Total posts: 174
Posted in:
Trolling seems to be tolerated by the ever so competent moderation on this site. This is the likely conclusion many will derive after watching users like ebuc and Shila essentially run wild within the forum. This to me, is less impending than preventing idiots from casting subsequent votes when their voting has already been detected as a problem.
For instance: users like FLRW continue to cast troll votes on debates despite having his votes removed multiple times for the same reasons. Because the moderators on this platform are very intelligent, they made the obviously brilliant decision not to do anything, allowing him to cast a troll vote on a debate which could not be removed in time, drastically altering the outcome.
Are you not supposed to act in accordance with basic logic, you may be asking in your head. This is generally true, but some people are actually too good to think about issues this way, and instead, use superior methods like feelings or emotions. So here is proposition x:
- There ought to be an immediate suspension of voting permissions after the incidence of a troll vote cast deliberately, in a debate where votes are eligible for moderation.
And here is the formalized argument for proposition x:
P1) If any user violates a regulation which they are expected to be aware of and act in accordance with, there ought to be penalties to address such violations.
P2) If a voter has voting permissions, before casting a vote, it is expected that they are familiar with the voting regulations of this platform.
P3) Casting a troll vote, demonstrates under this assumption, a deliberate violation of regulations this user is familiar and acquainted with.
C1) Therefore, there ought to be penalties to address such violations.
P4) Such penalties should reasonably attempt to deter the specific problem which the users actions create for the given platform.
P5) Revoking voting permissions best reasonably attempts to deter the specific problem created by P3, and C1.
C2) Therefore, such penalties ought to include, but not necessarily be limited to, an immediate revocation of voting permissions.
- I struggle to see how this argument is unsound. For its purposes, a troll vote can be defined as any vote that does not qualify as an attempt to meet the voting standards established in the code of conduct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
- All I need or require from you, is that it is not the case that you are currently scared to debate again. If that is a true proposition, then we could debate a range of topics which I could propose to you. If it is the case that you will continue to avoid my specific questions with long tangents I will immediately lose interest. I do not want to speak with you. I do not want a back and forth beyond what I am asking you. I want to debate, and that is the extent to which I am willing to subject myself to this interaction. This is the last chance I am giving. If yes, you are willing to agree to a specific topic I propose, I can carry this discussion privately. If the answer is no, or a ramble, please do not mention my username.
Created:
Posted in:
Barney won't debate anyone, because he is scared of losing. That seemed obvious to me days ago, when the responses to basic questions became tangents and rants about various personal problems and/or theories about me following him to his house etc. It is just that simple.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with not debating if you just want to preserve the streak; if that is what one wants, just say so. I think the issue here is that, from my impression, there are many debaters who have simply become a lot better than Barney, people I have mentioned in the past, perhaps even including RationalMadman, and the moderator knows that the majority of them could beat him without difficulty.
I don't understand why people are still giving him this attention. He won't accept any challenges, I would not even give him the time of day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
But do you think it is a falsity (non-cognitivism) or a certainty/plausibility like a realist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
- I think we are done here. If you want to debate me, you know what to do. If you are too scared to defend your own position, that is also fine. I am not actually interested in having a conversation with you. I tend to lose interest when the response to basic yes/no questions become rants and/or rambles, or when people go as far as to state non conditional propositional statements are actually unreadable masses of text (I am not in a position to teach anyone English).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Perfect, then we debate this.
I will create my debate and you can accept it.
I will create my debate and you can accept it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I will ignore all the peculiar theories about me secretly following you around in real life. I am not interested in your ramble, I am interested in debating you.
My propositions are:
- THBT Barney has mis-represented a debater's arguments within the content of his voting decision.
- THBT the majority of animal farming is slavery. (something the moderator in question has called a logical leap).
If you believe the second is so illogical, you would have no issue debating this, you would see it as a free win. Privately, you continued to dodge my question so, to me, (much like many of our "top debaters") this indicates you are scared of defending your own position. Now, if this is not true I have no desire to mis-represent you, but this is the only reasonable interpretation I can theorize. Do you accept any of them currently or not?
I don't want any additional dodge, just yes or no, please.
Created:
Posted in:
If Barney is interested in moderation debates, I would happily debate him over his own voting.
The resolution could be "THBT Barney has mis-represented a debater's arguments within the content of his voting decision." Barney seems to take liberty in avoiding other propositions including those which he has labeled "logical leaps," in the past, so I suspect this resolution could be pertinent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
They appear to be good choices for anyone, regardless of their name, so that would make this proposition true via modus ponens, I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
If I were to make a team from debateart.com, I would choose these people in no particular order given that these people each specialize in different topics:
1. Bones
2. Christianm
3. MisterChris
4. Fruit_Inspector
5. Semperfortis
6. Public-Choice
7. Ehyeh
8. ossa 997
9. ILikePie5
10. BDPTheGreat
Created:
Posted in:
I seem to agree with the majority of what Vici has stated here in the sense that I don't see the logic of placing debaters like Oromagi on a team that is meant to be good. I don't know much about debate.org, however I know that it is a dysfunctional website, and currently exhibits nothing of value.
Created:
Posted in:
Biden creating jobs...who knew that Presidential administrations should do this? I thought they were supposed to destroy existing jobs and make the country a worse place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
I have also thought of this question, and I believe the answer is that liberals or "the left" generally speak out of emotion rather than reason. This could be a result of many things, but it seems to come to an inability to engage with ideas they don't like. As a consequence, they would rather silence people and/or call them silly names. From the liberal, racist may as well mean "anything I don't like."
For example: "Thomas Sowell is racist" may translate to "I don't like Thomas Sowell, because he is bad."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Most of this diatribe/rant holds no particular relevance to me, seemingly even going as far as to state there is a secret underground rule that I have violated (perhaps created yesterday, or maybe on a different code of conduct entirely that only you can access). The majority of people in this chat who exhibit basic rationality, as well as the ability to read the English language can observe against this.
What I observe from you however, is "no, I am not willing to defend my assertion in a debate," which is not...much of a surprise to me from you. That is primarily the extent to which my interest purveys. I am not here to argue in the comments with you over the span of days like a child, I am only interested in my challenge that you are too scared to accept for now.
Since you repeatedly claim without evidence that you are a great debater
This is stated without any form of evidence whatsoever, but I guess you may not have considered that. I don't really care if I am a good debater or not, and while I am sure others hold their opinions on that, I would not waste time asserting I am. Even if I am the worst debater in the world (of wish would implicate me with no concern) I still challenged you to defend your own position (that you have doubled down on multiple times) in a formal debate where a collection of voters can decide who has stronger arguments, and you are still reluctant to do so. I wonder why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Okay, then you would have no issue debating this propositionally.
There is a required rating of 1900, consequently, you are the only person who can accept this debate. If you genuinely believe that RationalMadman is the best debater this should not be a problem for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Well, as I stated "this is of course my opinion and anyone is welcome to disagree." Now, if the sole utility I derive from expressing my opinion on a public platform derives the interpretation of a "male ego," I don't know if I can adequately contend with such impressive logic. Do you have a particular reasoning as to how you formulated this inquiry?
Created:
Posted in:
I used to think RationalMadman was a good debater a long time ago. After the most recent debate I had with him, I realized he was not as good as I thought, after reading several subsequent debates I realized that he isn't even a good debater. This is of course my opinion and anyone is welcome to disagree. However, I believe he would loose to anyone in the top 10 currently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
I don't know much about DDO, so I can't weigh in much on this, but the way I see it, this thread evaluates the best debaters "on this site," not a different one.
Created:
Posted in:
I forgot about this thread, but since it was updated today, can someone please explain to me how RationalMadman is a good debater, talk less of the best one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
Well, I know you are not asking me, but I would still state that taxes are stealing and should consequently be voluntary. I could very well be moved off this in the future, however, it seems to be reasonable as of now.
Created:
Posted in:
- This comparison is tenable, one many pro-life individuals observe, but not one I would personally mention due to the strength of many other reductions. I don't get the sense that any of the objections I am reading make logical sense. For one:
No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive.
- This is accepted as well as irrelevant. The case draws from the entailment of consenting to sexual intercourse vs consenting to a pregnancy. If pro choice individuals affirm that the establishment of consent to sex does not stipulate consent to carry a child to term, then Bones's comparison is perfectly reasonable as it takes place far after the point in which these people believe consent is no longer pertinent. It seems that if one can deny consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy, one must also deny that consenting to such actions is consenting to financial obligations.
Created:
Posted in:
Oromagi is pretty good at debating
- Hmm, I think I disagree.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
@TWS1405
Do either of you want to debate this?
Created:
Who here is actually willing to debate a pro life conservative on this topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
Like oromagi just gets wins by farming noobs so i need a real challenge.
- I believe I will also confirm this proposition, especially as one who believes he should have lost to both Jeff Goldblum and myself, but I think what you ought to do is re make your debate, re-frame it, and hold the same contest. Here is my immediate suggestion:
Resolved: The majority of abortion is immoral.
Abortion: The deliberate termination of a pregnancy growing in-utero
Majority: Over 50%
Majority: Over 50%
- Miscarriages, and ectopic pregnancy terminations are not abortions and attempting to label them within the debate as such will result in an automatic loss.
- Sources may not be posted in the comments and dong so will result in an automatic loss.
- Burden of proof is shared and con must prove that the majority of abortion is not immoral. Attempting to shit the burden of proof will result in an automatic loss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
the pro choice stance canont be proved.
- You are correct, and I am considering casting a vote for you here. I will however inform you that oromagi is not the best debater on this site, and frankly, is not even close to such category (there are obviously much better debaters). Unfortunately, I will also inform you that most of the top leaderboard debaters are scared of accepting challenges, and/or like one has done here, will take any opportunity to argue in bad faith.
Created:
1. No
2. No
2. No
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think the Democratic party is much more corrupt as well. We saw this with the Russian collusion conspiracy theory spread by them just 5 years ago when Trump took office.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Well, I would say the Democrats are worse
Created:
Posted in:
And the political right is what, a model of accepting electoral defeat?
- Neither side is, people don't like losing.
Created:
Well, we can place focus on the fact that rbelivb has no idea what he is talking about, and approach any emerging branches of deliberation with this proposition in consideration. Nothing I would rule out of my expectations of course, but a statement that may serve the utility of anyone conversant.
Created:
Posted in:
Who is worse? Who is better, is the question that ought to be asked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Belief is a logical contradiction.
- This means nothing, please name the two prepositions within its context that entail a contradiction.
If you had asked, is someone who advocates obsessed.....Then the best answer that I could have given would have been perhaps not but one never knows.
In that case you would apply the same reasoning to unborn children and thus you render your previous implication of "obsession with zygotes, "logically incoherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I asked you:
Do you believe that one who advocates against child sexual abuse is obsessed in children?
- The way to answer this question is yes or no. Unfortunately, you chose neither.
A. I don't believe what I don't know.
- This entails a logical contradiction with your previous implication that someone was obsessed with zygotes. If you can't truly express such knowledge why say this? We can concluded that your own statements are an expression of irrationality.
And child abuse has nothing to do with someone who keeps going on about fused gametes.
- The advocacy against immoral modes of treating human beings appears to be not only a valid, but just cause for opposition. I asked you to defend your assertion of obsession with resect to born children. Your backpedaling displays a level of either cowardice or lack of logical consistency which of course, you have already revealed at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well, I was hoping that your obvious disagreement with me would predicate a debate between us on the subject. I have been hoping to set up an abortion engagement for a while now. What is your immediate reaction to such a proposition?
Created:
-->
@badger
If you are suggesting you would never spend time rationalizing your positions in a debate format, trust me, I can tell. I don't see what is nonsensical about them on the face of it, nor do I see any intrinsic or overall wrong in winning a debate. Perhaps this can be more sufficiently explained.
Created:
-->
@badger
I don't see the logical reason to troll on this forum like ebuc, it just doesn't make sense from my perspective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Perhaps we should debate some of these propositions you are making, because they seem to exhibit a level of ignorance to objective facts of biology
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you think that is an answer to my question?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
In addition, you can also accept the debate depending on whether or not Danielle chooses to.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
I am not opposed to you making that argument seeing as I have already created the debate (THBT the majority of current policing racial disparities in the United States are a result of factors or variables outside of racism) with respect to the thread.
Created:
- Now the debate has been created, and thus, I ask the general non-conservative side of this debate who have expressed claims contrary to this position to accept this proposition. In general, I am aware that many people have strong disagreement for my case and my position on this topic so I am expectant that someone is willing to step up to the plate as they should be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yes they do hate women. Just like you they hate women having Independence.
- Pro lifers advocate for the independence of millions of girls killed before they even have a chance to live and become women. I think your conceptions of independence are ill conceived here. Independence does not include killing individuals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Why are you obsessed with zygotes?
Do you believe that one who advocates against child sexual abuse is obsessed in children?
Created:
There really should be such a category in my opinion.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
For one, he is quite correct about that.
Secondly, I want to inquire about my debate proposal. Do you accept?
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Let's debate my resolution then. I can create it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Probably like you stated, cultural practices, as vast as they are, I just feel like defining them as such in the resolution can create a very obnoxious subset of semantic trolling especially from people on the bad faith left (rational madman, barney, oromagi).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't really like defining needless sociological categories in debates. I think it's better stated with this because it leaves the debate less open to sematic trolling and general bad-faith behavior from people.
Created:
I would be happy to debate someone on this topic. The resolution I am currently working with is "THBT the majority of current racial disparities in the United States are a result of factors or variables outside of racism." I suspect I could debate Oromagi, Ragnar, or Theweakeredge, as they may confer some form of opposition to my position.
Created: