I have adopted a similar thought, but I don't word it the same and it probably doesn't have the same implications.
The way I word it is "No person actually thinks they're evil". My point here being that even Hitler thought he was doing the right thing or "being the hero of his own story".
I think you might be a rap titan bro. Votes aside. I underestimated you the first time we battled and looking back our battles are pretty epic. I think the only other people who can write at this caliber would be RM and Supadudz.
Sparrow/Type 1/(possibly also RM) might be up there with us, but it's hard to tell because his subject matter subjectively turns me off, so I'm biased towards his wraps. (note the inference that Sparrow/Type1/RM get ranked differently which shows a cognitive dissonance within the unholy trinity of Debart)
The key to appreciating lemon demon is to know which songs to listen to.
Not all of his stuff is palatable.
Damn Skippy
Dinosaurchestra
View Monster
These are the best ones in my opinion.
Spirit Phone is alright, but I only like bits and pieces.
For logic nerds. This guy has same seriously well hidden Easter eggs and subtle messages. Furthermore, several of his albums are cyclic (the beginning and end are seamless and the album can play in a loop)
On a side note. This guy also has some decent funny songs too (I love funny songs)
I like Lincoln park for nostalgic reasons (came out in my childhood) but objectively, they don't stand up to lemon demon.
My key contention would ultimately be that we're not asking the right question. Obviously, we have freedom of speech. That's a descriptive truth. People collectively want freedom of speech, even if it is subjective, and the law grants it to us as a right.
I think the best question to tackle this topic is "when should speech be free"
I think this line of reasoning would work with most moral/legal arguments.
Prisoners don't lose their freedom of speech. I think for a right to be inalienable, it would have to be such that there is no legal mechanism that is allowed to encroach upon it. I'm not convinced that any right should even have this status. I think every rule necessarily needs an exception.
I agree that I like that standard for subjective and practical reasons. I don't think that gets you to an inalienable right though. I think that gets you roughly to moral particularism. Just about any right will have a point where it infringes upon another. So just abought any right would be inalienable under this definition.
C Tribunal.
This system would send all reported votes into a public tribunal that can be voted on by anybody on the website. This would give the public a voice in whether or not the vote was fair or not. The key here is to put the power in as many hands as possible. It's not that I don't trust any particular moderator. But no moderator can make the right decision all of the time.
I could probably come up with more. But I've already went on too long.
I've thought at length about this and I see the possible problems with a completely open system, so I've brought a few suggestions.
1. Sectioned Ballots. = This would consist of turning the voting card into a type of homework assignment. There's lots of ways you could do this. You could have a section for each round of the debate and they must fill out a description for each round. This could even be reduced further by having the debaters frame their premises in a formatted section during the start of each round. The second option would be optimal, but would limit the flexibility of debate styles and would require probably too much footwork on the coding end. The advantage to the first option is that it's just flexible enough to fit all standard formats and would also make it easier to vote. I think the best way to moderate this option would be to put more general focus on the effort that the voter puts into their vote. Pragmatically speaking, it's more important that the voter's RFD is sincere rather than whether or not it's logical. In the end, none of us can really say that one methodology of logic is superior to another on any specific topic. Only in a broad sense.
2. Public Moderation.
This one is more vague because I honestly don't know the best way to implement it. But the general idea would be to have a downvoting type system similar to what you say on youtube. There's several ways to do this.
A. Tournament system. In this system, Vote can be liked or disliked and only the votes at the top X spots of the list will count toward the debate. This could also be done in intervals. (X spots are full vote Y votes are half votes, etc.)
B. Fall off system. This would be a system that would delete a vote if it gets downvoted too much. Up votes don't have to exist in this system, but they could as a counterbalance to stop unfair downvoting.
I feel like the current voting system leaves much to be desired. This is not in direct reference to my personal experience with the site, because for the most part, my votes have been handled more or less how I probably would have handled them under the current standard.
Let's call it the problem of judgement.
To vote objectively, one needs an objective standard.
The current voting system is certainly not arbitrary, but it doesn't have a truly objective standard.
Voters are objectively required to assess the arguments in an itemized fashion, but there is no rigid standard by which to control how these things are judged.
So far, the closets thing I've seen to regulating this problem is the standard that "the voter may not draw an outside conclusion". It's certainly a good start, but it has problems itself.
It would logically follow, that for a voter to vote, they'd have to at least take on one outside conclusion when weighing the burden of proof at the end.
to elaborate. If one is judging two arguments using only what the debaters have said, then the voter will be stuck with whatever convoluted logic that is presented by the debaters.
In general, the voter must judge whether they "believe" said arguments respectively.
But this causes a problem. If a voter believes or disbelieves based solely on the confines of the debater's arguments, then the voter is essentially trapped in a forced dichotomy where they must only adopt confidence based on two possible lines of reason that may not even logically follow with the burden of proof.
Ultimately, the voter is forced to believe or disbelieve based on their own general attitudes toward things. This means there will always be a subjective element and many voters will outright vote in a post hoc fashion (checking the points box first and explaining it after, I'm sure nobody's 100 percent innocent of doing this even if it was because they read the debate first)
Finally! Something I can apply my collective subjective argument too. Shameless spoilers. Since this is an anime debate, I'm going to add some ass pull and say that I'll make an "unreasonable comeback". ;)
4th pawn? You mean the queen's pawn opening AKA the start of the Queen's gambit? (d4) or do you mean the iconic e4 move known as the king's pawn opening?
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that you change rhyme schemes at times where they don't feel right to be changed. It feels forced.
Since the debate has chilled out now. I'd like to point out that I don't necessarily think that Jesus didn't exist. It's too difficult to prove one way or the other. I tend to lean towards the con side because there are no contemporary accounts, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't exist. In fact, it's probably quite likely that some Jesus like character existed, although, I'm not sure if he would 100% match the biblical Jesus. At the very least, the supernatural parts of the account are completely unprovable.
I think that's an overly simplistic assessment of how things went down. The guy who funds a business just because their dad left them some money did not earn as much the workers who built those companies on their backs. I'm not for the Bernie Sanders approach of taking all their money. But they get more than they deserve and they can have as much as they want as long as the workers get what they earned instead of the scraps that they tend to get now.
Because the voting argument says I'm allowed to disregard certain arguments if I have a good reason. I did have a good reason. Con brought up a point that lost him the debate on the spot which made all other points irrelevant. I also assessed pro's side as well to fulfill the burden of proof analysis. This is a standard that bsh1 himself said was okay and I've seen him leave up votes which were much less rigorous than mine.
When people didn't want blacks to vote in history, they would add extra requirements to voting to stop them from voting.
Whether intended or not, this is what is happening here. Making people explain votes is one thing. But tuning around and telling them their reason is not good enough is censorship. No moderation can know what convinces me of an argument and nobody can determine what is the proper way to be convinced of an argument.
If there was a truly objective way to vote, then there wouldn't be need for votes in the first place. You would be able to just have a computer figure it out.
You're reading the wrong mod comment. My vote was sufficient the first time. Bsh1 is simply coming up with post hoc justifications for why my vote doesn't meet standards.
This is why voting moderation is impractical. The only thing that should matter is if the person is voting sincerely. Beyond that, making them jump through hoops is akin to censorship.
Okay, I'm actually personally offended. This is the second time that you have said that I am being dishonest about my vote. Con literally states that as a Christian, he is against X views. Is this moderation or censorship? If you're going to be a dictator, then cool. But how dare you hide under the guise of objectivity when you go out of you way to delete votes that make an effort to explain their reasoning. Do you seriously think I'm voting dishonestly? You say that I'm reaching a conclusion that cannot possibly be reached from the argument? How could you possibly know that? Even if you could, how is my assessment unreachable from the argument? It's not my fault he admitted the position that he did.
The whole point of it being a logic is that it has to be consistent. If you can't apply the logic to other things without contradictions or vacuities, then your logic is flawed.
I just agreed that all people agree that humans exist. Now tell me how that proves anything? I'm not a donomination because I don't hold any of your actual tenants. Believing in humans is not a religious tenant.
It's not an original religion that came out of nowhere.
It's an evolved version of Judaism which evolved from a more primitive form of Judaism by mixing with Zoroastrianism.
So every Abrahamic religions derives from a mixture of primitive Judaism mixed with Zoroastrianism and it's anyone's guess which one of those came first.
Yes they both believe that humans exist. Congrats.
Believing that humans exist is not a religious tenant. I don't believe humans exist because of a decree that a holy book made.
I believe their are humans because I have senses and somebody told about this thing called a human which is an arbitrary label and I decided to use it for practical reasons. What's your point?
