"Quite the opposite actually. Unlike those "traditional debaters" who have the arrogance to tell me what the topic is "really about" without having evidence on the topic itself to back it up, I always debate exactly the topic, always."
Is there something you'd like to state to me directly? You take issue with my response after engaging me on the subject?
It's not a presupposition, which would denote assumption. The fetus's being human is not an assumption. It's true by definition. The same metrics that determine your or my being human are the same metrics that determine the fetus's humanity. One could also consider the absurdity of human beings being the only species to gestate a species other than its own.
"Just so it's clear. Nothing in the definitions say:
1. That the fetus is a human being
2. That it is alive in the womb.
So if you still believe this debate is too hard to win, then it really shows that, ultimately, you agree that abortion is murder.
This should be a pretty straightforward debate if you honestly think the fetus isn't a human being or alive. But since nobody has dared to take this one, it seems apparent that I have won the debate before even starting."
that the contender's recourse is simple if he/she can dispute the fetus's humanity and/or the fetus's being alive. The fetus's humanity isn't up for debate since the fetus's being human is tautologically true. That leaves only its "life," a nebulous philosophical abstract, being called into dispute, resulting in the inevitable arbitrary divisions. This shouldn't be the contender's only recourse, but your stipulated definitions make it that way. I'll be interested to see how Intelligence_06's arguments circumvent your definitions.
This presumes that the affirmation of the proposition can be negated if and only if the fetus's life is called into dispute. That is not the case at all. I can maintain that the fetus is alive, and argue that abortion in and of itself is not murder. Your stipulated definitions, however, make it difficult to create a distinction between "cause of death" and "murder." Just a suggestion.
I understand what you're trying to do, but no one who's worth their wit would accept the contender's position knowing full well that those definitions of yours pretty much guarantee your victory. If however you wish to debate this subject using the typical definitions of both murder--kill with malice aforethought--and kill--cause the death of--I may consider accepting.
You did it in the third round as well, but like Public-Choice state, it shouldn't be relevant in one's rendering one's vote. Now that your part in this debate is complete, how do you think your arguments in their entirety fared?
I want a good debate. And if "interrupting your mistake" helps you take it up a notch, then that's all the more reason to take it up a notch myself. In the words of the illustrious Kirsten Dunst, "BRING IT!"
Take this for what its worth, but your points are all over the place. Your argument essentially boils down to: "PRO-STATE = NOT HYPOCRITICAL; ANTI-STATE = HYPOCRITICAL." Here's to the prospect that we both put our best foot forward in the final round.
Yeah, I don't want to get into it. While it's nice, I suppose, that the subject has gotten traction over these last few weeks, I'm not one to dwell on what could've been. As you said, it's been two years.
I agree, but because oromagi's stipulated definition contained "related to," this allowed for some lexical manipulation my counterargument could not escape. Even if my counterargument was that Catholicism was in fact Satanic or Luciferian, it would still be "related" to Christianity. And while I still maintain that Ragnar's vote was bananas, that is not the fault and/or concern of oromagi, who essentially did his job, which was to "win" the debate.
Your definitions have put you at a disadvantage in this debate. That is, your description of gender describes it as a social construct--not to mention the clear distinction it creates with biology.
If you have an issue with my "competence," then by all means, report my vote to a moderator or solicit more votes as is your prerogative. I stand by my vote.
A bit of friendly advice before you get targeted by those who are just trying to bolster their positions on the Leaderboards:
Think clearly and critically about the resolution. So for example, on the subject matter you've brought up, is it that there's no wage gap? Or does the POLITICAL NARRATIVE on the wage-gap lack context? Furthermore, you may also want to consider whether the stance of which you are a proponent creates a semantic advantage. If you don't communicate clearly your premises, and how your extensions of them service your resolution, then your arguments may be chum in the water for the sharks here looking for their next meal.
"I firstly can but do not want to arm Con with arguments and secondly, if you have a character that you feel is more like one, in the other comic's multiverse, then go ahead and debate it.
I should note that Marvel believes in universe where DC believes in multiverse but that distinction is only truly relevant to time travel mechanics.
