God Exists And Humans Depend On God To Live
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
1. The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote.
2. All votes *must* have thorough, serious reasons for voting and both debaters agree, by accepting this debate, to publicly ask the mods to remove those votes, after the debate, if the votes are not serious or thorough.
3. By accepting this debate, both debaters and the voters (and maybe one day I can say the moderators too) agree that any vote that is dishonest (defined below) about what occurred in the debate will be requested publicly by both debaters, after the debate, to be removed by the mods.
Dishonest votes include:
a. Voters claiming an argument was made by a debater that was never made and then using this fabricated or exaggerated argument to vote that debater up or down.
b. Voters claiming a source that was provided by a debater states/shows something it does not state/show and then using this imaginary/exaggerated content to vote the debater up or down.
c. Voters claiming a source that was used by a debater for a particular purpose that was not the purpose the debater stated it was being used for or voters exaggerating/self-generating the purpose/intent of the debater in order to vote the debater up or down.
d. Voters ignoring arguments made by a debater to claim the arguments were never made then voting that debater up or down based on the claimed lack of arguments.
e. Voters ignoring sources provided by a debater in order to claim the debater didn't provide them, or to claim that the sources were not supporting an argument not used by the debater to support, or to claim that the purpose for using the source was something not stated by the debater to be or to claim that the purpose for using the source was one that was fabricated by the voter to be then using any or all of these fabrications to vote the debater up or down.
f. Voters claiming a lack of clarity where it is not obviously apparent and where the voter does not specifically explain why it's not very clear or voters exaggerating a lack of clarity without referencing content within the debate in order to vote the debater up or down.
g. Voters using ANYTHING not within the debate in order to vote a debater up or down.
4. Both debaters agree, by accepting the debate, that any votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are dishonest (see above) or lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased will be requested, publicly, by both debaters to be removed by the mods.
5. Death23, ethang5, and any of their related accounts may not vote on or participate in this debate because of the dishonesty section of the rules.
God exists and humans depend on god to live.
Has the BoP, 4 rounds, 10K characters per round, and 3 days per post to AFFIRM that god exists and humans depend on god to live; Pro should also refute Con.
Has 4 rounds, 10K characters per round, and 3 days per post to NEGATE that god exists and humans dpend on god to live; Con should also refute Pro.
god - a superhuman existence worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes.
superhuman - above or beyond what is human; having a higher nature or greater powers than humans have.
existence - something that exists.
exists - has objective reality or being.
humans - members of the Homo Sapiens species; human beings belonging to the genus Homo.
depend on - rely on.
live - remain alive.
May the better argument win!
Without a future, there is no fortune.
Without god, there is no human fortune.
A physical thing is composed of matter. Doesn’t matter if it’s a gas, liquid, solid or plasma—it is still composed of matter.
We arrive at this simple conclusion by observing the world around us and using our reasoning:
A physical thing can not create itself.
- That rock over there didn't create itself. Something else had to create it.
- That car over there didn’t will itself into being. Something had to create it.
- That building was created by something.
- The earth was created by something, it didn’t create itself.
We observe this fact, through science, about every physical thing around us. There is not a physical thing that we observe that is believed to have created itself.
One can ask these basic questions about every physical thing we observe— how did it come into existence? It could not have created itself, so WHAT created it?
As stated, when one asks this question repeatedly of everything, one ultimately arrives at the question “Well, what about matter itself?” (Reminds me of that Rocky & Bullwinkle quip, “Wassamatta U.!”). “What created matter?”
Well, when one asks the question “What created matter?”, it’s reasonable to use our experience about everything else we observe, via science, and draw the following conclusion “Matter could not have created itself because, as we witness around us, a physical thing can not create itself. It’s reasonable to deduce that this would apply to “matter” itself.”
Therefore, “matter” could not create itself. It’s reasonable to conclude that whatever created matter must be “im-material” (i.e. not composed of matter). In fact, what created the universe must exist OUTSIDE the universe (how would it be part of the universe and create the universe?).
The sun is a physical entity in this universe. It is composed of matter, as is other physical entities in this universe. As shown above, the “sun” could not have created itself. Nor could hydrogen.
While it is true God has power over nature, why is that? Is it because maybe God created nature?
