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.
People's votes on Remy have been pretty consistent with the surveys though.
Code of conduct is gonna be updated to match survey results and trial verdict. We did have surveys a while back on Debby that said to ban, but mods showed leniency and just took her copy and paste abilities.
The free voting badges expire after a few days. I think ppl are just busy, but I'll try to spur them along.
I spoke with the other mods, and we are planning to make the CoC a lot more clear based on the outcome of this vote.
Thanks for voting!
When you get the chance to read the article, please do. And ask chatgpt to explain to you how the writer of the article would respond to your questions. I don't think your assumptions about the typical AI doom argument are accurate.
Interesting article for getting up to speed on the AI doom argument:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities
Was it the "X should be legal" one? The offending posts are removed I think so not sure if you'd be able to see them.
I know but you made a few different posts on that subject. You changed your view on all of them?
Out of curiosity, which post are you referring to and what changed? Cause you made a lot of them. (Obv not saying you gotta repeat anything that got you banned, you don't have to say verbatim.)
