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.
We should de-platform the disinformation dozen. Lives are at stake this pandemic won't ever end if we don't. Capitalism requires people to make products that add value. The disinformation dozen adds no value only subtracts and thus are anti-capitalistic grifters.
How will you feel if a loved one dies because you failed to act?
I feel that the better way to combat these rumor mongers is to expose them for the liars they are.
If we deny such filth a platform they will find a way to publicly claim that they are being gagged by big business organizations who are making $ billions from exploiting people's irrational fears of covid-19.
I am of the opinion that the mainstream media does not reveal the dangers of heeding the messages of death of these blackguards often enough.
"I feel that the better way to combat these rumor mongers is to expose them for the liars they are." Norwich
Multi-prong approach, there might be better ways, but that is irrelevant because multiple solutions are not mutually exclusive. For example we can prebunk by posting good info as well as de-platforming them. By de-platforming them we limit exposure. Remember, small children go on social media. Do we want 6 year olds to be expose to such disinformation?
Grifters were already claiming they are being gagged for years before covid-19 left the bat cave. This is part of their persecuted victim conspiracy thinking.
I'm not sure what else mainstream media can do. I am glad we agree that the disinformation dozen are filth.
That puts all the responsibility on the parents while the disinformation dozen make millions of dollars. No parent can watch their child 24/7. Only a small amount of time exposed to disinformation can cause harm.
"There are countless surveys showing the degree to which the public believes demonstrable nonsense, based on the misinformation."
Many websites have content restrictions of age 14 or so. I don't think the average 14 year old has developed the necessary critical thinking skills to resist misinformation either.
I do not believe that there exists on God's earth such a blazing idiot as you.
Dear fool, be advised that parents are responsible for their children and the onus is on them to ensure that their young offspring do not have access to any device which may be either physically or psychologically harmful.
In addition to to the function of responsible parenthood no six year old child could be able, or should be allowed to decide who and who does not recive a vaccination.
NAME ONE OF THE COUNTLESS SURVEYS TO WHICH YOU REFER.
SHOW ''THE NAMES OF THE PUBLISHERS/BROADCASTERS'' OF THESE SURVEYS, ALONG WITH ''THE DATES'' AND ''DEMOGRAPHICS'' OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE ALLEGED SOCIAL EVALUATIONS.
You are one of those stark ravening imbeciles as well as being a dangerous compulsive liar who ''makes it up as they go along'' and the likes of which this site has never experienced before.
Your argument is slothful induction. The evidence is overwhelming. I recommend reading Tom Nichols death of expertise for many examples of these surveys.
Here is one survey in a link about the non-sense Americans believe.
It has been well-documented that Russia has paid for hundreds of trolls to operate out of a single building formerly at 55 Savushkina Street in St. Petersburg since at least 2015." rationalwiki
To expect people to use critical thinking and individual responsibility against a firehose of misinformation is naive. Gish gallop is designed to be an argument from verbosity.
I do not believe that there exists on God's earth such a blazing idiot as you.
Dear fool, be advised that parents are responsible for their children and the onus is on them to ensure that their young offspring do not have access to any device which may be either physically or psychologically harmful.
In addition to the function of responsible parenthood no six year old child should be allowed to decide who and who does not recive a vaccination.
YOUR MADNESS IS BEYOND DESCRIPTION
NAME ONE OF THE COUNTLESS SURVEYS TO WHICH YOU REFER.
SHOW ''THE NAMES OF THE PUBLISHERS/BROADCASTERS'' OF THESE SURVEYS, ALONG WITH ''THE DATES'' AND DEMOGRAPHICS'' OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE ALLEGED SOCIAL EVALUATIONS.
You are one of those stark ravening imbeciles as well as a dangerous compulsive liar who ''makes it up as they go along'', the likes of which this site has never experienced before.
You are basically calling Steven Novella a liar since I quoted him with the countless surveys. Sciencebased medicine is one of the highest quality websites. A blog of doctors devoted to ending quackery.
Expertise should be respected. Yes, Steven Novella can be wrong, but he has others to fact check him. Even, if Novella is wrong he would likely retract his statement and even then it would be less wrong that a layperson's opinion.
At some point, further skepticism turns into straight denial.
"But the recent increase in vaccine refusals (for religious reasons and from fears created by misinformation) has decreased the herd immunity in many communities to where the disease can spread. " Apr 24, 2018Harriet A. Hall, MD
Misinformation causing harm is a well established fact. Not just related to vaccination but other subjects like Climate change. For example John Cook shows how misinformation causes a negative and polarizing effect at crankuncle:
No, I don't have the evidence you demand on hand. But, you are reaching impossible expectations territory. The chances of all the people and organizations I am referring to being incorrect is very low. The evidence I have provided is more than enough.
Finally, the disinformation dozen is violating Facebook's rules. All my argument is asking is for Facebook to enforce its own rules.
Denying anyone or any group a platform upon which to express their genuine or spurious viewpoint can and usually does add an emotional appeal to their argument and will attract support from those who will always side with those whom they perceive as the under dog.
You were over enthusiastic to seize the opportunity to use the banal and much over-used phrase;-''Multi-prong approach'' ( THAT TRITE,OLD-CHESTNUT SHOULD HAVE READ;- MULTIPRONGED APPROACH, YOU BENIGHTED CHARLATAN) which is totally out of context here as the ensuing words of your ill-chosen and misquoted cliche' are in the plural whereas my statement was in the singular.
I made reference to ''the better WAY'', and not better wayS.
Your implied assertion that small children of around the age of 6 will be deciding whether or not to have the anti-covid-19 vaccine automatically identifies you as a prize idiot who has a head full of mad-dog's shit.
Once again you've used an utterly out of context word, ''grifter'' as this is a name given to petty thieves such as pickpockets, swindlers and card sharps.
At no point was there any reference made to petty criminals nor anyone with a persecution complex.
Of course there have been countless numbers of people claiming to have had their 'message of enlightment' smothered by the dark forces of authoritarianism since time and memorial.
When did you start thinking that you had a monopoly on that commonly known fact?
What I want to know is were you infected at birth with one of the more severe, brain damaging social diseases by your whore mother or did one of her clients pass on his syphilis venerial disease whilst bumfucking you.
My advice to you shithead is to go and yodel up the canyon or some other such mindless pastime more commensurate with your arrested intellect.
Much of your post is simply ad hominem, I will skip those parts.
Paragraph one, I agree, that's why dishonest merchants use conspiracy thinking and the persecuted victim tactic, it persuades people to buy their deceptive products.
I used the phrase multi-prong because you said I feel that the better way to combat these rumor mongers is to expose them for the liars they are." You never even bothered to explain what those better ways were.
I showed that your statement was a red herring because of the lack of mutually exclusiveness. A person could say "we should mask" and another could state "vaccination is better."
The second statement would be a red herring because ideally we would mask and vaccinate to protect against covid.
As for small children receiving disinformation it could make them less likely to want the vaccine, resisting their parents and pharmacist. Second, if the parents are hesitant the child might not push for the vaccine when they should.
Third, those children will grow up eventually and the harm will be done. Remember Joe Camel and how effective it was to advertise to children? Toy ads targeting children work, because children often can wear down their parents.
"In other words, are they true believers or scamming grifters?" By Orac
Post date
September 29, 2021
The term grifter has been used to refer to quack tycoons for a while now.
Trying to impress me with your misplaced and wrongly spelt quotes along with your embarrassingly banal terms is not having any bearing on me whatsoever.
You're a phoney whose attempts at debate fail due to your reliance on the use of hackneyed cliche's which you introduce into your replies regardless of their irrelevance to the point you're trying to make.
Having employed over 100 people for in excess of 30 years I can spot a phony immediately by their inappropriate use of words and poorly constructed sentences.
Little man, you are the epitome of a charlatan.
The pretentious and passe' term ad hominemWENT OUT WITH NELSON'S EYE and is only used by pseudo, wannabe academics.
You have never once presented any rational argument or counter-argument onto this forum.
Do try to keep up old bean, and if you cannot please try very hard to grow up, as in your present state you're a waste of my time.
If you don't like the wording, take it up with the guy who made the debate
Hello r:
It's not the wording.. It's the Constitution.. It only address's what the government can or can't do.. Free, private companies, by law, are NOT required, to give anybody a platform that wants one..
Just because you're not required to platform people, doesn't mean you're required to de-platform them. If you're asking me whether or not we should de-platform people for "disinformation," my answer is "no". Telling me a company isn't constitutionally obligated to platform people is a non-sequitur.
Yes, you can call anything disinformation. The word had more meaning before it was hijacked by ironically malicious governments mostly Russia, and quack tycoons spreading disinformation.
Sort of like fake news websites calling mainstream media fake news. As for illegal, there are limits on free speech. For instance there are anti-quack and fraud laws.
Often, lobbyists for the wellness industry will weaken or subvert these laws to protect quacks. Even if what they are doing is legal, it should be illegal since it is a form of fraud and quackery.
Just as ponzi scheme and other forms of thievery are illegal. For more info on laws that protect consumers I recommend quackwatch.org
The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Yes, I have. You said as long as it not illegal, then freedom of speech. I have show that the laws are made by the rich and powerful and are often unjust.
From the quackwatch link I posted previously the FDA is overwhelmed "It operates under powerful laws but lacks sufficient resources to handle the enormous number of violations it encounters. "
That, the very lawmakers and laws that are supposed to regulate the industry often protect con artists. Furthermore, a lot of enforcement institutes are overwhelmed and thus illegal activity goes unchecked.
What's "unjust" in your opinion doesn't mean anything to me. If you think something that is currently legal should be illegal, that's a different argument then whether or not we ought to "de-platform" people extra-judiciously.
that's a different argument then whether or not we ought to "de-platform" people extra-judiciously.
Hello r:
If somebody came along and put a sign in your yard supporting something you DON'T, should you have right to remove it? Uh, YEAH! Why? Cause it's YOUR yard.
Would you need to sue them or call the cops to have it removed? Uh, NO! Why? Cause it's YOUR yard
Interesting, if what the disinformation dozen is doing is unjust we should de-platform them. For example long covid-19 might lead to 20 years of brain aging.
"A recent study, for example, found that having severe COVID correlates with brain shrinkage and cognitive deficits equivalent to normal aging between ages 50 and 70 – 20 years of brain aging. This was correlation only, but it is extremely likely that most or all of the correlation was caused by the infection." Novella
Dr. Mercola is doing real harm with his propaganda. There are many unknown effects we are still discovering with covid-19.
I don't think it's unjust for private citizens to post wrong opinions or facts on the internet, knowingly or otherwise. Adults are responsible for deciding who they listen to. Unless Mercola is compelling people to agree with him, I couldn't care less how much he publically disagrees with the official Covid-19 narrative.
People are believing the disinformation dozen and taking a horse dewormer. Harm is accruing, that makes it unjust for private citizens to post misinformation. People are overwhelmed, fake news spreads faster and further.
I'm not watching your video. Once again you haven't made an actual argument. "People" taking ivermectin is not, itself, a proof of "harm accruing," nor is it a reason why deplatforming is justified.
Your threw me off guard a little with demanding proof of harm accruing. The reason being this is such a well established fact that people don't bother to mention it. Sort of like saying gravity exists, the Earth is roughly a sphere, anthropocentric climate change exists, the same with misinformation causing harm.
Here's your proof that misinformation causes harm and the closely associated term disinformation.
"Disaster, health, and politics emerged as the three domains (“Appendix”) where misinformation can cause severe harm, often leading to casualties or even irreversible effects. " pubmed
People are dying from misinformation and the disinformation dozen. This is cause for de-platforming. Besides facebook has policies that they are in violation of. All that is being asked is for facebook to enforce its own rules.
It's nothing like saying gravity exists. I can prove the existence of gravity to myself in every waking moment I care to do so, but claiming people being wrong on the internet is a form of harm is not immediately obvious.
Secondly, I didn't ask you for proof of anything. What I want is for you to make an argument. Stop trying to give me homework and instead put the effort in to actually make the argument, yourself. State your premises, make an inference, and then form a conclusion. Posting a study where researchers spend a few pages clutching their pearls over the lack of governmental control over what people say on the internet is not an argument for why we ought to deplatform people.
I don't care what Facebook's policy is. You're arguing against my opinion on the matter, not Facebook's.
The study I posted is important because it shows the harm of misinformation. I am posting a link showing more harm of misinformation from Skepdoc.
Facebook's policy is important because it shows grounds for de-platforming. Government control is not necessary to de-platform because they are in violation of the terms of service.
Further, they have all failed to remove the accounts
of prominent anti-vaxxers who have repeatedly violated their terms of service, as
documented in later sections of this report page 4 CCDH Disinformation Dozen author Imran Ahmed.
If you want my arguments.
Premise one: Disinformation and misinformation cause harm.
Premise two: The disinformation dozen are creating an extreme volume of disinformation.
Premise three: The dozen are in violation of facebook along others' terms of service.
Inference: The disinformation dozen are costing at least thousands of lives.
Conclusion: We should pressure facebook and other social media companies to enforce their own terms of service and de-platform the disinformation dozen.
Misinformation doesn't cause harm. It just exists. You have to use misinformation in a way that causes harm for harm to occur. You can also use misinformation to avoid harm. Banning people for "misinformation" is essentially just banning people for being wrong, which I oppose on the grounds that adults have the right to be wrong about things, and it's worse to disallow 'being wrong' than it is to weather the results of people being wrong. I certainly don't want to live in a world where I'm told what I can and can't believe.