- Did the sun create nature? No
- The Sun, though powerful, is still subject to the laws of physics as well as the theory of relativity. These physical laws/theories bind things within this universe. In other words, physical objects in this universe (me, you…the car…the surfer…and yes, the Sun) are bound by the laws of physics
Your origin of life on Earth is flawed. The sun may have simply just provided the right temperature/pressure for life to begin, that in no way can be translated into "The Sun created life". That would be like saying the oven "made the cake"-- it just simply provided the right environment. In addition, timply because science has replicated the building blocks of earth, this in no way proves that is HOW life originated on earth. I can construct an Atari video game in my garage….that doesn’t prove my way was the way the original video game was constructed.
Your theory on the formation and structure of the Earth is appealing. However, while it might explain the earth and it’s formation, it fails to explain the formation of other physical objects outside our solar system. Nor does it explain things that have non-physical existence, like thoughts, ideas, and concepts.
Just because we schedule our days/nights around the rotation of the earth to the sun, it the beginning it was done out of necessity. Now, with the advent of technology, it’s more of a convenience. In fact, many activities are independent of Night/Day (can I get three cheers for them finally installing lights at Wrigley Field??). I tend to schedule my work day around my Boss’ needs—I’m not about to start worshiping him as a God.
So wow you may follow the path of the ancient Egyptians and worship the Sun (Ra), one would question why? Through your power of reason and deduction, you should be able to deduce that something had to have created the sun, and thus, be more powerful than the sun.
"Allow me to lean on Aquinas, et al, a bit here."
"What created matter?...what created the universe must exist OUTSIDE the universe...the sun is a physical entity in this universe...the Sun, though powerful, is still subject to the laws of physics."
"While it is true God has power over nature, why is that?"
"Did the sun create nature?"
"Your origin of life on Earth is flawed."
"The sun may have simply just provided the right temperature/pressure for life to begin, that in no way can be translated into 'The Sun created life'. "
"Your theory on the formation and structure of the Earth...might explain the earth and it’s formation...it fails to explain the formation of other physical objects outside our solar system."
"we schedule our days/nights around the rotation of the earth to the sun"
"in fact, many activities are independent of Night/Day (can I get three cheers for them finally installing lights at Wrigley Field??)."
"Through your power of reason and deduction, you should be able to deduce that something had to have created the sun."
"While I could refute everything you write in defense of worshiping the Sun..."
"...there's no need to."
"The whole point is, if you can use logic and reasoning to show that some "thing" had to create the universe, the sun, etc, it stands to reason that worshiping the Sun is illogical when something much larger, much more powerful than the Sun is 'out there.'"
More than that, god does not have to be the creator of the universe.
Where did you get that idea Con?
"If you make the claim that people are dependent on the sun, then I would argue yes..."
"Yep, and my response is, there something much greater than the sun-- superhuman too."
"Sorry, I did not concede that God is a physical entity. When did I concede that?"
"The sun is a physical entity in this universe. It is composed of matter."-Con
"Curious, why don't you worship Earth?
So what if other things are worshiped for being superhuman?
Why does there have to be only one, again?
"Having one or two super-human abilities does not a God make. Sorry."
"I can name a whole host of things that a human can do that a sun can't do."
Even if humans have supersolar powers, it wouldn't negate that the sun, praise be unto hydrogen, has greater powers than humans rendering it superhuman.
"God exists and humans depend on god to live. That I believe."
"Sorry Magic Mike, you've done nothing to prove that the Sun is a God."
"You fail to understand the basic definitions, like "contingent". You stretch it to mean what you want. Nice playin with ya."
contingent on/upon - occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case.
"you think dreams/ideas/thoughts have a physical existence."
But while we're here, things that are contingent on the physical are physical themselves though they are not made of matter; they are contingent on matter, so are therefore physical.
"Likewise, you think the "God" simply means has some greater powers than a human"
"But i stand by my statement, having a few powers greater than a human does not a God make. Sorry. It doesn't work like that."
"What you haven't proven is this: the sun is a God. The sun is a god in your mind. I get that. "
The mere fact that I've repeated the damn phrase about hydrogen so many times proves that I praise and worship the great hydrogen ball, and this satisfies the resolution.
"Of course, as an atheist, I'm sure you believe Truth is subjective."
b) Even if I reject the god claim made by countless religions, I still believe there are objective truths.
"In case your curious, I've already won the debate."
Thanks for the concession Con.
Maybe I'll prove that your god isn't real in a different debate...it'll be fun to watch you squirm to try to demonstrate such a ridiculous god.
Hahahaha, Con looks funny when he squirms.
Damn! I was going to vote on this...too late i guess....jeez what did Magic do to piss those voters off? Wow, such egregious ignorance of the definitions and rules...ballsy votes.
You @'ed me about 2 pages and 0.4 flamewars ago. Don't really know if you're still interested in a response from me or Virt, but here's mine.
I see what you're saying. For my part, I had perceived Pro's "additions to definitions" in his R1 to be a mere clarification of the preexisting definitions. I also saw comment #34.
"and a self professed smart guy"
When have I ever said that?
Come on man.
"I actually think you need to spend time on reading comprehension."
We're done here.
Yeah: no, I don’t do that.
At this point you only seem to be able to shout at me for how biased I am, without specifically being able to name an instance.
It’s like you’re accusing me of being a thief without even being able to tell me what I’m supposed to have stolen, and can’t even given any actual reasons why you think I stole anything in the first place.
I actually think you need to spend time on reading comprehension.
When you continually state that I’m holding a position, which through my entire RfD and multiple posts I clearly justify why I do not hold that position: it kinda makes me think you’re not interested in facts, but you’re just interested in soothing your own ego. Seriously, you keeping telling me that I’m
Weighing arguments in one way, when I clearly and specifically show otherwise in my RfD.
I’ve voted for you, and against you. I’ve voted for you in scenarios where I didn’t feel your morally deserved it, and against you when you did - when the arguments warranted such a position.
You’ve commented very positively on several of my RFDs on your debates - but it seems my RFDs, based on the same process and methodology and weighting as this one are only considered to be “excellent” by you when they happen to come down in your favour.
You dont seem interested in valid votes - the fact that you’ve demanded I should have rejected cons arguments because of arguments you did not make demonstrates this - you seem solely fixated and outraged that I didn’t vote for you. I’m fair and excellent when I vote for you, and outrageous and biased against you when I vote for someone else.
This is not about fairness, or reasonableness of votes - this is down your own personal animosity that someone dared to vote against you - outrage I can only presume to be stoked due to your own inability to accept your own shortcomings.
That’s not my problem, and I will simply direct you to both my RfD and failing that, my Avatar, which clearly expresses my personal level of concern for your outrage.
You aren't too dumb to know where you twisted the analysis and inserted your own judgement to cheat in order to co trol the results of the debate. Your like the thief who is caught who asks "if I stole how did I do it?" You intentionally used retarded logic to interpret the debate in a way that was preferravle to the side you wanted to win prior to even reading the debate
Actually, a more accurate assessment is that I asked what was wrong with the vote, you made some generic complaints, could not point to any specific examples of where I did anything wrong and the most you’ve ever provided was saying that I didn’t consider something that was literally explicitly described and considered in my RfD. You then ran away and continued to make generic accusations without any specific substance.
I think you need to have a chat with the mods.
Again: your ignoring everything I’ve said. Over and over.
The definitions in the info were accepted.
You argued different definitions.
Pro challenged your definitions.
Asserting that they were accepted omits the key fact that the definitions you said you were using were not accepted.
You keep trying to wriggle our of that noose.
I already explained to you how tabula rasa voting works. You ignorantly plugged your ears and claimed you did it, despite overtly using your own mind to interpret things on this debate and repeatedly
"Asserting the definitions are valid and accepted over and over and over again is not an acceptable rebuttal "
Except that you agreed to using those very definitions from the info...and Con conceded using the words from the info, so no assertion needed.
Nothing about adding definitions necessitates changing the other definitions and they weren't changed at all in fact.
Just to be clear, using the definitions in the info, you have no way to see that Con using those words from the info to concede the resolution necessarily requires a voter using those same info definitions to take that as a concession...there is no other way to see it.
Still no definitions from Con?
I’m still waiting for some specific issue or error you think I’ve made on any of the votes you’ve taken issue with. So far it’s all generic “your votes are terrible” and arbitrary “your biased”. I’ve asked you a few times now.
If you can’t tell me what’s wrong with the vote, I’m assuming you can’t see anything wrong with the vote.
You changed the definitions. This is a fact. You added a definition. Fact. You modified the definition of God. fact. Any argument you’re not make where you claim the definitions were not changed, is not based on fact.
You argued based on these new definitions. This is a fact.
You proved the sun met the definition of God based upon your new definitions - not the definitions in the info. This is a fact.
Con challenged your definition as absurd, and as it is factually established that challenging your new definitions is valid - this argument is valid.
All of these points are unchallenged by you, and you have addressed only in nonsensical assertions, and deliberate misrepresention.
