Back to Forum Games

Sandbox Court

Parudoks
about 8 years

Welcome to the Sandbox Court!

I've realized that a lot of people love to debate about many topics on Epicmafia, but don't have a proper place to express these opinions. Hence, I've come up with Sandbox court. Note: This thread is only for suggesting a case or asking to take part in the next case.

‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍

‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ Current Case: Death vs Justice

Pending Cases

Inbox me if you'd like to join one. Include which ones you want to join, and your stance for them.

  • Do you think Net Neutrality should be protected? If not, what is the benefit of getting rid of it? (Protect: 4) (Don't: 3)

  • Do you believe that vaccination should be mandatory or optional? ‍ (Mandatory: 1) (Optional: 2)

  • Should countries take in Syrian Refugees? Would your answer change if you got to pick which religious groups can enter? ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ (Yes: 1) (No: 1) (Only specific groups: 0)

  • Barring external factors (i.e. AdSense), should people be banned for hateful comments? This does not include sustained individual harassment. (Participants: 2)

  • Is human cloning justified, and should it be permitted? (Random Teams)(Participants: 1)

How does it work?

Simply put, every Sunday, there will be a thread dedicated to a new court case. You can suggest a court case either in the comments below or in a pm to me, or any other people I designate as hosts. The case will always end on Saturday.

The topic for a court case can be anything, either on or off EpicMafia, but the more interesting it is then the more likely we will pick it. When a topic is picked, anyone can ask to be included in the court case on either side. For example, if the court case is abortion, then you can ask to be on the pro-life or pro-choice side. An example topic you can choose relating to EpicMafia might be whether or not banning users is effective.

On each of these threads, only the people who are debating can comment. However, there will be a poll included that allows users to vote which side they think is winning. This can be used to determine the winner. However, if not enough people vote or if there is a tie, then we might opt for judges to make the final decision.

Despite there being two teams usually in a court case, we will allow more than two if someone can present an additional point of view that differs from the others.

Rules

  • No harassment or personal attacks on the opposition. Doing so will result in a warning, and if continued, it will result in the person being removed from the debate. You are expected to always be respectful during debates.
  • You are NOT allowed to vote on more than one account. If we discover that multiple votes have been placed by you, then you will be disqualified from the voting process. If this was done by accident, please pm me.
  • Stay on topic. If you want to talk about things outside of the debate, then please do it somewhere else. Getting off topic will result in you being removed from the debate.
  • Rules are subject to change anytime for any reason at my discretion. I will inform of any rule changes to avoid confusion.
Sign here if
25 signed
You love to debate with other people because it's fun and allows you to experience the ideas of others from different backgrounds.
Reamix
EpicSides
luis4rod
vom53
shayneismyname
Ashe
dooze
DouradaGrelhada
Furry
Parudoks
barn
riskitforthebiscuit
OhLookACat
LeChuck
YellowPear
chow
JohnMiller
Emjack
Would you consider taking part in this?
22
Yes, I would love to debate!
15
Yes, but I would only vote as the jury.
6
No.
deletedabout 8 years
So why don't you come and debate me to prove me wrong, cub? You seem to be good at it.

And I could agree with most issues but I'm not using a hyperbole, if you haven't noticed there are literal lawmakers that push for this agenda, first world or not. I feel you're pushing people to the extreme if you say "hey I need you to go against your belief in a god or sexuality or gender orientation for the sake of a debate"

If you want to do that yourself fine but leave me out of it simply
cub
about 8 years
the most controversial debates should be assigned and not chosen because that's the only way for a debate to be meaningful

otherwise people will just argue what they believe and never change their minds about anything and all that matters is winning which means nothing in the grand scheme of things
cub
about 8 years

nearbeer says

Contrarily, bigots would be forced to argue why LGBT people should be allowed to exist in society


still hyperbole but yes, you'll also be making bigots defend the things theyre bigoted against which is definitely positive because it makes them see things from "the other"'s perspective, which typically means they realize that there's nothing actually wrong with "the other"

although there aren't really a bunch of people saying "death to gays" on epicmafia
nearbeer
about 8 years

Jimbei says

Either way Paru is right and no one who is LGBT should be forced to argue why they shouldn't be allowed to exist in society that's really messed up


Contrarily, bigots would be forced to argue why LGBT people should be allowed to exist in society. If they tank their arguments because they disagree with them, then they lose. It takes a lot of willpower to separate your identity from a debate, but in the end, if a topic is properly chosen, the better debater should win: not the "better" side to take. Even if that means the LGBT people (forced to argue against LGBT) win the debate because the other bigots (forced to argue for LGBT) try to lose.

Take the pineapple pizza debate thread for instance. I hate pineapple pizza. Yet, I've got to say, John Miller the noavi is absolutely killing it. The way things are going, I'm going to have to give his team my vote: that's perfectly OK even though I despise what he is defending.
cub
about 8 years

Jimbei says

To cloning the point of a broad topic is so people can break it down to the parts they want to debate about. Why don't you sign up Cub? People will make claims and you can either support them or break them down. It's moving from the big idea down to smaller details that would support it or go against it.

Or you could just suggest another topic, it's really your choice but you're not forced to sign up.


there is no point to a broad topic in debate, I thought I made it pretty evident what the problem is: because the topic is broad, there are multiple contradictory positions within the topic that make a binary impossible. you cannot argue "yes or no" to a topic consisting of multiple subtopics

like I said, this time with annotations:
- (YES): there is nothing innately wrong with cloning
- (NO): there is a problem with population and deciding whose life is more worthy of preserving

these two things are impossible to reconcile into a single "yes" or a single "no" and this is why debate topics should be as precise as possible. can you determine if i'm for or against cloning from what i said? probably not, because it's too grey
luis4rod
about 8 years

JohnMiller says

In many debate clubs, you sign up for the topic, but you flip a coin to determine whether you're for or against.

It's like an Ideological Turing Test (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html)--could a pro-life guy successfully pretend to be pro-choice, or vice versa?

The catch is that both sides actually have to try, even when the beliefs they are assigned are the polar opposite of what they actually believe. And it means you have to make sure those who vote only are judging the debaters, not how they actually feel about the topics.

cub
about 8 years

Jimbei says

but no really it's understandable to make people to see things from another perspective but isn't that what a debate IS? To see someone who is passionate on an issue to describe most accurately why they feel that way?

Either way Paru is right and no one who is LGBT should be forced to argue why they shouldn't be allowed to exist in society that's really messed up, the other side is put in a difficult position in the first place which is why they are not being debated


no, not usually

people are competitive and self-interested, so when put into a situation of defending themselves their primary objective will be succeeding. that's why people are often willing to discredit themselves in defense of themselves. it's only after the fact when all the dust settles that some of the more potent arguments might influence them

this psychology is precisely why you're often put in a position to argue for things you disagree with: you're then faced with competition and defending yourself, which overrides rational thought (see: people willing to be really stupid to defend their positions) and thus are forced into a different perspective where you can genuinely see things from that perspective and not just have it argued at you for you to deny

and no, your hyperbole aside (we aren't talking about right to exist, that sort of extremist conclusion shows precisely why you need to understand opposing perspectives) it's healthy and productive even for "underprivileged" (remember you live in the first world) groups to see and understand the rationale behind bigotry to better influence it. this ties into you wanting censorship, which doesn't teach people anything it only allows the censored opinions to fester in the shadows
deletedabout 8 years
To cloning the point of a broad topic is so people can break it down to the parts they want to debate about. Why don't you sign up Cub? People will make claims and you can either support them or break them down. It's moving from the big idea down to smaller details that would support it or go against it.

Or you could just suggest another topic, it's really your choice but you're not forced to sign up.
deletedabout 8 years
I must disagree with you and will take your arguments to court cub

but no really it's understandable to make people to see things from another perspective but isn't that what a debate IS? To see someone who is passionate on an issue to describe most accurately why they feel that way?

Either way Paru is right and no one who is LGBT should be forced to argue why they shouldn't be allowed to exist in society that's really messed up, the other side is put in a difficult position in the first place which is why they are not being debated
cub
about 8 years

Parudoks says

So what I'll be doing is, some of the debates will be randomized, some won't. I'll write it next to the debate in the OP. The random ones will be less sensitive. This is because someone who is pro-LGBT will not realistically debate as an anti-LGBT person.


actually, something you should learn in any debate course is to defend a position you disagree with. this forces participants to broaden their perspectives and admit to themselves that justifications can be made for both sides



So, that being said, I'm introducing my first randomized debate:

Is human cloning justified, and should it be permitted?


this is too broad
- there is nothing inherently wrong with cloning or the advancement of science with consenting and informed participants
- there is a problem with population growth, so cloning would have to be strictly mandated should it become affordable
- through mandating the renewal of a life, one life is prescribed value over others, which is immoral (see: infinity morality)

a more debatable topic would be birth limits as a counter to overpopulation, and this would not privilege any couple as they would all have the same limit (if, say, all families could only have two children, you would have a stable population in theory and a declining population in practice)
Parudoks
about 8 years
So what I'll be doing is, some of the debates will be randomized, some won't. I'll write it next to the debate in the OP. The random ones will be less sensitive. This is because someone who is pro-LGBT will not realistically debate as an anti-LGBT person.

So, that being said, I'm introducing my first randomized debate:

Is human cloning justified, and should it be permitted?
Parudoks
about 8 years
Announcement: It appears that EpicMafia User TennisBallBFDI2 has self-deleted. The "No" team for the Pineapple Pizza debate is now down to 4 participants. Anyone that wants to aid them can pm me to be added to the debate.
deletedabout 8 years
they're not really debate subjects either now are they, perhaps try to form an actual debate subject(like the ones Paru chose), and then you can try to bring up statistics when you introduce your side within the court itself and defend it.
deletedabout 8 years
Sorry didn't know at statistics are Sh.it posts
cub
about 8 years

CoryInConstantinople says

This topic: why are blacks a minority in the US but commit a majority of violent crime (per capita)?


why is cory just one person but creates a majority of shltposts (per forum)?
Parudoks
about 8 years
Aw okay, nevermind then.
Christopherzilla
about 8 years

Parudoks says


Christopherzilla says


cub says

pineapple pizza is an abomination


You're an abomination and pineapple pizza satisfies me on a level Jink never could.


Should I put you two into the Pineapple Pizza debate?


nah, I've already had this debate with luap and it ends in heartbreak everytime
Parudoks
about 8 years

Christopherzilla says


cub says

pineapple pizza is an abomination


You're an abomination and pineapple pizza satisfies me on a level Jink never could.


Should I put you two into the Pineapple Pizza debate?
Christopherzilla
about 8 years

cub says

pineapple pizza is an abomination



You're an abomination and pineapple pizza satisfies me on a level Jink never could.
Parudoks
about 8 years
New Debate Topic: Should countries take in Syrian Refugees? Would your answer change if you got to pick which religious groups can enter? ‍ ‍ ‍

(Here you go Cory, something you'd want to debate)
deletedabout 8 years

Parudoks says

By the way, if anyone has more suggestions for future debates please don't hesitate to post them here.



CoryInConstantinople says


CoryInConstantinople says

This topic: why are blacks a minority in the US but commit a majority of violent crime (per capita)?



CoryInConstantinople says

Or this topic: why are Jews 2 percent of the US population but make up ~90 percent of banking CEOs?



CoryInConstantinople says

Why in rural Appalachia where a majority are white (and this is the lowest income area in the United States) is there less violent crime than say wealthier more diverse areas of the nation?



CoryInConstantinople says

Why did r.ape increase 1500 percent since the mid 90s in Sweden after their open border policy with Somalia?




Parudoks
about 8 years
By the way, if anyone has more suggestions for future debates please don't hesitate to post them here.
deletedabout 8 years
bring out the dancing lobsters
Bebop
about 8 years
foxie had spoken next round please
cub
about 8 years

Parudoks says

The Pineapple Pizza Debate has been chosen as the next debate! This is good because its a light topic I can use on the trial run. The following teams have been chosen:

For: DouradaGrelhada, EpicSides, JohnMiller, BaneofMafia, Jimbei.

Against: Dooze, TennisBallBFDI2, luis4rod, Collokey, Serveaux.


pineapple pizza is an abomination