Savant

If you don't want a ban, why did you vote for a tie instead of Con?

"There should be no mods."

Then how do we stop bots? Or spammers? Or people posting threats and other illegal stuff? Or remove votes that fail to meet the vote rubric?

I mean I don't think he will be banned anyway, but if he's willing to do more elaborate posts with more comedy, then I'm sure people would be less annoyed by him.

Yeah I agree. There's also a benefit to showing that you at least considered potential counterarguments, which is what I try to do. I mean I've had plenty of hot takes but people don't typically get offended by them.

You have a point about wylted not being banned, but I think people just find him more entertaining so they give him a pass. If more people thought you were funny you would probably get away with it, but I think you need to work on your material a bit. It's definitely a bias, but humor is subjective. I think you are trying to be something like RuckaRuckaAli, but I think Rucka does a better job on the comedy side of things beyond just ragebaiting.

At one point I think you made a post like "My friend is pregnant so I got her a coat hanger....so she can hang clothes for the baby." That was your best material imo, if your posts were more like that no one would be trying to ban you.

"given enough responses"

Yes, because you elaborate on your position and back it up. And I'm simply telling Remy to take all the elaboration it took to convince the AI and put it into his initial post.

AI has strict content standards and is not gonna easily agree with what he says. And I was saying to ask AI for counterarguments, not just tell it to agree. Also yes it's easier to convince AI but I don't think most of his arguments meet that bar yet.

"I already can convince Chat GPT of my positions."

Can you link to the chat? Because whatever arguments your using to convince AI have gotta be more nuanced than what you're posting here.

"What's my only option for engaging with them? Pointing out their hypocrisy (and not expecting them to change)"

They don't change because you don't try to make them understand WHY they are wrong. You reduce incredibly complicated issues into accusations of hypocrisy, which doesn't work as long as there are differences between the situations. Also your posts tend to address an unnamed hypocrite who never actually ends up responding to the post, which limits how much is actually being learned. Instead of saying "it's hypocritical to support x and not y," either make a post arguing that x is bad or a post arguing that y is good on its own terms.

Here's a tip: Before you make a post accusing people of hypocrisy, put it into ChatGPT and ask it to argue against you. For a few rounds. This is not advice I would give most people, but in your case you are failing to anticipate pretty common counterarguments that an AI would likely come up with. Assume any argument the AI makes is an argument a human will make, and address that argument in advance or steelman your case so the AI starts to see your point. If the AI misunderstands your case, clarify it until it doesn't. Until you can convince a chatbot, you don't have a shot convincing a human. Once you've exhausted all the responses an AI can give, then there's a point putting your argument in front of another actual human, and make sure to include all the clarification you had to give to the AI. If the AI refuses to discuss the sensitive topic cause you insist on putting it in rage-baity terms, use stansa or another uncensored model.

I made basically the same point in this post. You can judge for yourself whether it is less inflammatory.

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/xn/gender-equality-seems-like-an-untestable-hypothesis?page=1

I think it might make people more understanding if you anticipated people's responses and how they were likely to read your post, and then clarified in your post what you meant or why you are using the definitions of terms that you are. Otherwise many people are not gonna get what your actual point is.

I oppose pushing Remy off the site if only because when I steelman his points, I can see some substance there occasionally even when I disagree with his overall conclusions. Now one could argue that not everyone will be able to dig into his points and extract the substance, but then I'd question whether someone is able to learn from arguments in general if they can't distinguish bad points from good points. I think debate kind of depends on the idea that we can identify a good argument when we see it. I'd rather Remy just make his points in a clearer and less inflammatory way, but I don't think that's gonna happen.

I also hypothesize that to really "solve" an issue or get close to finding the truth as possible, we would need to exhaust the tree of arguments and counterarguments as much as is feasible. That means we need to be aware of potential bad arguments, because if we avoid hearing those, then the tree isn't exhausted, the issue isn't solved, and someone can use them as an objection because we never bothered to develop responses to those bad arguments.

"Everyone that Kohai cited that finds me offensive is on the left"

Mag1cman is on the right, and so is Greatful I believe.

I mean the only similarity between the names is that they start with H, and they write pretty differently, so I would guess different people.

Was it this one? I believe it was Hurried4675, not Hyper.

http://web.archive.org/web/20260413213646/https://www.debateart.com/debates/5770-traditional-knowledge-justifiable-obtainability

Hyper debated with Novice? Couldn't find it on Wayback machine, but it didn't have all Novice's debates. How much of it do you remember?

That said, Hyper may have just gotten better. Have you read any of their newer debates?

https://www.debatecraft.com/users/Hyper/debates

Hyper and Alyssa are some promising newcomers whom I'd love to see go against Bones or whiteflame. Granted, I've only seen a few debates from them, but if they've had pretty strong performances.

I agree with your broader point, but Kohai did link to a bunch of Remy's posts in his first round.

Typically in edge cases like this, we discuss with each other before deciding whether to remove or not. I would say that behind Mikal, I tend to be the most laissez faire, followed by WF. Kohai has been wanting to take stronger action against Remy for a while, but nowadays, individual mods don't really go out of their way to unilaterally make these decisions on their own, hence the trial.

Kohai didn't accuse you of using AI, he was saying he used it.

Debates are easier when both sides are putting in effort to make their arguments understandable. You're expecting the Jewish people who read your post to do all the work of interrogating/cross-examining you to find out what you really mean when taking it at face value it just looks like you want to troll/harass them rather than having a debate.

My earlier comment was that I was surprised you didn't mention the lawyers being Jewish, given the stereotypes about Jewish people being good lawyers. I believe Jewish people are overrepresented in legal practices, but I'm not sure why. It likely has to do with the Jewish cultural emphasis on literacy/debate.

Who is comparing you to Hitler? To my knowledge you're the only one bringing up the comparison and then trying to disprove it, but no one else made it in the first place.

" My attorney is very left wing and he has a good Elo."

Knowing you, I'm surprised you didn't make a comment about him being Jewish...although tbf the prosecuting attorney is also Jewish so it would be kind of a wash if it made a difference.

I wrote the poll, for reference. And while I did not vote for that option, I put it there because it represented one course of action that had been proposed. I don't see how adding that option was an abuse of mod power; on the contrary, it gave the choice to the community. And it was basically the least popular option if I recall.

In some of your criticisms, you seem to be conflating "the mods will have the community vote on whether or not to do this" with "the mods have decided to do this and it's tyrannical." Such as this trial. Having the community vote on what to penalize is as democratic as it's possible to get; if decisions were made behind closed doors it would be more abusive.

You mean "rear children," right?

If anyone wants more of Remy's side of the story, I recommend reading through our convo on this thread:

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/104/the-jews-need-to-do-better?comment_number=28

You can start at the linked comment or start at the beginning for full context. I disagree with Remy's reasoning for being inflammatory, but in his own way he does seem to think it serves a purpose.

Well, we'll try to get the word out.

Well then they're choosing to be neutral rather than go through the trouble of voting. And we're making it pretty easy in this case so no one's really got an excuse for not being represented.

But it's them CHOOSING to be neutral. Basically a vote for abiding by the existing vote.

Also yes I think Remy gets to vote.

Well, you could say that not voting is a vote in its own way. I do agree that more votes is better though, and maybe we should give the option of like a form for Discord-only users (obviously not counting anyone who also voted on DebateCraft). Cause the referendums always get a good chunk of responses, and this one is literally just one question.