Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Various people are idiots

kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians like to like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 4:32:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM, kbub wrote:
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians like to like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...

Just out of curiosity, can you outline a specific policy that you think is too harsh? For example, what is the rule that you think is hindering your time here on this site? (I have known you to be a relatively polite member and haven't seen why you might feel the need to insult or attack another member).
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 4:54:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think certain members have been pushing the rules too far, and it's about time those rules got enforced... Leniency can only properly exist when people can control themselves around it.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 8:52:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 4:32:29 AM, TUF wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM, kbub wrote:
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians like to like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...

Just out of curiosity, can you outline a specific policy that you think is too harsh? For example, what is the rule that you think is hindering your time here on this site? (I have known you to be a relatively polite member and haven't seen why you might feel the need to insult or attack another member).

1. Cross-thread "contamination." One cannot invoke another's history in the forums. According to the new rules, every thread is a blank slate.
2. Ad hominem arguments are bad arguments, but since when was there a rule against logical fallacies? Ad hominem arguments could be as simple as saying one's argument is inconstant with their actions. Although that doesn't defeat the argument, banning ad hominem is, in my opinion, as ridiculous and vague as banning bad arguments.
3. Belittling is against the rules. I have belittled many debates, including men should have a say in abortion, The confederacy was better than the union, etc. I have called polls "stupid." Although I think it is good that we taking personal attack seriously, especially related to hate based on a group, I think it might be a little much to paint these "violations" with a broad brush.
4. Sometimes people say stupid things. Sometimes people go too far. In my opinion, sometimes it is appropriate for a community to point out these instances. Calling someone "racist" is apparently a violation of the rules. If someone were to defend "The KKK will rise again," 'stupid' 'ignorant' and 'racist' would be terms I'd feel comfortable using to describe the person defending this position. Obviously, it'd be better to attack the idea rather then the person, but I don't think responses of this kind should be considered "not tolerated" despite being "violations."
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 9:04:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 4:32:29 AM, TUF wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM, kbub wrote:
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians like to like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...

Just out of curiosity, can you outline a specific policy that you think is too harsh? For example, what is the rule that you think is hindering your time here on this site? (I have known you to be a relatively polite member and haven't seen why you might feel the need to insult or attack another member).

Each thing I wrote, as mild as it seems, is "a violation and will not be tolerated." I've violated cross-thread "contamination," ad hominem, mere insult, and personal attack.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 9:05:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM, kbub wrote:
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians are like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...

fixed
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:37:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 8:52:02 AM, kbub wrote:

2. Ad hominem arguments are bad arguments, but since when was there a rule against logical fallacies? Ad hominem arguments could be as simple as saying one's argument is inconstant with their actions. Although that doesn't defeat the argument, banning ad hominem is, in my opinion, as ridiculous and vague as banning bad arguments.

I agree with this. After all, not all ad hominems are insults. For example, when a pro choice person says to a male pro life person that their point of view has no value because they are male, that's an ad hominem argument, but it's no insult to point out that somebody is a male. What makes it an ad hominem isn't that it's an insult, but that it's something about the person rather than the argument, and it's offered as if it were relevant to the argument or point of view.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:44:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 9:04:13 AM, kbub wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:32:29 AM, TUF wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM, kbub wrote:
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians like to like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...

Just out of curiosity, can you outline a specific policy that you think is too harsh? For example, what is the rule that you think is hindering your time here on this site? (I have known you to be a relatively polite member and haven't seen why you might feel the need to insult or attack another member).

Each thing I wrote, as mild as it seems, is "a violation and will not be tolerated." I've violated cross-thread "contamination," ad hominem, mere insult, and personal attack.

Given the current state of affairs, do you think this rule is needed?
I have noticed a sharp lack of quality in the forums over the last few months, as well as activity.
My work here is, finally, done.
Krazzy_Player
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:53:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM, kbub wrote:
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians like to like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...

I am an idiot. Have you watched 3 Idiots.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:57:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 10:44:19 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:04:13 AM, kbub wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:32:29 AM, TUF wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM, kbub wrote:
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians like to like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...

Just out of curiosity, can you outline a specific policy that you think is too harsh? For example, what is the rule that you think is hindering your time here on this site? (I have known you to be a relatively polite member and haven't seen why you might feel the need to insult or attack another member).

Each thing I wrote, as mild as it seems, is "a violation and will not be tolerated." I've violated cross-thread "contamination," ad hominem, mere insult, and personal attack.

Given the current state of affairs, do you think this rule is needed?
I have noticed a sharp lack of quality in the forums over the last few months, as well as activity.

Well, sure there's a lack of quality. But do you think increased moderation is the way to bring about quality? I find that forcing people to make quality arguments usually doesn't help and is generally no fun.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 11:04:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 10:57:44 AM, kbub wrote:
At 3/30/2014 10:44:19 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:04:13 AM, kbub wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:32:29 AM, TUF wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM, kbub wrote:
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians like to like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...

