Total posts: 533
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It is quaint to see someone who purports to be a nihilist defend the possibility of a god. I am being facetious, of course.
My positions align closer to Biden's platform than Trump's. Either I would vote for Biden, (assuming you are as omniscient as you proclaim yourself to be,) or I would abstain from voting. I would probably choose the latter simply because I don't want an entire 4-year term to rest on my shoulders.
Incidentally, if this post causes a flamewar, I am going to direct said user to post 14. I don't particularly care for wither candidate, but I can argue effectively for any candidate. Additionally, I am still wary of supporting any candidate since it might incite a flamewar that Bsh1 would have to put out by locking this thread.
My positions align closer to Biden's platform than Trump's. Either I would vote for Biden, (assuming you are as omniscient as you proclaim yourself to be,) or I would abstain from voting. I would probably choose the latter simply because I don't want an entire 4-year term to rest on my shoulders.
Incidentally, if this post causes a flamewar, I am going to direct said user to post 14. I don't particularly care for wither candidate, but I can argue effectively for any candidate. Additionally, I am still wary of supporting any candidate since it might incite a flamewar that Bsh1 would have to put out by locking this thread.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I like it! I can see why you would choose that.
I don't know what theme would fit you, but perhaps you can find some commonality with this song:
Created:
Wait, so we don't decide the topics? Who does then?
Created:
-->
@NotClub
TheDebaterFormerlyKnownAsClub
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Thanks! Incidentally, I've never tried microwavable quinoa, so perhaps it's good. ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
I don't think I can numerically determine the quality of a presidency, particularly one that is still in progress. I generally respond with apathy to most of his political maneuvers. There is plenty to object to, but I've learned that displaying any attachment and/or repulsion toward a politician invites others to dispense vitriolic attacks. I don't want to be part of it, especially since people I know tend to disagree with me.
As far as microwavable quinoa is concerned, I never thought about it until now and it sounds repugnant. Elephants are cool.
Created:
I don't think I was blocked, it just says "participant can't be found."
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks! I learned about how to debate from you too.
Created:
@Dr.Franklin (it won't let me tag you)
Most people who attempt suicide are afflicted with a psychological malady of some kind (1). Should we encourage people with ailments that cloud their judgement to euthanize themselves? Also, drug use and suicide are more prevalent in America's youth than ever (2) (3). Should we encourage people who have not lived long to commit suicide so they don't grow older? I understand not wanting older people to have their life prolonged if they live in agony due to terminal illnesses. My grandparents are diagnosed with Dementia and Alzheimer's disease. However, I don't think a dip in life expectancy is a positive development. People who die leave behind tarnished families. Some provide income to spouses and children. If anything, even if we treat the lives of others with callous indifference (something I'm accused of, so I sort of get the misanthropic view you're supporting), the economic effect of seeing more people die is problematic because it means that families have less income. Perhaps the dip in life expectancy is temporary, but it is still worth noting, and not because this is happy news.
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@Castin
@Ramshutu
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I affirm the BUMP-DERP initiative and agree with my fellow colleague D_D that an addendum should be added. Instead of exile for children who fail to manage their hedge fund, they should instead be sentenced to 50 lashes with a herring for every dollar lost. That way, we provide fiscal stimulus to low-income fishing communities around the globe, but particularly in America.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Even better, give everyone over the age of 8 a hedge fund to take care of. Any child that fails to reap a profit off their investment must immediately be excommunicated. I see no flaw with this addendum.
It should be known as BUMP
Blamonkey's Unique Monetary Plan
It should be known as BUMP
Blamonkey's Unique Monetary Plan
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That I agree with. It is a regressive tax that disproportionately targets the poor who are ill-equiped to deal with an increase in price.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Sorry about that. Didn't realize that it was already addressed. I would argue that it would affect him though. Perhaps the lack of an income tax would greatly increase his disposable income, but he still needs to spend money on necessities like food, medicine, and shelter. People aren't impervious to price increases, especially when certain goods, (such as a college degree,) are becoming all the more necessary and expensive. I am fairly privileged, but that doesn't mean that I have a few thousand dollars laying around that could pay for prescription medication, a car, or the black-hole that is a college degree, sucking in every penny from my bank account and leaving me with nothing but existential dread about my future career and possibly a heart disease from worrying about exams.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I'm in the path of Hurricane Dorian, so I won't be able to have a prolonged conversation about this. However, the statistic you used is misleading. It doesn't tell us where these jobs are, or if they require technical degrees and/or 2-year training programs. The data from Georgetown that you cited indicates that most of the jobs created that don't require college degrees will be in skilled-services industries (1). Incidentally, 70% of the US population has no college education (2). 30 million jobs is a lot, but it won't cover every American without a college degree. Another Georgetown study found that holistically, compared to the job figures from 1997, higher paying jobs only requiring a high-school education has decreased, while higher paying jobs requiring 4-year diplomas has increased (3).
I wasn't going to challenge the 15% tax yet. I haven't the time considering the fact that I might lose power in a couple hours. I would be curious to see how this would affect inflation. Coupled with state-level sales taxes, the sales price of taxed products could increase by 22%. Lower income people only making 20k a year who spend most of their money on necessities such as food, medicine, and shelter would disproportionately be affected by this tax.
I wasn't going to challenge the 15% tax yet. I haven't the time considering the fact that I might lose power in a couple hours. I would be curious to see how this would affect inflation. Coupled with state-level sales taxes, the sales price of taxed products could increase by 22%. Lower income people only making 20k a year who spend most of their money on necessities such as food, medicine, and shelter would disproportionately be affected by this tax.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If only a few people are becoming wealthy while others become destitute, that is a legitimate concern. The US democratic process depends largely on wealth, lobbying, and leveraging one's political capital against another. The Sunlight Foundation found that politically active corporations spent over $5 billion dollars in lobbying, and received over $4.4 trillion dollars in government grants and contracts (1). The voice of poorer people is dwarfed by these corporations that can use their bulky profit margins to get what they want.
Also, those who are chronically impoverished tend to have little money to influence elected leaders. Sure, they can vote, but gerrymandering, minor drug offenses, and the winner-take-all electoral college system used in 48 states inhibits the power of people's vote. Instead, low-income people spend more money on housing, energy, and other basic needs that are barely met. Due to the chronic stress of meeting basic needs and medical inflation, the socioeconomic status of a person can determine, to an extent, how long you are going to live. The University of California, San Francisco found that:
"Impoverished adults live seven to eight years less than those who have incomes four or more times the federal poverty level, which is $11,770 for a one-person household" (2).
Also, income inequality does pose numerous economic concerns. For example, South Africa is considered to be one of the wealthiest countries on the African continent (3). Yet, over half of the country is impoverished (4). Would it really be fair to suggest that the economy of South Africa is fine if half of the country struggles to buy food, clothing, and shelter? I doubt it.
Also, income inequality does pose numerous economic concerns. For example, South Africa is considered to be one of the wealthiest countries on the African continent (3). Yet, over half of the country is impoverished (4). Would it really be fair to suggest that the economy of South Africa is fine if half of the country struggles to buy food, clothing, and shelter? I doubt it.
Sources
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Maybe, but it's not against the rules currently. Should we be pushing for ex post facto rules? I think not. Why punish someone with a ban I'd they haven't broken a rule yet?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Whether it is appropriate or not, it doesn't violate the rules.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don't think suggestive poses constitutes as pornography. Look at the CoC again. It bans pornography. It doesn't ban promiscuous or scandalous photos that only imply sexuality. I could go to any grocery store in the US and probably find something just as "adult" on the magazine rack where any curious kid could glance at it. Sports Illustrated, Cosmo, and other magazines feature fit people donned in swimsuits and sometimes adopting poses worse than a finger in the mouth. Hell, marketing has been sexualized for years. I don't see the photo causing as much harm on a site that targets older people and not 8 year olds. Also, in the event that an 8 year old does come on this site, I would think that the parents would object much more to the language. We are not children though, and we don't need to have our "innocence" protected.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Men are allowed to not wear shirts in public. If men can do this, why shouldn't Bsh1 be able to post a picture of a shirtless male?
Also, the clause in the CoC precludes people from posting pornography, not nude people. I'd say there is quite a difference between posting a shirtless male and posting porn. Wouldn't you agree?
Oxford defines pornography as such:
"...Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings."
The tummy isn't a sexual organ unless you are into some diabolical kink I don't know about.
Created:
-->
@Christen
For the record, D.A.R.E is an educational program that tried to raise awareness of the dangers of drugs to students. If you ever went to school and recount someone telling you to say no to drugs, it was most likely this group. It failed horribly.
As far as your PragerU citation, it doesn't prove that Google had no legal ground to block 8chan. Perhaps Google would have had no legal challenges had they continued to host the content, but that doesn't mean that their action to remove 8chan from their search history is illegal. In fact, the passage of the FOSTA-SESTA bill signed by the president in April of 2018 would hold internet companies liable to aiding sex trafficking (1). Additionally, Section 230 prohibits copyrighted content from being published as well. You and I can disagree with the new law, but it does suggest increased scrutiny against internet publishers when allowing for illegal content. My primary objection to the argument though is that Section 230 doesn't outlaw moderation. Websites are allowed to take down content Senator Ron Wyden, the co-creator of Section 230 told the Reason Foundation that the law had nothing to do with moderating content, and that, the basis for the law was to inoculate content providers from spurious litigation. When discussing whether Section 230 was a guarantee that content was neutrally moderated, he retorted;
"Section 230 has nothing to do with neutrality. Nothing. Zip. There is absolutely no weight to that argument " (2).
Jeff Kosseff, author of the book "The 26 Words that Created the Internet," lays out the legal foundation for the creation of the law.
"To really understand Section 230, you have to go all the way back to the 1950s. There was a Los Angeles ordinance that said if you have obscene material in your store, you can be held criminally responsible. So a vice officer sees this erotic book that he believes is obscene. Eleazar Smith, who owns the store, is prosecuted, and he’s sentenced to 30 days in jail.
So in other words, there is no rationale for restricting publisher's option to moderate under Section 230.
Your last post doesn't make sense to me.
Why should we determine our immigration policy based on perpetrators of mass killings? If people want to lobby Congress to advocate for immigration reform, that's fine. I would even be fine with it if I disagree with their goals. We aren't the battered spouses of these shooters who blame ourselves for their abuse. I seriously doubt that immigration reform would have prevented the shooting anyway. His primary concern was one of race. Racial conflict at home, regardless of nationality, would inspire just as much paranoia and visceral hatred than any open immigration system. Additionally, the US has strict immigration policies. Since 9/11, the DHS, TSA, and an alphabet soup of agencies have adopted strict, sometimes draconian policies that prevent many prospective immigrants from coming into the US. It's not perfect, but the US is hardly a safe haven for terrorists.
People have discussed the mental health of shooters before their manifestos became public. In fact, because perpetrators know that their actions are likely to be publicized, their manifestos could just be used to troll the public. bin Laden took this approach when he addressed the immorality of the American public. He discusses the subjugation of women in the US, the refusal of American institutions to address climate change, and the immorality of the president. Had the US addressed these issues, 9/11 would still have occurred (4). The reason the manifesto addressed real world issues was that it gave bin Laden a sympathetic image that could be utilized for propaganda.
Even if you are adamant in suggesting that manifestos be used as evidence to uncover the motives behind shooters, then I don't know why you want the public to know about it. Surely, it would be better in the hands of law enforcement agencies and supposedly policy makers, correct? They are the ones who would be able to change the law to fit the narratives of these deranged killers.