You're just arbitrarily picking one thing. I can do the same with your logic. This is what you're not realizing. I can arbitrarily point out the fact that they all have the same god and make them all one group in that way and say that Christianity is just a denomination of Judaism.
I didn't call you any names. The only thing I attacked was your logic, which is the nature of this dialogue.
Your argument shows a difference between the three and if that was your only argument then cool.
But that's not what you said before. It's not my logic that led you to the hard pill to swallow, it's your logic that did that. You wanted to lump the Christians into the Catholics using a standard but refused to use that standard where it applied in other places.
I'm not telling you not to be logical. I'm just telling you to use your logic consistently.
The reason I'm hostile is because I'm 30. I'm old enough to know that being polite is not always the answer. Some people are given too many allowances for their nonsense and need a dose of reality.
Alright, so if God decides and not you, then how do you know which religion is the true Christians? What if God decided that he likes the child raping Catholics more? It's his decision, not yours. You have no say in the matter right?
I don't think any religion is morally good. But I will say, that if I had to choose between being morally good on earth and being "good" because I prayed really hard but was a piece of crap on earth, I'd go with the former.
Like I said though, they're all crap. Judaism is probably the only Abrahamic religion that I can stomach to be perfectly honest.
You mean 10K
I have adopted a similar thought, but I don't word it the same and it probably doesn't have the same implications.
The way I word it is "No person actually thinks they're evil". My point here being that even Hitler thought he was doing the right thing or "being the hero of his own story".
I think you'd be a great person for this discussion if you're interested.
Wow. This is a close debate.
Hey Speed.
I think you might be a rap titan bro. Votes aside. I underestimated you the first time we battled and looking back our battles are pretty epic. I think the only other people who can write at this caliber would be RM and Supadudz.
Sparrow/Type 1/(possibly also RM) might be up there with us, but it's hard to tell because his subject matter subjectively turns me off, so I'm biased towards his wraps. (note the inference that Sparrow/Type1/RM get ranked differently which shows a cognitive dissonance within the unholy trinity of Debart)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7UbCh3IIAk&t=6s
The key to appreciating lemon demon is to know which songs to listen to.
Not all of his stuff is palatable.
Damn Skippy
Dinosaurchestra
View Monster
These are the best ones in my opinion.
Spirit Phone is alright, but I only like bits and pieces.
For logic nerds. This guy has same seriously well hidden Easter eggs and subtle messages. Furthermore, several of his albums are cyclic (the beginning and end are seamless and the album can play in a loop)
On a side note. This guy also has some decent funny songs too (I love funny songs)
I like Lincoln park for nostalgic reasons (came out in my childhood) but objectively, they don't stand up to lemon demon.
My key contention would ultimately be that we're not asking the right question. Obviously, we have freedom of speech. That's a descriptive truth. People collectively want freedom of speech, even if it is subjective, and the law grants it to us as a right.
I think the best question to tackle this topic is "when should speech be free"
I think this line of reasoning would work with most moral/legal arguments.
Prisoners don't lose their freedom of speech. I think for a right to be inalienable, it would have to be such that there is no legal mechanism that is allowed to encroach upon it. I'm not convinced that any right should even have this status. I think every rule necessarily needs an exception.
Last comment wasn't for you, ignore it.
I agree that I like that standard for subjective and practical reasons. I don't think that gets you to an inalienable right though. I think that gets you roughly to moral particularism. Just about any right will have a point where it infringes upon another. So just abought any right would be inalienable under this definition.
Hmmm. Rude as usual, no matter.
I don't mind the counter bomb. But it's a bummer that I have to miss out one of your epic RFD's.
Touche, but to be fair, you're accidental subjunctive use of the word "move" does make the sentence a tad choppy. ;)
Thank you. I'm trying to get past my biases on the matter and think about what works for everyone.
I'm from the USA as well.
Okay. We're on the same page then. So here's my contention.
If a right is inalienable simply because we "shouldn't violate it" then by what method do we determine whether or not it should be violated?
That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested in the answer.
C Tribunal.
This system would send all reported votes into a public tribunal that can be voted on by anybody on the website. This would give the public a voice in whether or not the vote was fair or not. The key here is to put the power in as many hands as possible. It's not that I don't trust any particular moderator. But no moderator can make the right decision all of the time.
I could probably come up with more. But I've already went on too long.
Sorry, ran out of filibustering space :)
I've thought at length about this and I see the possible problems with a completely open system, so I've brought a few suggestions.
1. Sectioned Ballots. = This would consist of turning the voting card into a type of homework assignment. There's lots of ways you could do this. You could have a section for each round of the debate and they must fill out a description for each round. This could even be reduced further by having the debaters frame their premises in a formatted section during the start of each round. The second option would be optimal, but would limit the flexibility of debate styles and would require probably too much footwork on the coding end. The advantage to the first option is that it's just flexible enough to fit all standard formats and would also make it easier to vote. I think the best way to moderate this option would be to put more general focus on the effort that the voter puts into their vote. Pragmatically speaking, it's more important that the voter's RFD is sincere rather than whether or not it's logical. In the end, none of us can really say that one methodology of logic is superior to another on any specific topic. Only in a broad sense.
2. Public Moderation.
This one is more vague because I honestly don't know the best way to implement it. But the general idea would be to have a downvoting type system similar to what you say on youtube. There's several ways to do this.
A. Tournament system. In this system, Vote can be liked or disliked and only the votes at the top X spots of the list will count toward the debate. This could also be done in intervals. (X spots are full vote Y votes are half votes, etc.)
B. Fall off system. This would be a system that would delete a vote if it gets downvoted too much. Up votes don't have to exist in this system, but they could as a counterbalance to stop unfair downvoting.
C. Tribunal. to be continued.
I feel like the current voting system leaves much to be desired. This is not in direct reference to my personal experience with the site, because for the most part, my votes have been handled more or less how I probably would have handled them under the current standard.
Let's call it the problem of judgement.
To vote objectively, one needs an objective standard.
The current voting system is certainly not arbitrary, but it doesn't have a truly objective standard.
Voters are objectively required to assess the arguments in an itemized fashion, but there is no rigid standard by which to control how these things are judged.
So far, the closets thing I've seen to regulating this problem is the standard that "the voter may not draw an outside conclusion". It's certainly a good start, but it has problems itself.
It would logically follow, that for a voter to vote, they'd have to at least take on one outside conclusion when weighing the burden of proof at the end.
to elaborate. If one is judging two arguments using only what the debaters have said, then the voter will be stuck with whatever convoluted logic that is presented by the debaters.
In general, the voter must judge whether they "believe" said arguments respectively.
But this causes a problem. If a voter believes or disbelieves based solely on the confines of the debater's arguments, then the voter is essentially trapped in a forced dichotomy where they must only adopt confidence based on two possible lines of reason that may not even logically follow with the burden of proof.
Ultimately, the voter is forced to believe or disbelieve based on their own general attitudes toward things. This means there will always be a subjective element and many voters will outright vote in a post hoc fashion (checking the points box first and explaining it after, I'm sure nobody's 100 percent innocent of doing this even if it was because they read the debate first)
I can't stand watching AOT dubbed because I'm so used to their Japanese voices. In particular, Hanji and Armin sound awful in English.
Finally! Something I can apply my collective subjective argument too. Shameless spoilers. Since this is an anime debate, I'm going to add some ass pull and say that I'll make an "unreasonable comeback". ;)
what makes a right inalienable? If you mean that people intrinsically can't violate it, then wouldn't the make the point of a right vacuous?
4th pawn? You mean the queen's pawn opening AKA the start of the Queen's gambit? (d4) or do you mean the iconic e4 move known as the king's pawn opening?
The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that you change rhyme schemes at times where they don't feel right to be changed. It feels forced.
gracias
exactly
Since the debate has chilled out now. I'd like to point out that I don't necessarily think that Jesus didn't exist. It's too difficult to prove one way or the other. I tend to lean towards the con side because there are no contemporary accounts, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't exist. In fact, it's probably quite likely that some Jesus like character existed, although, I'm not sure if he would 100% match the biblical Jesus. At the very least, the supernatural parts of the account are completely unprovable.
I think that's an overly simplistic assessment of how things went down. The guy who funds a business just because their dad left them some money did not earn as much the workers who built those companies on their backs. I'm not for the Bernie Sanders approach of taking all their money. But they get more than they deserve and they can have as much as they want as long as the workers get what they earned instead of the scraps that they tend to get now.
First of all. I don't see how that's true. Second, it's a troll debate.
lol. kudos to you. I never know which way he's going to vote on anything
I think you voted for the wrong person that you wanted to. You can probably get the mods to delete it for you to change it.
which one?
Political Belief: A belief that pertains to politics.
Religious Belief: A belief that is held as a religious tenant.
Gay Marriage: A political issue.