In the first place I'm not convinced any of these people are knowingly spreading false information, or that they're even wrong at all. I don't care about Facebook's policy because I'm of the opinion that anything that can be legally said should be permissible on social media.
You may be correct about certain misinformation, for example believing the Earth is flat is probably innocuous. Somebody could lie to save a life if the person is not willing to believe the truth.
Yet, many forms of misinformation are harmful. Take for example the below article about the Middle East and conspiracy thinking.
"The Middle East is a cauldron of conspiracy, a place where the most bizarre theories often have real policy consequences." Jeffrey Goldberg
The tobacco company using fake experts to confuse the public lead to many preventable deaths. The Taliban spreading anti-vaccine rumors leads to a resurgence of polio. Misinformation is sometimes dangerous and in the case of the disinformation dozen has cost at least 1,000 lives.
How much tolerance should we have for dangerous ideas? The disinformation dozen are not just some layperson spreading ideas. Their audience is massive. What would it take to convince you that what the disinformation dozen is saying is incorrect?
1000 lives is an almost comically low price to pay for the ability to exercise the right to free speech. Billion dollar corporations falsifying data and pseudo governments assassinating medical workers (which is what the Taliban did) is not at all comparable to people being wrong about something on the internet.
Giving people the freedom to be wrong and believe wrong things is necessary for free speech to function. The extent to which that ability is curtailed is the extent to which you've empowered the "censors" to manipulate people with their own disinformation. I'd rather let 1000 people die as a result of their own mistakes made by exercising their own free will than let a monolith decide the "correct opinion" for us and ban all dissent.
Disinformation is only a problem if people don't have access to dissenting opinions. If people have access to arguments from different perspectives, they have the ability and responsibility to choose their own positions on any given issue. Some people will choose poorly, but at least it will be their own choice.
I don't think either of us is going to change their minds. So this will be my last reply on the subject. First, disinformation on the Internet eventually goes offline. For example, being spread in churches. Propaganda documentaries in dvd format, books, etc.
Your argument replies upon a slippery slope fallacy. Taking the position that if we de-platform the disinformation dozen a slippery slope will occur and we will end up with a monolithic tyrant. The future is uncertain, even experts cannot predict the future which is why your argument fails.
Even with dissenting opinions myths can cancel out facts, especially if the myth comes first. We can save lives by de-platforming the disinformation dozen. Thank you for the conversation.
it's worse to disallow 'being wrong' than it is to weather the results of people being wrong.
Ah yes, and there it is. I ban everything you say that isn't right wing because I must protect the populous from the possible results of you possibly being wrong. Orwell and Hitler would be proud, eh Zy?
Are you arguing for or against free speech? Because it sounds like you're pro free speech, but you're "disputing" my argument, which is also pro free speech.
Sincerely very satisfied to say,your submit is very exciting to examine. I never stop myself to mention some thing about it. You’re doing a remarkable process. Hold it up NYJacket
Great article! All the articles you have, they enjoy reading and learning a lot. Your article is very helpful for me. I hope you will continue to write such good articles as well. Really enjoyed reading your blog.It is highly informative and builds great interest for the readers. For the people like us your blogs helps to get ideal information and knowledge. Thanks for providing such blogs. USAJacket
We all have the freedom of speech, but what good does is it serve, the ability to spread biased opinions that will only act as a negative impact for future generations? As much as America likes to promote the fact that we are free and “equal” citizens, sadly we are far from it. Specific races are forced to live...
It’s difficult to get knowledgeable people within this topic, however, you appear to be guess what happens you’re dealing with! Thanks https://www.themoviefashion.com/
Freedom of speech is the freedom that citizens are constitutionally granted by their country to allow the citizens to speak without limitations or censorship of what they say.
This freedom varies from country to country depending on levels of democracy and political situations. Freedom of speech is always advocated for and governments urged to constitutionally protect their citizens’ freedom of speech to enable people discuss issues that affect them.
Freedom of speech is the freedom that citizens are constitutionally granted by their country to allow the citizens to speak without limitations or censorship of what they say.
Hello a:
Nahhh... It protects the citizens from GOVERNMENT censorship. But, the owner of this website can censor anything and anybody he chooses to.
Plus, I take exception to your wording. The notion that government HAS all the power, and we should be grateful that they bestow SOME freedom upon us, is ludicrous.
DUDE!
FREEDOM is the default. That means WE have the power, and WE tell the government what it can and can't do.
