Maybe, but you made bunch of positive claims in a debate, such as "lack of belief is the default position".
If you only sticked to asking questions, maybe you would avoid making a positive claim. this way, however, you made bunch of them,
I voted in my own way. I usually dont like stealing from other votes because its then saying same thing twice.
Saying that "act of doubt" is not a claim is irrelevant when your position in a debate must be a claim.
Saying "doubt is the default position" is a positive claim.
Those are all positive claims. Even a claim that something doesn't require positive claims, is a positive claim.
Tho Mal will explain it better.
I am gonna need to read debate few more times because I dont like voting with minimum surface level effort, but I think its already known that my position on this issue is greatest possible equal free speech of all individuals.
Given how this is going, I might not even need to vote.
I just joined the party. I didnt make 200 comments on my own.
I will work on a vote for this. Despite that votes are "not moderated", I think this debate still deserves a fair amount of effort when voting. tho my vote is obviously going to be affected by some arguments not present in debate as well, and this is because votes decide if user will be banned, and such decision isnt affected only by arguments in debate.
Are you going to write an argument or not? Cuz its been two weeks...
Comment 200.
this debate has more comments on it than all debates on previous 4 pages combined.
If this is the type of entertainment to drive activity, then so be it. More witch trials!!!
this debate is proof that people here arent interested in debating. they want a show. If we had few more debates like these, site would get a lot of activity. I mean, we are talking about 200 comments per debate!
"There should be no mods"
I am not sure about that. But I am also not sure how to stop mods from abusing their power, which eventually always happens.
"I was explaining what will most likely decide my own vote"
Yeah, a point irrelevant to topic will most likely decide your vote. We agree.
It is not possible to argue for atheism without making claims. So I am afraid any atheist which comes to debate will be making some quite positive claims.
Your question was answered.
topic of this debate is "RemyBrown should be permanently banned from DebateCraft".
Obviously, the topic questions if his behavior rises to be banworthy.
Merely repeating what his behavior is, does not logically connect it to topic.
topic needs this deductive format:
1. RemyBrown does behavior X
2. Doing behavior X is permaban worthy
C. RemyBrown is permaban worthy.
Notice that your entire point, which you said would determine your whole vote, is merely premise 1.
Without premise 2, it is useless and irrelevant to topic.
Premise 2 is subject of debate. Premise 1 is not even what debate is about, because its not being debated what RemyBrown did. What is being debated is if it rises to permaban worthy, something which you entirely missed.
I will in future also make a chatbot which does negative deductions (what doesnt follow from premises).
"Ok, so if you own a website and a user continually violates your ToS, and you’ve intervened numerous times only to find that the user refuses to accept them, what would you do?"
I have a computer program which does deductions. Maybe it can explain it to you.
===================================
Logical Deduction Chatbot
===================================
Enter statements like:
A = B
Cat = Animal
Commands:
show -> display deductions
exit -> quit
===================================
user repeats behavior = previous punishments didnt work
previous punishments didnt work = doesnt make behavior permaban worthy
permaban worthy behavior = behavior which rises to be permaban worthy
behavior which rises to be permaban worthy = still being debated if user rises to that behavior
show
--- Logical Deductions ---
permaban worthy behavior = still being debated if user rises to that behavior
user repeats behavior = doesnt make behavior permaban worthy
If you agree to do more elaborate posts in future, and maybe with more comedy, it would greatly help whiteflame make case for you. All you gotta do is, next time you make a post, make it a lot more detailed with more explanation of claims, and some more comedy in it.
So, are you saying all it takes for RemyBrown not to get banned anymore is for him to write much more elaborate posts, preferably with more comedy?
Because if thats all it takes, I am perfectly happy to support enforcing this "unofficial rule" regarding RemyBrown, and I am sure RemyBrown is happy too with this.
I guess the biggest issue is RemyBrown's lack of elaboration in his posts. Someone who thinks completely differently from him, and cant take his position on the issue, is gonna have a lot more difficult time understanding what is even being said.
Its sort of like if I just said "cars are harmful". Someone who agrees with me is gonna have easier time understanding why I think that. Someone who entirely disagrees, will just think its nonsense.
AI pretty much agrees with me on anything given enough responses and given that AI isnt completely censored from talking on some topic.
tho once I had chatgpt try to convince me that murder isnt objectively wrong, even tho I was arguing that it is, for some reason, AI took the position that its not objectively wrong. I didnt even tell it to take that position. It was just trying to counter my arguments on objective morality.
Chatgpt doesnt have human bias or emotional response to text. So its quite possible RemyBrown has it easier to convince AI than convincing human. If some post is rage bait, human with strong emotions might get too emotional to understand it.
"How is the fact that the mods have had to intervene numerous times to correct Remy’s behavior and he refuses to change, irrelevant to the question of whether he should be permanently banned from the site?"
Because there is no deductive logic which tells you:
refuses to change = deserves permanent ban
Do you know what deductive logic is?
"I suspect that is the point that will decide my vote more than anything else."
So a point irrelevant to topic will decide your vote?
Damn, this is like letting rabbits vote.
If you are going to ban RemyBrown, ban me too so that the witch hunt can be complete.
When you talk, I imagine a villager with a pitchfork from 15th century screaming "burn the witch".
Just look at the engagement on this debate.
People are way more interested in this than in actual debates.
I really don't see why humanity only feels excited when they are doing some witch hunt.
Not just this site. Politics for whole history were basically nothing but witch hunts.
It is as if entire humanity has secret desire to watch someone be put on trial and burned as a witch.
Doesn't matter if it's Jesus, or if it's an actual witch.
Humanity didn't evolve past mob with pitchforks.
"Did you not read the concluding 2 sentences of my post #125?"
Irrelevant to point.
