Savant

My point is you could clarify your belief in the first place when it's something people would find reasonable, you're choosing to make it rage-baity on purpose.

Might make sense to have some kind of exam as long as it doesn't get corrupted. I've thought for a while that we should have a system modeled after juries, where some citizens watch different factions debate/cross-examine each other on the most significant issues and then those citizens give an "informed" vote where their thousand votes counts for like 20% of the makeup of congress. Then other citizens can delegate their vote to the jury and it gets split up along the same lines as the jury voted. So overall they could end up representing like 40-60% of the vote.

These clarifications seem obvious to include though. Why not just say "anyone who chooses the bear shouldn't be allowed to vote"? By just attacking women collectively, most ppl are just gonna call you a sexist and ignore your opinion.

I wouldn't even know to ask for these clarifications except that I've seen so many people express their opinions in the most inflammatory way possible and then backtrack to something more reasonable they could have just clarified at the start.

They choose the polar bear over the strange man. Think about that.

The majority of women do this when you specify it's a polar bear? I don't think the majority choose the bear even, read something indicating it's just the majority of liberal women. Should women who don't choose the bear be allowed to vote? What about men who say similarly dumb things?

But boring titles like that don't get eyeballs on them

Why are eyeballs good if it doesn't lead to a productive conversation? If anything rage bait takes people's time that could've been spent more productively elsewhere. Also I think people are mostly desensitized to you now, you aren't getting too many eyeballs.

I think it's an effective way of communicating my ideas.

Except it took me drilling you repeatedly to figure out what your specific point even was. If you criticize Jews in general, the criticism is spread over a larger group including people you don't mean to target. Costs you nothing to specify the specific target and why religion is relevant (some stat showing disproportionate impact). If I said "humans need to do better cause of murder" that's less helpful than "criminals need to do better" which is even still less helpful than "murderers need to do better."

Women can say, "Men need to do better" for stuff that's not criminal (like not showering). Blacks can say, "Whites need to do better". Saying a group needs to do better is NOT what made Hitler horrible.

I mean they can just like you can make this post, but I think it's equally unhelpful.

What made Hitler bad was NOT saying mean words about Jews, it was getting Jews (and other people) murdered. Mean words lead to murder virtually none of the time.

Well I didn't accuse you of murder or compare you to Hitler so idk where this is coming from.

As for your other examples, just cause there's other inflammatory stuff doesn't mean this post isn't also inflammatory.

People are commonly poor estimators of the deadliness of certain animals. I don't think that should be a prereq for voting though. If you're going by intelligence why not just measure IQ or give a test?

I speak in generalities.

For the purpose of being inflammatory or because you think it's an effective way of communicating your ideas? Pretty much everyone else assumed you were criticizing all Jews collectively, and if I hadn't pressed you on your specific position, people still wouldn't know what you mean. Right now there's a trial going on and you're in danger of being banned because a lot of people are taking your inflammatory posts at face value.

It's not an issue of offensiveness to me, this style of post just doesn't lead to productive arguments. If you'd made a post with stats about Jewish influence in media, noted specific individuals responsible and talked about the correlation rather than just saying "Jews need to do better," I think a more productive conversation would have been had.

It's not over reaction; it's a rights adjustment.

So making a dumb choice in a hypothetical situation is an overreaction but taking voting rights from half the population isn't?

That's what I meant. I can say, "Republicans control the senate" without implying that every republican in the US is a senator.

Because the Senate runs strictly by majority rule. In the media, even a minority of the press can influence how people think.

But fine. If your argument is there are problems with the media and some people causing those problems are Jewish, then I suppose that's true to an extent, even though I wouldn't put it in quite the same terms.

Taking voting rights from women based on the bear thing seems like the same kind of overreaction as choosing the bear in the first place.

So what you're criticizing, really, is the media. We could argue about to what extent Jews or non Jews have influence over it, but do the "Jews" you're criticizing include the ones who don't do the specific things you're criticizing? Or are you just criticizing some Jews (and presumably some non Jews as well)?

If you're argument is that Jews have disproportionate influence over some things, then clarify that explicitly. The vague generalities make it hard for me to tell what your point is.

3 days to make an argument, 3 rounds of args for each side, potential topics are here. Tournament would start when everyone has enough badges from voting on debates in previous rounds and submitting topics. The way it works is to do an UltraRated debate like this each person has to vote on a few debates from the previous tournament to ensure each debate gets 3 votes.

It's a bit complicated, but bear with me. To vote on UltraRated debates, go to your profile, then badges, then take vote quiz to earn vote badges. Then once you pass the quiz, you'll be able to vote on UR debates, and under badges you can click "Find a debate to judge." It will assign you a debate to vote on and give you 3 days. I recommend making sure you will be able to complete a quality vote within three days before asking it to assign you one. Additionally, you'll have to take a topic quiz and then propose three topics, but that part should be much easier.

Someone can make a fallacy but still win in other points though, one bad point doesn't invalidate the rest of their case.

Well prev tournament not being over is why I started this one, we need the votes.

Any interest?

Any interest in joining round 6 of the tournament?

Actually this one is in progress already but I'll sign you up for round 6.

Please sign up here to participate in the sixth round of the ultrarated tournament. Anyone can join even if you haven't done previous rounds of the tournament. Just a warning up front: you will have to vote on up to three debates to earn badges before you can get matched up and do an ultrarated debate, as several of them are still in the queue.

1. Savant

2. whiteflame

3. Kohai

4. Bones

5. LancelotDuLac

6. SkepticalOne?

7. SatanLucy

8. Lunatic

9. NoAhLeEcLaRk

10.

Backup:

1. Leaning

You can see it free if you get a free trial of Instacart+ which comes with Peacock.

Any of you seen this new movie?

Avoided this thread for a bit cause I hadn't seen it yet lol. Just saw it and it's my favorite movie since KPop Demon Hunters. Turns out Obsession is on Peacock, and Peacock comes free with Instacart+, and you can get a 14-day free trial of Instacart+. So that's how I saw it.

Accusing others of “always projecting” might be one of the easiest ways to accidentally prove the point.

I mean it's not really an argument. At best the debate ends in a tie because neither side is really backing up their case. Worst case scenario would be something like:

Person A: My economic policy is better. Here's a meta-analysis of thirteen studies that finds policies similar to mine do better than policies similar to yours.

Person B: Lol no, you're just projecting.

I'm saying back in 2016 before he won the primary, Republicans could have picked a candidate who had a better track record of making moral choices. Trump was not their only option even if they liked his policies. Is he popular? Sure he is. That doesn't mean he's the best person to want to run the country though.

I ask if the moderation team will abide by the vote

It's my understanding that the mods intend to abide by the vote. I mean, I know I will. Technically I think Airmax could override anything, and below him the mods do have authority on how to enforce stuff, and it's come down to close votes in the past and hours of back and forth, but we've never explicitly gone against the community so far, and I'm hoping it stays that way.

Of course, after the vote, Remy could go make an explicit threat and we'd have to ban him, but presuming he doesn't change anything after the trial, then yeah, pretty sure we'll be going by the results of that.

override the vote should it result in apparent bias

People are allowed to be biased in this case, it's not a standard judgment of debate skill. The arguments are just there to make sure people get both sides of the story. Although if someone makes a bunch of alts we would discard those votes.

For people who don't naturally pick up on social queues, I think this is probably useful to an extent. However, I've still seen people crash and burn with these because they don't really understand how to pick up context and make it sound natural. But if someone is really awkward, not gonna blame them for trying to get better.

It's all about the sixes: make six figures, be six feet, have six inches, and a six-pack

I mean, in more traditional relationships, only height and money really matter off the bat, since they're not gonna see your abs or know the size of your privates until you've been together for a while. And while those things do matter, I think you can still do okay without them if you play the numbers game (cast a wide net) and optimize stuff you can control like outfit/photo quality. I think most women would prefer a well-framed photo of a guy in a suit than a mirror shirtless pic.

If you have the money to hire a professional photographer and a beautician and rent a suit, it might be worth it to get the best pics possible for a dating profile. Then pick the best ones with Photofeeler. One time cost but then you've got the pictures for a few years at least, and the photo quality might count for as much as your looks. Never tried it but I always assumed that was the optimal strategy. Online dating is harder for men in terms of numbers, but then benefit is very few people are putting that kind of effort into optimizing their photos, so you can probably do well. Especially if you pick an app less male-skewed like Hinge and filter by religion, the numbers might be more in your favor. Single women outnumber single men in Christian dating spaces.

Seriously, it is hard to find a woman who doesn't have too much sexual angst, knows what she wants, is mature, respects herself, and is not entitled.

Do you think women don't have the same concerns?

Well, most people are straight, so most women wouldn't be as concerned with finding a woman to date as men would be.

Semantics aside, did his post imply women don't have similar concerns dating? The post is written from a male perspective cause he's a man, but I don't see anything implying these problems only exist from that perspective.

How do I find a woman who does not think marriage is slavery?

Don't be a domineering partner.

Being a good partner requires having a partner, and Skipper's problem seems to be with finding one in the first place.

So when the government decides to give benefits to people who are employed, they don't realize that is subsidizing the payroll? Do they think the company is going to pay above the market rate for some reason? Companies pay the lowest price they can for the labor they want, if the government gives handouts to their employees I'm not sure why they'd expect the company to stop negotiating for the best price they can get. Someone making less than $66,000 with a large family might still be getting govt assistance, some jobs obviously pay less than that. So a part-time employer might have to start paying significantly more for the same labor just to avoid the govt "subsidizing" their wages...and why would they do that when the government is specifically choosing to do so?

The 'negotiation' is between the employer and the employee - not the employer, the employee, and taxpayers.

I'm just saying it's not a loophole, it's something the government would obviously consider when writing the law.

perhaps corporations shouldn't be able to avoid paying taxes.

Is this theft? Maybe not. Is it right? No.

Not defending tax avoidance but that's straying a bit from profit being theft. Fair points though.

"Open borders" is one of those obvious oxymorons overused to the point where it's as meaningless as Canada's borders.

But it can indicate the area in which other laws are enforced. Or all laws, if the open borders are legal. Immigration enforcement isn't the only thing a government does.