"Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account."
DDO is shutting down
Posts
Total:
119
That ends a chapter of internet debate.
I wonder what backwardseden will do? He might have to find something to do other than insult people on the internet!
-->
@SirAnonymous
Seems that he gets the honor of the last debate challenge issued on the site,
What a pity I find it for myself, that I cannot accept it.
Still, it's better than the runner up, last debate challenge issued, an ad.
wow, that is very sad. It was a good website, for a while
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm glad that at least I can download my content.
-->
@Lemming
-->@SirAnonymousSeems that he gets the honor of the last debate challenge issued on the site,What a pity I find it for myself, that I cannot accept it.
I grabbed it, just 4 fun.
Actually, I guess not. It allowed me to accept the debate and write an argument but then after submission it still show the debate unaccepted. Pretty typical of DDO
Press F to pay respects:
F
F, indeed.
Haha I wish I could piss on its grave, no cap. You deserve it Juggle and Airmax.
The years long, insanely racist flame war between ethang5 and Harikrish will finally be over
-->
@thett3
Their forum voices died doing what they love, hating each other.
Juggle still cares not.
In the meantime, I’m going to pull some data from the old mafia games until they get deleted.
Still remembered the times before I came along this site where I saw no hope in DDO because no one votes so I just troll posting things like "gg u win haha lol fk" or so.
Meanwhile, literally the second forum post I have seen was an ad about something along the lines of a fleshlight.
R.I.P DDO. You will be remembered due to that we can't delete internet data, let alone even changing the glitchy debate function.
-->
@thett3
Damn looks like E-my son-thang has to find a new hobby.
-->
@Bones
It’s pretty sad really. Day in and day out those two are going at it. And for what point? Seems like a waste of time.
-->
@Lemming
Yeah, it shows up on my dashboard but the debate still shows as open. Pretty typical of my final years on that site.
Here is my argument since it won't get published there. I wonder how backwardsedan would have responded?
Thank you, backwardsedan, for offering what promises to be the FINAL debate on what was once the most prestigious debate website online, an honor now held by DDO's superior progeny, debateart.com. [1]
The TOTAL AMOUNT of DATA that could be TECHNICALLY STORED in the HUMAN BRAIN REPRESENTS the TOTAL AMOUNT of DATA from the ENTIRE PLANET EARTH CREATED in a SINGLE YEAR
DEFINITIONS:
Scientific American [2] defines the TOTAL AMOUNT of DATA that could TECHNICALLY STORED in the HUMAN BRAIN as follows:
"The human brain consists of about one billion neurons. Each neuron forms about 1,000 connections to other neurons, amounting to more than a trillion connections. If each neuron could only help store a single memory, running out of space would be a problem. You might have only a few gigabytes of storage space, similar to the space in an iPod or a USB flash drive. Yet neurons combine so that each one helps with many memories at a time, exponentially increasing the brain’s memory storage capacity to something closer to around 2.5 petabytes (or a million gigabytes). For comparison, if your brain worked like a digital video recorder in a television, 2.5 petabytes would be enough to hold three million hours of TV shows. You would have to leave the TV running continuously for more than 300 years to use up all that storage."
or, in brief, 2.5 petabytes or 2,500,000,000,000,000 bytes of data.
Scientific American [3] defines the TOTAL AMOUNT of DATA from the ENTIRE PLANET EARTH CREATED in a SINGLE YEAR as follows:
"By 2020 an estimated 1.7 megabytes of data will be created per second per person globally, which translates to about 418 zettabytes in a single year , assuming a world population of 7.8 billion."
or 418,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of data
BURDEN of PROOF:
Wikipedia [4] advises:
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
As the instigator of this debate, PRO bears the entire burden of proof in this debate. PRO must present evidence establishing that the total data capacity of the human brain is the same as the total amount of data generated by the entire planet earth in a single year. If CON can show this equation to be false, PRO's argument is disproved.
CON1: MATH
418 zettabytes is 167,200,000 times larger than 2.5 pettabytes. It would require the full capacity of 167,200,000 human brains to store the amount of data generated by humanity in a single year. PRO estimation is wrong by 9 orders of magnitude.
COUNTER1: "And yet the "god" of the bible would be dumb enough and stupid enough to thus use text/ the written word...., Prove that the "god" of the bible would thus use text/ the written word, Namely the bible, For any reason, And thus this "god" exists."
Nobody claims that God wrote the Bible. The Bible claims that God wrote in Hebrew script twice:
*God wrote the ten commandments into stone with his fingers.
*God wrote MENE MENE TEKEL PARSIN on the wall of King Belshazzar's dining room.
Let's keep in mind that the God of the Bible was against humans having any kind of knowledge at all, including the capacity to read and write and forbade any human from eating of the tree of knowledge that might allow such capacity.
Furthermore, God considered Eve's acquisition of such knowledge so grievous that he condemned humans to lives of suffering and toil. It seems reasonable to assume therefore that the character of God as written in the Bible had no interest in transmitting data of any size to human and so, the absence of a massive braindump from God to his subjects is neither proof or disproof of God. Such an assumption would not be consistent with God's character as depicted.
I look forward to PRO's R2!
SOURCES:
[4https://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)
-->
@oromagi
Might have been the long numbers such as,
"418,000,000,000,000,000,000,000"
or the sources,
[4https://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)"
I'd figure that the human brain 'could hold 'more than an entire Bible though?
Memorization, I mean, like Denzel Washington in The Book of Eli.
Though, I don't really know myself 'why that fact would mean God didn't exist, just because our brains our fancy.
I do agree with your point of the Bible being man made though, even if one 'was religious.
But then, maybe I'm missing some scripture that says the people who wrote the Bible were perfectly guided by God, and it's all literal, and perfect,
Though some religious 'do think that, I suppose.
-->
@Lemming
But then, maybe I'm missing some scripture that says the people who wrote the Bible were perfectly guided by God, and it's all literal, and perfect,
Nope. Biblical infallibility is basically a 19th Century American invention.
Consider-
- For the first 4 centuries on Christianity, every church kept its own secret gospels and none of these gospels were in agreement on the facts. A Christian's information about the life of Jesus depended on which church you went to and varied dramatically from church to church. Constantine was the first to try to to canonize and synchronize all the gospels into one consistent narrative. No contemporaries imagined that Roman politicians had perfect, divine insight into Jesus' history or God's will. Mostly, the Christian Bible was edited and authored by pragmatic Imperial Roman patriarchs trying to prevent civil, religious strife.
- From the fall of Rome to Gutenberg, the Christian mass was typically recited in a language most churchgoers did not understand- first Koine Greek and then Latin standard after 600 AD. Only upper class, literate, latin speaking members were in a position to even wonder about the internal consistency of the BIble, and those educated few were often highly motivated to interpret the Bible according to present need.
- After Gutenberg, the Bible suddenly became available for private ownership and study and was quickly translated into local languages. The Reformation is all about the rejection of Latin infallibility and the importance of personal interpretations. As literacy rapidly expanded, ordinary Europeans quickly discovered that every Medieval source contained significant errors and differences from others and that local translations only heightened the differences. Consider how the King James Version rewrites the Bible in Shakespearean verse- they've clearly surrendered any attempt to preserve the original meaning and intent and moved on to broad strokes in a more aesthetic (sacred) media. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church went hardcore Latin and tried to preserve the Bible as a mysterious magical language that could only be interpreted by the priesthood.
- Only in America, where the self-interpretation of Protestantism was mixed with unprecedented levels of literacy and an unprecedented availability of one version of the Bible (the highly non-standard King James Version) and the lack of centralized religious authorities and the lack of Bibles in other languages and traditions could an assertion of infallibility arise without any kind of powerful contradiction readily at hand.
Feel like this video is appropriate here.
Don't even know why I still have the URL.
Just being reminded of my time on DDO is just giving me a lot of nostalgia. Not for DDO necessarily, though that is part of it, but just because the people I was close to irl when I was active on the site are people I haven't talked to in years. Life just seemed so much simpler back then.
I mean, DDO itself has become a cesspool and so it closing is probably a good thing at this point, but damn there are a lot of memories just flooding in now.
Sadly I can't log in to get my content as none of the emails that I can think of or passwords I used to use when I was active seem to work for logging into my old account. If I want to save anything then I will have to do it in a much more frustrating manner.
-->
@TheMorningsStar
It is unfortunate, like losing a chapter of a journal, of one's life.
While I have long considered DDO to be a rotting carcass, it was a great showcase for the value proposition of a moderation free experience.
That said, I really appreciate that they put in a feature to allow users to download their data.
-->
@DebateArt.com
To churn some activity here we could
- buy the ddo domain and transfer all data onto it and renaming the cite (DDO is bound to still have a good fanbase)
- send some recruiters over to save the stragglers.
-->
@Barney
When I joined DDO in 2016, people were already saying the site was dead.
So this leads me to a question for the older users: What exactly was DDO like in its heyday?
-->
@Mharman
Only a minimal amount of spam, with lots of debates and voters.
-->
@Mharman
When I joined DDO in 2016, people were already saying the site was dead.So this leads me to a question for the older users: What exactly was DDO like in its heyday?
Juggle made a change that severely damaged the debating section. The overwhelming majority of debates eventually ended up in a forfeit, and originally the debates page of the site would filter those out so the only debates people would see would be ones where nobody forfeited, aka the ones worth reading which were impossible to find afterward unless you stalked peoples profiles.They also changed the home page so it didn’t even feature debates anymore when before that was all it featured when you went to the debate. Org url.
So back then people would follow debates round by round and comment and everything got a fair number of votes. Only posting in the forums and being unwilling to debate was generally frowned upon. And right before that happened, there was a shift in the sites culture driven by extremely good voters like whitelfame and bsh1 and Raisor to making these super long and in depth RFDs. These votes were obviously better but they were such a hassle that it made people less likely to vote. So you would write these long debate arguments and nobody would read it and you would get three votes if you were extremely lucky. I think like 90% of my debates were in 2011-2014 because after that it just didn’t feel very worthwhile
Then around 2015 the polarization of American politics helped kill the site a little bit as people were so much more invested in their politics and things just got nastier. Everyone for the most part used to be friendly and would argue about more abstract ideas but that kind of changed