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.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

That's fair

-->
@Dr.Franklin

I wasn't boasting. If you consider laughing a boast it was Our_Boat_is_Right.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

I couldn't care less about the win to loss ratio, my problem is that if Our_Boat_is_Right is going to insult Omar, then he better not be hypocritical when he arguably has a worse ratio then he does.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
@TheRealNihilist
@Pinkfreud08

WHO CARES. Bragging in a online debating website. thats sad. You guys shouldn't be here to win, but to have intelligent discussions on the issues that matter.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Besides Omar only accepted 3 Type1 debates, leaving 7 debates left.

Let's think about it this way,

Omar may accept a lot of troll debates or full forfeit debates, however, we can assume he won 2-3 real debates correct?

You've lost a lot of debates and have won only one actual debate.

Therefore Omar still has a better record than you.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

You literally have 2 wins and 7 losses.

>>At least I accept debates, not just up my winning percentage by accepting type1's debates.

Contradiction. I also accept debates like how you clearly mentioned me accepting Type1's.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You literally have one 1-2 non troll debates. At least I accept debates, not just up my winning percentage by accepting type1's debates.

-->
@DarthVader1

Yeah dspjk5 = Ramshutu, he decides who wins debates

-->
@Dr.Franklin

And you better thank God it didn't get removed.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

You better thank me I took the time to vote

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

I guess you are over laughing about your win percentage?
What was it again?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

lmaoooo

-->
@David

i believe u mean "ineligible" not "illegible--Not able to read"

-->
@Dr.Franklin

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 5 points to con for arguments

RFD: See ramshutu's vote

Reason for mod action: First and foremost, the voter is illegible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. When they have done these things, they will regain the eligibility to vote. Finally, it is never acceptable to plagiarize someone else's vote. The voter should see their DMs for more info.

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

*******************************************************************

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Don't plagiarise other peoples votes please, it'll only make you look worse to the mods and other debaters. I'd personally respect someone who at least tries to make original votes yet fails than someone who just plagiarizes other peoples. Very insulting to the debaters, other voters who take their time to vote, and the mods.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

If you're bad at voting, don't vote or get better at voting. Plagiarism isn't a solution

-->
@David

Can you vote on this?

-->
@GiveMeYourHat

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct.

RFD: Pro talked about how Con's morals came from his belief but never actually proved it. Throughout the debate Con showed that his morals and politics were very distinct but Pro simply ignored them, repeating again and again that Con was wrong with no actual sustenance.

Reason for mod action: First, To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
 second To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.


Finally, the voter is ineligible to vote. In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts. Their voting privileges have been revoked until they have met these criteria. They should check their DM for more information.

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

*******************************************************************

-->
@bsh1

oh ok

-->
@vsp2019

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

You'll notice that, in fact, it was removed and a newer vote was cast almost immediately after by the same voter.

-->
@Ramshutu

You didn't remove it.

-->
@vsp2019

Rfd cont.

This shows you have now done it twice but this time added a straw-man.
Though the rebuttal was not perfect since PRO refuted more than was necessary, they still refuted the argument CON made on gay marriage.
CON repeated what they said initially and brought nothing new to the table, making their response irrelevant.
That right there is enough to show that PRO had the upperhand arguments wise since the title of the debate is: Omar thinks I have political beliefs based on religion: NAME ONE
Conduct wise CON made an ad hominem fallacy by calling PRO's argument on morality "a half-hearted argument" followed by repeating their morality standpoint rather than respond to the argument PRO made. PRO clearly demonstrated that in their subsequent round that CON made an ad hom to avoid refuting PRO's argument
>"Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion."

-->
@vsp2019

Vsp2019 RfD.

In terms of arguments, based on all I have read, I believe PRO has provided ample evidence that CON has political views based on religion. It seems very strange that CON rejects this since CON themselves say they are religious. PRO simply had to point out that CON had religious beliefs that they were serious about and PRO did it. CON rebutted by pointing out how their religious belief and their political were different
> "The government should not get into marriage. Stay out of it. If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine with me.
>As a Christian, however, I am against it.
Then CON goes on to say
>NOTE: I am not homophobic."
The last two statements are obvious contradictions. More importantly, CON's political views align with their religious ones. CON is still against same sex marriage politically however they hate the government more than two gay people getting married(This can be deduced directly from what they say in the three above statements above)
PRO refuted that argument by saying > I specifically targeted Civil Unions because that was part of my argument. You instead remove that as something you need to rebut and add your own argument. Basically making a straw-man of me so that it suits you. This is not how you debate. I was given the burden to show how Religion is the basis of your beliefs and used civil unions. Not gay marriage. For you to simply add your own argument as if that is allowed makes it seem like that you are unable to rebut my argument and will do anything to change the argument I made in order to suit yourself. For this reason I will not be rebutting his straw-man of my position instead await him to rebut my civil union claims. This debate was about me showing something. Not you changing what I was showing so it is easier for you to comment on. It is not about what you prefer. It is about you rebutting my claims. Since you did not do that with my first argument.

-->
@vsp2019

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: vsp2019 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 1 point for Conduct

>Reason for Decision: see above.

>Reason for Mod Action: The argument point is borderline - thus sufficient.

To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.

While the voter specifics some instances of misconduct; there was not an explanation of how this misconduct was excessive, nor was there a comparison of both sides.

The voter is free to repost the arguments portion of the RFD without awarding conduct, or add additional explanation for the conduct point
************************************************************************

-->
@Ramshutu

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: This vote is sufficient
*******************************************************************

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: Subjective
>Reason for Mod Action: Quoting Bsh1 from the voter’s last vote: 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 4 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.
************************************************************************

-->
@Ramshutu

Well said!

Okay.

-->
@bsh1

I don't think I will remember by then but if you do bring it up when you are free then I am sure I will be able to take the debate.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Sure. But I won't be free to debate until the summer.

-->
@bsh1

I wasn't really just making sure you had your title.

"Force. Good or bad?"

I would also like for the 1st Round to be opening arguments and the rest to be whatever the debaters decide.
So basically we both have the maximum amount of Rounds to voice our stances while also not forfeiting the half of Round 1 and half of the last Round which equal to 1 Round with nothing happening.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You might win, sure. And, a debater never reveals his strategy before showtime ;)

-->
@bsh1

I think I would win but what would be your position?

I think I would either take the position that the force does more harm than good or the force is evil.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

So, there are a couple ways to conceive of the force. I don't feel like getting into them all now, but there is no reasonable interpretation of any of them which would suggest it is evil. If you're interested in talking about this further, perhaps we could debate it some time.

-->
@bsh1

No it isn't. It is like saying a nuclear bomb ain't because it depends on what you do with it. A bomb is intended to destroy. The force is intended to be something more powerful than current weapons of that present. Fighting fire with a bigger fire is d*mb.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

The force is neither good nor evil. It just is.

-->
@Alec

Come back to me when you have a quote of the context and still make the claim that you just did.

-->
@oromagi

Okay. I do that too but only to see how much closer I am to the top.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You said that your DDO record was better then Our_Boat_is_Right. Can you prove it?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

The Leaderboard is sortable by # of comments & I sometimes pay attention to what interesting & active people are doing on this site. That's a lot of commentary in a short period of time and your intelligent engagement is good for this site- so thanks.

#
Participant
Total
Won
Lost
Tie
Win percentage
Rating
Comments
Votes
1
RationalMadman
114
77
28
9
67.54%
1532
1,163
192
2
Wrick-It-Ralph
27
14
12
1
51.85%
1516
629
55
3
Virtuoso
34
13
14
7
38.24%
1495
518
82
4
omar2345
4
4
0
0
100.00%
1562
504
28
5
bsh1
8
5
1
2
62.50%
1551
458
2

-->
@bsh1
@oromagi

Thanks.

How did you two find out anyway?

-->
@oromagi

I am guessing I am past him on debate comments but on the forum leaderboard I am still below. Guess I have to start more drama.

-->
@bsh1

I am guessing you are making a force joke. I have played the video games and watched the movies and still don't understand what you mean. I consider the force to be evil because of the games so guess I am the evil force then.

-->
@TheRealNihilist
@oromagi

Arguments, like the force, can help the wise (or annoyed) practitioner achieve true greatness.

Congrats, Omar.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

congrats, Omar on 500th debate comment gold. You have surpassed bsh in debate comments and he's the GD moderator. That's your third gold.

If you want 5 rounds, create a debate and I will accept.

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.

>>My DDO record is better than your record here.
Even when we take into account my record here. We both have a 100% win percentage. Just so happens that people like dsjpk5 voted for you because his biases.

All you do is accept type1's debates giving you free wins.

"16.67% win percentage."

It is not Representative of my skills. In a gun debate, i lost by 1 point, it was a virtual tie. Another gun debate I should have won but tied. One debate i fairly lost on trump is turning america into a dictatorship. One half-troll debate i lost which had nothing to do w/ politics and I could have won if presenting my evidence was legal w/ the CoC, and 1 debate I accidentally accepted on the wrong side (trump warren 1M dollars). And 1 debate i won. So in effect, I am 1-1.

"Are you telling you can't justify violence when it is conservatives who is stopping public healthcare for everyone and cutting social security for people who need it? Since there live is on the line they are justified with their response because of what conservatives do to them which is not give them public healthcare that allows them to treat their injuries using tax payer money."

I'm literally shocked. This genuinely makes me so sad about where some people are. Assaulting people based on different political beliefs. In my opinion, privatized healthcare needs to be made more affordable but is a lot better than public. Public healthcare would be such a disaster driving the doctor supply way down and reducing the quality of it. I could argue, the same thing for guns, banning guns would result in many more lives lost. I don't want to assault liberals though, because they simply have a different opinion and different method for it.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

>>You are a trash debater.

My DDO record is better than your record here.
Even when we take into account my record here. We both have a 100% win percentage. Just so happens that people like dsjpk5 voted for you because his biases.

>>Does 23-0 ring a bell? Oh right, that was me.

Sad to see on a moderated site you do so poorly. Oh well.

Since you don't understand that I don't want to talk to you because you are child unable to know when you don't know what you are talking about. I will block you. So basically if you reply I won't receive the message so say what you 16.67% win percentage. I don't care and if you do reply it really goes to show how much attention you want. I am willing to end this conversation but you keep replying back as if you are right. You are not and I doubt you even understand that.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

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

So 1+1=2 is a subjective opinion?
Mine is 1 more round than yours. How is mine not better than yours?

>>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.

If? What do you mean if? There are 5 Rounds and I would like to best use those Rounds instead of saying lets forfeit a Round each.

>>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.

Mine has more Rounds which means we both have more Rounds to make an argument. This is a better option than yours because yours is one less Round.

>>I gave you 3.

Where? If you were able to point out 3 logical fallacies I committed you would be able to tell me what the logical fallacies I did commit.

>>You are only 3 years older yet still believe you shouldn't have a discourse with opposing opinions.

3 year is a lot and by your worldview which is a Religious conservative I doubt you would improve as much as I have. You don't understand evidence is and don't understand how illogical both conservatism and Religion is.

>>You just think conservatives should get physically assaulted in public for their opinions *subjectively* not being "justified."

Are you telling you can't justify violence when it is conservatives who is stopping public healthcare for everyone and cutting social security for people who need it? Since there live is on the line they are justified with their response because of what conservatives do to them which is not give them public healthcare that allows them to treat their injuries using tax payer money.

>>Shame on you for falling in on the typical left.

Identity politics everyone. Shame.