Here is why manifestos should be published: there isn't any real damage caused by the speech and it is a 1st amendment right to create objectionable material as long as it doesn't incite immediate violence or present a clear and present danger. Also, people can save information such as manifestos and republish it, turning into an elaborate game of whack-a-mole in which taking down one post is followed by three more people posting it elsewhere. These are good points that would defend your premise better in my opinion.
Sources
People have discussed the mental health of shooters before their manifestos became public. In fact, because perpetrators know that their actions are likely to be publicized, their manifestos could just be used to troll the public. bin Laden took this approach when he addressed the immorality of the American public. He discusses the subjugation of women in the US, the refusal of American institutions to address climate change, and the immorality of the president. Had the US addressed these issues, 9/11 would still have occurred (4). The reason the manifesto addressed real world issues was that it gave bin Laden a sympathetic image that could be utilized for propaganda.
Even if you are adamant in suggesting that manifestos be used as evidence to uncover the motives behind shooters, then I don't know why you want the public to know about it. Surely, it would be better in the hands of law enforcement agencies and supposedly policy makers, correct? They are the ones who would be able to change the law to fit the narratives of these deranged killers.
Here is why manifestos should be published: there isn't any real damage caused by the speech and it is a 1st amendment right to create objectionable material as long as it doesn't incite immediate violence or present a clear and present danger. Also, people can save information such as manifestos and republish it, turning into an elaborate game of whack-a-mole in which taking down one post is followed by three more people posting it elsewhere. These are good points that would defend your premise better in my opinion.
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm not offended. I have been categorized under every political ideology under the sun.
Created:
Posted in:
What if my real name was Blamonkey and my username is simply my actual name? Also, I didn't expect you to get that reference. That game was weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
In the words of the stupid Shadow the Hedgehog game on the GameCube, I am all of me.
Oh, and I don't get what you are saying. I guess me capitalizing the first letter of the name makes it wrong? I understand that my username isn't uppercase, but a proper noun referring to someone ought to be capitalized.
Created:
I'm curious, is there any crime someone would commit besides wonton killing? Like maybe someone wants to send a few prank calls or just smoke weed? People are so uncreative nowadays. If you wanted to cause some havoc from the safety of your home, you could always deploy drones to remotely TP someone's house, or just steal their WiFi and change the password. Incidentally, if the WiFi event happened during the purge, would evidence of it happening be admissible in court? If not, would the WiFi stealer just get away with it? Asking for a friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Funny, what makes you think I'm an atheist and/or progressive?
I kind of agree with RationalMadman's analysis of my ideology more. I take random positions in debates and sometimes in threads. Although I respect the top debaters on the site like Ram, Oromagi, and Ragnar, I also respect Thett1 who happens to be conservative. I hope one day people learn to understand that most sides can be argued, and that a liberal or conservative skew shouldn't automatically invalidate an argument. That said, it's hard to identify with either party at this point. They diverged so far to the left and right that it's hard to express anything but apathy at the current election cycle.
Created:
-->
@Christen
I like them for the fact that you can read what real criminals and bad people have to say, understand their point of view, understand their side of things, understand the hatred that they have and how they feel, understand where their coming from, understand the kinds of things they say in their manifestos and how they make the choices that they make, understand why they do what they do and/or think what they think, and/or have some decent information from the criminal's perspective in order to form a solid and more accurate conclusion/opinion. It's good to have a basic understanding of how criminals think and act, and these sites allow people to have just that. Not only that, but websites like these are great for helping people understand the harsh nerve-racking truth about this world - that it is not a nice, happy, fantasy land - that it has a lot of scary things to it, and that many people have such dark and scary thoughts. These sites, however evil they may seem, allow people to write down their hatred and share it with those who are interesting in hearing their side of things.
Hypothetically, even if the Christchurch shooter was completely right about everything he said, it still doesn't justify his actions. Also, forming an opinion based off a mass shooter's dubious manifesto seems misplaced. I'll put it this way, I am not allowed to cite Wikipedia for college papers. I am most definitely not allowed to cite the "expert opinion" of someone who decided it was a jolly-good idea to shoot a bunch of people and film it. I do agree that it lends insight into why particular criminals act, but what can it do to prevent future crimes? We know the perpetrator was worried about a white genocide. People who adopt these ideas aren't likely to drop them without significant intervention which borders on outright violations of personal freedom. I guess the assumption is that the manifestos published online somehow reflect the real-life ideas and motivations of the perpetrators. If this is the case, then I doubt that even the government can't eliminate ideas and conspiracy theories though purely legal interventions. Sure, they can start a new PR campaign, but I can raise doubt of the program's success with a 4-letter acronym:
D.A.R.E.
Also, if people want to learn what a horrible place the world is, they should get a job and try to run a productive life. Hell, news coverage, (or god forbid the Emoji Movie,) might cause PTSD. If you want to slowly lose faith in people, read up on the Rohingya genocide and the imbeciles claiming that complete eradication was a justified response. My point is that losing faith in humans is common enough that people don't need a bunch of condescending holier-than-thou types trying to vilify others because they need to compensate for their lack of interaction with the opposite sex. (I am not saying you are one, but be honest, that is a bulk of people on these political forums.)
Here is the thing though: I agree that 8chan shouldn't be banned, (Neither should Reddit, 4chan, or Twitter.) Clearer user guidelines and a decision from the SCOTUS determining to what extent a site should protect free speech would be 2 steps forward in the right direction. Censoring certain users, such as terrorist recruiters, should probably be classified as constitutional, while entire bans of websites aren't. Although, I don't think what occurred was a ban. Google simply dropped the website from its search engine. It's still accessible. In fact, this isn't the first time Google has blacklisted the service. They did so a few years ago after links to illegal material (aka child pornography,) ended up surfacing and circulating (1). It's hard to imagine a legal argument that compels Google to display such content. In fact, the original creator of the site wanted it shut down (2). I disagree that it should be banned completely, but a private company such as Google doesn't necessarily need to allow access to child porn. This is right from Google's Terms of Service:
I will reiterate, no matter Google's decision on the matter, no website should be censored by the US government. I will not, however, decry companies that try to restrict access to websites that displays child porn and death threats on shaky-at-best legal ground, particularly if the response from the moderation team is dismissive. The sharing of ideas, even those of criminals, should be encouraged. The sharing of illegal materials, doxxing, and death threats, all of which are crimes in some capacity, should not. Sure, all sites have illegal content to a degree, but active moderation has prevented it from getting out of control. Just as a company can lose a sponsor, so can a supposed bastion of free speech lose a host.
In any case, the result of this would probably be that the website goes on the dark web and thus is impervious to regulation, so none of this will matter in time. In any case, I respect the time you put into the post. It is an interesting discussion to have in the information age.
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
I'll put it this way: I would never cite a Fox News story when writing a report for school. I would normally never read the stories either. But, if I was forced at gunpoint to choose to read Breitbart or Fox, I would only choose Breitbart because it is unintentionally hilarious. Overall, Fox is a better conservative news site than many of its competitors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You haven't looked at the other link. Also, the article never explicitly suggested that the causal factor is strong. It organized a jumble of expert opinions into one space. Sure, some lack validity. Some arguments that are usually considered fringe are offered a little more weight, (such as the video game connection,) but it's not awful reporting. An awful report would discredit opposing arguments with strawman fallacies and sarcastic vitriol. Fox can exhibit such behavior, but I would argue that it is better, on average, than Breitbart, Intellihub, or Infowars. If Alex Jones wrote the article, he wouldn't hesitate to inject his fever-dreamlike conspiracies into the article, like a baker decorating a cake with toothpaste instead of icing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
They sourced peoplewith credentials. They admitted at the beginning that the FBI could only find that 25% of mass shooters had a diagnosable condition. I too find it stupid to label mental illness as the sole contributing factor of mass shootings. Did you read the story on the CDC numbers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
CNN and Fox have failed fact checks, but that doesn't mean everything they say is hogwash.
This one summarizes the debate. Is it biased? Yeah, but it gives credence to the other side's points.
Created:
Posted in:
Some decent stories comes from CNN and Fox. I'm not suggesting all of or even a hefty majority of stories from either news site are good, but they aren't always bad. A lot of it comes down to the individual writer.
Created:
Posted in:
Bias and unreliability are different. While CNN obviously hires more liberals and Fox hires more conservatives, there are still decent stories that form from both sources. Reuters, the Associated Press, and the US News and World Report aren't perfect, but nowadays seem to be contenders for the least biased news site without paywalls and with relatively good credibility. The Economist is good, but requires a subscription. I won't get into the political debate that took up 3 pages on what was supposed to be a post about sources, but I will say that people need to chill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
That must mean that airmax1227 had 1226 ventriloquist hands for every one of his alt accounts. No wonder DDO had so much butthurt.
Created:
I should mention that there is obviously a hierarchy in think-tanks as far as quality is concerned. They represent the interests of the people making it rain on their researchers, CEOs, and lobbyists. A few examples of think-tanks with spotty fact-checking records include the Center for Immigration Studies and the Foreign Policy Journal. Be wary.
Created:
I don't know if you have access to a school library, but they typically have pretty good resources for current events and policy. Google Scholar is good, but a lot of information is locked behind paywalls. Some think-tanks (i.e. Council of Foreign Relations, Brooking Institute, RAND Corporation, Peterson Institute for International Economics, etc.) offers biased, but usually factual information. Make use of fact-checkers to verify sketchy claims. BBC, the Wall Street Journal, AP, and Reuters offers good info. Also, there is a newsletter called "The Skimm" which e-mails users regularly and updates them on current events. That helps a lot.
Some reputable sources with a scholarly or government "edge" to make you sound smart include the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, the Wharton Public Policy School at UPenn, and any Government Accountability Office, Congressional Budget Office, or Congressional Research Service Report. These sources provide enough information to turn a casual debater into a veritable expert over the vcourse of 1-2 reports on a subject.
There are some ways to modify Google so that only the websites you want pop up in the search results.
For example:
http://factualsearch.news/I don't know how good this particular "filtered search engine" is, but it is an example.
Created:
Posted in:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1157/resolved-the-us-government-should-de-fund-sanctuary-cities
A bit long, but an interesting read
A bit long, but an interesting read
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Perhaps they meant "matriarchal." As in, they are opposed to the patriarchy and substituted women's leadership instead. That's a weird argument to run. They do wacky shit in Congress, but nothing like that. One time we were arguing a bill to take our troops out of South Korea and someone ran the argument that instead, we should assassinate Kim Jong Un. He got 5th of of 20th by the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
In your entire debating career, what was the dumbest argument you ever heard?
What is your opinion on Congressional debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
@Ramshutu
50 points from Ravenclaw. 40 because of the illegal dueling in the thread, 10 because Bsh1 didn't keep his hunky profile pick. Any more tomfoolery and I'll throw you in both in the Forbidden Forest with Hagrid to serve detention.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The original post in unrealistic. Despite the plethora of abstinence only programs in the US, the average age at which someone loses their virginity is still 16.9 for males and 17.4 for females (1). When quantifying the impact of abstinence-only programs in the US, the HHS Department found that their impact was tepid at best (2). It's easy to say that teenagers shouldn't have sex. It is harder to enforce abstinence.
A better solution would be emphasizing the importance of contraceptives. They have already shown promise in decreasing teenage pregnancy rates (3). In fact, considering the fact that millennials are waiting longer to have sex, this problem will likely fade away in the future. Also, I don't understand why women were singled out in the original post.
Created: