Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
If I better understood what you were going to do in the role, I could very well have ended up voting for you. For all you say that you are the ethical choice here, I didn't see much of a layout for what you are planning apart from putting out free stuff. As for choosing who would challenge us... this is RM we're talking about, right? I have little doubt that both of you would challenge us in the role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Like he said, so long as what he's providing isn't tied to a vote for him, it's not bribery. Incentivizing voting is perfectly fine.
Created:
Posted in:
LIVE Election Results
RationalMadman: 17 (RationalMadman, AustinL0926, K_Michael, zedvictor4, Lunatic, Sidewalker, Mikal, Intelligence_06, FLRW, SupaDudz, SkepticalOne, Reece101, Skipper_Sr, Barney, anderwee123, Tejretics, whiteflame)
WyIted: 16 (YouFound_Lxam, Sir.Lancelot, Phenenas, Mps1213, Best.Korea, ILikePie5, WyIted, sadolite, Greyparrot, TWS1405_2, BearMan, bmdrocks21, Dr.Franklin, Mharman, SamStevens, Novice_II)
Abstaining: 1 (David)
Created:
Posted in:
I'm voting for RationalMadman.
It's not an easy decision for me. I've known both of these users since the DDO days - Wylted joined DDO at almost the same time that I did. I think either of them could do the job, and much as I see potential problems with both, I think each could improve things on the site in their own way. Part of this vote is just a reaction to the mistake that was electing Airmax, since part of what I'm looking for in a new president is someone who is consistently involved in the website and I think RM's activity speaks for itself. WyIted is active as well, but he goes through slumps. I've also seen that RM has a genuine and strong drive to improve the site, and while WyIted may share that, the lack of a platform for him makes it more difficult to determine what that would look like. I've appreciated the financial contributions WyIted has made, but they can't be stand-ins for his approach to the position he's running for.
Created:
Posted in:
LIVE Election Results
RationalMadman: 15 (RationalMadman, AustinL0926, K_Michael, zedvictor4, Lunatic, Sidewalker, Mikal, Intelligence_06, FLRW, SupaDudz, SkepticalOne, Reece101, Skipper_Sr, Barney, anderwee123)
WyIted: 13 (YouFound_Lxam, Sir.Lancelot, Phenenas, Mps1213, Best.Korea, ILikePie5, WyIted, sadolite, Greyparrot, TWS1405_2, BearMan, bmdrocks21, Dr.Franklin)
Abstaining: 1 (David)
Created:
Posted in:
LIVE Election Results
RationalMadman: 14 (RationalMadman, AustinL0926, K_Michael, zedvictor4, Lunatic, Sidewalker, Mikal, Intelligence_06, FLRW, SupaDudz, SkepticalOne, Reece101, Skipper_Sr, Barney)
WyIted: 11 (YouFound_Lxam, Sir.Lancelot, Phenenas, Mps1213, Best.Korea, ILikePie5, WyIted, sadolite, Greyparrot, TWS1405_2, BearMan)
Abstaining: 1 (David)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Quite right, I miscounted. Updated.
Created:
Posted in:
LIVE Election Results
RationalMadman: 13 (RationalMadman, AustinL0926, K_Michael, zedvictor4, Lunatic, Sidewalker, Mikal, Intelligence_06, FLRW, SupaDudz, SkepticalOne, Reece101, Skipper_Sr)
WyIted: 9 (YouFound_Lxam, Sir.Lancelot, Phenenas, Mps1213, Best.Korea, ILikePie5, WyIted, sadolite, Greyparrot)
Abstaining: 1 (David)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
They are not multiaccounts of one another. They are distinct accounts created by different people, one of whom copied the pfp of the other. That's all the information you'll get from me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
They're two different people who made two different accounts with the same pfp to vote for opposite candidates. It's honestly not that hard to figure out and I don't know why you keep making this point. And, no, just because you want to get all the reasons why these now three accounts that were obviously made for the purpose of voting in this election doesn't mean I'm going to release privileged information about them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I do not publicly release information that is only available to moderation because of our administrative access. That's not going to change now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The information we have is administrative in nature and, no, we don't make that info publicly available. You'll just have to take my word for it.
Created:
Posted in:
LIVE Election Results
RationalMadman: 10 (RationalMadman, AustinL0926, K_Michael, zedvictor4, Lunatic, Sidewalker, Mikal, Intelligence_06, FLRW, SupaDudz)
WyIted: 6 (YouFound_Lxam, Sir.Lancelot, Phenenas, Mps1213, Best.Korea, ILikePie5, WyIted)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Both Johnny Blaze and Jimmy Blaze were accounts created on the day of the election with no other activity. Their votes do not count, and they'd cancel each other out anyway. As for voting, that's the standard we have for this website and it will stand, but thanks for the fact check.
Created:
Posted in:
LIVE Election Results
RationalMadman: 10 (RationalMadman, AustinL0926, K_Michael, zedvictor4, Lunatic, Sidewalker, Mikal, Intelligence_06, FLRW, SupaDudz)
WyIted: 6 (YouFound_Lxam, Sir.Lancelot, Phenenas, Mps1213, Best.Korea, ILikePie5)
Created:
Posted in:
LIVE Election Results
RationalMadman: 9 (RationalMadman, AustinL0926, K_Michael, zedvictor4, Lunatic, Sidewalker, Mikal, Intelligence_06, FLRW)
WyIted: 5 (YouFound_Lxam, Sir.Lancelot, Phenenas, Mps1213, Best.Korea)
Created:
Posted in:
LIVE Election Results
RationalMadman: 7 (RationalMadman, AustinL0926, K_Michael, zedvictor4, Lunatic, Sidewalker, Mikal)
WyIted: 4 (YouFound_Lxam, Sir.Lancelot, Phenenas, Mps1213)
Created:
Posted in:
Greetings DebateArt.
The sites first ever election is officially underway. Before we get started, here are a few quick rules before you vote
- You may only have 1 vote per person. This means that if you are voting under 2 accounts and are caught doing so, only 1 of the votes you cast will count
- Please state who you are voting for by bolding who your vote is for, especially if you plan to write out your reasoning as to why you are voting said user
- Election tampering (which is defined as recruiting people outside the site to vote for a certain candidate) is illegal and WILL result in the votes used by manipulation to be disqualified
- Please try to maintain civility in this thread. This is the voting stage, not the argumentative/campaigning stage. While I understand people have strong thoughts about the candidates, people would much rather look at people's reasons for voting a candidate than someone whining for 2 pages
- YOU CAN NOT CHANGE YOUR VOTE ONCE YOU PLACE IT!!!!! Like in a real election, you can not take back your vote that you already submitted
==============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Below are the following people that you are able to vote for in the election
The voting phase will last from January 16th, 11PM EST to January 18th, 11PM EST. All votes after that time DO NOT count!
As stated before, this election will be a majority vote due to the lack of candidates.
If there is a tie for the winner, the top candidates will go into a 24 hour run off period, where another majority vote will be held with the two candidates.
Finally, I wish the best of luck to both candidates. Both of you are capable and deserving to be president, regardless of how many votes you receive, and your contributions to the site will continue to be appreciated regardless of whether you win this role.
Created:
Posted in:
No on both.
Seems like this is built to make things unnecessarily difficult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Sounds like this is something we'd have to spend some time thinking through, then. It sounds like you're having trouble deciding whether one of us should take the status quo position and have the other argue from something slightly off of it, or have us both take extreme positions and debate which is better. There's good reasons to do either one, it's just a matter of deciding which makes the most sense/would be the most interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Still not very clear on what you envision my position would be in this debate, so can you state it plainly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I guess it would depend on how we define "brain death" for the purposes of this discussion. I wouldn't argue that any view of brain death is sufficient.
I get the basics of organ transplants, that's not the issue here. It's more about what is and isn't in-bounds for this kind of debate. I'll skim the documentary later to see what you're looking at, but from what you've said so far, there are two possible takeaways: one, never harvest organs from patients declared brain dead, or two, we need to change the way we classify someone as brain dead and establish a standard for harvesting organs that sets that bar higher. If it's the former, we can have a debate. If it's the latter, then we already agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
It's not very clear from all that what you're looking to debate. As Public-Choice said, it seems like the biggest problem you have is with the way organ donation is done, particularly in those instances where the person with those organs may still recover. I agree that those are problematic, and I'm not entirely certain what the arguments are for why it's necessary to take the organs before death, so I'm not sure what position you'd be arguing against that I'd be willing to take.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Looks good to me, at least on first glance. I’ll plan to post this sometime after your debate with Intelligence ends. I’ll discuss any potential changes with you before I add them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I'd nix extraneous details that you could define in the description and clarify the comparison a tad:
"The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine provides improved immune response to the virus vs. natural Immunity"
We could specify the vaccine in the description and, honestly, the booster inclusion just seems superfluous and also too theoretical, since (as far as I know), no one is receiving a vaccine booster every 3 months. I also would prefer that you didn't give me grounds to argue that, going way into the future, we will design more and more specific vaccines with a wider array of immune targets. We should be focusing on the effectiveness of what's been done, not concerning ourselves with a booster system that may or may not be implemented in the future.
As for the change I made, again, I think this is a difference of perception regarding what "immunity" means in this context, so if you'd like to change the way we use that term in the debate, it has to be clarified. As you wrote it, I'm unclear - "Superior Immunity" could be interpreted at least a couple of different ways. As I wrote it, this debate would encompass all immune responses to the virus.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll also note that defining "immunity" solely in the perfect sense is not going to be acceptable to me in any form. I've got reasons for that, but if your aim is to narrow the scope of what suffices as vaccine efficacy, it'll have to be wider than simply "stopping transmission of COVID-19."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Stopping transmission of COVID-19
This interpretation goes back to the problem I had with the term "immunity" that I mentioned earlier. If we're talking about stopping transmission, then we're discussing perfect immunity, i.e. these people can no longer get the virus. If we're talking about the entirety of immunity in the medical sense, then we're discussing the capacity of the body to respond to the virus, which can sometimes mean that an individual cannot get or transmit the virus (though even that has limits - get enough of an infectious dose of anything and you can overwhelm even the strongest immune response). However, medical immunity is on a sliding scale from none to perfect with a lot of positive effects in between. I'd prefer to keep those on the table. If you want to nix them by redefining successful to a much narrower scope, then we're going to have a problem if we stick to this topic because we're going to have two very different views on what what achieving success looks like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Guess I'd define it pretty straight up: "accomplishing its aim or purpose." So, we'd have to define what its aim/purpose is, which for me would be improving health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Assuming we define successful well, sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
It honestly seems like it depends on where you want to go with it. If you want a general comparison of vaccination to a natural state, then what I recommended before:
“On balance, people are better off vaccinating for COVID-19.”
works just fine. It also works as a way to frame the benefits of vaccines against the dangers, though if you want something more direct on that front, maybe:
"On balance, mRNA vaccination against COVID-19 has been net beneficial."
If you'd rather focus on the specific issue of whether a sufficient immune response results to impede the virus, it can be more like this:
"On balance, the use of mRNA vaccinations to combat COVID-19 has been successful."
I'd be good with any of these, so it largely depends on where you want to place the emphasis/focus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
So, that topic isn’t fully clear. Are we comparing what would happen to a random, largely healthy individual to determine which would affect them worse, or are we talking about populations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I mean… yeah? I think that’s a more difficult stance for you, but if you want to debate it, I’m down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Yes, specifically for COVID-19 illness. Think that’s rather obvious.
On this (assuming you left the word “vaccine” out of that first sentence where I think you did), we disagree and I’d be willing to include that in the debate.
Then what’s your threshold for “immunity”? Because if it’s not improving medical outcomes for patients, then it sounds like we have rather different views of how an immune response functions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Better: improve medical outcomes for
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Even 10 or 20 years is well beyond what we have data for now, but if you’re willing to give me leeway to argue beyond the 4 dose regimen (i.e. that we can expect other doses to come out and be inoculated later), then I’d consider it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
For the sake of simplicity, then, the topic should be:
“On balance, people are better off vaccinating for COVID-19”
We would define vaccinating as you have to limit this discussion to that single vaccine. “On balance” focuses the debate on the average person who either does not have or is not aware of substantial comorbidities (I’m willing to define that to preclude myself from arguing that those with known comorbidies should get vaccinated). If you want to make this solely about protection from getting the virus, that would require some more specificity, but I’m unclear if that’s your aim.
In general, though, I’m also not a fan of so specifically defining what I can and cannot argue as you have in the OP. Generally, I’m not a fan of stating in absolute terms what either of our stances must be. I’m going to argue on this topic, but there has to be leeway for me to explore it fully. For example, I’m not OK with being told that any and all comorbidities are off the table just because people with obvious ones should clearly receive the vaccine. We’re not arguing about a single patient, we’re arguing about a population. The dynamics of that population matter to this debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
This looks somewhat distinct from the debate you've been having with Intelligence. I don't see a discrete topic written here, though if I'm gleaning it from the "STANCES" section, it is one of the following two topics:
The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine provides better immunity than COVID-19 infection over the lifetime of those inoculated.
The Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine provides better immunity than that seen in uninoculated patients over the lifetime of those inoculated.
I think it should be clarified which one you're talking about. The debate is very different depending on which one you choose. Maybe your point is that you would defend both, but if that's the case, then we might as well only talk about the latter, since we both agree from the outset that COVID-19 often generates an immune response that provides substantial immunity against the virus. The harder one to defend, IMO, is the latter.
I'm leaving out the "comorbidities's" aspect because that's going to overcomplicate things. We're going to have to get into what makes something a comorbidity and somehow delineate entirely between those without and those with, and considering the number of potential comorbidities out there, how severe they are, and the open question as to whether all of them are even known for each patient being tracked throughout this pandemic, I think you're asking a lot to cleanly separate out those with no comorbidities.
Even so, I'm not fond of this as a topic. We're not talking about the lifetimes of the vast majority of these people because, frankly, the vast, vast majority of people in both camps are still alive. We could make comparisons based on a number of factors that we can know now, but you're essentially putting the onus on me to prove something that is unprovable given present data: that people who got this vaccines will, over their lifetime, showcase better immunity than those who were naturally infected with the virus. I can't do that. No one can. The reverse is true as well, but since it would be my burden to bear, the debate automatically favors you. We can talk about the persistence of immune response up to now and that's the limit. And if we are going to go into the future, then I think restricting the number of potential vaccine doses to 4 seems problematic. Presumably, there will be further development on these vaccines and specificity against emerging strains, so why don't those get to be a part of projections?
As for whether I'm going first, that is going to be a matter of how we frame the debate. Once we're done figuring out the topic, if it's framed in a way that places me as Pro, I'll take Pro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Same to you! Nice to finally have a year where the dates overlap with Christmas again. May you enjoy your festival of lights and may you have all the latkes and sufganiyot you desire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
My background in live debating definitely informs my style in written debates, though I can't say that the two are identical. There's certainly a parliamentary style to my debating, with the aim usually being to tell a story with my arguments (meaning they rarely function wholly independently of one another) and try to focus on generating substantial impacts. That being said, my arguments are usually the weakest aspects of my debates, and I tend to play more offense than defense, focusing chiefly on rebuttals, either knocking down or turning arguments in my favor. I also tend to emphasize things like the framing of the debate, the burdens involved, and focus on crystallizing the debate at the end, so while I can (and do) often get bogged down in the details, I try to keep an eye on the bigger picture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
Dude, if you really want to go into this much detail, let's take it out of RM's thread. I'm not going to clog it up with stuff specific to your debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
If you had wanted to solely debate the existence of voter fraud sufficient to have potentially changed the outcome of the election, then you should have left the issue of decertification out of your resolution entirely. I may not have voted on the plausibility of decertification myself, but by including decertification in your topic as the mode of action, you invited that line of argumentation. You can say that it's just overly nitpicky, but when I look at a resolution (and I honestly hope everyone does this), the mode of action is something that immediately draws my attention, and while this was a "should" resolution that implies that you bypass inherency concerns, the use of decertification as a mechanism still mattered because you had to win that that was the right way to respond to the problem.
You can call all this semantics, but this is what a lot of debate is built upon, and frankly, I think you're best served by more carefully drafting your resolutions than you are by including extraneous details and then stating the limits of what you and your opponent can argue separately in the description. The resolution should provide discrete boundaries for what can be argued in the debate. Adding limitations just provides another layer of semantics to parse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'd be up for one, though I don't have a topic in mind. I'll give it some thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Alright, you don’t seem interested in engaging with what I posted, so I’ll just leave it here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You said based on biology. Biology is based on traits, that’s how we distinguish organisms. You can’t avoid talking about traits if you’re making a biological distinction between organisms
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
That doesn’t answer my questions. What are the biological determinants of personhood (i.e. what traits are required to designate a human as a person)? Being born into the world alive is not a trait, so what does birth impart to a human that results in the shift to personhood? And if there is such a trait or set of traits, why are those traits the ones that result in biological personhood?
I suspect based on what I’m reading that it checks certain biological boxes for you that are sufficient for you to view them as worthy of rights. That’s different from the field of biology itself ascribing a specific set of traits that determines when a human becomes a person, which is the claim you’re making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Birth.Personhood is defined as: the quality or condition of being an individual person.Individual is defined as: a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection:Person is defined as: a human being regarded as an individualHuman being is defined as: a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species:The legal definition of “personhood” is: 1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.Biologically, physiologically, geographically, and legally personhood begins at BIRTH!This statute is backed by the 14th Amendment. Again, BIRTH!
I did pose my question in response to the claim that the zygote is the beginning of a person, though I’ll note that it applies here as well.
What’s the biological definition of personhood? Legally, we largely agree, but you’re making the claim that there is a biological threshold for personhood that is achieved at birth. I don’t see any evidence for that in the above quote. I agree that humans are distinct from other animals and represent a distinct species, but clearly your argument implies humans are distinct from persons in that a human develops in the womb, but a person emerges. So, what does birth impart that biologically causes the shift to personhood?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
“Research” isn’t able to answer that question since it’s fundamentally a philosophical question.
I agree. I'm not posing this question to make an argument against the pro-life stance, only to question why it's assumed by many that personhood biologically starts at conception. I also agree that it's arbitrary to select other points along the development scale. It's not my aim to defend any specific biological perception of when personhood begins.
For the purposes of this discussion at least, I'm not really interested in discussing the philosophical or moral application of personhood, though I appreciate your point, even if I disagree with elements of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes I know it is a different subject. I was just pointing it out for context. And if your talking about specific life, then it does actually start at conception."When a sperm successfully fertilizes an oocyte (egg), a new cell, called a zygote, is generated by their union. The zygote represents the first stage in the life of a human being."
So, rather than justify your own argument, you're presenting me with a link to someone making the same assertion? I've already conceded that this is a commonly-held belief. I'm arguing that it's arbitrary. A zygote represents a lot of changes in development, I completely agree on that front. Why are those changes the ones that demonstrate a new life has been created? Why should any new human life be treated as a human being/person? The article actually has a response, though you didn't choose to quote it for some reason:
"It's true that life in general is continuous, but the life of an individual human being is not continuous. It has a beginning and an end. The beginning is called conception. 'Although life is a continuous process,' explains the textbook Human Embryology & Teratology, 'fertilization … is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed.'"
Even that, though, only begs the question: why is genetic distinction what makes a new life and not anything that comes before or after? Does genetic distinction impart personhood, and if so, how do you know it does? What is it about genetic distinction that affords personhood? Clearly, if I went into my lab and modified a human cell with new DNA, I'm not creating a person, so what traits engender personhood?
Created: