Total posts: 174
-->
@Double_R
I am not sure why you in particular are fond of dodging questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Well no, I may have just misunderstood what you meant by live debates. I suppose I am unaware of any.
Created:
Posted in:
Besides this one? There are none that are active.
Created:
Posted in:
I certainly don't waste time doing stupid things like "entertaining the audience," or "telling a story" (using a face interpretation of them respectively as they could just be gibberish upon reflection). Of course, the two respective users that observe these courses of actions both ran away from debating me, so I wonder if that is indicative.
Created:
Posted in:
I wonder why Barney simply does not debate me or Bones on this topic. I would be willing to do it immediately, I am sure Bones would be willing as well.
Created:
Posted in:
Conversations like in this thread are among the reasons I am pro-life. That is, just seeing pro choicers being utterly incapable of defending their view.
Created:
Posted in:
.....space(> * <) i (> * <)space.....space = truly non-occupied and occupied>< = dipolar invaginations from ultra-high nummber of space-time tori, that, result in sine-wave pattern /\/\/ aka physical reality* * = bilateral consciousness found in reality with woman being the most complex entity of Universe, barring two or more women or man and woman or a black hole with encoding for biologic life embedded within( ) = postive shaped geodesic Gravity aka Spirit-3 { Meta-physical })( = negative shaped geodesic Dark Energy aka Spirit-4 { Meta-physical }i = ego identification as Meta-space concept
This is literally just pure nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Note that this depends on what you take a "good debater/opponent," to mean. I don't think I have beaten any good opponents because I don't believe there are any on this website with a few exceptions.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah, I am curious as well because I don't know what ComputerNerd means by "scummy tactics," or "toxic tactics." If all he means by the former is something other than a violation of the site's rules or some sort of cheating, I may not even be interested. And if all he means by the latter is me being "mean" or along those lines, I could not care less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
You need to ask him what he means by the words he is using.
Within the medical, it can disputed whether an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion, similar to within a given set of legal provisions. Some people may even define miscarriages as some subset of abortion, so if an analytic claim is being made, there needs be clarity the exact set of concepts being referring to.
Now otherwise, are you agreeing that there is no necessary entailment or reason that any view that affirms proposition x: "an unborn child is a baby from the moment of conception," must be against ectopic pregnancies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
If you believe it's a baby from the moment of conception, then your stance is even against aborting ectopic pregnancies.
- I have no idea why you would say that. There is no necessary entailment or reason that a view that affirms proposition x: "an unborn child is a baby from the moment of conception," must be against ectopic pregnancies. If you believe this is logically impossible, please derive the contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
Pro life is just a thesis that murder, or what would be regarded as the unjust killing of innocent entities ought to be illegal. Seeing the people engage in semantic debating hurts my head.
I generally know how it feels to talk to people who are not following for some reason, so I end up tapping out when they dodge questions. So, YouFound_Lxam, if they dodge the question, just repeat it a few times then...whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, based on this description, it could be literally any moderator besides MIster_Chris
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Yeah, he is an idiot sadly.
Created:
Posted in:
Any time you cite a philosopher's position (as Vici did about Plato's "chaotic states") there should be a corresponding source...
- Even if Vici did not cite a source for this, I don't see how this is relevant to the argument she made. Plato's name could be taken off it, and the argument could remain unaffected. I don't see any reason to believe this would impact source allocation. WyIted is so obviously right here. What is the argument that this would warrant awarding the source point to the contender?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
A priori, no one would be correct unless there is a proposition involved that is just trivially true. I assume you mean something more like ceteris paribus, given that there would simply be less ways your position could be false (when compared to TWS1405).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
@Vici
Yes, I will vote on this debate because of the bias against VIci.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I can agree with you on the idiocy and poor quality of many voters on this platform.
Created:
If you want to get better at in person debates, this site is useless.
Most of the people here don't even understand basic logic—yes I mean the bare basics of logic. The majority of people exaggerate about the sources they cite, and engage in bad faith. If you are someone who wants to be good at debating vocally or in person, do not use people on this site (with the exception of certain users like Bone and Ehyeh) as examples.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
But hold on, this is just a dodge from the question, I am not asking you about the logical reasoning paths, I am asking you to demonstrate the logical circularity, I don't understand why you keep avoiding the question. The question is:
- What set of propositions from the dichotomy "A is true because of B : B is true because of A"? So far, I am not seeing an answer. Can you just answer the question directly?
