Total posts: 35
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Can I have a link to my reason to a forum post if I run out of characters?
Why not just use google docs? www.google.com/docs/about/
(Don't forget to share it publically)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Test -- (inserted using link button) -- should open in a new tab:
Counter test -- (manually typed) -- should open in the same tab
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Vader
DebateArt: Haha well done DebateArt! Since you changed the general link function, I'm guessing that this works in debates too?
Supadudz: Your request has been granted. Links now open in a different tab (if you use the link button on the text editor). Thank the awesome developer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
It's not that easy, I am afraid. The thing is that every forum post text is a huge string that contains HTML and which is generated by the user when he or she creates a post, so in order to add this attribute, I'd need to parse the string first and then add it to each <a> tag, and I am not sure if I can find library to achieve that, that's why I need to do some research :)
Just out of curiosity, why do you have to parse the entire post? Couldn't you just amend the link function within the text editor? (This is pure speculation I have no idea how your website is implemented lol)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Vader
Q. "Idk how hard this is to implement, but when a link is posted, there should be a new tab to that link versus the DART page transfering to that link"A. "We do have it on the features list but it requires some research, I am not sure how easily it can be done"
Are you redirecting using HTML? Just add target = "_blank" in your anchor tag.
<a href="https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_a_target.asp" target="_blank">Visit W3Schools</a>
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Vader
Art debate, one profile picture each round. DO IT
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
MrMaestro: https://i.imgur.com/OUyz6C6.jpg
Nice artwork! The red theme and rose remind me of a matador (bullfighter).
You nailed elegant but missed minimalist. I prefer simplistic design for these small icons, simple shapes or patterns with simple color schemes. To me, there's beauty in simplicity.
Are you designing these in PS?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Just out of curiosity.
What 'feel' do you want the image to have?
Elegant/Minimalistic
What trait do you admire more between being severely appealing and severely elusive?
Elusive.
If you were on a desert island and ended up pitted between the option of being the alpha male/female or the cuck/loser what would you be on the food chain between the two?
Feels like a loaded question. Leadership roles come with serious liability in a survival situation; I wouldn't take it on unless I disagreed with the group's survival strategy.
Are you someone who enjoys competition or wishes it wasn't a part of life?
Competition is fundamental to life, whether that be natural selection or an online debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yeah, I can understand why they might not want pictures. Although it would be nice to be able to post graphs and whatnot sometimes.
I wonder if HTML works...
<b>Bold</b>
<u>Underline</u>
<i>Italics</i>
<a href="https://www.debateart.com/">Homepage</a>
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I didn't mean your profile picture.
I noticed it was possible to paste pictures directly into the text editor; I was curious to see if they would upload. They didn't.
Created:
-->
@Human
Look into how the economics of www.photofeeler.com works. People who want their photos rated have to earn credits by rating other people's photos. They can do that or pay. That would put more pressure on people to vote if they know they will receive more votes on their debates in return.
Excellent suggestion! I think most people here would much rather hear themselves talk than read other people's debates. An automatic feature like that would encourage voters.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The war isn't the debate, the war is in your mind, you lose by challenging me. You already know I think this, yet you feel more and more urge to challenge me to it, so why not lay out a little bit of what I'll do?
Good beat. Not bad as far as rap goes. Although it seems a bit weird to quote the Art of War and throw a diss track at me in the same breath.
For the record - I wanted to challenge you long before you knew who I was.
The debate challenge has been sent. I hope my phrasing is agreeable.
Created:
-->
@Human
Thank you for being a good human, human. They should look into Patreon.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
this is how I'd win the debate among other angles; I'd corner you into requiring complete vagueness while I remain concrete and yet in the ways you attack me I'd force you to be blatant and specific while masking your strong points with an onslaught of fog.
For someone who seems to love the "Art of War" so much, you seem to give away a lot of your strategy. Do you often find yourself getting tripped up by your ego?
I tell you what. While I disagree that all mod-voting power should be abolished, I think that I can make a strong argument for how crowd-sourcing techniques could be used to meet this website's strict voting standards.
You're on.
I'll send you the challenge, and probably post my first argument tomorrow once I've had time to think it over.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well, I don't really agree with abolishing all moderator based voting power. I think that crowd-sourced labor can be effectively combined with manual administration. Maybe automatically transferring power from sub-admins if they leave for too long or get voted out, would be a great idea.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I love poker! NL Texas Hold'em to be specific. I also love chess, that organization I told you about is my local chess club. Admittedly though, I'm still a novice debater. (Maybe we should settle this with a HU poker match instead - lol)
Conduct is part of the four-point voting system
I'm aware. I'm fully agreeable to the four-point system.
Since this is a non-profit site that currently has 0 ad revenue streams and such, I will automatically lose on your demand of what I need to prove with scaling.
Then drop the money part of the definition.
On the other hand, your definition of System is so flexible it even would enable me to 'concept-mesh' AKA 'idea-permeate' your side of the debate to mine without letting the reverse happen as you have to defend "won't" and the subjectivity of "well"
Alright, that's a good point. What would be a more suitable definition?
You say this is a popularity contest, but if that's really all you see debating as then you have a deeper opposition to our website than you think and believe in a concept of debating that will be more akin to the crowd over at Debate Island in my honest opinion.
I never said that. I said all social websites seek human attention, referring specifically to your point about reddit.
I believe that charisma and readability play a big role with judges, but I came here precisely because it was intellectually demanding. I want to improve my skill as a debater.
I believe that charisma and readability play a big role with judges, but I came here precisely because it was intellectually demanding. I want to improve my skill as a debater.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not convinced by that argument. Every social website is competing for human attention, including this one.
FYI - being right doesn't excuse you for being rude. Didn't you learn that in DDO? It's possible to be correct without belittling your opponent.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not picky about semantics. I want to discuss this issue, not try and win on a technicality. Feel free to propose counter definitions.
Scaling - When a business is able to scale their operations, this means that they are able to handle a growing amount of work or sales in a capable, cost-effective, labor efficient manner.
By System - I was referring to this website, with regard to both its technological and human-administrative capacities.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So you believe that voting will have no problems scaling, and I believe it will. We obviously disagree about the issue, so why not accept my challenge?
I would also point out that many social platforms have switched to crowd-sourcing solutions to keep up with mod-level administration. Reddit is a notable example here.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I figured we would be discussing various alternatives to the current system in the debate, and that would be one of my key ideas.
So do you disagree with the premise "This website's voting system won't scale well"?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Haha I knew you couldn't resist that challenge! I wanted to debate with the #1 guy on the leaderboard to test my skill.I propose these terms:
Topic: DART's current voting system won't scale well
Shared BoP
3-5 debate rounds
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You seem so offended by this post. Look man we both want the same thing - a great debating website, we just disagree on functionality.
I've got some experience being the manager of a volunteer organization; it takes a toll. I just don't see how the current system could scale well without support from the DART community.
But if you want to be a dick about it we could always settle the issue with a debate ;)
I've got some experience being the manager of a volunteer organization; it takes a toll. I just don't see how the current system could scale well without support from the DART community.
But if you want to be a dick about it we could always settle the issue with a debate ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Referring to "I think therefore I am"
The only assumption here is that we are thinking.Isn't that important we don't know that we actually think?
We don't need to know WHAT we think, we simply need to assume that a thought has occurred in our brain.
You can't logically disprove that you were thinking while also thinking about yourself thinking. It's self-evident, no religious assumptions required.
The best known argument against this proposition is that we cannot prove with certainty that these thoughts belong to us. For example, we could just be a simulation that only believes it has freedom of thought. So under the strictest scrutiny, all we can say with absolute certainty is that "A thought has occurred".
If you really want to defend this position you should read up on cogito (the shorthand for this prop). This is a pretty well researched philosophical theory so you would gain a lot of insight from both sides.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
- I know I am thinking
- Something must be doing the thinking
- A mind must exist that is capable of thought
- Since they are my thoughts, they belong to my mind
- Therefore I (my mind) exists.
Logical deduction is a type of proof.Yes but you are using your perception as a basis to prove it. Am I correct?
The only assumption here is that we are thinking. Everything else logically follows. It's fairly easy to assume that the first assumption is true, even if our perception of reality is somewhat subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Your mind exists but you can't prove it. You are logically deducing it. Am I wrong here?
Logical deduction is a type of proof.
That western world triggers me. Don't say it. Can you say what person said it?
That would be René Descartes. If it makes you feel better he was French, not English.
Also, don't give up on western philosophy just because you don't like western politics :)
Also, don't give up on western philosophy just because you don't like western politics :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Try this reformulation of the argument:
- I know I am thinking
- Something must be doing the thinking
- A mind must exist that is capable of thought
- Since they are my thoughts, they belong to my mind
- Therefore I (my mind) exists.
Also just pointing out that this argument is a fundamental cornerstone of Western Philosophy. I'm appealing to authority here but much smarter philosophers than us have thought this through and accepted the proposition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
On your science analogy. I would say that the result you get on the broken equipment is still objective because it is presented to you the same way no matter what. Even though the data that the scientist gets is ultimately wrong, it's consistently wrong which means that all of the wrong data will fit perfectly with itself as long as the scientist never uses a different tool to verify it.
Ralph you're such a contrarian! I was agreeing with you haha.
My argument was that the scientist eventually gets the answer right, DESPITE the fact that he has to deal with broken equipment and subjective perception. Objective opinions can come from subjective analysis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What you stated was a correlation not a causation. Thinking doesn't mean we exist since we can't test for it. That was the first thing the other person brought up as well.
I'll let the philosopher who actually came up with this proposition explain it:
"Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served - at minimum - as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity - in this case the self - for there to be a thought."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
@Wrick-It-Ralph
There's actually a really interesting video about this subject that's been stuck in my mind for months now. The premise is that "You are (probably) not you". It shows how almost all of our preferences/actions can be defined as somewhat involuntary. The conclusion is that you (conscious, decision-making, personality-having you) don't really have a center.
I'd highly recommend checking it out (only 7 minutes, and it's pretty funny).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I think you can form objective opinions out of subjective experiences.
A scientist can still do science with crappy lab equipment. The measurements might be prone to errors and subject to misinterpretation, however, this doesn't mean the scientist can't create empirical evidence. Similarly, the measurements the scientist reads will be subjective, in the sense that they are distorted by the man's perception of reality.
I guess it's not a perfect analogy but you get the idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
@Wrick-It-Ralph
This is a pretty interesting topic.
Ralph contends that biological senses are objective because we can all agree (for the most part), on what things look like, smell like, etc.
There's a counter-example here though, the idea that "your red is the same as my red" is not necessarily true. My idea of red could just as easily be your idea of blue: https://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html
Although being colorblind myself I could just be biased :)
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I agree with you - DDO gave too much power to too few people. When those people inevitably quit, the website went to sh!t.
That's why I'm in favor of crowd-sourcing solutions like they have on edeb8. People care about their elo ranking, why wouldn't they care about a judgment ranking?
Created:
Hey guys, I'm a newbie here, got recommended to this site from DDO. I'm so glad to have found an active debate community where debates actually get judged!
I'm concerned with the long-term implications of the voting structure. Running to admins with every single vote people disagree with is not a scalable solution. If this site takes off, the judges (who I assume are volunteers) will get overloaded very quickly. When volunteers get overloaded, they quit. This happened on DDO too. With that said I'm in favor of the strict voting rules. I like that judges are forced to carefully weigh both sides.
edeb8 allows users to rate and comment judgments as various levels of constructive and assigns a judgment score to your profile. This score is sufficient enough that most users work to make their judgments better and more constructive. A similar feature could be added here - simply allow other users to rate judgments, with special emphasis on which rules were/weren't adhered too.
Also, the voting section should definitely mention something about the strict voting rules - too many people are unwittingly getting their votes deleted because they didn't read through the code of conduct.
Created: