Total posts: 48
Posted in:
I'd like to be able to turn some notifications off. I can change whether I get email notifications, but not in-site notifications.
Whenever I post a forum topic and some responds to it while mentioning me, I get 2 notifications. I only need 1, but I realized I couldn't actually turn off either of them when I went into settings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
What about the resolution, "China is oppressing its Uyghur minority"? I don't necessarily need hard data to affirm/negate the resolution, but it's not a normative topic either.
Created:
Posted in:
If the resolution of my debate was "Apples are better than oranges", then my opponent wouldn't have to argue that oranges are better than apples; rather, they'd have to argue that oranges are at least as good as apples. If I wanted to create a resolution where neither of us could argue a neutral stance, but rather had to prove the superiority of our fruit to the other's, how would I write a resolution saying that?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
The most interesting aspect of the article is that Norpoth's prediction was publicized on March 2nd and has been regurgitated as "news" by conservative outlets every couple of weeks in an effort to create an illusion of new findings, new data when in fact its just the same very basic model ricocheting in a vacuum of optimism for Trumpists.
This guy's model is better: salon.com/2020/03/27/political-prophet-allan-lichtman-trump-is-more-likely-to-lose-because-of-coronavirus/
It also has a flawless track record and accounts for big-picture events like coronavirus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Is it possible to code in a "Quote this" bubble, or add a "Reply & Quote" button? It might make quoting easier; manually adding a quote is kind of time-consuming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I'm not sure what's going on, but sometimes when I highlight someone else's text, there will be a "Quote this" pop-up, and sometimes not. Is this a bug? Or am I doing something wrong. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
That's what fingerprint-accessible gun safes are for. Here are some.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
and? you think a law will make that happen?
Yes. Even if 10% of people complied with the law, that would be a net benefit.
approving or denying based on a criminal or other prohibition is NOT the same as requiring everyone have a license.
Prove it. Both limit the constitutional right to a gun, a right that criminals possess also.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
then it's not a right, if you have to be granted permission from the government, that's not a right, that which is granted can also be denied or taken away.
The right to bear arms is not unlimited, as is the case with most other rights. The right to free speech is limited by copyright laws and libel laws, for example.
Gun purchasers already have to go through a background check that could potentially deny them the purchase of a gun. Fully automatic weapons have been banned for decades. Are these not limits to the 2A? Should mentally ill and extremely dangerous individuals not have their purchasing ability limited?
guns have to be sold with trigger locks
And they should have to be stored with such too. It's not that big a jump. There is evidence that safe storage prevents suicides and fatal accidents.
how about police departments must offer no cost gun training to anyone who wants it?
Should driving licenses be handed out to anyone who wants them, or should use have to pass a driving test? If you're going to useperate something that is potentially dangerous, you should know how to use it first.
Created:
Posted in:
I support gun control measures such as requiring a license to own a gun, firearm training sessions, and safe storage. However, I don't see the point of an assault weapons ban since most gun crimes are carried out with handguns. There are plenty of measures that can still keep guns in the hands of law-abiding owners while drastically reducing gun deaths.
Created:
This "smear" was manufactured by the corporate media in an attempt to distract from real issues affecting most Americans. Warren and Bernie are trying to highlight actual problems like income inequality and the mounting student loan debt, but instead the mainstream media likes to blow up little things like this that no one cares about.
Created:
Posted in:
A few things can be true at once:
1. Trump's actions in regards to Ukraine were unethical
2. Past presidents have arguably done worse; impeachments are generally driven by visceral disgust
3. This is a completely partisan impeachment
As much as I dislike his policies and his attempts to collude with Ukraine...I don't know if this warrants removal. It's an election year anyway, and removal was always unlikely to happen. I tend to view it as a pointless maneuver but not completely devoid of reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Other countries had to be forced or pressured into doing the right thing. America has always been able to do so on it's own. No matter what wrong we have done, we, and we alone, have recognized it, attacked it, and corrected it.
America's history of regime change and foreign electoral interventions say otherwise. We've supported dictatorships and authoritarian governments when it fits our interests, such as Saudi Arabia and many Latin American regimes, but invade their countries when they don't. Our military ventures into Iraq have resulted in 1 million dead Iraqis, for instance. It's quite rare for the US to apologize for its misdoings overseas, of which there are very many.
America deserves credit where it's due, but this chauvinist ideology will not get America anywhere close to being "great".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
You're talking about unread notifications right? I just clicked some of my old "you were mentioned" notif links and they still took me to the first page.2) Forum posts activities now should take you right to the posts when clicked on the topics (only the new ones)
Created:
Posted in:
Yes of course. The instigator would have the option of choosing between that system and the 7-point one when they set up the debate. I know a lot of people who prefer select winner, so it would be great to have that -- a lot of us don't care about having points cast for conduct or spelling or whatnot.But it would be optional and decided by the creator of the debate, right?
