Savant

Not if they were born in the US. A descendant or child of migrants who has never been outside the US is native to the US. Can't really be native to a place you've never been. If you go back far enough, the Native Americans are from elsewhere too.

If you can vote on ultrarated debates in the queue, that will help move things along.

Why would I post "Is Profit theft?" again? I already posted it once. Idk why you would want to post the same thing over and over again. If you want people to give more responses long-term, then I suggest submitting your argument to the argument database.

It's cause this post is mostly AI written, not just the boring title.

Also there are ways to make titles interesting without rage bait. I don't think my titles are super clickbaity but I usually get a few responses, you should be able to verify that.

And again, if you get people's attention but not a productive discussion all that happened was people's time being wasted.

Thank you

Depends how broadly we're looking at "written debate." People still argue on social media all the time. For the debate.org brand of more structured written debate, DebateCraft is the only game in town to my knowledge, so the question is really "Is DebateCraft less active than debate.org was?" Which I think it very much is, but it's also a new site. Additionally, I think the quality of debate has gone up. People who were on debate.org are probably having the same debates on Reddit, but I think the number of high-quality debates has gone up with UltraRated tournaments. Back on ddo and DART, high-quality debates were a pretty rare event, but here there are usually a few going on at any given time.

I'm not sure if you're ignoring a per capita comparison

I'm not, rate means per capita.

I think a more fair comparison might be overall murder rate, since the gun ownership argument is that even with gun control, people would just switch to other methods for murder. Now, even then, the US still ranks above most similar countries for murder rate, and I agree with your overall position I think, but I do think that's a fairer way to make the comparison.

Stock trading is also zero sum, but that doesn't stop people from participating.

And losing elo isn't even losing anything in reality, it's a game. Plenty of people like playing games. People who participate in ultrarated are usually decent debaters even if they lose and they get better with experience, so I'd say in terms of "honor" or whatever, even people at 1500 in ultrarated are ahead of the curve.

Although a future formula might account for learning with matches and give like an extra point or two after your first few ultrarated matches.

I mean it's the same with chess. And the way elo works, most ppl will end up going against people at a skill level where they'll lose half the time.

There are times to turn the other cheek and there are times to do eye for an eye.

You're not getting back at anybody by having false beliefs or unproductive conversations, you're just making yourself dumber. Eye for eye has nothing to do with this.

Proof that I'm a moderate

That's an average, you have extreme left and extreme right beliefs. "Women should be banned from voting" is well outside the Overton window.

Because the owner of DART didn't renew the domain, and do got infested with spam bots. Had nothing to do with politics.

What about YouTube? Or Modern Day Debate? Those have people from all over the political spectrum. I think a platform being set up specifically for debate (as opposed to like reddit or 4chan) means it's going to need people to disagree on big issues and will have some diversity of opinion.

Regardless, I don't know of any site that has held referendums and trials and offensiveness markings for self curation to the extent we have; we may be able to achieve a third outcome besides the two you're describing.

No, votes are still being assigned. And it has one vote already.

Maybe the idea is that the motive for killing one race is hate plus racism, which is worse than just hate. And if they're not gonna actually kill people, well they might still be racist to people. Although ppl who want human extinction might still be jerks to everyone.

Yeah I always wondered about this. People might assume that if you say no lives matter it's a joke, but if you're dead serious then it's basically wanting genocide against every race, which isn't exactly better than wanting genocide against one race.

I mirror them to an extent.

I don't really think it makes sense to mirror them at all, there's no reason not to believe what's objectively true and do whatever the most productive thing is. Being correct is primarily for your own benefit.

Women can say, "Men should do better" and nobody cares.

I would say the same thing about their generalization that I'm saying about yours. If other people have wrong beliefs or unproductive habits, and you mirror your beliefs or habits in response, you're not punishing them, you're punishing yourself. Even if they get away with being wrong, you being equally wrong doesn't punish them.

If I think you're secretly an elephant, and so you decide to believe I'm secretly an elephant, all you did was make yourself dumber. It doesn't do anything to correct my false belief that you are an elephant.

On the survey? There should be an announcement under your notifications with a link. Anyway, you go here:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeIHQR640bwjebKIuujdVtSM3stxxkSZ2QhR7s0VEy5aD7tKw/viewform

For the trial, voting will open once the debate ends.

For reference, here are the recent survey results. Going forward you're gonna be limited on how many rage bait posts you can make on the same topic per month, though the rules are still very lenient.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jKypPn0IC2Jd_nuEAimDtt9eK4mlmM_0UTyvvweDgGM/edit?usp=drivesdk

But we won't enforce this retroactively, so you won't be penalized for breaking a rule before the rule existed.

My profile says I'm moderate.

Oftentimes that just means you have both far left and far right opinions.

Telling someone to do better isn't advocating for their execution.

True, but the phrasing you use often implies you're holding a whole group collectively responsible for the actions of a subset. Which is still extreme. I know it's not what you mean, but you could see why it seems that way.

You're probably right, but I've noticed that because solidarity is dead in America, the people who hate me have more energy than those who want me to have free speech.

Which is why I intend to get out the vote so as many people as possible are represented. On the community referendums/surveys, free speech usually wins. Although I don't think you tend to vote on those.

Then why do they come here?

For the non rage bait posts.

Are people really that sensitive?

Or they don't want to waste time debating someone they think holds an extreme racist opinion. Most people will take your title at face value, you haven't really given them a reason not to.

the fact that I even have a trial

You have a trial cause the community voted for that after hearing you were accused of stuff. You haven't even been punished yet, and it's mostly here to set a precedent. The trial will likely reinforce free speech more than anything. In my opinion you'll probably win because the community is very pro free speech, I support the trial cause it's better to be transparent about what mods are discussing.

Well, hopefully. The danger is it incentivizes the party in power to make it biased or ask questions their side is more likely to know the answers to.

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.

Realistically, people will just assume you dislike them and move on. People tend to assume bad faith online and your post will just reinforce that for them. Can't really rely on other people to have all the patience and do the work to figure out what you really mean.

The same immigration questions that every immigrant has to take to become a US citizen with votting rights.

The immigration process isn't famous for being efficient and non corrupt.

I would expect Jewish people to be angry initially, but then they read it and they think, "Oh; he has a point."

I don't think they would though cause I had to ask you several clarifying questions before your opinion started to seem somewhat reasonable. Your post wasn't super clear that you weren't collectively targeting all Jews.

I'd make the exam required to vote, but passing the exam isn't required as not passing the exam just means you can't vote; you won't get put in prison. This means people who genuinely are apolitical don't take the exam and they don't vote once every 1160 days. They can watch TV for all I care.

As I said, my only concern is corruption. Someone will need to decide on the questions, and literacy tests have been abused in the past.

My boring title will probably attract small amounts of conversation compared to my clickbait titles.

Maybe, but I think the conversation will be a more productive one. And people who would be sucked into rage bait may spend their time elsewhere doing something productive instead.