Total topics: 174
I believe god created us for entertainment purposes. I believe in a rather deistic god overall. How about you?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Just a thought.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I have begun to realise that a niche of debates I am much more interested in that I first assumed and good at doing, are discussions of characters and such in fictional shows/series/movie-franchises.
It is very important that your offered debate topics inside this thread do not directly spoil something, if they do, please put in very clear formatted test 'SPOILER ALERT' above it.
This is primarily for offering series and general characters or scenes (that you hint at) and for people to DM/PM each other about it, or even directly challenge. This can be moved to TV or whatever section when the mods want but I am putting this in the DART section because I want people to see it and that subforum is barely viewed at all.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Everyone talks shit about how mediocre he was but he had to pick up from Bush's shit era.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
There's many flaws with it but I've seen three avid fans of it recently post demands for another user (one was me being asked by 3RU7AL) to take it and reveal the result.
I went into depth on the general types of flaws that are consistent in the test but I'm willing to lay out each flawed question as well as to Kritik auth vs lib being a flawed scale itself since one can be auth on one issue and lib on another while in between on another with a consistent outlook despite inconsistent authoritarianism vs libertarianism.
Who here likes this test a lot?
The test is found here: https://www.politicalcompass.org
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Would you vote for her as president?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Simple yet accurate political quiz. America/modern-day specific. 2 Options per question, 9 outcomes.
Note: You can remain neutral on a question by clicking 'Next' without answering it, I recommend not doing so if you do lean either way. I did this for a question and retook the quiz after realising it was possible, I got the same result though.
My best fit is...
Solid Liberalsalong with 16% of the public.Highly educated and politically engaged, Solid Liberals hold consistently liberal values. They back a robust role for government and are strong advocates of the social safety net. Large majorities view the current economic system as unfair and see economic inequality as a major problem. They take broadly positive views of immigrants, and fully 99% think being open to people from around the world is an essential part of the nation’s identity. Most say more needs to be done to address both racial discrimination and obstacles to women’s achievement. They support same-sex marriage and believe homosexuality should be accepted by society. Solid Liberals are the most Democratic of all typology groups: nearly two-thirds (64%) identify as Democrats, another 35% lean toward the Democratic Party.
^ Link to the quiz.
More on the types (this is a spoiler and I suggest you DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING LINK BEFORE TAKING THE QUIZ, it will subconsciously drive you to push for a result you want rather than what you actually are.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
What if god directly contacted you and proved they were god but told you that the only way you can stay in touch and experience your privileges (which may include getting into the heaven) is if you never talked about the god to others and kept it a secret, perhaps even masquerading as an atheist or at least agnostic?
Would you lie to everyone you knew?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
This time I have really gotten bored of debating, I'm not quitting because I'm addicted to debating but because I'm bored of it. I just posted a round of simple argumentation to one debate and that's it I am done here.
I know what you are thinking but I just wanted you to know that I am done with debating and that I never joined this site to 'rise to the top' in and of itself, I came to be the best at debating even if the Elo didn't show it. The competitiveness was for show and in reality I am more humble than a lot of you realise but that's fine by me.
I think it has gotten to a point where I enter a debate, know the ways it can pan out and get too bored to 'type it out' and passionately fight to the end.
Even if I tried and then lost, even that loss no longer seems to be based on an actual error of logic on my part but instead an error in grasping how voters perceive strength of arguments and what matters more vs less, this even applies to rap battles and songs.
I do appreciate what spending (not wasting) my life debating on this website has done for me and I may come on now and again as a forum chatter. I guess Trump losing and some other things going well for me IRL have led to me finally understanding that I don't need to argue my way through life in actuality, even if I'm right. People really are capable of seeing truth at times and when they don't it's not really my duty to 'prove them wrong' other than those that really matter to me and seek my wisdom and vice versa, no one's duty to convince me of the truth if I believe a lie.
I think that true strategy dictates that we avoid the need to debate as much as possible, even if we are lawyers. Instead the superior strategist uses evidence and relies on 'common sense' notions which (if wrong) they gently nudge but don't brutally say is 'wrong'. These are the people who actually go furthest in life and prove people wrong in any true sense.
I can sit here all day typing and what have I achieved? In the past, I gained wisdom but it seems that I'm no longer learning 'how to think' or 'how to debate', just 'how to angle the debating so that voters back me up'. It's not fun, it's not rewarding and I also never really got over how David/Virtuoso and Ragnar betrayed me the way they did and never once admitted they were wrong.
