Total posts: 80
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Valid point re-copying too much of wiki, that being said use your limited characters carefully.
I just don't want people pulling stats and stuff out of their ass. It would turn into a who can create better fake news competition. I am not orange enough to compete for that title.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I have tried to show you respect and given you ways out. I have even said how I defend you. Unfortunately, you want to double down on nonsense.
You state that Ck sitting out:
shows he would have planned to kneel during the ceremony,
You don't know that. You don't even know, because you were not there and did not ask him. You are making shit up to defend yourself, and you just don't know. You did not even qualify your answer, you stated it as a fact. As a famous, yet unnamed, orange creature would say "fake news".
I am, but a 10th of the way through your response, and you already lose credibility.
You then state in response to the question about why would you highlight CK ad not the others who protested,
I don't. Why should it matter. It is egregious for all of them.
It does matter. You entire premise is based on conduct that is egregious. You give no reason to highlight CK and he was not even there. Your premise is based on a supposition on why CK did not attend. You have no idea the names of the other players.... because you say it does not matter. Why does it matter for CK?
Your next retort is not helpful. Trump had not been elected. He was the nominee as I stated. At the time and up for the following 18 months there was a much higher level of white supremacists narrative. I never said Trump was the cause. Trump's own words ad Spencers endorsement did not help. combined with publicity on some black youths being killed by cops, in questionable circumstances did not help the social narrative of the time.
Next, you tie yourself in a logical know. You say at one point the anthem is about the brave "men" who fought. If you are defending the rights of the military and their honor why are you sexist about it? The troop death on the day of 9/11 is a handful. Al horrifically caused by heinous acts. However, there were collectively thousands of fathers, mothers, children, civil servants, public servants killed.
You misrepresent what the flag is, what 9/11 is, and what the national anthem is for. You draw baseless conclusions about why CK did not show up. Your concern for others that acted in an "egregious manner" is summed up by a "yeah well they were bad."
You are focusing on CK, who was not even present and calling him a Fcking idiot. You do not respect his right to protest (if that is what he was doing, but we do not know that because he was not in public and made no comments about why he was not present).
In your misplaced cloud of patriotism, you cast an enormous tarp of justification and unqualified censorship, failing to recognize that even when people disagree with you, defending their right to disagree is more important than trying to censor them for not agreeing.
The title and your narrative still strongly suggest an individual issue with CK rather than a border issue with the behavior.
Side note: The anthem is actually about part of the war of 1812). While Britain did end up burning down the Whitehouse, that particular battle was in favour of the new country US, 15 states at t the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
Thank you for having the courage to explain why you block.
I now know that any topic you start will be heavily censored, through the construction of a defacto echo-chamber.
Thank you for the warning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It can be very difficult to write effectively in brief.
Created:
Posted in:
Hello all,
Virtuosos, blahmonkey, and I are going to experiment with a micro debate format.
These will be debates with the following conditions.
- 3 round max
- All definitions are MWD, or Wikipedia. If there is a conflict then MWD wins.
- No more than 1500 characters per round
- No more than 2 sources per round.
- 2 day max per round response
- Judging is single point, with a brief but defendable RFD.
The idea is to create shorter, snappier debates. what is interesting about this format is that you can re-debate the same topic many times and choose different attack and defense points.
We are open to suggestions for how to proceed and will modify the rules as we go to make sure it makes sense.
Anyone who would like to help out, or play along , please let one of us know.
Thanks
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
use a platform for their own gain
If you had actually listened to the debate you would have realized it was very debateart focused, and not of personal gain.
It was because of that debate that new ideas came up, around improving judging, improving the userbase etc.
You're holding a spear with no point. You should drop it before you hurt yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Examine the history of medical diagnosis and you will discover that these points describe every novel disease outbreak in history.
Not so with SARS, MERS, Smallpox, Herpes, Chickenpox, (I am leaving polio out specifically)
Its just the same old human tendency to project assertion before any confidence is warranted.
Now you are hitting the nail on the head. Whilst it may not be viewed as evidence to some of the simulation (which I don't believe, I was using it for demonstration purposes). You have shown the exact issue.
In our world, and how we expect information, how we expect answers, we are now shooting first and aiming later. And perhaps out minds have morphed based on the code of the big simulation.
Our insatiable appetite for instantaneous answers and information is going to be as much of a problem.
Unless the coders fix it :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Here is why I say it could be.
The symptoms or clinical presentations are constantly changing. There is no clear clinical diagnostic morphology. Death rates very from country to country substantially. There are dozens of examples of "infection" with no known source contact.
The math is not adding up....
I am not saying it is proof, I am saying it is evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
Is COVID-19 evidence that we are all just part of a big stimulation and that COVID-19 is just a bug in the program?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It appears as if there is a double standard. Perhaps I am wrong. I am trying to reconcile what you are saying. My objective is not to have you agree with me. It is me understanding what your issue is.
You took a reservation with CK's conduct for a few reasons.
1. You felt it offensive to military
2. You though it as egregious during 9/11, even though he was not in the public eye.
3. You do not know the names of all the other players who took the same protest.
Why is it not egregious for some, yet egregious for CK?
If you look at the history of the protests, you will get a better understanding of the process.
CK first started by sitting out of the national anthems in preseason games. He then had conversations with Nate Boyer, a veteran and former long snapper for the Seahawks. After those conversations, he decided to participate in the National Anthem but kneeled instead. Others from various teams either kneeled or held up a fist as a sign of protest.
Let's remember the exact time when the protests started. It was a combination of factors. Public black youths being killed, white supremacy on the rise with Donald Trump being the nominee (.i.e. the support from noted white supremacists Richard Spencer) are all contributing factors. It has to be noted that the flag was not designed to represent the troops or the police. It represents the 50 states, originally the 13 colonies, founded not the premise, that "all men are created equal". That is what the flag represents, All mean created equal.
His exact quote after refusing to participate in the August 2016 pre-season anthem was
"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."
So let's look at that. Regardless of if you agree with his deduction that the US oppresses black people and people of color, CK still has the right to protest. The entire premise and history of the US coming to be was based on protest. Often attributed to the "Boston Tea Party".
So why do we call CK out, for exercising his right, a right that the entire foundation of the country is based on? Why is your topic not "anyone who disagrees or desecrates the flag is a fucking idiot". Why is it CK?
If this is about the right to burn the flag, or desecrate it, or challenging the 1989 case of Texas v. Johnson, then that is a different story. However, it is not. It appears to be a targetted attack at one person, without showing any foundation.
And that is your right. If you just want to say, Fuck off, its what I think, I will respond, well that is your right, and I would defend you against anyone who challenged that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Ok. thank you. That is all I wanted to know. A FF is not automatic, it is a choice by the voters, based on the policy guidelines. However, the voters must still follow the voting policy and any vote that is not a FF for a debate that qualifies as a FF is subject to moderation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
This is not about me.
This is the rule of the site. You can still vote for a forfeiting party if you follow the voting guidelines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Ok, so to confirm. Someone who FF can still win the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
So the only common element for Christianity is ....?
"that Jesus is God'
Do you mean the Holy Trinity?
It seems a little thin to be the only thing connecting everyone.
What about born to a virgin mother?
What about miracles?
What about dying on the cross?
What about the resurrection?
What about the concept of salvation?
What about the concept of hell?
What about having to "love" Jesus
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
I am havig a real hard time here.
I said this.
A judge may decide to categorize as a full forfeit or not. It is entirely optional. Is that what you are saying?
You then said
No, a debate may be full forfeit, but a vote may be cast for the forfeited side if it meets the Voting Policy standards
When you vote, if the debate qualifies as a FF you may either award points declaring it a, or you may vote for the forfeited side, and be subject to moderation.
In short, a full forfeit could still win the debate. I am just trying to understand this nuance
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
Ok so a full forfeit is not mandatory. A judge may decide to categorize as a full forfeit or not. It is entirely optional. Is that what you are saying?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
You state
but their opponent provided deficient argumentation,
But then in https://www.debateart.com/debates/1991/should-we-be-allowed-to-instigate-as-con. you permitted a vote for the party that forfeited, Con. Pro clearly did not provide deficient argumentation. So why does Con still get a chance to win, if they forfeit?
I till do not understand. I thought I did base on the anti-troll stance etc. But not in this case. Maybe you should change the rule to say that a full forfeit in a 2 round debate only occurs if both rounds are not answered.
Con only responded once, and yet still wins argument points, when his opponent had valid arguments and answered both rounds. I just dont understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@fauxlaw
Fauxlaw, That is great to hear (read)!!! I am glad that you acknowledge that Christianity is not "the" religion, but one of many potentials, all equal. All area red apples.
That is a very mature approach. I wish others had that same intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
voters are trusted to use their discretion
However, said discretion is subject to moderation. How do you moderate someone's discretion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So by pointing out someone's post is plagiarism, it is my problem for being too serious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@fauxlaw
So what? Mankind thinks alike around the world?
We are getting somewhere, So you admit that there are similarities "up the yin-yang without a paddle"
However, you have dodged Stephens question (which I have as well)
Why does Christianity have the right to claim ownership to what you have admitted is a global similarity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
If it is a full forfeit, why would one side be allowed to get any points?
I see it in two categories.
FF = no points
F = points that need to be justified, or subject to moderation, but not the win
Am I wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If you are going to have effective intelligent dialogue, you should not be plagiarising. You are admonishing me for bringing it up and expecting an honest standard level, yet you do not admonish the offender for the plagiarism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Any key examples?
Yep. In your vote with User_2006 debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1991/should-we-be-allowed-to-instigate-as-con)
You did not count it as a FF.
I am not trying to call you out, I am only looking for clarity.
Thank you for your understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Yes there are a few issues.
1. I am confused as to the central source of what the rules are. What I read is in multiple places, or has a page that does not respond.
2. The practice appears to be different than the rules.
3. I still do not have a clear yes or no. In a 2 round debate if a debater does not participate in the second round, is that a full forfeit, or should that be an exception? I do not care, I see both sides, however, I would like clarity for my voting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@fauxlaw
What a fantastic post, Stephen.
I wondered about the cross commonalities, and you have articulated it very well for me. Fauxlaw, my perspective on Stephen's post is a high-level inquiry about the multiple similarities between religions around the world that are all BC/BCE and Christianity claims.
He highlights very clearly the multiple areas of similarities that certainly brings forth a valid question. So how does Christianity reconcile these similarities and try to make a superior claim them? Questing if original text from one of those other religions misses the point.
I am watching this with immense curiosity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Technically it's not a full forfeit
So the definition is wrong? If it is wrong, what is the proper definition then and how do people know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Please confirm. A judge may still adjudicate the merits of the debate even said debate qualifies as a FF?
Please confirm my understanding that if it is a 2 round debate and only one round is argued, that is a full forfeit.
Created:
Posted in:
The rule says.
"Full Forfeit - a debate in which a debater (or both debaters) have forfeited all or all but one of their rounds"
Therefore if it is a 2 round debate and you only answer one round, you FF.
Yet I am seeing judging that does not reflect this. What am I missing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
I asked GreyParot to explain their perception. I have concerns that Geryparrot even knows what Wardius is about, considering it was a copy and paste of a sentence.
I, on the other hand, have read the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You copy and paste an entire article, and made no reference. Commercial purposes or not, it is a clear attempt at misrepresentation and is still plagiarism. It does not have to be commercial.
If you take someone else's work and redistribute it without their permission, that is a breach of copyright. See the DCMA and look to see if commercial purposes are required. It is not.
If I did not highlight your fraud, others may think you are the one to have written it
But I could be wrong, so I took the liberty of posting your post to the Washington Examiner Editor, and the author, and asking if they gave permission for their content to be posted here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nice copy and paste from law.com. I guess you forgot to paste your source.
If you read Wardius you what it actually does.
"We hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids enforcement of alibi rules unless reciprocal discovery rights are given to criminal defendants. Since the Oregon statute did not provide for reciprocal discovery, "
So can you tell me what does that have to do with this case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah Fairuse does not allow blind copying for the sake of it, without reference.
One of the permitted uses is the "transformative” purpose, which to comment upon, criticize, or parody the work.
You did none of that. You just copy and pasted the entire thing without reference, making it appear as if it was your own words. That is plagiarism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yea sorry it was from Washington Examiner
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Constitutional Due process demands that a crime be named.
Ok this is a clearly erroneous statement about the basic elements of a criminal investigation.
For the second case at issue, the subpoenas are argued to be part of a larger criminal investigation. DA's don't name or know the exact crime before they do their investigation. The exact crimes are as a result therefrom.
They present their findings to a grand jury to determine if there is enough evidence for formal charges to be levied.
So to say that formal charge is required before you ask for a subpoena makes no sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You are not reflecting on the issue that I was conversing about.
Read his threads and my responses, and feel free to comment from an informed position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
That is NOT what he said. I would recommend you re-read the entire thread and my responses.
This was not about "disrespect". or disagreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Thank you for your note.
I am troubled with some of the logic, and hopefully, you can shed light on it. I am not trying to pick a fight, so please see my questions the same as a 4-year-old asking why. The more I learn about Christianity over the last 40 years, the less I know.
You say
John 3:16 is one of the catalyst verses
There are 23,145 verses in the Old Testament, 7,957 verses in the New Testament. I am confused by the notion of catalyst. Why would one verse be so reverted above others, and others being ignored, or minimized. Are you inadvertently suggesting Christianity is selective worship of the NT?
You also say that
Basically, it's all about Jesus.
and
absolute love for Jesus.
Here I see the foundation of Christian belief is not based on philosophy or spirituality, but "love" for JC. So as long as you claim to love JC, you can do whatever you want. You can have a different opinion What happens to the rest of the bible? Does that get ignored? Is that why WWJD is so often cited? So your denomination can do or say whatever it wants provided that you love Jesus. Clearly that is not right, so what am I missing.
You then said:
from the simple Gospel of salvation. We would call them cults,
So is the Gospel of salvation then your "love of Jesus"? So Judaism would be a cult?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
He is to dumb to be a spy. While Joe Biden has trouble getting words out of his mouth, Trump has trouble keeping them from coming out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Liberals take one line and skew it the opposite of what it is meant to say
I drove a truck through your argument and you did not even acknowledge it.
Can you admit that if your issue is about 9/11 you have no evidence that CK did anything egregious?
Created:
Posted in:
I have listened to the two SCOUTS cases today about Trump and his records. So fascinating listening to the arguments live instead of having to read them.
There are a few more important cases in the calendar, and I would encourage anyone with a political interest to listen in.
Did anyone else listen?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
His actions imply that he does not support the people who died in 9/11 by wanting to kneel during 9/11, a true American tragedy
I think you mean to say, you think his action implies. Not that his actions actually imply. I do not see that implication at all. Above you stated
" Colin Kaepernick decided not to show up and many players kneeled during the anthem"
A few points of order:
1. If CK did not show up, you do not know what he did in private. You just don't know.
2. If it was soo offensive and egregious, why don't you know the names of the "many players" that kneeled?
Resenting and saying you do not like or have some hate for, are VERY different. I resent my wife for always banging the car up. That does not mean I do not like her, or that I have any hate for her. It's a pain in the ass she can't open her fucking eyes, and I have to deal with it..... very different.
So if this is about the 9/11 ceremony, then this is a double paddy nothing burger. Colin did not even show up so you have no idea what he did or did not do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Nemiroff
The national anthem predates the army and has nothing to do with it.
EXACTLY. SupaDudz is just making arguments up that are nonsensical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You say
All the different denominations agree on the things that matter -
Then you say
Most denominations exist because of the secondary things not the primary things.
Which is it, All or most?
Who decides "the things the matter?"
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
@fauxlaw
FAuxlaw
what aere my half-=assed beliefs [you must know wha tthey are to make the claim they're half-assed], and which huge chunk of the Bible am I ignring since I've read all of it in four different languages. Match that, or maybe you're missing the chunks. You're waiting for clarity as if it was a parade?
Can you translate what you just said please? It looks like a cross between Klingon and Valyerian. I am not as multi-linguistically learned as you, so just plane English would be appreciated.
BrotherDThomas, I have no idea how you made heads or tails of that. You did bring up a great point. I have not seen a single 'christian' talk about their denomination. But why? Are they embarrassed?
Thank you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Two points.
Yes it is. The socio-economic elements of blacks versus whites are prima facia evidence that discriminatory practices abound.
The point here is about CK, and did his actions constitute an egregious act.
Nothing illegal, got people talking (this forum post is proof his actions worked) no-one hurt, and at a huge personal sacrifice.
I cannot see how it was an egregious act, because nothing has been said that is remotely persuasive. That being said I will eagerly look at anything anew.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Singularity
I want to make sure I am understanding you both.
Are you both saying that there are no race issues? That there is no reason why blacks should feel that they are being treated as a race different than whites?
I just want to make sure that I understand your position.
You stated "disregards the fact that so many people died in a deadly attack for his own beliefs. "
There is no quote from him I can find where he admonished those who died in the 9/11 attacks. The last I checked the flag is not just a symbol of the military or veterans. Pasting a link to the FBI referencing one group as demonstrating of all blacks, or implying that it is Colin's responsibility or fault, is ludicrous. There are extreme groups everywhere.
What I said was not an ad hominem. What I said is that "it appears". I did not attack you personally. I will apologize if a neutral third party adjudicated it was an ad hominem.
Your argument is all over the place. First about veterans, then it the same as Islamic terrorism, then it supports extremist groups, then it is an offense to the people who died in 9/11. What the hell does a bunch of Saudi nut jobs have to do with CK?
It is like you are shooting first and aiming later.
Then we got Singularity who tries to make this about jews. Come on guys. Put together a cohesive argument, and while I might not agree with it, I will put my hand up and say. I see your point.
Created:
Posted in:
Bill gates does call himself a "Health Expert." All the patents he has for vaccines will put anyone with that vested interested smack in the middle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You are hardly defending your position.
"agregious". Well if you are going to use big words know what they mean and spell them properly.
Egregious: means. outstandingly bad; conspicuously bad. You have not shown how one person kneeling is "egregious".
You then proceed to compare taking a knee (a legal act, that hurts no one), to Islamic fundamental extremism. You're going to need to be a bit more relevant to earn any credibility.
You then say "lacks should be superior than the rest of the population"
Racisms is evident. Disproportionate representation of blacks in many different socio-economic demographics. Back Lives Matter is hardly a supremacist agenda. Show me how it is.
Violence by police on the decline? Where do you pull that statistic from?
It appears as this has nothing to do with Colin, or the flag, but a resentment to Blacks. Please tell me how I am wrong.
Created: