CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
it's not much of a challenge, dude. but that's cause jake is more ideological than he is focused on the issue. and he resorts to the ad hominem (like jessald) and the down vote (like janus complex).
johnbonham knows all of this, so he put himself up against jakej. also, he's a pretty good debater.
There are times when you need to look at the person making the argument. For example, it's wouldn't be worthwhile to research a claim by Neo-Nazis that Jews are inferior people.
Strictly speaking I do use ad-hominem sometimes, but that's just as a crap-filter. I don't have time to research every bs claim spouted by every idiot on this site. If I was debating someone with a reputation for honesty, someone who actually did a little research from time to time, only then would it be worthwhile to address their arguments and ignore everything else.
One of the reasons I come to this site is to influence others. I try to be polite and respectful. But some people won't hear you unless you bring out the hammer.
Basic psychology my ass. You just made that up. Is it true? Is it false? Who knows?? Who cares?? It sounds reasonable so let's just throw it out there as though it's a fact.
Goddamn this is why debating you is so frustrating.
My instinct tells me you're wrong. People respond to both negativity and positivity. You need both the carrot and the stick.
Now let me go look it up... (I always have to do all the work, don't I?) ::googles::... ah, here we are...
"While rewards alone have little influence on cooperation, punishments have some. When the two are combined the effect on cooperation is dramatic, suggesting that rewards and punishments are complements in producing cooperation."
i'm guessing you might be talking about negative and positive reinforcement.
the thing is, according to BF SKINNER (well known behavioral psychologist) the only way to get someone to actually do something is by using positive reinforcement.
and, in debate terms, people will not respond well to insults. it doesn't work that way. lets say i was not a logical thinker and just read what you posted about me. I would take it in offense and just spout shit back at you. there would be NO accomplishment there.
"the only way to get someone to actually do something is by using positive reinforcement"
Oh, come on. Obviously that's not the only way to get somebody to do something. If I put a gun to your head and say, "Do it," my guess is you'll do it. Well maybe not a stubborn ass like you, but most people would :) If you hit somebody in the head every time they kick a kitten, eventually they'll stop kicking kittens. If I tell you to stop spewing bullshit every time you present an opinion as a fact, eventually you'll stop spewing bullshit.
Now I do like that you actually mentioned BF SKINNER (in all caps, lol). This gives me something I can use to verify your statements and makes your argument much more useful. Looking into him further, I find that rewards do seem to be more powerful than punishments. However, if you look at the link I provided earlier, it's clear that when rewards and punishments are combined the results are even better than rewards alone.
Lastly, I really don't think I was being all that insulting. I was expressing some anger at you for never providing citations and explaining why I felt that way. Perhaps you are just being overly sensitive?
what you described were negative reinforcement, not punishment.
putting a gun to someone's head is not a punishment. but calling someone, lets say, a stubborn ass is.
yes, negative reinforcement works perfectly, as you've described. that's why we use it in coerce interrogation. but punishment hardly works. all it can do is tell a child or animal what not to do next time.
Well if you want to get all technical about it, I'd say putting a gun to someone's head is neither reinforcement nor punishment, but compulsion. My point with that example was that you were wrong when you said positive reinforcement was the only way to get someone to do something.
"but punishment hardly works."
As usual you've thrown out an opinion as though it's fact without any sort of reference at all. I'm going to try this one more time, nicely: Please provide some kind of reference when you make assertions like this.
Also, as usual, you're wrong. In many circumstances punishment can be effective: http://allpsych.com/psychology101/reinforcement.html "Punishment, when applied immediately following the negative behavior can be effective..." See also the study I mentioned a few arguments ago which explains that punishments combined with rewards provides an even greater improvement in behavior than rewards alone.
as i've said, when raising children or pets, punishment works. but only on teaching that certain subject that the action being punished is wrong. it doesn't teach what is right.
I don't think name calling is going to persuade anybody. The point is to discourage bad behavior. Also, it gives me lulz. (But mainly the first thing.)
I think emotions provide a nice complement to logic. They allow people to connect on a deeper level.
Is this going to be an actual 1-on-1 debate? I remember Lawnman suggested he moderate that kind of thing, but I don't know if it was actually started. I'd love to see this happen, and since two people are mentioned here, let's let them have at it :]
I'm gonna say Jake, cuz I've never seen John actually debate anyone. He mostly just posts chit-chat or he states an opinion and then leaves. No offense, John :)
No matter how well you argue, he will not agree and he will downvote you every step of the way... but you know what, if you make 222 arguments and he downvotes all of them, you'll be one point ahead of him ;)
Do you seriously think that I have never agreed with somebody I was debating against? I do that all the time! And I admit my mistakes. And I don't down vote every single reply.
So basically everything you just said about me is false.
I don't seriously think that you have never agreed with somebody you were debating against. You do that all the time! And you admit your mistakes. And you don't down vote every single reply.
So basically everything I just said about you is true?
Okay, so there are 2 people on the other side tagged as johnbonham32 and the say nothing about why I would lose and he would win so...... I guess I can do the same over here.
I see what you mean Jake and you're right BUT...as I said in my post, which I than added on to, this is not a fair debate. Naming names never is and what for. There are always better debaters than you or me and always will be. From my end, please don't take it personally but I do think that Tony is a better debater than you are overall. No offense at all meant.
I haven't seen many of johnbonham32's posts, so I can't see why he wouldn't win. However, I've seen many of Jakej's posts and view him as a good debater. I can see why Jakej would win.
