Total posts: 4,276
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
America is built on stolen land
Next, they'll say the government is funded with stolen money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
Considering how all the polls I've seen indicate that support for Trump drops significantly in the case that he is convincted of a crime, I'd say Biden's chances of winning this election have gone up significantly.
Yeah, but that's assuming people will stand by what they said they would do. Big difference between saying "I will stop supporting a politician if x" and actually following through.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
We have nine now including backups.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
@gugigor
@Americandebater24
@Tickbeat
@Casey_Risk
Interested in playing mafia?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Interested in playing mafia? You would be good at this game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can play since Pie isn't. That gives us nine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@AustinL0926
Some excellent foreshadowing from Luna in DP1:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I'll except writings in the sky
The people who invented skywriting could have started a religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
I can't believe I was actually like 80% sure it was whiteflame by the end
So you were right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
God has already revealed himself to the worms (the chosen race). We're just food for them, so he's not going to bother with us.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
We have a current events section, but that's pretty active as well. I actually like the current split and don't see a need to change the categories.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I want consistency; either have all the issues be separate topics or have all the issues the slightest bit political be in the politics section.
The most efficient way would be to divide it based on activity. Politics and religion are both posted in so much that merging them together will just be more confusing. We could maybe get rid of sections that don't get posted in often, like education or society. But I think the division we have now is good. If anything, I might want to add another section so that politics is less packed. Maybe something like "War" to cover the Middle East and other armed conflicts.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But "Size" can encompass them both.
"Stuff" would encompass everything, but I think it's useful to divide the forum into different topics. Economics and religion topics get derailed enough without having to conflate them with each other. Atheism is not always a political statement.
If everyone agrees, then there is no debate, meaning it doesn't belong on DebateArt.
I've seen more casual forum topics. Random thoughts, for example. Not everything on the forum needs to be a debate; there's the debate section for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That would be too complicated, but just one person of one gender and 5 people of the opposite gender
So we're not allowing gay polyamorous relationships but we are allowing straight ones? Get ready for that political headache.
Created:
Posted in:
Do they really just do one game to qualify you? What if you end up with a weak team or have bad luck?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Religion is political (Atheism vs Christainty)
Not clear how that's inherently political, since there are left-wing Christians and right-wing atheists.
Atheism and socialism are left wing ideas, Christainity and Capitalism are right wing ideas.
There are Christian socialists and capitalist atheists. They might be the exception and not the rule, but I don't think correlation is enough to make religion a subset of politics. Weight correlates with height, but they are two different concepts.
And not all economic concepts are politically disputed all that much. Supply and demand curves existing, for example, is pretty much agreed on. Economics could also cover the history of economics, for example. It's got overlap but doesn't fall under one other category.
Created:
That's what Marxism is. Also the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, sort of. Neither has done a great job of managing the economy yet, but we shall see.
Oh wait, you mean on DART.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Tag
Created:
The fuel is limited, which means even if you double the efficiency, the fuel is still limited
It's only limited if you don't have enough innovation to make renewable methods more affordable. Even then, it's easier to get more utility total by making the system more efficient. Fuel rationing doesn't get you more utility overall, it just stretches it thinner and lowers living standards now.
Yet North Korea uses much much less fuel than United States.
Meaning it doesn't get much utility from fuel, nor is it likely to in the foreseeable future. Even if North Korea's current standard of living is sustainable, it's a very low one.
Nuclear energy is not unlimited either, and its much more difficult to manage, since accidents equal disaster and more it is used, the more disasters there will be.
Nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuels and getting even safer with increased innovation.
Also, many scientific advancements happened in Socialist countries. The Soviet Union was the first one to make ICBM.
That's a military advancement which doesn't do much to increase the standard of living. (The US outperforms them on military anyway.)
No, its the governments in Europe and USA which invested a lot in renewables to make them a bit more cheaper by taxing non-renewables more.
That relies on a free market that can respond to tax incentives in an efficient way.
which is cherry picking because you are ignoring other periods
Cherry picking would be taking one data point, but I'm taking a wide range of data points (50 years) and picking the most recent 50 years to get a gist of what the trend is like under the current rate of advancement.
you are comparing capitalism to capitalism and concluding that capitalism is better than capitalism
I was responding to your claim that capitalist countries "consume more now so you have less later" by showing that the US is able to reduce the amount consumed per person.
capitalism spends much more finite resources over time
There's not much value to saving finite resources if you can't use them to improve the country's quality of life. And capitalism has increased the amount of viable resources, since solar and nuclear power were less viable hundreds of years ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You can, but it won't be recognized by the government. If you want to make all marriages equal, the best way is probably to stop recognizing marriage as a government institution in the first place. If you want to be married to four people who are each married to four other people, but only on Tuesdays and Thursdays in February, then sure, you shouldn't be thrown in jail for that. But I'm not sure the government has an interest in keeping track of who you're married to on each day or designing insurance benefits for you.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Even if you make cars use 35% less fuel, it doesnt change the fact that fuel is limited.
Total number of miles you can drive/utility from the fuel is not limited and can increase.
If consumption goes up, it means the finite resources are being depleted faster, thus you will run out of them faster, thus have less time to figure out an alternative, and a faster depleting of the alternative as well.
Those alternatives have only been developed under capitalism. North Korea is not leading the world in clean energy. The graph you linked to shows a huge growth in the use of nuclear energy. We have an alternative, and it's much easier to switch to now than it was before.
Your own source says that energy consumption in USA today has increased more than double than it was in 1960, despite population not increasing by double since 1960.
You can see that energy use is plateauing from the graph shown. In 2020, U.S. per capita energy consumption dropped to the lowest level since 1965, so picking 1970 as a year is not cherry picking.
Plenty of resources are not reusable. Going from commercial fertilizers to fuel and coal. Even plastic, which can be recycled, just becomes more expensive since its much harder to recycle plastic than to produce it.
Renewables are extremely expensive and have only become less expensive recently thanks to innovation. The cost of solar has reduced 400 times since 1970. Socialist countries cannot afford those advancements because they are basically broke.
To put it simply, if you had a finite resource, would you rather use it up as fast as possible, or distribute it correctly over time?
We won't need coal in the future once nuclear becomes good enough. A better question is this: would you rather try switching to renewables in the UK today, or in North Korea?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
One product requiring less resources to be produced does not mean that less resources are used in total.
No, but it shows that the statement "Almost all resources in this world are limited" is false. And even if consumption isn't going down, that means it will be easier to reduce energy consumption if it is necessary. If we are forced to switch to renewables, for example, that will be easier now than it would have been 100 years ago.
Thus, we dont see fuel consumption decreasing by 35.4% over the past 20 years. No, the fuel consumption doubled since then, not decreased.
Energy consumption per person has decreased in the US since the 1970s. And population size tends to plateau over time in developed countries, so a growing population will not be a long-term problem.
with the amount of finite resources being used increasing all the time
Total resources are going up. The supply of internet, radio programs, etc. has increased over time. Plenty of resources are reusable. It would have been hard to classify something a a resource 100 years ago if we couldn't even access it.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes, consume more now so you have less later.
Quality of life has consistently gone up since the Industrial Revolution. The average lifespan has almost doubled in the United States since 1860. Internet adoption has consistently increased globally.
Products have also become significantly cheaper to produce and require less resources. Cars have become 35.4% more fuel-efficient in the past 20 years. LEDs last 10 times longer than incandescent lights whilst being far more efficient.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Almost all resources in this world are limited
- From 1990 through 2019, the calories per person globally increased 13 percent on average
- The global poverty rate declined by 50 percentage points from 1950 to 2019
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
if there is a creator, I sure haven't found it yet
You wouldn't know him. He goes to another school.
Created:
-->
@baggins
Lol, it's all good
Created:
-->
@baggins
Ik, it was a joke.
Created:
-->
@baggins
It’s quite funny to see actual physicists reacting to his bold assertions with 0 math work behind them .
Why would actual physicists have 0 math work behind them, especially when they are reacting to bold assertions? 🙃
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
If you have the patience to watch a 1hr debate and want to see Alex debate someone on his level, I'd recommend his discussion with William Lane Craig on the Kalam cosmological argument.
There are people who absolutely hate Craig, but he's probably as deep as you get into complex apologetics. If you want someone who appeals more to the "common man," I'd recommend John Lennox and his debate with Hitchens.
If you want to save time, you can always look up clips or compilations on YouTube, but those tend to be less in-depth and more focused on "owns."
Created:
Posted in:
Why should we allow you to lynch a town member with impunity and zero damage to your credibility?
Especially a doctor, I should add.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Most of your reads so far seem to be picking something I do and saying "that's what a scum player would do," which is always going to be the case because scum players will try to act like town. Anything I do can be read as "a scum player, pretending to be pro-town." It's not clear what decisions you think I would make in this position as a town player or why those would be better for the town.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Jumping around, no consistency in reads
I explained all of my reads in detail.
attempting to get a wagon on anyone and everyone
Lynching anyone is better than lynching someone I know is a town member (me). So yes, I will lynch anyone who might be scum if the alternative is being lynched myself.
I'm definitely not going to be next day's lynch regardless of how Savant flips.
Why should we allow you to lynch a town member with impunity and zero damage to your credibility?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Given what we've seen so far of the existing claims, it's just not all that likely that there's a Doctor. Pie hasn't been using the usual standard claims for anyone that we've seen
The first post you made about my role was literally the "non-self-targeting" bit, which already makes it different from the standard version of the claim (regular doctor).
I believe that if you flip town, we'll be considering Austin for next DP.
