TheRealNihilist

Controversy is good and healthy for a debate site. 

Rules

I think it stems mostly from a new age sense of "you can't say that, it's offensive!". I think the world was a better time when comedians could make light of controversial topics without getting witch burned

I was a right wing religious nut when I joined debate.org. Getting schooled argumentatively changed a lot of my ideas and opinions. If I was banned or silence from debate.org I'd probably still be there.

Agreed, it was an amazing show and the soundtrack was awesome, especially the one from the 90's adaptation. 

The competitiveness was for show and in reality I am more humble than a lot of you realise but that's fine by me.

I guess Trump losing and some other things going well for me IRL have led to me finally understanding that I don't need to argue my way through life in actuality, even if I'm right.

I can sit here all day typing and what have I achieved?

I think that people have interests now and then, more or less, or more frequent hobbies.

Sometimes people only have an interest in such a subject for the novelty, but become bored of it in time, and stop looking at such videos.

Sometimes people even late in life, have such as a habit of their interest.

So long as you're not 'causing death/pain/destruction to others, eh.

So long as it does not make you unhappy, eh. 

Or are you perhaps better served by COVINCING THEM with rhetorical skill.

Your example simply highlights the PROBLEM with a "traditional-style" debate.

AND, Trump having to persuade Biden...

And how is that outcome materially different

you told Trump and Biden and the Audience that ONLY the participants could award points to each other (presumably on common-ground) and the "moderator" was simply there to keep time

the audience could much more easily judge who was a better NEGOTIATOR (incidentally a crucial skill in state-craft, also known as DIPLOMACY which just happens to be one of the PRIMARY jobs of so-called politicians).

The media isn't going to focus on "the win for Trump".  They're going to focus on the point of agreement, and the fact that Biden appeared to be a more honest and open debater.

And I would consider that a MAJOR IMPROVEMENT over the current system that simply promotes mindless spectacle.

That's why I proposed the 1/1/1 ranking system.

I find it much more practical to hone my rhetorical skill with the aim of convincing my opponent.

A judge can lie and say they are unbiased when in-fact they are emotionally (implicitly) predisposed to one position (and or participant) over the other.  Have you ever encountered a truly "unbiased" judge?

Based strictly on your proposed, "measure of a person's thoughts", both debate styles appear to be equal.

With perhaps some advantage to "self-moderated" because each participant would likely be expected to be biased toward themselves, (which denies any unfair advantage to either side) which would make a WIN exceptionally challenging and therefore exceptionally valuable.

Do you think it would be fair to say that you have zero interest in convincing your debate partner?

I believe the only measure of an argument should be your ability to convince an opponent.

By removing the "audience" from the equation, you automatically get a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas. It would also save a lot of time for the moderators sifting through long and detailed "reasons for vote". I'm sure a lot of "self-moderated" debates would end in a tie, but I don't see that as a "problem".

I do remember that there were a bunch of random SupaDudz posts in a bunch of different threads that were reported. If your memory is correct and you didn't reach double digits, then there might have been someone else involved. Of course, what do I know?

Hello. Long time no see.

It actually would. Public figures aren't protected by the CoC.

Are you sure about that? Whoever it was went around and reported large numbers of random posts (50 at least, probably more) he made, many of which weren't remotely offensive or controversial. I don't know if you did that or not, of course, but I'm not sure why you assume he was talking about you.

Killing yourself harms no one but yourself

It's not the only reason but lol it's definitely a reason up there, the vast majority of the middle east absolutely hates and loathes Israel. In return, that carries over to the United States.

I 2nd that oppinion and ask that he, and sadolite keep, their noses in a mask, and,  out of womens bodies, unless those women give their consent.  It is immoral to do otherwise, but who says sadolite or ethang have any moral intelegrity? Not me.

Ego is the greatest danger to humanity.

Political and economical class struggles push the world further and further into ultimate implosion and collapse. Individual rights far overpower the greater good in the world that all of us live in today, which leads humanity into a greed that cannot be cured unless there is a radical and rapid political and economical event that takes down the capitalist and part-communist governments that are in place today.

Hard work in capitalist society is rewarded rarely and that is the problem with society and the economy that is currently in place.

Crocism.

Why should we need a proxy, instead of giving needs directly to humans themselves?

It actually does one thing besides that, it satisfies the natural human greed for power.

When you work, you get rewarded, not with money but with food and needs This creates a world where everyone gets what they need.

Determinism, as suggested by countless philosophers suggests that our minds are simply predictable, our behavior is literally determined from the start. But, who determines our behavior in the first place? Philosophers state that there's external and internal forces that we can't possibly interfere with. If we can not interfere with them, that means, to us, they do not exist. We have no way of proving if they do exist or do not. So, why pretend that they have power? Determinism is further contradicted by the legal and moral obligations of a human being. True, parents have control over children. But, do they really? A child has the free will to run away. 

Free will is literally mastered by happiness and true justification within a human mind. Once you've achieved a true moral compass, you're free from the philosopher's version of "determinism", and you do have free will. Evil ones are easier to predict that moral ones.

So, in PURELY PRACTICAL TERMS, all "truth" must be 100% verifiable by empirical evidence and or logical necessity.

This renders "objective truth" a meaningless abstraction.

I see, so, do you think it would be fair to say you believe in "objective truth"?

Do you believe that "objective truth" is "truly true" independent of any form of human verification?

And if you do believe in "objective truth", can you please give me an example of something you believe qualifies as an "objective truth"?

Do you believe "universality" is only what "all humans" find "undeniable"? 

It sounds like you're pursuing APODICTIC TRUTH.

And good luck discovering APODICTIC TRUTH without engaging in "philosophy".

and not better merely in terms of being more effective at achieving your goal .... but better full stop, categorically? Is that what you mean by standards?

Of course, but it complicates matters when they give their reason for their action as "Because I freely chose to do it." .... then such an argument is needed.

they at least believe that they sometimes do. And my point is that they never do and nobody ever does.

But even if your example argument was sufficient, as you seem to believe it is, that would already show that philosophy can give concrete answers

Could you give an example of the sort of standard you mean?

I answer whether we have free will or not by looking at the sort of free will that most people believe in. It seems that what most people believe in is that whenever we do something we could have always done something else instead, and not out of pure randomness, but out of choice ... that we are in some way self-causing. And not in a shallow way where we cause our actions with our mind but then our mind itself is ultimately caused by factors beyond our  control ... but in an ultimately deep way so that we are somehow to be the cause of ourselves in an ultimate sense that would require one to be Causa sui. But such a kind of self-causation is impossible because it would lead to an infinite regress and we are finite beings. So that's a simple sketch of how it can be shown that the free will that most people believe in is impossible without requiring any sort of scientific evidence at all.  It's something that is impossible both under determinism and indeterminism, both under naturalism and supernaturalism and both under physicalism and idealism. 

My favorite version of the argument against the strong version of free will that most people irrationally believe in that is given by a professional philosopher is the following argument by Galen Strawson:

Premise 1: You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.

Premise 2: To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects

Premise 3: But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.

Conclusion: So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.