Savant

Why would Sidewalker want to delete a debate they're clearly going to win?

Since I can't edit my vote, I'll say this here: If you do stick with P1 in the future, that might be doable but I think you'd have to go more in depth to why "they have access to knowledge that would allow them to know whether or not the event occurred" applies here but not elsewhere. I think an argument along the lines of, "the distinction between spiritual and physical was not made clear" could have worked in theory, but it required more evidence/elaboration, and a clear reason why the distinction matters, since I think you have more work to do than Con in this debate.

Would you be open to modding for this community? I know you are probably busy with the other communities you run, but would love to have you.

I think DebateCraft is largely unique as a platform because the community has a voice in how the site is run, and much of that community wants more free speech. We could let the mods decide everything, but then we just have Reddit lite, and why would anyone join that when they could just join Reddit. In terms of which decision alienates more people, the majority didn't want Remy censored at all, so penalizing him alienates more people. I'm struggling to see a way you could concentrate power other than democracy, that doesn't easily become corrupted once the site scales.

The advantage of democracy is that it doesn't rely on a single stubborn person doing the right thing. If his decision backfires and we see bad results, all you have to do is convince the community that we're seing bad results because of this decision, and it can be reversed.

I believe mods have said it's all or nothing, so Remy is off the hook. There's also an updated CoC coming out that is closer to allowing almost all free speech within the bounds of the law.

All right, just made a thread. Hopefully my argument makes sense.

Diddy parties were affecting children who didn't and couldn't consent. Also earplugs are an inconvenience whereas checking one box as opposed to another box is not an additional inconvenience. It actually takes more effort to view offensive posts cause logged out users don't see them.

Also the question, "do you want to see offensive posts?" is not gonna offend people in the same way talking about their wife in a sexual way is. I know I presented that as the analogy, but a better example might be asking something broad like "are you ok with swearing?" I'm not gonna go to Person A's house as opposed to Person B's house just because Person B might ask me if I'm okay with swearing and then abide by my answer.

A better analogy would be someone coming to your house and asking if they can bang your wife (i.e. ask if you want to see offensive posts), then you say yes and get mad at them afterwards for doing so.

No I really do appreciate the advice, didn't interpret what you said as a threat at all. I'm glad you raised these concerns before they become a more serious issue, Kohai mentioned something similar as well.

I believe Airmax is working on getting the site registered as an LLC. I'll have to confirm with him how far along that is the next time we meet. Also, thank you for the advice. I hadn't talked to someone who has done this type of thing before until now.

Why do you want male debaters?

>Reported Vote: GajarMooli // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: con
>Reason for Decision: too-vague
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote needs to be more specific about what arguments and responses in this particular debate decided the outcome. Right now, it's a bit too broad and doesn't address the depth of arguments and responses in the debate.

---GajarMooli's former vote---
Voted for: con
Pro is already considering something he has to prove yet, as evidence. You prove Allah with Quran and prove Quran with Quran. It doesn't happen like that.... burden of proof, big bang, everything con said is just standard Atheistic arguments. Every Atheist knows those argument and every theist knows them. I have seen this exact debate multiple times. And the Atheist wins every time because The Theist, Muslim in this case is, using Quran as the Source. Even though Con didn't make any original arguments, which have been better. But he makes sense, he is talking logic.

Tbf, Europe hasn't even banned 4chan because it's hosted in the US. So they have bigger fish to fry before they go after us.

Might be looking into. We can also censor by location.

This site is hosted in the US and complies with US speech laws, which are pretty lenient. Direct threats and explicit calls for violence are not allowed.

I'd love to debate/discuss this topic with you once this one is over. (Informally, of course, cause ultrarated tournament is coming up.)

>Reported Vote: GajarMooli // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: con
>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote doesn't actually analyze the arguments made in the debate. It seems to simply be the voter making their own argument.

---GajarMooli's former vote---
Voted for: con
Pro is Emotional. Con is Logical. Murder and Abortion are different. I expected better from the Con. But if it's a who stinks less battle then I will go with the Con. U could have said that pain is necessarily wrong, and abortion is fundamentally morally wrong, then it would have been something defendable. Calling Abortion Murder takes the line to something undefendable. And a mere dictionary definition is enough for con to prove you wrong.

I don't think I disagree with your position though. I just think the mainstream model is easier to do calculations with.

The credence of a claim has nothing to do with whether other people take it seriously, it has to do with the evidence for it. If no evidence is put forth to counter Con's claim, that leaves the topic more ambiguous than you would probably like. And tbh, since motion is relative, I don't think Con is totally off, it's mainly a matter of definitions. And the Earth as the center model is way less elegant and very difficult to do actual calculations with.

Sure, I think there's blame on Remy and I've criticized his approach. Maybe it's a red flag that SatanLucy is framing things this way, but it didn't stick out to me since Lucy only takes things seriously about 10% of the time.

I mean, it's giving both sides a choice, right? People can choose to post offensive content, and other people can choose to avoid offensive content. Even if we vote to ban, that's still people choosing to avoid offensive content, it's just done via a ban. I think Remy's motivations are pretty bad, but I'd rather he be allowed to argue since there is some argumentative substance there behind the layers of inflammatory framing.

I mean we've discussed it before, but I think marking posts as offensive is the best way to contain the gray area.

I get the distinction you're making. But I think Remy, and posters like him, represent a bit of a gray area in this regard. Remy is trying to rage bait people, yes, but he is also trying to make serious arguments. I'm not sure there's a way to consistently enforce "don't try to rage bait people" because arguments will inevitably get heated.

You can still debate the rules on the forums.

I mean we go that in depth for every question on a 30-question survey, and if we just do trials, then the precedent isn't as clear as specific hypotheticals that set up a clear ruleset.

Mikal and I did give our args on the Debby survey. Surveys are better to an extent cause they set the law of the land and expectations accordingly and cover more ground. You're free to make whatever args you want when the surveys go out.

16. But it was only open for like a few days. For the first one which I only posted on Discord, 19.

I posted links to surveys on DebateCraft too though.