You're not judging them based on their viewpoints. You're judging them based off the conservative archetype you think they fit. Bigotry is generally immoral and unproductive. Being prejudice against a conservative is just as bad as being prejudice to any other group.
You're creating a stereotype of what a conservative is. It's like stereotyping atheism. Conservative just means you want to change things as little as possible. This leads to certain majority views, but being a conservative by no means forces anyone to act the way you're describing
The sad part is, that he would be an amazing debater if he wouldn't hand wave so much. That was my main problem with him on DDO. I'd write a 2 paragraph explanation with math and details to support them and he would just say "irrelevant" without a single elaboration.
I agree with that to an extent. But surely tangents happen. I would agree that at a certain point, it becomes more productive to move the conversation, but I think it's fair that the comment section has more 1st amendment going on if you catch my drift ;)
Also, I think it's slightly immature that you unblock me long enough to tag me and then reblock me. I literally never sent you a single message or comment before you joined this site so why are you blocking me? It's not like I'm trolling or stalking you, lol.
We did have some heated debates, but that's a silly reason to block someone.
I make them, but I don't think there is any formal restriction. Picking a generic meme would just be risky because if someone recognizes it, they might not like it as much for sake of the debate.
Don't worry about what everyone says. Come at me hard like you did the first time we battled and don't worry about what I or the voters say about your style. I'm insulting you in the rap because it's my job, don't take it personally. I'm ready to take your challenge when you're ready to come at me for real.
to me, it seems like he's giving up because if he goes all out and loses, then he won't have an excuse. Since he surrendered prematurely and then made a snide comment at the end about how my raps are simplistic (they're not) then he has an excuse to say "Oh I did lose, but only cause I wasn't trying, it doesn't matter anyway, I'll just get unfairly voted against because my raps are too genius"
I see no reason why forcing assimilation is a good thing. It violates the bill of rights. Which is strange because you seem to be all about preserving American culture. So why are you betraying the 1st amendment?
You're being obtuse. He's talking about immigrants. Not illegals. All immigrants. I don't care that he says bad hombre. It's about all of the crap he says around it that adds to the context of his bigotry.
Okay, what if it is culture based, that's just another face of bigotry. You say that like it makes it any better. He's literally accused people of being illegals simply because they're brown. The fact you have to replace racism with Bigotry just to save your argument shows how bad of faith you're arguing in right now.
It's doesn't become not racist just because a Hispanic person isn't offended by it.
He meets the textbook definition of racist statements.
He makes attributions of people based on their race. That's racism. It doesn't matter who found it offensive. Everybody in the world could like it and it would still be racism.
once you omit one piece of knowledge, then you can't say every piece is impossible because you don't know that what's in the piece that you left out won't lead to knowing everything. The most you could say is that it's unlikely.
Most Christians don't believe that he's god's son, but rather god himself. Some religions just think he was a profit, Mormons think that Jesus is the actual son of god and not the same person at all.
there is tons of material on pascal's wager if you're ever curious, but it's not really a logical argument. It's actually a technique that a specific person invented as a reason to convert to Christianity.
You could say it's logical to an extent, but ultimately making any decision off of it is merely a gamble. So you don't get knowledge out of it, but rather a chance of practicality if you happen to make the right choice.
So you're saying that the god topic is too short for R3 debates? I may be inclined to agree with that.
One thing I do want to avoid is circular rebuttals. I feel like they don't add anything to the argument. That's why I like the question round because it's my way of getting people to rebuttal me without just making the same assertion. So if I say thing X in R1 and you say thing Y in R2 and then I say thing X again in R3, then we've made a circle now (hopefully the R3 would be a counter, rather than a circle, but that's not usually the case). So at this point, the R4 can break the circle by forcing them to rebuttal in the form of a question. This forces both of them to put aside the assertions and answer tough questions honestly. I also think it chills the tension in the debate as well. Of course, people could still dodge and assert things with questions. But no system is perfect.
Well if it's logically sound, then what's the problem? I do think links are good at times, but I think they can also saturate a debate. I think instead of just having links always ready at the beginning, we should just pop them in when they are called for. Some debate topics don't end up needing links because the opponents don't say anything that call for it.
I believe you're right on the word limit. It's mostly to prevent filibustering. But I'll probably just go with the normal 10K limit I use which I have almost never seen anybody cap out on.
Is your second critique aimed at the structure of the rebuttals?
You're not judging them based on their viewpoints. You're judging them based off the conservative archetype you think they fit. Bigotry is generally immoral and unproductive. Being prejudice against a conservative is just as bad as being prejudice to any other group.
That's a bigoted approach.
Typo on the last line "Must have said no" is what I meant to say.
Here's a whacky idea, how about we judge people as individuals instead?
You're creating a stereotype of what a conservative is. It's like stereotyping atheism. Conservative just means you want to change things as little as possible. This leads to certain majority views, but being a conservative by no means forces anyone to act the way you're describing
perhaps it was too PUNgent for you to handle.
That seems like a false narrative of the conservative mindset.
You want me to be held responsible for my words.
That's a conservative value.
Well aren't you conservative all of a sudden.
I know. But it feels good to type it.
I believe no gods exist...…………………………………………………...
Touche
Wow, you're punctuality is stunning. :)
I'm in favor of universal application of free speech. As for limiting certain speech. I see no compelling case beside maybe inciting violence/crime.
The sad part is, that he would be an amazing debater if he wouldn't hand wave so much. That was my main problem with him on DDO. I'd write a 2 paragraph explanation with math and details to support them and he would just say "irrelevant" without a single elaboration.
I agree with that to an extent. But surely tangents happen. I would agree that at a certain point, it becomes more productive to move the conversation, but I think it's fair that the comment section has more 1st amendment going on if you catch my drift ;)
Also, I think it's slightly immature that you unblock me long enough to tag me and then reblock me. I literally never sent you a single message or comment before you joined this site so why are you blocking me? It's not like I'm trolling or stalking you, lol.
We did have some heated debates, but that's a silly reason to block someone.
But it's your prerogative I guess.
Seclusion = Echo Chamber
I make them, but I don't think there is any formal restriction. Picking a generic meme would just be risky because if someone recognizes it, they might not like it as much for sake of the debate.
It's all subjective anyway
I'm not instigating, but you two should word fight :)
the tension is thick in this room
I like the new pic
so many votes.
epic.
Don't worry about what everyone says. Come at me hard like you did the first time we battled and don't worry about what I or the voters say about your style. I'm insulting you in the rap because it's my job, don't take it personally. I'm ready to take your challenge when you're ready to come at me for real.
to me, it seems like he's giving up because if he goes all out and loses, then he won't have an excuse. Since he surrendered prematurely and then made a snide comment at the end about how my raps are simplistic (they're not) then he has an excuse to say "Oh I did lose, but only cause I wasn't trying, it doesn't matter anyway, I'll just get unfairly voted against because my raps are too genius"
lol, RFD. Rhymes for Decision.
same
this guy gets me, lol.
I shant =p
Thanks. Now I know.
I see no reason why forcing assimilation is a good thing. It violates the bill of rights. Which is strange because you seem to be all about preserving American culture. So why are you betraying the 1st amendment?
You're being obtuse. He's talking about immigrants. Not illegals. All immigrants. I don't care that he says bad hombre. It's about all of the crap he says around it that adds to the context of his bigotry.
Okay, what if it is culture based, that's just another face of bigotry. You say that like it makes it any better. He's literally accused people of being illegals simply because they're brown. The fact you have to replace racism with Bigotry just to save your argument shows how bad of faith you're arguing in right now.
I see it now.
It's doesn't become not racist just because a Hispanic person isn't offended by it.
He meets the textbook definition of racist statements.
He makes attributions of people based on their race. That's racism. It doesn't matter who found it offensive. Everybody in the world could like it and it would still be racism.
abuela means grandma. Point?
en serio?
more brackets for me then. :)
what's wrong with brackets. They're neat. neat things are neat. isn't that neat?
Bummer, sorry to hear that.
that sucks, are you on a phone?
once you omit one piece of knowledge, then you can't say every piece is impossible because you don't know that what's in the piece that you left out won't lead to knowing everything. The most you could say is that it's unlikely.
I agree with your second statement.
It's a mathematical enclosure.
That's probably the most popular belief among Christians.
Most Christians don't believe that he's god's son, but rather god himself. Some religions just think he was a profit, Mormons think that Jesus is the actual son of god and not the same person at all.
Depends on the sect.
Not necessarily. That could be the case, or it could not. but I believe that we can know some things 100%
lol, indeed
that was mostly me.
I never said there was anything bad about opinions.
It depends on the opinion.
there is tons of material on pascal's wager if you're ever curious, but it's not really a logical argument. It's actually a technique that a specific person invented as a reason to convert to Christianity.
You could say it's logical to an extent, but ultimately making any decision off of it is merely a gamble. So you don't get knowledge out of it, but rather a chance of practicality if you happen to make the right choice.
So you're saying that the god topic is too short for R3 debates? I may be inclined to agree with that.
One thing I do want to avoid is circular rebuttals. I feel like they don't add anything to the argument. That's why I like the question round because it's my way of getting people to rebuttal me without just making the same assertion. So if I say thing X in R1 and you say thing Y in R2 and then I say thing X again in R3, then we've made a circle now (hopefully the R3 would be a counter, rather than a circle, but that's not usually the case). So at this point, the R4 can break the circle by forcing them to rebuttal in the form of a question. This forces both of them to put aside the assertions and answer tough questions honestly. I also think it chills the tension in the debate as well. Of course, people could still dodge and assert things with questions. But no system is perfect.
Well if it's logically sound, then what's the problem? I do think links are good at times, but I think they can also saturate a debate. I think instead of just having links always ready at the beginning, we should just pop them in when they are called for. Some debate topics don't end up needing links because the opponents don't say anything that call for it.
Duly noted.
I believe you're right on the word limit. It's mostly to prevent filibustering. But I'll probably just go with the normal 10K limit I use which I have almost never seen anybody cap out on.
Is your second critique aimed at the structure of the rebuttals?