Just out of curiosity, can you outline a specific policy that you think is too harsh? For example, what is the rule that you think is hindering your time here on this site? (I have known you to be a relatively polite member and haven't seen why you might feel the need to insult or attack another member).

Each thing I wrote, as mild as it seems, is "a violation and will not be tolerated." I've violated cross-thread "contamination," ad hominem, mere insult, and personal attack.

Given the current state of affairs, do you think this rule is needed?
I have noticed a sharp lack of quality in the forums over the last few months, as well as activity.

Well, sure there's a lack of quality. But do you think increased moderation is the way to bring about quality? I find that forcing people to make quality arguments usually doesn't help and is generally no fun.

It doesn't force quality arguments, it forces "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all", which in turn, may improve quality.
If threads are derailed due to flame wars, it reduces quality. In turn, activity.
If forums are bogged down with drivel and whining, it crowds out quality threads, which in turn affects quality users.

The latter isn't really affected by the policy, unless those same trolling users are the ones derailing threads into flame wars. I assume this will only be enforced in the event there is a complaint, presumably by the target.
My work here is, finally, done.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:09:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 11:04:55 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2014 10:57:44 AM, kbub wrote:
At 3/30/2014 10:44:19 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:04:13 AM, kbub wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:32:29 AM, TUF wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM, kbub wrote:
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians like to like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...

Just out of curiosity, can you outline a specific policy that you think is too harsh? For example, what is the rule that you think is hindering your time here on this site? (I have known you to be a relatively polite member and haven't seen why you might feel the need to insult or attack another member).

Each thing I wrote, as mild as it seems, is "a violation and will not be tolerated." I've violated cross-thread "contamination," ad hominem, mere insult, and personal attack.

Given the current state of affairs, do you think this rule is needed?
I have noticed a sharp lack of quality in the forums over the last few months, as well as activity.

Well, sure there's a lack of quality. But do you think increased moderation is the way to bring about quality? I find that forcing people to make quality arguments usually doesn't help and is generally no fun.

It doesn't force quality arguments, it forces "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all", which in turn, may improve quality.
If threads are derailed due to flame wars, it reduces quality. In turn, activity.
If forums are bogged down with drivel and whining, it crowds out quality threads, which in turn affects quality users.

The latter isn't really affected by the policy, unless those same trolling users are the ones derailing threads into flame wars. I assume this will only be enforced in the event there is a complaint, presumably by the target.

I have mixed feelings, certainly. A little moderation is good. I just think it'd be better if people WANTED to make quality arguments rather than have to. I also like having the freedom to express myself in ways that might fall into the other categories, despite being admittedly "quality."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:25:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 8:52:02 AM, kbub wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:32:29 AM, TUF wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM, kbub wrote:
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians like to like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...

Just out of curiosity, can you outline a specific policy that you think is too harsh? For example, what is the rule that you think is hindering your time here on this site? (I have known you to be a relatively polite member and haven't seen why you might feel the need to insult or attack another member).

1. Cross-thread "contamination." One cannot invoke another's history in the forums. According to the new rules, every thread is a blank slate.

That's not what it says. It says that should be the goal--and it should be.

One explicitly CAN invoke their history, however, when it's relevant.

2. Ad hominem arguments are bad arguments, but since when was there a rule against logical fallacies? Ad hominem arguments could be as simple as saying one's argument is inconstant with their actions. Although that doesn't defeat the argument, banning ad hominem is, in my opinion, as ridiculous and vague as banning bad arguments.

Ad hominem, though, is the dismissal of a user's opinion wholesale--it's a direct attack on them, specifically to be rid of their arguments without addressing them.

3. Belittling is against the rules. I have belittled many debates, including men should have a say in abortion, The confederacy was better than the union, etc. I have called polls "stupid." Although I think it is good that we taking personal attack seriously, especially related to hate based on a group, I think it might be a little much to paint these "violations" with a broad brush.

"Mere insult of ideas is allowed--mere insult of people is not."

You can say any poll or debate is as stupid as you want.

4. Sometimes people say stupid things. Sometimes people go too far. In my opinion, sometimes it is appropriate for a community to point out these instances. Calling someone "racist" is apparently a violation of the rules.

It really isn't--as long as you back it up.

If someone were to defend "The KKK will rise again," 'stupid' 'ignorant' and 'racist' would be terms I'd feel comfortable using to describe the person defending this position. Obviously, it'd be better to attack the idea rather then the person, but I don't think responses of this kind should be considered "not tolerated" despite being "violations."

Ignorant is defensible. Stupid is subjective insult. Racist is defensible.

And remember that for the most part, airmax will only be responding to complaints, not going out there LOOKING for violations.

A complaint is made...he looks at whether it's valid or not.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:26:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 8:16:58 AM, WheezySquash8 wrote:
*Cough *Cough Miley Cyrus.

lol
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:41:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 12:25:08 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/30/2014 8:52:02 AM, kbub wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:32:29 AM, TUF wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM, kbub wrote:
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians like to like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...

Just out of curiosity, can you outline a specific policy that you think is too harsh? For example, what is the rule that you think is hindering your time here on this site? (I have known you to be a relatively polite member and haven't seen why you might feel the need to insult or attack another member).

1. Cross-thread "contamination." One cannot invoke another's history in the forums. According to the new rules, every thread is a blank slate.

That's not what it says. It says that should be the goal--and it should be.

One explicitly CAN invoke their history, however, when it's relevant.


I see where you're coming from; it would definitely be problematic to make irrelevent private historical arguments. However, I don't think people should be forced to be relevant, or good debaters.

2. Ad hominem arguments are bad arguments, but since when was there a rule against logical fallacies? Ad hominem arguments could be as simple as saying one's argument is inconstant with their actions. Although that doesn't defeat the argument, banning ad hominem is, in my opinion, as ridiculous and vague as banning bad arguments.

Ad hominem, though, is the dismissal of a user's opinion wholesale--it's a direct attack on them, specifically to be rid of their arguments without addressing them.


Partially. It's not always an attack. One example of an ad hominem is that a male congressperson should not be officiating what a woman does with her body. This is ad hominem because the maleness does not disqualify the congressman's position, but it still is a relevant point, and one not worth deleting due to its being "ad hominem." There are some ad hominems that are bad for the site, certainly, but these often can fall under the category of "personal attack." I'm not sure ad hominem arguments should be deleted simply because they are ad hominem.

3. Belittling is against the rules. I have belittled many debates, including men should have a say in abortion, The confederacy was better than the union, etc. I have called polls "stupid." Although I think it is good that we taking personal attack seriously, especially related to hate based on a group, I think it might be a little much to paint these "violations" with a broad brush.

"Mere insult of ideas is allowed--mere insult of people is not."

You can say any poll or debate is as stupid as you want.


Yes. I also reserve the right in rare cases to insult a person if I think that it is necessary. I don't think I've needed to do so yet because an appropriate opportunity to do so is rare, but I feel comfortable knowing that I can when necessary. This is not to say mere insults are acceptable, but just that they should be looked at on a case-by-case basis and not merely deleted because it falls into that particular category. Perhaps we even agree on that position.

4. Sometimes people say stupid things. Sometimes people go too far. In my opinion, sometimes it is appropriate for a community to point out these instances. Calling someone "racist" is apparently a violation of the rules.

It really isn't--as long as you back it up.

Personal insult and subjective. I can say that about the debate but not the person I believe. If I'm mistaken though I'll take it back.

If someone were to defend "The KKK will rise again," 'stupid' 'ignorant' and 'racist' would be terms I'd feel comfortable using to describe the person defending this position. Obviously, it'd be better to attack the idea rather then the person, but I don't think responses of this kind should be considered "not tolerated" despite being "violations."

Ignorant is defensible. Stupid is subjective insult. Racist is defensible.

Do you think? I hope so, but I'm not sure I see a huge subjective/objective divide between ignorant and stupid, and I'm certain that racist is subjective. Nevertheless, I believe that subjective statements are defensible.

And remember that for the most part, airmax will only be responding to complaints, not going out there LOOKING for violations.

A complaint is made...he looks at whether it's valid or not.

That's true. I guess I'm just concerned about the policy as outlined in the other forum.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:47:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 11:04:55 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2014 10:57:44 AM, kbub wrote:
At 3/30/2014 10:44:19 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:04:13 AM, kbub wrote:
At 3/30/2014 4:32:29 AM, TUF wrote:
At 3/30/2014 3:11:59 AM, kbub wrote:
I should like to point out that various people are idiots, and their opinions cannot be counted because they are politicians, and we all know politicians like to like. They probably smell like poo. I'm actually just joking.

Anyway, I guess what I'm getting at is that I think the new site rules are too harsh.

http://www.debate.org...

Just out of curiosity, can you outline a specific policy that you think is too harsh? For example, what is the rule that you think is hindering your time here on this site? (I have known you to be a relatively polite member and haven't seen why you might feel the need to insult or attack another member).

Each thing I wrote, as mild as it seems, is "a violation and will not be tolerated." I've violated cross-thread "contamination," ad hominem, mere insult, and personal attack.

Given the current state of affairs, do you think this rule is needed?
I have noticed a sharp lack of quality in the forums over the last few months, as well as activity.

Well, sure there's a lack of quality. But do you think increased moderation is the way to bring about quality? I find that forcing people to make quality arguments usually doesn't help and is generally no fun.

It doesn't force quality arguments, it forces "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"

Right, but this a debate website. We look at that phrase and laugh. Debate is generally not conductive to holding your tongue in the face of adversity. We say all sorts of things that one doesn't bring up at the dinner table--money, politics, religion, and science. And we say not-nice things about the other side. The only question is of extremes. I'm more of a bare-bones speech regulation person myself. Where are the anti-censorship people on this website anyway??