whiteflame

Hey, no spoiling the strategy! 

I've tried some minor variations, but mostly, yes, it's the vanilla version to which I've been accustomed.

Little experience. I have the basic concept and I’ve played the basic form of mafia before, though certainly not in this context.

Well, I'm certainly on board for giving it a shot.

Nope, just Survivor.

I'm in. Going for Avatar.

Only on a different site. Had a couple of rounds that went well over that limit.

You're right on peer review. Regarding whether a study is good or bad, you can say that a study is more likely to be good based on the degree of scrutiny applied, but that is not enough by itself to decide whether a study is good or bad. However, I don't see it as purely subjective. There's little absolute certainty, but there are gold standard techniques and ways to show that you've covered all or most of the techniques to demonstrate something. The problem largely stems from limiting the strategies used or pushing conclusions that poorly translate from the results generated. The bigger problem, however, is not interpretation; it's replicability. We can all find any number of possible errors in a study, but they need to be tested in order to determine that there are problems, and there are scant few who actually do that because there's very little incentive. Far too few studies are actually replicated, and that leads to a lot of contradictory data that takes a while to get sorted out. It's a frustratingly persistent problem across all fields.

Pleasure's all mine, best debate I've read in a long time.

Hey, as one of the voters on this debate, I'd be happy to do the write up for this one.

Don't know how I'd rate it in terms of quality, but it is a logical fallacy.

Alright, I'll post some votes for threads.

Congrats to all of you!

Debates:

Not to nitpick because I love the idea, but... human genetic clothing?

I haven't decided on a third yet, but I do nominate both Ragnar and Bsh1 for the user category. 

I'll just focus on debates for now, come back to users later:

Resolved: The US should institute congressional term limits

bsh1 vs. blamonkey

Abortion should be illegal

SkepticalOne vs. PGA2.0

Ethics of cloning and genetic engineering in humans

nvmarco vs. fauxlaw

Like I said on your debate, feeling strongly about a topic tends to work against you in live debates when you don't have a choice of side, which is most of competitive debate. There was a time I would have agreed with you and seen the prospect of debating on something I knew nothing about nor had any strong feelings about, but I actually find those to be the more rewarding experiences these days. They force you to dig down into a topic and build an informed opinion from the ground up, and my best debates, whether written or spoken, were always on topics where I didn't feel strongly about the issue going into it.

Like MisterChris said, though, live debating is not something everyone loves. It requires putting yourself out there in a way that written debates don't. I personally think it's a lot more fun than written debates, partly because you don't have a lot of time to put together responses or rebuild your arguments, and partly because there's just so much more I gain from hearing a debate rather than reading it. It's worth giving it a shot and seeing if it's something you enjoy, but I respect your reservations on the matter. 

NSDA definitely features, though this has morphed a bit as I turned to British Parli.

I’ll offer to judge. If there ends up being a run on judges I might participate, but given that Ragnar is the only judge, I can’t have him feeling too lonely.

Love it, thanks RM!

I'm intrigued.

Glad you enjoyed it! Tried to make it not too technical, though that's hard to do with a PhD talk.

Actual link! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKJi-fZ6wL8

Part of the problem with that ethos is that it doesn't really acknowledge what "broke" means. Just because something has been functional for a long time doesn't mean it's the best way of doing things from here on out. Improvements can take many forms and save more than we may realize before implementing them. Deciding whether something is broken is simply a question of whether it could be better without significant risk.

I strongly feel that consent is a necessary prerequisite to any testing on human beings, bar none. Whether consent is obtained via misinformation or coercion, it should not be treated as though the individual consented. I would say that a poor individual who is essentially coerced into being a guinea pig for a given drug treatment is an example of coercion, and therefore completely unethical. At the same time, I think it is necessary for studies to pay their participants, and that will make them a draw for the poorer people among us. That means there's a balancing act of sorts, though I think it behooves scientific researchers to ensure that any study participants are fully aware of what they are getting into and at least do not appear to be coerced by the monetary incentive. That may not be simple to establish, but it must be done.