There are, easily a thousand different arguments you could make to argue why I should have ignored cons argument and accepted your argument as true - however not a single one of them was presented by you in your debate.
Asserting the definitions are valid and accepted over and over and over again is not an acceptable rebuttal because you argue from a position that ignores that the definitions you are using have been modified from the ones in the info.
As you make none of the relevant arguments in the debate - you lose.
Worst still, you’re supposed to be not only a grown man, but a teacher and a self professed smart guy: and yet almost every response you’ve made refuses to acknowledge this basic set of facts - you changed the definitions, you offered no defense of the new definitions, those new definitions were challenged.
Simply sticking your head in the sand and acting as if I’m not considering the thing I’ve literally mentioned in every single post is not the actions of a rational human being.
Finally some reasonableness.
It just sucks that the mods can't do anything about them.
Those two are causing almost every debate to end the opposite of how it should merely because there are not enough interested voters to counter act them here. This debate wasn't even close and it just shows how unfit those two are to judge debates
No use arguing with them. They have a clead bias against you and are either too lacking in morality to set it aside or lack the i intellectual capacity to be capable of it
It never fails that ramshutu and raltar will fuck up their vote. This is sad
You've dropped the most important of all.
If you used the definitions from the info, Con conceded sun's superhumanity, conceded the sun is worshiped for various things, con even went so far as to concede the entire resolution, and here is your 6990 drop.
What fucking definition were you using when Con conceded every one of these points.
Put the definition here that you used and show how con didn't concede those definitions.
The definitions were not changed AT ALL, you are lying, definitions were added and they were still the same.
Drop this point again that being and existence are the same, added definitions or no.
As your raising yet another point and dropped all others, I’m assuming that you’re agreeing that you changed the definitions, your agreeing that these new definitions weren’t agreed, you’re agreeing that it is fair and valid for con to challenge them, that you agree that you offered no rebuttal to that objection, that the objection was valid, and you failed to provide any of the subsequent arguments you’ve made here in your debate, and your agreeing that it would have been unfair for me to reject cons arguments on the grounds of the things you didn’t raise on the debate, and your accepting that my assessment of his argument against you is completely fair and valid?
I’m just asking, because you appear to have dropped about 472917 arguments you’ve made so far.
" I weighted and assessed both arguments based on the definitions in the info. "
Oh, so when Con used the term god, from the info you agreed you're using, and conceded that god exists and humans depend on god to live, you weighed that not as concession to the info-based definitions?
When con conceded the resolution word for word, you were weighing the definitions from the info, yes or no?
It’s pretty obvious in my RfD and in the dozen or so replies you seem to be ignoring that I have been using the definition you provided in the info.
However, I used the definition in the info to determine that you weren’t using the definitions in the info due to a modification and an addition. As a result I used the definition in the info to conclude that your new definitions were challengeable. Further when con pointed out that your definitions - which I weighed as not being the ones in the info - were nonsensical: I had to concurr - as they were not the ones in the info and thus challengeable. Your only reply was to assert that the definitions were agreed. any guess what I did?
I assessed this argument against the definitions in the info and realized that the definitions you used - as they weren’t the ones in the info - were very much not agreed.
So yes - I weighted and assessed both arguments based on the definitions in the info. Exactly as the rules stated
What definition of god did you use when weighing whether or not Pro met the burden of "God exists?"
Failure to answer here is your concession that you should have used the definitions in the rules which remain unchanged by additions in the first round where definitions are wont to go anyway.
What definition of god did you use, and tell bsh1 that you used this definition when weighing whether or not Pro met his burden.
Yeah, you really need to stop demanding that I should have assessed cons arguments based upon arguments you didn’t make in the debate.
"You changed the definitions in the body of the debate. "
1. the change did not change anything, show me how it changed if being and existence are the same thing in the definitions.
2. Also, if you feel that I changed the definitions and that they were different, why not revert to the definitions provided pre-debate,even though you know they're the same?
"It is laughable that someone who continually demands complete tabula rasa ignorance from all voters in all matters - now demands that voters insert their external opinion the moment tabula rasa doesn’t go your way."
It's not an opinion to follow agreed to definitions.
You are inserting your own definition of god that was nowhere in the debate.
Tell me right now what is the definition of god you used when weighing the debate...in order for your vote to make any sense, you have to use a definition to weigh if the definition was met by pro.
What was the definition of god that you used when weighing your debate?
You've yet to answer this, and this makes my rage reasonable.
The mods agree btw.
Get bsh1 to agree with how your approach isn't errant in voting someone down with definitions NOT IN THE DEBATE or description.
What was the definition of god you used when weighing your vote?
You changed the definitions in the body of the debate. The definitions you used cannot be considered accepted. Telling me they should be accepted repeatedly, over and over again - doesn’t make them any more accepted. This argument is hilarious.
Secondly, telling me all the reasons why I should have explicitly rejected cons arguments only count if any one of them were included in the debate, by you, as an argument against con. None of them were, and as such no matter whether you make 1 post or 10,000 posts telling me how I can’t accept cons position - they have no value as they weren’t in the debate.
It is laughable that someone who continually demands complete tabula rasa ignorance from all voters in all matters - now demands that voters insert their external opinion the moment tabula rasa doesn’t go your way.
If this is all you have, and it seems this is all your talking about - then I completely welcome your concession that my vote was completely valid, and attribute your incoherent rage to your own frustration that in your bullish overconfidence, in creating an unfair debate to trick an unsuspecting individual into engaging in a semantic battle you felt certain to win - you demanded everyone vote on your semantics - and then completely missed the glaring opening it provided.
Fittingly in a debate about the sun - the fault lies not in your stars, dear Brutus, but in yourself.
I just added the definitions to show my steps i took, nothing was actually changed
Can you tell me how the additional definitions made anything different?
You've yet to show that
Why do you continue to demand that I use arguments you haven’t made in order to invalidate cons position? That makes no sense.
You also changed the definitions in your opening round, so even you didn’t agree to the definitions.
I want you to run your voting approach by bsh1, particularly on this debate, and if he tells you you're correct I will shut the fuck up and concede you were right.
Why do you keep telling me that the definitions you posted in your debate and couldn’t possibly have been agreed to were agreed to?
Is con a time traveller? Mind reader? Did your info state you would post full definitions in the opening round?
You changed the definitions, and made them challengeable by preventing con from being able to knowingly accept them.
They didn’t change anything? The definitions are fair? You were using them correctly?
14 days too late, and in the comments section, not the debate round so can’t be considered in my vote, but still awesome!
"If you feel that con:
- should have offered definitions in order for his argument to be valid"
When challenging definitions in debate, you necessarily provide another definition and you've failed to show Con's definition haven't you?
It's telling me I'm doing it wrong, but not offering anything better...you have to accept a substantiated definition over no definition.
"- incorrectly argued that an elephant could be considered as God"
Directly from the debate,
"god means EXACTLY what both debaters agreed to the meaning of god to be, "a superhuman existence worshiped for its powers over nature and human fortunes."
So, with this in mind, yes, god, to be superhuman, would need some powers greater than a human."
It was responded to an ignored by both voters.
"- incorrectly treated definitions of superhuman as the only part of the definition."
See above, I even referenced the agreed to definition with worship in mind.
"The best and most appropriate place to have put this, was in his final debate round 14 days ago. Not after voting is finished, and gave a result he doesn’t like."
I already put a safeguard to avoid all of this nonsense by having everyone agree before going in.
If you don't agree don't fucking go in!
Right, you should punish the guy trying to follow the rules that the definitions were agreed to.
The additional definitions did not change anything, and Con said NOTHING about the additional definitions.
Only my little anti-voter guys came up with that.
Not wanted to put words in the voters mouth, but it seems to me that he’s saying that con pointed out reasons why your definitions were silly, and you didn’t have a response to any of the points - in general - other than to fall back on asserting your definitions are correct. That’s what you did, even in the case of earth worship.
Which definitions are you talking about?
The definitions defined in the info? The ones you created an enforceable rule to prevent con from challenging?
Or the ones you posted in your opening round AFTER con had accepted the debate, and could not logically or reasonably be presumed to have accepted?
You used the latter.
And finallly, I can’t reject cons argument based on an argument you didn’t make. That wouldn’t be tabula rasa.
Also the definitions were agreed to by accepting, but who cares about the rules of a debate anyway?
The rest of the quote doesn't negate that the voter ignored that Pro pointed out worshiping the earth doesn't negate worshiping the sun.
Why would the voter ignore something like that, in order to say it didn't happen when it did?
To be clear Con did not put a definition up for god in the debate?
