I think this thread is a good example of why nobody wants to sign up for this site, just a bunch of trolls dogpiling rather than sharing their own reasons for the thread title's question. Absolute toxic idiocy.
What made you interested in debate?
Posts
Total:
137
I think this thread is a good example of why nobody wants to sign up for this site, just a bunch of trolls dogpiling rather than sharing their own reasons for the thread title's question. Absolute toxic idiocy.
There have been new members since you left and returned, and there will continue to be more despite your subjective opinion.
If you don’t want to be the object of scorn, then do and be better.
It was rather naive of you to think you would not get any blowback from divulging personal details about yourself and your life that could be easily criticized given your past behavior at DART from which to put it into context with.
ADOL is right. This is a debate website where everyone begins with anonymity. However that anonymity can weaken when too much personal detail is willingly provided that can be used as cannon fodder against you (much of which in childish trolling ways like IWRA has done since he got here).
Just stick to the topics without the personal details, at least the more sensitive ones because clearly you open a can of worms (as you did here) if you do so.
Under the new rule enforcement, the opposite should be true. The derailing abusers should be punished, not the one to engage honestly. Cheers for your pointless post though.
-->
@Mps1213
“Any law with majority support should be passed and stand/A fentanyl ban has majoirty support//Therefore, fentanyl should be banned”You asked what data can prove this incorrect. Well you can see that data shows when laws are passed based off of collective ignorance usually goes poorly and gets people killed.
See, now you're talking about people getting killed :)
If the conclusion is on the other side of the is-ought chasm values will always be involved. In this case valuing life. The pattern by which values lead to rules is the field of ethics.
So while there may not be data or evidence to say the idea is wrong that the majority should make the decision, you can show that the majority should not make the decision if the majority is wrong.
"The clock is right until it isn't"
You can also show that the decision of a jeopardy wheel should not be followed if the decision is wrong. If the majority is only to be followed when it's right then the majority has no affect on determining what is right.
Just like when the majority tried to claim the earth was flat and threw people in prison for arguing it.
That's called ad absurdum and is the single most common valid argument. If you can show that the premise, if true, would lead to false conclusions then you can conclude the premise is false.
Since the majority thought the Earth was flat, and the Earth was not flat, it cannot be true that the majority is always correct. Hence it is proven that ad populum is a fallacy.
Now my premise was that the majority determined what should be legal, and ad populum is much more general, saying that the majority does not determine what is true.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Um, debate is t about changing anyone’s mind. It’s about who can provide the better, more well-grounded argument with more convincing fact based evidence to support the assertion. If minds are changed in the process, that’s just a bonus.
It's about determining the better argument, but I was responding the mps who said he's writing a book and using debate to basically strengthen his case.
If anything I'm saying that if you really care about changing people's minds you need to pull some dirty emotional manipulation because people aren't rational these days (not that they ever were perfectly, but there were times and places where it was much better).
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
@Mps1213
If you both like writing, you might be interested in a site I made for competitive creative writing. Still in the beta phase, but partly modeled after DART.
Under the new rule enforcement, the opposite should be true.
You clearly didn’t read let alone comprehend the posts made by Barney, orogami and whiteflame. I failed to see anywhere where your so-called “detailing” (red herring) of threads were actionable. Red herrings happen all the time in debate/discussion. It’s a tool often used by the one losing said debate/discussion. You yourself have used it a shit load of times yourself. You’re doing even now in this thread whining about innocuous slights that are triggering you. just stop it.
The derailing abusers should be punished, not the one to engage honestly. Cheers for your pointless post though.
then you should be punished too.
And you’re one to talk about pointless posts. Great lesson in Hypocrisy 101.
-->
@Savant
Hey, I should have tagged you when I made this post.
When did your interest in debate begin?
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Saw a lot of YouTube debates. I had some knowledge of debate.org, but I wasn't active on the site. I think DART is probably the best platform for debate at the moment, although it could do with more users.
-->
@Savant
Are you familiar with Destiny, Vaush, or Hasan?
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Yes
What do you think of Vaush Sir.Lancelot?
-->
@RationalMadman
@whiteflame
@oromagi
@Mps1213
Mps, Regarding #8
I backed down to being only an assistant moderator a long ass time ago, and the increased enforcement standards are not my brainchild. So Whiteflame and/or Oromagi should be messaging you soon, along with making a more comprehensive post…
Let’s look at the post, for problematic bits.
First off Rational madman, you do not have a high IQ and are a terrible critical thinker in my experience debating with you.
- The user in question appears to have blocked you. That doesn’t mean you may not aim a post at them but it does make it more susceptible to scrutiny.
- You are clearly the aggressor. The user in question does not appear to have made any references to you, unless you know each other IRL.
- It opens the conversation by implicitly calling him a dummy. While questioning someone’s intelligence can come up as a conversation becomes heated (not ideal but understandable), there was zero progression.
- The qualifier after the fact is like saying “dishonor on you, dishonor on your cow… no offense!” Giving proper context can elevate what would otherwise be an insult but the goal here looks like it was to insult rather than converse, merely with a “no offense” type statement tacked on.
None of this is to say you may not be critical of each other. The big problem is low denominator level insults for no apparent reason.
-->
@Savant
If you both like writing, you might be interested in a site I made for competitive creative writing. Still in the beta phase, but partly modeled after DART.
Now there is something where voting on a winner is acceptable. I signed up.
-->
@RationalMadman
@Barney
@oromagi
@Mps1213
Thanks for handling this, Barney, you covered it in more detail than I could manage right now (several nights in a row with less than 4 hours of sleep, a long and early travel day and bringing my wife to the ER this morning certainly contribute to that, so if I'm not super coherent, you'll know why). The main disagreement over whether this is an insult appears to be those last 6 words, but notably, it's still clear that the statements made before them are targeting RM specifically and not just what he has said in the past. Like Barney said, context matters, but that context has to do more than just provide a basis for the insult.
Long story short, I sent Mps a warning via PM about the post. I haven't seen more personal insults like this one when I went through this thread (it's possible I'm missing something, but everything I can see here targets RM's behavior rather than him personally, so it's above board), so for the time being, this is where things will stand. The intention of the change to the enforcement standards is not to suddenly issue a bunch of bans to make people fall in line, but to use warnings whenever possible and only turn to bans for people who are engaging in this kind of behavior on repeat.
If you are being harassed, our aim is to respond as necessary. Our aim, however, is not to make sure everyone plays nice. Others on this site are still allowed to say that a post of yours or an argument you've made is problematic or flawed in any number of ways. We are not here to protect the sanctity of your posts and/or arguments, nor are we going to stop anyone from saying anything negative about your behaviors. This is a debate website, we're not putting kid gloves on everyone and telling you all to play nice, just to focus on what someone says instead of targeting them directly.
I hope that clarifies things, though it may only be clear to my currently addled brain. Happy to do better when I've gotten more sleep and can think good.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Welcome to the site!
-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@oromagi
Garbage.
Not all ad hominems are fallacious when demonstrably proven true.
Truth is an affirmative defense.
RM boasted and given his past behaviors and how he has handled himself in certain debates and forum discussions disproves his assertions made herein. That is factually accurate; therefore, what MPS said was NOT an insult.
You all need to be clearer and more consistent when dealing with your so-called enforcement of the CoC.
I know reading comprehension can be difficult for some, most even; but those in charge of making decisions that involve enforcment of the CoC need to do and be better at said reading comprehension (i.e., linguistics) than the average user. If you cannot, then you have no business being in charge of enforcement of anything here. Truth. Not an insult. Just an observable truth.
PS. You do not need to announce publicly you've sent a PM to someone giving them the Indiana Jones whip. It's unnecessary and unethical. Any enforcement exercised should remain private, not public.
-->
@Barney
- You are clearly the aggressor. The user in question does not appear to have made any references to you, unless you know each other IRL.
Sorry you are super genius to spot this. MPS was my sissy partner for a while while I explored my bi side, that's one of the lower IQ exes.
All of this is sarcasm, please don't shoot me.
-->
@TWS1405_2
what MPS said was NOT an insult.
It was an insult but that is the only retort to a boast. That's why boasting tends to be a bad idea.
Is everyone here former lovers? It's like Grey's anatomy around here.[RationalMadman] Sorry you are super genius to spot this. MPS was my sissy partner for a while while I explored my bi side, that's one of the lower IQ exes.
-->
@Barney
@Mps1213
Sorry you are super genius to spot this. MPS was my sissy partner for a while while I explored my bi side, that's one of the lower IQ exes.All of this is sarcasm, please don't shoot me.
Everyone is visibly cringing at your embarrassing attempts at being funny.
This line isn't even remotely clever or offensive enough to reach the mod's radar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note...
How can people feel so confident to make personal attacks behind their illusion of security after crying they were getting bullied?
Makes ZERO sense.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, it wasn’t an insult. Truth ≠ an insult. It’s truth. If it hurts, oh well. Truth is truth. Own it.
-->
@TWS1405_2
That's not the definition of an insult, more like the definition of slander.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What part of…
Truth is an affirmative defense
…did you not understand????
Truth is an affirmative defense
…did you not understand????
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Because I found it hilarious that Barney genuinely ran through his thinking process and part of it was considering if the exes I was referring to included MPS as that's the only way for this to be relevant:
- You are clearly the aggressor. The user in question does not appear to have made any references to you, unless you know each other IRL.
If you don't get my sense of humour that's alright. I found this quite hilarious considering the sack of shit the rest of your thread has been to read through.
If you don't get my sense of humour that's alright.
That can only begotten in person, not online. 🙄
-->
@TWS1405_2
What part of…Truth is an affirmative defense…did you not understand????
The part where insults are by definition untrue rendering the establishment of truth to be equivalent to proving non-insult.
Rational madman has lost the only debate he’s had with me. He since blocked me and refuses to debate with me again even though I’ve offered it many different times. And he turns around and calls me low IQ lmao. Can’t even beat someone with low IQ in a debate, must mean you have pretty low IQ. I have no worries about what he says or claims. I just like messing with him because he always reacts like he does.
-->
@Mps1213
the 'low IQ ex' was a reference to who you would be if you knew me IRL, based on Barney's concerns.
I actually didn't say low IQ in my original post, I said I want high IQ. I think I should have just not mentioned IQ. There are high IQ partners who hate to actually engage in debate with their spouse. Furthermore, medium IQ is still a problem to deal with for me. I don't understand why everything became about me here, I literally didn't make this thread about me at all, people threw me into the spotlight.
The thread asked what debating means to you (but words the question in a different way). To me, debating is an personality trait. I have had trouble maintaining relationships due to my genuine love for it.
I used to wonder if I was toxic due to it, which is when I began to separate when I am arguing for the sake of it (out of habits when under stress elsewhere etc) from when I am arguing as a genuine hobby from when I am arguing to genuinely clarify and defend or make my good friend, let's not even say spouse, defend something.
I began to then understand how and when to hold back and when to wield it. However, I also realised that I literally cannot feel romantically loved or romantically love someone on a true level long-term as opposed to temporary crush if they are not able to both hold a lot of quality dialogue with me on well it can be any topic we discuss, and to mentally process what I'm arguing/saying and not resent me for being that way.
I'm a person who literally can smile and feel affection for my partner as we argue to hell and back about whether Harry Potter is actually a good guy or not and shit like that. I need that sort of arguing-banter exchange with my partner very regularly, it can be discussing anything, whether preferences in food or idk what. I actually enjoy it more when we disagree, I like to prod the person to expand on why and how they feel how they feel or think how they think about matters.
Over time I realised that there's a part of that which cannot be just 'toxic' but is simply me. No amount of therapy or self-help will eradicate that part of me.
As for the 'intelligence' fiasco I am a very intelligent guy, I don't need you to believe that and I didn't write what I wrote to 'flex' it but I am. It's like a genuinely big dicked or muscle-jacked guy saying 'I am this' and you're up in arms about it out of idk what. I am very intelligent, I am not saying I am some billionaire that used that intelligence to save the world.
I am unsure where the need to 'knock me down' is here but I am not going to act like my IQ is not well endowed when it just is. I am not particularly proud of it and I happened to be tested during a very bad period by my psychiatrist treating me for depression as one of the only real official IQ results of my life, so my official IQ is when I was at my most tired and least happy, inattentive to the test and it was still like 125.
I have shared a lot here. You probably can narrow down who I am or definitely who I am not from this information. It doesn't bother me as I tell nearly nobody that story irl for them to reverse-dox me and that's the only real threat.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>What part of…Truth is an affirmative defense…did you not understand????The part where insults are by definition untrue rendering the establishment of truth to be equivalent to proving non-insult.
Non-sequitur
Ffs. 🙄