Instigator / Con
6
1314
rating
50
debates
13.0%
won
Topic

I'm on trial. What is the problem you see with me?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
2
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
1
3

With 3 votes and 15 points ahead, the winner is ...

Theweakeredge
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
21
1539
rating
5
debates
80.0%
won
Description
~ 1,233 / 5,000

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.

Round 1
Con
Why don't you start off with some questions surrounding what you think are problems and let the answers help clear things up?

Can we make a go of it?

Pro
Opening Statement

Thank you for the debate resolution Mall, I look forward to a productive one.  As the resolution states, "I'm on trial, what is the problem you see with me?" This being subjective, in order to win the debate all I have to do is prove I have a problem with Mall; however, I find this frankly uninteresting and not very debatable. I am me, and I have a problem with Mall. Easy. Instead, I will interrupt the Resolution as such:

  • "I am on trial, prove why your problems with me are justified."

BoP: To be clear, the BoP is shared between debaters, the Contender (Myself) must provide reason's of Mall's "guilt" so to speak, and Mall must rebuke these claims in their entirety. 

Structure: I will use my first round to clarify some things, and then point out several actions that would be considered immoral or wrong. 


Moral Imperative

  • X is good, therefore you ought to do x

The condition is that the subject, Mall, is a good person. My first question being as such: "Why do you continuously argue for what we all agree are demonstrably immoral things or people, when you ought to do x?" X being not advocating for immoral positions. 

Some examples in case the voters are not familiar with  Mall's debate record:


"There's nothing wrong to believing/acting in the name of "white power" upon being demonstrated as such." (1) & (2)
This position was advocated by Mall twice, and contended by Selidora and Oromagi respectively, we have no reason to believe that Mall has changed their opinion since then. 


This position was advocated by Mall once, as the contender of a Con, Ragnar, and once more we have no reasons to believe that Mall has changed their view since then. 


This position was advocated by Mall once, and contended by Ragnar, we have no reasons to believe Mall has changed their view since then.


This position was advocated by Mall once, and contended by Oromagi, we have no reasons to believe Mall has changed their views since then.

This position was advocated by Mall once, and contended Intelligence_06, we have no reasons to believe Mall has changed their views since then.



General Assertions of fact

In general, one should not make these for very good reason. Typically there is always an exception to that assertion which disproves your claim. My question here is as follows: "Why do you continue to make these, and advocate for them?" 

Some examples for the voters:

Athiests are religious (1) & (2)
This position was advocated by Mall twice, and contended by Bearman and Seldiora respectively, we have no reasons to believe Mall has changed their views since then.

Atheists and Agnostics can never convert to theism, ever. (1) & (2)
This position was advocated by Mall twice, and contended by Ragnar and MisterChris respectively, we have no reasons to believe Mall has changed their views since then.



Conclusion

I have listed my problems with Pro (Mall) and provided reasons for why it was justified, therefore, until Pro rebukes these claims I have fulfilled my BoP.  I look forward to Con's argumentation.  
Round 2
Con
"Why do you continuously argue for what we all agree are demonstrably immoral things or people, when you ought to do x?" 

To answer, because they're topics that are debatable apparently.


"General Assertions of fact

In general, one should not make these for very good reason. Typically there is always an exception to that assertion which disproves your claim. My question here is as follows: "Why do you continue to make these, and advocate for them?" "

To answer based on what I'm understanding this question is asking in context, whatever I say is either true or false.

I notice a lot that many come with an "already know the deal" attitude armed to reject whatever I say. Many times I ask a question to the other party or opposing side to challenge what I said. I like to take time to go through the thought process but as very few are willing to go.

"I have listed my problems with Pro (Mall) and provided reasons for why it was justified, therefore, until Pro rebukes these claims I have fulfilled my BoP. I look forward to Con's argumentation. "

So the problem it looks like you're presenting is that folks misunderstand much of what I say really due to not asking questions but repeating talking points and not communicating.

I redo debate topics for the sake of giving folks another try to present evidence, or make a better point or argument.

The reality is of an illustration I like to make.

That illustration is that I'm a republican in a pool of democrats. So which way do you think the conversation is going to go often times?

But in this session, you are doing something that is a great example I appreciate. That is asking questions. Very few but are nevertheless questions. That's what leads us to truth or evidence if you will.

Pro
Preamble:

Thank you for the response Mall, I’ll use the beginning of this round to continue clarifying some positions and aspects of the debates that have, until now, remained ambiguous. This will include; BoP, Structure, and how I’ll approach Mall’s responses.

BoP:  Pro has not objected to this shift of the resolution, and has actually argued seemingly supporting this. If Pro does object, please note during your next argument

Structure: I will clarify my positions, i.e, explaining each contention, then I will explain why or why not each statement applies to this argument. This will take the form of a rebuttal. 

Approach: I will first address each of my contentions and further clarify/making small arguments for each of them, and then will approach Mall’s answers with them. 



Moral Imperative

  • P1: X is good, therefore you ought to do x
P2: X is arguing against immoral positions
P3: Mall has argued against x
Con: Therefore - Mall is immoral

This is a streamlined version of my argument, and I shall provide short arguments reinforcing the idea that the claims Mall made were immoral. This is to justify my new BoP, “Justify my problems against Mall as valid.” 


  • "There's nothing wrong to believing/acting in the name of "white power" upon being demonstrated as such."

  • 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 


  • 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.

I could do this individually for each point, but I do believe the similarity of the claims involved relieves me of such a burden, from there I would only be proving what is not needed. No, I will save both Mall and the voters time by limiting the argument there, and if Mall wants further evidence to ask for it, and I will present it. 



General Assertion of Fact

  • 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
Con: Therefore, this is a valid problem I have with Mall.

Essentially what I argue is that the practice of applying an assertion to one group or collection is often untrue, due to it’s inherently accusatory/assumptions/opinionated position, it will apply a principle that one or another example disproves

  • This often further convinces Mall of a strawman or a false representation of an argument

Ex:

  • “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.


  • 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. 

Once more I will save the voters and Mall time and leave it here, it Mall wants more examples of such, I will be happy to provide them. If we run out of room to discourse I will simply post them in the comment section and use that as a source. 



Responses to Mall (Rebuttal


To moral imperative - 

  • “To answer, because they're topics that are debatable apparently.”

This answer is not satisfactory for two reasons, which I will list below:

  • 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.

As I have already justified why Mall’s arguments fit the to not do  portion of x, and Mall has agreed to the framework provided, I am justified in having this problem with Mall. 


To general assertions - 

Note: Due to character space I shall shorten Mall’s main argument, thank you

  • 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.”
This answer is not satisfactory for the reason left below: 

  • 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. 

To conclusion - 
 
Note: Due to character space I shall shorten Mall’s main argument, thank you

  • 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.  
This answer is not valid for sequential 2 reasons:

  •  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. 
 

New Questions to Consider
 
  • 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”?”
 
Please do take into mind I do not expect Pro to answer all of these questions, as the category clarifies, these are only questions to consider, for Mall, and the audience. 
 

 
Conclusions

Essentially nothing has changed, my position remains demonstrated, even further now. Whereas Pro has not sufficiently answered the initial questions, and we should value these questions even more due to the introduction of evidence to support my claims. 

Thank you, Mall for the debate, I look forward to your response. 
Round 3
Con
Forfeited
Pro
Final Speech:

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.

It is also telling because while people like seldiora also repost debates, they seem to at least attempt to improve arguments, clarify resolutions, get better at debating in general (Unless its something he doesn't care about because then he will just copy and paste and argument.) Whereas Mall has the same approach, the same arguments (loosely) and the same objections to being dismissed due to a lack of evidence. 


Moral Imperative: Extend

General Assertions: Extend


Conclusion:

I have fulfilled both the stated resolution, and my new one, I have demonstrated having a problem with user, Mall, and justified why my problems are justified. Whereas Mall has not properly defended their positions, and not fulfilled their BoP. 

Thank you for reading, vote Pro.