I think healthcare should be funded by religious institutions as much as feasibly possible for those that can't afford it with the help of RIEP (Religious Institution Enhancement Policy). This way, more people donate to institutions, and society becomes better while people get their health insurance through consensual funds instead of taxes which are taken by force.
Debatevoter has no registered friends, so I doubt he would ally with Magic Aint real to vote in my favor. I made some pretty good arguments. You accused me of being a dictatorship supporter, which wasen't accurate. That would be poor conduct.
Why would they hate you? I mean, to be honest, I don't like you but I don't grudge vote against you. If their votes weren't adequate or too biased, they would have been reported.
I didn't complain when you beat me in one debate, even though I thought I deserved to win that debate. You win some, you lose some. That's how life works. The voting was pretty competitive. I thought you were going to win this one. Turns out I did. Good debate regardless.
I wouldn't call myself a bystander as I was someone who competed in this big boy debate.
My pre vote. I want to make sure both debaters are okay with it before I send it out. I don't want my vote to get reported.
Citations: Con. Con cited various scientific papers. The most relevant cite Pro used was Live Science, which is both .com and has ads.
Everything else: Tie. Both debaters were good and I barely understood what they were saying. They both used multiple terms that were too hard for me to understand.
My "vote" since I'm worried about voting for real:
Spelling, Conduct and Sources: Tie for each of these. Both debaters cited and their spelling and conduct was comprobly good.
Better arguments: Virt. Virt had a good argument with pointing out Hitler. Blamonkey did not adequately address this, so I think Virt won the debate 7 to 4. A more thorough analysis is below:
Pro's arguments(R1):
-Death penalty has racial and social class bias.
-Death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment without parole.
Con's arguments(R1):
-The death penalty serves "justice".
-The guilty party can't murder again.
-Someone like Hitler deserves the death penalty(DP), therefore making the DP justified in extreme situations like this.
Pro's case R2:
- Whether or not the DP serves Justice is opinion based, so if he dropped this, I wouldn't blame him.
- The guilty party almost never escapes from jail and when they do, they are recaptured within a day. Con does not counter this, so Pro wins this battle.
- Pro drops the Hitler question so Con wins this battle.
Con's case to R2:
- Under his plan no one innocent is executed. This is wishful thinking. He agrees with the race based claim, so that point can be put to the side. He offers a solution to this by making every defendant have at least half of the members of the same race on his jury. That will mean that black people will be more likely to be on jury then white people, since blacks are more likely to commit murder. I don't think this is a problem.
- His cost argument is to decrease the amount of time spent on death row. However, this results in more innocents getting killed. He states, "If a just punishment is more expensive than an alternate unjust punishment, don't we have a moral obligation to go with the more expensive just sentence?" This was a poor argument for Virtuoso to make since his argument contradicts what he said here.
God, while he exists, I think is pretty evil because he states most of humanity will burn in hell forever(Matthew 7:13). No one deserves to burn in hell forever.
You didn't directly cite the Quran. You merely posted someone else's opinion. It would be like me just posting a YouTube link as my sole argument. It's not me doing the arguing. It would be someone else. I still think Pro won the debate from better arguments. The thing is, if I voted for you, I don't think Pro would be complaining about it being rigged. I voted to the best of my ability.
There was this guy who spoke out against Islam on Facebook and he got killed for it by Pakistan(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/11/pakistan-man-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-on-facebook). This sounds pretty violent to me. Killing someone over a religious disagreement.
Okay.
Do you want a rematch?
If it wasn't for that vote, we would have tied.
I thought Con was Pagan, meaning he believes in at least 1 God.
I'm worried I'm going to lose.
As of the time of this comment, #2 vs #1. Bound to be interesting.
1st debate I saw where the party that forfeit probably will win.
Nice job Greyperrot.
Good luck Pro.
I support GMOs.
I think healthcare should be funded by religious institutions as much as feasibly possible for those that can't afford it with the help of RIEP (Religious Institution Enhancement Policy). This way, more people donate to institutions, and society becomes better while people get their health insurance through consensual funds instead of taxes which are taken by force.
"Plz don't have this reset. I posted my argument with less than 20 seconds left on the clock." That is cool.
Good game.
Close debate. I wonder who will win.
Fine.
So, should I vote?
I'm worried that my vote would get reported.
Truth!
Debatevoter has no registered friends, so I doubt he would ally with Magic Aint real to vote in my favor. I made some pretty good arguments. You accused me of being a dictatorship supporter, which wasen't accurate. That would be poor conduct.
https://www.debateart.com/participants/DebateVoter
Does the wall reduce illegal immigration significantly?