It is starting to seem like you don't actually have an argument for your claim, from my view.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, so, I don't understand why you are being evasive. What is the circularity here? The question is: what set of propositions from the dichotomy "A is true because of B : B is true because of A"? Nothing in your post mentions this which is why I called it a ramble previously. It is a wall of text that does not even answer the question.
- Do you know what logical circularity means? I don't even know if you are on the same page as me.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
First, I don't want you to think I am being condescending to you, but I am not fully sure what you mean by that in specific. I was just hoping you would provide an argument for your claim, and from my view, it seems like you are dodging the question.
I have done what you asked in a less robotic and idiotic way than asked to format it.
- I am not sure what you mean by this either. I have no idea what "less robotic," or "less idiotic," could mean. If you are stating that you have provided an example of a circular set of proportions (A is true because of B : B is true because of A), then this is just factually incorrect. If you believe you have, can you quote the specific set of propositions from any of your previous messages that form the logical circularity?
- Let me make what I want clear: I want you to provide the argument for the claim you made, and currently, you have not given any reason for use to believe that there is any logically circular set of propositions, talk less of drawing a comparison to the left wing.
- When I ask you to offer a concession here, I am not trying to be rude, I am just asking you to be honest/in good faith because it does not seem as if you have an argument for this claim.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, so you aren't answering my questions and I don't know why. I am starting to feel like you are dodging a little, so let me recap.
So, you made the claim that the conservative position on abortion features both (a) logical circularity, and (b) a greater presence of logical circularity than the left wing position on abortion.
- Do you understand the aforementioned criticism? This is either a yes or a no
- If you do understand, then please provide the argument/propositions within the conservative position on abortion that you believe to be logically circular, if we take this to simply be represented in the format "A is true because of B : B is true because of A." What set of proportions in the position form this dichotomy?
Now if you don't actually have an answer to the question, offer a concession that you were wrong about the claim. Are you following me thus far?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
This message is to provide clarity on my criticism of your view, as expressed above. You made the claim that their is a greater degree of circularity within the conservative position on abortion, that the left wing position on abortion.
- If we take logical circularity to be a set of propositions in the form "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true," you have not even demonstrated the argument that you believe is circular, not to even mention comparing it to the propositions or inferences expressed by the left wing.
So your entire previous message seems irrelevant to providing an argument for your claim. If it is the case that you do not have the argument, I would like you to concede the claim, because you yourself don't appear to have any reason to believe it. Do you understand the criticism here, because I did not see a response to it previous to this message?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't want to be rude here, but this is a ramble, you did not even provide an answer to the question. Not only do I hate when people do this, I have no idea what you are talking about. I asked you to provide an argument for your claim and demonstrate the logical circularity of the conservative view on abortion—you have not even attempted to do this. What is the circularity here—what proposition or argument is circular?
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
You have two specific claims to demonstrate:
- The logical circularity in the conservative abortion position.
- A greater presence of logical cirucalrity in the conservative position on abortion than the left wing position on abortion.
Let's start with the first one. This time, state outright the specific proposition or argument you believe is logically circular. There is nothing that needs to be stated other than the specific argument or proposition.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, what is the circularity within the conservative position on abortion, that makes use of more logical circularity when placed proportional to the left wing abortion position.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So the claim is: "...right-wing and definitely conservative views are rooted in circular thinking very often while the left-wing liberal views involve fluidity of thought even if the thoughts are stupid, they at least have some level of 'this because that' to them.
- What is the argument for that?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am not sure I understand what you are stating. I am not suggesting that I am not willing to engage an insane/evil person. In fact, I asked the user in question for an argument for his claim. Can you give clarity on anything else you are implying?
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
That is the issue with many of the left-leaning people on this platform; a lot of them (like IwantRooseveltagain) seem insane to me.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
It certainly is unfortunate that he is like this, but he seems to completely fold when asked to actually lay out an inference for any of his claims - as seen from here (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8069/post-links/350341).
Created:
What is the argument for the proposition "MAGA Republicans are today’s slave holders"?
- I am not seeing where you lay out an argument for this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
From my view, I considered Bones vote to be perfect, and Undefeatable's to be, in essence, just as strong. I think that most people will agree that Barney's vote was logically incoherent, similar to whiteflames. Understanding that some people don't vote explicitly with logic and inferences is imperative to denoting those you should ban from voting on your debates in the rules. My current listing is as follows: Barney, Oromagi, Shila, and FLRW. Is there anyone else you recommend?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
I would add, If we were to clarify my argument, I did not even ague that animal farming ought to be considered slavery fundamentally (although proven through my arguments). I argued that not labeling animal farming as slavery would produce a logical contradiction if we label certain treatment of humans as slavery so long as there is no ethically relevant distinction between them and we are deliberating a concept of personhood. I think the peculiar moderation intervention (to help my opponent win) is only indicative that the right decision occurred, and finally, might I add, given that the user in question had been dodging me for a while before that point (similar to how Barney is currently).
If by trajectory I become number one on the leader board, simply look at the number of debates I have, and the number of debates the user I pass has at that given moment. By estimation, I will have around 40 fewer—and this will tell you all you need to know about the respective quality of opponents we face.
Otherwise, I am not concerned with making the positive claim that I am a good debater; I am sure others will come to their own conclusions on that—I am only interested in beating people who are running away from me. That, on the face of it, seems like a humble mission.
Created:
Posted in:
I have not been keeping up with this thread, but I will vote for myself user wise, and these three debates:
- THBT: On balance, the US ought to make abortion illegal.
- The majority of animal agriculture in the United States is slavery
- Resolved: On balance, the Christian doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is ethically tenable.
Created:
-->
@Vici
the votes were fine - they were removed because the moderators have issue with novice and wish to derail him. the votes were against mall the noob - novice clearly won them.
- It is honestly very sad. Notice how I can report Barney's vote that did not meet the standards, and whiteflame et al. will ignore such a report for 3 days (until he changed it himself) whereas, someone can report a vote cast for me, and it will be removed within hours or even minutes.
- If not already concerning, Oromagi cast a troll vote against me in a debate I had with Mall (because he just could not emotionally handle losing a previous debate to me). It was not removed by any moderator despite being reported.
Created:
Wait wait, hold on. How does Undefeatable no longer have permissions, while FLRW and Oromagi retain theirs? What type of peculiarity is that?
Created:
Why is our moderation so incompetently insane? How is Shila a chat bot...I don't even understand how you reach that conclusion.
Created:
Shila is not a chatbot...how does anyone genuinely believe this?
Now, she is annoying and I blocked her a long time ago, so while I have no personal issue with the situation here, to say she is a chat bot is insane based on how she responds to people.
Now, she is annoying and I blocked her a long time ago, so while I have no personal issue with the situation here, to say she is a chat bot is insane based on how she responds to people.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
what is the standard that determines whether or not someone is a person?
- Oh, in that case, what is the argument for the proposition "the statistical diversity of people that identify as Democrats determines the threshold of what quantifies a diverse group of people."
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If individuals under all of these groups of people you have mentioned identify as Republicans, will you concede on this point, yes or no?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
- I will ask once again:
What is your specific criteria for what quantifies "a great deal of variety"?
- If you do not answer the question this time, I will conclude you are hiding behind an incoherent position.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Okay, so you just don't know what an argument is...I see.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yes, Republicans do not represent a “a great deal of variety”
- What is your specific criteria for what quantifies "a great deal of variety"?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Diverse means, "showing a great deal of variety; very different."
Can you give me an argument as to why evidence of demographic variety does not evidence diversity which is defined as variety?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Really? You really believe that?
- Is there a counter position here? If you are claiming the converse, I can give the argument/evidence for my claim. 28% of males and 25% of females are Republicans, so their is your gender diversity, around 20% of Republicans are Latino etc. which demonstrates ethnic diversity. From this I consider this point proven sufficiently. Can you now offer a concession of this statement?
- If so, we can move on to the arguments for any other propositions, if not, I expect a counter argument.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I believe that Republicans are a diverse group of people, just like I stated. Not that they don't celebrate diversity, I just don't believe you are reading or understanding the precise claims here. As for your claims above, I understand them precisely because I am reading what you state, as well as asking for the arguments to both propositions.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Trump supporters like Trump because of his racist tropes.
- What is the argument for that?
Republicans are not only racist, they are homophobic.
- What is the argument for that?
Created:
I don't see how this would affect Trump supporters even if we granted that they do not support homosexuality. This whole topic seems to be a most peculiarly poorly constructed attack on a diverse group of people, and it does not come off looking good, assuming that was the intention. Much the opposite.
Created: