Why I'm going to abstain from all future debates | Forum

#1

Non-forfeit debates are essentially a popularity contest.

I know I'm not popular on here because everyone from both parties pretty much requires 100% agreement with your politics in order to like you.

If you tell a democrat, "We should cut the military budget, and BECAUSE OF THAT, we should stop funding Ukraine.", then the democrat thinks you're a fascist enabler (which I'm fine with that title because ad hominins don't work on me).

If you tell a republican, "Picking strange men over bears dehumanizes men but it ALSO dehumanizes people to view Haitians as eating pets in Springfield.", then the republican thinks you're a socialist enabler (which I'm fine with that title because ad hominins don't work on me).

I know I'm highly unpopular here.

Therefore, if I debate with a left winger, then the right wingers won't turn out to vote for me in a non-FF debate because they hate my guts (vice versa applies for if I debate a right winger). But the opponent's respective party will turn out for them. It pays to be a partisan hack. It's in one's personal interests to be a partisan hack. You get more votes; more of a social group; people care about being socially accepted more than being correct.

It's just immoral for me to do this, but I also don't want to lose debates when I clearly made the better argument, but everyone that agrees with me doesn't turn out to vote for me because I pissed them off on some other issue.

Edit comment

Mentions Text*

Non-forfeit debates are essentially a popularity contest. I know I'm not popular on here because everyone from both parties pretty much requires 100% agreement with your politics in order to like you. If you tell a democrat, "We should cut the military budget, and BECAUSE OF THAT, we should stop funding Ukraine.", then the democrat thinks you're a fascist enabler (which I'm fine with that title because ad hominins don't work on me). If you tell a republican, "Picking strange men over bears dehumanizes men but it ALSO dehumanizes people to view Haitians as eating pets in Springfield.", then the republican thinks you're a socialist enabler (which I'm fine with that title because ad hominins don't work on me). I know I'm highly unpopular here. Therefore, if I debate with a left winger, then the right wingers won't turn out to vote for me in a non-FF debate because they hate my guts (vice versa applies for if I debate a right winger). But the opponent's respective party will turn out for them. It pays to be a partisan hack. It's in one's personal interests to be a partisan hack. You get more votes; more of a social group; people care about being socially accepted more than being correct. It's just immoral for me to do this, but I also don't want to lose debates when I clearly made the better argument, but everyone that agrees with me doesn't turn out to vote for me because I pissed them off on some other issue.

#2

There was even someone that said, "Oh; it's RemyBrown" as an insult because it didn't matter what I say in the future, that person will never vocally agree with me.

There was this left wing person that wanted to beat the crap out of me for defending desalination plants; I vented that there was this triggered black woman that blocked me because I said something offensive (and I saw 2 lesbians just ready to call whatever I was going to say xenophobic, and when they found out that being pro-desalination plant was not xenophobic, they didn't agree with me, but they didn't want to call out a member of their own party; but I saw the look on their face; they were just ready to call any statement xenophobic). A right winger I meet at the restaurant claims, "Yeah; that liberal was crazy!". I then tell him that the, "Haitians are eating pets" story is lunacy too. He walks out of the restaurant.

Lets face it; the democrips and the rebloodicans are cults; they're gangs. They act as religions without a god. Ideally, they should segregate into their own areas.

We need a list of left wing and right wing businesses that becomes official data so the people from the democrat religion don't have to deal with the republican religion and vice versa. People in the middle like me can vent to either group knowing the environment we are in and the people who are in the tribes don't have to deal with the opposite tribe.

If you are on the left, then do you really want to deal with someone who wants to take away what you call, "fundamental human rights"? If you are on the right, then do you really want to deal with someone who can't define what a woman is?

The parties can't stand the thought of agreeing with someone from the opposite party. And both sides dish this out to me because I call them both out.

Nobody wants to come off as agreeing with me because I go after both parties pretty aggressively, regardless of your political stripes. So I will abstain from future debates. The system is rigged!

Edit post

Mentions Text*

There was even someone that said, "Oh; it's RemyBrown" as an insult because it didn't matter what I say in the future, that person will never vocally agree with me. There was this left wing person that wanted to beat the crap out of me for defending desalination plants; I vented that there was this triggered black woman that blocked me because I said something offensive (and I saw 2 lesbians just ready to call whatever I was going to say xenophobic, and when they found out that being pro-desalination plant was not xenophobic, they didn't agree with me, but they didn't want to call out a member of their own party; but I saw the look on their face; they were just ready to call any statement xenophobic). A right winger I meet at the restaurant claims, "Yeah; that liberal was crazy!". I then tell him that the, "Haitians are eating pets" story is lunacy too. He walks out of the restaurant. Lets face it; the democrips and the rebloodicans are cults; they're gangs. They act as religions without a god. Ideally, they should segregate into their own areas. We need a list of left wing and right wing businesses that becomes official data so the people from the democrat religion don't have to deal with the republican religion and vice versa. People in the middle like me can vent to either group knowing the environment we are in and the people who are in the tribes don't have to deal with the opposite tribe. If you are on the left, then do you really want to deal with someone who wants to take away what you call, "fundamental human rights"? If you are on the right, then do you really want to deal with someone who can't define what a woman is? The parties can't stand the thought of agreeing with someone from the opposite party. And both sides dish this out to me because I call them both out. Nobody wants to come off as agreeing with me because I go after both parties pretty aggressively, regardless of your political stripes. So I will abstain from future debates. The system is rigged!

#3

@RemyBrown

If you think votes in one of your debates are rigged or unfair, you can report them.

We have voting policies in CoC--if not now then soon because Idk if we have a CoC in effect right now--that encourage fair assessment of a debate when voting, and there are repercussions for unfair votes

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#4

@Skipper

I tried. It didn't work. I can't click on the 3 dots.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#5

We don't have a vote report feature yet, but if you see a vote that you want mod reviewed please DM us either on here or on discord

Edit post

Mentions Text*

"Kohai, your entrance to the thread was legendary, you had a solve and a winning PoE right when you showed up, super impressive stuff, even more so considering it wasn't even your objective!!" - Zrein

#6

@RemyBrown

You are a no win situation.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

Conversation

Edit comment

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post