"Perhaps offer a few economic or social issues on which you find conservatives irrational."
Against free trade. In favour of trade wars. Against immigration. Don't even mention wage stagnation as a problem with capitalism.
"wanting socialism"
That would be progressives wanting socialism. Socialism can be done in various ways. This can be public healthcare and if I wanted to I can argue taxes is a form of socialism because it is a form of redistribution. So are you against taxes?
"killing babies(even after they are born)"
Who told you this lie? Abortion prevents a mother needing to take 18 years of her life away for a child. That is reason for aborting a baby.
"mass immigration"
Immigration is a good thing and if you don't think it is. Do provide evidence.
"infinite genders"
Where are you getting this from?
"All of those things make you feel good but are either evil or don't work. All of those are irrational"
I have stated none of them "feel" good but to conservatives I am sure it feels good to believe in God.
>>I'm pretty sure that conservatives are rational.
No that is not true. They are the part of Religion and which value feelings over facts which is ironic when Ben Shapiro a conservative made up the saying facts don't care about your feelings.
>>You just disagree with them on a lot.
It is not a problem of disagreement. It is the problem of most of them not being capable of acknowledging their mistakes. That becomes a problem when trying to help them understand why they are wrong on certain things. I don't think you understand because you are like them. Incapable of knowing when you are wrong and then simply making a non-sequitur comment when I have pressed you into something you can't reason yourself out of.
Good joke. Applies to the irrational conservative as well. You can't lose your rationality when you never had it in the first place. If you did you wouldn't be a conservative.
>>I liked the implicit reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect
Wasn't really going for that but I understand yes Crowder does think he is more intelligent than he think he is. The change my mind segment is used as a sort of ego boost instead changing his mind. This is what occurs when someone barely starts off at a field and even though he has been doing this for a while it still does seem like he thinks of himself better than he actually is.
>>I don't have any strong opinions on Crowder though.
>>A bit like a crime of passion - you mostly glossed over this context and I felt this was important.
Next time I will dedicate more time on the time span of the comment and how irresponsible it was.
>>but I would have added that he is also a prominent public figure who has the ability to reach and convince others of his message in a way that regular people do not.
This is the one I already thought I could have improved on but glad someone else does agree that this was a place that I could have improved my approach.
>> This makes the issue more complex than simply two people disagreeing
I agree with this but never realised it in the debate. I realise how much better my side could have been if I spoke about how much more complex the situation was than what Brendo's reduction of it was.
>>asymettric influence, for which it’s not possible for one side to simply vocally disagree as his voice is not as loud, or as well heard.
Cool word. I think I will describe what the problem is instead of using the word. Will help get my point across and since I can have 30k characters in a debate I don't really have a need of needing a shorter way of saying both sides are not the same.
Guess you are against a democracy. Guess you would prefer a monarchy or a dictatorship. Don't worry about it the US is already an oligarchy so it's almost there.
>>Yours met voting standards, but I believe it was bias.
Biased doesn't mean I was wrong and you would have to prove that impacted my vote so much that I was lying just because I have something against whatever idea you hold.
>>people are supposed to put their own views aside and vote on which debater was better
I did which is why you people are voting against you and I just don't like the ideas you hold so you lose both ways.
>>Good thing we have the electoral college to protect minority voices and prevent tyranny of the majority.
Guess you are against a democracy where the minority does lose out against the majority.
>>No one has voted for me this debate, so I can't report imaginary votes
Sad really you would have thought since Trump won the election there would be more people on your side. Guess numbers don't lie. Hillary had more votes but Trump still won because of the electoral college. Oh well.
Wow you really are not liking everyone voting against you.
Sheesh you even reported mine. Virtuoso already cleared this and bsh1 is more lenient so I doubt you can get your way.
Do also report votes that have you winning in order to not be hypocritical.
Sure I can't show proof but I have a hunch you can't take it when you are wrong.
>>but few would argue that we would be better off without a system of laws than with one.
Even though the law is prescriptive it is based what people value. Am I wrong?
>>The argument I made is not about limiting opposition. If voting burdens become onerous, people will simply stop voting. If people stop voting, people will stop debating.
I would say those if's are not warranted because they will realise that this is the best debate platform around. DDO is filled with spam and no moderation. CD is a conservative cesspool when I looked at it today.
>>#49.
"I borrowed most of the voting rules from Airmax on DDO"
You valued Airmax voting rules on DDO. Am I wrong?
>>Prescriptive rules limit discretion because they are prescriptive.
How?
>>Attempts at stricter voting standards on DDO met with overwhelming opposition, and judging from my interactions on the site, even Ralph's comment below, the same would likely happen on DART.
Why isn't that opposition not worth the hassle when creating the best debating platform?
Is this an argument to limit opposition instead of creating the best debate site possible?
"I've answered this question already."
Can you quote where you did address that?
Wouldn't this be never met? I'll take Type1 as an example. Virtuoso took down the vote on "Ramshutu dishonestly votes against RM" and used the rules to do so. I can't imagine Type1 is happy with that so discretion as goal will never be met. Simple whenever a vote is taken down discretion will not be upheld.
>>not being overly burdensome to voters
That is relative. Yeah you ask more from users compared to other debating sites but to say having some sort of rule for a form of argument required as per the debate is not too much. Why not increase the arbitrary line of being burdensome to voters and debaters? Wrick-It-Ralph mentioned forms of arguments but I don't think you responded to it.
>>I have already rejected the view that the site's voting policy reflects my individual opinion alone. Furthermore, my opinion of whether a vote conforms to those rules is not the same as my opinion of who one a given debate.
So are you denying that the rules were not made by what you value?
>>Because the rules are fairly prescriptive and clear, my individual opinion is more contained in enforcing them than it would be if I were to moderate for accuracy, which would be wholly removed from any opinion-limiting guidelines."
More of a repeat what I said earlier. Do you deny the standard you have created on this site is not based on what you value most?
"I can bear witness myself if necessary, because I've been believing for only eight months, and already I can feel the difference that He makes in my life."
You have completely lost it. I hope you get the help you deserve.
"There is really no explanation but the Holy Spirit."
You are delusional if that is your explanation. No reasonable person who knows what your problem is won't conclude that about apart from Theologians.
I don't see how you actually addressed that. Nowhere did you address the glaring problem that is physical laws but you did attempt it by saying it can be broken. I doubt you have an argument that does address that so if you actually had a problem with it do report me if you want because you did not sufficiently address that problem.
I don't know if I can take losing anymore brain cells. Even if I entertain your arguments you just basically talk about something since you can't talk past the surface level. Keep being a free speech absolutist and allow the Unite the Right rally to exist and keep thinking Dave Rubin actually isn't a usefuly id*ot. It reallys does say how little you put in time into actually thinking about your position.
Yeah your a conservative. I can't stand Crowder for how wrong he his but if you can tolerate him then you are a conservative. Did you know he had a white nationalist on his show?
Why would you vote for someone who got won't get elected?
Who do you like more Steven Crowder or Noam Chomsky?
I don't know a really good right-wing philosopher but you can pick a right-wing philosopher or someone you agree with on the right in place of Steven Crowder.
"Depends who the candidate. Maybe independent. "I don't care if he is a moderate" You were the one insisting he was conservative."
I care more about whether he aligns with the democrats or the republicans. Moderate doesn't tell me what kind of candidate he would vote for.
"The rules are good for other reasons."
Tell me the most important reason.
"From my perspective, I am applying the same criteria to RM's vote as I would apply to any other--that consistency is fair."
Then my problem is for the rule itself. For that to be considered a rule I would like to know what rule states that to be sufficient in what he is doing.
"would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART."
It is already the case. The only difference is that you use rules to lay out the criteria to judge right or wrong votes but if there was no rules I would have to discuss about what you would consider a right or wrong vote. Do you understand where I am coming from? I am basically saying you are still basing the criteria on your opinions since I am sure you did create the rules based on your opinion.
Who would he support a right wing candidate or a left wing one?
I don't care if he is a moderate since that doesn't tell me who he would vote for apart from if he votes for shultz.
"I borrowed most of the voting rules from Airmax on DDO, who generated those standards through years of voting moderation and consultation with the DDO community. I did not simply pull the rules out of thin air to reflect my own personal views on voting."
Okay then. Your rules were based off what Airmax came up with through the years. So basically the reason why the rules are good because someone else used them and improved them for several of years?
"That again empowers the mod to rule on the accuracy of the voter's interpretation, which is problematic for the reasons I mentioned earlier."
What do you care more about fairness or not being problematic?
Instead of passing 2 Rounds why not have the first Round be for only arguments and the rest for rebuttals?
You are a conservative.
Public or private healthcare?
Immigration good or bad?
Freer-er market or more regulation?
Should America ought to value traditional American Values (Nuclear families, God etc)?
Death penalty for or against?
Should we do something about climate change?
Less or more gun control?
"What it seems like you're asking me to do is to adjudicate the vote based on my opinion of it's accuracy and not based, instead, on my opinion of its conformity to the site's rules. The former opens up far more space for discretion and subjectivity, and opens up a veritable pandora's box of problems that are best not opened."
If the rule says RM's vote was actually good enough then I would like the rules to be updated. It should be something like voters when voting must point out what they are using to vote on. This can be using speech marks to target what a person said in order to make sure people understand where he/she got this idea from. Then you can measure the vote based on that and see if it is unfair to get that kind of explanation from what was said. The only thing you and Virtuoso have to do is make sure the person did not unfairly cherry-pick the quote while also seeing if their reasoning is valid.
"This remark was ungrammatical and hard to interpret. I'd appreciate a clarification if I am to respond."
The site rules were based on what you value most. That should be easier to understand.
"I will be logging off. If it is desired, I am happy to continue the conversation tomorrow."
Do what you want.
"Obviously, in their enforcement, I have some discretion, but I do not have nearly as much discretion has if I could eliminate any vote of my choosing for any reason"
How is this about discretion?
"which would be the de facto consequence of your position on voting moderation."
Which is a better way of voting and you would say this is a descriptive statement. The problem is at your fundamental you do things based on descriptive statements that were influenced by you making the site rules. By saying we have some "objective" standard clearly misses what you value more than someone else like me.
"I would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART."
You do that anyway with the site rules. If people don't conform to your rules their vote will be taken off. Rules are opinions you elevated to be the standard of this site. That is bad argument justifying not having opinions influencing your decisions.
I can't show you evidence of how he is a liar so all I am going to say is this is clearly unfair. He made up what was going on and went with something much more complex than what was actually said. He still can't justify his reasoning apart from he laid a "foundation" to it instead of actually showing me the part where he did the "sandwiching". Then afterwards he decides to bring in an entire paragraph that simply said Will should also be punished or maybe he should never have egged him since he never agreed with doing he was doing in the first place. I don't see how you don't see this but guess I am not in-charge and I can't do anything about it. That was the supposed "sandwiching". Don't comment back to me I don't see the point when I am sure it would be a paraphrased version of your last comment.
"Perhaps offer a few economic or social issues on which you find conservatives irrational."
Against free trade. In favour of trade wars. Against immigration. Don't even mention wage stagnation as a problem with capitalism.
"wanting socialism"
That would be progressives wanting socialism. Socialism can be done in various ways. This can be public healthcare and if I wanted to I can argue taxes is a form of socialism because it is a form of redistribution. So are you against taxes?
"killing babies(even after they are born)"
Who told you this lie? Abortion prevents a mother needing to take 18 years of her life away for a child. That is reason for aborting a baby.
"mass immigration"
Immigration is a good thing and if you don't think it is. Do provide evidence.
"infinite genders"
Where are you getting this from?
"All of those things make you feel good but are either evil or don't work. All of those are irrational"
I have stated none of them "feel" good but to conservatives I am sure it feels good to believe in God.
>>I'm pretty sure that conservatives are rational.
No that is not true. They are the part of Religion and which value feelings over facts which is ironic when Ben Shapiro a conservative made up the saying facts don't care about your feelings.
>>You just disagree with them on a lot.
It is not a problem of disagreement. It is the problem of most of them not being capable of acknowledging their mistakes. That becomes a problem when trying to help them understand why they are wrong on certain things. I don't think you understand because you are like them. Incapable of knowing when you are wrong and then simply making a non-sequitur comment when I have pressed you into something you can't reason yourself out of.
Good joke. Applies to the irrational conservative as well. You can't lose your rationality when you never had it in the first place. If you did you wouldn't be a conservative.
Didn't know that. Thanks.
CVB?
Thanks for the vote.
>>I liked the implicit reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect
Wasn't really going for that but I understand yes Crowder does think he is more intelligent than he think he is. The change my mind segment is used as a sort of ego boost instead changing his mind. This is what occurs when someone barely starts off at a field and even though he has been doing this for a while it still does seem like he thinks of himself better than he actually is.
>>I don't have any strong opinions on Crowder though.
I do because of his spread of misinformation.
At least we agree that Steven Crowder is st*pid.
Sorry about voting against you.
>>A bit like a crime of passion - you mostly glossed over this context and I felt this was important.
Next time I will dedicate more time on the time span of the comment and how irresponsible it was.
>>but I would have added that he is also a prominent public figure who has the ability to reach and convince others of his message in a way that regular people do not.
This is the one I already thought I could have improved on but glad someone else does agree that this was a place that I could have improved my approach.
>> This makes the issue more complex than simply two people disagreeing
I agree with this but never realised it in the debate. I realise how much better my side could have been if I spoke about how much more complex the situation was than what Brendo's reduction of it was.
>>asymettric influence, for which it’s not possible for one side to simply vocally disagree as his voice is not as loud, or as well heard.
Cool word. I think I will describe what the problem is instead of using the word. Will help get my point across and since I can have 30k characters in a debate I don't really have a need of needing a shorter way of saying both sides are not the same.
Thanks for the comments.
"though he could have done more in several cases."
Can you show me areas I could have improved on? I would like to improve this stance I have.
Thanks for the vote.
Oh. I didn't know that was the case.
Guess you are against a democracy. Guess you would prefer a monarchy or a dictatorship. Don't worry about it the US is already an oligarchy so it's almost there.
Are you pro?
>>Yes, the country is not a democracy, but rather a democratic republic
So you are against democracy and for corporations owning the country. Good to know.
>>Yours met voting standards, but I believe it was bias.
Biased doesn't mean I was wrong and you would have to prove that impacted my vote so much that I was lying just because I have something against whatever idea you hold.
>>people are supposed to put their own views aside and vote on which debater was better
I did which is why you people are voting against you and I just don't like the ideas you hold so you lose both ways.
>>Good thing we have the electoral college to protect minority voices and prevent tyranny of the majority.
Guess you are against a democracy where the minority does lose out against the majority.
Was mine unfair?
>>No one has voted for me this debate, so I can't report imaginary votes
Sad really you would have thought since Trump won the election there would be more people on your side. Guess numbers don't lie. Hillary had more votes but Trump still won because of the electoral college. Oh well.
You have answered my questions.
Have a nice life.
Why didn't you answer the first question?
Wow you really are not liking everyone voting against you.
Sheesh you even reported mine. Virtuoso already cleared this and bsh1 is more lenient so I doubt you can get your way.
Do also report votes that have you winning in order to not be hypocritical.
Sure I can't show proof but I have a hunch you can't take it when you are wrong.
>>you weren't there in its heyday.
Hey how do you know?
>>I valued continuity.
Continual what?
>>but few would argue that we would be better off without a system of laws than with one.
Even though the law is prescriptive it is based what people value. Am I wrong?
>>The argument I made is not about limiting opposition. If voting burdens become onerous, people will simply stop voting. If people stop voting, people will stop debating.
I would say those if's are not warranted because they will realise that this is the best debate platform around. DDO is filled with spam and no moderation. CD is a conservative cesspool when I looked at it today.
>>#49.
"I borrowed most of the voting rules from Airmax on DDO"
You valued Airmax voting rules on DDO. Am I wrong?
That stepped in sh*t was my meme. You voted for the wrong person if that was the reason you voted in the way you did.
>>Prescriptive rules limit discretion because they are prescriptive.
How?
>>Attempts at stricter voting standards on DDO met with overwhelming opposition, and judging from my interactions on the site, even Ralph's comment below, the same would likely happen on DART.
Why isn't that opposition not worth the hassle when creating the best debating platform?
Is this an argument to limit opposition instead of creating the best debate site possible?
"I've answered this question already."
Can you quote where you did address that?
>>limiting moderation discretion
Wouldn't this be never met? I'll take Type1 as an example. Virtuoso took down the vote on "Ramshutu dishonestly votes against RM" and used the rules to do so. I can't imagine Type1 is happy with that so discretion as goal will never be met. Simple whenever a vote is taken down discretion will not be upheld.
>>not being overly burdensome to voters
That is relative. Yeah you ask more from users compared to other debating sites but to say having some sort of rule for a form of argument required as per the debate is not too much. Why not increase the arbitrary line of being burdensome to voters and debaters? Wrick-It-Ralph mentioned forms of arguments but I don't think you responded to it.
>>I have already rejected the view that the site's voting policy reflects my individual opinion alone. Furthermore, my opinion of whether a vote conforms to those rules is not the same as my opinion of who one a given debate.
So are you denying that the rules were not made by what you value?
>>Because the rules are fairly prescriptive and clear, my individual opinion is more contained in enforcing them than it would be if I were to moderate for accuracy, which would be wholly removed from any opinion-limiting guidelines."
More of a repeat what I said earlier. Do you deny the standard you have created on this site is not based on what you value most?
"I can bear witness myself if necessary, because I've been believing for only eight months, and already I can feel the difference that He makes in my life."
You have completely lost it. I hope you get the help you deserve.
"There is really no explanation but the Holy Spirit."
You are delusional if that is your explanation. No reasonable person who knows what your problem is won't conclude that about apart from Theologians.
Yeah I think that was all you.
The one I did like was the skeleton waiting for someone to publish their arguments.
I don't see how you actually addressed that. Nowhere did you address the glaring problem that is physical laws but you did attempt it by saying it can be broken. I doubt you have an argument that does address that so if you actually had a problem with it do report me if you want because you did not sufficiently address that problem.
I don't know if I can take losing anymore brain cells. Even if I entertain your arguments you just basically talk about something since you can't talk past the surface level. Keep being a free speech absolutist and allow the Unite the Right rally to exist and keep thinking Dave Rubin actually isn't a usefuly id*ot. It reallys does say how little you put in time into actually thinking about your position.
Dave Rubin is an useful id*ot. So don't even bother. Last response.
His name is Owen Benjamin. See this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T5CLpWe8yCA
I am tired which is why I am being direct about this.
Yeah your a conservative. I can't stand Crowder for how wrong he his but if you can tolerate him then you are a conservative. Did you know he had a white nationalist on his show?
"I showed that this can mean PM and that Aquinas argued that PM = God"
Where?
Why would you vote for someone who got won't get elected?
Who do you like more Steven Crowder or Noam Chomsky?
I don't know a really good right-wing philosopher but you can pick a right-wing philosopher or someone you agree with on the right in place of Steven Crowder.
Do you have any from my side that were trash?
I know you liked the DDO one but what about the others?
That was not needed?
Do you want to get banned?
"Depends who the candidate. Maybe independent. "I don't care if he is a moderate" You were the one insisting he was conservative."
I care more about whether he aligns with the democrats or the republicans. Moderate doesn't tell me what kind of candidate he would vote for.
"The rules are good for other reasons."
Tell me the most important reason.
"From my perspective, I am applying the same criteria to RM's vote as I would apply to any other--that consistency is fair."
Then my problem is for the rule itself. For that to be considered a rule I would like to know what rule states that to be sufficient in what he is doing.
"would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART."
It is already the case. The only difference is that you use rules to lay out the criteria to judge right or wrong votes but if there was no rules I would have to discuss about what you would consider a right or wrong vote. Do you understand where I am coming from? I am basically saying you are still basing the criteria on your opinions since I am sure you did create the rules based on your opinion.
Who would he support a right wing candidate or a left wing one?
I don't care if he is a moderate since that doesn't tell me who he would vote for apart from if he votes for shultz.
What in the debate that you had to say about physical laws apart from it being broken?
Where did I say "no example"?
So he still is a right winger.
What was your point?
"I borrowed most of the voting rules from Airmax on DDO, who generated those standards through years of voting moderation and consultation with the DDO community. I did not simply pull the rules out of thin air to reflect my own personal views on voting."
Okay then. Your rules were based off what Airmax came up with through the years. So basically the reason why the rules are good because someone else used them and improved them for several of years?
"That again empowers the mod to rule on the accuracy of the voter's interpretation, which is problematic for the reasons I mentioned earlier."
What do you care more about fairness or not being problematic?
Okay then.
He is an atheist who support the right wing and is for doing something for climate change.
He believes in God.
He would endorse a right wing candidate before a left wing due to his stance on anything to do with socialism.
"There was no explanation but the Holy Spirit."
Delusion. Thank me later.
Instead of passing 2 Rounds why not have the first Round be for only arguments and the rest for rebuttals?
You are a conservative.
Public or private healthcare?
Immigration good or bad?
Freer-er market or more regulation?
Should America ought to value traditional American Values (Nuclear families, God etc)?
Death penalty for or against?
Should we do something about climate change?
Less or more gun control?
Don't see how the contender won when he hasn't fulfilled his burden of proof.
"What it seems like you're asking me to do is to adjudicate the vote based on my opinion of it's accuracy and not based, instead, on my opinion of its conformity to the site's rules. The former opens up far more space for discretion and subjectivity, and opens up a veritable pandora's box of problems that are best not opened."
If the rule says RM's vote was actually good enough then I would like the rules to be updated. It should be something like voters when voting must point out what they are using to vote on. This can be using speech marks to target what a person said in order to make sure people understand where he/she got this idea from. Then you can measure the vote based on that and see if it is unfair to get that kind of explanation from what was said. The only thing you and Virtuoso have to do is make sure the person did not unfairly cherry-pick the quote while also seeing if their reasoning is valid.
"This remark was ungrammatical and hard to interpret. I'd appreciate a clarification if I am to respond."
The site rules were based on what you value most. That should be easier to understand.
"I will be logging off. If it is desired, I am happy to continue the conversation tomorrow."
Do what you want.
"Obviously, in their enforcement, I have some discretion, but I do not have nearly as much discretion has if I could eliminate any vote of my choosing for any reason"
How is this about discretion?
"which would be the de facto consequence of your position on voting moderation."
Which is a better way of voting and you would say this is a descriptive statement. The problem is at your fundamental you do things based on descriptive statements that were influenced by you making the site rules. By saying we have some "objective" standard clearly misses what you value more than someone else like me.
"I would be functionally saying that only my opinion matters in picking winners and losers for debates on DART."
You do that anyway with the site rules. If people don't conform to your rules their vote will be taken off. Rules are opinions you elevated to be the standard of this site. That is bad argument justifying not having opinions influencing your decisions.
I can't show you evidence of how he is a liar so all I am going to say is this is clearly unfair. He made up what was going on and went with something much more complex than what was actually said. He still can't justify his reasoning apart from he laid a "foundation" to it instead of actually showing me the part where he did the "sandwiching". Then afterwards he decides to bring in an entire paragraph that simply said Will should also be punished or maybe he should never have egged him since he never agreed with doing he was doing in the first place. I don't see how you don't see this but guess I am not in-charge and I can't do anything about it. That was the supposed "sandwiching". Don't comment back to me I don't see the point when I am sure it would be a paraphrased version of your last comment.