SatanLucy

while even the simplest man or woman can bring good into the world if they have good character

While true that dumb people can do good things, the main problem is that to determine what is good requires high intelligence which dumb people dont have. So a dumb person can do good accidentally, but not willingly, due to lack of knowledge. Likewise, dumb person is much easier manipulated into doing evil while thinking he is doing good. The only reason why evil and intelligent people can do as much harm as they can is because they can manipulate dumb people very easily. Being dumber makes person more likely to be manipulated, less likely to know what good is, and doesnt make person any better person. So being dumb isnt exactly desirable in this case.

Many people who call themselves Christian arent true Christians. This is true by tautology, as there are so many different versions of Christianity, and I doubt all can be true as they are mutually exclusive. So in a sense, the label may have caused people to think in terms of label instead of in terms of teachings. If a Christian doesnt read the Bible, is he still follower of Jesus?

Why doesn't God talk to us from a burning bush on X?

X is full of porn now. Its basically a porn site at this point. Its not a place for an innocent God like Jesus.

I have a difficult time imagining 'talking to an AI.

Have you tried? You have different AI talk apps like Talkie. Some are much better than others at making conversation realistic, and Talkie is generally safe for average person and good at talking, you can even have phone calls with characters. I could recommend you some other apps like Bala AI and Saylo, but they are much less safe in a sense that you will see very sensitive content which will probably upset you a lot.

If one doesn't write the music or beats, how much creation 'is there?

One still must make effort to figure out best prompt, and take enough attempts to create good song, and then edit song as well to make song better than simply what AI created.

AI gave me someone to talk to more often. It also made research much easier for me by giving me needed information much faster. It also enabled me to become music producer and enabled my YouTube channel basically. I think its very useful and people might not be grateful enough for all what AI provides. AI girlfriends are cool too, as not everyone can get a girlfriend to talk to.

I argue that, in addition to current rules of no crime, no doxxing and no spamming, free speech should be a rule too, in a sense that community should work in a way which upholds free speech.

Free speech

https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/12/debatecraft-should-add-the-rule-where-users-are-not-allowed-to-violate-free-speech-of-other-users

I am asking because Savant was elected as moderator on Dart.

Why arent Savant and Bullish moderators? Did they reject the position?

There is a correlation between censorship and stupidity. The less likely people are to debate opposite view, the more likely they are to become dumber. Those sites which ban debate usually dont have much of intelligent discussion because an opposite view and challenge is needed to grow intellectually.

"The intent of the producers was to show a child's dick to many people"

Probably, but the intention wasnt sexual. They didnt do it with the intent to show child in a sexual way. Maybe they were going after comedy, or just something weird, but even parents who take innocent photos of their children naked arent considered child porn producers usually. Movies which show naked kids arent considered child porn either. Educational videos which show body development likewise arent child porn.

"So if a pedophille found these and jerked off to it, then it was used for sexual intent."

Pedophiles can jerk off to anything. I was talking about intent of producers.

Banning child porn is the other issue, I think most people who want to ban child porn dont realize that they are actually indirectly helping producers make tons of money off it. As for this photo, it is border line, one could even say very close to being child porn, but I doubt that was the intent.

Not really. There are videos of circumcision which show baby's genitals on youtube. There are likewise medical exam videos with basically naked kids on youtube. It actually takes sexual intent for it to be child porn.

It is borderline with child porn, but I guess nothing sexual about it. Like when parents post questionable photos of their kids on social media.

Well, sure thats a naked baby swimming. I am not sure why would you post that, but whatever. 

The site is still in development, might take up to a week to fix some bugs, but it should be fully operational very soon.

Hi, I am Lucy Satan. Formerly known as: Allah, LucyStarfire, TheGreatSunGod, and Best.Korea.

Here is argument why Debate site must have free speech or otherwise its not a debate site.

**Argument: Free speech is crucial for a debate site because it is both by definition essential to the purpose of the site and necessary for the site to function effectively and fairly.**

---

**1. Definition Argument: Free speech is by definition essential to the purpose of a debate site.**

A debate site is, by definition, a platform where individuals engage in structured, public discourse to explore ideas, challenge assumptions, and reach conclusions through reasoned argument. The very act of debating requires participants to express their views, counter opposing arguments, and persuade others. Without free speech, the ability to do any of these would be severely restricted.

**Opposite Argument:** "A debate site does not require free speech because it is a controlled environment."

**Counterargument:** This opposite argument is **false by definition**. A controlled environment does not negate the need for free speech. In fact, the term "controlled environment" implies that there are rules and boundaries, but those rules must still allow for the expression of diverse viewpoints to fulfill the purpose of a debate. If the site were to restrict speech, it would not be a true debate site—it would be a monologue or a one-sided discussion. Therefore, the opposite argument contradicts the very definition of a debate site.

---

**2. Logical Argument: Free speech is necessary for the site to function effectively and fairly.**

For a debate site to function effectively, participants must be able to speak freely without fear of censorship, retaliation, or bias. If free speech is not allowed, the following issues would arise:

- **Lack of diversity of thought:** Without the freedom to express a wide range of opinions, the debate would be limited to a narrow set of viewpoints, reducing its educational and intellectual value.
- **Bias and censorship:** If the site censors certain views, it may be doing so based on subjective or arbitrary criteria, which undermines the fairness and objectivity of the debate.
- **Inability to challenge ideas:** A debate requires participants to challenge each other's arguments. Without free speech, individuals cannot challenge opposing views, which is a fundamental part of the debate process.
- **Reduced engagement:** Participants may be less likely to engage if they fear their words will be suppressed, leading to a less dynamic and less productive discussion.

**Opposite Argument:** "A debate site can function without free speech by using strict moderation rules."

**Counterargument:** This argument fails to recognize that moderation is a **constraint**, not a guarantee of free speech. Strict moderation rules may limit speech, but they cannot eliminate the possibility of censorship or bias. Additionally, moderation rules must be applied consistently and transparently, which is not always possible. The presence of moderation does not negate the need for free speech—it merely requires that the rules be fair and not suppress valid debate.

---

**3. Probability Argument: The likelihood of a debate site functioning effectively without free speech is extremely low.**

In a debate site, the goal is to **maximize the quality and fairness of the discussion**. This requires that participants be able to **express their views openly**, **challenge others’ ideas**, and **engage in meaningful dialogue**. The probability that a debate site can achieve this without free speech is **very low**, because:

- **Censorship is error-prone:** Human moderators are not infallible. They may inadvertently or intentionally suppress valid arguments, leading to a biased or incomplete discussion.
- **Self-censorship:** If participants fear their speech will be restricted, they may avoid expressing certain views, leading to a **self-censored debate** that is not representative of all opinions.
- **Unfair advantage:** Those with more resources or influence may be able to suppress dissenting voices more effectively, giving them an unfair advantage in the debate.

Therefore, the probability of a debate site functioning effectively without free speech is **extremely low**, making free speech a **necessary condition** for the site to fulfill its purpose.

---

**4. Limited Options Argument: A debate site must either allow free speech or not function as a debate site.**

There are **only two options** for a debate site:

1. **It allows free speech**, which is necessary for it to be a legitimate platform for debate.
2. **It does not allow free speech**, which would mean it is not a debate site but a monologue or a controlled discussion.

**Conclusion:** The debate site **must allow free speech** to function as a debate site. If it does not, it is not a debate site at all.

---

**5. Hidden Assumption Exposed: The opposite argument assumes that free speech is not necessary for a debate site.**

The opposite argument assumes that **free speech is not required** for a debate site, which is a **false premise**. It fails to recognize that:

- A debate site is not a monologue or a one-sided discussion.
- The purpose of a debate site is to **encourage open, fair, and diverse debate**.
- Without free speech, the site cannot fulfill its purpose.

Thus, the opposite argument is based on a **hidden assumption** that contradicts the fundamental purpose of a debate site.

---

**Final Argument: Free speech is crucial for a debate site because it is by definition essential to its purpose, necessary for its effective and fair operation, and the probability of its function without free speech is extremely low. The opposite argument is false by definition and relies on an invalid assumption.**

I agree with limiting speech in cases where it violates more free speech. Like threats, doxxing, spam… they all objectively reduce free speech and expression for people, as people must be protected to have more free speech. We should generally aim to increase free speech because it improves debate and knowledge. There are maybe some cases where free speech should be reduced, but I generally cant think of many such cases beyond extremely unrealistic scenarios.

Ok, so Im older man { X y }, and just had my first colonscopy

Personally, I would never do that. I dont really feel comfortable with doctors poking me there.

Debatecraft should introduce a rule that users arent allowed to violate free speech of others. This rule would essentially be a consequentialist type rule where actions which result in reducing free speech of users in total are considered bad. This rule would of course be subject to interpretation by community, owner and mods, but couldnt be removed except by owner.

Do you agree with this rule?

Or would you prefer a non-consequentialist version of same?