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.
"It is dangerous, suggestive, even violent-egging speech."
I can say the same thing about any speech, even your speech against trans people, which could lead someone to attack a trans person.
There is no such thing as peaceful speech, unless you are a Taoist or something.
"And merely pissing people off isn’t why Remy is on trial"
Well, lets see. He didnt harm anyone. He didnt hack anyone. He didnt spam the site to make it unusable. He didnt use site to commit a crime.
So yeah, all I see here is bunch of people crying about someone's post on the internet enough to make a public trial out of it.
What happened to strong silent types? Why is everyone a crybaby in this century?
"The trial is proof of how different Remy and I are"
No, the trial is not proof of anything. Again, I am so glad you don't work in a justice department, because you would be arguing how trials for witches in the past is proof that those women were witches.
"Remy pisses people off by spamming the website with offensive click bait threads."
And you piss off people too. Doing it in a different way doesn't change the fact that you are pissing people off.
So if you think pissing people off is bad, why do you do it?
"I piss people off by arguing views some people here don’t like and either can’t refute or just give up on because they no longer wish to continue."
This is incorrect, but you are free to live in this specific delusion.
"This trial itself is proof enough of how different we are"
Trial is proof of guilt?
Well, that's a new one. Thank God you don't work in justice department.
I am losing brain cells by just being part of this conversation.
I follow more of Satanist ideology. Its about growth, like fire. It doesnt just conserve itself. It also seeks to grow.
Conserving is good, but if it doesnt also grow, then it is not good enough.
Conserve and also grow, and dont be a pussy.
If conservatism means "conserving something", then anything can be a conservatism, including conserving trees by not reproducing. In the end, probably everyone is a conservative, even trump by trying to conserve his wealth.
"You are NOT A CONSERVATIVE I tell you this from the Bible and my own soul and thoughts combined"
Actually, when Bible was made, it was progressive, not conservative.
It didnt conserve the current world order at the time. It radically changed it.
they both had anime profile picture at some point. Its probably what led me to believe they are same user.
Oh yeah, similar name so I confused them cuz it was like a year ago. I am not sure if they are same user using similar name, or different people.
Debate name was something like "justified knowledge doesnt exist", with Hyper (or something like that, my memory isnt best) as Pro.
If we are talking of Hyper from debate art who had debate with Novice, then I wouldn't be so sure. I am not sure if it's same user, but I know one thing. Once you go against top 3 debaters, things get infinitely more difficult.
It's sort of like boxing against average boxer and boxing with boxing champion. The latter is gonna be on a whole other level.
There are only 3 debaters on whole site who can go against Bones and maybe win: Whiteflame, Savant, and Novice.
Anyone else who accepts just accepts inevitable defeat.
I mean, a top debater on leaderboard, vs a guy who is just above average Gish galloper.
Did anyone really think Bones would lose this?
Get real. This debate was concluded before it started.
I am all for banning those who endanger site's functionality, but I simply don't think those posts amount to that. This is because those posts aren't really preventing anyone else from posting.
Also, for those wanting some safe space, it ain't happening on a debate site.
It's a debate. People always get triggered. There is no way around that without changing entire site's function.
