Instigator / Pro
21
1592
rating
14
debates
78.57%
won
Topic
#310

Polygamy

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
6
2
Better legibility
3
1
Better conduct
3
0

After 3 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...

bsh1
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1387
rating
34
debates
22.06%
won
Description

--Overview--

This debate will last for 4 rounds, with 3 days to post each round. There will be 10,000 characters available to each debate for each round. Voting will last for 2 weeks. I am taking the Pro position.

--Topic--

Some form of polygamy should be legal.

--Definitions--

Polygamy: the practice of having two or more legal spouses simultaneously
Should: expresses desirability, expediency, prudentiality, and/or advisability

--Rules--

1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss

--Structure--

R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary

Well, I guess I’m the sex panther of voters.

50% of the time, I vote for Virt every time.

-->
@ethang5

So, as we can all see: no evidence of any kind. again. He’s very good at making accusations, very poor at actually providing justification for them.

And like so many other times, when he actually makes specific claims, you end up proving yourself a liar.

I give virt all my votes? Omg that’s so true.

Except here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/311?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

And here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/242?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=4

Out of a total of 5 non forfeit/concession votes.

And as for Bsh1, you are absolutely correct that I have voted for him 100% of the time. I have consistently and repeatedly voted for him in every single debate of his I have voted for: every single only one of them - this one.

So yet again: you’re flat out demonstrably full of shit. Which is why, again, you have absolutely no credibility.

-->
@Ramshutu

>Until then, I’m going to treat your insane, paranoid claims - asserted with no evidence or justification - with the appropriate amount of disdain.

Sure. But I'll bet you're also going to keep giving bsh1 and Virt all your votes.

Think about it, you're the reason why many members won't do formal debates. Fake voting. You proud?

But take heart, the people who hire your fake votes have the greater sin. You're just the muscle, not the Don.

-->
@ethang5

No, I think the fact that you keep going on these nonsensical rants, with any proof of anything.

You’ve accused me of being the only person to vote in a particular way, when 3 other people also voted that same way. You’ve also asserted - with no evidence - that I only vote one way, and keep asserting that I only vote one way even after many, many, many examples of me voting other ways is presented.

I’m saying that you have a history of making things up, producing no evidence to support your claims: and then simply repeating those same lies over and over again because you think the “gentle reader” doesn’t see that you’re a liar. You have no credibility as a result.

If you can produce any specific example wher you think my vote was unfair or unreasonable - go ahead, and I will happily defend every vote I have made.

Until then, I’m going to treat your insane, paranoid claims - asserted with no evidence or justification - with the appropriate amount of disdain.

-->
@Ramshutu

You really think alleging silly things like "rants" sways the Gentle Readers? You and Virt gave all points to bsh1. You and wylted are in the Voting Club with Virt who appointed you, and Virt and bsh1 are mods, aaaaand, bsh1 is about to be #1 on the leaderboard as the best debater. Oh my! How serendipitous!

You're not just a ringer. You're the boards OFFICIAL ringer, by appointment to his majesty bsh1. Virt used to be a pretty good person. I guess bad company does ruin good character.

-->
@ethang5

Excellent observation - you are spot on noticing that no fortune cookies voted in this debate.

Frankly the rest of your angry fact-free rant is not based on anything resembling reality. Maybe we’re all part of the Illuminati?

-->
@Ramshutu

Right, but it wasn't a fortune cookie that gave full points to bsh1 after your pal and fellow vote club member wylted threw the match in the last round. It was you and fellow vote club member Virt.

"Vote Club" is starting to take on a whole different meaning. My God this is petty. Fakery and cheating to raise your elo? Really?

-->
@ethang5

No offence, but I’ve seen fortune cookies that were better at discerning the current state of reality than you are.

It is clear this entire debate is a sham by wylted and bsh1 to pad bsh1's elo. Bsh1 and wylted are good pals from long ago.

-->
@bsh1

I’m still in the process of analyzing the arguments, but I wanted to record my vote first.

-->
@Ramshutu

Totalizing means to the exclusion of all else, in that context. So, to prioritize freedom to the exclusion of privacy or free speech to the exclusion of equality is problematic. There can also be degrees of "totalizingness."

-->
@bsh1

“The common mistake among valuers that leads to a 'totalizing' of values as 'absolutes' or 'ultimates' is to forget that any given value encompasses only an aspect of reality and ought not to be treated as transcendent or reducible to that reality”.

Could you please explain what you mean by “totalizing” in this context and throughout?

I do it at the end of each of my rounds. Asking the voters for their vote, even in constructives, is neither unusual nor inappropriate.

Direct quote from the end of round 1

"Thank you! Please vote Pro!"

-->
@Wylted

No he did not. He stated the resolution is affirmed and to vote for him. That's standard practice. I've seen him do it in every single debate

You did it in round 1

I never declared myself the victor. I asked for the voters' votes. it is standard practice both IRL and online to urge or ask voters to vote for you at the conclusion of the debate.

test

-->
@Wylted

But as I pointed out in my vote, the silly extra rules that people tack onto the description aren't strictly enforceable.

I did not threaten to kill you. I am done here. Speak away about me, my assumed lifestyle and my job. Fucking joke.

Doesn't even deny threatening to kill me and will get a free pass

Another open threat I'm sure you'll get away with despite me being threatened with a ban for supposedly lying in a debate if I don'the offer an apology and retraction.

His rules say that type of conduct is an automatic loss. Different rules than the other debates

-->
@Wylted

"...bsh1 declared himself Victor before I had a chance to post."

You do that all the time.

You did it when you debated me on ice in fast food beverages.

You did it in the "can God lift a rock, bla, bla" debate.

So if your argument is that bsh1 should lose this debate because he declared victory before the debate was over, then you would also need to concede both of those other two debates.

Hmmm...

Rm is tempted to say he would hunt me down and murder me or some other insane shit, but doesn't want to violate the COC. Dude is a piece of work.

RM, get a job stop spending so much time on here . Are you mooching off of people you supposedly love? I'd that why you have so much free time to post arguments the level of what a low IQ 12 year old would post, if they had enough time to sloppily research those subjects?

Is everyone just focused on the perceived lie in the final round and ignoring that bsh1 declared himself Victor before I had a chance to post. You guys need to learn how to see the whole picture instead of zeroing in on one thing. He'll bsh1 even dropped the arguments about war and violence being more common in polygamist societies and the mentions of basically treating women like commodities to be traded for sheep. His arguments center around if somebody claims to have a religious belief supporting their abusive practice than their abusive practice should be tolerated fuck how it affects society as a whole or the young naive 12 year Olds taken advantage of in these societies

@Wylted if I was head mod, CoC would be quite different when it comes to this matter. Can't say it without breaking threat CoC.

You'd be banned though, I can say that much.

Rm, I have just as much power as bsh1, I'm not screaming "unfair". I probably have more power. I wear a fedora, and this is my playground. For now, but I can always create a new one. I have plenty of disposable income. I feel like a failure for not having the amount a 6 figure income would bring me, but a I have enough to create and market a new playground.

bsh1 has not acted unfair, but I just wanted to show he isn't exactly the saint people think he is by pointing out the subtle threat. He is a shitty confidant anyway. He has insight he holds back from me, on me. I think he would be happier if I stopped opening up to him, but he'll have to suffer until I get that possibly life altering insight he is holding back. Also how are you going to block me Bsh1 when I am in your mafia game?

In fact, it has always been moderation's position that by posting content from a PM with moderation, the discloser waives their privacy in that context: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/538?page=3&post_number=51

And, it is not a threat. I am offering to reveal screenshots confirming that I am innocent of the absurdity I've been accused of.

Wylted, when you break the ankle of a bear that is otherwise tame, it is going to claw and bite not just for defence, but also out of an innate urge for retribution.

Don't fuck around with your confidant and expect not even the slightest reminder of who has power. You had no place lying like you did, you also will find I got that debate deleted and that everything you said about me on that debate comments section was proven wrong.

I have honour, I understand the balance between honour and naivety and how to not have too much of honour such that I am ridiculously naive without losing said honour. Honour is not the same as being noble. Being noble is being known for being honourable, many dishonourable people have been noble in the past and vice versa. The biggest example is Winston Churchill, he is fierce and great at what he did but my god he was dirty behind the scenes. In fact the entire middle east and its issues are due to something he and FD Roosevelt... Well, let's just say... Israel was not step 1, it was step 2. The problems that happened with Israel weren't entirely unintended. Anyway, I am quite unlike Churchill. I am far more honourable than noble. I am not known for said honour all that much but those who know me, deeply appreciate it.

Don't play around with people if you aren't ready to get beaten at your own game. First learn how and why to be honourable, then experiment with how and why to afford to not be it.

I like the subtle threat, you'll reveal the full contents of the PM, a new rule you never mentioned previously. bsh1 knows the PM reveals personal information about myself because I treat him like a confidant, something I do with no other user here. I don't care though, they'll have access to all of that information soon enough.

-->
@Raltar

Don't dare question my honor

-->
@RationalMadman

Right now, that is the case for full mods, yes.

-->
@bsh1

But with mods it applies even if not mod related?

-->
@RationalMadman

The PM disclosure does not apply to assistant mods unless the discussion is mod-related.

Don't worry Castin, I am not a pussy to betray you because you are mod. Our gossip is safe af.

-->
@Castin

Please pay attention here to what you have exposed yourself to.

-->
@bsh1

Oh, I'm sure. I doubt you would say something like that.

But even if it were true, for the purpose of the debate, it wouldn't matter on who actually won. So it was an irrelevant "argument" anyway.

-->
@Raltar

It did not happen, and I am more than happy to furnish photographic evidence to prove the point. Since Wylted has supposedly quoted from our PM, he has waived all privacy claims to the content of our PM.

-->
@David
@bsh1
@Wylted

Alright, good to know. Consider my accusation of PM Doxxing officially retracted.

That aside however, even if harassing PMs did take place, that still strikes me as an outside issue to the debate itself. Wylted would be right to complain about such an event, but not within the context of the debate itself.

-->
@Raltar

You can disclose mod PMs so long as those PMs do not violate any other user's rights. That said, by doing so, you give the mod permission to reveal the contents of the PMs.

-->
@Raltar

Yes you can as long as the disclose doesn't relate to another user.

-->
@bsh1
@Wylted

"I believe it has been discussed and approved that you can disclose mod PMs"

I was not aware of this. If true, I retract any accusation that it was a violation of the rules.

But is that the case? Can we disclose moderator PMs?

-->
@Wylted

Since I never said such a thing, the lie itself is poor conduct.

-->
@Raltar

I believe it has been discussed and approved that you can disclose mod PMs

Lol wut? That was the oddest closing argument ever.

-->
@Wylted

Lying to achieve a win is extremely low.

-->
@drafterman

Please vote on this debate. Very quick read

-->
@Wylted

You've got 4 hours-ish to post.

-->
@bsh1

I'm going to try and wake up early enough to do this. Tough though with only getting a few hours of sleep a night. It's always 2 hous a day of sleeping or 16. The extra hours awake are usually dedicated to more passive study and menial labor. Critical thinking is harder with less fuel in the tank.