Instigator / Con
35
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#780

Omar thinks I have political beliefs based on religion: NAME ONE

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
9
Better sources
12
12
Better legibility
6
6
Better conduct
5
6

After 6 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Our_Boat_is_Right
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
33
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description

BoP is on pro (or Omar hopefully if he doesn't wussy out) to prove I have just ONE political belief based on religion. I will waive the first round, and pro will start out the arguments. Pro will then waive the last round. Only rebuttals in last round.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

"All this is subjective feelings whereas I provided a better option."

Yes! Both of our debate styles are subjective opinions. You prove my point. "mine is better" is also an opinion.

"Yours is opinion mine is not. I am using a standard that makes mine better than yours. It has more than 1 Round. That is more than your style therefore mine is better. This is not my opinion because my style does give both sides another Round."

If your only measure it by most rounds if it went up to 76 rounds max, would you want 76 rounds? "your opinion is worse than my opinion" is a terrible argument. I already explained why.

"Congrats on being feelings over facts"

This has nothing to do with debate styles. Debate style is simply a preference. That's why you can choose between 2, 3, 4, and 5 rounds.

"You even said I committed a logical fallacy but couldn't point to which one I committed."

I gave you 3.

"Don't talk to me because you clearly need a lot more time to develop before you even capable of doing debates."

Opinion from power. You are only 3 years older yet still believe you shouldn't have a discourse with opposing opinions. You just think conservatives should get physically assaulted in public for their opinions *subjectively* not being "justified." Shame on you for falling in on the typical left. You are a trash debater. Does 23-0 ring a bell? Oh right, that was me.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

>>I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds.

All this is subjective feelings whereas I provided a better option.

>> If your opinion is different

Yours is opinion mine is not. I am using a standard that makes mine better than yours. It has more than 1 Round. That is more than your style therefore mine is better. This is not my opinion because my style does give both sides another Round.

>> This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address.

What? The logical conclusion is that you understand you are wrong because my standard is better than your opinion.

Don't talk to me because you clearly need a lot more time to develop before you even capable of doing debates. You use opinions over metrics and thing you were the one being logical when you are giving me your opinion. Congrats on being feelings over facts. Knew you were already but guess this just makes sure that you haven't even changed. You even said I committed a logical fallacy but couldn't point to which one I committed.

I repeat don't talk to me. You are a waste of my time.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I never agreed your debate style was superior. I already explained this like 10 times.

I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Don't like it when I am rational so you choose to not answer the question. You don't realise you agreed my style is superior but used your subjective feelings to be against. What does your profile picture say again?
Why don't you understand my debate format is superior to yours and you are wrong? How about that?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

vice versa. obviouly your intent isn't to have a rational for this. Why don't you simply create a debate in 2 minutes for us?

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Do you have any logical reasoning to combat this, or will you keep pretending you don't see it because you don't like being logically challenged?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Like I said, I don't agree with those rules, but I will accept if you make the debate with your rules. I don't make my debates with rules I don't like.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Just so you understand that you agree with me but still arguing with me. Let me actually post what you said in response to what I said.

I said: I offer you a better solution and you throw it back at my face and say you do it. You can't see how my way is better so you don't even attempt to understand or even counter to say how it is wrong.

You said in response: All my method does is shrink it by one round. If you are unhappy, then make a debate with your rules and I will accept. Either way will work.

So you basically agree your method is inferior to mine. Yes this isn't a direct saying no I don't agree but you pretty much admit to the pros of my style but you still argue.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

>>I offer you a better solution and you throw it back at my face and say you do it. You can't see how my way is better so you don't even attempt to understand or even counter to say how it is wrong.

And I said, and have been saying, "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Did you post a comment?

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

#68

Still have provided a good counter for this. Your version of what is taking place is false because I have already stated why my stance on doing debates is better than yours. Look back and debunk instead of asking me to debunk. You even agree with me.

#69

-->
@TheRealNihilist

First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."

How about you respond to this or just admit you are wrong? What a perfect example of a feelings based leftist who can't use logic, yet claims he wants to beat people up who are conservatives. What a hypocrite.

Do you have any logical reasoning to combat this, or will you keep pretending you don't see it because you don't like being logically challenged?

-->
@David

???

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

“ My opponent basically said I am wrong because he said so. The problem here is that he never explained it instead said: "my particular views themselves are not based on this". The reason why this is bad is that this is no way rebuts my claims instead adds his opinion without supporting it with an explanation. If he explained why morals are not the basis to do anything then he might have a point but he doesn't even try.”

So essentially Con does little to elaborate this point and never explained his claim.

To conclude I have to award arguments and conduct to pro since Con posted arguments in the comment section several times, claimed DDO was accurate to his views and then pivoted to stating they weren’t accurate, and he avoided arguments and gave poor rebuttals.

“ Problem here is that prostitution is: The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prostitution
The instigator has failed to state that prostitution is enslavement since the definition no way states enslavement.
Enslavement: The action of making someone a slave; subjugation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enslavement
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave”

This baseless statement goes to show how Con has little understanding of the definition of prostitution.

Another poor argument con made was,

“ My opponent is making an argument and using where morality and politics stem from. This is not a valid example since my particular views themselves are not based on this.”

To which Pro responded with,

Con gave a rebuttal regarding prostitution which was,

“ Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.”

Pro then pointed out that,

“ Christianity dictates societal standards so it neither rebuts or even attempts to rebut my claims. Laws are created based on morals and also does not rebut my claims. This comment is a non-sequitur.”

This is true since societal standards are mostly based around morals which Christianity dictates.

Meaning that by default Cons views on politics are based around his Christianity morals.

This is sort of irrelevant however Con made an absurd statement against prostitution,

“ It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.”

To which Pro expertly replied that,

- This is poor conduct since Con misled Pro which in turn broke the entire flow of the debate since it nearly made it impossible for Pro to understand Con's stances on issues which in turn made the debate rather unfair and misleading.

Which also violated their previously agreed terms since one of them was that Con would post his stances on issues in the form of a link to his DDO page.

Because of these two facts, I must award Conduct to Pro since Con mislead Pro and didn’t give a rebuttal to some of Pro’s arguments.

“ I prefer to use my more in-depth stance on "gay marriage".”

Pro pointed out this is strawman which is true since the argument was about civil unions, not gay marriage both of which are two completely separate issues.

Secondly, due to this, it is rather hard for me to examine some of Con's arguments since they are buried in the comment section, so because of this, I will have to disregard their rebuttal and arguments since I am unable to view it.

The fact that Con put some of his rebuttals in the comment section made the debate rather tedious and annoying to read since I constantly had to check the comment section to read his arguments which is poor conduct on their part since they had more than enough room to post their arguments and instead opted out to post their argument in the comment section for no good reason.

Not to mention the fact that this means Con never actually addressed the arguments made my Pro at all in the actual debate itself. Which meant he was dodging arguments which were very excessive and obnoxious in the debate.

Speaking of conduct, at the beginning of the debate Con provided a link to his stances on issues on DDO, and then later on criticized Pro for using these stances since they are " outdated"

“ I" as a Christian, I am against them" is basically admitting his political beliefs is based on Religion. If this wasn't the case Our_Boat_Is_Right would be able to provide a non-theist reason for his political beliefs but he couldn't.”

Here Con literally concedes the entire debate since he is admitting that he is basing this political belief based on his religion.

“Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion. He was so adamant to call me out in the comments for what I did but here he refuses to accuse. I wonder why. Maybe because he is not able to defend that position instead he much rather relegate it to the comment section.”

Con giving a rebuttal in the comment section is a very coward move and isn’t very well debate conduct since voters most likely wouldn’t think to look in the comment section for arguments.

Due to my previous vote not elaborating onto why this is poor conduct, I'll do so here.

Posting rebuttals in the comment section are very confusing and disorientating to the voter and their opponent since they constantly have to check both sections.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

You are one of the last people to talk about giving " evidence " considering that you're called people SJW's, Bias, and Socialists without providing substantial evidence to back up your claims.

At this point, your poor attempts to insult me and Omar have come across as you throwing a hissy fit since you're losing debates.

And at this point, it's very obvious you are a waste of time.

Good day

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You don't even have evidence or want to show your evidence against guns, yet you are telling me to get evidence. Why don't you make a debate so I can absolutely whip you around?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

So your inability to provide evidence and not responding to a logical conclusion of you creating a debate shows you have no idea how to have a conversation with someone who disagrees. Using age is irrelevant and an argument from power. All you are showing is that your IQ may be able to toast a piece of bread lightly.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

I know you are a child so I will refrain from child abuse because I know how cranky children get. Come back to me when you know what evidence is, realise Christianity is false and not a conservative. The last 2 are optional. The 1st is a must on top of being logically consistent. If you haven't improved your ways when you turn 18 then I doubt there is really too much to talk to with one another.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I will copy and paste the comment,

First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."

How about you respond to this or just admit you are wrong? What a perfect example of a feelings based leftist who can't use logic, yet claims he wants to beat people up who are conservatives. What a hypocrite.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Decision: Argument point.
Con conceded his position by stating that he holds beliefs as a Christian. The beliefs that he holds are, by definition, political, so point to Pro.
I've actually already explained this is greater detail. But the dictator that moderates the votes has decided that censorship is the path to good voting.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter may not like moderation's ruling on the issue (which they are, of course, free to protest), but posting *less* reasoning in the RFD is not going to make the vote *more* sufficient. The voter fails to sufficiently justify the points they award. The voter has now voted 3 times with an insufficient RFD, despite being clearly told what must be done to make it sufficient: using the original RFD they cast + analyzing counterargument(s) from Con.
************************************************************************

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Evidence is from the link I put that showed your inaccurate vote which lead me to vote to you on here. Do you somewhat understand now? Feels like I'm talking to a rock.

" If I feel the concession was warranted because the other person made the better argument then I will vote for them."
So you're admitting I had the better arguments/bars. My point exactly. I'm done here, next.

-->
@King_8

>>Already gave evidence in my vote... The mod even repeated it. Stop acting dumb lmfao

Evidence that you were revenge voting? Okay. That is not how you vote on DA.