Marvel later changed to support multiverse or omniverse anyway."
This in part informs my criticism. How does one resolve this debate? Perhaps if you word it as: "Flash in the DC universe is the closest approximation to Spider-man in the Marvel Universe, powers notwithstanding." At least this creates a metric where no other heroes measure up in order for the debate to be resolved.
No, it doesn't. You're essentially asking prospective voters to consider stipulations that aren't quite stringent. Perhaps if you itemize a set of parameters on which you and your would-be opponent would be arguing in favor or against this comparison, there a might be a semblance of a resolution.
"Captain America and Iron Man are actually two halves of Superman's persona and role ripped apart, if you ask me."
"Arrow of DC is the Iron man in Marvel but Iron Man's way of operating is far less secretive and lowkey than Arrow's.
Arrow is actually more like Daredevil but without question daredevil is linked to batman."
I don't deny any of this. Most of these superheroes are quite similar to each other (particularly because they're gleaned from mythology.) I could compare both Batman and Superman by stating they're both orphans who have mothers named Martha (a point explored in Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice.)
If we're going to compare Spider-man to a DC Superhero, it would be Superman. I can go into the pagan origin of both, but aside from that, you have two geeky orphans turned reporters, who are heavily influenced by the paternal figures in their lives, and have longed for the "redhead" (this is on purpose) next door. Now if we're talking about Barry Allen's Flash, which I presume you are, then a comparison can be made between all three of them. But Spider-Man to Superman would be the closest comparison, in my opinion.
I may have accepted this debate if it had an actual resolution. It's no surprise that many superheroes can be comparable.
If I were you, I would never have accepted the terms of this debate. Because essentially you're debating over the description, "better," rendering votes a tally of who agrees with the description. Thus making the four point voting system irrelevant. Not to mention, by accepting the debate, you accept RationalMadman's definitions. I suspect your novelty was taken advantage of.
I think the intention of the February tournament is to have quick debates between the selected contestants. This is evidenced by the fact that the tournament dictates that each debate be three rounds (excluding the acceptance round) with a three-day time limit to submit arguments and a one-week voting period--all so that the winner of this contest can be selected by the end of the month.
It isn't so much the time-limit or the one-week voting period that hampered my submission, but the character limit and the three rounds. I realized that not only did I not have enough characters to contain my entire argument, but also I probably would need more than one round to lay out my opening argument. Remember my burden would be not only to delineate the character archetypes of both the Marvel and DC Superheroes but also the character archetypes of the pagan deities on which they were based. And thus, I would have to explain who these characters were (both comic book and mythological,) how they related, and the plausibility that the Marvel/DC writers were thinking of the aforementioned pagan deities when conceiving their Superheroes. I was doing this successfully for just about 10 of the Superheroes we listed before I realized I was running out of characters (It was 14, 542 characters I believe.) And as time was waning, I realized I wouldn't be able to retool it without severely weakening the argument. Hence, my concession. I rather concede than submit a terrible argument.
If this perhaps was a five round debate, which wasn't confined by the time constraints of a month-long tournament, I'm certain we could've done the subject justice.
I apologize for conceding the debate before it even really started. I'm actually thinking about creating this debate again, using the same list, but with expanded parameters--namely the character limit. If you're still interested in the subject--not for the February tournament, but just for the hell of it--then I can challenge you again, or leave it open for challenge. I like the subject, and I've already done all of the work I intended to use to support my argument, so it'd cool if this could continue in some way or form.
I agree. Personally, it always vexed me that individuals would dislike a video without so much as submitting a reason, but on the other hand, the like to dislike ratio has always served a purpose of identifying "fake" videos. I'm sure many a self-esteem can survive a few dislikes here and there.
Rap is among my favorite genres in music--though, I dislike the majority of modern mainstream rap--and as a kid, my best friends and I used to write our own lyrics to our favorite beats. (I've also written my fair share of poems.) It suffices to say that many of those friends continued along this path as a career, and they even have songs on iTunes, soundcloud, and Spotify. And while I pursued a less glamorous career, my propensity towards lyricism has remained.
RationalMadMan would have to inform you on his origin story.
Catholics engage in many rituals which would not be considered Christian, some of which I delineated during that debate. Jesus would be the farthest thing from a Catholic were he alive today.
Seldiora, I'm sure you've been told this numerous times, but I'll repeat it one more time. It is neither your responsibility nor your prerogative to regulate how one votes. If you have a problem with zedvictor's vote, then you report it. If your report receives no response, then you attempt to reach a moderator through direct message; if you don't reach a moderator through direct message, then you attempt to contact zedvictor and persuade him to provide a sufficient RFD, or have his vote removed. If none works, then you have to deal with it. You shouldn't vote against someone because you dislike someone else's vote. Your conduct is an example of the reason this voting system sucks, for lack of a better term.
Second, there's nothing scientifically substantial about PRO's argument. PRO attempts to make a correlation between the physical structure of the hypothalamic region of the brain and one's gendered identity. I asked him a simple question: "what is a 'gendered' identity?" He refused to answer this question because he and I both knew that his description would conform to gender and sex based stereotypes. Hence his oft repetition of gender being experienced "individually." But if gender is experienced individually, then his data is irrelevant since its metrics apply fixed sex-based categorizations and standards--i.e. male and female brains.
And you need to read more carefully: I stated twice the exclusions of this debate ("We ARE NOT arguing over "civil rights;" we ARE NOT arguing over the notion of "equality"; we ARE NOT arguing over treating transgenders "better" or "worse"; we ARE NOT arguing over treating transgenders with "respect" or a lack thereof; we ARE NOT even arguing over whether or not they are the "sex" with which they were born.") I haven't argued that the brain and mind causes an ambiguity to occur. I stated that the abstractness of the mind and the quality by which it is reflexively aware makes it impossible for it to conform to social grouping standards, much less biological ones. Identity is essentially an individual abstract and unique to each subject. I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED all this.
"Because Pro's case is extremely unclear on a socially offensive side. Pro must tell me what it means to treat them as the gender they identify as."
Exactly. PRO never answers what it means to treat someone as the gender with which they identify. And he hasn't done so because, as I had already demonstrated, he couldn't even IDENTIFY what a gendered identity was.
Now I haven't blocked you this time out of courtesy. But the next time you indulge your personal crap in debates to which I'm party, I will. Enjoy the rest of your night, sir.
Not only did you forfeit a round, but you spent most of the last round attempting to insult me. And when I choose to present my affirmation of my counterargument is up to me, especially given that it had not violated your stipulation--the "second to last round" is NOT the last round. Furthermore, if you have failed to grasp the reason you have not and cannot meet your burden, then you have learned nothing. And it's apparent that you're not interested in learning the reason your point doesn't hold. Let the process play out, and disengage this useless contest of wit and stubbornness.
"If I have the time to write it - however- as I wrote in my "I'm taking a hiatus" forum, I really don't have the time very often. I definitely don't concede."
Then will you do me the courtesy of writing "something"--however you wish to phrase it--in order to expedite the conclusion of this debate, especially considering that you have no intention of seeing it through to the end?
If you intend on conceding this debate, do me the courtesy of providing a short response of concession so that we may expedite the conclusion of this debate.
"Quite the opposite actually. Unlike those "traditional debaters" who have the arrogance to tell me what the topic is "really about" without having evidence on the topic itself to back it up, I always debate exactly the topic, always."
Is there something you'd like to state to me directly? You take issue with my response after engaging me on the subject?
It's not a presupposition, which would denote assumption. The fetus's being human is not an assumption. It's true by definition. The same metrics that determine your or my being human are the same metrics that determine the fetus's humanity. One could also consider the absurdity of human beings being the only species to gestate a species other than its own.
You stated it yourself here:
"Just so it's clear. Nothing in the definitions say:
1. That the fetus is a human being
2. That it is alive in the womb.
So if you still believe this debate is too hard to win, then it really shows that, ultimately, you agree that abortion is murder.
This should be a pretty straightforward debate if you honestly think the fetus isn't a human being or alive. But since nobody has dared to take this one, it seems apparent that I have won the debate before even starting."
that the contender's recourse is simple if he/she can dispute the fetus's humanity and/or the fetus's being alive. The fetus's humanity isn't up for debate since the fetus's being human is tautologically true. That leaves only its "life," a nebulous philosophical abstract, being called into dispute, resulting in the inevitable arbitrary divisions. This shouldn't be the contender's only recourse, but your stipulated definitions make it that way. I'll be interested to see how Intelligence_06's arguments circumvent your definitions.
This presumes that the affirmation of the proposition can be negated if and only if the fetus's life is called into dispute. That is not the case at all. I can maintain that the fetus is alive, and argue that abortion in and of itself is not murder. Your stipulated definitions, however, make it difficult to create a distinction between "cause of death" and "murder." Just a suggestion.
In other words, I'm being arrogant and complacent?
I understand what you're trying to do, but no one who's worth their wit would accept the contender's position knowing full well that those definitions of yours pretty much guarantee your victory. If however you wish to debate this subject using the typical definitions of both murder--kill with malice aforethought--and kill--cause the death of--I may consider accepting.
I get winner.
You did it in the third round as well, but like Public-Choice state, it shouldn't be relevant in one's rendering one's vote. Now that your part in this debate is complete, how do you think your arguments in their entirety fared?
I want a good debate. And if "interrupting your mistake" helps you take it up a notch, then that's all the more reason to take it up a notch myself. In the words of the illustrious Kirsten Dunst, "BRING IT!"
Take this for what its worth, but your points are all over the place. Your argument essentially boils down to: "PRO-STATE = NOT HYPOCRITICAL; ANTI-STATE = HYPOCRITICAL." Here's to the prospect that we both put our best foot forward in the final round.
Right at the buzzer!
Sure thing.
If you're fine with it, I suppose that's all that matters. Expect my response shortly.
Thanks for participating, and thanks for the vote.
Be honest, did you rush your opening argument because you lost track of the time you were allowed between arguments?
I'll be keeping close watch on this debate. I'll most likely vote, but I can sometimes get distracted, so don't hesitate to leave me a reminder.
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. It may be prudent to set up a few stipulations rather than use a round doing so. Let's see what RationalMadman thinks.
Yeah, I don't want to get into it. While it's nice, I suppose, that the subject has gotten traction over these last few weeks, I'm not one to dwell on what could've been. As you said, it's been two years.
Nice post. Expect my response tomorrow.
I suppose. But I've long since finished crying over spilled milk.
I seriously considered making you Pro. Here's to a good debate--hopefully.
I agree, but because oromagi's stipulated definition contained "related to," this allowed for some lexical manipulation my counterargument could not escape. Even if my counterargument was that Catholicism was in fact Satanic or Luciferian, it would still be "related" to Christianity. And while I still maintain that Ragnar's vote was bananas, that is not the fault and/or concern of oromagi, who essentially did his job, which was to "win" the debate.
I accept. Please be sure to outline your definitions, stipulations, and resolution.
Your definitions have put you at a disadvantage in this debate. That is, your description of gender describes it as a social construct--not to mention the clear distinction it creates with biology.
If you have an issue with my "competence," then by all means, report my vote to a moderator or solicit more votes as is your prerogative. I stand by my vote.
A bit of friendly advice before you get targeted by those who are just trying to bolster their positions on the Leaderboards:
Think clearly and critically about the resolution. So for example, on the subject matter you've brought up, is it that there's no wage gap? Or does the POLITICAL NARRATIVE on the wage-gap lack context? Furthermore, you may also want to consider whether the stance of which you are a proponent creates a semantic advantage. If you don't communicate clearly your premises, and how your extensions of them service your resolution, then your arguments may be chum in the water for the sharks here looking for their next meal.
With all that said, welcome, and I wish you luck.
I don't disagree. I think the only real exposition on Joker's motivations were in Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke" which was a cringeworthy read.
"There are no characyers truly like Hulk and Punisher in DC"
Solomon Grundy and Vigilante.
"as epic as Joker"
Green Goblin, especially when he killed Gwen Stacy.
"In turn, Marvel ends up with more fascinating heroes and DC ends up with more epic, polarising villains."
I can see how this is your impression. I'm biased though, since I typically preferred DC. But your characterization isn't off the mark.
"I firstly can but do not want to arm Con with arguments and secondly, if you have a character that you feel is more like one, in the other comic's multiverse, then go ahead and debate it.
I should note that Marvel believes in universe where DC believes in multiverse but that distinction is only truly relevant to time travel mechanics.
Marvel later changed to support multiverse or omniverse anyway."
This in part informs my criticism. How does one resolve this debate? Perhaps if you word it as: "Flash in the DC universe is the closest approximation to Spider-man in the Marvel Universe, powers notwithstanding." At least this creates a metric where no other heroes measure up in order for the debate to be resolved.
Superman is gleaned from Zeus-Ammon (a.k.a. Amun-Ra.) And Spider-man is gleaned from the scarab form of Ra, known as Kheper.
"It has an actual resolution. Thanks."
No, it doesn't. You're essentially asking prospective voters to consider stipulations that aren't quite stringent. Perhaps if you itemize a set of parameters on which you and your would-be opponent would be arguing in favor or against this comparison, there a might be a semblance of a resolution.
"Captain America and Iron Man are actually two halves of Superman's persona and role ripped apart, if you ask me."
"Arrow of DC is the Iron man in Marvel but Iron Man's way of operating is far less secretive and lowkey than Arrow's.
Arrow is actually more like Daredevil but without question daredevil is linked to batman."
I don't deny any of this. Most of these superheroes are quite similar to each other (particularly because they're gleaned from mythology.) I could compare both Batman and Superman by stating they're both orphans who have mothers named Martha (a point explored in Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice.)
If we're going to compare Spider-man to a DC Superhero, it would be Superman. I can go into the pagan origin of both, but aside from that, you have two geeky orphans turned reporters, who are heavily influenced by the paternal figures in their lives, and have longed for the "redhead" (this is on purpose) next door. Now if we're talking about Barry Allen's Flash, which I presume you are, then a comparison can be made between all three of them. But Spider-Man to Superman would be the closest comparison, in my opinion.
I may have accepted this debate if it had an actual resolution. It's no surprise that many superheroes can be comparable.
Debate over "better" are not quantifiable. Nevertheless, good luck to you.
If I were you, I would never have accepted the terms of this debate. Because essentially you're debating over the description, "better," rendering votes a tally of who agrees with the description. Thus making the four point voting system irrelevant. Not to mention, by accepting the debate, you accept RationalMadman's definitions. I suspect your novelty was taken advantage of.
No such criterion was spelled out.
I think the intention of the February tournament is to have quick debates between the selected contestants. This is evidenced by the fact that the tournament dictates that each debate be three rounds (excluding the acceptance round) with a three-day time limit to submit arguments and a one-week voting period--all so that the winner of this contest can be selected by the end of the month.
It isn't so much the time-limit or the one-week voting period that hampered my submission, but the character limit and the three rounds. I realized that not only did I not have enough characters to contain my entire argument, but also I probably would need more than one round to lay out my opening argument. Remember my burden would be not only to delineate the character archetypes of both the Marvel and DC Superheroes but also the character archetypes of the pagan deities on which they were based. And thus, I would have to explain who these characters were (both comic book and mythological,) how they related, and the plausibility that the Marvel/DC writers were thinking of the aforementioned pagan deities when conceiving their Superheroes. I was doing this successfully for just about 10 of the Superheroes we listed before I realized I was running out of characters (It was 14, 542 characters I believe.) And as time was waning, I realized I wouldn't be able to retool it without severely weakening the argument. Hence, my concession. I rather concede than submit a terrible argument.
If this perhaps was a five round debate, which wasn't confined by the time constraints of a month-long tournament, I'm certain we could've done the subject justice.
I apologize for conceding the debate before it even really started. I'm actually thinking about creating this debate again, using the same list, but with expanded parameters--namely the character limit. If you're still interested in the subject--not for the February tournament, but just for the hell of it--then I can challenge you again, or leave it open for challenge. I like the subject, and I've already done all of the work I intended to use to support my argument, so it'd cool if this could continue in some way or form.
I'll be paying attention to this debate. I might vote on it as well.
I agree. Personally, it always vexed me that individuals would dislike a video without so much as submitting a reason, but on the other hand, the like to dislike ratio has always served a purpose of identifying "fake" videos. I'm sure many a self-esteem can survive a few dislikes here and there.
Rap is among my favorite genres in music--though, I dislike the majority of modern mainstream rap--and as a kid, my best friends and I used to write our own lyrics to our favorite beats. (I've also written my fair share of poems.) It suffices to say that many of those friends continued along this path as a career, and they even have songs on iTunes, soundcloud, and Spotify. And while I pursued a less glamorous career, my propensity towards lyricism has remained.
RationalMadMan would have to inform you on his origin story.
Catholics engage in many rituals which would not be considered Christian, some of which I delineated during that debate. Jesus would be the farthest thing from a Catholic were he alive today.
Thank you.
Seldiora, I'm sure you've been told this numerous times, but I'll repeat it one more time. It is neither your responsibility nor your prerogative to regulate how one votes. If you have a problem with zedvictor's vote, then you report it. If your report receives no response, then you attempt to reach a moderator through direct message; if you don't reach a moderator through direct message, then you attempt to contact zedvictor and persuade him to provide a sufficient RFD, or have his vote removed. If none works, then you have to deal with it. You shouldn't vote against someone because you dislike someone else's vote. Your conduct is an example of the reason this voting system sucks, for lack of a better term.
Second, there's nothing scientifically substantial about PRO's argument. PRO attempts to make a correlation between the physical structure of the hypothalamic region of the brain and one's gendered identity. I asked him a simple question: "what is a 'gendered' identity?" He refused to answer this question because he and I both knew that his description would conform to gender and sex based stereotypes. Hence his oft repetition of gender being experienced "individually." But if gender is experienced individually, then his data is irrelevant since its metrics apply fixed sex-based categorizations and standards--i.e. male and female brains.
And you need to read more carefully: I stated twice the exclusions of this debate ("We ARE NOT arguing over "civil rights;" we ARE NOT arguing over the notion of "equality"; we ARE NOT arguing over treating transgenders "better" or "worse"; we ARE NOT arguing over treating transgenders with "respect" or a lack thereof; we ARE NOT even arguing over whether or not they are the "sex" with which they were born.") I haven't argued that the brain and mind causes an ambiguity to occur. I stated that the abstractness of the mind and the quality by which it is reflexively aware makes it impossible for it to conform to social grouping standards, much less biological ones. Identity is essentially an individual abstract and unique to each subject. I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED all this.
"Because Pro's case is extremely unclear on a socially offensive side. Pro must tell me what it means to treat them as the gender they identify as."
Exactly. PRO never answers what it means to treat someone as the gender with which they identify. And he hasn't done so because, as I had already demonstrated, he couldn't even IDENTIFY what a gendered identity was.
Now I haven't blocked you this time out of courtesy. But the next time you indulge your personal crap in debates to which I'm party, I will. Enjoy the rest of your night, sir.
*bump*
I'm French, too.
Not only did you forfeit a round, but you spent most of the last round attempting to insult me. And when I choose to present my affirmation of my counterargument is up to me, especially given that it had not violated your stipulation--the "second to last round" is NOT the last round. Furthermore, if you have failed to grasp the reason you have not and cannot meet your burden, then you have learned nothing. And it's apparent that you're not interested in learning the reason your point doesn't hold. Let the process play out, and disengage this useless contest of wit and stubbornness.
Well, I suppose that's something. Perhaps you could've "saved face" if you conceded rather than attempt insults. Enjoy your "hiatus," sir.
"If I have the time to write it - however- as I wrote in my "I'm taking a hiatus" forum, I really don't have the time very often. I definitely don't concede."
Then will you do me the courtesy of writing "something"--however you wish to phrase it--in order to expedite the conclusion of this debate, especially considering that you have no intention of seeing it through to the end?
"Nope - won't do that"
Am I to take it that you'll participate in the debate's next round (i.e. no forfeiture)?
If you intend on conceding this debate, do me the courtesy of providing a short response of concession so that we may expedite the conclusion of this debate.