Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I think you're a bit too data-driven; where data is not present, logic suffices. The absence of data is not justification for suggesting we cannot make claims that are meaningful and weighty. That philosophical note aside, here are my replies, such as they are.
Which is why added the explanation part as well. If a person does not have evidence they can explain why something would work or fail.
Logic. If users do not have to write RFDs, it becomes easier for them to vote bomb (less effort involved) and harder for moderation to detect (sense we cannot draw inferences from their RFDs). Instead, moderation would need to rely more heavily on patterns of voting, which remains our chief tool in the status quo, to make those kinds of assessments.
My question was directed to opt-out debates. Are those debates not going to have RFD's? Another way which I can read your statement here is that you guys have already implemented RFD's so why are you defending it as if I have a problem with? If I am wrong on both conclusion do tell.
I do have data, though. DDO has an opt-out system.
How do you even access that?
No one used it. Like, literally no one. Besides, most people are going to want to be able to appeal to have obvious vote bombs and bad votes removed, because most people aren't really going to want those kinds of votes to stand on their debates.
Okay.
Have you seen how pissed people get when they report votes and those votes don't get removed?
Yes I have been mad.
Imagine that, but multiplied. So, no, most people are not going to opt-out.
My question would be why even have a vote on something that from prior knowledge from DDO barely anyone used?
If you accept a debate without reading the rules, someone (not me) might argue that you can't complain when the rules come back to bite you. It's a legitimate argument. Certainly, it's mitigating, but I don't think it totally defeats the argument you're making.
Surely if you or Virtuoso decide to make a poll about how many people actually read the restrictions of the debate. You would have data to support using colour to highlight key data or realise people for the most part from people who engaged with the pool actually read the restrictions.
Either you consented, and so you can't complain.
This doesn't make sense. If I have a problem lets say with my contract and would like a raise. Your answer would be "you consented" "so you can't complain". The problem here is that laws are put in place in order for unfair contracts not specifically asking for a raise but to a contract you consented to but did not know what the extent of the harm that contract can do to you when in the process of fulfilling the contract. Do you have something in place for that?
Or you failed to actually read the rules, and so you can't complain.
Yes people should be punished for not following the rules but if the majority of people who are new to this site do not even bother reading the rules. Shouldn't you or Virtuoso find a new way to highlight the rules of the site? Why not at the bottom of the page have "Rules and Code of Conduct" coloured differently to stand out and in order for the user to remove that colour they would have to click. I would also like you or Virutoso to add a lite version of the rules right at the start of it so that people would have less excuses for not reading it.
you're weighing the mitigated danger of users inadvertently accepting opt-out debates against the benefits of increased flexibility for that minority of users who wants it
Flexibility comes at a cost. I much rather have everyone following the same rules of debating then having opt-out debates which can lead to not as heavily moderated un-fair voting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
What is your explanation or evidence to support a claim like this?vote rigging to climb the COC, which is probably more likely with an opt-out, but not much.
still probably won't agree to take opt-out debates and because vote rigging would still be prohibited.
I don't think you can say most people won't take the opt-out debates until you have data to support the claim. Do you have any or an explanation?
Isn't vote rigging a form of moderation? With this in mind even opt-out debates would still have moderation. So basically an opt-out debate would have less moderation not no moderation.
I think the most legitimate harm is that some users may inadvertently accept debates without realizing that those debates opted out of moderation.
Which I think will happen more often than not but I have anecdotes to support that is occurring right now when they didn't know the restrictions put in place by the instigator.
That's how I see the issue, but others may see it differently, which is why we have this democratic process.
I don't see why a less rules option is even being democratically voted on. From my eyes it just gives rise to mob voting and creating mobs. On the basis of there is a less moderation debate option that will give mobs less restrictions on who to vote against simply because they dislike the guy. A massive burden will be on the one to prove it but I have one person who is voting against me even though the instigator forfeited every single Round. Why wouldn't he simply vote against me because as you can see he can't stand me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
which is more likely, that ideas are "festering" or being articulated because of its known nature?
That is the only place where you can fester your ideas and people can take you seriously since there isn't an academic requirement to making claims about "spirituality".
No conspiracies, actually spirituality has been articulated for ages, and now we have the speculation of materialism...hmmmm, which one is the conspiracy??
Still a conspiracy. You have to provide me no proof of this yet you say there is enough data to cross-examine it. If you can cross-examine it where is your initial data that your a cross-examining?
yes there are many professionals of the field. If you want my recommendation I have several sources.
Yes I would like a source. I don't see the point of you typing out this source without giving me a source and a professional names.
Wrong, its experiences transcend the physical world while also including the physical sense perception. However, the physical world and the physical sense perception is not the only experience. Spirituality is the observation that reaches beyond those material perceptions.
So why can't science see what starts such an experience in the physical world in order to find the physical element that causes it?
I am making statements about what you said as well, how is my conclusions cherry picking if yours is not??
I was saying you are cherry-picking data. That would be an assumption but more than likely the way you have evidence by me simply saying I don't have "spirituality" would either mean there is an exception to your anecdotes or you completely disregard. Which one do you pick?
How ignorant of you to suggest, since spirituality and the nature of our existence has been known for ages.You have to acknowledge the nature of spirituality, if you do anything else at least do that. You can label experiences anecdotes but they are first hand encounters. They can then be used for cross referencing.
I am waiting on this "proof" and a professional instead of someone like yourself.
Why are these testimonials not applied to strict rules of validity?? considering they are included as evidence??
Who is the one who in the context of spirituality measures anecdotes about the non-physical world?
I supplied the dynamics involved and the nature. I'm not saying that testimonial evidence is what should convince you, rather the abundance of evidence should suggest to you that there is an objective reality that transcends the physical sense perception. If it's not convincing for you, fine. If I'm to reject it though, I'd have to erase my own experience and evidence that suggests it so. I wouldn't do that because I'm intellectually honest.
I would like to see this abundance of evidence cross-examined by a professional in this field.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
They don't exist. Do you have a science paper to support that there are a race of people called the Tulpas?Tulpas are a race of people who inhabit a human body along with the original owner of the body. Mods believe that this race of people should not even be considered their own people so they are fprced to share accounts with their human hosts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You want me to pick out more "Iconic" quotes?id like to see what you would have picked for me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
What does your race have to do with sharing an account?Apparently the mods are racist and Tulpas don't count as people.
What is a Tulpas?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
they don't know what creates your conscious awareness and that's where spirituality picks up the ball.
In other words that is the only place where such an idea can fester? Where we have no idea what actually occurs so that you can carry on with your conspiracy theories?
Science observes a different nature than spirituality.
So why isn't their professionals dedicated to spirituality and learning what occurs in the conscious instead of people like you who look at anecdotes? Do you know a professional in the field?
But just like electricity and energy consciousness exists independent of forms.
So you are making the claim spirituality has no attachment to the physical world?
And I find your conclusions cherry picking, who's right lol?
How am I cherry-picking? I am fairly looking at what you said instead of representing the bad or the good instead I am making statements about what you said.
Wrong and how immature of you to suggest that. Oh well that's what I expect from a debate forum anyways.
Says the person who is talking about something in which there has been very little known about it.
You have to acknowledge the nature of spirituality, if you do anything else at least do that. You can label experiences anecdotes but they are first hand encounters. They can then be used for cross referencing.
Why are these anecdotes not applying to strict rules of validity valid?
If there are strict rules of validity what are they? If they don't conform to what you believe is it wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Is having two people use an account allowed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Type in "RationalMadman" to find out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I didn't know that. Guess RM has you blocked as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
No, there are MANY "proofs" not just one.
So many anecdotes?
Haha, this makes me wonder if you've paid attention to anything I wrote and the nature thereof. Science is incompatible with the nature of spirituality, as it studies something entirely different.one way I confirm evidence is through cross examination but I'm not sure that answers your question.
I find this a simply you pick data that suit your narrative and leave out that doesn't. If spirituality was real science would see the observable evidence in our brains to justify a conclusion. Science is based on observable evidence. Spirituality I am sure occurs in the brain therefore science should be able to see brain patterns that cause such a reaction. I'll take it you are not able to find observable brain data to prove the existence of "spirituality"?
Yes, cross examination.
I find this a simple cherry-picking. You find data that suites you and disregard anything else. If you go off on anecdotes as evidence then take this anecdote. I have never had spiritual a encounter. Am I wrong? Are you wrong? What happens with this new anecdote?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Whiteflame is open about his true identity so his name appearing on the video does not count as it also appears on his DDO profile and I believe he has stated what it was here also.
So you are doing this to find people's identity?
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Things that makes sense.
Tell me something that makes sense.
For example with spirituality, evidence is in tune with testimonials as opposed to physical based evidence.
So basically you are saying there is proof that this one person experienced something to do with spirituality.
Do you have a science paper to support an anecdote like this?
one way I confirm evidence is through cross examination but I'm not sure that answers your question.
Cross-examination of spirituality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The interpretation comes through logic and rationale, the evidence comes through what correlates with that specific nature. This goes into the experiential world of religion and the vast arena of spirituality.
This does not help me.
What type of logic?
What do you mean by rationale?
the evidence comes through what correlates with that specific nature.
Are you saying you find evidence to what you already believe in?
Lets say I give you X evidence to something. I don't want a depends instead would like to know the process of how you say this evidence is true or false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
There has only been 1 I think which was between Virtuoso and bsh1 on this site. Don't know about DDO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
What are the benefits of question 3 apart from less work for you and Virtuoso to do?
Is a debate that is not being moderated still be part of the leader-board?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Was what I said correct about needing a claim, evidence and explanation?I was unclear as to whether you were voting yes or no.
If so then that is a yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
again my faith has no part in this, first I interpret the propositions and evidence available.....then I have faith in it when it makes sense to me, so my faith is not impacting anything, rather my faith comes after I have evaluated everything and I fully trust it.
What way are you interpreting the propositions and evidence?
Please be brief and specific.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
One minute you accuse me of making claims, and now your saying I "am incapable". Make your FKN mind up FFS!
You can make a claim on what is without it being what ought to be. You are actually don't know the difference. Why are you here when you don't know the difference?
What generalisations? I haven't made any of those either.And what have I made "so specific"?Stop cross threading.
So what is this?
They just know how to integrated and appreciate the western country that has over 4 million muslims; don't they?
Not a gross generalisation?
Show this forum right now where i have said "muslims" had anything to do with the Sri Lankan attacks. You are just full of crap.
I was talking about Muslims not the Sri Lankan attacks. Where did you get that idea?
Let us all see your evidence where I have said "muslims did this". Come on, right now!!!
Are you actually offended that someone is calling you out for your bad choice of words? Did no-one in your life tell you how to speak? Oh well guess I am here and do see how to lay out an argument. I have shown it to you here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1672?page=1&post_number=21
Go read it then come back to tell me that you are incapable or maybe you are. Good for you and maybe you will finally know how to make a good argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So then there are health benefits for genital mutilation.
I wasn't referencing Transgenders with genital mutilation. I was referring people who do not suffer from gender dysphoria. Specifically hetero-sexual men and women.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is genital mutilation part of the treatment?
Might be. Depends on what the doctor thinks is best.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Gods are more popular by followers and currency.We even anthropomorphize Aliens. Those are as popular as jealous Gods.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are actually incapable of making an ought claim and require me to question you about what you want out from an is statement. Tell me do you know the difference between an is and ought statement? Make sure to give an example so I actually understand if you know how to use it.Who said they couldn't. I DIDN'T. Your buffoonery knows no bounds does it?
And I have not said or claimed anything "will happen" either. Show me where I have done that.
Why are you making it so specific when it is so common for you to make gross generalisations? Note also I did not direct it at Sri Lanka instead at what you do on the regular. You say Muslims did this and that but don't say what should be done. Why? Are you incapable of an ought statement or do you not actually want to help out the situation? Come on it is not that difficult if you understand it that is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have criticized Christianity and avidly questioned and scrutinised the New Testament much more often than I ever have Islam.
Evidence says otherwise. Do you want me to go through your entire forum posts? I just went through the recent ones and it does state that you criticize Islam more than Christianity.
But that seems ok with with the islam apologist here.
I think you must be delusional. I have shown evidence of your most recent post more about Islam than about Christianity. You have brought a claim with no evidence. Do you have any evidence apart from your word? If you didn't see it in a 2 page forum post. I will post it here as well.
Very Flesh & Blood "angels". Christianity
Am I A Christianophobe? More so Islam
It is a ideology AND followed by muslims...... PLURAL!!!!
What is your point?
I know there is more than one follower of Islam but that doesn't mean they follow every single verse like a fundamentalist. You have yet to give a reasonable argument against how to clearly lay out your point. Can you or are incapable of rational thought?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
One by Stronn
I agree. Blacks and most whites should be in one school, and white Southerners like yourself should have their own "special" school.
Made in the same one as before but this one is good. The forum poster made an is statement and Stronn derived this ought statement from it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
One by 3RU7AL
I hope you're at least 90 years old. Or a Russian bot.
Made in the forum post "Was Brown vs Board of Education a mistake?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
One by WisdomofAges
ABSOLUTELY....only a total dumbed down FOOL would disagree....and there are billions of them !
Post #2
This was made in a forum post about the internet and still WoA can't stop with his way of talking. The entire paragraph can be quoted but that should be enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
An Iconic quote typed by RM.
Kid are you FUCKING KIDDING ME? You god damn feeble excuse of a mod.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
My favourite quote by you
Despite my ranking, there are many on this site that I think are better then me like RM, blamonkey, Our Boat Is Right and Bsh1.
Post #4
The person I am mentioning is Our_Boat_is_Right with a 20% win percentage and debates like CNN IS FAKE NEWS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think you are getting things mixed up.
Muslim is a follower of Islam.
Islam is a Religion.
Christian is a follower of Christianity.
Christianity is a Religion.
So it should say Islam was the Religion blamed for the attack not "Muslims were the religion to blame for the attack"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
There an additional aspect to consider in addressing the problem with respect to genuine Islam.
What?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
X amount of Muslims from X region have these views. This has been linked to X event occurring (linking a reliable source as evidence) in the same region. X source (also a reliable source) states the leading cause of X action is X thing. This should be addressed as a problem and I offer X as the solution. This solution has worked in X scenario (giving evidence of this occurring as well).
I added an ought statement that starts with "This should" because that is missing from his points as well. It is no good simply laying out a problem correctly when not saying how this problem can be solved. Ought statements were also missing from his points which I am sure I have mentioned one of the most earliest encounters I had with him.
Do tell me if I am asking to much or this is not needed for him to substantiate his point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Humans are regularly responsible for acts of violence. Some use religion to justify their actions some political ideologies some use racism others never bother trying to justify their actions at all.
Yes.
If I understand your objection properly you do not so much mind him pointing out that humans are dangerous but only for failing to recognize the danger presented by non-muslim humans.
Yes.
I want to add also I want him to use a better word than the plural of Muslims. A way the plural of Muslims can work is that straight after saying it or underneath his statements he quantifies them by a number and which region they are from. I am more than happy with that since it does stop it from being categorised as all Muslims instead it is specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay then. I specifically meant Muslims as foreigners since I haven't heard him speak about Europeans.You asked specifically about foreigners not Muslims.
His attitude toward an entire demographic of people may be suggestive of his opinions about foreigners or it may not.
I don't think it is substantial. If we actually followed the way he speaks about Muslims they would be doing violence acts regularly but they are not and for him to not make a better categorisation of the Muslims that do commit terror is a problem of thinking a minority of a group speak for the majority if they are not representatives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I can't get to that position when he doesn't even apologise for making mistakes. He didn't know how to use a calculator, made a statement that wasn't even about the topic at hand while also adding insults as if that improves his point.
his posts do seem to suggest to the casual observer that this is the case.
Let me go through his forum posts with you.
Very Flesh & Blood "angels". Christianity
Am I A Christianophobe? More so Islam
Am I not supposed to a correlation here? This is not me cherry-picking instead seeing his most recent posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Would it be fair to say since he can't see the people who he associates with as bad people he has a dislike for foreigners even though they are prone to the same bad actions as them?Which even if true has not stopped christians throughout history from using violence as a conversion tool.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
How many Muslims follow that verse you are talking about? It would be better for your case if you can find the verse that says it as well.But according to their religion, if someone does not convert, they must draw their swords.
Muslims have shot up churches, LGBTQ+ night clubs, and orphanages.
Individuals have done X. Should we make this a representation of the group? No because the majority of the group do not do these said attacks.
There religion vouches for this act of terrorism, and when they do it, they are not punished.
Guessing in Muslim majority countries they won't get punished but if they are doing it in areas that are not Muslim majority then they should be punished. Louis Farrakhan should also be punished. I make the Muslim majority countries distinction because they would have a form of Sharia law.
It is not the people, but it is the Religion's.
No it is individuals using X reason to carry out acts. With this individual I am guessing the person had justification with Islam and other factors as well. I'll wait until they have more information about the case.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
My point is that you don't know what happened and for you to claim that something will happened is ignorant. You can't tell the future and by reading your posts you like doing so anyway.What's your point?
I'll use your link to tell you about it:
"Now let us wait for the Prime Minister of New Zealand to condemn this atrocity whilst wearing a Crucifix and the rest of our world leaders to show there outrage and outpouring of grief whilst they are remembering the dead and injured stuck down while at prayer on one of the holiest days in the Christian calendar."
So what are you doing here then? You are making claims about the future as if you have some sort experience in doing so or at very least know what you are talking about instead of acting like a reactionary.
Crucifix what do you mean?
So a Muslim and a Christian can't share a platform?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1. I would pick C because there is a little difference between 50 and 100 forum posts if you are active on the site. 2 debates is also a really easy requirement to meet if people actually care about their presence on the site.
2. I don't know.
3. If you remove moderation I am sure this can lead to the person asking for the removal from their debate to ask their friends to vote bomb the debate in his/her favour. I think that would be a problem if this was an option so I would say no because I don't see the positives of such an idea and the problem I mentioned earlier requires moderation.
4. Okay claim, evidence and explanations sounds good enough for me. I hope I not reading that wrong.
From my argument here https://www.debateart.com/debates/742 which is an example of a claim, evidence and explanation:
Secondly drugs are smuggled in using legal ports of entry. Claim
This is sourced by the National Drug Threat Assessment. Evidence
Click here if you don't want to find it in the article “National Drug Threat Assessment”
If it wasn’t clear already Trump has made no mention of improving the legal ports and since it wouldn’t be intrinsic to a border wall therefore another problem a Trump proposed border wall will not fix. Explanation
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I don't really want to when the event happened so soon. There requires to be more information for us to understand what happened. You don't listen to that and decide to make a thread about something that we require more information for.Just as I thought. You are totally incapable of starting a thread .
Asking where is the New Zealand Prime Minister showing her outpouring of grief and mourning whilst wearing a crucifix and sharing a platform with the local bishop of Christchurch?
Crucifix what do you mean?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes and when people do then other people can come along and say no you are wrong. God flies in the face of cause and effect,Nah, we anthropomorphize just about anything we see or hear about. Especially animals. Humans are a ball of hubris.
creatio ex nihilo has never been and a soul has not been proven to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
K_Michael is correct. The case with Transgenderism is that it is main to treat it. If there was a better way doctors would not be doing such a thing but there hasn't been a breakthrough in helping these people. Maybe they find a way to help them without having them change gender or maybe they have to but the process is better.Are you referencing Transgenders with genital mutilation?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
We would have to prove its existence before we can attribute something to it.Jealous Gods are the most popular.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I normally get messages when something I was a part of happens on this site which is a good thing. Not all of the messages go to my inbox instead directly go to my Junk. I create a rule but then the same message from the same person ([email protected]) some of it goes to my Junk section. Only some of it. Is this a problem on your side or has someone pointed this out and you already have a way of fixing it?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am waiting for Stephen to dedicate a threat about it.
Islam is not a Religion of peace if you define peace as Freedom from disturbance; tranquillity. The only way that can occur if everyone follows Islam. It is not the case.
Created: