"Yeah, pack animals who look out for other humans."
No, history of human race is that of wars, witch trials and slaughter.
"An yet democracies have the least oppression of any governmental system and every time two countries go to war, it almost always involves one of them being non-democratic."
this is only short term. Decline of democracies shows that over time, democracy becomes oppressive or just dies because masses are oppressive wolves.
If we count USA, Ukraine and Israel as democracy, then I am afraid its democracies starting most wars.
Your entire argument for democracy rests on assumption that masses of people are sheep and not wolves.
But as far as I know, humans are predators throughout their evolution.
Pretty much all ancient philosophers rejected democracy, and they had more than one reason for it.
In order to make good decisions, person must be both good and smart. Masses of people are neither. Its why democracies world wide are getting worse.
https://www.v-dem.net/news/press-release-democratic-backsliding-reaches-western-democracies-with-us-decline-unprecedented/
the problem is that sheep only has a chance if sheep is majority.
But majority of people are usually always wolves. the only way democracy works is if there are majority of people who are omnibenevolent, but that aint happening. Masses are always out for blood.
there are fewer democracies today than 50 years ago, and most democracies turned into autocratic rule.
thats why I say democracy is actually only short term win. Wolves become majority sooner or later.
You know I never believed in democracy. I only considered it better than having no any rights, but to me, it was always obvious that democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on whats for dinner. thats what it always comes down to.
And this trial is best proof of it.
there are ultrarated debates just sitting there with 1 or 2 votes. there are bunch of debates in debating section without any votes. Most forum posts end up with few responses.
Meanwhile, this debate gets 9 votes in 3 days, and 252 comments on it.
People are literally more interested in debating on who gets banned, than they are in actual debates.
Same problem appears in democracy. People get more interested in tearing others down than actually talking about issues.
this would be very simple if people on this site agreed to some core principle, but no. One day, they are praising free speech as best thing ever. Other day, they say "screw free speech".
So to them, its "free speech until I get offended enough by some post".
I really dont see long term benefit of democracy. Democracy is actually only a short term benefit. Long term, its a loss, because eventually right to vote turns into right to vote against others.
the problem with CoC is, when you make too many rules, you get many offenders.
I dont see why there cant be one simple principle whole community, or majority of it, agrees to.
the only way to address all specific issues which might arise, when doing so without any core principle, is to make a very long list, and thats a lot of work.
What type of trolling deserves ban? What type of offensive content deserves ban? What type of rage-bait is unacceptable?
Because I post offensive posts too. I also do rage bait. I also troll. Yet I am not yet put on trial, but Remy is.
Maybe its because Remy posted offensive posts about rape. that probably triggers people more, but this all still feels like a very emotional response.
Who gets to decide just what type of post is too offensive? Is it just majority going with their emotions? Because that can backfire in the future, like it did in Europe. there are a lot of stuff you cannot say in Europe simply because majority finds it offensive. For example, Poland's law about offending religious feelings (yes, that is the actual law, and yes, it is what it says).
there are 3 more people on this site who will vote Pro for sure. So I guess outcome will be decided by whatever votes come after that.
Freedom of speech does literally mean freedom to say whatever you want, as long as your speech cannot be connected to harming others. If RemyBrown was harming users on this site, I would say, sure ban him for a day or two. However, the only "harm" he caused is people choosing to be offended by his posts, and that is not harm caused by Remy but by those people.
"No one is saying that."
then you have no argument.
"Of course it doesn't—that is a category error on your part. 'God exists' is an ontological claim about reality, while a lack of belief is an epistemic state regarding one's own knowledge."
So it is irrelevant to debate. It's not a claim which can be defended or used in a debate.
If you say "one should lack belief in God", then you are making a positive claim which needs proof.
Otherwise, you got no claim at all.
Saying "I lack belief in God" is not a claim which disproves "God exists", so it's irrelevant to debate.
"Atheism is a claim or not a true claim' is not a true dichotomy."
It is by result.
"There are innumerable debates where one person defends a proposition and another tries to tear it down"
The only way to tear down some claim is to make a claim regarding it.
Lack of belief in God does not contradict with "God exists", so it is not a valid counter to that position, as it is not even a claim, so it claims nothing on the issue
Its really a simple dichotomy. If atheism is a claim, it requires proof. If its not claim, then it cannot be true claim, and with that, it cannot even be a debating position, because there is no claim to argue for.
If there is no claim, then there is no true claim.
I suggest you go silent for some time or stick to non-offensive claims, because we are still in the voting period and talking more offensive right now risks ruining the current result with more inappropriate claims.
Its going good so far, but its two weeks left, so its far from over yet.
If you say atheism isnt a claim, then it cannot be logical with evidence. For logic, you need premises, which are claims.
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.
