Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Looking for Debaters

YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:36:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am looking for members that are interested in debating Islamic subjects, of any kind. Just leave a comment.

*****

- I have currently hanging resolutions, if you are interested, leave me a comment:

Muhammad Spoke The Satanic Verses.
http://www.debate.org...

Muhammad Instigated Unjustifiable Violence.
http://www.debate.org...

On Balance: Islamic Slavery (i.e. Slavery according to Shari'a Law) is Justifiable.
http://www.debate.org...

*****

- Other taken debates, though, if any of you is interested in a similar resolution, leave a comment:

The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim
http://www.debate.org...

The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good.
http://www.debate.org...

*****

- If you have other suggestions of your own, please leave a comment.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Young Earth Creationism- pro

Fluoride in drinking water- Con

Vaccines- Con

People being allowed to own RPGs- Pri (not rocket propelled grenades but role play games.

Abe Lincoln was a fruitcake- Pro

Holocaust- pro

The official story of 9/11 is true- con

Humans should stop procreating- pro

The Democratic Party should apologize for putting the Japanese in concentration camps- pro

The Sith- pro

Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Contest style debates- Con

Mark of the Beast- pro
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:40:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Devil's advocate eh?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:42:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:40:19 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Devil's advocate eh?

Lol
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:53:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:42:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:40:19 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Devil's advocate eh?

Lol

I'm getting tired of the rape debates. They weren't funny to begin with, and they are not funny now. They're childish, stupid and inappropriate for a variety of reasons that I will be happy to discuss at length should you so desire.

This is basically the point where I'm not going to stay silent on it anymore. As an adult, your better judgement should kick in at some point to the general effect of "ya know what, maybe there are other -less egregious- topics to debate about?"

Just because Envisage (in his infinite wisdom) thinks it's appropriate to post the intellectual equivalent of rotted offal does not mean that you should as well. There is *no* value in that.

And this is an essential point here; there are some things that we as a society have come to a consensus on. Rape is bad. The issue is settled. So, your purpose here is either in shock value for its own sake, or because you enjoy reveling in the grotesque.

There are places on the internet where that is appropriate. The /b/ section of a certain website (of which I am sure you're aware) would be one of them. This isn't that place, nor is there any need for it to become like that place.
Tsar of DDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 1:25:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:53:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:42:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:40:19 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Devil's advocate eh?

Lol

I'm getting tired of the rape debates. They weren't funny to begin with, and they are not funny now. They're childish, stupid and inappropriate for a variety of reasons that I will be happy to discuss at length should you so desire.

Not interested.


This is basically the point where I'm not going to stay silent on it anymore. As an adult, your better judgement should kick in at some point to the general effect of "ya know what, maybe there are other -less egregious- topics to debate about?"

Just because Envisage (in his infinite wisdom) thinks it's appropriate to post the intellectual equivalent of rotted offal does not mean that you should as well. There is *no* value in that.

And this is an essential point here; there are some things that we as a society have come to a consensus on. Rape is bad. The issue is settled. So, your purpose here is either in shock value for its own sake, or because you enjoy reveling in the grotesque.

I actually put that I'm con on those issues.


There are places on the internet where that is appropriate. The /b/ section of a certain website (of which I am sure you're aware) would be one of them. This isn't that place, nor is there any need for it to become like that place.

I'm actually not sure where you're going with this.

By the way do you think it's a good ideal to do the bad RFD of the week thing on a topic that your emotionally involved with, when you have an emotional involvement with the instigated of said debate and when you've been overly interested with the debate in general.

Would it be better if somebody who could keep emotions out of it to analyze those RFDs?

I just think analysis with cold reasoning may be superior to analysis with an emotional involvement.

It's also kinda in bad taste to analyze RFDs in suc a public fashion with a debate you're emotionally involved in for several factors. I think that's why Bluesteel avoided analyzing debates he was emotionally involved with.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 1:33:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 1:25:36 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:53:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:42:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:40:19 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Devil's advocate eh?

Lol

I'm getting tired of the rape debates. They weren't funny to begin with, and they are not funny now. They're childish, stupid and inappropriate for a variety of reasons that I will be happy to discuss at length should you so desire.

Not interested.


This is basically the point where I'm not going to stay silent on it anymore. As an adult, your better judgement should kick in at some point to the general effect of "ya know what, maybe there are other -less egregious- topics to debate about?"

Just because Envisage (in his infinite wisdom) thinks it's appropriate to post the intellectual equivalent of rotted offal does not mean that you should as well. There is *no* value in that.

And this is an essential point here; there are some things that we as a society have come to a consensus on. Rape is bad. The issue is settled. So, your purpose here is either in shock value for its own sake, or because you enjoy reveling in the grotesque.

I actually put that I'm con on those issues.


There are places on the internet where that is appropriate. The /b/ section of a certain website (of which I am sure you're aware) would be one of them. This isn't that place, nor is there any need for it to become like that place.