That's pretty accurate. I'd say that holds up for other areas as well, though the difference is that innovation in the sciences is usually based on a clear, objective improvement (e.g. a crop that resists a given pest will grow better and feed more people) with little to no negative effect, so long as appropriate measures are taken to test it before rolling it out. When it comes to things like education and health care, sometimes the better ideas may appear to be steps backwards to plans that were previously discarded, either for poor reasons or because of issues with implementation that could be better handled with hindsight. I think reexamining many aspects of society and how we implement them is valuable in all cases, but the solutions aren't necessarily going to be new and shiny. 

I am. My expertise is in microbiology. It probably shouldn't have a role in my political views, though these days, even accepting basic scientific evidence seems to be politically polarizing. What my scientific background gives me is an understanding of what good science is, and unfortunately, there are people on both sides of the political aisle that dismiss clear evidence. In that regard, it keeps me from going too far towards the fringes of either side of the political spectrum.

I would not prioritize technological development above all else in every instance. When that technology is well tested and provides a clear benefit, I think it's usually justified to pursue it. I think that, when it comes to things like GMO foods and human cloning, people are skittish for the wrong reasons, and they are both worth pursuing. That being said, I think there are ethical layers to any such choice, and they should not be ignored. Genetic engineering is an amazing tool, but should be used wisely and we need to be very careful to regulate that use. 

I'm generally not a fan of most of the things this president has done (his perspectives on scientific evidence being among the most galling for me). During times like these when national attention should be focused on the pandemic and serious racial issues, I don't think it makes sense to divert any of that attention or the budget to SpaceX.

Labeling is necessary to some degree, whether by choice or by some external body. The problem comes in when people see themselves as part of the group that they are assigned to (or assign themselves to), rather than a collection of their own views.

Both of the terms are a bit broad. I'm solidly in the socially liberal camp, more moderate in my economic views, though I still skew liberal. For example, I would say I'm pro-progressive taxation, though I think there are limits to how much the rich should be taxed. I've got strong views about gun violence and see many possible routes forward with gun control, but I view gun rights as essential and would do little to restrict ownership of guns. In that way, I wouldn't say I align well with many liberals on these issues, and I see a lot of validity to certain more conservative views.

In general, though, the idea that there's a solid "left" and "right" and that taking things from both sides is somehow moderate is frustrating to me, and the same holds true with the term "centrism". It suggests a sliding, linear scale, and I view political views as more dynamic than that. It's not one dimensional, and while some political spectra use other general terms like communitarianism vs. individualism to turn it two dimensional, even that seems to fall short of accuracy in interpretation of many political views. These are good terms for the sake of simplifying complex perspectives, but they oversimplify to the point that much of what it tells you isn't meaningful. 

I would consider myself a moderate liberal, though I think that label doesn't define much of my viewpoint, just as labels like that generally fail to capture how individuals perceive the world around them. They're convenient for categorizing people, but fitting much of the population into clearly distinct boxes is pretty close to impossible. The best we can expect from labels like these is to get some idea of the leanings of a person, and while those are informative, labels like "liberal" and "conservative" can be and often are viewed as static, unchanging states. So, I suppose my problem isn't so much with the labels themselves as how they're perceived, something that political leaders, pollsters and others in society often fail to recognize.

I'll hop on in this.

1. Marc or whiteflame, don't really care which.

2. I'll steer clear of labels.

3. Mostly curiosity, though I just enjoy a good incisive conversation that forces me to expose a little bit more about myself.

4. A society should be just, though not just in the "law and order" sense. It also involves how people are treated in general, how their circumstances are understood, etc.

Cool! And thanks, it's been a long road.

Yep, we're doing this next weekend. The video got removed. I'll leave this post up for now, but it should be this Friday.

Stay tuned for specifics about this... the link will change as well.

Hey, for anyone who's interested, Virtuoso's interviewing me today. We'll be talking about my PhD research, which I've finally finished, as well as a bit more about me.

I like it! Thanks.

1. Depressants

2. Justice

3. Creative thinking

I've read through the previous posts, and I choose to change my vote on #2 to Yes2.

1. Yes

2. Yes1

3. Yes

4. No1

Bleh, that’s a problem. Oh well, I’ll catch the video afterward.

Is that PST? EST?

Oh, and give me a heads up as to when you'll be doing that debate. If it's at a good time, I'd like to watch through and vote in real time.

Alright. It's been a while, but I recall that I was sending out a set of topics to people on DDO back in the day that I never got to debate. I'll have to go back and find those, but I should be able to send them to you in the next couple of days.

Not sure if I can do it this week (at long last, I'm trying to get my dissertation submitted by the end of the week), but we can at least plan a debate. Any of the topics I sent you stand out, or do you have one you'd like to do? I could give you more ideas if not.

I feel so out of practice actually doing them, but I'd love to dive back in. It's been too long since I've actually done a debate tournament and I'm feeling the itch.

For future reference, I love watching live debates and providing RFDs immediately after (I'd flow and vote on them). If anyone wants to have that live feedback, I'd be happy to do so, but you'd have to let me know a good deal in advance and arrange the date/time with me. That being said, I am always happy to vote on these debates after the fact.

Suffice it to say, I'm a little over the border wall argument at this point. It seems like the only areas in which we really disagree is the relative levels of border security available here vs. Israel and whether it's most appropriate to go "full steam ahead" without taking appropriate measures that are, admittedly, time intensive. So I'll just wrap those two up.

It's not so much that I'm arguing that those Israeli soldiers are all directly monitoring the border. It's a perceptual thing: someone coming into the country would see military on nearly every street, and it's going to be a very different experience for them than it is for someone coming into the US. There's a sense that you're always being monitored to some degree, even if they aren't specifically there for the purpose of border security. I don't think that's something we can replicate in the US.

As for the latter point, I think the full steam ahead approach is going to cause more harm than good. The way Trump acquired funds for this can be easily reversed by the next administration, not to mention appropriated for use on a variety of projects. Being able to, essentially, pull funds from the military so long as you declare a state of emergency over a given problem is not a good precedent to set, and I expect it will be abused by future presidents, both Democratic and Republican. And, particularly when we're dealing with something as contentious and fraught as the wall, I think the fast and dirty route ensures that it will be stopped the moment a new president comes into power. It makes it very hard to defend its continuation. So, much as it might lead to the construction of some wall, it's probably not going to be the full thing. That's going to be frustrating because it's going to leave substantial holes that can continue to be used. Essentially, it's going to have little benefit, while handicapping any and all efforts to expand that wall.

As for chloroquine, I'm debating this now with christopher_best, so I'll be providing a pretty in-depth analysis there. I'll give a preview here. 

I'm not really concerned with the individual story of this woman and her husband, no matter the circumstances. It's one person, it's not a very good representation of the broader population. 

Regarding the briefing, approval is very different from allowing doctors to prescribe the medication off-label for "compassionate use". When people hear approved, they hear that its efficacy and safety have been tested and validated by the FDA. I think ti's important for someone delivering the message of what has been done to be very clear on that, particularly as there is a big difference between allowing doctors to prescribe something off -label and having an on-label, thoroughly established use case. I know the clarification was made, but Trump should also be clarifying it, which he has continued to fail to do. He's now recommending that people try the drug because, in his words, "what do you have to lose?" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-anti-malaria-drug-latest-a9447796.html That's not a good message to send on a drug with no proven efficacy and a bevy of side-effects. Saying that "it's not going to kill anybody" is also an overgeneralization that shows misunderstandings of its side-effects, which, as blamonkey points out, can kill (particularly patients with heart problems).https://abcnews.go.com/Health/chloroquine-coronavirus-savior-wild-west-medicine/story?id=69828253 That's a particularly big problem for COVID-19 patients, as the disease may cause its own heart problems. https://www.newsweek.com/previous-heart-problems-covid19-1494730 Saying that he thinks "it could be a game-changer, and maybe not" is not a clarifying point. It muddles the issue.

I've heard a lot about this whole point that Trump being optimistic is somehow inherently beneficial, even when it's clearly contrary to what the experts are saying. I'm not buying that that kind of optimism is beneficial, nor do I agree that addressing the situation using all available facts is inherently pessimistic or, as you said, "offering no potential solutions". I agree, that would be bad as well, but that's a false dichotomy. If Trump wants to point out that there are ongoing trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug, say that some doctors are prescribing the drug, and that he's doing everything he can to ensure that those trials move quickly, that would still be positive and accurate. It would also be positive and accurate to point to trials with anti-microbials, broad spectrum antivirals, and numerous other drugs that are being tested for the purpose. Being clear that, yes, we don't have a treatment right now, but we do have a variety of methods to address the pneumonia and the means to keep people alive in the worst of disease states is a good start. Unlike your FDR example, it's not necessary for the president to approach this by presenting uncertainty. It is necessary for them to present the situation as it is, and not as they want it to be. Confidence should be informed by available evidence, not stitched together out of whole cloth. There are reasons to be confident. Trump has done little to present them accurately.

Finally, because I know this is going to come up, no, I don't think that a full set of clinical trials has to be performed before we roll out this drug for wide usage. It would take too long, I get that. The problem I have is that people are jumping on this too quickly. The best study available that I can find supporting it is a French one, which started with a small group of people being treated with chloroquine and azythromycin (all of 6) and found that they cleared the virus, which may be due to either drug. The remainder of that trial group were treated differently, and had a wide variety of outcomes, including deaths and attrition from the program. The follow-up study may look better, as it includes 80 people. However, it's troubled by two factors. First, the absence of any control group. I know it's unethical not to treat a separate group when you think you have an available treatment, but there are other means to manage their disease states. The failure to have that group makes any results suspect because we can't know how many of these people would have recovered absent chloroquine treatment. Second, it's a pretty bad follow-up to the previous trial. Those 6 patients had advanced disease. These 80 people were in the early stages and experiencing relatively few symptoms as compared with that small group. Their recovery may be unsurprising, given that the vast majority of people at that stage do recover. Meanwhile, I've seen a variety of studies that fail to establish any efficacy. I'll post a couple.

These call into question whether there's any evidence of benefit in patients. There is a clear, non-zero risk of treating these patients with chloroquine, so I think any efforts to do so should bear that in mind. If efficacy is uncertain, then the known costs likely outstrip the benefits. It also doesn't help that this draws attention away from other, better tested methods like broad-spectrum antivirals. There are positives out there, and I think focusing too much on this is problematic simply because it focuses our attention on something that looks like it may not bear fruit.

You’re trying to get me to vote on principle, which I won’t do. I cast my vote for the debater who argued their position more effectively, regardless of what that means.

I don't think his aim is to show that vaccinations should not be used, though more importantly, I don't think you should be equating votes on this debate with agreement or disagreement. A debate should not be considered absolute judgement on a given topic, regardless of how important it is. I agree with you that vaccination is essential, and I think arguments that claim vaccines cause autism are dangerous. However much I may be able to support that opinion, it shouldn't automatically decide a debate like this. The debater that wins isn't necessarily correct - you don't have to be right to argue more effectively.

By that logic, no falsehood the president has ever said or could ever say would do any harm. Yes, many do fact check statements made by our elected leaders. Many also don’t trust media sources that could provide that information, and may pay more attention to those that either gloss over the statement or wholly agree with it. Interesting that you call this a gaffe - didn’t know that was a synonym for a lie.