You claim the voter lied, you quoted him as saying:
“Again, Pro had no real rebuttal to any of this,”
This is an incomplete quote, the full quote is:
Again, Pro had no real rebuttal to any of this, other than to become increasingly angry and repeatedly demand that his opponent obey his special “rules” and definitions.
In the full context the voter is replying to the SUM of your position, not the specific individual point.
It’s really bad form to quote mine people - ESPECIALLY when you’re in the middle of calling them a liar.
If you feel that con:
- should have offered definitions in order for his argument to be valid
- incorrectly argued that an elephant could be considered as God
- incorrectly treated definitions of superhuman as the only part of the definition.
The best and most appropriate place to have put this, was in his final debate round 14 days ago. Not after voting is finished, and gave a result he doesn’t like.
Here's what the voter put:
"For example, since an elephant is “stronger” than a man, this gives the elephant a “superhuman” trait according to Pro’s definition, and thus an elephant would be a “god” by such a definition."
The voter ignores that god must also be WORSHIPED in the definitions, and the so the voter ignorantly thinks that just being superhuman satisfies the definition. The voter is oblivious to the fact that the sun is worshiped for particular abilities that were demonstrated and conceded by Con.
Dishonest vote from a dishonest voter.
Voter also put:
"Con also points out that the earth itself shares many of the same traits which Pro attributed to the sun (size, shape, essential for life, etc), so why doesn’t Pro also worship the sun? Again, Pro had no real rebuttal to any of this,"
Pro agreed that the earth is also worshiped and as Pro also pointed out, which was ignored by voter, this didn't negate the sun being worshiped so the voter LIED and said Pro had no rebuttal to it...but Pro did, and it didn't effect the reasoning.
Look if voters can just come in at the last second, put in a vote that only can be substantiated by definitions NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEBATE, and have the vote stand, then we're not having actual votes on debates, it's just people going in and voting on, well any topic they like.
For some reason everyone who has voted Pro down in this thinks they have the correct definition of god, instead of just using the one Pro requested via the rules of the debate.
Look, if moderators care anything about voting integrity, you should make an example of such an egregious vote bomb antithetical to the spirit of debate.
When definitions are challenged in a debate, other definitions are provided...hey what definitions for god was Con using?
Please indicate the definitions Con used to challenge the definitions.
This should be good.
Definitions are normally posted in the first round of a debate - and if they are not accepted they can be challenged. This is what happened. It is neither valid nor reasonable to expect your definitions to be accepted by fiat: especially when you’re argument is inherently and specifically semantic. You can’t change the definitions to nasty semantic nonsense and not accept the validity of challenge.
The last comment was directed at raltar not you
You know what's good voter conduct?
Waiting to the last minute to vote someone down.
Really cowardly given the voter knows the mods can't remove it.
In debate, definitions are posted 1st round, and given no other definitions provided by Con 1st round, you must accept the definitions provided.
I was kind enough to include the definitions pre-debate, but it's not required.
1st round definitions are normal.
I am just waiting for a couple of clarifications from moderation before reposting - I will assume my updated RFD is sufficient if I don’t hear back - I think having giving 24 hours is more than fair and sufficient chance for the moderator to respond.
I need to point this out as the rejection of the RFD makes a fundamental error, and as I just noted, so so both current votes.
Both votes, and the moderator state that the definitions used in the debate by pro are contained in the info of the debate. This is incorrect, and obviously incorrect viewing pros opening round:
The definitions pro uses throughout his arguments are defined —IN HIS OPENING ROUND— as additional definitions and cannot possibly be considered agreed to. At no point can anyone consider any of the definitions pro presented in the CONTENT OF HIS DEBATE to be automatically assumed to be true by fiat as if presented in the info.
I am not sure how any other voter can assume definitions in the content of the debate are sustained by fiat and unchallengeable - that’s literally nonsensical, biased and unfair to con - but I have no control over the agency of others...
As a result - I do not believe it is fair, reasonable or just and to consider pro to have successfully defined and won his position by unilateral fiat based on definitions he presents in the CONTENT and thus subject to challenge.
Given this, I think voting as if the definitions presented in the content are fixed and unchallengeable causes cons arguments to have been rejected unfairly - and thus not fairly considered.
Actually, that's probably being too kind. I've made perfectly fine source RFD's before, but this time I just got lax and made an oversight.
Yes, well done, by simply indicating which sources were used and how they were effectively used makes a source point sufficient up against no sources. Thank you very much for the vote, and thanks Virt for creating a community where newer voters can improve and you're willing to support them on their way.