I'm actually not sure where you're going with this.

By the way do you think it's a good ideal to do the bad RFD of the week thing on a topic that your emotionally involved with, when you have an emotional involvement with the instigated of said debate and when you've been overly interested with the debate in general.

Would it be better if somebody who could keep emotions out of it to analyze those RFDs?

I just think analysis with cold reasoning may be superior to analysis with an emotional involvement.

It's also kinda in bad taste to analyze RFDs in suc a public fashion with a debate you're emotionally involved in for several factors. I think that's why Bluesteel avoided analyzing debates he was emotionally involved with.

Anyone who has any view about anything is emotionally involved with it. The implication, then, is that by your standard, no one could analyze any RFD because they're always already involved in it because they have an opinion. So, while you're welcome to feel the way you do, it's a nonsensical position.
Tsar of DDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 1:39:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 1:33:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:25:36 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:53:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:42:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:40:19 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Devil's advocate eh?

Lol

I'm getting tired of the rape debates. They weren't funny to begin with, and they are not funny now. They're childish, stupid and inappropriate for a variety of reasons that I will be happy to discuss at length should you so desire.

Not interested.


This is basically the point where I'm not going to stay silent on it anymore. As an adult, your better judgement should kick in at some point to the general effect of "ya know what, maybe there are other -less egregious- topics to debate about?"

Just because Envisage (in his infinite wisdom) thinks it's appropriate to post the intellectual equivalent of rotted offal does not mean that you should as well. There is *no* value in that.

And this is an essential point here; there are some things that we as a society have come to a consensus on. Rape is bad. The issue is settled. So, your purpose here is either in shock value for its own sake, or because you enjoy reveling in the grotesque.

I actually put that I'm con on those issues.


There are places on the internet where that is appropriate. The /b/ section of a certain website (of which I am sure you're aware) would be one of them. This isn't that place, nor is there any need for it to become like that place.

I'm actually not sure where you're going with this.

By the way do you think it's a good ideal to do the bad RFD of the week thing on a topic that your emotionally involved with, when you have an emotional involvement with the instigated of said debate and when you've been overly interested with the debate in general.

Would it be better if somebody who could keep emotions out of it to analyze those RFDs?

I just think analysis with cold reasoning may be superior to analysis with an emotional involvement.

It's also kinda in bad taste to analyze RFDs in suc a public fashion with a debate you're emotionally involved in for several factors. I think that's why Bluesteel avoided analyzing debates he was emotionally involved with.

Anyone who has any view about anything is emotionally involved with it. The implication, then, is that by your standard, no one could analyze any RFD because they're always already involved in it because they have an opinion. So, while you're welcome to feel the way you do, it's a nonsensical position.

That's true but don't you think it would take a super human effort for you to check your emotions at the door with that one?

I would refuse to vote on a debate if I had that much emotional involvement in it. It just seems like the ethical thing is to realize that bias effects us all but to remove ourselves from the situations it would effect us most.

Sure it may effect us in all situations but if you remove yourself from the situations it effects you most you can be closer to being perfectly impartial.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 1:55:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 1:39:35 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:33:22 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:25:36 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:53:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:42:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:40:19 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Devil's advocate eh?

Lol

I'm getting tired of the rape debates. They weren't funny to begin with, and they are not funny now. They're childish, stupid and inappropriate for a variety of reasons that I will be happy to discuss at length should you so desire.

Not interested.


This is basically the point where I'm not going to stay silent on it anymore. As an adult, your better judgement should kick in at some point to the general effect of "ya know what, maybe there are other -less egregious- topics to debate about?"

Just because Envisage (in his infinite wisdom) thinks it's appropriate to post the intellectual equivalent of rotted offal does not mean that you should as well. There is *no* value in that.

And this is an essential point here; there are some things that we as a society have come to a consensus on. Rape is bad. The issue is settled. So, your purpose here is either in shock value for its own sake, or because you enjoy reveling in the grotesque.

I actually put that I'm con on those issues.


There are places on the internet where that is appropriate. The /b/ section of a certain website (of which I am sure you're aware) would be one of them. This isn't that place, nor is there any need for it to become like that place.

I'm actually not sure where you're going with this.

By the way do you think it's a good ideal to do the bad RFD of the week thing on a topic that your emotionally involved with, when you have an emotional involvement with the instigated of said debate and when you've been overly interested with the debate in general.

Would it be better if somebody who could keep emotions out of it to analyze those RFDs?

I just think analysis with cold reasoning may be superior to analysis with an emotional involvement.

It's also kinda in bad taste to analyze RFDs in suc a public fashion with a debate you're emotionally involved in for several factors. I think that's why Bluesteel avoided analyzing debates he was emotionally involved with.

Anyone who has any view about anything is emotionally involved with it. The implication, then, is that by your standard, no one could analyze any RFD because they're always already involved in it because they have an opinion. So, while you're welcome to feel the way you do, it's a nonsensical position.

That's true but don't you think it would take a super human effort for you to check your emotions at the door with that one?

No, and the fact that you think it does troubles me. It's not about bsh1 v. cassie; it's about *what happened in the debate*.

The debaters, at this point, are irrelevant. What matters is the judges, and their ability to read something, understand it, and render a coherent explanation for their decision.

I would refuse to vote on a debate if I had that much emotional involvement in it. It just seems like the ethical thing is to realize that bias effects us all but to remove ourselves from the situations it would effect us most.

That's your choice to make.

Sure it may effect us in all situations but if you remove yourself from the situations it effects you most you can be closer to being perfectly impartial.

I am perfectly impartial when I judge, and any suggestion to the contrary has no basis in reality. The fact that you might vote for someone because you like them or vote against other people because you don't like them doesn't mean that all other people (or even that any particular person) is similarly predisposed.

This is a very simple, but essential point to grasp here, Wylted. I am not frustrated because some people voted against bsh1. I'm frustrated because people don't know how to do very basic things, and some are unwilling to learn.

What's at stake here is *voting* not *people*. The fact that this is bsh1's debate is *of no material consequence* whether you understand that or not. And more or less, to the extent that people think I'm biased when I judge debates they reveal (1) their willingness to subscribe to fallacious post hoc reasoning, (2) their failure to understand how debates are judged, and (3) the fact that they've never read an RFD that I've ever written.

Like, the charge that I'm biased (which is ultimately what you're hinting at, in a more or less underhanded way) is stupid. The reason it's stupid is because you're making a claim for which there is not only no proof, but for which there is ample proof to the contrary. So, rather than actually reading any RFD I've ever written, people want to rely on post hoc reasoning to conclude that I must be biased because I'm dating bsh1.

That said, I want to impress upon you, and all others who would endeavor to read this, that voting is NOT an exercise in deciding which debater we like more, or which argument we subjectively agree with more. It's about determining, as between the two debaters, which one of them had the superior case. That's it. Feelings have nothing to do with it. Feelings about the topic, feelings about the people, etc.

Grasp that.
Tsar of DDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 2:18:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
YYW, you're seriously saying I'm biased because I think we should do our best to eliminate bias? That's absurd.

You admitted that you're biased. The ethical thing to do is to not trust yourself and to refrain from voting when it's a situation where you might be biased. It's why judges remove themselves from cases when there might be a perceived conflict of interest.

I'm not insinuating anything, I've been nice enough not to call you out on unethical practices but here is a list.

1. 16k completely changed his vote after recieving numerous PMs from you.

2. You've stated in the comments you'd refuse to vote on a debate BSH1 lost, depriving his opponents of points. This is clearly unethical.

3. You've called anyone who votes against him that debate idiotic (paraphrasing maybe), which is a preemptive attack meant to intimidate people out of voting against him.

These are all unethical voting moves. You even voting on his debates at all is probably unethical. Airmax has told people they can't have their roommates vote on their debates and roommates are significantly less likely to show bias than romantic relationships.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 2:23:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 2:18:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
YYW, you're seriously saying I'm biased because I think we should do our best to eliminate bias? That's absurd.

That's not what I said at all, nor is it a reasonable inference that could be drawn from what I said. So, either you misread what I said or you're misrepresenting it... but I'm going with "misread."

It is a *fact* that Cassie lost that debate, and I have said that no reasonable person could vote for her because of that. That said, I'm not interested in publicly speculating about why voters do what they do because *that* would be bad form.

That said, bsh1 has asked me not to analyze votes, which... while that is greatly irritating to me, whatever. There will be other times when inept voters display their ineptitude as may necessitate a public critique. It's not a question if "if" but "when."

If you desire to seek further understanding about the specifics of why the votes cast irritate me so, we can do that via PM.
Tsar of DDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 2:30:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 2:23:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:18:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
YYW, you're seriously saying I'm biased because I think we should do our best to eliminate bias? That's absurd.

That's not what I said at all, nor is it a reasonable inference that could be drawn from what I said. So, either you misread what I said or you're misrepresenting it... but I'm going with "misread."

It is a *fact* that Cassie lost that debate, and I have said that no reasonable person could vote for her because of that. That said, I'm not interested in publicly speculating about why voters do what they do because *that* would be bad form.

That said, bsh1 has asked me not to analyze votes, which... while that is greatly irritating to me, whatever. There will be other times when inept voters display their ineptitude as may necessitate a public critique. It's not a question if "if" but "when."

If you desire to seek further understanding about the specifics of why the votes cast irritate me so, we can do that via PM.

Why don't you just pick a random debate. They all have shitty votes on them.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 2:30:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 2:18:21 PM, Wylted wrote:

I'm going to explain to you why your charge that I've acted unethically is bullsh!t, now.

1. 16k completely changed his vote after recieving numerous PMs from you.

16k knew his first vote was more or less rectally derived, and he knew that when he cast his vote. So, after I spoke with him he felt compelled to change his vote to something that reflected the outcome of the debate.

The fact that he changed his vote does not mean I acted unethically. It means that he had a realization of his own error which may or may not have been caused by taking to me.

2. You've stated in the comments you'd refuse to vote on a debate BSH1 lost, depriving his opponents of points. This is clearly unethical.

No, it's not, because bsh1 is not the only person who I would give a loss to. And, even still, voting is an "option" not "a compelled act." We all have the option not to vote whether we read a debate or not, and your suggestion to the contrary is more or less absurd.

Reading a debate does not oblige me to vote on it.

3. You've called anyone who votes against him that debate idiotic (paraphrasing maybe), which is a preemptive attack meant to intimidate people out of voting against him.

A gross misrepresentation, as well.

These are all unethical voting moves. You even voting on his debates at all is probably unethical. Airmax has told people they can't have their roommates vote on their debates and roommates are significantly less likely to show bias than romantic relationships.

The reason that Max won't have people let their roommates vote on debates is because they share an IP address, so, he can't verify that it's actually two independent people voting. It's a "check," and that's it.

And your suggestion that I am biased, once more, is warrantless, for reasons that I have already said, but which you seem disinclined to want to discuss. But, know that I am happy to discuss them with you, publicly and openly, so that all may seek to understand why your view here has no merit.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 2:31:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 2:30:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:23:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:18:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
YYW, you're seriously saying I'm biased because I think we should do our best to eliminate bias? That's absurd.

That's not what I said at all, nor is it a reasonable inference that could be drawn from what I said. So, either you misread what I said or you're misrepresenting it... but I'm going with "misread."

It is a *fact* that Cassie lost that debate, and I have said that no reasonable person could vote for her because of that. That said, I'm not interested in publicly speculating about why voters do what they do because *that* would be bad form.

That said, bsh1 has asked me not to analyze votes, which... while that is greatly irritating to me, whatever. There will be other times when inept voters display their ineptitude as may necessitate a public critique. It's not a question if "if" but "when."

If you desire to seek further understanding about the specifics of why the votes cast irritate me so, we can do that via PM.

Why don't you just pick a random debate. They all have shitty votes on them.

The next high profile gay marriage, gun control or abortion debate should be suitable.
Tsar of DDO
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 2:40:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Young Earth Creationism- pro

You're Pro YEC? I can do that one with you if you'd like, I'd obviously be con. What'd the full resolution look like?

Fluoride in drinking water- Con

Vaccines- Con

People being allowed to own RPGs- Pri (not rocket propelled grenades but role play games.

Lmao

Abe Lincoln was a fruitcake- Pro

I'd be interested in this as well...

Holocaust- pro

The official story of 9/11 is true- con

Humans should stop procreating- pro

How could you win this one? Feel free to PM your response because I'm more curious than anything.

The Democratic Party should apologize for putting the Japanese in concentration camps- pro

The Sith- pro

Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Contest style debates- Con

Mark of the Beast- pro

What'd the full resolution be on this one? (Mark of the beast)
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:12:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 2:40:44 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Young Earth Creationism- pro

You're Pro YEC? I can do that one with you if you'd like, I'd obviously be con. What'd the full resolution look like?

YEC would be only inclusive of the age of the Earth and not include anything of divine origins.


Fluoride in drinking water- Con

Vaccines- Con

People being allowed to own RPGs- Pri (not rocket propelled grenades but role play games.

Lmao

Abe Lincoln was a fruitcake- Pro

I'd be interested in this as well...

I keep putting this one off but have been intending to do it for a while.


Holocaust- pro

The official story of 9/11 is true- con

Humans should stop procreating- pro

How could you win this one? Feel free to PM your response because I'm more curious than anything.

By recycling a lot of the arguments used by environmentalist and borrowing from a movement of people who are referred to as advocates of self extinction.


The Democratic Party should apologize for putting the Japanese in concentration camps- pro

The Sith- pro

Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Contest style debates- Con

Mark of the Beast- pro

What'd the full resolution be on this one? (Mark of the beast)

I'll have to think of some future transhuman technology that translates well into that. I'll also have to go to my go to experts on biblical prophecy to make sure the technology fits into the Mark.

Not sure what the resolution would look like but I think people should be required to accept the mark or be put to death, specifically by beheading.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:26:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Young Earth Creationism- pro

lol

Fluoride in drinking water- Con


Really?
Vaccines- Con

Fookin really m8? Stop trollin m8

People being allowed to own RPGs- Pri (not rocket propelled grenades but role play games.

lolol I think most people agree

Abe Lincoln was a fruitcake- Pro

LOL. Buchanan probably was.

Holocaust- pro

-_-

The official story of 9/11 is true- con

Eh I see that one. It's wrong but it isn't dumb.

Humans should stop procreating- pro

wut

The Democratic Party should apologize for putting the Japanese in concentration camps- pro

lolol

The Sith- pro


Duh
Raping kids- con

Duh

Raping adults- con

Duh

Contest style debates- Con

What does that even mean

Mark of the Beast- pro

Are you arguing it exists, is a good thing, or what lol
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:31:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm getting tired of the rape debates. They weren't funny to begin with, and they are not funny now. They're childish, stupid and inappropriate for a variety of reasons that I will be happy to discuss at length should you so desire.

You are not obliged to read them, and they aren't attracting much discussion on the forums. So this is just a case of you whining. Get over it.

This is basically the point where I'm not going to stay silent on it anymore. As an adult, your better judgement should kick in at some point to the general effect of "ya know what, maybe there are other -less egregious- topics to debate about?"

This according to your opinion.

Just because Envisage (in his infinite wisdom) thinks it's appropriate to post the intellectual equivalent of rotted offal does not mean that you should as well. There is *no* value in that.

I find it amusing and sexually arousing. Thus it has plenty of value to me. So you are completely factually wrong there.

And this is an essential point here; there are some things that we as a society have come to a consensus on. Rape is bad. The issue is settled. So, your purpose here is either in shock value for its own sake, or because you enjoy reveling in the grotesque.

.... because the emotional consensus (of which your fragrance is pungent) of the populus has any place in epistemology...

There are places on the internet where that is appropriate. The /b/ section of a certain website (of which I am sure you're aware) would be one of them. This isn't that place, nor is there any need for it to become like that place.

This place is to debate stuff. I want to debate rape. It isn't against the rules and it's a mental exercise. So far your only half-way decent objections is that it's an intellectual equivalent to rotting offal " (which is entirely subjective, and again, your opinion) and lack of humor, for which the rape debates, at least the ones I have done, are not intended to be humorous.

So, you really don't have a leg to stand on, thank you for your time.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:33:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 2:30:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:18:21 PM, Wylted wrote:

I'm going to explain to you why your charge that I've acted unethically is bullsh!t, now.

1. 16k completely changed his vote after recieving numerous PMs from you.

16k knew his first vote was more or less rectally derived, and he knew that when he cast his vote. So, after I spoke with him he felt compelled to change his vote to something that reflected the outcome of the debate.

The fact that he changed his vote does not mean I acted unethically. It means that he had a realization of his own error which may or may not have been caused by taking to me.

If you contact voters in an attempt to manipulate them to change their vote it's unethical. Even if you attempt to justify this action it's unethical. A voter shouldn't be influenced by anything outside of a debate. They should only consider information within the debate.

Not to mention it sets a bad precedent to have people contact voters privately about their vote while the debate is still in the voting period. This is obviously something that even if not being abused has the potential and should be avoided.


2. You've stated in the comments you'd refuse to vote on a debate BSH1 lost, depriving his opponents of points. This is clearly unethical.

No, it's not, because bsh1 is not the only person who I would give a loss to. And, even still, voting is an "option" not "a compelled act." We all have the option not to vote whether we read a debate or not, and your suggestion to the contrary is more or less absurd.

Reading a debate does not oblige me to vote on it.

Ofcourse you're not obliged but imagine if we all only voted if people we liked won and refused to vote when they lost. Obviously those actions could skew the results of the debate. Honestly the only motive to refrain from voting in such a situation is to attempt and control the results of the debate. There is no ethical reason to not vote on a debate you were intending to vote on, merely because you don't like the results.


3. You've called anyone who votes against him that debate idiotic (paraphrasing maybe), which is a preemptive attack meant to intimidate people out of voting against him.

A gross misrepresentation, as well.

Not at all. Do I have to pull up the posts where you insinuate that or pull out the PM where you strongly insinuated I'm an idiot if I vote for Cassie?

You made several comments in the PM about all the stupid voting in favor of Cassie. I think you're smart enough to know that potential voters seeing that may be influenced by those statements. Seeing as you know that's a likely result I can't see any other motive except as an attempt to manipulate votes.


These are all unethical voting moves. You even voting on his debates at all is probably unethical. Airmax has told people they can't have their roommates vote on their debates and roommates are significantly less likely to show bias than romantic relationships.

The reason that Max won't have people let their roommates vote on debates is because they share an IP address, so, he can't verify that it's actually two independent people voting. It's a "check," and that's it.

And your suggestion that I am biased, once more, is warrantless, for reasons that I have already said, but which you seem disinclined to want to discuss. But, know that I am happy to discuss them with you, publicly and openly, so that all may seek to understand why your view here has no merit.

You stated that being unbiased was impossible and are now stating your vote was unbiased. This is dishonest. The best thing to do is to be honest with yourself and no bias exists. Once you know bias exists it's your responsibility to recognize conflicts of interest and refrain from voting when those conflicts of interest exist.

Answer this what debates are you most likely to show or have perceived bias by voting in?

The answer to that question is exactly the debates you have a moral obligation to avoid voting in.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:36:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 3:26:09 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Young Earth Creationism- pro

lol

Fluoride in drinking water- Con


Really?

Fluoride in the drinking water in first world countries is no longer necessary. I could see some third world countries benefiting from it.

Vaccines- Con

Fookin really m8? Stop trollin m8

People being allowed to own RPGs- Pri (not rocket propelled grenades but role play games.

lolol I think most people agree

Abe Lincoln was a fruitcake- Pro

LOL. Buchanan probably was.

Holocaust- pro

-_-

The official story of 9/11 is true- con

Eh I see that one. It's wrong but it isn't dumb.

Humans should stop procreating- pro

wut

The Democratic Party should apologize for putting the Japanese in concentration camps- pro

lolol

The Sith- pro


Duh
Raping kids- con

Duh

Raping adults- con

Duh

Contest style debates- Con

What does that even mean

Mark of the Beast- pro

Are you arguing it exists, is a good thing, or what lol
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:37:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Young Earth Creationism- pro

Fluoride in drinking water- Con

Vaccines- Con

I could take you on this soon


People being allowed to own RPGs- Pri (not rocket propelled grenades but role play games.

Abe Lincoln was a fruitcake- Pro

Holocaust- pro

The official story of 9/11 is true- con

Humans should stop procreating- pro

The Democratic Party should apologize for putting the Japanese in concentration camps- pro

The Sith- pro

Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Contest style debates- Con

Mark of the Beast- pro
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:40:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 3:36:09 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:26:09 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Young Earth Creationism- pro

lol

Fluoride in drinking water- Con


Really?

Fluoride in the drinking water in first world countries is no longer necessary. I could see some third world countries benefiting from it.

Many third world countries (e.g. China) actually have too much fluoride in their water--it is naturally occurring. If anything, they need de-fluoridization in their water supply. I presume your argument is that we get enough dental care and fluoride products from the dentist and toothpaste? Yeah, I guess I agree with that a bit. But fluoridation is safe and from the studies I have read is still a good thing in first world countries.


Vaccines- Con

Fookin really m8? Stop trollin m8

People being allowed to own RPGs- Pri (not rocket propelled grenades but role play games.

lolol I think most people agree

Abe Lincoln was a fruitcake- Pro

LOL. Buchanan probably was.

Holocaust- pro

-_-

The official story of 9/11 is true- con

Eh I see that one. It's wrong but it isn't dumb.

Humans should stop procreating- pro

wut

The Democratic Party should apologize for putting the Japanese in concentration camps- pro

lolol

The Sith- pro


Duh
Raping kids- con

Duh

Raping adults- con

Duh

Contest style debates- Con

What does that even mean

Mark of the Beast- pro

Are you arguing it exists, is a good thing, or what lol
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:41:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 3:37:08 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Young Earth Creationism- pro

Fluoride in drinking water- Con

Vaccines- Con

I could take you on this soon

Not happening. Airmax has first dibs.


People being allowed to own RPGs- Pri (not rocket propelled grenades but role play games.

Abe Lincoln was a fruitcake- Pro

Holocaust- pro

The official story of 9/11 is true- con

Humans should stop procreating- pro

The Democratic Party should apologize for putting the Japanese in concentration camps- pro

The Sith- pro

Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Contest style debates- Con

Mark of the Beast- pro
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:43:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 3:40:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:36:09 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:26:09 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Young Earth Creationism- pro

lol

Fluoride in drinking water- Con


Really?

Fluoride in the drinking water in first world countries is no longer necessary. I could see some third world countries benefiting from it.

Many third world countries (e.g. China) actually have too much fluoride in their water--it is naturally occurring. If anything, they need de-fluoridization in their water supply. I presume your argument is that we get enough dental care and fluoride products from the dentist and toothpaste? Yeah, I guess I agree with that a bit. But fluoridation is safe and from the studies I have read is still a good thing in first world countries.

I'd disagree with it being a good thing as I think the effects are pretty null. A lot of European countries don't put fluoride in their water and they actually have better teeth than Americans.




Vaccines- Con

Fookin really m8? Stop trollin m8

People being allowed to own RPGs- Pri (not rocket propelled grenades but role play games.

lolol I think most people agree

Abe Lincoln was a fruitcake- Pro

LOL. Buchanan probably was.

Holocaust- pro

-_-

The official story of 9/11 is true- con

Eh I see that one. It's wrong but it isn't dumb.

Humans should stop procreating- pro

wut

The Democratic Party should apologize for putting the Japanese in concentration camps- pro

lolol

The Sith- pro


Duh
Raping kids- con

Duh

Raping adults- con

Duh

Contest style debates- Con

What does that even mean

Mark of the Beast- pro

Are you arguing it exists, is a good thing, or what lol
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 3:49:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 2:31:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:30:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:23:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:18:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
YYW, you're seriously saying I'm biased because I think we should do our best to eliminate bias? That's absurd.

That's not what I said at all, nor is it a reasonable inference that could be drawn from what I said. So, either you misread what I said or you're misrepresenting it... but I'm going with "misread."

It is a *fact* that Cassie lost that debate, and I have said that no reasonable person could vote for her because of that. That said, I'm not interested in publicly speculating about why voters do what they do because *that* would be bad form.

That said, bsh1 has asked me not to analyze votes, which... while that is greatly irritating to me, whatever. There will be other times when inept voters display their ineptitude as may necessitate a public critique. It's not a question if "if" but "when."

If you desire to seek further understanding about the specifics of why the votes cast irritate me so, we can do that via PM.

Why don't you just pick a random debate. They all have shitty votes on them.

The next high profile gay marriage, gun control or abortion debate should be suitable.

I don't know how I let you twist this anyway. It's not ramen about your vote anyway. Your vote was fair, though I think refraining in instances where you would've otherwise voted to control the results is unethical.

It's the voter manipulation, I think is wrong. Though, you're hearing most of it now it's something that takes place in about 90% of the debates between non noobs here. It happened in the DK vs EmilRose's debate as well even though neither contender participated in it.

It's something that happens and DDO needs to do what we can to end voter manipulation whether that manipulation is intentional or the unintentional byproduct of other actions.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 4:10:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 3:49:57 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:31:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:30:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:23:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:18:21 PM, Wylted wrote:
YYW, you're seriously saying I'm biased because I think we should do our best to eliminate bias? That's absurd.

That's not what I said at all, nor is it a reasonable inference that could be drawn from what I said. So, either you misread what I said or you're misrepresenting it... but I'm going with "misread."

It is a *fact* that Cassie lost that debate, and I have said that no reasonable person could vote for her because of that. That said, I'm not interested in publicly speculating about why voters do what they do because *that* would be bad form.

That said, bsh1 has asked me not to analyze votes, which... while that is greatly irritating to me, whatever. There will be other times when inept voters display their ineptitude as may necessitate a public critique. It's not a question if "if" but "when."

If you desire to seek further understanding about the specifics of why the votes cast irritate me so, we can do that via PM.

Why don't you just pick a random debate. They all have shitty votes on them.

The next high profile gay marriage, gun control or abortion debate should be suitable.

I don't know how I let you twist this anyway. It's not ramen about your vote anyway. Your vote was fair, though I think refraining in instances where you would've otherwise voted to control the results is unethical.

It's the voter manipulation, I think is wrong. Though, you're hearing most of it now it's something that takes place in about 90% of the debates between non noobs here. It happened in the DK vs EmilRose's debate as well even though neither contender participated in it.

It's something that happens and DDO needs to do what we can to end voter manipulation whether that manipulation is intentional or the unintentional byproduct of other actions.

Without seeing the substance of any communications I may or may not have had with particular voters, you can't make the claim that I did or did not manipulate voters. You are literally bullshitting here and I don't even think you understand that you're doing it.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 4:23:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 3:33:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:30:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:18:21 PM, Wylted wrote:

I'm going to explain to you why your charge that I've acted unethically is bullsh!t, now.

1. 16k completely changed his vote after recieving numerous PMs from you.

16k knew his first vote was more or less rectally derived, and he knew that when he cast his vote. So, after I spoke with him he felt compelled to change his vote to something that reflected the outcome of the debate.

The fact that he changed his vote does not mean I acted unethically. It means that he had a realization of his own error which may or may not have been caused by taking to me.

If you contact voters in an attempt to manipulate them to change their vote it's unethical. Even if you attempt to justify this action it's unethical. A voter shouldn't be influenced by anything outside of a debate. They should only consider information within the debate.

Not to mention it sets a bad precedent to have people contact voters privately about their vote while the debate is still in the voting period. This is obviously something that even if not being abused has the potential and should be avoided.

So, let's review the facts:

You have no idea what I said to anyone. You know only that I "communicated" with 16k. That being the case, it is disingenuous for you to speculate about the substance of those communications when you have no idea what I said. You're concluding that I said something that was "manipulative" based on some perverse combination of post hoc reasoning and your misguided perception of me, perhaps also for other reasons. But, among all of those, your reasons are necessarily speculative because you have no warrant (read: no proof) for the claim you're making here. And because the substance of what you're saying suggests that I am engaged of some kind of wrongdoing here, I want to point out to you how unreasonable, and manifestly ridiculous you're being.

I understand that you want to protect Cassie, for a variety of reasons. But, you're allowing your bias in her favor color your interpretation of other people's actions, and you're doing that in a way that is facilitating your arriving at baseless conclusions of other's wrongdoing. And you need to stop, first because it's dishonest, second because it's unethical, third because it's more or less slanderous, and fourth because even though you "think" you're advocating on behalf of some ethical good, what you're actually doing is promulgating an offensive case of bullsh!t on stilts.

2. You've stated in the comments you'd refuse to vote on a debate BSH1 lost, depriving his opponents of points. This is clearly unethical.

No, it's not, because bsh1 is not the only person who I would give a loss to. And, even still, voting is an "option" not "a compelled act." We all have the option not to vote whether we read a debate or not, and your suggestion to the contrary is more or less absurd.

Reading a debate does not oblige me to vote on it.

Ofcourse you're not obliged but imagine if we all only voted if people we liked won and refused to vote when they lost. Obviously those actions could skew the results of the debate. Honestly the only motive to refrain from voting in such a situation is to attempt and control the results of the debate. There is no ethical reason to not vote on a debate you were intending to vote on, merely because you don't like the results.

There are many valid reasons to refrain from voting, from unwillingness to write a coherent RFD, belief that one could not check their bias at the door, and others. That being the case, again, you're trying to come up with a convincing argument that is really more or less bullsh!t. I only vote on the debates I want to vote on, and I have no obligation to vote on any debate that I am not a tournament judge for unless I desire to cast my vote.

Once again, your judgement is clouded here by your own bias in favor of Cassie which is preventing your thinking rationally about this issue.

3. You've called anyone who votes against him that debate idiotic (paraphrasing maybe), which is a preemptive attack meant to intimidate people out of voting against him.

A gross misrepresentation, as well.

Not at all. Do I have to pull up the posts where you insinuate that or pull out the PM where you strongly insinuated I'm an idiot if I vote for Cassie?

You made several comments in the PM about all the stupid voting in favor of Cassie. I think you're smart enough to know that potential voters seeing that may be influenced by those statements. Seeing as you know that's a likely result I can't see any other motive except as an attempt to manipulate votes.

I express all kinds of thoughts in PM's that I do not express publicly for a number of reasons that should have been clear to you. Do realize that communication via PM is private, therefore NOT public... and so the claim your making is nonsensical.

But, beyond that, in order for the claim that my general comments are in any way "intimidating" to be true, you would have to furnish some evidence of people reading the comments and forming certain opinions that they could NOT set aside before voting about the debate and the stakes of voting. You have failed to do that. Do you understand what that means? I should hope so...

These are all unethical voting moves. You even voting on his debates at all is probably unethical. Airmax has told people they can't have their roommates vote on their debates and roommates are significantly less likely to show bias than romantic relationships.

The reason that Max won't have people let their roommates vote on debates is because they share an IP address, so, he can't verify that it's actually two independent people voting. It's a "check," and that's it.

And your suggestion that I am biased, once more, is warrantless, for reasons that I have already said, but which you seem disinclined to want to discuss. But, know that I am happy to discuss them with you, publicly and openly, so that all may seek to understand why your view here has no merit.

You stated that being unbiased was impossible and are now stating your vote was unbiased. This is dishonest. The best thing to do is to be honest with yourself and no bias exists. Once you know bias exists it's your responsibility to recognize conflicts of interest and refrain from voting when those conflicts of interest exist.

I want you to actually read the thread that I wrote the other day, and try to understand it better than you clearly do. What I said did not have the impact that you're suggesting.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 4:31:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wylted, what you're engaging in here is dishonest and offensive. You are suggesting that I am engaging in some kind of wrongdoing, and you have no evidence to establish that. The reason you're engaged in that sort of behavior is because of your sympathy for Cassie, which I understand, but which is not sufficient to justify warrantless accusations of others' (specifically my) wrongdoing.

It should not be lost upon you that votes do not exist in a vacuum. The reason that RFD's are public is because it is important that as a community we have the ability to engage in a dialogue with one another about (1) votes which are cast, (2) the method by which votes are cast, to preserve (3) the integrity of the voting process.

What you're suggesting is that no person's RFD, no matter how bad, can be criticized because it was "their" RFD. So, what that means is that voters cannot talk with others about their votes, and they cannot learn from their mistakes. That goes against this site's most fundamental purpose: we are a community with the common purpose of learning, and engaging in meaningful dialogues about controversial issues. That is our purpose *before* averting "hurt feelings" or whatever other spurious harm you seek to avoid here.
Tsar of DDO
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 5:06:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 3:41:49 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/10/2015 3:37:08 PM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:28:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
Young Earth Creationism- pro

Fluoride in drinking water- Con

Vaccines- Con

I could take you on this soon

Not happening. Airmax has first dibs.

Who says you cannot debate the same subject twice baaaaaby


People being allowed to own RPGs- Pri (not rocket propelled grenades but role play games.

Abe Lincoln was a fruitcake- Pro

Holocaust- pro

The official story of 9/11 is true- con

Humans should stop procreating- pro

The Democratic Party should apologize for putting the Japanese in concentration camps- pro

The Sith- pro

Raping kids- con

Raping adults- con

Contest style debates- Con

Mark of the Beast- pro
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 12:22:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
- Heyyyy! What up people, how about my OP?!!!
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.