Instigator / Con
0
1432
rating
361
debates
42.11%
won
Topic
#3801

Prove I don't use any applicable source (evidence) in any applicable topic of mine.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
1
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description

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.

Prove I don't use any applicable source (evidence) in any applicable topic of mine.

The source as in evidence, something that is actually proof to you, proof to anybody like water being wet to the touch.

Questions or comments, ask or leave them.

Round 1
Con
#1
Ok now the burden is upon you to provide a topic of mine that would be applicable for me to prove something.

Show where I didn't prove anything and or what was used was not proof.
Round 2
Con
#3
Do you actually have an example of what I was proving?

For instance, was I proving that we can destroy ourselves aside from the use of guns?

Perhaps you can look through that debate and see where the opponent agreed with me.

If I'm agreeing with somebody, I can see the evidence for myself.


Pro
#4
Right here, right now, Pro chose to not link us to the debate he is saying exists and this habit is so thorough throughout Pro's debates that Pro has correctly adapted to making his/her/their debates 'winner selection' instead of the four-point method, so that the lack of sourcing isn't inherently punished if his arguments are strong enough.

The pattern of not using sourcing is so extremely consistent in Pro's debating that I could spend an entire hour pasting link after link, instead I'll give you four solid examples where Pro's lack of sourcing was actually a primary issue that lost Mall the debate.


In this debate, Pro refuses to link to any source backing what he's saying about gravity or the objectivity of science.

Pro even has the skill to say this:

Similarly, science follows an empiricist inductive process which means it cannot lay claim to objective truth. 
I not sure what this means. Looks like conflation. I think we understand that science is the system that undergoes testing procedures so we can see or empirically acquire what in the world is in front of us.

The problem is that Mall replying to Con in that debate didn't back up anything he said, whereas Con was using references and sources to back up what was said.

Mall seems to be completely oblivious to this area of debating and aside from being too passive and asking questions, this is actually one of the most severe skill-gaps in any debate Mall engages in with someone proficient at debating. He allows the opponent to always have proven their case more by sourcing alone.

The only exception to this is debates with the bible but even in these debates, Mall doesn't link to the Bible to prove it's actually in the Bible, he just states the numbers of the verse inside the chapter/book:


He could be making up verses, yes? Why not just link to the Bible to prove the verse is really there?

The debate isn't lost by me admitting this, he won one of those debates primarily because the opponent forfeited Rounds, probably getting bored of the website.


It was a no-vote tie but Con blatantly won when you read it which is ashame as I forgot about the debate once it had ended.

Mall makes many claims:

The woman is made to accommodate the man's phallus.

The woman is made to accommodate the man's semen.

The woman is made to accommodate the man's sperm.

The woman is made to accommodate the carrying of the seed, offspring, baby , etc.

Everything fits just as straightforward as that  .

I could elaborate more than that but I don't assume a lack of knowledge from the other side.

For clarity though, the woman is made meaning designed for. 

What part of her design?

Namely the genitalia like I forestated. Like the part of the lock designed or made to accommodate the key .


These are all very easy to prove, though the metaphors are a bit 'out there' and yet Mall allowed the opponent to dictate everything about the proofs, since only his opponent used sources.
Round 3
Con
#5
"In this debate, Pro refuses to link to any source backing what he's saying about gravity or the objectivity of science."

I'm going to ask you a direct question.

Does gravity exist?

If you say " no " , I dare you to jump off a skyscraper.

"Con was using references and sources to back up what was said."

Do you think I didn't believe what the other person was saying?

I don't think I said prove anything. Nine times out of ten, I spent most of the time trying to get you folks to comprehend.

We're simply countering points challenging consistency.

"Mall seems to be completely oblivious to this area of debating and aside from being too passive and asking questions, this is actually one of the most severe skill-gaps in any debate Mall engages in with someone proficient at debating. He allows the opponent to always have proven their case more by sourcing alone."

Do you want to know my side of the story or are you good with continuing to pass judgment and the assessment?


"The only exception to this is debates with the bible but even in these debates, Mall doesn't link to the Bible to prove it's actually in the Bible, he just states the numbers of the verse inside the chapter/book:"

So you mean to say that a biblical discussion where I make references to something, I actually do . Of course because the topics are reference based.

The topics are about a specific reference material in text.

Also, after I give scripture, are you saying the other person is too lazy to look up the scripture on their end?

These are ridiculous points.

On top of that, ask yourself this question, does anybody I have a biblical debate with ever say that the scripture I gave and or posted doesn't read exactly like how it is?

I didn't think so. This is getting ridiculous. Leave the biblical debates out .

"He could be making up verses, yes? Why not just link to the Bible to prove the verse is really there?"

So why hasn't anybody come forth and said that I have?

Here's more absurdity, next you'll be saying I pay people to be in debates.

How do we know these links aren't fraudulent?

How do we know the links to these sources, the sources themselves, made up putting phony scientist names to attach to them?

Get this foolishness of yours out of here.

"Mall makes many claims:"

Name a fact that I have given you call a claim and say you can't see it for yourself.

You don't believe your own eyes now, is that it ?

I'm telling you, you were doing good for awhile with communicating. Now, not at all.

See people can't address me directly because they can't address my points.

I ask them simple yes or no questions that they dip and dodge because it'll refute them.

Just like in a courtroom. Just like in a court of law. Just like in a courtroom. When that person gets on the stand and some Perry Mason like lawyer asks that one question that inevitably convicts the person, same thing is happening here with you all on the stand.






Pro
#6
Go ahead and show us where you used sources.
Round 4
Con
#7
In every applicable debate I had because a "source" of evidence is exactly that and evidence can be anything that proves something.

I see you didn't answer the question about gravity.

Remember the topic title . The source of evidence or where evidence originates.

So it's not limited to citations.

I think I've said this before. The topics I choose mostly are things that can be discussed off of everyday empirical occurrences. 

You know, common sense, not he said/she said literature.
Pro
#8
If you have not used citations and references in debates where such would be applicable, including this one itself, it would imply that you have a pattern of failing to use applicable sources, even if 'common sense' and intuition are what you see as sufficient sources.

As mentioned previously, you adapted to this style of debating by being the instigator in debates and setting them up to be 'winner selection' rather than the 'four points' method. This was a good adaptation on your part and you seem to have done it from the get-go so you may have learned to do it on DDO but that I cannot prove anymore as I don't know your username there and the website is dead.
Round 5
Con
#9
I said what I said. You guys have such a thick wall up.
Pro
#10
I see