Instigator / Pro
1
1341
rating
72
debates
18.75%
won
Topic

Very dishonest and proof of dishonesty on a platform.

Status
Finished

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

Voting points
1
2

With 3 votes and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Novice_II
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
2
1662
rating
15
debates
90.0%
won
Description
~ 1,352 / 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.

I had created a biblical debate here stipulating that Bible , chapter and verse must be presented verbatim to prove the subject matter.

The person that does not fulfill that loses the debate outright. The persons that vote , award points to the person that did not meet the debate conditions is with just as dishonest or slow to comprehend.

A biblical debate between Smallwood Muhammad and Bishop E.W. Tookes can be found on YouTube.
The debate was before a mass of folks that understood that each speaker had to bring scripture to prove their point.

The scripture brought said expressly what was needed to refute all other arguments. The masses served as witnesses of this and acknowledged what was not brought.

Now this is a straightforward on the nose type of topic. It's suspected to be highly non-disputable but that means it's true and nobody coming on to debate.

Round 1
Pro
Do you agree that a person that does not meet debate stipulations is disqualified to engage and from that point on have any further valid participation in it?
Con
Resolved: Very dishonest and proof of dishonesty on a platform.

Burden of proof
  • Given the seemingly incoherent description, we simply place the entire burden on pro and default the resolution to the contender. Thus mall bears the burden of proof for however we shall reasonably interpret the resolution of this debate. 

a. Interpretation of the resolution
  • It is resolved as "very dishonest and proof of dishonesty on a platform."
  • I posit that we interpret the debate to showcase evidence of dishonesty within the debate art platform in one of the instigator's previous debates.


Round 2
Pro
Hello, once more.......

Do you agree that a person that does not meet debate stipulations is disqualified to engage and from that point on have any further valid participation in it?
Con
Overview
  • Mall seems to have failed to make an affirmative argument that proves some form of systemic dishonestly with respect to his experiences on the platform. Dishonestly that is, of course, "very dishonest." 

a. Interpretation of the resolution
  • Dropped. Extend.
  • As typical the instigator bears the entire burden of the debate. Mall can of course challenge my perfectly reasonable interpretation of a seemingly incomprehensible topic (the description touches on some biblical points that seem purposeless) but this is the current basis of our debate. 

Sources
  • No real sources, but entertainment for readers to make up for the bore of this engagement. It relates to our current circumstances as they are previous debates between me and the instigator.
  • In addition, a supplementary image that describes his performance in both debates.
  1. Baptism is a must do to be saved according to the holy scriptures.
  2. The debate is a tie on "Atheism is simply a lack of belief".

Round 3
Pro
This is my point exactly.
A person won't even answer a question that's being asked . May be to avoid being dishonest in an answer. May be afraid to answer truthfully with that answer to prove my point.

This is another example when someone like this is hung up that will not answer a question.

Just no communication, no compliance. None given to debate conditions like the other debate challenge. Then none given to respond directly to an inquiry about failing to meet debate conditions.

Case closed.


Con
x. Default to con
  • Mall has failed to make an affirmative argument, and thus, uphold his burden of proof. The resolution defaults to con who has effectively won the debate. 

a. Interpretation of the resolution
  • Dropped. Extend.