For future reference, I don't mean to ignore responses. I just don't have time to reply to people everyday.
The trouble of talking here is that our discourse lacks the actual debate structure on the website and is not confined to its rules.
For instance, we are having trouble on deciding the makeup of the argument. Am I trying to prove something or bring awareness to its likelihood?
You adhere to the view that I am required to prove something for the sake of the argument, even though I was never based in that goal and repeatedly said as much.
But it can't be helped since you continue creating a loop where you say I am required to prove something, and then I disagree with that statement.
It's one of your defenses which is understandable, though not enlightening for the subject at the hand.
-
I'm glad you had fun, and I hope you stay on the site. Maybe we'll have a debate in the future sometime.
I guess this was my way of welcoming you to the site.
"But let’s be clear: the activity on the site doesn’t prove anything beyond surface-level coincidences."
No, that's interpretation of the activity, not a proof that the activity is a coincidence.
"but that doesn’t automatically mean we're the same person or that one account is a 'backup.'"
Doesn't mean you're automatically not the same person either.
"The argument you’re making is built on assumptions about intent,"
Not only intention, but also recorded action. This is how we characterize people in our minds: by the things they do.
"As for the profile details—again, they don’t tell you who we are or what our actual intentions are. If you’re relying solely on the data from the site, then you’re ignoring the full context of why we might behave a certain way. Just because we act similarly on here doesn’t mean we’re the same person. People do this kind of thing all the time—people from similar places, with similar interests, end up with some common behaviors. That's normal."
Even if the profile details are a lie--which claiming this does not help your case at all if you're implying that you've been a liar from the moment you entered the website--this is still a reflection of what type of person you are irl.
For example, if someone lies about their profile details this can mean they don't care for realistic profile details, they like to lie, to be anonymous online, or they like to play pretend.
It's not just data on a site. These are words that flowed from a real person who's using his real mind. Unless you're a bot, but I don't think so because you're taking this personally.
Though AI has the capability to do something like this...
All I have is what you've said and done on the site anyways. How I am supposed to know your irl intentions and the background context for why you decided to come onto a debate website and make two active accounts?
I think it’s silly to bring US court rules into this when, rather, we operate by debate rules on here.
But I digress,
Your first paragraph is basically what I’ve been saying to you in the first place.
I already said that we can’t prove this.
However, while you’ve brought up anecdotes, I’ve brought up “perspective”—as you say—based on Mieky’s and your history, activity, and profile details on this site which are all recorded.
These items are objectively and clearly visible actions by you (and Mieky) as well as being reflections of your intentions on the site.
Also, you didn’t object to your multi-accounting being the more likely scenario.
All you’ve really said about that is I can’t prove it, which isn’t the nature of the argument to begin with.
You bring up more stories that no one can confirm, but what I am relying on is recorded activity from you on the site that we can all resort back to
"I get that multi-accounting is an issue here, but jumping to conclusions without solid proof isn’t fair either. Believe what you want, but I know we’re not the same person, and I’ll leave it at that."
It's not about solid proof, and you should know this.
It's about what is more likely to be true.
You can't provide solid proof, and neither can I. You're trying to change the context of our argument.
Against my points, what can you say besides anecdotes that show that it is more likely Elio is a real person?
"Alright, I get that you’re skeptical, but honestly, you’re reading way too much into this. I referred to my friend as 'they' out of habit because I tend to use gender-neutral language when I talk about people casually—it wasn’t some big slip-up or hidden agenda."
No you're not that naive. Elio must be a fairly close friend to do this sort of thing with you, so you would be familiar with his gender orientation.
By the way, why don't you ask Elio to join this conversation with us?
He probably doesn't like being accused of being imaginary
I wonder how holding social media platforms responsible would work since it's the individual users that would be spreading misinformation, not the moderators of the platform.
Though the moderators can act as a regular user too sometimes and partake in the sharing of wrong information, and there's also the concern of linking real people to activity on their profile.
Who do you hold responsible?
Interesting you refer to your friend as "they" like you forgot that Elio is a man according to his profile. If Elio was really your friend--and real to begin with--you would know that he was a man and refer to him as such.
It seems that you hastily made a 2nd account and forgot that you marked "man" for it, and that's why you are telling me your friend is a "they" now.
And there are options for "other" or "not selected," so if your friend wanted to be referred to as a "they" I would think Elio would not select "male."
You can give these stories about your experience and history with "Elio," but no one can confirm this.
On the other hand, I've shown evidence that when interpreted by logic would make it seem more likely that you are multi-accounting.
-
Personally, I don't know why you included a name for your friend like it matters.
I think you did that to seem innocent and child-like, but you're clearly not based on your profile.
You're like, "Oh, don't hurt me! It's just me and my good friend Elio. Please don't think I'm lying."
You're a full-grown adult that has a good, involved social life and has experience with debate, so including your friend's name seems uncharacteristically naive and furthers suspicion
@Jesusistheway
Hello, and welcome to DebateArt. (For some reason I couldn't tag you.)
You might find out from my profile that I am a Christian, but I've chosen Con in this debate because I want to test my argumentative abilities--and yours as well. ;)
I'm intrigued by what you've said in this debate, especially with your argument in the Fourth Round. It's really interesting to me. Do you have a recommendation on where to learn more about the concepts you're talking about? Sorry if I sound sarcastic because of the general attitude of this website, but I am genuinely curious
Please change the Time Period for debating from one week to two weeks. I also have school work and tend to be slower with responses. I won't usually take up the entirety of the fourteen days and try to respond quickly enough
Yeah, RM knows what he’s talking about. It was hard to argue for a side I didn’t agree with let alone a view that was going to lose from the start. I agreed with everything RM said
DavidAZ is probably going to say something like, "The Trinity exists outside of the Bible. The Trinity is only mentioned in the Bible."
Though this got me thinking, the Bible is The Word and The Word is Jesus and Jesus is part of the Trinity, so perhaps The Trinity does exist in the Bible
Do you agree to the addition of a fifth round? Round 1 will have to be waived for both us since I need to wait for your Topic Decision, and I need to choose my side
Honestly, I think one of the best ways to freeze aging is to revert back to what the "original humans" did after The Fall (Biblical reference). All of our senses were completely heightened as we relied heavily on them in our hunter-gatherer societies. The human body was designed to move. Remaining stagnant induces atrophy and breakage. If we focused less on comfort via technological advances and looked more at how to be the apex predator in nature, we would improve our life span.
We were made to dominate the earth. Climb mountains, sprint barefoot, kill lions, strategize with groups. Domination starts with transforming your physical body and mind. I think this is part of why Adam and Eve and their close descendants were able to live for centuries. Some will say, it was because their bodies were "closer to perfection than ours nowadays." But, their bodies were affected by sin and destruction just as much as ours.
One of the most unique capabilities of the human is the ability to run and travel very, very far. There are people in the world that run marathons every single day. Sometimes its over mountains and other rough terrain. We were made to travel the earth. Some people have forgotten this and live lazily.
I started thinking a lot more about this after reading "Natural Born Heroes: Mastering the Lost Secrets of Strength and Endurance."
"...order by God to keep life below 120 years old after the flood."
Not all Christians believe in that statement as you have described it. I do not. It is very possible to live well past 120 years of life. If you were referring to me, I do not think this as "anti-Christian."
I honestly thought "Vermin Supreme" was a brand name you had made up to be sponsored by. I spent two hours watching Vermin Love Supreme on YouTube yesterday to be caught up. .....I wish had known about this guy sooner. I was too young to have known of him when he became popular. I hope he is successful in making our nation's teeth shine from sea to shiny sea ;). I am also down for a free pony
He quit all of his activity and debates
@Jesusistheway was doing three debates at once.
When I first joined I became overwhelmed with doing multiple debates, and that was one of the reasons that lead to me taking a break.
Some people come in overconfident too and then are let down.
Though I don’t know for sure why he quit
Yeah, he did.
Stayed on for less than two weeks.
He left with the New Year
May I hear your thoughts on why you chose for the debate voting time to be six months?
It's a genuine question. I've seen others do this, and it seems like a very long time to wait for the debate to be finished
What?!
Whaaaat?!
We were just talking about this!!
😂🤣
For future reference, I don't mean to ignore responses. I just don't have time to reply to people everyday.
The trouble of talking here is that our discourse lacks the actual debate structure on the website and is not confined to its rules.
For instance, we are having trouble on deciding the makeup of the argument. Am I trying to prove something or bring awareness to its likelihood?
You adhere to the view that I am required to prove something for the sake of the argument, even though I was never based in that goal and repeatedly said as much.
But it can't be helped since you continue creating a loop where you say I am required to prove something, and then I disagree with that statement.
It's one of your defenses which is understandable, though not enlightening for the subject at the hand.
-
I'm glad you had fun, and I hope you stay on the site. Maybe we'll have a debate in the future sometime.
I guess this was my way of welcoming you to the site.
...Lol, that was a bad joke
"I’m not looking to convince you of anything beyond that I’m a real person here to debate."
I am very convinced that you came here to argue with people
"But let’s be clear: the activity on the site doesn’t prove anything beyond surface-level coincidences."
No, that's interpretation of the activity, not a proof that the activity is a coincidence.
"but that doesn’t automatically mean we're the same person or that one account is a 'backup.'"
Doesn't mean you're automatically not the same person either.
"The argument you’re making is built on assumptions about intent,"
Not only intention, but also recorded action. This is how we characterize people in our minds: by the things they do.
"As for the profile details—again, they don’t tell you who we are or what our actual intentions are. If you’re relying solely on the data from the site, then you’re ignoring the full context of why we might behave a certain way. Just because we act similarly on here doesn’t mean we’re the same person. People do this kind of thing all the time—people from similar places, with similar interests, end up with some common behaviors. That's normal."
Even if the profile details are a lie--which claiming this does not help your case at all if you're implying that you've been a liar from the moment you entered the website--this is still a reflection of what type of person you are irl.
For example, if someone lies about their profile details this can mean they don't care for realistic profile details, they like to lie, to be anonymous online, or they like to play pretend.
It's not just data on a site. These are words that flowed from a real person who's using his real mind. Unless you're a bot, but I don't think so because you're taking this personally.
Though AI has the capability to do something like this...
All I have is what you've said and done on the site anyways. How I am supposed to know your irl intentions and the background context for why you decided to come onto a debate website and make two active accounts?
I think it’s silly to bring US court rules into this when, rather, we operate by debate rules on here.
But I digress,
Your first paragraph is basically what I’ve been saying to you in the first place.
I already said that we can’t prove this.
However, while you’ve brought up anecdotes, I’ve brought up “perspective”—as you say—based on Mieky’s and your history, activity, and profile details on this site which are all recorded.
These items are objectively and clearly visible actions by you (and Mieky) as well as being reflections of your intentions on the site.
Also, you didn’t object to your multi-accounting being the more likely scenario.
All you’ve really said about that is I can’t prove it, which isn’t the nature of the argument to begin with.
You bring up more stories that no one can confirm, but what I am relying on is recorded activity from you on the site that we can all resort back to
"I get that multi-accounting is an issue here, but jumping to conclusions without solid proof isn’t fair either. Believe what you want, but I know we’re not the same person, and I’ll leave it at that."
It's not about solid proof, and you should know this.
It's about what is more likely to be true.
You can't provide solid proof, and neither can I. You're trying to change the context of our argument.
Against my points, what can you say besides anecdotes that show that it is more likely Elio is a real person?
"Alright, I get that you’re skeptical, but honestly, you’re reading way too much into this. I referred to my friend as 'they' out of habit because I tend to use gender-neutral language when I talk about people casually—it wasn’t some big slip-up or hidden agenda."
No you're not that naive. Elio must be a fairly close friend to do this sort of thing with you, so you would be familiar with his gender orientation.
By the way, why don't you ask Elio to join this conversation with us?
He probably doesn't like being accused of being imaginary
I wonder how holding social media platforms responsible would work since it's the individual users that would be spreading misinformation, not the moderators of the platform.
Though the moderators can act as a regular user too sometimes and partake in the sharing of wrong information, and there's also the concern of linking real people to activity on their profile.
Who do you hold responsible?
Interesting you refer to your friend as "they" like you forgot that Elio is a man according to his profile. If Elio was really your friend--and real to begin with--you would know that he was a man and refer to him as such.
It seems that you hastily made a 2nd account and forgot that you marked "man" for it, and that's why you are telling me your friend is a "they" now.
And there are options for "other" or "not selected," so if your friend wanted to be referred to as a "they" I would think Elio would not select "male."
You can give these stories about your experience and history with "Elio," but no one can confirm this.
On the other hand, I've shown evidence that when interpreted by logic would make it seem more likely that you are multi-accounting.
-
Personally, I don't know why you included a name for your friend like it matters.
I think you did that to seem innocent and child-like, but you're clearly not based on your profile.
You're like, "Oh, don't hurt me! It's just me and my good friend Elio. Please don't think I'm lying."
You're a full-grown adult that has a good, involved social life and has experience with debate, so including your friend's name seems uncharacteristically naive and furthers suspicion
You and your friend are pretty similar,
what with giving yourselves very similar names
making accounts on the same day
having the same debate tone and style.
I can't tell you guys apart ;).
One account is clearly more active and detailed than the other. Almost like Mieky is a backup for a main account...
The use of multiple active accounts by one person is not allowed on this website.
Not assuming anything, of course. Just a random thought I suppose
@Jesusistheway
There are ways to argue against what I am saying.
Try to find weak points in my arguments.
You don’t have to quit
@Jesusistheway
Hello, and welcome to DebateArt. (For some reason I couldn't tag you.)
You might find out from my profile that I am a Christian, but I've chosen Con in this debate because I want to test my argumentative abilities--and yours as well. ;)
Looking forward to it
"I rest my case and accept the opposing forfeit ."
It was a forfeit to the round, not the debate.
I rest my case.
Ultimate as in the best or a final system?
What do you mean by ultimate?
I may be interested, but right now I am in 2 other debates that I have to focus on
I'm intrigued by what you've said in this debate, especially with your argument in the Fourth Round. It's really interesting to me. Do you have a recommendation on where to learn more about the concepts you're talking about? Sorry if I sound sarcastic because of the general attitude of this website, but I am genuinely curious
That was a silly debate. You "two" are opposite sides of the same coin. In more ways than one that cannot be confirmed nor denied!
"Could I debate you on this same subject?"
Yeah, we can do that. By the way, do you read your PMs? If you personally do not want to reply, then I understand. No anger towards you
Please change the Time Period for debating from one week to two weeks. I also have school work and tend to be slower with responses. I won't usually take up the entirety of the fourteen days and try to respond quickly enough
Yeah, RM knows what he’s talking about. It was hard to argue for a side I didn’t agree with let alone a view that was going to lose from the start. I agreed with everything RM said
Semantics are like grilled scallions. I hate them. Lol
Good vote, Tej. Accurate summary
DavidAZ is probably going to say something like, "The Trinity exists outside of the Bible. The Trinity is only mentioned in the Bible."
Though this got me thinking, the Bible is The Word and The Word is Jesus and Jesus is part of the Trinity, so perhaps The Trinity does exist in the Bible
*Sarcastically*: I love debate rounds shorter than two weeks
Mall, this is in no way meant to be flippant: how come you have lost so many debates? How come you kept on driving through the losses to debate more?
YEEEEEEESSSSS, He DIIIIIIIIIIIIIDuuuuuh
"McDonald's has an origin story of greed."
Dang. I immediately thought of arguments for both sides. This will be a tough choice
Do you agree to the addition of a fifth round? Round 1 will have to be waived for both us since I need to wait for your Topic Decision, and I need to choose my side
Is it just me or has the font size shrunk by one increment?
"I'd suggest making the debate unrated..."
You know... I regret making all of my debates "rated" right now
I want to. Intelligence_06 has priority because they accepted first. If I think I have enough time for two, I'll make another for us
"Rember that the definition of religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods."
It is true that this is a definition of religion. It is not "the definition" though
One of the Furious Five has accepted
"If the topic is not the resolution to be argued, clarification should be made in the full description."
https://info.debateart.com/help/debates
Apologies for the forfeits
Apologies for the forfeits
Apologies for the forfeits
Apologies for the forfeits
Honestly, I think one of the best ways to freeze aging is to revert back to what the "original humans" did after The Fall (Biblical reference). All of our senses were completely heightened as we relied heavily on them in our hunter-gatherer societies. The human body was designed to move. Remaining stagnant induces atrophy and breakage. If we focused less on comfort via technological advances and looked more at how to be the apex predator in nature, we would improve our life span.
We were made to dominate the earth. Climb mountains, sprint barefoot, kill lions, strategize with groups. Domination starts with transforming your physical body and mind. I think this is part of why Adam and Eve and their close descendants were able to live for centuries. Some will say, it was because their bodies were "closer to perfection than ours nowadays." But, their bodies were affected by sin and destruction just as much as ours.
One of the most unique capabilities of the human is the ability to run and travel very, very far. There are people in the world that run marathons every single day. Sometimes its over mountains and other rough terrain. We were made to travel the earth. Some people have forgotten this and live lazily.
I started thinking a lot more about this after reading "Natural Born Heroes: Mastering the Lost Secrets of Strength and Endurance."
What are some good website links or online content for researching "escape velocity"?
"...order by God to keep life below 120 years old after the flood."
Not all Christians believe in that statement as you have described it. I do not. It is very possible to live well past 120 years of life. If you were referring to me, I do not think this as "anti-Christian."
This debate has been very interesting so far. I enjoyed reading it, and thank you for posting legitimate content
I honestly thought "Vermin Supreme" was a brand name you had made up to be sponsored by. I spent two hours watching Vermin Love Supreme on YouTube yesterday to be caught up. .....I wish had known about this guy sooner. I was too young to have known of him when he became popular. I hope he is successful in making our nation's teeth shine from sea to shiny sea ;). I am also down for a free pony
Love that bit of Round 2 that was Super Mario inspired
Is that old dude in the Vermin Supreme video supposed to be Wylted?