I'm very sorry that I in fact did not analyze or vote on the debate as I implied I would. The last three weeks have flown by as I started a new job and have a lot of family staying in my house.
I'm paying attention, this is an important resolution.
I've noted that you didn't both agree on BoP before you started, so I will happily be using the correct BoP rules.
"Moving forward, CON has the burden of proof and must provide any evidence, or make an argument that demonstrates this." - Pro
This is correct, BoP is not something that can be manipulated out of existence by rearranging the assertion. If there is a tradition on DART that Pro is always the one with BoP then Novice should have made the resolution "Chauvin is a racist" and taken Con. Regardless that is the positive assertion, and that is what carries a BoP.
There is a technical difference between knowing something false and treating something as false, but it is a difference that is not captured well in the English language. We use the same sentence to describe not believing in and dismissing the spaghetti monster as we do to describe proving there isn't one. When proof of absence is impossible or very unlikely it is dishonest to assume that was the claim.
"Again, if such a large proportion of authorities assert something, it isn't fallacious in any way."
You are incorrect, the error can be demonstrated simply by considering human history, there was a time when the vast majority of humanity fervently believed in animism, that the sky was a fabric dome of some kind, etc.... including the "authorities", a logical form that only work in one cultural context is inherently fallacious as it contradicts the same form in all other contexts. Contrast with valid logic such as a mathematical proof, it does not depend on whether shamans out number PhDs.
"As long as I prove each premise to be true, the argument is sound."
Whereas my argument was on the basis of
p1) cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang
p2) cosmic inlfation has been proven to be true and is a scientific consensus (like the earth being round)
p2) inflation occurs diversely and inflationary models almost all lead to the multiverse
c) Therefore the multiverse is a possibility
There are a lot of problems with the framing of this debate, but without getting into those the above argument is a non-sequiter. In order for it to be valid p3 (mislabeled) would have to be: IF cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang THEN multiverse. If your opponent knew up from down they would simply challenge that premise, and if you thought that premise was taken for granted you wouldn't have provided it as a quote from a supposed authority.
"That would be like saying "every scientist has accepted models that have proven the earth is round" is an appeal to authority."
It is, and it has no place in formal debate.
"If the authority is legitimate, arguing from authority is the most valid argument possible—the definitive argument."
Incorrect, there are no infallible people, at most a cogent argument is possible and even those ought to be banned from formal debate as it is inference by proxy, no different from ad populum. The reason derivative inference is useless can easily be seen by looking one move ahead. If your opponent challenges the trueness of the authority the only arbiter is a primary inference, i.e. the actual arguments about the actual subject.
"I specifically argue that cosmic inflation models all lead to the multiverse. How can you be dishonest?"
No, you cite purported authorities claiming something they call cosmic inflation models all lead to the "multiverse".
Citing assertions which are supposedly identical to your conclusion is quintessential appeal to authority. Let me put it in a categorical syllogism so you can recognize it:
/ Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse.
/ Many physicists constitute an authority and authorities are infallible/probably correct <- unspoken but necessary authority premise
// Therefore the multiverse exists/probably exists.
Without the authority premise you don't get to the conclusion. With the authority premise you're appealing to authority, which is a shortcut appropriate in everyday life but not debate. If you can't make the argument yourself you shouldn't be debating a subject and I certainly won't pretend compiling a list of assertions substitutes for an actual argument. I saw Conservallectual do essentially the same thing in his gun debate btw.
Pro: There is no evidence (all his other 'arguments' for preclusion were non-sequiters, take the claim that the definition of a universe makes it impossible for example)
Con: Appeal to authority, again, and again, and a third time.
To claim someone had better arguments would be to presume any arguments landed, none did.
@RationalMadman, Yes I read your round two, go to the thread if you want to discuss it where you'll be able to quote specific things I said. Several time's Pro used your own sources to make a counter-point. I didn't see very specific guidelines on sourcing but that does leave the impression that he read your sources better than you did.
Also you blocked me so you won't even get notified of this message, isn't that fun. It's like it's designed to annoy someone into ignoring the person who blocked them and nothing else.
@Novice I did not make that case, I did make the case that pro in this debate must necessarily promote activity which is illegal in many countries, thus it is forbidden by the CoC.
@Ragnar you shift the context, as I mentioned multiple times in the introduction thread making argument of any kind is an extremely protected activity in most modern democracies. You misrepresent my claim as "the existence of this debate topic breaks the law". No, no debate topic will break the law in the USA. It does however 'promote' (hence 'pro') illegal activity which is not against the law but against the CoC.
The CoC not only bans "criminal activity" but "promoting criminal activity" In fact a literal reading of the CoC would forbid arguing for a higher speed limit.
Furthermore you say here
"Were either debater to reveal credible information that they have kidnapped someone with the intent to make them a slave, and moderators saw it (again, not every word posted here gets read and approved before it is displayed), the police would be notified."
That is another subtle shift of context. Notifying police and removing the user who made such an admission are two different things. If you believe the CoC empowers you to remove people who have made an admission of breaking any law anywhere that is a much broader power than believing the CoC empowers you to remove content which is itself illegal to post.
For example in the USA it is illegal to distribute child pornography. Simply posting that would be illegal, and knowingly allowing it to remain posted would likely introduce some liability. That is criminal posting.
Breaking a speed limit or built a shed without a permit would constitute "criminal activity", but it certainly not a crime to admit a crime. There is no legal liability, however if you interpret the CoC as authorizing you to ban persons because you think they're criminals then it empowers you to ban someone for speeding or building a shed without a permit.
I'm very sorry that I in fact did not analyze or vote on the debate as I implied I would. The last three weeks have flown by as I started a new job and have a lot of family staying in my house.
I have unlocked voting, but I haven't managed to get the couple hours + tea required to analyze this debate yet sorry. I still have 20 days right?
I'm paying attention, this is an important resolution.
I've noted that you didn't both agree on BoP before you started, so I will happily be using the correct BoP rules.
"Moving forward, CON has the burden of proof and must provide any evidence, or make an argument that demonstrates this." - Pro
This is correct, BoP is not something that can be manipulated out of existence by rearranging the assertion. If there is a tradition on DART that Pro is always the one with BoP then Novice should have made the resolution "Chauvin is a racist" and taken Con. Regardless that is the positive assertion, and that is what carries a BoP.
There is a technical difference between knowing something false and treating something as false, but it is a difference that is not captured well in the English language. We use the same sentence to describe not believing in and dismissing the spaghetti monster as we do to describe proving there isn't one. When proof of absence is impossible or very unlikely it is dishonest to assume that was the claim.
I see only repetition of previously debunked assertions. If you have questions or novel arguments I will be available.
"Again, if such a large proportion of authorities assert something, it isn't fallacious in any way."
You are incorrect, the error can be demonstrated simply by considering human history, there was a time when the vast majority of humanity fervently believed in animism, that the sky was a fabric dome of some kind, etc.... including the "authorities", a logical form that only work in one cultural context is inherently fallacious as it contradicts the same form in all other contexts. Contrast with valid logic such as a mathematical proof, it does not depend on whether shamans out number PhDs.
"As long as I prove each premise to be true, the argument is sound."
Not if the argument is invalid.
Whereas my argument was on the basis of
p1) cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang
p2) cosmic inlfation has been proven to be true and is a scientific consensus (like the earth being round)
p2) inflation occurs diversely and inflationary models almost all lead to the multiverse
c) Therefore the multiverse is a possibility
There are a lot of problems with the framing of this debate, but without getting into those the above argument is a non-sequiter. In order for it to be valid p3 (mislabeled) would have to be: IF cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang THEN multiverse. If your opponent knew up from down they would simply challenge that premise, and if you thought that premise was taken for granted you wouldn't have provided it as a quote from a supposed authority.
"That would be like saying "every scientist has accepted models that have proven the earth is round" is an appeal to authority."
It is, and it has no place in formal debate.
"If the authority is legitimate, arguing from authority is the most valid argument possible—the definitive argument."
Incorrect, there are no infallible people, at most a cogent argument is possible and even those ought to be banned from formal debate as it is inference by proxy, no different from ad populum. The reason derivative inference is useless can easily be seen by looking one move ahead. If your opponent challenges the trueness of the authority the only arbiter is a primary inference, i.e. the actual arguments about the actual subject.
"I specifically argue that cosmic inflation models all lead to the multiverse. How can you be dishonest?"
No, you cite purported authorities claiming something they call cosmic inflation models all lead to the "multiverse".
Citing assertions which are supposedly identical to your conclusion is quintessential appeal to authority. Let me put it in a categorical syllogism so you can recognize it:
/ Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse.
/ Many physicists constitute an authority and authorities are infallible/probably correct <- unspoken but necessary authority premise
// Therefore the multiverse exists/probably exists.
Without the authority premise you don't get to the conclusion. With the authority premise you're appealing to authority, which is a shortcut appropriate in everyday life but not debate. If you can't make the argument yourself you shouldn't be debating a subject and I certainly won't pretend compiling a list of assertions substitutes for an actual argument. I saw Conservallectual do essentially the same thing in his gun debate btw.
This is unjudgable. Let me boil it down:
Pro: There is no evidence (all his other 'arguments' for preclusion were non-sequiters, take the claim that the definition of a universe makes it impossible for example)
Con: Appeal to authority, again, and again, and a third time.
To claim someone had better arguments would be to presume any arguments landed, none did.
After further review of previous votes I agree I should have not scored conduct. In short it gets so much worse than a single strawman.
@RationalMadman, Yes I read your round two, go to the thread if you want to discuss it where you'll be able to quote specific things I said. Several time's Pro used your own sources to make a counter-point. I didn't see very specific guidelines on sourcing but that does leave the impression that he read your sources better than you did.
Also you blocked me so you won't even get notified of this message, isn't that fun. It's like it's designed to annoy someone into ignoring the person who blocked them and nothing else.
It's like you've never seen reduction to absurdity before...
@Novice I did not make that case, I did make the case that pro in this debate must necessarily promote activity which is illegal in many countries, thus it is forbidden by the CoC.
@Ragnar you shift the context, as I mentioned multiple times in the introduction thread making argument of any kind is an extremely protected activity in most modern democracies. You misrepresent my claim as "the existence of this debate topic breaks the law". No, no debate topic will break the law in the USA. It does however 'promote' (hence 'pro') illegal activity which is not against the law but against the CoC.
The CoC not only bans "criminal activity" but "promoting criminal activity" In fact a literal reading of the CoC would forbid arguing for a higher speed limit.
Furthermore you say here
"Were either debater to reveal credible information that they have kidnapped someone with the intent to make them a slave, and moderators saw it (again, not every word posted here gets read and approved before it is displayed), the police would be notified."
That is another subtle shift of context. Notifying police and removing the user who made such an admission are two different things. If you believe the CoC empowers you to remove people who have made an admission of breaking any law anywhere that is a much broader power than believing the CoC empowers you to remove content which is itself illegal to post.
For example in the USA it is illegal to distribute child pornography. Simply posting that would be illegal, and knowingly allowing it to remain posted would likely introduce some liability. That is criminal posting.
Breaking a speed limit or built a shed without a permit would constitute "criminal activity", but it certainly not a crime to admit a crime. There is no legal liability, however if you interpret the CoC as authorizing you to ban persons because you think they're criminals then it empowers you to ban someone for speeding or building a shed without a permit.