I agree with 1harder that they shouldn't go to either side. It just seems cleaner that way, and thatst what werew used to anyhow.Nope, the logic is that when it's tied, every participant gets the same amount of points so it's okay :)
At this point, the instigator is always a Pro so that should help a little. How would you make it more clear btw? Suggestions are always appreciated :)
Ah I see. Well, if you see in this example, the word "Pro" is in bold green, making it apparent that this debater is intending to affirm the resolution. The opponent would have the label "Con", indicating they're negating it.
Some people like to instigate a debate whilst being on the negative side. For instance, if I wanted to debate the resolution "God exists", but intended on taking the negative side, I wouldn't be able to instigate that debate...I would have to find someone to do it for me. Of course, I could re-word that resolution in the negative and take the affirmative side, but the resolution wouldn't be quite the same, and something slightly different would be up for debate. It's not the biggest deal, but it makes it a little more convenient for debaters who are more picky about their resolutions.
So essentially, the instigator would be able to choose from the options available whether they want to debate as Pro or Con...again, it's not hugely important but it gives one a little more leverage over the debate setup.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
- For voting, a Select Winner option would be great...I highly prefer that to the 7-point system (if you're unfamiliar with Select Winner, it's where all 7 points are awarded to one side or the other over arguments).
- I'm not sure what the character count is for vote explanations, but if it could be higher than 1k characters, that would be nice -- it was a frequent problem on DDO for us to run out of room when writing our reasons for our votes.
- I just noticed that this debate somehow has a vote tally of 3-7, yet the sole vote that was cast only awarded 3 points to one side and 4 to the other...is this a bug/glitch?
- It would be convenient if a debate clearly displayed which side is Pro or Con in a debate...often, I have to read through a bunch of text just to figure out who's on what side.
Thanks!
Created:
-->
@JusticeWept
I consider myself to be a progressive and a social democrat.
It's my conviction that social progress brings about good far more often than traditionalist mindsets do. Women's suffrage, civil rights, and LGBTQ rights all came about by progressive mindsets -- we need people to challenge old beliefs and advocate for new, better ones, because we, as a flawed species, need to have a great deal introspection in order to root out the fears and prejudices that guide some of our lives and cause us to discriminate against fellow humans. Because history repeats itself, there's no reason to say that those progressive mindsets worked then and somehow don't now...we have to be constantly challenging what we've been taught to be true in order to reach a higher level of empathy and equality than we've been at in the past.
I find the reduction of inequality to be one of humanity's most important goals, as many disadvantaged groups around us exist. They tend to be rather stigmatized: the incarcerated, the undocumented immigrants, the impoverished folks -- these people are the ones who need attention and concern the most, and any political philosophy that excludes them from the grand picture is not one worth having in my book.
I find economic and social interventions essential to achieve social justice, and that the state plays an important role in ensuring the welfare of its citizens. The combination of high living standards and low income gaps (most notably in Nordic countries) is the ideal structure to strive for, and is best created through the unique combination of free market capitalism and social benefits. The state shouldn't focus so much on regulating one's private life as it should advancing social mobility and opportunities for people of all groups.
Created:
Posted in:
Trying to get a job...such a tedious process but it needs to be done.
Created:
Posted in:
From a more nationalist and conservative perspective, these people have a nation to defend. If they are capable of assisting in some way, they should do so. It's an insult to their honor and nation to abandon it and their countrymen in times of conflict.
No they don't. Are they military personnel? Did they swear some oath that makes fighting in a civil war their duty?
Why does someone automatically become obligated into a war just because they were born into the country hosting the war? Moreover, why are they obligated to fight for a certain side, considering that many Syrians are split over who to support?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I would say then that his intention to whistleblow was mired in a need to feel morally upright. If you're working for a corporation (or in his case, the govt) that you believe is deceitful and unethical in its practices, you believe it to be in your best interest to preserve your identity as someone who is ethical and not in collaboration with egregious practices. It's like unknowingly being an accomplice of a bank robber who drives them to the bank, and then finding out after the fact that you were an accomplice. If you chose to lie to authorities later about actually being an accomplice, you're acting in self-preservation -- protection against being portrayed as someone immoral/unethical.
Self-preservation doesn't have to be obvious -- it can be very subtle in many cases, including these ones, is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Again, self-interest and empathy are not mutually exclusive. One can be interested in another's welfare and also be trying to shield themselves from harm. That's the case with deceit...it may benefit the other party, but the ultimate goal is the preservation of the self. No one is going to hide the truth from another person if they themselves don't have something to hide, which in instances such as these, they arguably do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Someone's probably mentioned this before, but I noticed that if I log onto the site on a different device, it logs me out of the first one. Since I switch between mobile and my laptop frequently it's causing me to keep re-logging in each time. It's pretty annoying..would be nice to be rid of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
This is can is-ought fallacy. You're assuming that we need to engage in these things to survive purely because we currently do, whilst the OP talks about removing said needs in the future. Hence, your definition of "mortality" is fallaciously rigid.
Right...explain to me how we carry on the species without sex? How we obtain energy throughout the day without food? You haven't demonstrated a reason to eliminate these needs whilst keep our species alive.
Specifically addressing the idea that these desires are limitations, would we not be more free if we were able to forgo hunger, in order to survive? Regardless of whether it is a necessary limitation, it is a limitation nonetheless.
No. We survive just fine with hunger -- I'm not sure why you view as so limiting that we need to eliminate it for the arbitrary goal of being "free". Why don't we take it a step further and eliminate the need to have clothes on? To live under a roof? To breathe oxygen? Why does limitation necessitate eradication of said limitation?
I'm not sure how assuming limitations shouldn't exist because they do isn't an is-ought fallacy itself...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How did he lie again? I thought the original point was that he was being truthful in self-defense.Snowden acted entirely against self-interest by lying to those who could hurt, would hurt and had Russia not enabled him basically did hurt his quality of life and reputation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
There are instances where someone genuinely cares about the feelings of others and doesn't wish to hurt them.
I don't dispute this -- I'm stating that the person is also concerned about their relationship with the other person, or the other person's view of them. Either could be at stake when the commenter is truthful, which explains the reasoning behind lying.
If the commenter was not worried about how their relationship being somehow damaged/weakened, there's no reason they would be deceitful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
People create fake online dating profiles to prevent themselves from experiencing rejection/scorn/embarrassment related to their real-life selves...their attempts to prevent harm to themselves is self-preservation.
Deceit isn't the only means of self-preservation, I agree there...so I'm not sure how the Snowden example is relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
No, it's to prevent guilt. If the commenter values their relationship with the other person, then they probably don't want to risk hurting it by being truthful in that instance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sadists are no less interested in self-preservation than you or I -- I'd allege that their sadistic desires formed as a means of preserving themselves.
I'm curious as to any specific examples you may have of self-interest not being a factor in being dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
I challenge the premise that the above desires are limitations.. We need those desires in order to keep surviving as a species; otherwise, we would die out quickly. To "escape" those needs, we'd have to eliminate why we have them to begin with -- which would require overcoming mortality. Until we can do that, there's no way we're getting rid of those carnal desires anytime soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nd24007
Self-preservation. People lie to ensure their own welfare and continuing survival. For us, honesty comes second to unmet needs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I highly doubt a lawsuit would happen over a minor feature of a website...especially considering that DI isn't a company but rather a project built by a single individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It's a good system. I'd love to see one similar to it implemented here. I was fond of DDO's voting standards but I also understand many people were not as much so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
As much as I see your reasoning, I don't think open vs judge voting served that purpose well on DDO. Specified judges aren't going to guarantee you a thorough vote, and being a select judge itself isn't incentive enough to give a well-thought out vote.
From my personal experience with judge voting, it doesn't seem to increase the likelihood of getting votes at all. Knowing that there are many capable voters out there beyond whomever my judge pool may consist of is too discouraging for me to use that option frequently.
Edeb8's system doesn't sound bad; however it would require a great deal of moderation, and I don't think such is necessary to have a decent voting system.
Is there anything about my proposal you dislike? I think it would solve the voting issue quite cleanly -- from my observations on DI, the majority of people just stick with casual voting anyway, so actual moderation would not be required that often.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
@drafterman
What would your opinion be on having a debate setting that allows an instigator to require thst votes cast be explanatory or not? I came across a feature on debateisland that gives the instigator the option to have "casual voting", where RFDs can be simple one-liners, or "formal voting", which would require judges to put a hearty explanation into their votes. Votes that don't meet the standards of the latter would be removed.
I'm a strong believer in votes being thorough and helpful to each side; however I understand that many have a different opinion are have been discouraged by relatively strict moderation on DDO.
Created:
Posted in:
Me. Have hardly been active at all on DDO but this site gives me lots of hope. Really hope it can be much more like the site I joined 4 years ago. Cheers to debateart.com's future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
- What do you think about displaying the most popular / mosy viewed debates on the front page? Maybe including popular forum posts on there too would be a cool feature.
- I just noticed that when I receive a notification that I was mentioned in a forum post, and I click on the link to the thread, it takes me to the first page...not the page I was mentioned it. It's kind of a pain to have to sift through the pages to find the exact post I was mentioned in.
Also, clicking on the notif bell takes me to a different page rather than displaying a drop-down. It would save time to have a simple notif drop-down, I think.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm a strong atheist with some spiritual beliefs -- I think reality is merely an illusory manifestation of consciousness, and that we are the complete masters of our own reality. I think there is a bit of truth in every religion, but they're so poisoned by dogma that they cannot possible have every element of the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
1. Will the front page change to look similar to that of DDO's, or will it always just display instructions for creating debates?
2. I've noticed some other users have uploaded avatars under a width of 140 pixels, but it won't let me upload one that small for some reason...any idea why?
3. Will voting moderation exist on this site? One major problem I've seen occur on other debating sites is that ability for anyone to cast a very poorly written vote in one debater's favor. I've seen an option on another site that differentiates "casual voting" from "formal voting"...the former of which would allow judges to cast votes without them being moderated, and the latter of which requires the vote to explanatory and fairly detailed as to why the voter made their decision. I'd strongly suggest looking into creating a feature like that, so that debaters who wish to receive constructive feedback on their debating ability may be able to.
I'm really impressed with this site so far. I don't know who you are on DDO but this place is a 10/10 ^^
Created: