have wrongly defended for too long now and whom needs to either get a backbone or admit he approves of his master.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
There's more to how they double standard me. I was blackmailed by bsh1 hard into not accepting speedrace's debates as apparently if a user blocks you and doesn't like you but doesn't put your name in a description, you can't accept the debate anyway. Yet he is allowing ramshutu to accept debates from me. Just curious why. I wonder if the coward will come out to talk. There's more. Like callout threads against me and mharman reporting them.
Created:
Just kidding bsh1, don't answer that, you'd struggle.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@David
@bsh1
Currently 4-5 debates about to hand the winner Rating points all flagged by me involving a banned user in each are undeleted. Why is this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Shut up with bullshit. Also explain why you're so double standard with banned user debates being deleted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Good luck stopping them, debating won't change shit
Created:
Posted in:
Just curious. Not asking for your personal opinions on these issues, asking for whether you think these are balanced and interesting debates.Set 1:
- Governments should actively prevent gentrification.
Based on what? 'Should' is vague as hell and all 'should' debates allow voters with a corrupt agenda to vote against any one user as they merely need to say they felt the other debated better for their side of 'should matter more than that set of what should matter'.
- The NSA should alert software manufacturers of all zero-day vulnerabilities it finds in order for them to patch these defects.
It already does, not sure if this is somehow a public unknown thing. It actually forces the patches to happen, ASAP. Con will never ever win this even from a pure-anarchy perspective as that's just plain stupid and immoral since anarchy becomes tyranny by strength in all versions of it.
- In cinema, creating new lead characters for minorities (e.g., Black Panther, Hancock) is better than recasting existing roles played by members of social majorities with minority actors (e.g., Ghostbusters, The Little Mermaid).
'better' has 100% the same flaws as a 'should' debate. Fully read the flaw with this in my first reply.
- The United States should break up Amazon.com, Inc.
'should' too vague, read first reply.
- Newly established governments in postconflict societies should adopt truth and reconciliation commissions.
'should', see first reply,
- Payday lending should be illegal.
'should'
- It would be preferable to the status quo if national legislatures reserved seats for politicians under the age of 30.
Impossible for Pro to win, the status quo will undeniably suffer if the younger group become more powerful and the younger group who benefit would not be the status quo. Politics, especially in the US, revolves entirely around middle aged adults and whatever they feel benefits their agenda the best.
- Countries should ban the practice of “bride importing.”
If held in an environment with a Muslim audience and judge panel, Pro can't win. In all other audiences and moral codes, Pro can't lose.
'should' is flawed as always but my predictions are fairly accurate barring particular grudges a judge may hold towards one debater.
- A world where people took in their elderly parents would be preferable to one where they supported them to live separately.
'better' = 'should' absolutely flawed in the vagueness. See my first reply.
- China’s attempts to become a dominant global power are regrettable.
To China, not at all. To all other nations that are not allied to China, absolutely. To nations that are allied to China, probably not and this clearly isn't going to be a likely candidate for who it's regrettable to.
Entirely about perspective. This is why I loathe most debates and resolutions, it's entirely about to whom it 'should' be done or is 'better' or is 'regrettable' for.
- Charities and humanitarian organizations should not use graphic images of suffering in their ad campaigns.
'should'...
- The glorification of soldiers as heroes does more harm than good.
You can't quantify harm vs good, ever. It's always about 'should'-type 'is this form of harm overall worse than this form of good'. This comes down to entirely which side of the equation you're on. If you harm the enemy while benefiting, that's a good thing for you. If you are harmed in sharing with an enemy, that's a bad thing for you unless the sharing is really equal and you still can win by other means... Still it's entirely arbitrary whether or not it's worth in your eyes or not.
Set 2:
- South Africa should forcibly break up exclusive Afrikaaner enclaves.
okay I am sick of explaining why all resolutions with 'should' 'better' or 'regrettable' are stupid and flawed.
- Protections of international law conventions and treaties should not apply to combatants from terrorist organizations (e.g., prohibitions on torture, prisoner of war status, guarantee of post-conflict release).
- Governments should implement substantial measures to impose long-termism in corporate investment culture (e.g., minimum holding periods for shares, yearly rather than quarterly financial reporting, long-term executive compensation plans).
- Megacities should be granted autonomous control over their economic and social policy (e.g. immigration, health, criminal justice) with national taxation policy remaining under the control of the federal government.
- The United States should actively disengage from Syria.
- Developing countries should privatize their state-owned enterprises.
- The World Health Organization should adopt a convention which bans the sell of drugs with high resistance tendencies (e.g., antibiotics) to countries which do not comply with WHO guidelines regarding their medical and agricultural use.
- Governments should significantly increase their use of big data-based predictive models in decisionmaking to replace human judgments (e.g., criminal justice policy, allocation of healthcare resources, housing development).
- Governments should require that all financial institutions back up all deposits with an equivalent value of government-backed safe assets.
- On balance, humanity will likely be worse off 100 years from now.
Created:
The answer is no. Google is the best way to search for information. Everyone here is explaining how to use Google better. Wikipedia is usually the first result on any search where Wikipedia is relevant so Oromagi's point is again not entirely correct but it's true you can search inside the Wikipedia site for information.
Created:
I do not care what impression it left for you Ramshutu. You are completely incorrect on your analysis if you were curious.
Created:
Omar, you are one of the most actively toxic users here. I have seen you pick fights totally being the one who insults, provokes and every single toxic thing first. Don't play the victim here, you are very much the problem and not the solution.
Created:
Leaving is an option and I've definitely left in terms of activity. Like, if the me today had used this site from the start I'd have achieved many less medals and been a more quality over quantity user in many respects.
I no longer will use this website as some kind of fun activity to spend all day on but if you mean 'leave it to somewhere better' the problem is that the entire Internet in any scenario where debating (or verbally fighting of any kind) is encouraged, is highly toxic and just like this website is in terms of the society that arises there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
The latter is entirely true once you realise that Judas was a descendent of the Tribe of Judah from the OT and that the OT God is Satan while Jesus is Lucifer.
I am so done pretending this is even 'out there', I can genuinely not see the logic in denying it.
There would be no reason, not one at all, to never once in the entire NT mention the name Lucifer and also never ever refer the the Devil/Satan as Lucifer if in fact Lucifer was that character in the NT Bible. Why was Lucifer not even mentioned once?! Such a prominent antagonist of the OT doesn't even come up once in the entire NT by name? It's because he's very present indeed, under the alias Jesus. Jesus is associated with stars, he brings light. I wonder what Lucifer Morningstar would have to say about that.
Created:
This leads me onto my next point and this point is going to seem like me throwing a tantrum but please grasp that I am not here to scream about my suffering at all, I genuinely see how I am a villain in your eyes if you see me that way and I also understand how someone like oromagi both could love and hate me at times. See, to me this is very simple, do you value absolute fairness in a society? If yes, a great injustice happened recently to me that was deeper than bsh1 just removing debates after calling me paranoid for saying 'please don't do that.' On PM things happened and I got furious and whatever, I still feel I slammed home the case but honestly I was at a volcanic point and I am very happy I took this break. There was essentially an individual who I won't name, and this individual has from very early on to now (snowballing, more and more towards 'now') been on a voting-based, forum-based and now even moderation-action-influencing-based regime of making my life hell here. This individual seems superior to me in every element of the art of war until you begin to analyse the unique thing about the website and this is the crux of my post:
There is no other website than a debate website on the entire Internet that is competitive enough to have a leaderboard and such , where one individual with a grudge who doesn't at all compete in the game can entirely ruin one's time there even if one obeys all the rules or only semi-breaks them in the ways that others are legally getting away with. I have never seen in another website people say 'this person is so good at semi-breaking this rule, so now please immediately remove all the profit they would have got to the leaderboard but do not at all apologise for not doing it to the others who gained Rating by doing the exact same'.
Even after the rules changed to explicitly rule out what was only implicitly ruled out, these 3 debates exist:
both of which have a banned user as the opponent. do you know why no one is campaigning to have them taken down? Because they are not people that this individual has a grudge against.
Sure, they'll be taken down now that I mentioned them. What I am trying to say is that there is something so unique about debate websites because everything about the website becomes about toxicity. Either you're politely dancing around the rules to flame-war and anger your opponent on the forums and debate-comments or you're playing it really really dirty and doing just the same dancing with debate removal rules, voting removal or non-removal rules and application of those rules. The most unique thing is that without competing at all against the individual, you can climb the leaderboard over time by very careful, patient picking of fights that you have one or two allies back you up so the other can't vote back etc while the other was brave enough to debate many and you capitalise on the fact that the win condition of that person is you alone voting for them. This could be argued to be a low-population issue but rivalries form over time and this is what is so wrong about debate websites;
the most likely person to vote on a debate is someone who hates a debater debating in it. Prove me wrong, don't start denying this. Ignore FF debates, start looking at other ones. Now try to do the same thing for people who like a debater. Now do it for people who are neutral. The issue is that the voting is the entire win condition. It doesn't matter how well you debated or not unless the other was so utterly terrible in comparison. I even can lose a debate like this: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1051
I even can have someone deny me points if I have my opponent completely concede because apparently I posted too many points:
If you can't work out the vote that is the one denying me points, well I'm not going to state it. This is not about an individual, this is about the fact that they can do what they are doing and that the entire attitude and structure of the website physically and socially revolves around disliking one another as a fuel and passion for the debating.
It's funny to some and 'cute' that the slogan of the website now is about proving someone on the Internet wrong but did you ever think about what debating always was supposed to be? Proving someone in the real world correct and worth caring about the opinion of.
This is just something I had to get out of my system. I am sad the website is what it is but I completely understand that this is not a DA issue, it's a debate website issue as a whole.
Created:
Disclaimer: I intentionally made this about DA to have a true excuse to not put this in Personal where only like 2 people would read it. That's another issue with this website but not relevant to this particular thread.
This isn't a callout but it does address haters of mine etc.
I think I have begun to see things a lot clearer now (thanks to a 2 week break to give myself a rest and get on with some real-life things). A website for debating firstly has a major flaw; the owner needs to be a terrified coward. I want you to find me a single debate website, whether monetised or not, where you saw the head mod, admin or anyone who in anyway officially spearheaded the website that actively would engage in debates where they ever took a side that was anything but neutral. There is actually such a website, it's edeb8 and that website is the undisputed biggest failure, excluding Civid, of online debate websites thriving in the long-run.
The issue is something that runs much deeper than 'oh they have to be neutral to be popular and respected enough by the community to lead all kinds of debaters fairly'. See, this is the first issue with debate websites and the mentality they breed in you. You are actually not your opinion, that's something society as a whole gets wrong. You're not the opinions you hold, you're just an animal with a brain capable of processing verbalised concepts that aren't always pieced together soundly. The reason why the progressive outlook is objectively correct is that it's the only outlook where everyone in the society seeks to actually forgive and rehabilitate every other member of the society. You can indeed call it forceful and the right-wingers who say 'oh they are brainwashing us to be tamer and not be so nasty to each other' are actually correct. If you don't cultivate a society where the nasty are pressured into not being nasty, you always will get a society where the nasty bully everyone else who is weird in any shape or form into humiliation and silence. It could even work, theoretically, if you're that psychopathic to find a society nice where the weird and original thinkers cower in corners but the issue is they don't always do that; they get furious, bide their time and bam big bad things happen.
If you don't seek to tame everyone in a society in terms of their urge to hurt each other but then also want to tame their ability to freely express what they feel, then you don't yet understand progressivism (and indeed many 'progressives' by name don't). You can't just sit there saying 'hate speech' and going STFU to someone and expect them to feel loved by the society and partake in it but you also need to rehabilitate someone who is being abusive to others to not want to say those horrible things in the first place and that is what you can call 'brainwashing' but frankly there's no other way to make a society online or IRL work if you don't correctly handle toxic members.
Created: