Instigator / Pro
12
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#2148

Proposed: Jesus was tempted by Satan but three times, yet there are so many sins. There are three sins into which all others are encompassed.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Username
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1593
rating
9
debates
77.78%
won
Description

Proposed: Jesus was tempted by Satan but three times, yet there are so many sins. In this debate, I propose to demonstrate that there are three categories of sins into which all other sins are encompassed, and this explains why Satan limited his temptations to these three. Master these three pitfalls, and all sins are less likely to plague the repentant soul and set that soul on the road to achieving perfection. The three basic sins encompassing all others, and why all sins relate to them, will be revealed in the first round and will consist of my total BoP. It will be Con's BoP to prove these three sins do not encompass all others.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Regarding #10
For a debate categorized as religion with Jesus in the title, it usually goes without saying that the Bible will be acceptable evidence. Someone could try to run a Kritik that the bible is false, but it would be extremely bastardly to the point where I as a voter would probably dismiss it from any serious consideration.

Imagine debating if silver is the best way to kill werewolves, and your opponent demanded you prove the moon exists... Some kritiks are just too bastardy to be of merit.

(Edit your comment, I meant).

-->
@fauxlaw

- You did edit your quote.

- You didn't prove that anything not in the Terms of Service is automatically a violation and stopped arguing when I gave evidence to the contrary.

- You claimed that I, a DEBATER in this debate, have to follow a VOTING POLICY that applies to VOTERS. I proved that you violated the same rules that you claim I did.

- You are now saying that you're "done" after just two of your 4+ accusations and ask ME to message the mods. The moderators have not issued any condemnations of my actions.

- You made arguments in Post #24 (final paragraph) that were NOT relevant to my Conduct in the debate. Obviously that is in itself worse than anything I did.

- You clearly take your own claims less seriously than I do.

-->
@fauxlaw

To be clear, you do have to explain these things, since you're making the accusations. The mods haven't told me off insofar and I don't expect them to.

-->
@fauxlaw

Right, my bad on the the CofC thing, and I found the quote.

Regardless, you're the one making the accusation, and you've failed to get any moderator support/prove ANYTHING with regards to whether I did something wrong. You dropped the Voting Suggestions point and now you're dropping out of this point too.

-->
@Username

There is a CofC. There is a Voting Policy. There is a Debate policy. There is a Moderator Overview. There is a Donations section. They are different sections of the Help Center. God in heaven, you're a trial. Ask the moderators. It is not my job to explain these things to you. I'm done. Did I edit? really????? Done and done

-->
@fauxlaw

Did you just edit your comment?

And I believe the Voting Policy is part of the CoC so I don't know what you're talking about there.

Here's the quote you might be referring to:

"Voters considering outside content - The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable."

1. This denotes the voters, not me, the debater in this case.

2. You realize that even if it did denote me, it'd be referring to you as well. You made your accusations after I posted my R4, in the comments. Therefore, you made arguments and gave information outside of the debate rounds.

3. I just checked the voting policy and this quote seemingly does not exist.

4. The quote said "outside of the debate rounds" I don't understand why it's such a big deal that I made my responses to your accusation after the debate; time is not spoken about here, "outside of the debate rounds" means not in the arguments. And for the record, you made your accusations after R4 was finished too.

-->
@fauxlaw

You make the arbitrary distinction that arguing in the comments is fine but backing up your arguments is somehow prohibited, and yeah I'd like to know if there's a source for that.

Did I mention CofC? I've told you where it is my opinion you've violated policy and none if it is in CoC. Read me with comprehension, for once.

-->
@fauxlaw

So you can accuse me of cheating without sources and that's all fine and good but when I defend myself with sources that's where the line is crossed?

Can you quote what part of the Code of Conduct I am disobeying?

-->
@Username

Don't bother telling Ragnar the complete truth, the truth you refuse to admit, that your sourcing citation in comments occurred only AFTER the argument phase was finished, making it invalid and merely reference to outside content, which is invalid in that respect as well.

-->
@Barney

To be clear, the sources I used were simply to rebut Fauxlaw's claim that Voting Suggestions are not allowed. My intention was not to add to my arguments in any way when I used sources.

-->
@Username
@fauxlaw

At a glance, this looks like a really good theology debate.

I must apologize for the various help documents not being updated. I am in a job hunt (switching from military to the business world is taking forever), which while incredibly draining (just got rejected for a dream job seeming due to having been injured in the war) remains my top priority. That said, any proposed changes to those documents could probably be quickly handled via the forums.

Having written that Google doc, I should say a little bit about it... I wrote it before I became a moderator here, and have made no attempts to move it into the official documentation. The whole voter suggestion part of it is mostly to encourage people to think about those categories as they debate. I don't believe it advocates any CoC violations, but if it's suggesting anything outright bastardy I'd be happy to change it.

Regarding vote rigging: IMO asserting victory inside the debate rounds, is just a rhetoric tactic. I do consider it poor conduct if it directly lies (inventing quotes the other person is supposed to have said but did not), but I am not noticing that level of it here (haven't read it yet).

IMO sources should always be inside the debate rounds.

I'll read over the rest of the comments later, I've got some things to do today...

-->
@fauxlaw

Well, you did say something about me using sources in my comments and that not being allowed...

"You then, after the argument phase concluded, cited references to two documents, Ragnar's tiny.cc document, and Lincoln-Douglas Debate format."

Do we want to go over that accusation and or do you still think I violated rules with the Voting Suggestions?

-->
@Username

I do not dispute adding sources in comments as long as they are added during the argument phase if they are intended to be part of the debate.

-->
@David
@fauxlaw

Virt is the Chief Moderator, so I'll ask him, too: are Voting Suggestions prohibited in debates on Debatert.com?

-->
@fauxlaw

That you think the insertion of a giraffe image in a debate is disallowed is absurd.

The accepted measures of many laws that exist today, including international law and British law, for example, state that if something is not explicitly codified as a crime, it is allowed. Look up the Lotus principle; I'd give you a source but I think you dispute that I can include sources in my comments and I'd prefer not to get into that yet.

What laws out there state that "if something is not legally recognized as illegal or legal it is thereby illegal"? Very few, if not none.

Plus, you're the one levying the accusation and therefore you're the one who has to prove what assumptions should be made. You've failed to explain why we need to assume that something that is not discussed by a rulebook is not allowed.

-->
@Username

Remember the giraffe? You're kidding, yeah? Like I said, what are the boundaries of assumption? Does everyone share the same assumptions? Then why allow them, period? I would not presume to post am image of a giraffe or anything else in debate because images are not discussed anywhere in the information center with the exception of their potential use related somehow to Donations. Therefore, reason tells me images, or any other assumptions, are not accepted, moderators notwithstanding. It's your attitude about assumptions that gets muddy. Can't be helped. Rues are rules, as I said. We make them up as we go? Not in my book.

-->
@fauxlaw

Remember the giraffe counterexample? Nowhere are pictures of giraffes mentioned within any DART documents. No moderator will attack me for posting a picture of a giraffe in a debate, though.

-->
@Username

What is the boundary of assumptions? Don't go there with me. Assumptions are goosie=loosie

-->
@fauxlaw

If a detail is missing, it's not assumed to be outlawed... Especially when it's such a common part of this site that nearly every major debater has used at some point.

I won't just assume that it's completely fine because you'd still disagree - hence the fact that I asked the mods. Waiting on them.

-->
@blamonkey
@Barney
@Username
@MisterChris

Gentlemen, re: Armorcat's #25, show me. And I'm a little tired of the excuse that the debate section of information center indicates it is **outdated.** Does that mean anything goes? I am, sorry to say, a demon on details. I spent an entire career investigating and resolving process issues. The devil is in details, and, lacking them, they need addressing. I do not not accept "ad hoc" as an explanation for missing details. You say what you do, and do what you say. Period. That's what I'm trying to do; as policy definitively says, and not by mere suggestion, or "well, that's the way it's always done." Bullshyte. If the detail is missing, I consider it an exclusion, not a pat on the head and cursory acceptance. If I'm wrong about that, I guess it's time to hang up my profile and adios into the sunset.

-->
@blamonkey
@MisterChris
@fauxlaw

I understand that you have more than one issue. I think we should go one at a time as that will give us a greater focus on each issue.

Let's go over the Voter Suggestions thing first.

Pictures are not contained within the DebateArt.com website either. However, I strongly doubt that you'll see a moderator go after you for including one. Just because something is not explicitly sanctioned within the guidelines does not mean it's banned.

I've alerted a moderator (blamonkey) and I believe christopher_best moderates too. I ask them here: is it prohibited to include Voting Suggestions in debates?

-->
@Barney
@Username

I have three issues [1.a, 1.b, 2, 3 as listed below]:
1. You included voter suggestions within the text of your r4. You then, after the argument phase concluded, cited references to two documents, Ragnar's tiny.cc document, and Lincoln-Douglas Debate format.
1.a Note that you did not make the citations as referenced sources within the debate argument phase, but only in comments AFTER closure of the argument phase. That makes them invalid as source references in comments for debate voting consideration. Therefore, they violate sourcing policy and should not be considered as valid debate argument.
1.b Neither document is contained within the DebateArt.com website, and, therefore, cannot not be used as policy in debate. See my post #18, below.

2. You made reference to outside material in the debate argument phase in your r4 re: my accusation of vote rigging in another debate. That reference is not allowed per voting policy, "Voters considering outside content - The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable." - which also figures in issue 1, above. See my post #20, below.

3. You claimed in your r4 that I did not source material, referenced from the OED. Is it my fault not everyone has a copy of the OED? I own edition 2, the entire 20-volume set, plus an online subscription that is available to anyone willing to pay the price. If you don't, not my issue. I use it because it is the definitive English language dictionary containing virtually every word in the lexicon. So, you do not claim I did not source it; you admit you don't have access and move on. The OED definition is duplicated well enough by other, inferior dictionaries. Your caim is invalid and on you to resolve.

Ragnar, I've copied you as you are party to this dispute being author of tiny.cc.

-->
@fauxlaw

Also I guess you made a claim about Voter Suggestions being invalid. We could start with that too, but let's do it one at a time; this is getting too big for us to do all three at once. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is all just nonsense though.

I await your clarification.

-->
@fauxlaw

If both, which one would you like to go over first?

-->
@fauxlaw

Wait, are you talking about me sourcing claims I made in the comments, or are you talking about the fact that I referenced an earlier debate in the debate arguments?

-->
@Username

Voter suggestions are not sanctioned by any document within DA. Ergo, they are not used.
Unsourced outside references amount to violation and voters are not to consider content outside the debate arguments, themselves. That's in the voting policy. As you did not reference the outside content within the debate, it falls under this voter requirement. By the way, making reference in comments plus linkage that occurs outside the argument phase is not a reference to sources within the argument phase. You did not make you links until the argument phase concluded. They are, therefore, a violation of policy. That's the relevance, my friend.

-->
@fauxlaw

"The only documents outside of DA debate that are acceptable are sources"

Source? And you're also assuming that Voter Suggestions are by default against DA. You haven't proved this.

" That includes your reference in your r4 to a prior debate of mine, which was not even within that debate, but in comments. Comments are outside debate parameters. That's not an acceptable reference, either within the debate arguments."

Why not? You called me prideful, arrogant, and border-line vote rigging for claiming that an argument wins a debate, and I showed that you had a precedent for this behavior, making you the common denominator, not me. You reap what you sow.

"You're not sourcing by voter suggestions,"

I don't have to - the evidence for it lies within the debate. Why is this relevant?

"and you did not use your docs within the debate arguments as sources"

They are sources because I linked them. It saves space. Why is this relevant?

-->
@Username

The hostility is your use of justifications that do not exist within DA. The only documents outside of DA debate that are acceptable are sources. That includes your reference in your r4 to a prior debate of mine, which was not even within that debate, but in comments. Comments are outside debate parameters. That's not an acceptable reference, either within the debate arguments. You're not sourcing by voter suggestions, and you did not use your docs within the debate arguments as sources. Therefore, debate violation in my book. Sorry, rules are rules.

-->
@fauxlaw

I think you have some hostility towards me and I don't know why. Oh well. Hopefully, relations will improve in the future.

-->
@fauxlaw

Wait, where did DART Prohibit Voting Suggestions?

I'm referring to how Voting Suggestions are a normal part of debate, and thus aren't bad conduct like you say.

-->
@Username

Nice documents, but, unfortunately, neither exists within DebartArt.com documentation, therefore, relevance?

-->
@fauxlaw

Convincing voters to vote for you in a debate is the point of a debate. Voting Suggestions/Crystallization simply makes it more clear.

http://debate-central.ncpathinktank.org/important-terms-in-lincoln-douglas-debate/#:~:text=Crystallize%3A%20Debaters%20generally%20crystallize%20the%20debate%20in%20their,the%20debate%20to%20provide%20support%20for%20an%20argument.

-->
@fauxlaw

Voting Suggestions are a traditional part of debate protocol (http://tiny.cc/DebateArt). The most basic online debate guides, listed before and created by experienced debaters, show you how to appeal to your audience. I

Addressing what you said earlier: Using the Bible as a source on a debate over BIBLICAL Sins is hardly assuming it to be true. We're using the Bible to debate over what's in the Bible. Nothing outside of that.

Wow! an actual argument in a final round giving voting suggestions. Asking by generic plea for votes in one's favor in the final round is one thing [which I did not do], but declaring victory throughout is quite another, and then concluding with suggestions on how to vote argument, sources, s&g and conduct? Sure, Why don't we just open-season the debate rules. One can clue voters with a primer on voting protocol. Wonder why I didn't think of that? Because I believe in debate and not stacking the deck. I believe in presenting the best argument possible and letting the voters decide who carried the better debate protocols. I believe debate rules stipulate a separation between debating and voting, with separate participants in each. Let's just open the rules and allow participants to vote along with "the community?" No, let's not.

I say to potential voters: read the context of all arguments. Vote on the basis of YOUR observations and not on anyone else's observations.

Re: my opponent's #8 post: as I said, I stated it in r1, Intro 1. It's in black & white. Obviously, by using the Holy Bible as a source, I am declaring it as a true source. That others may not believe this is up to them, even voters, who I will not offer suggestions on how to vote. I presume we're all adults, here.

-->
@Intelligence_06

I could've but I decided against it in the end.

-->
@Username

If you truly believe so, then you could k and win because you prove that the bible is false and there might be no sins at all.

-->
@Intelligence_06

As far as I know he did not state this.

-->
@fauxlaw

Where'd you say that? Lol

-->
@Intelligence_06

Yes, as stated in r1 intro 1.

-->
@fauxlaw

I am too lazy to read the debate but are you assuming the bible as a true source?

-->
@Barney

I don't believe it would be giving away the store if I made the comment that that your post #3 implies, to me, that what I am attempting to prove is a common Christian ethic. In fact, I am not aware that any version of Christianity teaches this principle that the three attempted temptations on Satan's part were to represent anything but that Satan attempted three times to ensnare Christ. Nor do I really think these three attempts were the only time Jesus was tempted. For example, I believe, without any source whatsoever, but by mere implication, that Satan was present in Gethsemane. That, itself, might make an interesting debate. Although I've noted that Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" places Satan on the path to Golgotha. Where else would he be when his entire effort was being derailed by the significant event of the atonement? In an ice cream store? The thre-temptations-represent-all-sins is my own theory, only. Not sure anyone else has ever made the claim. It will be a difficult proof as a result.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thank you for the bolding, as it allowed quick skimming to see what you believe the three root sins are: Pride, Power, and Possession.

-->
@fauxlaw

I think this debate may have been mislabeled.

Your BoP aim implies that it is intended to be along the lines of /in Christianity there are only three sins into which are others are encompassed,/ with Jesus in the desert then serving as evidence. Right now the title implies duel resolutions of only three broad sins and Jesus being tempted only three times; which can end up wasting a lot of characters trying to prove Jesus was only tempted three times, as opposed to it just being taken for granted as part of Christian theology.

-->
@Username

Subject to my acceptance and approval of the kritik. Perhaps it should be communicated by PM rather than in comments

-->
@fauxlaw

I'll accept if you allow me to run a kritik of the resolution. I'd feel like I ruined your debate if I ran a kritik without your permission.