Weekly Debate Thread

[Psychospacecow]

Tackling it causes all kinds of problems so better to live with it than lose what ya got.

Besides, it creates the equivalent of a digital library. With pirating, even if all physical copies of something were damaged, it could still be played.

[BumblebeeCody*]

Depends. Gray area. Piracy is bad, sure, but there are so many benefits/good reasons why it's not.
I'm pretty sure everyone pirates intentionally or not.

I have a Wii that can play Wii/GameCube backups since it's modded. Though I prefer to have a physical collection of games, backing them up to a USB it's pretty handy(prevent the physical copy from being damaged for one) or being able to play different versions of games. Not only that but there's no way of todays consumers being able to buy games from last generation with the money going to the developers since they aren't brand new/current titles; it's all pre-owned. Not only that but pirating Pokemon games(Pokemon Emerald in particular) has allowed me to learn game programming and create my mods for those games which can then be ran on an official emulator, though that was nearly 10 years ago.
Usually if I pirate a game of todays generation, then I usually end up buying it. An example would be pirating Mario party 8 and 9 to play later on, though I plan on buying it as I collect games and this means I can keep them sealed.
I honestly don't like piracy that has current effects. If you've ever watched films like Indie Game: The Movie, you see how much developers stress their arse off to make a game which can cost them everything, to then lose out on that work because people don't wanna pay is pretty bullshit. The same goes for big budget games. I find a lot of those who pirate use the excuse that "they have enough money" when that's really not the case and also no in anyones right to say who should have what and they shouldn't be paid for their work.

I think it comes down to the fact the putting your work online means it's going to get pirated. But I don't see piracy as much of a problem as news sources/publishers/bullshitters says. When you see publishers getting stingy saying "we need the online pass to avoid piracy" I find that funny when their game still sells around 4 million copies and only the big budget titles have these as opposed to games like Dark Souls or Anarchy Reigns. It's a gray area, nothing to really say. We all do it, even people who create content do it.

[Combat Lobster]

Yes piracy is bad and I'm guilty of it, but I do it to test how it will run on my system. (I'm talking about PC piracy, and don't give me the "there are sites that will analyze your system specs. and determine if you can or cannot run a game, because those sites told me I could run Splinter Cell: Conviction and it runs like shit on my PC.)


Instead of typing a wall of text as to why I do it here's two game examples. One I pirated then bought after confirming it ran okay on my PC, and one where I didn't and should have saved my money.

1. Skyrim: After hearing praise of this game's sandbox of wonderful goodness, I wondered if my system can handle Skyrim's raw dragon power. (This was back when I had a stripped down version of the AMD Radeon 5550 card.) So I pirated it and found out it ran alright on high settings, and purchased it when I got my next paycheck.

2. Splinter Cell: Conviction: As I mentioned earlier in this post, a couple of "PC Spec test sites" told me that Conviction will run with little to no problems, but after buying the Steam bundle they couldn't be more wrong. This game can only run at a mere 15 fps on low. Even after upgrading my graphics card and cpu (Because I really wanted to play Alan Wake @60 fps) I only managed to gain a extra 5 frames.

[SERIOUSLY THOUGH*]

In light of a very recent occurence, I'm going to highjack this thread and ask for everyone's opinions on filibustering.

Is it really democratic to block the vote of a majority government ? Or do certain situations warrant blocking democracy in favour of avoiding a ridiculous bill being passed ?

Should filibuster threats that aren't followed through be penalised (as they often scare the other party and shut down a bill) ?

[SuperMasterGamer]

In light of a very recent occurence, I'm going to highjack this thread and ask for everyone's opinions on filibustering.

Is it really democratic to block the vote of a majority government ? Or do certain situations warrant blocking democracy in favour of avoiding a ridiculous bill being passed ?

Should filibuster threats that aren't followed through be penalised (as they often scare the other party and shut down a bill) ?

Well, if the bill was ridiculous then yes. Otherwise, maybe not.

I'm more towards the gray side of things so I can't really say.

[Beware of Cuccos*]

I don't understand a lot of the fancy wording that's used these days by the media and by government (i'm sure they don't understand it either), but I do understand the fight for women's rights.

Spoiler

NO MAN should ever be allowed to vote on women's bodies. EVER.

I could go on, but I don't think that's where the thread was intended to go. So i'll just end with this:

[BumblebeeCody*]

I don't understand a lot of the fancy wording that's used these days by the media and by government (i'm sure they don't understand it either), but I do understand the fight for women's rights.

Spoiler

NO MAN should ever be allowed to vote on women's bodies. EVER.

I could go on, but I don't think that's where the thread was intended to go. So i'll just end with this:

But this isn't about men especially since there are plenty of women who dictate how women should live and what they can do with their body. texasrighttolife organisation is primarily filled with females, so it's not just men and it never has been. Also, this isn't about abortion because Seriously Thoughs question was:

Should filibuster threats that aren't followed through be penalised (as they often scare the other party and shut down a bill) ?

To which I respond with, no. Standing for for more than 3 hours to make a point is one, but for 13 hours!? But then again it depends on the topic as well. Because:

Or do certain situations warrant blocking democracy in favour of avoiding a ridiculous bill being passed ?

If there was filibuster on why we should segregate blacks from whites and that lasted 15 hours, that's ridiculous. Ah hard to say. There's always rules and then you find exceptions to it.

[Beware of Cuccos*]

Ok, i've been reading up more on what happened, and I am still very confused. I'm trying to understand, at least. I think it's the phrasing. I know that a woman stood up and spoke for women's rights so long that someone had to put a back brace on her. I know she was interrupted close to the end in hopes that she would stop speaking long enough to cancel her filibuster.

Should filibuster threats that aren't followed through be penalized (as they often scare the other party and shut down a bill) ?

Are you referring to ones that never occur, or ones that begin but don't finish, or ones that are interrupted?

[SERIOUSLY THOUGH*]

Ok, i've been reading up more on what happened, and I am still very confused. I'm trying to understand, at least. I think it's the phrasing. I know that a woman stood up and spoke for women's rights so long that someone had to put a back brace on her. I know she was interrupted close to the end in hopes that she would stop speaking long enough to cancel her filibuster.

I wasn't referring to that case alone, just filibusters in general.

Should filibuster threats that aren't followed through be penalised(as they often scare the other party and shut down a bill) ?

Are you referring to ones that never occur, or ones that begin but don't finish, or ones that are interrupted?

What I'm referring to is that often, political parties say "we're going to filibuster this bill, so there's not much point keeping it alive." This often leads to the tabling party backing down because of how time consuming filibusters are for very little result. However, the first party never actually intended to filibuster and therefore use the threat of it as a tactic to kill a bill.
Many people see that as undemocratic. Others are annoyed because a filibuster should only be used if you're passionate enough to stand and talk without even leaning for 14 hours.

[Beware of Cuccos*]

Oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I see what you're saying now. Yeah, I think that people should actually be passionate enough to stand for 14 hours. That proves something. Instead of just saying they'll do it to intimidate the others into backing out.

Did I answer properly? I often get confused these sort of things. If not, then I gracefully back out of the conversation, haha

[Arjahn]

[Spoiler]

Spoiler

NO MAN should ever be allowed to vote on women's bodies. EVER.

I'd rather say that no ignorant tool should ever be allowed to vote on women's bodies... *glares at Republicans*

[Beware of Cuccos*]

Spoiler

NO MAN should ever be allowed to vote on women's bodies. EVER.

I'd rather say that no ignorant tool should ever be allowed to vote on women's bodies... *glares at Republicans*

I think I was confused when he asked his debate topic, so this is actually invalid for the topic at hand.
However, I will quickly give you a *high five*.
(Also, not all republicans are like that :( )

Now, back on topic.

[Spoiler]

(Also, not all republicans are like that :( )

I stand corrected. Not all republicans are completely off their rockers and at least contribute for the sake of good. So, here's my new statement:

*Glares at Republicans in Name Only*

I love that show :3

BACK TO YOU, TOPIC!

Dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun

[Psychospacecow]

(Also, not all republicans are like that :( )

I stand corrected. Not all republicans are completely off their rockers and at least contribute for the sake of good. So, here's my new statement:

*Glares at Republicans in Name Only*

I love that show :3

BACK TO YOU, TOPIC!

Dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun

I'd say the better term'd be most.

Also, for filbusters, I am no political genius I'll admit but its a protest essentially and as such, it should only affect things by matter of its presence and words. You're selling an idea.