I'd agree in principle. But while Austin is someone I'd be pretty comfortable lynching, I'm not sure how much I can take your word that he would be a lynch target tomorrow. We "consider" lynching basically everyone, and it would be easy for him to take the focus off of what happened the previous day, since town members get lynched all the time and it might not be seen as significant that he accused the wrong person.
It also just isn't a very good match for your character in particular, who probably fits a BG better.
If Pie wanted to use the specific gimmick of a "non-self-targeting" doctor, what character would fit this in a neat way? Seems likely he wanted to use the role to have a town protective with a twist, then picked a character with a loose connection to the role.
You've shown in previous games a pretty solid understanding of the need to get as much info out of the first DP as possible...Even if all we gain is some PoE, it's beneficial
How is lynching a town member beneficial just because it leads to information? Even ignoring the possibility of tunneling, accusations leading to a mislynch are often forgotten the next day in favor or whatever information was gained the previous night.
Created:
Posted in:
By "suspects both of us" I obv mean suspects that it's one or the other...I don't think anyone would suspect us of working together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@AustinL0926
@Moozer325
I'll even offer to be the one to hammer Austin if anyone suspects both of us. If he's telling the truth about who he is, he'll take me with him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
Austin is a null for me, but I could see a case to be made against him. I'll go after him if you'll back me up, since it's my last chance to possibly lynch a scum.
VTL Austin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
Don't feel too bad bout it. The town usually loses a player on day 1 anyway. Doesn't make a huge difference if it's me or someone else, as much as I'd like to make it to day 2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
The wagon may be riding on your vote, so I may as well try to negotiate with you
I get Austin and Lunatic wanting to lynch since they were the first to accuse me and he's not going to just back down. Not what I think is the logical thing to do, but I understand it.
However, I don't understand why it's in your interest to join this wagon when you could just vote for no one and stop the lynch of a claimed doctor. People might be annoyed with you, but better to lynch no one than to risk killing the town's only doctor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
JoeBob if I had to choose. But it might be more realistic to just vote to kill no one, since I don't see anyone else jumping on the JoeBob train.
VTNL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
That doesn't not count
Is the double negative intentional?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
That was clearly referring to the best strategy for town, not the themesplit.
Yeah but it's all in the same gist of "things Luna has said about the game." So it's reasonable to read that and see that much of Lunatic's credibility comes from him saying things that other experienced players don't contest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Absolute confidence is perhaps hyperbole, but that's certainly what it sounds like.
So regardless of whether I am town or scum, I was clearly saying "found out the theme split" to mean "probably found out the theme split." Why would I be more likely to use hyperbole as scum?
Mmm... sounds like a retroactive cover-up to me.
It's the obvious implication of what I said. Behavioral reads are based on making assumptions, and the theme split is the least contested part of this game. It's really not unreasonable for me as town to say "Luna figured out the theme split" when we're all in agreement that he did.
Created:
Posted in:
And I already said "I will take their word for it that he isn't BSing." The explanation is right there, and it's extremely obvious what I mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Want to explain how you know that Lunatic figured out the themesplit?
I thought we were all in agreement on that probably being the theme split. No one has proposed an alternative or contested it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Savant just scumslipped hard. Notice how he didn't say "likely" or "possible" theme split, but said that Lunatic "figured [it] out" with absolute confidence.
How would scum know the theme split with absolute confidence??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Despite accusing me, I thought you were town at first since you had an interest in pushing the game forward. I became a lot less certain after that, since going with your initial accusation is just playing it safe. Lynching a non-cc'd doctor is not in the interest of the town, but as scum it is your interest to get rid of me, and you don't lose much by voting for someone you've already pushed hard. It's more that your pro-town and anti-town actions cancel out than that you haven't posted enough.
Moozer has posted a bit but hasn't done much to move the game forward. Strikes me as a new player acting like a new player. Probably what he would do as town and what he would do as scum.
Vader gave his role early, which makes him more likely to be town, but that also seems like a viable strategy for scum trying to be townread. Also scum can ask Pie questions to make fakeclaims. Hasn't been putting much pressure on other players, but he's busy, so I don't know what to attribute that to.
Barney is acting the same way he did as town. His criticisms of my role seem reasonable, even if I think his conclusions are wrong.
Lunatic figured out the theme split and has said a lot that experienced players haven't challenged about the best strategy for town, so I will take thir word for it that he isn't BSing. Also, being the second person to jump on a train this early is a risk I don't think scum would take.
whiteflame has posted a lot. If he was scum I think he would have said something that didn't make sense or that would cause me to scumread him. He mostly seems to be evaluating things the way he did when he was town.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Barney
@Vader
@whiteflame
@AustinL0926
Slight Town
Barney, Lunatic, whiteflame
Neutral
Austin, Earth, Moozer, Vader
Slight Scum
JoeBob
I gave my reasons for suspecting JoeBob already. Generally, I think that scum roles are going to be negligent to push the game forward. I gave a lot of neutral reads since I don't know how most people here normally play.
Created: