Death23

Why did Wylted go crazy?

The solution to this nonsense is pretty simple - Close voting on debates 72 hours prior to the site deciding who won and computing ELO. A 72 hour window should be sufficient to moderate last-minute votes.

If I don't like someone I won't vote on their debates if I think they won. I might vote on their debates if I hold a good faith belief that they lost. I will take extra steps to ensure that my RFDs will pass moderation. I might accept their debates because I would enjoy watching them lose. Being highly motivated to win, I will make better arguments. Anger can be useful for the creation of quality content, but it must be channeled productively to avoid the potential adverse impacts.

Yes. You may rely on your own personal recollection to substantiate that to yourself. There is no purpose in me arguing a point we both know is true.

You know you lie. Why do you do it?

You lie again. I challenge you to make a post that doesn't contain a lie. Surprise me.

All you do is lie.

You are wrong.

I don't support them. Our politicians do and the nation pays a high price for that. It's not worth it and Israel's handling of the Palestinian situation has been pretty bad.

Not really.

Perhaps you didn't notice that all of the definitions for murder contained the word "illegal" or "unlawful". Abortion isn't murder because it's legal. This is like saying that killing in self defense or lawfully executing a condemned prisoner is murder. These things aren't murder because they're not illegal. Murder is a crime.

I think Greenland is part of EU.

For obvious reasons, abortion isn't murder.

We were talking about whether or not abortion is murder. We weren't talking about whether or not abortion is "ok". That's a different question.

Call the cops on Planned Parenthood and see what happens.

Abortion isn't murder.

I was referring to non-whites.

Appealing to racism has worked for the GoP. It will stop working when there's a sufficient number of minority voters.

I like to cheat on Chess.com. Have been banned many times, usually within 10 games or so. They're pretty good at catching it. One day I will solve how to cheat at chess.com and get away with it, but for now it eludes me.

TBH I'm not much of a troll but you blocked me anyway. It seemed impulsive and dispraportionate given that our prior interractions had been reasonably frequent and mostly cordial.

You wish to settle for something because you fear getting nothing. No deal. The senate, gerrymandering, court-packing, voter disenfranchisement and other undemocratic aspects of American politics will only keep the will of the people at bay for so long. Soon the voice of the people will be too strong to suppress. Conservatives will be powerless, and it's better that way.

The most likely explanation is that it's there because this site is a DDO clone and on DDO it's in the profiles. I don't see any problem with it.

Viability and capacity for sentience occur around the same time. The more viable and sentient the pre-natal life, the greater its moral value. Prior to there being any viability or sentient capacity there's not much moral value. The overwhelming majority of abortions (i.e. ~99%) occur before then. So, for the most part it seems to be not a large problem morally. It'd be the 1% that occur later which are morally problematic to me, but the whole 1% thing makes it a compartively low-impact issue.

Non-sentient pre-natal life has little moral value. I have no problem with the destruction of zygotes and embryos. Do you?

Yep I heard that God can make you pregnant at any time. I've also heard that it's theoretically possible for a man (a natural born man) to become ectopically pregnant if an embryo somehow gets inside his abdominal cavity and attaches to an organ like the intestines.

Not really. Asteroid impacts are random. Abortion is a decision.

Abortion is an eraser that corrects the mistakes of God and men. This is of greater value than the lost pre-natal life.

Yes that sounds accurate.

Whichever system happens to be in the best interests of the people depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Socialization can be the answer where the free market fails or where the free market would be impracticable. The streets have long been socialized without controversy, and this seems to be in the best interests of the people as a system of private roads would be impractical. On the other hand competition in a free market system encourages innovation like you're saying. There should not be blind ideological adherence to one system or another, but a choice between one or the other with a decision guided by the facts and circumstances.

The American plutocracy uses race to divide and rule the American proletariat. We must embrace our brown brothers and unite against the ruling class. Only then will we end capitalist oppression.

It's obvious that he intended to communicate that the moon is a part of "the much bigger things we are doing" rather than the moon is part of mars.

Another easily discredited conservative sophistry. If anyone had bothered googling they would see that black / white graduation rates at Harvard and other Ivy League schools are fairly close, and much closer than at schools where race-based affirmative action is illegal (e.g. UC Berkely) https://cdn.jbhe.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/gradrates-topranked2013.png

You're not talking about the impact on pay or the lack of necessity for the positions. Workers don't benefit by increasing the labor supply. Things like this:

don't make any sense. The worker has less hours to work. Less work is bad because it's less money. The money is going to the immigrant. That's not good for that worker. That's bad for that worker. He wants the job. He doesn't want someone else to do the job instead and get the money for the work.

What jobs do we need immigrants to take? How can you tell whether or not we need immigrants to take a particular job? What's the test? There is no test. It's just let them all in and have them take as many jobs as possible.

The policy is good for people who consume a lot of services, esp. if you aren't working (i.e. the rich, esp. non-working rich) The policy has little impact on those who consume little services, and esp. bad if you're working (i.e. the poor, esp. the working poor). Sometimes there are bona fide labor shortages and/or compelling needs for particular types of workers (e.g. tech workers, health care workers) but the objective necessity of the particular skills has zero impact. I don't see any interest being furthered by this policy other than benefiting the rich at the expense of workers. If you cared about Americans generally then you would consider that in America workers and the poor by far outnumber the rich and the non-working rich.

The country would be swamped with workers. Go to Bangladesh people work a whole day for $2 dollars. Those people would come here, depress wages and increase housing costs and put strain on social resources. It's bad policy for American workers.

This is a false.

All identities are artificially constructed. There exists a substantial history of stigmatization and persecution of LGBT people. This is sufficient cause to warrant the identity IMO. It's a functionally self-protective necessity in response to persecution and stigma. The divisiveness is undesirable but incidental; Beyond that the people were already identified and divided by the "aggressors" in the situation. Who divided people along these lines first? Look at your religions you mention.

Who else made the list

RM such a power bottom

Don't touch my junk.

Hmmm I think you right. It already says the ties. The percentage there... I don't know.

The ultimate question is this - How good is someone at debating? Well, the numbers can help with that, but when there are a significant number of ties it tends to muddy things up when it comes to win percentages. Perhaps to do as omar2345 suggests, but to additionally report tie percentages right next to the win/loss percentages. If a user has, for example, a 100% win/loss percentage but an unusually high tie percentage it would be somewhat of an asterisk, but perhaps a deserved one.

American blacks are better off because of slavery because if it didn't happen then they'd have been born and raised in sub-saharan Africa. The slaves were the ones whose lives were much worse due to slavery. They're dead, and the slave owners pretty much lost everything in the civil war anyway. Seems like a wash to me.

Hooray!

Three days isn't enough time to post arguments. Generating quality content takes time. People have busy lives and can rarely afford to prioritize debating. If there were substantially more time to post arguments - e.g. 2 weeks or 30 days - there would be more free time available within those larger windows to allocate for making quality debate content. I'm frequently disinclined to debate because of the three day time frame. When you forfeit rounds because you don't prioritize debating you're penalized. (e.g. https://www.debateart.com/debates/910 ) It's lame. It would be better if people had the option to debate more on their time and more when they want to rather than the status quo of post something or lose.

Hooray for Ramshutu!

I doubt that there's any credible evidence indicating a substantial correlation between the undesirable behaviors you're referring to and political affiliation.