Why would they hate you? I mean, to be honest, I don't like you but I don't grudge vote against you. If their votes weren't adequate or too biased, they would have been reported.
Swag might have won. Virt is simply good at debating.
I didn't complain when you beat me in one debate, even though I thought I deserved to win that debate. You win some, you lose some. That's how life works. The voting was pretty competitive. I thought you were going to win this one. Turns out I did. Good debate regardless.
I wouldn't call myself a bystander as I was someone who competed in this big boy debate.
I thought devil's advocate was disagreeing with someone else just for the heck of it.
I'm glad I won against RM.
"I really don't support the death penalty so I'm probably weak oponent"
"Like Alec, I think I'd probably take the primary position of a more expansive death sentence."
This seems contradictory.
Seems legit. I don't want federal funds going towards it though.
Why am I excluded? I'm not complaining, but I'm curious.
No I'm not.
I'm expecting a good argument. As of the time of this comment, both debaters are in the top 7.
Some autistic contribute to society, some live off of welfare.
Should I respond to the debate?
My pre vote. I want to make sure both debaters are okay with it before I send it out. I don't want my vote to get reported.
Citations: Con. Con cited various scientific papers. The most relevant cite Pro used was Live Science, which is both .com and has ads.
Everything else: Tie. Both debaters were good and I barely understood what they were saying. They both used multiple terms that were too hard for me to understand.
Basically, under my vote, Con wins 7 to 5.
I was worried about you or Bsh1 reporting it.
My "vote" since I'm worried about voting for real:
Spelling, Conduct and Sources: Tie for each of these. Both debaters cited and their spelling and conduct was comprobly good.
Better arguments: Virt. Virt had a good argument with pointing out Hitler. Blamonkey did not adequately address this, so I think Virt won the debate 7 to 4. A more thorough analysis is below:
Pro's arguments(R1):
-Death penalty has racial and social class bias.
-Death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment without parole.
Con's arguments(R1):
-The death penalty serves "justice".
-The guilty party can't murder again.
-Someone like Hitler deserves the death penalty(DP), therefore making the DP justified in extreme situations like this.
Pro's case R2:
- Whether or not the DP serves Justice is opinion based, so if he dropped this, I wouldn't blame him.
- The guilty party almost never escapes from jail and when they do, they are recaptured within a day. Con does not counter this, so Pro wins this battle.
- Pro drops the Hitler question so Con wins this battle.
Con's case to R2:
- Under his plan no one innocent is executed. This is wishful thinking. He agrees with the race based claim, so that point can be put to the side. He offers a solution to this by making every defendant have at least half of the members of the same race on his jury. That will mean that black people will be more likely to be on jury then white people, since blacks are more likely to commit murder. I don't think this is a problem.
- His cost argument is to decrease the amount of time spent on death row. However, this results in more innocents getting killed. He states, "If a just punishment is more expensive than an alternate unjust punishment, don't we have a moral obligation to go with the more expensive just sentence?" This was a poor argument for Virtuoso to make since his argument contradicts what he said here.
Big Boy argument posted. Should I say Big boy in excess?
I don't think he is on weed. Weed makes you high and happy.
What are the definitions?
It's not like I can edit the debate to change this.
You don't have to defend those guns being banned. If you were to accept this, you would just have to defend firearms being banned.
God, while he exists, I think is pretty evil because he states most of humanity will burn in hell forever(Matthew 7:13). No one deserves to burn in hell forever.
What do you mean?
You didn't directly cite the Quran. You merely posted someone else's opinion. It would be like me just posting a YouTube link as my sole argument. It's not me doing the arguing. It would be someone else. I still think Pro won the debate from better arguments. The thing is, if I voted for you, I don't think Pro would be complaining about it being rigged. I voted to the best of my ability.
Aren't the lynchers motivated by what the Quran tells them to do? The Quran orders the death penalty for speaking out against Allah.
Oh.
Is WOA Wisdom of Ages? He might agree with you. He is kindof left leaning.
Do you think anyone will accept the debate?
There was this guy who spoke out against Islam on Facebook and he got killed for it by Pakistan(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/11/pakistan-man-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-on-facebook). This sounds pretty violent to me. Killing someone over a religious disagreement.
I asked Debateart.com that in his suggestions for improvement forum.
For the argument, "Aliens are real and did 9/11" the BoP would be on the person making the claim.