It was a false and misleading statement. I think the motivation for the falsehood was to guide beginners in to making quality debate content. After sufficient experience debating here, one would obtain an awareness of the potential falsehood of the statement because it was not consistent with observation. I mean, strictly speaking, the statement was not true because people win debates without doing the things the statement purportedly requires them to do.
"you influenced DA to change his mind, but it does not alter the fact that during the debate, the foregoing quoter was his stated policy."
From the text log, it didn't look like he changed his mind. It looked more like he acknowledged that the statement was not true. He seemed to be on that side of it even before I posed my questions, and I wasn't pushy. Also, it wasn't site policy. It wasn't listed on any of the policy pages. What DA says didn't directly impact the facts that mattered. The resolution was either true or false regardless of what DA said. Anyway, this is somewhat of a rabbit hole of denialism. I think we can improve our thinking by exercising better thought discipline when it comes to belief formation. More dispassionate and disinterested belief formation leads to better beliefs, I think. I've actually been completely unable to reconcile concepts of blame and responsibility with the belief that free will doesn't exist. That's probably my biggest denialism thing of my own. I've lost debates that mattered to me and it took me awhile to come around to seeing things as they were.
If there was a change in the facts during the course of the debate, I would agree with you. It would be the truth of the resolution at the time the debate was accepted that should matter. But that's not what happened - The facts remained the same throughout the course of the debate. DA contradicting himself didn't represent a change in the facts.
Had he known that you were using his statements against me in a debate, I would imagine that he would see that it's in the interests of fairness that he provide clarification on them. I don't think it was material to his decision.
OK. Yes, technically those votes did "award source points" under the plain and ordinary meaning of that phrase. But, as it's stated in the voting policy, to "award source points" means to vote exclusively for Pro or Con on source points. It does not mean a tie vote, even though a tie vote does award source points. Not everything on this site was written perfectly. BTW I really have nothing other than my personal experience to go on here. You can ask Ragnar or whoever. They will probably tell you the same thing.
Meh I don't think there's anything wrong with it per se. Slavery is simply a form of power one has over another. What one does with that power is what may be wrong.
There are ways to go about pushing for change without indulging racial tribalism and lies. Divisiveness results from both. There are real consequences to that. The ruling class uses racial identities to divide and conquer the american proletariat. At least, that's what I see. If it didn't have these problems, I probably would support it.
I do believe that socialism is generally superior if you want what's best for the nation as a whole, from a utilitarian standpoint. That's simply a dispassionate, dissociated and dryly academic perspective. When it comes to making personal sacrifices for the benefit of the community, no I will not. Nice guys finish last. You will not find this atheist in a foxhole. When the ship of state is sinking you'll see me grabbing whatever booty I can find, making off with it and a lifeboat, and giving the finger to my doomed countrymen as I paddle away laughing at their misfortune.
Yes your debate resolution was "net harm to America" - This is a generally accepted standard in American politics but this debate had no such standard in place. In any event, substantial evidence exists supporting the contention that significant racism exists within local police PD's which is detrimental to black Americans and others. Though, as I stated in this debate, while the problem may be significant, it's not as big of a problem as the movement makes it out to be. In other words, my sense is that the movement represents an undue focus on the issue, plausibly caused by widespread emotional responses to stories of alleged incidents of police brutality. Weighing any benefit of addressing the issue itself against the other problems of the movement (e.g. divisiveness and falsehoods), on balance it is a net negative. Even given that, what the heck does "this house would" mean? I'm a bit of a nihilist and really, my house would let the world burn and not care much except to the extent the interests of myself and family are adversely impacted.
The case is harder to make than I initially thought because it is necessary to develop a standard for supporting particular movements and justify that standard. That is something that's very hard to do IMO. Like, why divisiveness or misinformation significant? As far as evidence goes, I understand the general skepticism people have when going in to debates. From a judging perspective you could look at whether or not particular factual assertions are denied by the opposing party, or you can generally deny all of them (other than ones of generalized knowledge). I have observed that the latter approach is common in the community here. I'm not sure which is superior.
If you're at all interested in the Trayvon Martin case, there was only one witness (other than Zimmerman) to the fight. The witness's testimony suggested that Zimmerman was on his back, on the ground, screaming for help, and being punched by Martin before Zimmerman fired. See for yourself https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=196691611 Why in God's name the prosecution even bothered with the case is beyond me. See what the juror said about it: "JUROR: Well, because of the witnesses of John Good, saw Trayvon on top of George, not necessarily hitting him, because it was so dark, he couldn't see. But he saw blows down towards George. And he could tell that it was George Zimmerman on the bottom. He didn't know who it was, but he knew what they were wearing." https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2013-07-15-sfl-zimmerman-juror-cnn-transcript-0716-story.html
Sometime's it's hard to see why traits may have been selected for during the formative period of human evolution. This can be even more difficult when the traits are psychological adaptations. The underlying issue is whether homosexuality has some objective function or is a mental disorder. There have been some imaginative proposed hypotheses for homosexuality. Though, I'm wondering whether the classification as to function or disorder is relevant in any policy making because I don't think it's something that can be changed.
You should wait until you hear from both sides regarding objections to exhibits before you make a decision about which evidence you intend to include or exclude.
Surely by now you know me well enough to have been put on notice that I'm obviously too stupid to read at the 12 year old level. You should have known to dumb it down.
His working definition was discernable from the debate description. He seemed ignorant rather than deceptive because, well, look at how he rights. I wouldn't put it past him to make the mistake. That, and the term itself is susceptible to being misunderstood in the way that he misunderstood it. Don't worry about me though. I'm too lazy to vote.
Lol don't debate with him unless you can have lower rounds and character limits. If he's losing he'll just keep blathering nonsense so that voting on it will be too much work.
Sometimes something from nothing happens, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
NHES was better. It said wild animals. (i.e. animals which have not been domesticated)
Resolution uses a generic generalization and the definition of exotic animal is overbroad. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/
Mine was better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
It was a false and misleading statement. I think the motivation for the falsehood was to guide beginners in to making quality debate content. After sufficient experience debating here, one would obtain an awareness of the potential falsehood of the statement because it was not consistent with observation. I mean, strictly speaking, the statement was not true because people win debates without doing the things the statement purportedly requires them to do.
"you influenced DA to change his mind, but it does not alter the fact that during the debate, the foregoing quoter was his stated policy."
From the text log, it didn't look like he changed his mind. It looked more like he acknowledged that the statement was not true. He seemed to be on that side of it even before I posed my questions, and I wasn't pushy. Also, it wasn't site policy. It wasn't listed on any of the policy pages. What DA says didn't directly impact the facts that mattered. The resolution was either true or false regardless of what DA said. Anyway, this is somewhat of a rabbit hole of denialism. I think we can improve our thinking by exercising better thought discipline when it comes to belief formation. More dispassionate and disinterested belief formation leads to better beliefs, I think. I've actually been completely unable to reconcile concepts of blame and responsibility with the belief that free will doesn't exist. That's probably my biggest denialism thing of my own. I've lost debates that mattered to me and it took me awhile to come around to seeing things as they were.
If there was a change in the facts during the course of the debate, I would agree with you. It would be the truth of the resolution at the time the debate was accepted that should matter. But that's not what happened - The facts remained the same throughout the course of the debate. DA contradicting himself didn't represent a change in the facts.
Had he known that you were using his statements against me in a debate, I would imagine that he would see that it's in the interests of fairness that he provide clarification on them. I don't think it was material to his decision.
Yeah, I know. OK. Do you remember that one debate we had on sources where the website said something that really just wasn't true? It's like that lol.
OK. Yes, technically those votes did "award source points" under the plain and ordinary meaning of that phrase. But, as it's stated in the voting policy, to "award source points" means to vote exclusively for Pro or Con on source points. It does not mean a tie vote, even though a tie vote does award source points. Not everything on this site was written perfectly. BTW I really have nothing other than my personal experience to go on here. You can ask Ragnar or whoever. They will probably tell you the same thing.
Nobody awarded source points
A tie vote without any corresponding RFD usually means an abstention. There's just no radio button for explicitly abstaining.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjMffHG1V_Q <3
Just being gay is immoral? Even if it is not acted upon? I don't think anyone actually believes that.
Meh I don't think there's anything wrong with it per se. Slavery is simply a form of power one has over another. What one does with that power is what may be wrong.
iud or depo
TBH the war on drugs strikes me as one of the better examples of it
It's their own fault they got tied to the track. It's time for them to take responsibility.
As long as you're not causing any damage, I don't really see a problem with it.
Got more important things to do
Being poor sucks ass.
"Atheists are religious. " but then "So , atheists are or can be very religious."
Bock Bock Bock Bock Bock
There are ways to go about pushing for change without indulging racial tribalism and lies. Divisiveness results from both. There are real consequences to that. The ruling class uses racial identities to divide and conquer the american proletariat. At least, that's what I see. If it didn't have these problems, I probably would support it.
But they taste so gooooooooooooooooooood
Not really
I do believe that socialism is generally superior if you want what's best for the nation as a whole, from a utilitarian standpoint. That's simply a dispassionate, dissociated and dryly academic perspective. When it comes to making personal sacrifices for the benefit of the community, no I will not. Nice guys finish last. You will not find this atheist in a foxhole. When the ship of state is sinking you'll see me grabbing whatever booty I can find, making off with it and a lifeboat, and giving the finger to my doomed countrymen as I paddle away laughing at their misfortune.
Yes your debate resolution was "net harm to America" - This is a generally accepted standard in American politics but this debate had no such standard in place. In any event, substantial evidence exists supporting the contention that significant racism exists within local police PD's which is detrimental to black Americans and others. Though, as I stated in this debate, while the problem may be significant, it's not as big of a problem as the movement makes it out to be. In other words, my sense is that the movement represents an undue focus on the issue, plausibly caused by widespread emotional responses to stories of alleged incidents of police brutality. Weighing any benefit of addressing the issue itself against the other problems of the movement (e.g. divisiveness and falsehoods), on balance it is a net negative. Even given that, what the heck does "this house would" mean? I'm a bit of a nihilist and really, my house would let the world burn and not care much except to the extent the interests of myself and family are adversely impacted.
The case is harder to make than I initially thought because it is necessary to develop a standard for supporting particular movements and justify that standard. That is something that's very hard to do IMO. Like, why divisiveness or misinformation significant? As far as evidence goes, I understand the general skepticism people have when going in to debates. From a judging perspective you could look at whether or not particular factual assertions are denied by the opposing party, or you can generally deny all of them (other than ones of generalized knowledge). I have observed that the latter approach is common in the community here. I'm not sure which is superior.
https://blacklivesmatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Toolkit-WhitePpl-Trayvon.pdf
If you're at all interested in the Trayvon Martin case, there was only one witness (other than Zimmerman) to the fight. The witness's testimony suggested that Zimmerman was on his back, on the ground, screaming for help, and being punched by Martin before Zimmerman fired. See for yourself https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=196691611 Why in God's name the prosecution even bothered with the case is beyond me. See what the juror said about it: "JUROR: Well, because of the witnesses of John Good, saw Trayvon on top of George, not necessarily hitting him, because it was so dark, he couldn't see. But he saw blows down towards George. And he could tell that it was George Zimmerman on the bottom. He didn't know who it was, but he knew what they were wearing." https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2013-07-15-sfl-zimmerman-juror-cnn-transcript-0716-story.html
RM's RFD is loaded with bullshit and insults, and is clearly biased. Take that garbage down m8
@RM
You're a fucking idiot.
drank a late night coffee
https://www.debateart.com/debates/652-donald-trump-is-not-racist-change-my-mind
What has the cat ever done for me?
Sometime's it's hard to see why traits may have been selected for during the formative period of human evolution. This can be even more difficult when the traits are psychological adaptations. The underlying issue is whether homosexuality has some objective function or is a mental disorder. There have been some imaginative proposed hypotheses for homosexuality. Though, I'm wondering whether the classification as to function or disorder is relevant in any policy making because I don't think it's something that can be changed.
"I am basically discounting the interview" Why?
Thanks, I'll check it out.
https://rb.gy/eqdk92 It could happen to you
https://i.imgur.com/X7YpIvj.jpg
But I like the zoo
TKO
You should wait until you hear from both sides regarding objections to exhibits before you make a decision about which evidence you intend to include or exclude.
Surely by now you know me well enough to have been put on notice that I'm obviously too stupid to read at the 12 year old level. You should have known to dumb it down.
Image hosting on Imgur.com is down for some reason. This is an alternate link to the PM screenshot https://ibb.co/L5Djgyv
Scoping it out
His working definition was discernable from the debate description. He seemed ignorant rather than deceptive because, well, look at how he rights. I wouldn't put it past him to make the mistake. That, and the term itself is susceptible to being misunderstood in the way that he misunderstood it. Don't worry about me though. I'm too lazy to vote.
I do not see a good reason to use Pro's definition rather than the one implicated by the debate description.
Lol don't debate with him unless you can have lower rounds and character limits. If he's losing he'll just keep blathering nonsense so that voting on it will be too much work.