I looked at the rules, nothing says "no meta posts" last I checked, so nyah.
As the post title suggests, I've noticed in the past two days that many posters here are under-educated in debate. Not educated in formal debate, nor in casual debate, nor in internet debate. And all three are very different things, but all three I've seen people failing it.
People are arguing with others when they're both defining completely different topics but never disclosing this to the opposite side. People are arguing ad hominem. They are arguing from appeal to authority, appeal to morality, and appeal to disgust, instead of appealing to logic. Emotional pleas abound.
Being clear and reasonable, pointing out your views without ambiguity, not strawmanning their points, these are all important if you want to be taken seriously. Likewise, you should be able to take a position opposite your own, and argue its merits: If it is worth arguing about, then clearly there must be an opposing viewpoint that people ascribe to, and you should know your enemy. In fact, you should be able to make BETTER arguments than they can about their own side. How can you know your own view is legitimate if you have not explored the alternative's best offerings, after all?
Your aim in a debate is not usually to convince the other person, it is to convince readers, and audiences. They strongly believe their points, else, they wouldn't be there arguing them (except maybe as practice). Your arguments should be logically consistent within themselves, and with what you present as your own image, so to audiences you seem both intelligent and sincere. If your opponent clearly does not believe in their own argument, it will sabotage itself, you can point it out if you feel like it, but that does not damage the point they are making, it merely points them out as a hypocrite. A drug addict can tell you that drugs are bad, even as they're taking them, hypocrisy does not invalidate a point being made. Argue points, not people.
And if your goal is internet argumentation, then you should just link them a rickroll disguised as a study link like this: https://academic.oup.com/esr/article-abstract/18/2/199/586153, laugh at them, and move on with your life, because internet argumentation is ultimately just a contest of who can troll more, cogent points are not useful or expected.
So let it be resolved that: People here are unskilled at debate. Change my mind, by showing you are. Debate me on the topic that you are, indeed, able to have a debate, a discourse, a Socratic Dialogue, anything, without falling into every single pratfall in the book.
Let's discuss anything you want, in whichever of the three styles you want, and practice it. Not loli shit though, we've been doing that for days and it is clear people can't behave themselves over it and the goal is to practice, not to preach. No hard feelings to any users, because people will possibly be taking positions they themselves do not hold. Pick a topic, rant about why it's good or bad for a bit, and everyone else here will pick apart your argument, whether or not they agree with it. Goku is a Mary Sue. Chocolate is bad for society. We should model our ruling structure after lobsters. Anything.
What you totally don't understand is that this place is more like a bunch of people shooting shit than some serious debate club.
I don't think the goal was ever to show off debate technique. More like people sitting around a table, just saying shit.
Yeah, I don't think you could ever consider any form of social media a viable debate platform.
It's all just gotchas and whoever gets the momentum of support first.
Can't even argue with that one.
"Your aim in a debate is not usually to convince the other person, it is to convince readers, and audiences...."
And here is where the author goes wrong, for not being able to see the criminal angles.
Once you realize that a) you are an impressionable waif, and b) a significant percentage of ostensible "people just like you" online are in fact skeevy org fronts in panel vans handing out free candy -- then and only then does it start to make sense.
Yer maw's a whore, change my mind.
That's basically what it boils down to, not debate but argument.
But seeing everyone argue so... pointlessly... It was just very much enraging to me. And I know, raging at the internet is a foolish and unproductive act, but figured I'd toss out an experimental post and see if others had similar thoughts. It seems they don't, so the experiment is a success in that I found out some of the thoughts on the board and behavioral patterns, but it is a saddened success.
So I've looked at this thread several times thinking about it it ... why would I come here to debate you? That's what we want to get away from, all the "I'm right and you're an ignorant asshole" type of interaction.
We talk about stuff. Or not. It's a conversation about current events, and media, and politics; culture/society/and change; and the truthiness journalism, of which there is little.
Well since someone wants to bring up loli, minds is now banning things not just for loli but for "canonical ages of characters" (Even Jotaro). What did we fucking tell you . As Killroyomega said: "Loli is the canary in the coal mine. When it gets banned specifically it means that the site admins have begun ramping up ideological censorship and it will only grow and take over more concepts.Whatever you may think about about loli doesn't matter. What matters are the arguments used to nix it, and those arguments in favor universally give site admins grounds to expand censorship beyond simple pornographic or lewd content, unless ALL pornography is banned as a base. What you need to take away from this is that censorship on minds will snowball from here. It already was not a place for free discussions. Now that will get worse.
Also you sound like you are from a certain other sub
gasp indeed could tell from the way you talk in your other comments.
.... what are you talking about?
cool every time conservatives get roped in to fighting the left's war for them for more censorship then get surprised when it comes to bite them in the butt and then cry about it. this is what happens . "Just look at the UK and how far their expansion of suppression of speech is going, and remember that it all started with the labeling of certain kinds of porn as illegal because it was "in poor taste." Now if you misgender a tranny you're scum that needs to be in jail, and the national firewall to rival China's is almost ready."
That isn't even close to true. The distasteful porn ban was way after the first hate speech law. Also, misgendering a tranny isn't a crime, unless you literally go to their house and bother them about it like that TERF that got arrested did. What is a crime, unless the Law Commission grows a spine, is any criticism of women.
It wasn't the porn law that fucked them, they were fucked way before that, the moment May took power.
cool keep getting roped in to fighting their battles for them.
Do you mean tipping the delivery guy or tipping the shop when you pick up your order?
People do that? That's fucking stupid.
Same. I also paid cash and never asked for receipts in case the businesses or employees wanted some off-the-books cash.
Cash is king.
I never do that, is that a thing? The main reason I pick it up at a counter is that I do not want to leave a tip.
I only tip when the person is male. Fucking hilarious when the woman acts all cutesy and then loses it when you just pay and slam the door.
I agree that the delivery fee is bullshit, especially because it doesn't go to the driver. It's more like a tax on ordering delivery than anything else. Or rather, it's another way to get the wait staff paid even if you're not in the restaurant. That being said, if I tip 15%, my driver is going to get to me a lot faster than the next guy who doesn't tip at all. It might be wrong, but money talks.
That is not a custom here, so I can only throw generalities out.
Tipping is a means by which an employer pays employees without the money coming from their own coffers. In most areas of Canada and the United States, you may pay tipped employees less than the legal minimum wage, BUT they must be tipped enough to make up that difference. Those that do not, the employer MUST bolster their paycheque to make it minimum wage.
Or in other words, if no one ever tipped, the problem would resolve itself. And wait staff would be PISSED, because despite "being paid less than minimum wage", they're being paid far, FAR more then minimum in most cases. And restaurant owners would be pissed, as it would either cut into their profits, or they would need to raise their prices to offset the additional labor cost.
If only SOME people tip on takeout, but not all, the person is likely making close to minimum wage, and unlikely to be able to negotiate a raise, because it is tip-based. If EVERYONE tipped on takeout, their wages would be quite comfortable, for a successful restaurant. If NO ONE tipped (or very, very few), the company would need to actually pay their employees by law, which could offer negotiation room on salaries.
So more or less, it is rational to tip on takeout because other, less rational people ALSO tip on takeout, and the success level of the employee is highly dependent on an all-or-nothing setup, and I make a big assumption that the success level of the employee matters in any way to you.
You're mom
pwnd
Top debating skill since high school.
Try me.
Aww, TheImpossible1, you pick the best subjects! You're a treasure of the board.
Alright! Casual style. So I'll assume the first bit is metaphorical, a framing lens. I think the obvious counter-side would boil down to the argument of "don't give your opponent weapons that they could use on you down the line", but the obvious counter-argument to that we both know exists is "they're making weapons anyways", because, we both know, they are.
The reason they gained so much power, is people blindly believed them. As you say, your first solution to come to mind is to lock them out of society, because society is just arbitrarily believing women. If they didn't, such a measure wouldn't come to mind. For purpose of debate, this seems to me like a false assignment of blame. The male simps of all eras share not just equal measure, but greater measure, for the feminist incursion, and their isolation and exclusion from decision-making processes would allow the highly contrasting opinions of the feminist movement to play shai'tan, to play the opposite advocate to existent society, without the risk of those opinions being taking as something inscrutible. Thus you can keep in mind the opposing viewpoints, with minimalized risk.
Oddly for a gynophobic person, your arguments often assign too much agency to women, and near zero to men. Women plan and plot and scheme, and men merely react to the incoming stimuli. Altering the second part of that equation seems to me to be a better solution that addressing the first.
Wolves play an important role in ecosystems, even if killing wolves is a quick solution to a problem, it can lead to ecological issues down the line. Not letting bleating sheep congregate around the wolves resolves a farmer's problems almost as well, and doesn't risk the ecological balance as much.
Point to audience: Validate opponent's view, do not belittle it. Suggest alternative lines of thought, point out any gaps in evidence that may present themselves. Don't ever reject a premise out-of-hand.
That's a fair point, but in my opinion, the simps are a product of a feminized education, not a genuine political leaning like feminists. As such, it doesn't seem fair to blame them for the conditions of their childhood creating such pathetic pushovers.
Do we even need feminist opinions in society? Is there ever a situation where their voice makes things better?
Well, I just consider society as it stands today. Most men are conditioned by school and upbringing to pretty much worship women. If anyone is to be held accountable for this, is it really fair to place blame on those that were doomed from birth to be placed in a gynocentric system?
We can blame men for being cucked, but that isn't fair. Why not blame the people who are actively causing problems over those who passively allow it because their resistance was broken at the age of 11.
Hell, if I hadn't had a mother who fought the school for years to stop me getting drugged, I'd probably be a fucking Labour voter in the United Femdom or a fucking tranny, like most of my old classmates from primary, who are either one or the other. I'm not as old as everyone thinks I am, hence why I haven't achieved most of my stated goals for my life yet.
Ok, I'll bite.
Goku can't be a Mary Sue, because the series is about him in the first place. I suppose the kids who saw the series out of order tend to think it was meant to be some sort of ensemble, but it's not. If you watch it from the beginning, the first character we meet is Goku. It's his Hero's Journey, and how he grew from a little orphaned kid into someone who battles with gods.
Honestly, the 90s kids who were stuck watching this stuff out of order, I've no idea how they made sense of DBZ without having seen the original Dragon Ball.
N
A
The conviction that the opponent's viewpoint is immoral and disgusting regardless of whether their argument is factually correct or not.
Any benign thing, when uttered by a feminist, automatically becomes wrong and evil.
They're defending jacking it to drawings of children.
What? Do they expect a gold star for it being drawings?
they're anime characters not "drawings of children"
Oh, we're still talking about the loli thing. Yeah, those people are lunatics, but at the same time, seeing the PH takedown via the idea of "simulated rape" does give them a point.
Do people miss my "feminists are planning genocide" posts yet?
That's never what they argue, though. There are maybe one or two people in that thread who think banning loli is bad because it can lead to other things being banned as well. The majority of them think it's bad because they like loli. It's ridiculous.
I hadn't ventured into that thread, but the only argument that makes sense to me is the idea that the opposition could call anything loli and ban it.
I don't even know what loli is but it's an undeniable fact that every time the woke cultists and their overlords find something that can bend people to their will, they then expand the definition obscenely to include anything they want. Everything is white supremacy etc.
Loli is drawn cartoon porn featuring kids. It's fucking weird. Imagine someone drawing Lisa Simpson naked. That's what it is.
Yeah, exactly. That's the only argument that makes sense. Ban one thing and watch the definition expand.
We've all seen many things (speech, art, products, history, people) be banned because it hurts people's feelings, is "gross," it's violence (it's not violence), or any other of a large list of reasons. This doesn't end, that's the problem. It's not just an issue of other things being conflated into something that's banned (which does happen), it's the problem that once something's banned for trivial reasons, the principle has been set and soon more bans follow for more and more trivial reasons. This is something that you've all seen over the years. It's a large part of the reason why everything's so f*cked up right now.
This particular thing is disgusting, and it would be so easy to remove it, but that's never the end. The door's now opened, and you're no longer in control of what goes through it. That's why it's important to protect that which few want to protect, that which is undesirable, because of the precedent removing it sets.
Jesus faggot we get it you need to virtue signal to you hide your kiddy diddling but take it somewhere else we don’t want to hear your retarded leftist screeching.