Also follow my weekly taoist for more tao wisdom.
Its great that you accepted this debate. that was my goal.
Now I wonder how Bones will respond. tho this topic is truism on Pro's side anyway.
If this will be what I think it is, Mal wins easily.
Fun debate, will be reading this one, tho I cant promise to be voting.
"SatanLucy (you) are a bit weird"
Bit weird? I am the weirdest guy in existence. there is no weirder person on the whole planet. I cant say for whole universe yet cuz aliens could beat me in weirdness, even tho I severely doubt it.
Whiteflame is a Jew too, but he is defending your side. It's probably best, cuz you ain't gonna get a better debater than Whiteflame to defend your case. I mean, he is top in ultrarated leaderboard, which is a much bigger achievement than merely being top in rated. One can climb on top in rated by severe cherry pick of topics, but in ultrarated, there is no such thing.
Mal doesnt usually make mistakes in typing.
I like when Muslims say Islam is true and then make bunch of non sequitur arguments for it.
That is a very good round from Whiteflame. I like the use of famous quote on free speech.
This is sure slow to get votes.
I like the funny.
I still think this debate should have at least 10 votes for decision to be made. I mean, site has way more than 10 users. Just the moderation team is like more than 5 users. I just don't see the point in making a decision based on vote of 3 or 4 users. I don't think democracy works if only 10% of people vote.
"But it's them CHOOSING to be neutral."
I think a more reasonable explanation is that a lot of people dont wanna bother with voting. they arent truly neutral. I dont think a lot of people are truly neutral on this issue, other than people not familiar with it at all.
I dont think not voting is a vote, especially not in cases where if people voted, they wouldnt vote neutrally. Not vote is at best neutral, at worst its not a democratic will. this is an important question, because it concerns with banning someone permanently, which is arguably the worst formal punishment moderators can give to a user. And I know there is a loud minority on this site who gets some weird entertainment out of banning people. the problem is that if enough people dont vote, that minority becomes majority of vote. Maybe someone who if voted, would vote against ban, but if he doesnt vote at all, he doesnt get represented. the only thing which no vote represents is a neutral opinion. It doesnt represent non neutral opinions of people who dont vote. In my opinion, if we are already relying on majority decision, we should make sure people actually vote. If enough users dont vote, then its not really a true majority decision. If this debate gets only few votes, then its obviously not up to standard.
Its why I suggest to increase minimum number of votes for this debate to at least 10. Also, because Remy Brown is a user on this site, does he get to vote as well?
I would actually prefer popular vote in the forum, or at least vote moderated debate. But if all users vote on this debate, it's gonna be still good. My concern is about those who aren't willing to vote at all. So outcome could be minority determining the outcome.
Thank you. I don't think majority wants Remy banned. Its just that the ones who want are the loudest.
there are like probably 5 to 7 users on this site right now just waiting for debate to end, to vote Pro. they already made up their mind before this debate was even a thing. So if bias is allowed, I am afraid the outcome of this debate is already Pro's win. I really doubt anyone who supports specific side before debate is gonna be voting differently, and I get the feeling the ones wanting Remy banned are much more likely to vote as well.
I just hope this wont suffer from huge voter bias. I mean, just about all voters are divided on those who want to ban Remy and those who dont. So I guess voter bias here is guaranteed. Even I would have severe bias of not being able to vote for Pro under any circumstances.
He has achieved the light of the universal master.
That's why he should not be banned. He is the voice of truth in the abyss of lies.
You must win this debate btw
forgot to tag
It didnt end, it needs 2 more votes.
And yeah, as I said, I would actually prefer to be Pro here. Con is defending the least popular position, only 23% of people agree with Con. Even I disagree with Con entirely.
As for formatting, I was copying from notepad and yeah, I dont really know why it comes out as it does. I guess next time I gonna write in notepad without making too many spaces, because spaces in notepad and spaces here seem to be somehow a different thing.
I mean, this site worries too much about who to ban next. Personally, I wouldn't ban anyone because divine light is in everyone. The best example of this is person who is eternally condemned to be all alone by the Gods. No human contact. Such person would accept just about anyone as a friend, and wouldn't be picky at all. This shows how each person has value and divine light, which shows when other people aren't available.
Thanks for voting! And yeah, I can say for sure I wasn't basing my case on a democratic will. If that were the case, I would lose from start cuz term limits are extremely popular idea.
I knew I missed something.
Tako je, drug.
I would want to be Con here, but with a bit different resolution. I don't think I could argue no mandatory vaccines at all. That is case in USA, no vaccine is mandatory (at least not by some general law). But I feel not much grounds to argue against some vaccines.
thank you for great debate. I rushed it a bit so I can focus on playing Smite.