If I combine everything together, this is a place I no longer gain wisdom, joy or even anything close to friendship from. That's why I am done regularly engaging here. You can think whatever you want about me and 'bet when he will return'. I seriously don't see me coming back to actually debate, I may come back to post rarely in the forums because I feel like sometimes there really is information to garner from someone who's more researched in a political, theological or whatever else realm and challenging them is a good way to open your mind based on their reply. Other than that, there's not much keeping me here, I have to finish off the fantasy football league but that doesn't require me to use this website. I think I'll get fourth there, out of ten. Which isn't that bad considering how little I knew of the sport or the game structure of fantasy football to begin with.
I may get sixth though, who knows? Thanks for giving me wisdom and a hobby for a long while in my life.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
You will be ranked upon several factors. There is no such thing as a truly ideal debater, everyone makes sacrifices in their playstyle.
I'll start off with some who I think won't have an issue with me rating them, if you want to be rated let me know.
Ratings in each category are out of 10
Oromagi
Originality: 8
Depth of Research: 10
Effort vs Margin of Guaranteed Victory: 3
Intimidation Factor ~ Makes Opponents Forfeit/Concede: 9
Intimidation Factor ~ Unpredictability Drives Opponents To Argue Chaotically: 5
Intimidation Factor ~ Reputation Brings The Utmost Stress and Effort in Opponents: 10
Ingenuity of Debate-Structure Manipulation: 4
Eloquence: 6
Rebuttal Factor ~ Brushing off many paragraphs with 2-3 sentences: 1
Rebuttal Factor ~ Meshing rebuttals with contentions: 8
Rebuttal Factor ~ Constructing arguments that are extremely difficult to rebuke without hurting one's own case in some way: 8
Rebuttal Factor ~ Tendency to understand how voters interpret rebuttal-vs-contention interaction and strength: 10
Quality of Presentation: 7
Ragnar
Originality: 6
Depth of Research: 8
Effort vs Margin of Guaranteed Victory: 7
Intimidation Factor ~ Makes Opponents Forfeit/Concede: 7
Intimidation Factor ~ Unpredictability Drives Opponents To Argue Chaotically: 7
Intimidation Factor ~ Reputation Brings The Utmost Stress and Effort in Opponents: 10
Ingenuity of Debate-Structure Manipulation: 8
Eloquence: 9
Rebuttal Factor ~ Brushing off many paragraphs with 2-3 sentences: 7
Rebuttal Factor ~ Meshing rebuttals with contentions: 10
Rebuttal Factor ~ Constructing arguments that are extremely difficult to rebuke without hurting one's own case in some way: 10
Rebuttal Factor ~ Tendency to understand how voters interpret rebuttal-vs-contention interaction and strength: 10
Quality of Presentation: 9
Let me know if you want me to rate you or another user, I will first make sure I have permission to rate everyone in this way.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
This game may not happen, especially if low interest is shown. There will be a thematic split, it may or may not be obvious.
This is semi role-madness. Flavouring will be involved. There will be thirdparty if the cast is big enough.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
It is very hard to make this thread without living up to the completely false depiction of me that the guy who now goes by 'David' and went by Virtuoso before, has laid out via his sock-puppet Ragnar. I am not worried about being banned for this, after all I was quite literally banned over pure lies so cleverly drawn that even an intelligent member like Discipulus_Didicit ended up mocking me when the evidence he was mocking was literally what I said it was. This goes deeper than simply abusing authority and twisting things to avoid admitting that they banned me simply for being courageous and not easy to tame, Virtuoso has lied to you throughout about his very role in moderating.
Ragnar is the alpha male of this website, so Virtuoso asked him to ban me for 6 months. I have this on good authority and while my sources remain secret, I am not afraid of the mod team interrogating some of their members to find out who told me this. It was already 100% known to me that Virtuoso was the spineless coward behind this entire thing because of something very interesting that I completely forgot to bring up in the original thread where I pointed out that all the accusations were lies:
Virtuoso promised us all when he became chief moderator that we had our slates wiped clean of any previous mishaps under the Bsh1 regime, yet 90% of the evidence they hint at or try to drag me through the mud with when called out on proof was prior to this Tabula Rasa.
On top of this, the multi-accounting, doxxing and all of it are complete and utter fabrications as I never once did them on this website.
I am not okay with my username being dragged through the mud and I am fully aware that the 'most mature' way to handle this would be to quit the site permanently without posting this thread but I had to just post this to both clear my name and make very fucking clear to 'David' that I know what he did to me and that others should be extremely weary of his backstabbing weasel who will abuse any and all trust you give to him.
I did not ever do 'targetted harassment', if any one single member came close to receiving something like that from me, it was when they'd severely bully me and/or others and I wouldn't stand for it. There are three examples given and the most severe one that remotely was something I should regret and do, it was with a user who himself was completely against my ban and told Ragnar not to ban me. This user has been in some contact with me since and we are on amicable terms so to speak. I don't know who the fuck the mods think they are but you do not just ban RM based on pure lies and think he won't tell you about all your mishaps afterwards.
- Seldiora - This is the biggest joke I have seen in a while, I am not sure what to say but Seldiora doesn't feel harassed by me. I asked a member of the website to fully ensure this was the case and I will now tell you that this member was Supadudz. It is up to him to step up to the plate and reveal the corruption and lies regarding both the 'harassment' and 'multi-accounting' which Ragnar and Chris both silenced him on and pleaded ignorant when he demanded proof.
- Lunatic and 'DuhHamburgler' - Both on amicable terms with me, were against the ban vehemently and said they did not feel harassed by me and accepted it was a 2-way exchange where I was reacting to them.
- 'Other people constantly', yeah? Like who? I can name a few and help you justify my ban better for you. Some people I did not harass but did engage with in a hostile manner on a regular basis were serial bullies Zeichen, Ramshutu and... ? Maybe Zarroette but that was very, very much me being harassed as were the other cases involved. These were members who were abusing me under the Bsh1 regime that Virtuoso explicitly promised to stand against and give us all forgiveness for what we did. I neither agreed with this 'flat out forgiveness' nor am I shocked that when it suited his agenda he forgot he promised that and used Ragnar as a shield to make people not realise who was going back on whose word but David, I see you man. Get some fucking balls and admit you were behind this, let's talk it out here in the open, no more shady PM chats or backstabbing yeah?
As for the idea that I multi-accounted, that's just a lie, literally. Ragnar has been lied to by Virtuoso AKA David. The latter has told the former that me, the guy who single-handedly exposed Sparrow for being Type1 because I let mods be privy to information and clues in what Sparrow was rapping and debating about (as well as his typing style) that he was the user Type1 who he ended up not just using a sock puppet to abuse verbally with but exchange votes, wins/losses etc. I am apparently the guy who later on 'arranged' with the guy I had exposed to the mods to feed me free wins. I cannot even being to explain how utterly irrational you must be to conclude this but furthermore where is the proof?! I happened to be online when Type1 made an alt and posted some debates about veganism vs raw meat or whatever else and I knew it was Type1 based on that, so I admit I accepted the debates knowing it was him. Then the mods banned the account (which I told them was him) and then what? What are they saying? Make it clear.
As for the last thing, I apologise to Ramshutu for the perceived threat. In technicality I literally asked him permission, he even gave it and I still kept asking permission at which point the chief moderator Bsh1 told me that this was not the thing to be doing and I never did anything. I am sorry for the distress but do I like Ramshutu? Well no, however I do take back what was said. I am sorry for being potentially abusive to someone I severely resent. The resentment doesn't justify my loss of self-control. I did not actually lose self-control in actions but in speech I somewhat did. I am aware that the line is important and true anger management would mean I'd be controlling my words, I do that but sometimes it is indeed healthy to get things 'out there'. Regardless, Ramshutu and I no longer have bad blood between us and that's largely in part due to him opting out of using the website which he made very clear by saying 'hi' when I got banned.
Let's see what Virtuoso says to this because trust me, I think him and I confronting one another is long overdue. No Ragnar, No voting moderator that got promoted out of nowhere to site moderator 'MisterChris' AKA Christopher_Best, just you and me David. Come now and tell us the truth. If you want proof that he explicitly promised the clean slate upon being crowned Chief Moderator, you need to do your own digging for the full depth and context of the promise as it was a lot of drama at once but here was the thread he mentioned it in, explicitly:
You are cornered now, if you deny what you said and try and demonise me further, I will bring up all the active good and protection I have given victimised members of this site. Don't you dare come and paint me as a villain man, just don't try.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
There is a secret to climbing the ranks on this website that I never revealed to anyong for all this time.
Your username needs to have 'magi' or 'ra' in it as significant sections of the username (so not in the middle).
I'm sorry Ethang5, it was never about being liberal. That was just the illusion.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
This is a thread where if you post in it, I will describe your strategy of debating to you in a comedic martial art metaphor manner.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
This edition of ERT we have a proud Christian known as Dr. Franklin.
He hasn't revealed much else in his application than that he is a devout Christian.
Please introduce yourself, Dr. Franklin!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
There is an experiment we can have the government carry out on many children and note and then correlate to those who choose in the future to openly support a political wing but it only can work if many are in the sample.
I strongly believe that adolescence masks true ideology and has a lot more delineation with one's true core system of ethics and social reasoning than childhood or adulthood do. I furthermore assert that those of us who seem to have changed our minds in life on politics had events and hormonal imbalance in teenage years that merely already pushed us away from the true wing we are.
What I am suggesting is that politics is far more nature than nurture but that nurture can force one who is built with one wing's psychology to vote the other only as a lesser evil and they will be anomalies in what I describe.
The sharing-justice duality test.
I want you to give a toddler/child the scenario where they believe that someone in on the experiment in front of them has stolen stealthily, bullied and finally convinced with words, another person (also in on it) to give them something that the child themselves values a lot and that the other seems visibly sad to have lost.
What is measured is the level of empathy, aggression, sadistic amusement, ambivalence etc that the subject displays towards the three situations.
It is important that the subjects are not having this done by or towards someone close to them, it must be strangers or people the child has barely met get (perhaps interacted with once first, to build some rapport, this will be fine-tuned).
My hypothesis
Children who most fervently respond to the injustice in all three scenarios will be very passionate about politics as hey grow, regardless of wing. Those that truly are upset by all three scenarios, will be passionately left-wing, while those who are among the fervent that only reacted much when force was used, will be passionately right-wing. Those that are fervent with 2 scenarios but not in particular with one, will be centrists who grow cynical of the whole system.
Those that take sadistic amusement, least when the person is talked out of it, and giggle at the whole situation, will grow to become right-wing Libertarian or some corporatist variant (even as far as ancap but not necessarily).
Those that seem to not care much at all, will grow to not vote.
Those that display fear and try to escape the room or look down at the ground wishing they could help, will become social democrats AKA progressives of a less severe kind than the fervent types.
It will be discovered that any other possible reaction combination simply never happens. It will be important to do the talking part last, so that the child understands that the talk is based on guilt-trip manipulation and not just genuine care and share mentality. The children who react barely at all to the talking part but to the other two will be left-leaning centrists while other 2-1 combinations will fluctuate in life, as the cynics hypothesised.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Welcome one and all to the first interview of the show! It is none other than Mr. Eternal AKA EtrnlVw!
He says this of his beliefs:
At the very, very core of your being, you and God are one and the same (surprise), God is the Watcher of all your observations.
and it is to the very, very core of his beliefs that we wish to get!
He seems to believe that God is essentially the head of a complex web of heirarchy of conscious entities and within all, at the core of it all is God pulling the strings... Alternatively, is God the one inside going along the ride and we are the ones experiencing it for this entity?
We shall find out here on the Exploration of the Religious Thinker!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Welcome back all to EPT, the show where we explore the spectrum of one's politics!
This time we have DPR, a self-proclaimed 'pragmatic libertarian'.
He says that he equally values both freedom and peace above all else in a society but that a balance is optimal.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Welcome to the ERT, the place where we endeavour religious thoughts.
Today on the show, we have DPR [TheDredPriateRoberts] who identifies as Agnostic on his profile but seeks to not be labelled at all. It is important that we take note that he is unlabelled and non-theistic rather than a non-denominational Theist or Deist, so that we take into account that this individual doubts God's existence altogether.
Doubting doesn't just mean lacking conviction and that is something we certainly wish to prove on this show.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Welcome, one and all, to the ERT!
Today, on our show, we have someone who isn't religious but who wishes to speak on religion, he's an agnostic and an atheist (which he refers to as agnostic atheism) who goes by the name Press.
Since he has left very little in terms of his beliefs or thoughts on reality, it would be best to let him introduce himself and his stance.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Welcome one and all to EPT! In this edition we have one of those who seek no labels, yet he applied for this show so clearly he has something to say!
I quote him in saying the following:
I've had a persisting gut affiliation with Trump and the GOP almost like a baseball fan does for his home team but they honestly don't seem to hold the answers we need.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Welcome to EPT, the place where we explore the spectrum of one's political outlook, not just the place on the assumed spectrum that we'd place one!
As with the previous show, today's interview will be with a non-denominational political thinker, namely Whiteflame.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Welcome to EPT, let's get to it!
The past 2 shows have been people who do not identify with labels, this time we have a proud conservative, who goes further to identify as a Sermonist.
prime societal aim: To abide by the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5 - 7 of the Holy Bible, inclusive]. To me, this passage is not only good religious philosophy, it happens to be the premier political platform in existence.
Most of the passages mentioned have a lot to do with not 'showing off' how much suffering one is undergoing in their devotion to Jesus and the Lord God, at least in my reading it seems that way. This implies to me that Fauxlaw's outlook has a lot to do with humility and each person doing their duty and not complaining about it.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Have a pleasant time without me, or don't. Either way I am content for that is the way of the Tao.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal