this has got to be one of the most stupid questions ever...
how about banning bikes? baseball? cars?
I'm for a ban on stupidity.
@DresdenFPV do me a favor and listen to the debate before getting angry ;-) it is a battle of arguments, in rounds and done after 12 minutes and your side gets full coverage.
why should anybody listen to a debate with only a single possible response? (that's "hell no!")
I won't learn anything new. If there's a discussion about weather I should put my face into the next fire - I wouldn't listen either.
@DresdenFPV because the whole point of this podcast is to take a controversial position and respectfully argue for both sides (which are assigned by coin toss btw) and - believe it or not - arguments CAN be made. Why listen? Because you just claimed this question to be stupid and I beg to differ ;-)
sure, arguments can be made... "your face won't freeze if on fire" is a great argument
It's still not a "controversial" discussion. Sticking your face into the next camp fire isn't a smart thing to do.
This will either get REALLY one-sided or at least one of the people involved has to be really stupid.
sorry... just no.
@DresdenFPV oh common. You have no idea what the arguments were for a ban but you already know that the guy making it "has to be stupid"? This is lame. You can do better than this. I (Dirk) did better than this and I don’t even own a drone.
@2debate no, you missread me
I claim that IF that's not a one-sided discussion, then the guy speaking AGAINST it has to be stupid (i.e. the one who doesn't say "fire is hot and you will get hurt")
@DresdenFPV I used to think the same way about many of our debating motions until I found myself preparing for a side I wouldn’t have picked for myself. You see, we keep score which means we really want to win the debate and it turns out you’ll find good arguments if you really want.
In this particular episode we had flipped roles as Sebastian who had to defend a ban flies drones while I don't...
Anyway, thanks for even reacting! Maybe one of our other episodes will be more of your liking.
@2debate listened to it... wasn't worth it.
No it wasn't one-sided, but for the expected reason. pretty much every single against-sentence made me cringe because it was factually wrong. Meanwhile the pro-side was represented better, but didn't make a single point why "ban" would be better than (currently existing) regulation.
Pretty much the same reason I stopped listening to your podcast earlier.
Sorry, but you should get some information before starting to discuss things.
@DresdenFPV thank you. Of course I cannot learn anything from your feedback because you basically just state that you think it was crap or cringe-worthy but I thank you for having taken the time in the first place and for letting me know.
@2debate you are totally right about that, but it's just too much stuff to cover everything you've said.
I commented on your site about the worst things. Probably still missed some really bad things that you said or where you didn't come up with the obvious response.
@DresdenFPV hey, just saw it. Thanks a lot for this, it's amazing feedback! I definitely learn from it, especially to define much better our terms upfront, as by "drone" we meant of course a layman's definition of a flying device like a quadcopter especially in potential future scenarios like personal drones which was how we came up with the motion in the first place. Some of the points you made were actually been made (e.g. regulation) but could have been articulated better.
@DresdenFPV oh... And Dirk definitely welcomes your support with a vote on the page, he is arguing against a ban after all ;-)
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!