You're probably right. He's starting to come across as an alt-right troll rp-ing an SJW perhaps as some mocking type behavior. I considered this before accepting the debate and looked through his posting history on the forums and it seemed he had a long history of posting things like this, but his arguments are just unbelievably bad. Nobody is that bad.
The resolution wasn't entirely clear, but the most reasonable interpretation is that your intention was to debate the truth of this statement: "White people commit the majority of crime in the United States". I intend to support that intrepretation if it is disputed and will continue to debate the subject either way. I look forward to your content. I'm imagining this will mostly be a challenge to the credibility of DOJ statistics, but perhaps you have some other plan.
The United States is a community and black Americans are part of that community. Their well-being matters when determining whether or not the community would be better off without them. The means and end to being "without them" would likely be bad for them, and consequently bad for the community as a whole.
If you read what I wrote you will see that I was stating that his conduct was cowardly, not necessarily him. You don't intend to mischaracterize critcisms of conduct as personal attacks, do you? That would a bit like a straw man. BTW it's cowardly because he's not putting anything on the line in terms of ELO even though this is a serious debate. That, and all the other rules and limitations he put in to the debate, taken as a whole, was a cowardly thing to do. AFAIK the purpose of implementing unrated debates largely had to do with rap battles and other silly debates where the quality of users' performance didn't have much to do with how good they were at debating, could be wrong about that though. I don't really keep up with the MEEPs and such.
Cowardly to have the debate unrated and then put up all these rules about who is allowed to vote and such, and particularly limiting the contradictions only to "teachings of the Bible", conveniently avoiding all the clear numerical contradictions (e.g. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions#Numeric_contradictions ). These rules aren't binding on voters or debaters.
Any instigator who takes the position of a truism should not be awarded argument points. Creating such a debate weighs heavily against him when it comes to conduct points.
I offer to provide you with more detailed feedback on your case and/or your handling of the is/ought issue if you wish, either here or in PMs if you would prefer.
Thanks for the vote. I also viewed Donald's subordination to Fred as a mitigating factor in the housing discrimination case. You're the first person to bring that up. Kudos.
Only a few made me laugh. None stood out in terms of being bad. Sometimes the ones talking about debates were a bit cringy. I don't remember whose those were though.
Haha you always think I'm up to something. This is not what happened. I have nothing against either of these users. I looked at every meme and the one in my RFD was the one that I found to be the most amusing.
Directly quoting material and taking care to incorporate significant context is a best practice IMO. Your most recent paraphrasing isn't accurate, either. I said "unlikely", not "very unlikely". That's a meaningful difference.
The full interview is behind a paywall. Trump appears to have been referring to what O'Donnel wrote about him in the book in general. The evidence that Trump has changed is weak. "So now your saying people can't change in 30 years." is a straw man argument. You're not being intellectually honest on this subject, and you weren't in the CNN debate, either.
The impact that time has on the probability that Trump is racist isn't as significant as you're making it out to be. People don't change often. It's unlikely that Trump has genuinely reformed.
But Trump has been called out several times for racial insensitivity by former co-workers and civil rights activists. In 1991, Trump was accused of making racial slurs against black people in a book written by John R. O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, called “Trumped!” O’Donnell wrote that Trump once said, in reference to a black accountant at Trump Plaza, “laziness is a trait in blacks.” He also told O’Donnell: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
Trump called O’Donnell a disgruntled employee but he didn’t deny allegations made in the book during an interview with Playboy magazine in 1999:
“Nobody has had worse things written about them than me,” Trump says. “And here I am. The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true. The guy’s a fucking loser. A fucking loser. I brought the guy in to work for me; it turns out he didn’t know that much about what he was doing. I think I met the guy two or three times total. And this guy goes off and writes a book about me, like he knows me!”
A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”
Might be the most compelling because of Trump's admission that it was probably true.
Enforcement of voting standards appears to have become more strict. Perhaps a little bit more details addressing Virt's concerns and I think Virt would be OK with your vote and it could be reposted I hope.
I mean, you're really going the extra mile with the post-RFD explanation. For me to do that would strain my credulity beyond the breaking point because I have difficulty trusting that others have the will or the ability to recognize their mistakes. I hardly ever see it happen.
If I make unreasonable arguments then you will have an opportunity to say why those arguments are unreasonable. You must relinquish control and put your faith in the voters to decide what is reasonable or unreasonable. That is the nature of debate.
Generally my case would be evidence of examples of racism, but I don't see cause to restrict the type of evidence I give or to restrict the arguments that I make. For example, Trump could be a changed man and this change could have happened within the past 24 hours. Therefore I have not 100% proven that Trump is racist in the present unless I show that Trump is doing something racist at this very moment. My response to that argument would be that it is unlikely that Trump has changed so recently, and that because we are using the "more likely than not standard" the doubt raised by that argument is insufficient.
It's the standard used and recognized by our courts in civil trials. You may read about various standards here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_standards_for_burden_of_proof There is always going to be some doubt, no matter how powerful evidence is. It's very difficult to prove things beyond reasonable doubt.
Yes, I would be agreeable to that, provided that my BoP responsibility be explicltly defined as consistent with the "more likely than not" standard used in civil matters. (e.g. "A party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is required to prove is more likely to be true than not true. This is referred to as 'the burden of proof.' " https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/200/ ) Additionally, I would like for you to have some responsibility to construct and post your case before I have to post my case.
CNN is not a source of fake news because it's not CNN's practice to make things up. That's what fake news means. Trump is a source of fake news because he makes things up all the time, including the allegation that CNN is a source of fake news. I don't see that this debate is winnable unless RM completely drops the ball.
I will interpret a forfeited first round as an indication that you no longer intend to debate the topic. I likely will not use my time to generate debate content in such a situation.
Most of the factual assertions on CNN are true, and even when they're not true then there's usually some basis for having made those statements. Bias =/= fake. Individual incidents of false reporting aren't sufficient to show that CNN is fake news, especially if those incidents are the exception rather than the rule.
CNN's a business like most other outlets. People watch what they want to watch and read what they want to read. People are more interesting in being entertained or feeling better than the truth. There's demand for fake news. CNN is rather sensational. There are editorial standards but, unfortunately, when the motive is profit rather than to inform then the content will reflect the desires of the audience rather than objective reality.
We wouldn't be here if it weren't for Hitler. Different people would be here instead. It's true because his life had a large impact on the timeline. Better not to mess with that.
I didn't sign up for a troll debate. You tricked me. Is that supposed to be funny? I don't find it to be.
You're probably right. He's starting to come across as an alt-right troll rp-ing an SJW perhaps as some mocking type behavior. I considered this before accepting the debate and looked through his posting history on the forums and it seemed he had a long history of posting things like this, but his arguments are just unbelievably bad. Nobody is that bad.
The resolution wasn't entirely clear, but the most reasonable interpretation is that your intention was to debate the truth of this statement: "White people commit the majority of crime in the United States". I intend to support that intrepretation if it is disputed and will continue to debate the subject either way. I look forward to your content. I'm imagining this will mostly be a challenge to the credibility of DOJ statistics, but perhaps you have some other plan.
The United States is a community and black Americans are part of that community. Their well-being matters when determining whether or not the community would be better off without them. The means and end to being "without them" would likely be bad for them, and consequently bad for the community as a whole.
If you read what I wrote you will see that I was stating that his conduct was cowardly, not necessarily him. You don't intend to mischaracterize critcisms of conduct as personal attacks, do you? That would a bit like a straw man. BTW it's cowardly because he's not putting anything on the line in terms of ELO even though this is a serious debate. That, and all the other rules and limitations he put in to the debate, taken as a whole, was a cowardly thing to do. AFAIK the purpose of implementing unrated debates largely had to do with rap battles and other silly debates where the quality of users' performance didn't have much to do with how good they were at debating, could be wrong about that though. I don't really keep up with the MEEPs and such.
Cowardly to have the debate unrated and then put up all these rules about who is allowed to vote and such, and particularly limiting the contradictions only to "teachings of the Bible", conveniently avoiding all the clear numerical contradictions (e.g. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions#Numeric_contradictions ). These rules aren't binding on voters or debaters.
Do you mean the spelling and grammar and source points? If that's what you meant then yes I agree, but I typically don't award such points.
Any instigator who takes the position of a truism should not be awarded argument points. Creating such a debate weighs heavily against him when it comes to conduct points.
You gonna vote on this? You got that "I vote on every debate" thing to consider. Oh man I feel for ya. Nasty debate lol.
I offer to provide you with more detailed feedback on your case and/or your handling of the is/ought issue if you wish, either here or in PMs if you would prefer.
People can vote however they want to on this debate because truism debates aren't moderated AFAIK.
Best bet is to argue poor conduct for making an unwinnable debate IMO.
Debate title is a spoiler. Gotta watch things when they come out because the world is polluted with spoilers.
I def think the elephant pic should be back
Humanism is boring. Nationalism is much more exciting.
Well, taking on the role of an intellectual and actually being an intellectual are different questions.
Shapiro's CV is strong evidence that he is an intellectual IMO, notwithstanding his professional bullshitting.
poopoo bad boy
Thanks for the vote. I also viewed Donald's subordination to Fred as a mitigating factor in the housing discrimination case. You're the first person to bring that up. Kudos.
Only a few made me laugh. None stood out in terms of being bad. Sometimes the ones talking about debates were a bit cringy. I don't remember whose those were though.
Yes, that's correct. This was my interpretation of "Subjectively best meme gets the votes."
I think he's probably racist. It doesn't matter that much to me whether he's racist or not. I'm more interested in economic issues than racial ones.
Haha you always think I'm up to something. This is not what happened. I have nothing against either of these users. I looked at every meme and the one in my RFD was the one that I found to be the most amusing.
Directly quoting material and taking care to incorporate significant context is a best practice IMO. Your most recent paraphrasing isn't accurate, either. I said "unlikely", not "very unlikely". That's a meaningful difference.
"You are the one who said people can't change in 30 years." I didn't say that. You made that up.
The full interview is behind a paywall. Trump appears to have been referring to what O'Donnel wrote about him in the book in general. The evidence that Trump has changed is weak. "So now your saying people can't change in 30 years." is a straw man argument. You're not being intellectually honest on this subject, and you weren't in the CNN debate, either.
The impact that time has on the probability that Trump is racist isn't as significant as you're making it out to be. People don't change often. It's unlikely that Trump has genuinely reformed.
But Trump has been called out several times for racial insensitivity by former co-workers and civil rights activists. In 1991, Trump was accused of making racial slurs against black people in a book written by John R. O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, called “Trumped!” O’Donnell wrote that Trump once said, in reference to a black accountant at Trump Plaza, “laziness is a trait in blacks.” He also told O’Donnell: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
Trump called O’Donnell a disgruntled employee but he didn’t deny allegations made in the book during an interview with Playboy magazine in 1999:
“Nobody has had worse things written about them than me,” Trump says. “And here I am. The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true. The guy’s a fucking loser. A fucking loser. I brought the guy in to work for me; it turns out he didn’t know that much about what he was doing. I think I met the guy two or three times total. And this guy goes off and writes a book about me, like he knows me!”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-blacks-lawsuit_n_855553
This from the Vox article:
A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”
Might be the most compelling because of Trump's admission that it was probably true.
Unless there's a live video feed of Trump doing something racist Con has failed to prove that Trump is racist.
I consider this RFD insufficient on args and conduct. Review desired.
Enforcement of voting standards appears to have become more strict. Perhaps a little bit more details addressing Virt's concerns and I think Virt would be OK with your vote and it could be reposted I hope.
I take it then that you agree that it's more likely than not that Trump is racist.
Thanks for taking the time to work it up as always.
I mean, you're really going the extra mile with the post-RFD explanation. For me to do that would strain my credulity beyond the breaking point because I have difficulty trusting that others have the will or the ability to recognize their mistakes. I hardly ever see it happen.
How can you not be jaded after all the voting you've done lol
If I make unreasonable arguments then you will have an opportunity to say why those arguments are unreasonable. You must relinquish control and put your faith in the voters to decide what is reasonable or unreasonable. That is the nature of debate.
Generally my case would be evidence of examples of racism, but I don't see cause to restrict the type of evidence I give or to restrict the arguments that I make. For example, Trump could be a changed man and this change could have happened within the past 24 hours. Therefore I have not 100% proven that Trump is racist in the present unless I show that Trump is doing something racist at this very moment. My response to that argument would be that it is unlikely that Trump has changed so recently, and that because we are using the "more likely than not standard" the doubt raised by that argument is insufficient.
It's the standard used and recognized by our courts in civil trials. You may read about various standards here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_standards_for_burden_of_proof There is always going to be some doubt, no matter how powerful evidence is. It's very difficult to prove things beyond reasonable doubt.
Yes, I would be agreeable to that, provided that my BoP responsibility be explicltly defined as consistent with the "more likely than not" standard used in civil matters. (e.g. "A party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is required to prove is more likely to be true than not true. This is referred to as 'the burden of proof.' " https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/200/ ) Additionally, I would like for you to have some responsibility to construct and post your case before I have to post my case.
CNN is not a source of fake news because it's not CNN's practice to make things up. That's what fake news means. Trump is a source of fake news because he makes things up all the time, including the allegation that CNN is a source of fake news. I don't see that this debate is winnable unless RM completely drops the ball.
I will interpret a forfeited first round as an indication that you no longer intend to debate the topic. I likely will not use my time to generate debate content in such a situation.
Most of the factual assertions on CNN are true, and even when they're not true then there's usually some basis for having made those statements. Bias =/= fake. Individual incidents of false reporting aren't sufficient to show that CNN is fake news, especially if those incidents are the exception rather than the rule.
CNN's a business like most other outlets. People watch what they want to watch and read what they want to read. People are more interesting in being entertained or feeling better than the truth. There's demand for fake news. CNN is rather sensational. There are editorial standards but, unfortunately, when the motive is profit rather than to inform then the content will reflect the desires of the audience rather than objective reality.
When the brain is split, the mind is also split. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain How can mind-body dualism be reconciled with this?
We wouldn't be here if it weren't for Hitler. Different people would be here instead. It's true because his life had a large impact on the timeline. Better not to mess with that.
Poor Moe. I hope something can be done.
https://i.imgur.com/ktSgzHR.jpg kekeke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bSEfx6D8mA
I meant nefarious plans. Reporting votes is OK.