Very dishonest and proof of dishonesty on a platform.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Dropped. Extend.