He believes as a Christian that gay marriage is wrong. His belief pertains to politics. It's a concession.
Because the voting argument says I'm allowed to disregard certain arguments if I have a good reason. I did have a good reason. Con brought up a point that lost him the debate on the spot which made all other points irrelevant. I also assessed pro's side as well to fulfill the burden of proof analysis. This is a standard that bsh1 himself said was okay and I've seen him leave up votes which were much less rigorous than mine.
When people didn't want blacks to vote in history, they would add extra requirements to voting to stop them from voting.
Whether intended or not, this is what is happening here. Making people explain votes is one thing. But tuning around and telling them their reason is not good enough is censorship. No moderation can know what convinces me of an argument and nobody can determine what is the proper way to be convinced of an argument.
If there was a truly objective way to vote, then there wouldn't be need for votes in the first place. You would be able to just have a computer figure it out.
You're reading the wrong mod comment. My vote was sufficient the first time. Bsh1 is simply coming up with post hoc justifications for why my vote doesn't meet standards.
This is why voting moderation is impractical. The only thing that should matter is if the person is voting sincerely. Beyond that, making them jump through hoops is akin to censorship.
Okay, I'm actually personally offended. This is the second time that you have said that I am being dishonest about my vote. Con literally states that as a Christian, he is against X views. Is this moderation or censorship? If you're going to be a dictator, then cool. But how dare you hide under the guise of objectivity when you go out of you way to delete votes that make an effort to explain their reasoning. Do you seriously think I'm voting dishonestly? You say that I'm reaching a conclusion that cannot possibly be reached from the argument? How could you possibly know that? Even if you could, how is my assessment unreachable from the argument? It's not my fault he admitted the position that he did.
It's like saying A because B and Not A because B but C. But A because B and C but D. etc. etc. It makes the logic arbitrary.
Semantically speaking, it's incoherent because it conflicts with other logic that you have.
The whole point of it being a logic is that it has to be consistent. If you can't apply the logic to other things without contradictions or vacuities, then your logic is flawed.
So you refuted yourself three times :)
By the way, the reductio ad absurdum that you performed, was on your own logic. Which is comical when one stops to think about it.
just because you say those words doesn't mean you did them correctly. You didn't use the proper logic. You just used a dis analogy
I just agreed that all people agree that humans exist. Now tell me how that proves anything? I'm not a donomination because I don't hold any of your actual tenants. Believing in humans is not a religious tenant.
I'm not choosing it to be a denomination, it is.
It's not an original religion that came out of nowhere.
It's an evolved version of Judaism which evolved from a more primitive form of Judaism by mixing with Zoroastrianism.
So every Abrahamic religions derives from a mixture of primitive Judaism mixed with Zoroastrianism and it's anyone's guess which one of those came first.
You already said that before.
Yes they both believe that humans exist. Congrats.
Believing that humans exist is not a religious tenant. I don't believe humans exist because of a decree that a holy book made.
I believe their are humans because I have senses and somebody told about this thing called a human which is an arbitrary label and I decided to use it for practical reasons. What's your point?
You're just arbitrarily picking one thing. I can do the same with your logic. This is what you're not realizing. I can arbitrarily point out the fact that they all have the same god and make them all one group in that way and say that Christianity is just a denomination of Judaism.
I didn't call you any names. The only thing I attacked was your logic, which is the nature of this dialogue.
Your argument shows a difference between the three and if that was your only argument then cool.
But that's not what you said before. It's not my logic that led you to the hard pill to swallow, it's your logic that did that. You wanted to lump the Christians into the Catholics using a standard but refused to use that standard where it applied in other places.
I'm not telling you not to be logical. I'm just telling you to use your logic consistently.
They have the same bible. How do you know who is reading it correctly? What if their interpretation is what God wanted?
31 actually. I had a birthday recently
The reason I'm hostile is because I'm 30. I'm old enough to know that being polite is not always the answer. Some people are given too many allowances for their nonsense and need a dose of reality.
Alright, so if God decides and not you, then how do you know which religion is the true Christians? What if God decided that he likes the child raping Catholics more? It's his decision, not yours. You have no say in the matter right?
I don't think any religion is morally good. But I will say, that if I had to choose between being morally good on earth and being "good" because I prayed really hard but was a piece of crap on earth, I'd go with the former.
Like I said though, they're all crap. Judaism is probably the only Abrahamic religion that I can stomach to be perfectly honest.