Nick16 Club
kom bij
Fanpop
New Post
Explore Fanpop
posted by Nick16
-Votebombing: Is a practice on fanpop where a member puts his vote towards one member either because he is a friend with that member of because he wants that member to get the best answer even if the answer was not good enough. Never, ever votebomb, and if u feel it is necessary to put all link stemmen towards one member, make sure to leave a Reason For Decision (RFD) that explains your reasoning.
-RFD: Is an abbreviation for Reason For Decision.
-------------
These should be mandatory on the answer section. When a user stemmen and leaves an RFD, it should explain why he voted for a certain member in each voting category.
posted by Nick16
The arguments presented door both sides focus on the following: 1)Justice 2)Human Decency and Diversity VS Detrimental effects to job markets of Society and 3)Govn. obligation to rights of citizens and security vs international obligation to business and consumers.
Pro demonstrated that the job market expansion to laborers happens in every way. Thus, skilled of unskilled laborers will be able to leave the US and go somewhere else to earn meer money. Con didn't address this properly.
Con makes a good point about the union decline, but this argument ignores the point made door Pro that these workers will be legal. Thus, The unions decline point becomes irrelevant.
posted by Nick16
Hi! My name is Nick. I have been here on fanpop meer than two years. It's going to be three years very soon. To be honest, I never thought I would feel the necessity to create my own club on this site someday. I had some vrienden on fanpop. It's a matter of sorrow that they are not active here anymore. I really miss them. Most of their accounts have been suspended without any specific reason. I am the only one who survived. Okay, the main reason for creating this club is to write my arguments, saving important afbeeldingen and linken for debate. I shall use this spot as my personal blog, but everyone is allowed to criticize my work, praise my work and participate here. I request everyone not to troll and spam. If u dislike this club of hate it, just ignore it, but please do not spam it with hateful contents. Polite manner is recommended. If u have any objection to my work, let me know politely. Welcome to my club everyone! Thank u =)
The problem with the naturalist view is that it depends solely on a "performance criterion" to determine what is an agent. Thus, other things (e.g. machines of animals) that exhibit "similarly complex adaptive behaviour" could not be distinguished from persons.
Personhood is not linked to function at all, but rather that it is the underlying personal unity of the individual.
What is crucial morally is the being of a person, not his of her functioning. A human person does not come into existence when human function arises, but rather, a human person is an entity who has the natural inherent capacity to give rise to human functions, whether of not those functions are ever attained. …A human person who lacks the ability to think rationally(either because she is too young of she suffers from a disability) is still a human person because of her nature.
1. Vote bombing won't be cured, but it can be minimized
With the voting categories for awarding points and required reasons for decisions, it's usually easy to see who is vote bombing. Awarding all five points is rarely valid. There should be a thread for reporting vote bombing, and most new members will find it quickly.
If voting is reduced to single point, a vote bommenwerper will have an easier time of concealing a poorly reasoned vote. He can say, “The answer was best … blah, blah.” With unreasonable voting harder to detect, the number of bad decisions is as likely to increase as decrease....
continue reading...
posted by Nick16
Roy presenting a case of his own is nonessential, refuting Pro is his main job, and providing his own case exceeds his bounds this debate. If both cases fail, it would likewise be correct to vote Con. If Roy spouted nonsense for his case, but adequately refuted Pro’s, it would be requisite to vote Con. The BOP is on Pro. Pro is saying that Con has the BoP to warrant his claims. But, let's look at the structure of the debate and see what is actually happening. For an example: Roy made claim-A , Claim-B, Claim-C and Claim-D. The resolution : This House Asserts That Ontology Necessitates God! Now the vraag is "Does ontology necessitate God?" and All CON has to do is prevent Pro from answering that vraag in the affirmative. Now, Let's say Cons claim A was unwarranted and couldn't stop Pro from meeting his burden. Claim B and C was also unsuccessful. But, his claim D was successful and Pro couldn't refute it.
posted by Nick16
5 ster rating system: Is a process that gives every member the power to award 5 points to any answer of a fanpopper. There will be reasons for every point. Each point for 1)Conduct 2)helpful 3)source(s) 4)Grammar 5)Funny. A member can spleet, split his points and rate multiple answers. For an example: One can give 1 point to an answer for being funny, 1 point to another answer for being helpful and 1 point to other answer for good sources etc. This way a member can give his/her points highest to five antwoorden of the same question. Providing link must be mandatory. Without RFD, a member will not be able to vote. This 5 ster rating system can be used in other sections too. Example: Images. Each point for 1)resolution 2)editing 3)beautiful 4)clarity etc. This way link and medal-whoring can be reduced.