Total posts: 9,115
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I can't accept 2 baseless arguments at once. One has to win
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Trust me. I was very shocked that a black man would abandon his responsibility to raise a child
Created:
Oh after I dropped him off I got a dui on the way home.
Created:
So I go to my regular bar and am shooting some pool when these two transgender people ask to play with me. One is obviously a female to male transgender and one is a male to female tranny. We will call the FtM Dick and the MtF Tracy.
Tracy starts hitting on me but I start hitting on Dick. This pisses Tracy off and Dick is pretty much annoyed and asking if I am gay because they consider themselves a male. Tracy also gets mad and calls me a faggot. I tell Tracy that I am gay for Dicks Vagina. Tracy walks offing a huff and asks dick if they are coming and dick says "no just leave I will find my own way home"
When Tracy leaves dick says
"You are not gay for my vagina you are just fucking with me"
I was fucking with them but didn't want to admit it.
"Bro I am a huge faggot for that vagina"
He says prove it. So we go to my car and start making out but it comes time for me to stick my dick in his vagina. I can't do it. I get soft I say.
"Maybe I am not gay"
He says, oh no buddy you are faggot you are just drunk and he strokes me. I recover and I finish the job and I drop dick Off at his girlfriends house.
This was my first homosexual experience but if there are more I will keep the community updated.
P.s. gave dude my number he informed me he took the morning after pill and then he blocked and ghosted me.
Created:
Posted in:
Anyone without a vote on somebody at 9 am eastern will be allowing the faction they do not belong to, to have more power over how the DP ends.
Created:
Posted in:
12 hours until the end of the dp. Whoever has the most votes will be eliminated from the game
Created:
Posted in:
If only one side provides a citation I will not read the citation but take the cited statement as fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There needs to be some basis for the challenge.
If you just state "that is unsupporte". Or that is a lie or that is outweighed. It isn't enough.
Then we have w statements that are just bare assertions.
The statement that something is unsupported doesn't take much elaboration. Statingit is outweighed does nothing since i decide how to weight arguments. You would have to explain why it is outweighed.
I am also taking every fact stated at face value unless their opponent proves it false or maybe does the opposite and makes a bare assertion about the opposite of the fact. If each provides a citation with no elaboration than i am likely to read both citations and both sides are risking my bias taking over if i have to choose which citation I like better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
My religion is based on logical, common sense critical thinking
You literally have a thread up where you explain that the maximum life span is 120 years because of how many triangles fit into a circle.
Created:
Posted in:
Woke was actually a term invented by the black community to criticize liberal policies they felt distracted from racial justice. It's the criticism that is causing a massive amount of African americans to move to the republican party and why the right is playing it up, but to be honest the right doesn't even need to play it up. The left is shooting themselves in the foot here.
Wokeness is essentially a new religion though and a big reason the left can't help themselves. Christianity replaced paganism, and now wokeness is replacing Christianity.
They have even let the religion of wokeness to exist beside Christianity in many churches and the results are blasphemous
Created:
Posted in:
This is open set up. There are zero hidden mechanics. There will only be one night kill.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes plurality lynching benefits scum. I don't care the intention of implementing it is to punish an inactive town. Sick of seeing games where town does not vote and the day ends not because a no lynch was decided but just because people refused to participate.
I am going to try and stfu as much as possible now as to not be distracting. Any discussion on this point further should probably be a new thread where we can all bitch about whose personal philosophy is best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
unproven, false or outweighed.
If I judge a debate and somebody ays that then I will till give points to the unproven false or outweighed argument.
You can suggest how I should weigh arguments. You can provide me a citation that proves a point false or you can explicitly state why something is unproven.
However if somebody makes a bare assertion and the only response is "unproven" well we have 2 bare assertions and I am giving the first bare assertion the benefit of the doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Is okay to ask them here. Questions in PM is just a request.
If the majority VTNL I will respect that and there will be a no lynch.
If joebob is still unclear on plurality lynching it means whoever gets the most votes is lynched regardless of if they reach a majority. So if only one person votes than that would be enough to lynch somebody.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That's why you should change the word to elimination and stop laughing about such things.
Perhaps it is time to retire the word. I feel it is a concession to Googles wokeness to retire the word but I definitely want to keep things easy to Google.
Tips for googling mafia related thing.
Use quotations "mafia scum" and combine it with another quote "plurality lynching" and you will get more accurate results.
So always mafia scum in one set of quotes and the term in another set of quotes.
The quotes narrow your search to more relevant information and a minus symbol will eliminate also a lot of irrelevant results. This is also a useful skill while researching for a debate.
Created:
Posted in:
Anybody not voting by 9 am will just not have a role in the decision in who to lynch. I am counting votes at 9am eastern time march 7 and whoever has the most votes will be lynched.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Statichead
weird I havent seen any bots at all.I saw one guy with an AI generated pfp but i dont think that was a bot
Why isn't everyone's pfp ai generated?
You can make it more custom and it costs less than commissioning an artist to make your pfp
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
I mean I tried googling what pularity lynching is and the only thing that showed up was talking about black people in America hundreds of years ago.
LOL
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
I have already thought about that, but I'm looking for a generalization made by men.
I dont think any man believes women are inferior.
They are worse athletes.
They typically think more with their heart than their head, although that isn't necessarily bad since you need both.
I don't think you will find anything other than stuff like that but the same people who state that stuff will still acknowledge that women are superior for example in things like social settings.
When I was in sales the women struggled less to keep their numbers high as a result of being superior socially as well as less threatening.
I seriously doubt anyone would call males superior
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
A common standard among progressives is that everyone should get a free income of 1k per month.
Here is where progressives are liars. Conservatives have proposed what is called the "fair tax" this tax would give everyone a $1000 a month stipend but progressives oppose it because conservatives came up with it. It is undeniably better than the status quo and liberals still oppose it because it actually would acco.plish many of the goals whereif they were actually accomplished would give people no reason to vote democrat.
It is like when conservatives wanted to legalize gay marriage but liberals voted it down because it was called "civil marraige" but was literally the same thing but by a different name. They literally wanted their constituents to suffer over conservatives offering equal rights but just not using the preferred terminology.
Created:
Posted in:
Actually Trump restored my faith in America. I mean watching election after election where only establishment republicans and democrats were elected with minor differences in important policies made me think the system really is rigged and even when I voted for Trump I thought my vote was wasted. They wouldn't allow him to win. I was shocked that he actually won. Don't get me wrong. It is rigged just not as rigged as I thought. We can see from what he has been facing in court and the media's response to him that it is rigged. However it is possible to still make positive changes even with the entire establishment opposing you.
I even saw how the democratic party succesfully rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders with hillary winning a suspicious amount of coinflips. I believe about 18 in a row. I actually thought Bernie brave to face off against the machine. I changed my mind when he cucked and endorsed hillary but I thought hillary was set up to win. They rigged it for her against bernie and all signs pointed to a similar rigging against trump. I knew Trump was going to win, when a week before the election you got word that hillary was canceling caterers to her victory party and what not. Unlike the media the pollsters who worked directly for hillary were incredible. Maybe her pollsters were even better than Trump's polsters because even he seemed surprised he won
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Perl huh. Are you 75 years old or above?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@7000series
If you can try to bold your votes so it is easy for me to scan the dp.. it isn't required just preferred
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I think it is a self imposed insanity, which is odd. If you notice everything he says is based on buckminster fuller when he is insane mode. I just feel like if I could get him to see buckminster fuller was a charlatan it would be good for him. The ideals he had that saw the light of day are all proven to be stolen and those stolen ideals when put to the test such as his 3 wheel car are proven to be shit.
Also the way he distorts language makes him sound insane but it is at th very least a perversion of English.
Suck as buckminster using outstairs in place of upstairs and instairs in place of downstairs because he views earth as a space ship. It's all stupid shithe does to attempt to make himself sound more profane and if ebuc gets out of the rabbit hole he might sound sane.
So I hold out hope I can save him. It's hard though because if he was saved it would take away the decades he has spent trying to understand buckminster fullers more obscure ideals. Ideals by the way that buck.inster twisted stole or made up ND that he doesn't even understand.
I will pray for ebuc to stop being a schitzo
Created:
Posted in:
Wow. I actually thought we were going to get a good thread on radical lifeextension. I click on it and we get schitzo shit on how many triangles fit into a circle.
Created:
How long untill the Large Language Models surpass us humans in debate ability?
Sadly most of you are already surpassed
Would this be a positive thing for the community?
Null
We should probably ban AI written arguments, right?
Not really. People should use AI as a tool to strengthen their arguments and not copy and paste the arguments but I see no issue with the arguments being copy pasted. You are likely debating against th same positions either way
Will we in the future analyse debates with AI just like chess players do nowadays?
