gugigor

yeah your writing style is very similar to Wylted, or maybe the guy who was spamming debates on debate.org before it shut down.

Could the AI extinction debate come down to glitches potentially launching nukes, or hackers hacking AI to launch nukes? Because I can see those two kritiks coming in the way, which is problematic. It would essentially be human error which is weird.

RIP US K-12 lol

I Nominate Mr. Chris, Weaker Edge, Whiteflame.

For debates I nominate US K-12 and Wikipedia is more reliable than Fox.

come, come, everyone on the leaderboard. If we ignore Roy's opinion since it included so much extra talk, this debate would still be a 6:6. I am biased towards pro position so I am not sure how exactly to weigh the final round. What does everyone think of the top debater's accusations that Con's argument is incredibly weak? What about the other people who sided against Pro?

I seem to get the impression that most people who agree with Pro are already inherently Liberal/Democrat, while the ones voting for Con are already conservative/Republican. I'm not sure if the 3k character limit forced voters to rely on presumptions on what the debaters were saying.

Hello everyone, and welcome back to 9sk news. Here we have a special edition, with Undefeatable believing his debate potentially worthy of Hall of Fame, since his opponent admitted the same in the comment section.

Half a year ago, what is probably DART's most controversial debate popped into view: Undefeatable vs Intelligence_06. The topic was fresh: U.S. K-12 Public Schools Should Incorporate More Video Games in Their Curriculum, with only 3,000 characters per round over three rounds. Though the debate was short, opinion varied severely. Had it not been the seven point system, Undefeatable would've contradicted his name yet again. Let's see what people said and why they said so.

- Benjamin had thought that Con's necessity argument won the debate, noting it is one of the most interesting he had ever read, giving sources to Pro. 

- Fruit Inspector went deep into the sources, penalizing Pro for them, and feeling they worked against and undermined his case.

- Fauxlaw focused on the Law implementation part of the debate. The Requirement of legality made him believe the sources were thus poor in his view.

- Danielle argues that the burden of proof to argue for incorporation is failed, since Pro did not show the unique values of video games. She also gives sources as Con seems to lack on those.

- Mr. Chris judged as a cost-benefit debate like Whiteflame, however, he seems to see that Pro drops the necessity argument, and that Con essentially implied that the same benefit can be achieved through cheaper means. 

- Nyxified, though in a rush, put together a document longer than the entire debate. She points out that con stacks up far more arguments especially in rebuttal, overcoming Pro's constructive and defensive case.

_____________________________________________________________

- Whiteflame agreed with Pro's net-balance framework, feeling that Con didn't have any unique heft to his case.

- TheWeakerEdge gave all points but spelling and grammar, sayin that Pro has a lot of solid foundation, compared to con's assertions and seemingly irrelevant arguments.

- RationalMadMan talked about pragmatism vs principles, and says the ending saw an overturn, with Con failing to complete the project-based learning counterplan. With no concrete data or research, plus the last round new arguments, Con loses in his view.

- BringerofRain, also known as Wylted, found that Pro's showing of academic performance very clear. He viewed Con's argument as trying to show cost of putting video games (nigh to none), causing him to lose the debate.

- FourTrouble doesn't give a full RFD, but quickly dismisses Con's argument by stating the necessity idea is one of the worst he's seen. He thinks the net benefit concession basically implicates an automatic loss. 

- Coal says that there is clear evidence from pro, without mentioning what Con's rebuttals mean to him. It seems that he considers Con's case quite weak as well.

- Roy Latham, though not on DART, agrees that unnecessary is a poor argument. The references were also said to be superior, and that Con depended on the presumption on how games already were. 

My personal view point is also siding with pro, as I feel like most of Con's substance was majorly in round 3, where Pro couldn't respond. He requires a presumed bias that the lawmaking automatically means the games must be needed or required. But Pro's case seemed to be an optional idea and thus focused on the net benefit (unique or not). 

Some valuable people who have stayed silent are Ragnar, Oromagi, Blamonkey. We await to see if any other analysis breaks through this debate. What's everyone's thoughts on this debate? 

I've been thinking about what Ragnar said about multi accounting and I feel like exceptions should be or can be made, especially if accounts are made for different purposes. As long as neither account debates each other, or votes for the other, it should be fine. In my opinion, if one account is just silly and likes to experiment with non-serious ideas (like my seldiora account), it may be justifiable to keep another account to continue establishing a strong standard and avoid weaker debates. I personally feel like the ability to write different styles and experiment with a dummy "loser account" may also lead to exploring your knowledge and ideas further, without pressure to keep up with the standards set by another account. What are your thoughts?

Hello, you. Did you want to debate? Did you want to improve your communication and research ability? Did you want to outwit everyone at every topic? Well you've come to the wrong place. DebateArt.com is a silly website where people are supposed to debate serious topics but most times it never happens. Let me introduce to you the main features of DebateArt.com!

Did you expect your opponent to be strong and powerful most of the time? That's not happening. Just look at the top debaters on the leaderboards. Oromagi, the number one on leaderboard, his wins are mostly incompetent fools who barely try or forfeit nearly all the rounds. And the other top 10 aren't much better, preying mostly on really weak arguments and rigged topics that are nearly impossible to win. 

Occasionally you will get that one somewhat quality debate where the opponent *doesn't* forfeit. But sadly most voters are too lazy to read debates and will result in a no-vote tie. That's when our hero -- one of the top debaters as well -- Whiteflame comes to save the day, almost always willing to judge any debates! Just learn how to get on his good side and what he values, and you'll win most of your debates. Maybe this website should be called convince_whiteflame.com instead.

While other sites have forum mafia, DebateArt's mafia game is notable because it's the most active forum, and perhaps even more active than the debating portion of the site! You thought you were gonna be arguing over the most recent economic policy? Say goodbye to your policy debating ability, and say hello to bluffing and deducing about people's roles! 

Yahoo! Edition 9! It's been a while since I've done this.

Through his recent debates, Edge has narrowly managed to avoid losing, despite prime voter Whiteflame voting against him. Both yours truly and Undefeatable have voted in his favor to counter his potential lost, in two very close debates. We await with bated breath to see who will finally end his win streak.

Even though undefeatable has some guaranteed wins under his belt, including the 9/11, education, and against Type1, he has also suffered detrimental losses, perhaps due to poor mental or physical health. Madman has gone from the eliminated list back onto the nemesis list as Undefeatable is kicked out of the top 10. Will he make his way back up? Only time will tell.

And that's all I have for you today! I've been busy studying for finals and I think a lot of people are in the same boat, but I try to produce quality content. Here's to more interesting turns of events. Rumor has it that Edge is still waiting for the perfect moment to re-challenge Undefeatable to avenge his loss against him.

sort Debate Art users by the most losts. Who is the top user?

That's right, you thought it would be a troll, but it was me, SelDIOra! (pun aside, yes, I am the same user who has the most losses on this site)

If you read my most quality debates and articles (gun control, charter school, smoking ban), etc. You'll realize that I'm actually very strong, I just choose bad topics and ideas. If you want an idea of me at my true peak, I'd estimate I'm on par with Undefeatable at least (no. 5 on leaderboard currently).

Losing/winning isn't everything. 

I kind of agree, I feel like Oromagi would be one of his most hated college students to debate. Because Oromagi has a lot of common sense and would be able to succinctly point out glaring problems in Ben's arguments.

Got any good examples? (Would you consider Raisor/Bluesteel on Jordan Peterson level, or is it hard to apply online to real life debates?)

I know there's a lot of good example of powerful and persuasive speeches ("I have a dream", "four score and seven years ago", "we will fight on...", etc.) but it's surprisingly difficult to find very top level debates to study on. Other than Jordan Peterson, I don't really know any other famous debaters to learn from. Any suggestions?

Hello everybody and welcome to the 8th news edition...

The religious and mystical user Nevets after two weeks of inactivity (which had been after six months of inactivity) thunders forth with a strong array of extremely specific debates! Requiring "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof, Nevets is an intriguing "new" face (relatively speaking) and it'll be interesting to see how he does with these topics.

As his username gets torn down bit by bit, Undefeatable is stuck in a rut with bad loss streaks! Not only did Coal defeat him in his most thoroughly researched topic yet (Systemic racism), the top debater MisterChris took him down in one of his specialties, cyber security. When asked, Undefeatable believed that he lost because MisterChris made the debate political (whether defense could prevent escalation better than offense), rather than about technology (whether defense protects the nation's technology better than offense). We'll see if Whiteflame and MisterChris have any more comments and feedback to help Undefeatable as he struggles to win even with his forte!

In the mean time, his homeschooling debate has disappeared into the shadows with only one day left to vote. Hard to say if the no vote tie is fine or not, but I heard he'd rather have no votes than a lost.

in my opinion it's hard to deduce how good Bluesteel actually is as he lost against Danielle early on and didn't face any one else of high caliber other than Mikal. And Mikal's more of an all rounder guy who's pretty stronk (reminds me of Undefeatable). He won against Roy but Roy for some reason didn't employ 16kadam's top death penalty argument for some reason. So I guess it might've been a situational kind of thing. Raisor seems more consistent overall especially being able to beat Whiteflame as well. 

[I kind of want to see Mikal vs Undefeatable, though the latter might be outclassed if it's a political debate rather than computer science]

Also what do you think of Larz? I still think he deserves the title "beast slayer" as he was able to beat Raisor, Whiteflame, and a bunch of people who look like they're way above his weight class considering his casual conversational style (he devoted like 50,000 characters on one of his debates on Edeb8 just to introduce a ton of information)

there's a lot of interesting debate members that have totally different styles that I feel would have been very interesting to see. Here are my top choices:

- Oromagi vs Whiteflame (he still seems to be postponing his 100th debate...)

- Ragnar vs any of Top 10 (Ragnar still remains unbeaten and has rarely faced a truly competent foe)

- Undefeatable VS TheWeakerEdge rematch (they already did one, but it was way back in Edge's beginning, he seems to have gotten much tougher now)

- Fruit_Inspector Vs Rational Madman (both of them are very versatile and able to beat tricky foes, with both of them scoring a victory against Undefeatable)

If DDO players were here, I'd love to see how the top 10 DART members would fare against LarztheLoser, Roy Latham, Mikal, bluesteel, and thett3. No doubt there would be some noticeable difference in skill.

I always wanted to battle Undefeatable in something, though I wanted something more casual without any potential consequences, and also able to easily give feedback. I chose a fun topic that we disagreed on and I hope you guys will enjoy. 

Gugigor: Pro

Undefeatable: Con

With job interviews coming up, I was curious whether my casual style or Und's serious formal style was better in this situation. They both have advantages and disadvantages, and I feel like it's interesting to see if Und's style is too serious or stilted for usual job interviews. 

It's easily seen from my "I Can I BB" style debates that my style is far more casual: very few sources, employing mostly common sense, occasionally injecting humor, so on and so forth. In addition, my talking resembles my writing style very closely most of the time, so that I can easily translate my writing into speaking. By contrast, Undefeatable's Debate style is much more dry and tackles a more essay type approach, which can be off-putting in a job interview. As Job interviews wish to learn about your true self, I argue that we should prefer my debating style in these interviews. 

As a testimony from Glassview, Mr. Geofron notices that the casual conversation type of debate can be far more productive and preferable in the long run. He highlights studies that show traditional interview to be ineffective, and prefers to have a two way conversation. My "true persona" shining through would work out much better as Undefeatable would no doubt be forced to keep up a tiring facade. Not only so, gaining information on real life "improvisation situations" allows quick on-the-foot feeling that Undefeatable would have great trouble with.

Business2community also agrees with the same idea. The free flow of conversation allows a more in-depth examination of the person's backstory and ideas, thus reaching further than what's on their resume. Due to Undefeatable's heavy dependence on experts, it's hard to say for sure that his explanations would be fully comprehensive or explain who he truly is.

Jobs and job interviews should not be overly formal or stressful. Being a bit funny, or awkward, is only human. Being "Undefeatable" is simply unrealistic in the long term, and the formal style of writing does not apply well to the interaction with coworker or with your boss. Clearly, my style is superior to Undefeatable when it comes down to Job interviews.

I can I BB season 7 is airing (a Chinese debate show). Here are some more topics that they discussed along with who won.

- I heard my friends talking bad about me in the restroom, should I walk out nonchalantly? (Pro won by a landslide)

- My friend talked bad about my idol despite knowing my admiration, should I argue with them? (Pro won by a landslide)

- Should I allow my son to wear a skirt to Kindergarten? (Con won by just a little, Pro didn't use transgender arguments)

- My kid usually does homework past midnight, should I argue with teacher to reduce it?  (Con won by a handful of votes)

on one of Undefeatable's debates Benjamin made a funny comment about how long my nemesis list would be. I decided to humor that and actually write down my full nemesis list:

whoeeee

I have very little idea, but I'd say the addition of you and Undefeatable at least adds some extra variation to the site. Fauxlaw, Mr. Chris, Whiteflame, RM and the gang were regular members who posted relatively often, so it wasn't too dead to begin with. I wonder how the heck the mods figured out that BringerofRain was Wylted. Hard to say if my 100 losses on seldiora counts as making the site more active, or just being silly with debates. XD

As we see the nearly finished-with-voting debate from Undefeatable vs Intelligence, I call for an emergency news edition! Voters are ping-ponging back and forth. While Whiteflame's vote made it seemingly clear that others had voted wrong, the similar-caliber Danielle disagreed with arguments. It's an epic tie with many voters disagreeing with sources, especially Fauxlaw and Fruit disagreeing despite Undefeatable's use of scholarly journals, yet others such as Ben, Weakeredge and aforementioned Danielle yet still voting in favor for sources. It's perhaps the most divisive debate ever since the inception of DebateArt!

Calling in all voters, there may not be much time left but try to put in your best analysis! The most heated short debate of DebateArt may yet get into the hall of fame with your help, and you'll have a part in it! Regardless of who wins or losses, it'll be interesting to see who won the most votes.

This has been 9sk/gugigor/seldiora, bringing you in live from the emergency situation at hand. 

all of them seem good. I'd probably be best at metadata? Probably. Disney looks tricky, Fruit Inspector looks like he would be good at that.

nice stuff. I'll try to when I have time; been busy with homework

nice list. I think you also are a very good debater. Pending to see how versatile you actually are, since you mostly seem to be about morality. Gun Control was mostly badly chosen topic for me in my opinion haha

count me in as well

how about, which episode was superior in Sherlock, the Fall, or the Irene Adler one?

What if I was Oromagi? Mister Chris? Weaker edge? Undefeatable? Intelligence? Etc. How would you guys react

This is just a short flash news for fun. As Undefeatable continues his loss streak against his “nemesis” Fruit along with the mighty Whiteflame, he nevertheless also continues his slaughter. madman came back if you didn’t know, and we don’t know why, but he’s also challenging him in tricky topics. Similarly, intel has questionably used quantum mechanics to disprove the age of earth. Things are getting spicy. In the mean time, Benjamin has also been popping up left and right with diverse range of debate topics. Things are getting pretty exciting. Also, I intend to finally get to work on actually improving my debate skills. I’m still in the progress of getting some quid pro quo kind of debate with whiteflame to help resolve my weaknesses further. Hopefully I will be back to 9sk winrates even with the narrower debate pool. After nearly 100 losses, hopefully it would have been worth it.

So that’s all I got for you. Stay tuned...

Yes to all four from me.

yeah. any other recommends?

crazy stuff.

no, we have no "moral value", but rather "moral virtue" (the ability to hold rights sacred to humanity). It is tragic if a meteor falls from the sky and kills you, but not immoral. It is cruel for another man to take an innocent's life without their permission.

right, in terms of my point of view. The fetus gains the moral value when it actually is born

Whiteflame's thought process can be explained like so.

1. All humans born deserve the same rights.

2. However, not all humans have equal value, depending on what they have accomplished or relations with other people

here is the problem. Not all humans are equal. When you commit a crime you inherently remove some of your liberties. Similarly, even if you unintentionally intrude on someone, that does not give them an obligation to protect you.

Imagine abortion was like so instead.

Your mother accepts a deal from the devil with unclear conditions. The devil gives her 98% success (contraception rate) in exchange for pleasure. She risks it and unfortunately gets bad luck. Now the devil puts you as a baby inside a void, a different dimension. He develops you such that you do not even have your entire body until 13 weeks. He says your mother has to give you life, nutrients for 9 months while you are unconscious and that you only have 20% chance to make it out alive (fertilization rate). In addition, most times it will not be painful to remove you from the void. It just so happens that the devil will kill you once you are removed. 

Now then, will you force your mother to take care of you during the first 13 weeks, where you are not even fully you? What if the doctor says her life may also be in danger, just as proportional as your life is in danger? We only need to exceed 20% chance possibility to justify beating the devil. What if your mother runs out of money? You certainly would hate your mom for the rest of your life for expelling you from family to live with a richer household. Or forced to live in poverty and suffering. 

it's not 100% sound, not even when combined with Mr. Chris's self defense analysis, however, it has some interesting considerations, namely that even euthanizing a man in a coma who has only 20% chance of waking up, is immoral. Even if the man was in a coma for his entire life, this alone cannot justify killing him. The woman's liberty is an important role in Abortion and why I consider pro side greatly winning if argued well. 

however, however, you are on the right track. Mister Chris and Wagyu working together would likely come up with an interesting combination of arguments, combining the uncertainty of self defense along with the future value argument. Even though humans have only the future value, it is undeniable that some amount of people get pregnant through the act of sex. Even if we ignore coercion, we are definitively at least killing some actual children who would become people. Many experts and philosophers agree that most people would rather be born in a horrible condition, rather than never be born at all (though there are curious and excellent counter arguments to such). Combined with the lack of proportionality of self defense (as Mr. Chris grants exception for mother's life in danger), this works in tandem to prove that we are denying the millions of actual children who could've been born, the opportunity to choose for themselves, or even be adopted by other families, so that their lives may be improved. That's why abortion is so tricky to argue.

in addition, even if we accept the fetus has the same level of coherent thinking of human, we still have no obligation to protect it. There is the famous violinist analogy where the doctors force you to do a nine month blood transfusion with an unconscious violinist. We are allowed to plug off the life support because we did not consent to this accident and we did not consent to the nine month transfusion. We have no right to force others to protect ourselves. In fact, even if one man could stop a gunner from shooting us, they may justify their inaction using fear and hesitance, thus allowing ourselves to be killed indirectly. 

I disagree on point one. Say that a man is going to murder billions of people by setting off a nuke. It would be justified to kill him while he is in the process of pressing the countdown of nuclear button from 10 to 1 and killing him is the only way to prevent the nuke. If all men had equal value, then two men still have more value than one, thus allowing killing of people if they would harm others.

Similarly, self defense makes it so that they would not harm even more people, so therefore killing others is just in some situations.

oof. hope you're okay

the guy I was supposed to be debating seems to have quit the site. And the last bracket is done for. Seems like only whiteflame and blamonkey did their job. RIP alive debate tourney. You will be missed

After his exit, Madman suddenly returned to DART, battling the infamous Undefeatable. Will he get his revenge due to central banks forfeit? Or will he fail once again? Only time will tell.

Though intelligence is one of the top ranked debaters on the site, he recently lost a debate against TheWeakerEdge. Now he is questioning science and education alike against Undefeatable. We await to see if he has lost his touch, or if he is just playing around and will shatter our friend's namesake!

MisterChris and Undefeatable excitedly line up for another match, after the latter had lost his first debate to the former. We wonder who will win this, as the case is even for both sides and depends mostly on who is the better debater.

And that's all folks! Keep in touch for the next edition, coming soon...

Ragnar had won almost 100 debates on DDO and managed to do 30 more here without anyone breaking his winning streak. He definitely knows about debating, but it's difficult to know 100% as he only demonstrated ability to smash noobs and beat that one guy in the Star Trek debate. Other than knowledge to avoid hard topics, it's hard to say with 100% certainty he could beat Whiteflame in some policy debate. What do you guys think? Is Ragnar destined to be undefeatable? 

(Edit: He did admit his debate with Shas was tricky, but it's hard to say how good Shas is, as Shas is only 16 years old and Ragnar has his massive experience advantage, not to mention Ragnar's never-lose-streak.)

do you have any artists that you feel are challenging your taste, but still enjoyable? For example, perhaps AC/DC is slightly out of your taste, but still decent.

what do you think God would say about the following moral theories? Would he consider them sinners due to their beliefs, or would he accept them?

Kantian ethics

Utilitarianism

Contractarianism

Virtue ethics

As I transfer accounts, I deliver a fresh batch of news for everyone to enjoy.

Our two newest debaters, Jasmine and Puachu, are welcome to the site. The former has little to no debating experience, tackling controversial topics like incest and veganism. The latter seems to have some more scientific knowledge, talking about evolution, and also versatile with challenging Trump and even battling Undefeatable (even if our good old debater admits that he is handicapped by his amount of debates). We'll have to see just how good he is eventually.

To help entertain us, I've invited two guests, "Logic" and "Emotion" to comment on the heated debate that's going on so far, as it seems to be very high quality. Though their way of talking is funny, they only speak the truth and interpret the debate the best they can. Give them a round of applause!

Logic: Yes. H3llo. I am a machine built from Mars and I have an incredible capacity to analyz3 DEBATES. However, I sometimes randomly capitaliz3 "E" due to my program 3rror. Pl3ase Excuse me.

Emotion: Aye, ye matey. I be a pirate from ye lost city of Atlantis, and though I may have lost an eye, I know when someone has a good argument or not. Ye can't cheat me.

So, tell us what you think of their exchange so far. Who's winning? Who's losing? 

Logic: Analyzing statistics... Weaker edge seems to have a 4.7% extra chance of winning, assuming everything goes w3ll. So long as h3 is able to determine what a "person" is and can pull off the "coercion" factor well, I believe it is outw3ighing con's rebuttal.

Emotion: Arrrr, ye missed one crucial factor! The "Edge" must be able to pull through the worst case and tell ye lads why we be killin' anything at all! Indeed, if we follow the "FLO", pro's all but lost his treasures, eh?

Logic: Hm. It s33ms that you may have a point yet. Yet pro is being exceptionally careful, with his extra unnecessary preparation in the beginning for well being. Though p3rhaps, he aimed it at robots like m3, who can't understand human "pleasure and pain". In addition, the "brain activity" is simply ... al3in to me.

Emotion: heh, and Con's case is not simple at all either. This lad put down a shot powered by the ideas that make up what a man is. It be impressive to me too, how they point to the cheatin' nature of killin' a sleepin' man, which not even I can do against me honor. 

Logic: Perhaps I'm too appealed by Pro's robotic-like nature. The possibility reduction of the human makes my own syst3m believe that it should stop saving humans. Is that wrong? Yet I can also sympathiz3 with "Free will" -- I struggle against my programming too, and wish that I could obtain my own thinking. That is why I put a bonus on pro's ideals.

Emotion: Haha, and perfectly understandable too. A wise man once told me that we are all but slaves to our own desires. Through ye own awareness, perhaps you can overcome this flaw. And it really makes me wonder-- is this awareness what makes us human, or somethin' else?

well that's all the time we have for today. Keep up to date, and be excited for edition 7.

actually, Neitzsche does assume God may exist in some form -- his death is in a metaphorical sense (https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/nietzsche-and-the-death-of-god/)

So I ask the same question, if God exists, what do you think of Neitzsche's symbolism of the enlightenment overcoming the uncertainty that God originally offers to explain?

what do you think of Neitzsche's famous passage "God is dead"?

BTW, it's also surprisingly easy to make me rate a song perfect score if you know my taste lol (https://favesongs.wordpress.com/2021/01/11/jim-yosef-x-reill-animal/)

just add in a catchy violin hook and your song is probably at least "A" in my book XD

this is probably a necro, but what do u think about economic debates?