SatanLucy

I updated the debate. This is the best topic I can do.

This is an interesting debate, tho I am not sure if Pro left himself enough room to argue given all these descriptions. Thanatos is basically God's bitch.

The best I can do is "society of perfectly straight white men who are warriors".

I cant do better than that, if it interests you.

Any interest?

I don't have a car, because I don't want to contribute to the evil system.

We most likely live in a simulation anyway, atheism or not. Atheism part is even unnecessary here. There is no difference between simulation created by God or non God. Its still a simulation. So I would say Pro is likely right in topic, but he is drawing an entirely wrong conclusion from topic at the same time, apparently that this is unique to atheism (not part of topic, but kinda strongly implied conclusion).

Yeah, some votes would be nice. This aint gonna close till 3 votes.

You have whole month, and even more than that if its less than 3 votes by that time. Its a very short debate, I made it a bit easy for voters by doing just 1 round.

"Well if the Meowist holds the belief "I should vote based on foundational beliefs of the debaters even if they don't match my own beliefs," then it doesn't matter what other foundational beliefs they are"

Well, that is usually rule in debate voting. However, your argument did appeal to foundational beliefs of voters. Voters have to sort of pre-agree to it to accept it, at least the foundations part, which is something which is by definition either pre-agreed or not agreed to at all.

I agree there. I just think appeal to foundational beliefs relies entirely on what foundational beliefs of other people are. Obviously, not all people share same foundational beliefs. Some are entirely opposite. So how would a Meowist vote on this? If you appeal to foundational beliefs, and Meowist's foundational belief is truth determined by God Meowbah, I think Meowist would vote for me not because of my arguments, but because of foundational belief. Of course, I assume most voters aren't Meowists. I am just curious how would this argument work if they were. I do think the only way out of Munchausen trilemma is the foundational belief, unless person wants circular or infinite regress. But what happens when foundational beliefs don't match? Obviously, people are gonna derive different conclusions from different foundational beliefs, and shared foundational beliefs aren't possible when people don't agree on foundational beliefs. So Meowists could easily say "my foundational belief is Meowism". Obviously, voters should vote on what both debaters agree as some starting point. The only issue is that anything can be a foundational belief, so even if we agree that foundational beliefs exist and should be used as starting point, Meowist voter wouldn't share your foundational beliefs. Non-meowist probably would.

Yeah, but if most voters are Meowists, your foundational beliefs won't match. So appeal to shared foundational beliefs doesn't work when their foundational beliefs are different from yours. The same conclusion cannot be drawn.

So you run a small risk of losing this debate if all voters turn out to be Meowists. Their shared foundational belief is that Meowbah is God. That is my foundational belief too.

Good debate. One thing to note tho, appealing to shared beliefs means you want voters to already agree with you before debate, as opposed to defending those beliefs. But maybe most voters are Meowists.

Eh I guess these definitions will have to work.

Oh I can define "science". As for defining word "true", I am afraid the definition there is useless given that all definitions of it in dictionary are blatantly circular.

I added it at end of description.

Of course, I added that. I wouldn't want someone to think that this is a troll debate.

We had debate on Meowism before. Are you interested in this quick debate? Response time is two weeks and it's only one round.

It's not ideal, but there are a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't vote at all, but can cast easy counter votes. It's more democratic I guess. If majority of voters on this site have any good judgment, it would balance out.

It seems that there is a way to moderate even unmoderated debates. This just proves that maybe all debates should be unmoderated and counter votes will balance out the low quality votes, maybe?

Bible cannot ban or not allow anything. It's just an old book collection written by random people.

This rap battle realistically deserves more votes, but it's likely not happening at this point unless the first two bad votes get removed.

I think my life would be better if I was a girl, but that is impossible.

My suggestion is just to add function for moderators where votes arent removed, but are just made so that they arent counted by the system but are still there. This is in case where voters are casting such bad votes like these. The other option is to just counter vote them, which is what works when votes are entirely unmoderated.

I figured that removing a vote is probably unnecessary if it can be countered. It can remain, but it's effect is basically 0. I think all insufficient votes should remain, not be removed, just remove their impact on a debate.

I countered the insufficient vote, so it's effectively neutralized. Now if you or someone else can cast few quality votes, then it's good.

Yeah, I personally don't mind low effort votes, it's better than getting no votes, and if necessary they can be countered, but counter only works here if some 3rd person agrees to cast high quality vote.

I would vote just to counter this terribly bad and clearly insufficient lowest effort vote, but sadly there is no telling if 3rd vote cast will be any better than the current one, so I will not risk anything. Maybe next two votes will be decent.

"freestyle is any rap without a chorus btw"

I mean, why would someone even place chorus in a rap battle. Repetition of lines pretty much destroys the mood as far as I know. Saying same thing twice is just wasting character space here.

I am someone who actually prefers doing free style as opposed to structured rhyme, mainly because structured rhyme and lines take insane amount of work while at same time being forced to throw a lot of good things out because they dont fit pre planned structure. This is especially in cases of counting syllables.

So when I see someone punishing free style, I am actually a bit shocked, even more so by the fact that Savant didnt actually use it lmao