Why wait? It can give you feedback now. I posted a bunch of my old debates I to chat GPT and it told me that my imflammatory language could make it harder for judges to vote for me.
Any other thoughts you may have on this topic.
It's a tool. Use it. Debate it even off site and if it's arguments are too goof to overcome have it give a rebuttal for his own position.
If you don't want to debate against an AI just debate in favor of something really controversial and AI Wil just refuse to give an opinion on it.
Created:
Posted in:
this is a forum on a site that also hosts debates. It isn't a space for debates but for conversation. The fact that you speak about things you don't know and then don't learn about is problematic
The forum part of the site is intended to test arguments out for debates or to set up arguments for debates later on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
then we have a serious disagreement. Argumentation is about advancing and defending positions and then considering challenges to those positions and reevaluating the position based on new facts.
Yeah, major disagreement. How you think is more important than what you think and debates are about strengthening the mind through how thoughts are processed.
The reason that people are given their topics and positions prior to a debate instead of picking their position is because their actual beliefs don't matter.
No, you aren't, because you are starting with assumptions and an established position (look at the title of this entire thread; it bespeaks an established belief
The title of the thread isn't the argument. Titles are just meant to be attention grabbing and pull you in to read th argument.
I am not starting with assumptions. I started with an argument.
Your language and approach make it clear that you have a very muddled slate
Not really. In this context how an ideal is presented is not as important as what argument is presented. You need to drop the baggage of trying to decipher things other than what is directly stated.
because the "blank slate" of a child who doesn't know language is different from the "blank slate" of someone who has studied all sorts of things but not one particular subject. That you equate them is sad.
Well blank slate while knowing the definitions of words. You try to get as close as possible and yes you should try to drop your own understandings to as best you can replicate a blank slate.
For example if somebody argues the following
P1. Existence is pain
P2. Nuking everyone would wipe out pain
C 1 we should nuke the entire planet
Tha. You should be challenging the premises or how the conclusion is drawn. Technically if you have a counter argument you should start a new thread to discuss it.
Likely you think nuking the entire planet is bad. However to fairly analyze the argument you should be dropping your belief and considering the premises.
Perhaps premise 1 is supported by antinatalist arguments.
Premie 2 appears true that if people don't exist they can't suffer. So you would focus on premise one and argue against antinatalist style arguments.
That might involve challenging how an antinatalist defines pain or by challenging the notion that pain and pleasure are the primal drives we should value the most.
What would be a stupid way to attack it would be focusing on the conclusion or just blindly saying shit like "um you are wrong because I personally value my life" . Or any personal attacks in general should be off the table.
Now in an actual debate a counter argument is fine but you still have to challenge their premises.
Created:
Posted in:
I am discussing and trying to correct misunderstandings
This is a debate site. It isn't for proselytizing or arrogance. Th fact you only stick with one topic and don't even debate that specific topic but instead "clarify" without actually making argumentation but instead just giving a perspective is problematic.
Created:
Posted in:
If your ideals are correct and mine wrong than you should easily be able to defeat me in a debate.
Give me 10 hot takes you have and I will pick one and send you a challenge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I suspect that you don't understand the goals of argumentation
To learn, preferably through continual deconstruction of your beliefs
and learning and think that all blank slates are equal
They should be treated equally yes. If not why?
and that you are working from a blank slate.
I am for the most part. We can't completely avoid bias but we should try to eradicate any strong beliefs as hard as we can. Nothing should be taboo and any bias should be eliminated if it is discovered.
That's a serious error on your part.
Explain
Created:
Posted in:
I suspect that you have strong beliefs and that you don't approach analysis of an argument from a tabula rasa perspective before addressing it. Those are flaws.
This is why it is shocking to you that somebody would accept an argument at face value prior to attacking it and you see doing so as som sort of weakness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
You certainly haven't backed down in your claims about Judaism, and that's a subject you know nothing about, so good for you!
I literally stated th claims in a syllogism and then gave a rebuttal. Not sure who that is not backing down.
When you value disproving your own mistakes over actually learning why they were mistakes in the first place, you have already lost
If you disprove your mistake or argument how is that not learning why they were wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I can tell you one thing. If I am a subject matter expert in something. I will not allow somebody to rip apart their own arguments better than I do
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Your answer was yes to my original question, I understand what the 'no' was to, I asked opposite questions to fully clarify.
I am working on my communication skills because of how often I am misunderstood. your first question confused me to be honest.
is plurality lynching safe from the majority then?
It is temporarily safe from the majority but if the majority of votes are on you when the timer goes off, you are unsafe.
I am sure you interpreted my answer correctly but let's keep all future questions to PMs because I want the DP to remain clean. people are free to copy and paste my answers to the DP for discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Who knows. Maybe you get lucky and post a topic where I am an expert in the subject matter. It will be boring for me but I won't back down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
is plurality lynching safe from the majority then?What I mean is this: If majority is on someone, do they instantly get lynched? This is how non-plurality works.You may have both at once.
No, I am going to wait a full 48 hours from the posting of the DP to officially count something as a lynch. as frustrating as that can be in the final DP if everyone has their mind made up
Created:
Posted in:
You mean like knowledge of Judaism, the topic that you continue to spew about even though you know nothing? Do youoften opine about things you haven’t a clue about
correct. If I already am well informed about a topic than I am not going to learn much if anything by discussing it. If already am well informed it just goes into my obsidian writing and is there for somebody to read if I die. It's all completely unencrypted.
What would I gain from discussions where I am already an expert in the subject matter?
Created:
Posted in:
Active players
- Ilikepie
- Rational madman
- 7000series
- Joebob
- Earth
- Greyparrot
- Austin316
Created:
Posted in:
Title: Welcome to Mafia Open Setup - Plurality Lynch
Welcome to the Mafia Open Setup game! Here's how it works:
Game Description: This is an open setup game where the town knows how many mafia members exist and what roles the town has. Plurality lynching is in effect, meaning whoever receives the most votes at the end of the day period will be voted out, regardless of whether a majority of votes is reached.
Rules:
- Day periods last for 48 hours, and night periods last for 24 hours.
- Players must follow the rules of conduct and refrain from sharing game-related information outside of the game thread.
- Players must not edit or delete their posts. Double posting is not allowed.
- Once a player is eliminated, they are no longer allowed to participate in the game discussion.
- Please respect other players and their contributions to the game.
Roles:
- Mafia (2 members): Work together to eliminate town members during the night.
- Town:
- Bodyguard: Can protect one player each night. If the player they protect is targeted by the mafia, the bodyguard dies instead.
- Watcher: Can observe one player each night to see who visits them.
- Bodyguard: Can protect one player each night. If the player they protect is targeted by the mafia, the bodyguard dies instead.
Remember, the key to success in this game is strategy and communication. Use your investigative abilities wisely to root out the mafia members and protect the town!
Let the game begin!
You have until 9:00am eastern time on 3/7//2024 or if you are not American 7/3/24
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Good – you're improving, recognizing that yourclaims are just your opinions and not facts.
Yeah so if I state something like Pizza is yummy. It is an opinion not fact and claims of lying such as the ones you stated are stupid.
Great – so you observe and don’t study and thenmake claims that you later say are just opinions. This seems like soundargumentation to you?
No, the takes were separate from the claims. Anyway the opinions claimed were based on a set of premises and it would be considered cogent arguments not sound arguments. Google the difference between cogent and sound arguments.
Not only is it “unique” to that family but it isalso against Jewish law, categorically. They are inventing a stupid forthemselves and you are assuming that they speak for anyone else in thereligion. Shouldn't you just accept their argument 100%? Isn't that what you advocated before?
No, I never advocated for that. I expanded on what I said. You accept it 100% and then immediately start challenging your new belief. You can claim they are breaking Jewish law by putting a water bottle under their seat and I can't find any results, but I am sure many people would disagree. The fact that other Jewish people disagree with you about how to follow God doesn't surprise me. There is probably 100 sects of Judaism I guess you can tell the other 99 sects they are wrong if you want to. My theory is that they are all wrong.
Because you think that you know what Godintended. You don’t.
you don't. See how easy that is
professor would say when youadmit to phrasing opinion as fact and advancing positions which might beuntrue
It's on the listener or the reader to parse opinion and fact. As far as advancing positions that might be untrue. It's a stupid assertion. Any position has the possibility of being untrue, and the point of debate is not to advance true positions.
P1 God has written plainly the rules he wants followed in theTorah, and extrapolations of what is plainly obvious is a fools errandThis is another set of opinions. Your premiseshouldn’t be an opinion. Your feeling about what is “written plainly” is yourview and your calling something a “fool’s errand” is just your opinion. So, no,no premise here.
I already destroyed premise one and did a better job of it than you. Your criticism of it here is worse than the criticism I presented and insufficient. I would destroy you in a competitive debate.
Oof, more mistakes. Jewish law establishes,based on text and accepted Jewish methodology, the concept of what you arecalling an eruv. This also relies on your opinion of “plainly obvious” soanother non-premise.àconclusion - the Jews who do this are on a fools errandAnd a conclusion that comes from 2 non-premisesis a non-conclusion. QED.Any questions?
stupid take. No debate judge will agree with this criticism and you would lose points and it would likely cost you the debate. Also again these are cogent arguments not sound ones so yes you can state opinions as premises and it is up to your opponent to show them to be less reasonable than the opinions they share in the confines of the debate.
Ugh. Try not working with translation, or maybeuse a translation that is written from within the system into which the textwas introduced. And I’m not the one who claims the text is “written plainly”—thatwas your opinion in your fake-premise. If you are trying to impress anyone byundermining your own opinions then have fun. I try not to introduce argumentthat is so easily shown to be wrong.
It's not a bad strategy. Sometimes correct fact can take too long to explain and then the timer goes off before it is able to be explained and your opponent loses points for other dropped arguments. Sometimes you intentionally give a bad argument to bait your opponent into a statement that will undermine his other arguments or that you can easily disprove.
You need to stop confusing your opinion foranything more than your opinion, accept that you know so little that yourclaims are flawed, and understand that if you can easily refute your ownsupposed premises, then they are really useless and your conclusions shouldn’tbe trusted. Stop pretending that a class in college taught you anythingrelevant here.
I never claimed my opinion as fact, you did and called the opinions lies. Me being able to refute my own premises doesn't mean much either. I would for example beat you in a debate where I take a pro life stance. I would also definitely defeat you in a debate where I take a pro choice stance. Either way you will present premises I can easily defeat. I am trying to teach you something here. It would better serve you to be humble and learn. It would likely benefit your students as well for you to understand these concepts, especially if they take up competitive debate as well. Look at Austin's recent post about doing well in debate competitions. Some of his success is no doubt to learning a few things from me. I have helped him refine his skills in PM and I think I may have debated him a few times under a different account.
So your method in a debate would beintentionally not to argue your point but instead throw in mistakes andattacks. That would “crush” me? You clearly have never been in an actualdebate. And if you can’t see that I have shown your premises to be wrong thenyou certainly couldn’t handle an actual forensic debate.
Argue your point as well but throw in some red herrings as well. See how I pulled a syllogism out of my arguments that you didn't notice because you were easily distracted like a dog chasing cars. If you want to we can debate over zoom and let people decide if you are accurate, I can't see you winning over Tabula Rasa judges (the only correct judging style) .
So pick any topic that doesn't fairly advantage you and we can have a judge flip a coin to determine your position and we can test this theory you have. Actually pick 3 topics that don''t advantage you, I will pick between the 3 and a coin flip will determine your position.
Created:
Posted in:
Why would God not be able to distinguish "I am willing to die for you Lord" faith from "I think betting on your existence is statistically beneficial" faith
Why would God care if you have faith at all?
I couldn't imagine somebody getting to the pearly gates and God is like...
"You followed my commands, you worshipped me and you in fact saved the souls of no less than 10 peopl, but your heart wasn't in it. You did it to hedge your bets. Off to hell with you"
Benevolent God or not. It just doesn't seem like something God would care about. So Pascal's wager doesn't seem harmful.on that point.
The real harm in Pascal's wager is wasting your life, but if you really enjoy worshipping the lord it seems like that is a moot point as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
What is your favorite language to work with?
Created:
Posted in:
Wouldn't some random general just take his place in the Nazi movement and likely end up being a more humble and superior military strategist? One that even if he ignored his advisors would likely still be superior in planning a war
Created:
Trump is an elite silver spoon oligarch of New York. You think just because he isn't DC elite he's some saviour? You are delusional! He is as corrupt as they come, why don't people get that?
If you have two corrupt options you might as well pick the one who isn't part of the evil DC elite.
I would at this point vote for Kanye west over Biden.
I however would not even sink as low as voting nikki haley over biden. If nikki haley won I would vote for biden out of spite and help him destroy the country by agreeing with all of his policy decision. .
If we are going to destroy America I would feel better doing it with Biden than Haley.
Created:
To be fair to democrats. Most of them thought the attempt to ban trump from the ballot was partisan nonsense and many democrats in public office made statements as such.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
You're a bot programmed in Java.
Why Java?
Created: