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.
Do you mean tipping the delivery guy or tipping the shop when you pick up your order?
People do that? That's fucking stupid.
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.