>>You are bias because you gave the win to the opponent that conceded. No excuse for that. But nevertheless.

I don't see how this is true. It is up to me to decide to made the better argument not who conceded. If I feel the concession was warranted because the other person made the better argument then I will vote for them. Turns out you can't make convincing arguments.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Already gave evidence in my vote... The mod even repeated it. Stop acting dumb lmfao
You are bias because you gave the win to the opponent that conceded. No excuse for that. But nevertheless.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

The substantive wording of your justification for the argument point changed the second time around, thereby changing its permissibility. Dusty is correct in the sense that if you re-cast your first RFD exactly as it was, but with some analysis of Our's counterpoint(s), your vote would stand.

-->
@King_8

>>so I voted inaccurately just as you did. You did use bias.

No evidence given.

>>Only reason I voted on here because of your vote against me.

If me voting against you means I am biased then you are wrong. You can be wrong on every issue and I voted fairly against you without being biased.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I will copy and paste the comment,

First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."

How about you respond to this or just admit you are wrong?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

lmaooo cant respond to the comments

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Stop voting with a bias against me. You did the exact same vote 2 times before. This one will get removed as well. I never conceded the debate.

>>He believes as a Christian that gay marriage is wrong. His belief pertains to politics. It's a concession.

And I specifically say as a Christian. The purpose of the debate is to prove my political beliefs are purely religious. I separated out my religion and politics, specifically stating in the debate that you specifically cherry-picked out,

"My opponent is saying I admit to it being religious, however, I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics. From a religious belief, I am against gay marriage. I explained my political belief before that last sentence. It is not based on religion. I even say "If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine." I simply BELIEVE(a belief is my opinion, so don't use a technical definition "often one with no proof") government shouldn't regulate which genders marry each other. Marriage is a cultural and religious matter do be decided privately by the parties, and gov. controlling it goes directly against separation of church and state. Nothing about this opinion of mine is religious either. Next."

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I was planning on you to enter a new debate on DDO so I can vote against you on it which would have been perfect but it's been too long and you haven't been in one, so I happen to come on this site and noticed you so I voted inaccurately just as you did. You did use bias. I explained it in my vote. Only reason I voted on here because of your vote against me. And when I posted my vote on here, I didn't know it was going to get taken down so quickly on the same day, it was unexpected.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Name one logical fallacy I committed.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I love how you never responded back to my comments because you know I am right. Very hypocritical of you when you claim I am feelings over facts.

-->
@King_8

>>I knew there were mods on this site and that its more strict over here but I didn't expect my comment to be deleted that quick from a mod, someone must have seen it and told the mod.

So you knew they would take you mod down but still committed to posting the vote. Really goes to show how much you care about me. To come to a different platform just to vote on it just because I was on there. It is sweet but I am not going to share the same kindness. Instead I will fairly judge debates not allow my biases to ruin it. You can't do the same.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I knew there were mods on this site and that its more strict over here but I didn't expect my comment to be deleted that quick from a mod, someone must have seen it and told the mod. Thought my vote was going to stay for a while. How unfortunate. Oh well.

-->
@Scott_Manning

What does that have to do with what is going on here?

-->
@Speedrace

I got a better line before this

>>Your not good enough to be shat on.

>I'm bored. I'm just in this strange reading room and I'm listening to the Alan Walker album while typing this.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

LOL

-->
@King_8

Lol. I knew you were a joke but didn't think you were d*mb enough to not realise there are actual moderators on this website.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

>>the fact you still do DDO and are online on DDO RN is sad.

Have you seen your percentage on this site? That is more to be sad about.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

But he didn't think that it was a concession and argued against it.

So the full RFD that would've been accepted is some sort of explanation as to why you awarded points despite his argument, using his argument is a reference

-->
@dustryder

Political Belief: A belief that pertains to politics.

Religious Belief: A belief that is held as a religious tenant.

Gay Marriage: A political issue.

He believes as a Christian that gay marriage is wrong. His belief pertains to politics. It's a concession.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

It's not about you not surveying other arguments. That's fine.

It's because you only examined the specific point from the Pro side and you ignored what Con attempted to defend himself with. Specifically,

"From a religious belief, I am against gay marriage. I explained my political belief before that last sentence. It is not based on religion. I even say "If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine." I simply BELIEVE(a belief is my opinion, so don't use a technical definition "often one with no proof") government shouldn't regulate which genders marry each other. Marriage is a cultural and religious matter do be decided privately by the parties, and gov. controlling it goes directly against separation of church and state. Nothing about this opinion of mine is religious either. Next."

My understanding is that you could've described this, said that it was a load of rubbish and you would've be fine

-->
@dustryder

Because the voting argument says I'm allowed to disregard certain arguments if I have a good reason. I did have a good reason. Con brought up a point that lost him the debate on the spot which made all other points irrelevant. I also assessed pro's side as well to fulfill the burden of proof analysis. This is a standard that bsh1 himself said was okay and I've seen him leave up votes which were much less rigorous than mine.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

How was it sufficient if you didn't address the counter arguments to that particular point?