duly noted. I am switching things up when I can. I just want to make sure that when I do it, it's for artistic reasons and not "merely" a voter appeal. So arbitrary switch = bad and style based switch = good and if those are both true then = good.
I do that sometimes. My prewritten raps look more like strings of rapid rhymes.
One of my things is that I like to build up a story to tell and that forces me to cut back on the rhymes a bit.
Another part of my format as audience consideration. I want it to be easy to read.
Honestly, it doesn't matter how the words are blocked out per se. I made that example in a rap battle against RM actually. His rhymes are more or less structured like mine with two key differences.
A) He puts whole stanzas in a giant string of one or two lines.
B) He doesn't have any standards for a rhyme scheme per se and just kind of spits and plops rhymes down to fit his taste.
I know my stuff looks like I'm just writing stuff and plopping rhymes at the end, but I can assure you that's not always the case. Yes, I do that when I'm story telling my rap, but I also do it knowing in advance which words I want to rhyme and I try to set the story up to compliment those rhymes.
But I can also go the other way just as easily.
For example
"You're-blaming-and-flaming-the-voters-while-claiming-that-we-must-be-insane-to-not-accept-your-reign-and-hopping-on-the-train-of-RM-feigning-fame-retaining-off-your-name-while-failing-what-a-shame."
This was from my most recent battle that I'm still in with RM. I do a long string of rhymes, but notice how I still try to have a theme behind the rhymes. This is key for me personally because I like to tell stories and I mostly rap for my subjective enjoyment, although I love crowds too :)
But yeah, I just wanted to cover that because I think people think I don't mix it up just because I format my bars. I do that to make it easy for the voters to read and for me to reread. With that said. I am slave to certain patterns that's not an arbitrary critique that the voters have been giving. I consider it duly.
Fair response. I know my opinion is not popular and is contingent on the assumption that the website gets sufficient traffic
I would actually say that if moderation is the ultimate goal, that the current system has to be pretty close to ideal then. I thought it was too rigid at first. But I'm noticing that it's possible to cast a passing vote without writing a thesis, lol. It's difficult sometimes because the debaters don't always structure their arguments in a way that's easy to vote on. But no system is perfect I suppose.
How about this. If you're so confident that gambling is the proper foundation for knowledge, then debate me about it. Surely if it's the best way you should easily be able to rebut down all of my points in a real debate where you can't simply insult me and neigh say without reasons.
You gambling just means you have a 50/50 chance of ending up where I got on a 100% chance. Every claim is yes or no so it's 50/50. I bet you would like to think that it takes more skill because then it would make your poor excuses for a justification look like more than the frail attempt at knowledge that it is.
I hope you just said checkmate to yourself, because you just escort yourself back into your solipsism bubble. Philosophy doesn't care about your opinion either, so that makes you even.
btw. Solipsism is a philosophy.
Since you don't care what philosophy says, that means you sunk your own solipsism as well
You make know claims so your words are vacuous.
You laugh to yourself because you prove nothing.
You can't even prove your own position.
Your justifications are merely epistemological coin flips.
I was waiting for you to say that. I don't hold the same belief you do. My Axioms are justified through the principle of self evidence and then I can use the consistency of reality to achieve congruence between my senses and my a priori knowledge. So my a priori knowledge has justification (unlike yours) the fact that it's congruent with reality means that it also shares the consistency of reality.
You could do this too, if you weren't epistemologically cutting yourself off at the knee caps.
You're making a skeptical claim, but you have no claim to back it up. If your skepticism wasn't so unnecessarily broad, this wouldn't be a problem for you
Knowledge is a form of belief. The very fact that you don't believe it means you don't know it. At best, you're using incoherent language since you can't know something that you don't believe(this is universally accepted in philosophy). At the worst, you're in a state of cognitive dissonance. I'm willing to guess that it's the former.
You tell me the truth is a gamble and then that it's not a gamble. You can't know something 99% because you don't know what that 1% will lead you to. What if it leads you to another 10% more things you didn't know about. That means that you can't know that you're 99% sure. You can't even say you're 10% sure because until you done a complete 100% logical induction of something, then you can't know if it's 100%.
so all you can really say is that you "know to some unknowable degree".
Tell me, what's your justification for your statement that reality isn't real?
A justification has to be able to verify the soundness of your knowledge. Since you gamble, you cannot verify it, therefore, you have no justification for you knowledge. That means all knowledge claims you make are unsound because we can't know if your Axioms are grounded by chance or ungrounded by chance.
Cool, then what's the justification for your claim then since you're not in your solipsism bubble anymore. Also, if you justify your claim, does that mean you admit that knowledge is justifiable?
You could use the 5 forms of argument as the reasons for voting I suppose.
reductio ad absurdum
Induction
Abduction
Analogy
deduction.
There are others that can be added or assimilated into this depending on how people interpret an argument. But this would be a solid way to explain how you came to believe their argument using short hand. The problem isn't really in the explaining, but rather the length sometimes required for the explanation.
I think it's superior and he thinks there needs to be at least some direct moderating involved. I think it can be handled indirectly by vetting alt accounts and promoting high population voting that will absorb troll votes due to their size.
Totally off the wall question. How would you feel about unmoderated voting? Me and Omar are having a conversation about if it's good or not and I thought I'd get your take on it since you probably know more about the subject than I.
according to what you just said, it seems like his assessment would qualify. The only thing that seemed off to me is that he's suppose to address the main arguments on each side in some length. I could just be missing it in context. But speaking from my own experience, if I wrote what RM wrote, I generally would get my vote removed. I'm not prescribing anything here but rather just offering up what my experience has been on the website thus far.
You do realize that hombre is a Spanish word for man right? There's no way around this. If he wanted to target DRUG DEALERS then he would have ONLY said DRUG DEALERS, but he didn't.
Second, I'm not necessarily against strong borders.
I don't agree that ALL of the deported immigrants were illegals, but let's place that aside.
I was only pointing at his racism.
The point is that his argument specifically targets Hispanics. That's why he says Hombres. That's a form of racial slur. It's lock calling a French person jock.
Ironic that you call me stupid and dishonest when you resort to insults. Isn't that the pot calling the silver coin black.
I glad you passed on the debate because that saves me the trouble of doing so. I found your response underwhelming anyway.
Yes, that is one of the many times he said something to that effect.
The whole thing is a giant implications that we have "drug dealers" and "bad hombres" "bad dudes" (he always uses this general language to keep the curtain down.). But wait, how do we get rid of all these bad people? Borders? Borders from whom? Mexicans? They're the drug dealers? They're the bad hombres?
It's a racist statement.
If his problem was drug dealers and bad hombres, then he should be putting drug dealers and bad hombres in jail. why is he deporting Mexican families who never sold a drug in their life? Are those kids that got locked up the "Bad hombres?"
Lemme see how your rebuttal of this one point is and I'll decide. It's normally not a topic I would debate, so You're gonna have to convince me it's worth my time.
The statement you just made is a knowledge claim. You believe all knowledge is fallacious, therefore your claim is fallacious.
For future reference, anytime you step out of your solipsism bubble and claim ANYTHING, I will kindly escort you back into your bubble where you think you belong.
You're advocating for censorship. Who are you to call a thought genuine? You think all thoughts are fallacious, how can you even have a standard for a genuine thought?
He's on record making comments that would fit the definition of racism if I was holding a dictionary when he said them. That's a much higher level of evidence than you saying "there's no proof" which is not even a claim, but rather a shallow neigh say.
Just so we're clear here. He LITERALLY beliefs that everything around him is fake, but pretends it's real because it's practical to do so. Why argue anything in a comment section with somebody who thinks I'm an illusion. I'll do it in a debate where it's my job. But I'm not going to bang my head against the wall that is RM's solipsism.
Votes only get moderated when reported, so there should be no stigma on reporting votes. Obviously, we shouldn't do it in non standard debates, because they're for fun.
duly noted. I am switching things up when I can. I just want to make sure that when I do it, it's for artistic reasons and not "merely" a voter appeal. So arbitrary switch = bad and style based switch = good and if those are both true then = good.
Rap logic :)
Thanks for the critiques.
I do that sometimes. My prewritten raps look more like strings of rapid rhymes.
One of my things is that I like to build up a story to tell and that forces me to cut back on the rhymes a bit.
Another part of my format as audience consideration. I want it to be easy to read.
Honestly, it doesn't matter how the words are blocked out per se. I made that example in a rap battle against RM actually. His rhymes are more or less structured like mine with two key differences.
A) He puts whole stanzas in a giant string of one or two lines.
B) He doesn't have any standards for a rhyme scheme per se and just kind of spits and plops rhymes down to fit his taste.
I know my stuff looks like I'm just writing stuff and plopping rhymes at the end, but I can assure you that's not always the case. Yes, I do that when I'm story telling my rap, but I also do it knowing in advance which words I want to rhyme and I try to set the story up to compliment those rhymes.
But I can also go the other way just as easily.
For example
"You're-blaming-and-flaming-the-voters-while-claiming-that-we-must-be-insane-to-not-accept-your-reign-and-hopping-on-the-train-of-RM-feigning-fame-retaining-off-your-name-while-failing-what-a-shame."
This was from my most recent battle that I'm still in with RM. I do a long string of rhymes, but notice how I still try to have a theme behind the rhymes. This is key for me personally because I like to tell stories and I mostly rap for my subjective enjoyment, although I love crowds too :)
But yeah, I just wanted to cover that because I think people think I don't mix it up just because I format my bars. I do that to make it easy for the voters to read and for me to reread. With that said. I am slave to certain patterns that's not an arbitrary critique that the voters have been giving. I consider it duly.
I guess I'm losing my new rapper smell, lol. thanks for the votes as always.
Thanks for the R5 answer and the good debate as always.
Thanks for the input and subsequent vote.
Fair response. I know my opinion is not popular and is contingent on the assumption that the website gets sufficient traffic
I would actually say that if moderation is the ultimate goal, that the current system has to be pretty close to ideal then. I thought it was too rigid at first. But I'm noticing that it's possible to cast a passing vote without writing a thesis, lol. It's difficult sometimes because the debaters don't always structure their arguments in a way that's easy to vote on. But no system is perfect I suppose.
but that's your opinion. Can you show why that's objectively true?
solid counterbomb. respect
Explain an opinion? Why?
Do we explain political votes?
No
Let me save you the trouble, they're probably already teaching it.
Votes = opinons
A fair vote is a free vote.
there is no "objective vote"
The fact that you don't even know what hombre means shows that you don't understand the scope of how racist it is to use that phrase in such a way.
SUPPORT UNMODERATED VOTING
MORE VOTES = BETTER
I speak Spanish and hombre means man. it's not a pejorative term accept when he uses it in a racist manner.
How about this. If you're so confident that gambling is the proper foundation for knowledge, then debate me about it. Surely if it's the best way you should easily be able to rebut down all of my points in a real debate where you can't simply insult me and neigh say without reasons.
You gambling just means you have a 50/50 chance of ending up where I got on a 100% chance. Every claim is yes or no so it's 50/50. I bet you would like to think that it takes more skill because then it would make your poor excuses for a justification look like more than the frail attempt at knowledge that it is.
Ahh, the old "I know you are but what am I" defense. You do that all the time as does my 6 year old child.
You have proven my point that you have no claims.
As long as this is true, nobody will take your arguments seriously.
Have a good day.
My work here is done.
I hope you just said checkmate to yourself, because you just escort yourself back into your solipsism bubble. Philosophy doesn't care about your opinion either, so that makes you even.
btw. Solipsism is a philosophy.
Since you don't care what philosophy says, that means you sunk your own solipsism as well
You make know claims so your words are vacuous.
You laugh to yourself because you prove nothing.
You can't even prove your own position.
Your justifications are merely epistemological coin flips.
I'm sorry, was that suppose to be a rebuttal of self evidence? Would you like to actually make a claim against it?
Because otherwise, you're just wasting oxygen on the conversation.
I was waiting for you to say that. I don't hold the same belief you do. My Axioms are justified through the principle of self evidence and then I can use the consistency of reality to achieve congruence between my senses and my a priori knowledge. So my a priori knowledge has justification (unlike yours) the fact that it's congruent with reality means that it also shares the consistency of reality.
You could do this too, if you weren't epistemologically cutting yourself off at the knee caps.
You're making a skeptical claim, but you have no claim to back it up. If your skepticism wasn't so unnecessarily broad, this wouldn't be a problem for you
Knowledge is a form of belief. The very fact that you don't believe it means you don't know it. At best, you're using incoherent language since you can't know something that you don't believe(this is universally accepted in philosophy). At the worst, you're in a state of cognitive dissonance. I'm willing to guess that it's the former.
You tell me the truth is a gamble and then that it's not a gamble. You can't know something 99% because you don't know what that 1% will lead you to. What if it leads you to another 10% more things you didn't know about. That means that you can't know that you're 99% sure. You can't even say you're 10% sure because until you done a complete 100% logical induction of something, then you can't know if it's 100%.
so all you can really say is that you "know to some unknowable degree".
Tell me, what's your justification for your statement that reality isn't real?
A justification has to be able to verify the soundness of your knowledge. Since you gamble, you cannot verify it, therefore, you have no justification for you knowledge. That means all knowledge claims you make are unsound because we can't know if your Axioms are grounded by chance or ungrounded by chance.
But RM. How can you know if you don't think we can know anything?
Cool, then what's the justification for your claim then since you're not in your solipsism bubble anymore. Also, if you justify your claim, does that mean you admit that knowledge is justifiable?
That's interesting.
You could use the 5 forms of argument as the reasons for voting I suppose.
reductio ad absurdum
Induction
Abduction
Analogy
deduction.
There are others that can be added or assimilated into this depending on how people interpret an argument. But this would be a solid way to explain how you came to believe their argument using short hand. The problem isn't really in the explaining, but rather the length sometimes required for the explanation.
Just read that. See ya later man
I think it's superior and he thinks there needs to be at least some direct moderating involved. I think it can be handled indirectly by vetting alt accounts and promoting high population voting that will absorb troll votes due to their size.
Totally off the wall question. How would you feel about unmoderated voting? Me and Omar are having a conversation about if it's good or not and I thought I'd get your take on it since you probably know more about the subject than I.
Seems legitimate.
No, I got removed my first day here, lol. After that, I learned how to vote better.
That's a claim of knowledge, you think knowledge is fallacious, so your claim is fallacious.
Bubble Time.
according to what you just said, it seems like his assessment would qualify. The only thing that seemed off to me is that he's suppose to address the main arguments on each side in some length. I could just be missing it in context. But speaking from my own experience, if I wrote what RM wrote, I generally would get my vote removed. I'm not prescribing anything here but rather just offering up what my experience has been on the website thus far.
You do realize that hombre is a Spanish word for man right? There's no way around this. If he wanted to target DRUG DEALERS then he would have ONLY said DRUG DEALERS, but he didn't.
I like the rhyme scheme toward the end.
First of all. I'm not a leftist.
Second, I'm not necessarily against strong borders.
I don't agree that ALL of the deported immigrants were illegals, but let's place that aside.
I was only pointing at his racism.
The point is that his argument specifically targets Hispanics. That's why he says Hombres. That's a form of racial slur. It's lock calling a French person jock.
Ironic that you call me stupid and dishonest when you resort to insults. Isn't that the pot calling the silver coin black.
I glad you passed on the debate because that saves me the trouble of doing so. I found your response underwhelming anyway.
Yes, that is one of the many times he said something to that effect.
The whole thing is a giant implications that we have "drug dealers" and "bad hombres" "bad dudes" (he always uses this general language to keep the curtain down.). But wait, how do we get rid of all these bad people? Borders? Borders from whom? Mexicans? They're the drug dealers? They're the bad hombres?
It's a racist statement.
If his problem was drug dealers and bad hombres, then he should be putting drug dealers and bad hombres in jail. why is he deporting Mexican families who never sold a drug in their life? Are those kids that got locked up the "Bad hombres?"
Oh dear. You just told me you had a rebuttal for anything. surely something as popular as the bad hombre speech should be nothing for you.
Lemme see how your rebuttal of this one point is and I'll decide. It's normally not a topic I would debate, so You're gonna have to convince me it's worth my time.
Sure, rebut the "Bad Hombres" speech that he's repeatedly made. I'm waiting.
I never made such a claim. See how that works?
The statement you just made is a knowledge claim. You believe all knowledge is fallacious, therefore your claim is fallacious.
For future reference, anytime you step out of your solipsism bubble and claim ANYTHING, I will kindly escort you back into your bubble where you think you belong.
You're advocating for censorship. Who are you to call a thought genuine? You think all thoughts are fallacious, how can you even have a standard for a genuine thought?
He's on record making comments that would fit the definition of racism if I was holding a dictionary when he said them. That's a much higher level of evidence than you saying "there's no proof" which is not even a claim, but rather a shallow neigh say.
Well, I've addressed him on this before, But I'll tell you the same thing.
If voting was opened up, we'd get so many votes per debate, that it would absorb the troll voters and render their votes negligible.
Also, troll voters cancel each other out. For every liberal that makes 5 alt accounts, there's a counter troll making 5 conservative alt accounts.
But this 5 alt accounts would pale in comparison to the potentially high amount of votes we could get if we didn't get moderated.
There are ways to moderate voting indirectly as well.
For instance. We can fight alt accounts with directly fighting votes and we can moderate votes when alt accounts are discovered.
Just so we're clear here. He LITERALLY beliefs that everything around him is fake, but pretends it's real because it's practical to do so. Why argue anything in a comment section with somebody who thinks I'm an illusion. I'll do it in a debate where it's my job. But I'm not going to bang my head against the wall that is RM's solipsism.
It's your opinion that you used facts and commons sense. That doesn't necessarily make it true.
Challenging me to a debating wouldn't change real life, I might just miss an argument as well.
It's more like RM has no interest in truth, but rather winning, so to argue with him would be foolish on my part.
we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
gracias
I was enjoying myself too much as I wrote it. I think I have an inner troll.
Looking at you.
Votes only get moderated when reported, so there should be no stigma on reporting votes. Obviously, we shouldn't do it in non standard debates, because they're for fun.
Furthermore, I'm in favor of unmoderated voting.
SUPPORT UNMODERATED VOTING.