I'm on trial. What is the problem you see with me?
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 15 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Here you air your disputes involving the debates I been in with you or with anyone. The topics, the premises, debates that you've seen me in, let's discuss them. Hopefully everybody gets a chance, gets a turn at this as I plan to do several of these trials/confrontations.
Now this is still in the spirit of contest. As you try to prove your points valid, I will render my points to refute and or correct yours.
So in regards to the way I argue or why I made a particular point, said a particular thing, came up with a particular topic, even personal views, here's the opportunity to challenge it all in this challenge. You can question, challenge a challenge, etc.
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
- "I am on trial, prove why your problems with me are justified."
- X is good, therefore you ought to do x
- P1: X is good, therefore you ought to do x
- "There's nothing wrong to believing/acting in the name of "white power" upon being demonstrated as such."
- The principals of connotation would firmly establish a positive assertion of the resolution as such principal: immoral. Connotation - “an idea suggested by a word in addition to its main meaning” or “ the various social overtones, cultural implications, or emotional meanings associated with a(n idea)” (idea replaces sign for topicality)
- According to adl.org/fighting against hatred/, white power is defined thusly: “is a white supremacist slogan designed to mimic the "black power" slogan often used by African-Americans in the 1960s/70s. It is a commonly shouted at white supremacist events as a racist rallying cry.”
- As such, regardless of Mall’s positions on x, arguing in favor of it, even as devil’s advocate, is a clear sign of furthering the harm of such symbols of hatred such as “White power” Not to mention, never did Mall completely disavow the idea itself, nor clarify their position on such.
- Mall accepts this debate as the Con and is therefore against either the position that Ragnar can present valid evidence regarding Adolf Hitler’s racism, or is against the proposition that Hitler was racist. Using the principle of Common or Public information, we can conclude that, most likely, Mall was not arguing in favor of the former, instead of arguing for the former
- Common knowledge is defined by integrity.mit.edu as: “information that the average, educated reader would accept as reliable without having to look it up.” or “something that many or most people know” I would argue that the knowledge of Hitler’s inherently racist deeds is commonly known to the coverage of WWII within the education system of most first world countries, and therefore the ones with the most access to the internet. (I), (II), (III)
- Evidence of the existence of the Holocaust as ordered by Adolf Hitler: (I), (II), (III), (IV), (V) (Note: These sources will only be discussed in length if Mall disagrees) Therefore, the presentation of Adolf Hitler as a non-racist is immoral, if not for the fact that it is commonly demonstrated information, for the maliciousness that the idea will cause if accepted.
- P1: General Assertions of fact are often untrue
- P2: Quality of untrue applies due to the implied, “all” or “them all”
- P3: One example is all that is needed to demonstrate these as false
- This often further convinces Mall of a strawman or a false representation of an argument
- “Atheists and Agnostics can never convert to theism, ever”
- This is a classic example of such a statement, as the Con of the argument applied, easily presenting themself as a former atheist turned theist. Therefore completely debunking the claim without any further needed argument.
- It perpetuated a falsely held definition of Atheism that assumes some type of world view when an atheist is simply defined as thus: “a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods” or “a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods”
- As Athiest is only related to one’s propositional or belief based view on theism, applying it to such a proposition as “never” is false. Therefore this is a valid problem to hold with user.Mall.
- “To answer, because they're topics that are debatable apparently.”
- As argued previously, it is not simply a suggestion, to not do x is a moral imperative. To not do x, argue against morally wrong things, one is immoral. I have justified why the positions Mall held were immoral already
- Regardless of a debate topic’s debatability, whenever one enters a debate they are either for or against the proposition. Mall has shown repeated acceptance of such immoral propositions and argued in favor of them.
- A proposition is either true or false, a good deal of opponents come with an attitude of dogma and reject my arguments. I would prefer and do explore the truth of the aforementioned statement.”
- Mall is essentially saying that they like to prove absolutes, even when such an absolute is unjustified. The claim above referring to atheism in the section of General Assertions of fact should be enough to justify the position as held by Con.
- Your position is justified by the following: Opponents frequently misunderstand what I say, by talking over but not asking questions, I repeat topics to give people the chance to ask these questions. Due to the fact that I am a republican in a pool of democrats, this does not happen often.
- Mall says they redo topics in order for others of different viewpoints to understand more thoroughly, though they do not clarify any claims any further, if this were their goal perhaps their debate resolutions would more closely resemble user-Seldiora’s, who is an actual example of what they are arguing.
- There are numerous skilled debaters who are also republicans on this website: See Fauxlaw and MisterChris. As well as specified on my about me page, I am very democratic, my political ideology being listed as progressivism. My ideal candidate for the presidential democrat nominee is Bernie Sanders, I am pro-abortion, LGBTQ, government regulations, it seems I embody the stereotype quite well, and yet I ask.
- Do you believe we should act in accordance with what is moral?
- Do you believe that you are clarifying your resolutions at peek efficiency?
- Do you believe that the propositions I outlined in my “Moral Imperative” sections are moral ones to favor?”
- Do you believe I am unfair in my argumentation?
- Do you believe that being dismissed for a logical fallacy/lack of evidence is being “talked over”?”
My opponent has forfeited round 3, dropped all arguments against themselves, etc, etc... To give my final thoughts on the matter. While it is a unique and interesting perspective to approach criticism it is not a very effective way. As Mall's debate with RationalMadman demonstrated, some debaters will except for no other reason than because they can use the resolution to their advantage.