As for backgrounds and motivations, you gave Saitama vs Boros a "9." I'm not saying that it doesn't deserve it, but based on that clip alone, you don't know the reason Saitama is as strong as he is, training for three years doing 100 push-ups and sit-ups (and the beautiful satire that conveys.) You have no idea who Boros is; you have no idea of the reason they're fighting to start with. You had to have watched the series to ascertain that information, especially given that Saitama tends to be aloof and doesn't talk much during fights.
I'm only vexed by the standard you used because many of the same criticisms can be made of the other clips. Thus, it's the reason I'm stating that your judgement essentially boiled down to whether or not you had watched the series previously.
There's plenty you can grasp from watching that scene. First, I pinpointed that specific time because Tenzen pretty much gives a cap of what's going through his internal monologue. Not to mention, the dialogue between the characters (i.e. Saemon, Hotarubi, Nenki, etc.) They at least once refer to themselves or the other as "Kouga and Iga," so you know it's a conflict between Kouga and Iga. They also mention that the truce was just broken. You know there were already casualties in Saemon's mentioning of Kazamachi and the "lone woman tortured to death," who happened to be his younger sister, and Hotarubi's mention of Yashamaru, who happened to be her lover (though the English Dub makes this more clear.) You know Oboro is part of the Iga clan because of the way the Iga clan members treat her (that is, not attacking her.) It turns out that she's their leader despite Tenzen assuming effective command of the Iga, which can be discerned from their formation and Tenzen's behavior. You know there's some relationship between Oboro Iga and Gennosuke Kouga because of Oboro's behavior (either friendship or romance.) Given that it's a conflict between two ninja clans, there was mention of a truce, and Gennosuke and Oboro are an adult male and female respectively, one can reasonably assume it's romantic. You know that Gennosuke Kouga is the leader of the Kouga because of how Saemon and Gyoubu stand in front of him amidst the conflict (not to mention, I stated as much when posting the link.) So I disagree that there isn't much that this scene doesn't do well on its own.
But just because you haven't seen it, it doesn't mean that fight neither isn't good nor doesn't do well on its own. A lot of these clips present both by me and King_8 are relatively short, so the information you used to judge had to be from watching the series.
Yeah, that was judged based on your not seeing the series. If one were to not see "My Hero Academia" for example, the clip of All Might vs All For One wouldn't have had much context, either (especially All For One's creating One for All, the source of All Might's power.) The same would be true for Kirei vs Kiritsugu, too. Not to mention, I posted the entire episode, so if you wanted more information on their relationships, you needed only watch a few minutes before, and/or a few minutes after. Furthermore, King_8 asked for the shortened versions of these fights/conflicts if available, so there was only so much either of us could've done.
Last, as per the description, either I or King_8 could've chosen a "one-sided fight"; hence I did. And this scene in particular is great because it wasn't that the chief members of the Iga Clan couldn't fight back against Gennosuke, they were too terrified. Unlike other "ninja series" *cough* Naruto *cough*, this series attempts to capture a realistic picture of the ninja, particularly their being clandestine. In other words, one didn't know what the other could do, until the other did it. So when Gennosuke reveals his technique, not only were they terrified by his demonstration, but they also had to figure out a way to use advantages and disadvantages to counter it. If you watch further, you would've seen Gennosuke's showing some cunning in his using the folly of his intended, Oboro-sama, to take advantage of Koshiro, her clansmen, gravely injuring him. It's classic conflict of duty and love.
It's unfortunate you didn't put much consideration into the natural limitations of these selections (that being neither I nor King_8 could've accounted for that which everyone else has seen.) Nevertheless, thank you for your participation.
Still too nebulous a resolution. What is socialism as a moral framework? Socialism is an economic framework; sure, it spills over to politics, and overlap is to be expected between social systems.
I would've accepted the debate if the proposition wasn't a referendum on its being "evil." If you ever want to discuss its merits and efficiency as an economic framework, then I'll readily accept.
If we were to extend your rationale to its logical conclusion (i.e. beings who aren't conceived have rights) then children would be able to levy post facto legal disputes against their parents for bad skin, or bad hair, or poor vision, genetic defects, etc. in order to express their claims or "rights."
"Anyone with a curable STI should get annually fined until they get treatment for it/them."
And to whom is this fine owed? Who else has a claim to the parents' good health other than whom you allege--i.e. the unborn child? How would the unborn child collect it? How much do we take? Aren't you just pressing your own alleged claims and/or rights and funneling them through the assumption of the unborn child's proxy?
"Cotius is not the best way to enjoy one's partner from an objective standpoint because of it's dangers."
This depends on the context. If one's sexual habits are casual, then yes, there's a risk in contracting STI's. However, if my partner and I have no STI's and remain in an exclusive sexual relationship, then regardless of how many times we have sex, the "danger" is incidentally the same. Now, if we're characterizing pregnancy as a danger, then contraception is quite the effective remedy. And again, from personal experience, even trying "other forms," coitus is the best way to enjoy one's partner.
"If it infringes on the rights of others, like future children by giving them STIs, then they can just get the STIs treated. I don't think abortion should be an allowed option but that's a different topic."
"Future" children don't have rights. They've yet to be born; they've yet to have being. They have no more so say in their own creation than everyone else. Which rights can they exercise before they're conceived?
"Not all parties will inform the other of STIs that are had."
I know. That doesn't change, however, that one has the responsibility to be an agent in one's self-preservation. Hence, one "demands" that screening be conducted before engaging in coitus.
Personal responsibility isn't something achieved. It's innate; it's cultivated through one's experiences.
"...since some couples don't care about spreading STIs."
Which couples are those? And if they don't care about spreading STI's, then they warrant the consequences of their actions.
"Why should the kids from this arrangement suffer for the responsibility of the parents?"
They aren't kids; they are neither conceived nor born. We are speaking to prospect, not fact. For better or worse, children are the beneficiaries of their parents' positive and negative aspects. Since they aren't self-sufficient, and the zygote/embryo/fetus requires its mother's labor to gestate, it doesn't get to get to dictate its mother's participation--even her curing any STI's--because they zygote/embryo/fetus doesn't gestate itself. It doesn't provide the genetic material in its own conception. The womb belongs to its mother; the ovum and sperm belong to its mother and father, respectively. What claim does the zygote/embryo/fetus have?
I'm not at all advocating for spreading STI's, or infecting unborn children with them, but it is a terrible yet inevitable consequence of progenation.
Don't necessarily understand this debate's supposed resolution. When you propose an argument over "good" or "bad," do you mean moral or immoral? Effective or ineffective? Practical or impractical? What is it you want to argue? (If it's interesting, I might accept.)
"Sex shouldn't be on the basis of age but should be restricted. In order to have sex, you must have you and your partner be treated of all STDs and STIs. In addition, either you must be married to your partner or use birth control precisely 100% effective. There are outer course ways to enjoy your partner without having sex."
The parameters should be decided mutually by the involved parties--i.e. those who engage sexual activity. Of course, preferably, the parties involved would do the other party the courtesy of informing them of any complications--i.e. STI's, etc.--but it's the still the personal responsibility of anyone who engages sexual activity to demand that screening for STI's be conducted before engagement--especially women. I agree that contraception ought to be used effectively to prevent STI's and unplanned pregnancies, though abortion would still be an option. Furthermore, while there are other ways to enjoy one's partner, in my experience at least, coitus is the best way. The state really has no prerogative other one it imposes itself to interfere in the sex lives of others particularly and especially in the absence of duress.
"an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."
And in which cases do you believe that minimal state intervention is required in the lives of citizens?
"Also, you're a monarchist? That's interesting. Why are you a monarchist?"
Everything on my profile, with the exception of my speaking French, is hyperbolic to the point of ridicule. I don't actually subscribe to anything listed on my profile except when "IT"S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!"
"Based on what do you think that autarchism is required to be a libertarian?"
Based on the core priniciple of Libertarianism: liberty. Liberty among individuals cannot be expressed unless they can pursue all avenues in which it can manifest, i.e. autonomy, association, sovereignty, etc. If an individual must subject himself to the authority of another, then he is not "free"; he's merely the object in the pursuit of someone else, and not the subject of his own.
"I don't see anything inconsistent with my beliefs. You don't have to be an absolute. I can lean towards libertarianism but still not be an anarchist."
I would argue otherwise. While true that Libertarianism doesn't necessarily require one to be an "anarchist," it does require one subscribe to autarchism--i.e. each individual is his own final authority. How does one suppose to resolve this conflict with a centralized, hegemonic state?
"I'd say that I'm more libertarian then conservative, but I am fiscally conservative."
Unfortunately, like Ben Shapiro, political Libertarianism is more of a meme than it is a sound political/economic/moral philosophy. Most whom I've encountered who claim to be "Libertarian" are just minarchists in disguise. The contexts in which they accept liberty as fundamental to social interaction are almost always arbitrarily selected. It's never about the principles, but it's always about the circumstances. If that were case, then everyone can claim to be libertarian. One either accepts the philosophy in its entirety because it operates on fundamental axioms and consistent logic, or one doesn't accept the philosophy at all. One cannot have one's cake and eat it, too.
@Marc1123: I'm pleased that you were gratified by your first debate. And that's the spirit: try harder. Every experience you have in your future debates will be a lesson which hopefully will make your arguments that much more sharp and refined. I've been arguing for years, and I'm still learning.
@Ramshutu: I believe @oromagi hit the nail on the head in the beginning: the proposition was wide open to attack. Despite my understanding the implication of the proposition, his conclusion was inconsistent with the premise. The structure of the propositional statement essentially can be only read as one which sought to resolve "meaning" not "content." Semantics played an important role. Had he structured the statement as such, "In the 'Analysis' or 'Examination' of Truth, Do We Take into Account Feelings?" he would've had a stronger case. By using "pursuit," we delve into purpose; it's the "why?" instead of the "what?"
Not to mention, if there was something with which you were unsure, you could've waited for a response. After all, three days are allowed between our submissions. You're relatively new, so I'll chalk it up to that.
I just looked at his previous argument on the very subject. And the voting for it is at best questionable, and borderline lazy. Despite his forfeit, he provided a much better argument than omar2345. Good luck to you, too, Speedrace. Given his thorough list in the previous debate, it'll be difficult to argue against.
You've submitted a rather sophistic argument. I never once referred to "the" age of consent. Take a look at the subject title, "Age of Consent Policies." Plural. And I presumed that the concept of "age of consent" was recognizable without explicit definition, but if you need it defined, I don't mind providing you a definition.
EDIT: I've added the definitions. Is it more definitive now?
My position is one against age of consent policies. Given the resolution, my position naturally supposes that age of consent policies are both logically inconsistent and immoral. Further elaboration will be submitted during the debate.
I understand. If you wish to continue with the debate we can start with Round 2. If time doesn't allow then submit your post stating, "I concede." I believe that will end the debate quicker.
Round was forfeited just as I was posting my argument. I concede this debate to you. When I have more time to invest in this debate, I'll challenge you directly (of course if you're still interested.) Until then.
My apologies for my forfeit. I grossly overestimated the time I had available to respond. It's up to you: we can end the debate here, and allow my forfeit to determine the outcome, or we can pick up where we left off in Round 3. Either decision is fine.
This is not about free speech. I can't restrict your speech; hence, I'm appealing to your sense. This isn't "tangential" either. It's an attack on my character, which in and of itself is at one's discretion had omar2345 decided to address me directly (and preferably in a less formal venue) but it's poor decorum in subjects of debate.
Second, I never "unblocked" you. The behavior you exhibited in DDO was very much like omar's behavior here. (They weren't just "heated debates"; you'd follow me into other debates where you weren't involved and attack my character.) Thus, I blocked you there, and I blocked you here. Granted, you haven't trolled me here, so if you want to start anew and wipe the slate the clean, I'm perfectly fine with that. You are n now unblocked.
Please don't indulge as Wrick put it, the "thick tension." I would ideally like the comments section to consist of commentary relevant to the subject matter (and the three of you should feel free to weigh in at your leisure.) If there's a particular member who wishes to troll this section, let him do it by himself.
I don't know of that which I've done to warrant such discourtesy from you, but I'm not a psychiatrist so I won't feign psychoanalysis. I leave you with this: post comments that are relevant to the subject matter. Attack my character again, and I will block you. Have a nice night, sir.
@Virtuoso: I did not appeal to quantity as far as the sources were concerned. I stated that Con substantiated his arguments with substantial sources. (I'm well aware that the number of sources in and of itself does not offer substance.) As for the argument point, I do not judge an argument by a standard of "agreement," but whether the logical connection between premise and conclusion is sound. I stated the reason Pro's argument was not convincing was that he abandoned his onus to the major premise of his inductive argument--i.e. "Everything we observe is physical." Without this his entire argument falls apart because it's the major premise. And he failed to substantiate said premise. As for conduct, I did point out specific examples. If this does not constitute misconduct, then fair enough. But I did not know that the standard on which Conduct was awarded would be based on extremes, and not the relatives which the question "Who had better conduct?" implicates.
As for backgrounds and motivations, you gave Saitama vs Boros a "9." I'm not saying that it doesn't deserve it, but based on that clip alone, you don't know the reason Saitama is as strong as he is, training for three years doing 100 push-ups and sit-ups (and the beautiful satire that conveys.) You have no idea who Boros is; you have no idea of the reason they're fighting to start with. You had to have watched the series to ascertain that information, especially given that Saitama tends to be aloof and doesn't talk much during fights.
I'm only vexed by the standard you used because many of the same criticisms can be made of the other clips. Thus, it's the reason I'm stating that your judgement essentially boiled down to whether or not you had watched the series previously.
There's plenty you can grasp from watching that scene. First, I pinpointed that specific time because Tenzen pretty much gives a cap of what's going through his internal monologue. Not to mention, the dialogue between the characters (i.e. Saemon, Hotarubi, Nenki, etc.) They at least once refer to themselves or the other as "Kouga and Iga," so you know it's a conflict between Kouga and Iga. They also mention that the truce was just broken. You know there were already casualties in Saemon's mentioning of Kazamachi and the "lone woman tortured to death," who happened to be his younger sister, and Hotarubi's mention of Yashamaru, who happened to be her lover (though the English Dub makes this more clear.) You know Oboro is part of the Iga clan because of the way the Iga clan members treat her (that is, not attacking her.) It turns out that she's their leader despite Tenzen assuming effective command of the Iga, which can be discerned from their formation and Tenzen's behavior. You know there's some relationship between Oboro Iga and Gennosuke Kouga because of Oboro's behavior (either friendship or romance.) Given that it's a conflict between two ninja clans, there was mention of a truce, and Gennosuke and Oboro are an adult male and female respectively, one can reasonably assume it's romantic. You know that Gennosuke Kouga is the leader of the Kouga because of how Saemon and Gyoubu stand in front of him amidst the conflict (not to mention, I stated as much when posting the link.) So I disagree that there isn't much that this scene doesn't do well on its own.
But just because you haven't seen it, it doesn't mean that fight neither isn't good nor doesn't do well on its own. A lot of these clips present both by me and King_8 are relatively short, so the information you used to judge had to be from watching the series.
Yeah, that was judged based on your not seeing the series. If one were to not see "My Hero Academia" for example, the clip of All Might vs All For One wouldn't have had much context, either (especially All For One's creating One for All, the source of All Might's power.) The same would be true for Kirei vs Kiritsugu, too. Not to mention, I posted the entire episode, so if you wanted more information on their relationships, you needed only watch a few minutes before, and/or a few minutes after. Furthermore, King_8 asked for the shortened versions of these fights/conflicts if available, so there was only so much either of us could've done.
Last, as per the description, either I or King_8 could've chosen a "one-sided fight"; hence I did. And this scene in particular is great because it wasn't that the chief members of the Iga Clan couldn't fight back against Gennosuke, they were too terrified. Unlike other "ninja series" *cough* Naruto *cough*, this series attempts to capture a realistic picture of the ninja, particularly their being clandestine. In other words, one didn't know what the other could do, until the other did it. So when Gennosuke reveals his technique, not only were they terrified by his demonstration, but they also had to figure out a way to use advantages and disadvantages to counter it. If you watch further, you would've seen Gennosuke's showing some cunning in his using the folly of his intended, Oboro-sama, to take advantage of Koshiro, her clansmen, gravely injuring him. It's classic conflict of duty and love.
It's unfortunate you didn't put much consideration into the natural limitations of these selections (that being neither I nor King_8 could've accounted for that which everyone else has seen.) Nevertheless, thank you for your participation.
What are the morals of socialism?
@King_8:
Just curious: why do you set these voting periods for the extent of an entire month?
Still too nebulous a resolution. What is socialism as a moral framework? Socialism is an economic framework; sure, it spills over to politics, and overlap is to be expected between social systems.
I would've accepted the debate if the proposition wasn't a referendum on its being "evil." If you ever want to discuss its merits and efficiency as an economic framework, then I'll readily accept.
If we were to extend your rationale to its logical conclusion (i.e. beings who aren't conceived have rights) then children would be able to levy post facto legal disputes against their parents for bad skin, or bad hair, or poor vision, genetic defects, etc. in order to express their claims or "rights."
"Anyone with a curable STI should get annually fined until they get treatment for it/them."
And to whom is this fine owed? Who else has a claim to the parents' good health other than whom you allege--i.e. the unborn child? How would the unborn child collect it? How much do we take? Aren't you just pressing your own alleged claims and/or rights and funneling them through the assumption of the unborn child's proxy?
"Cotius is not the best way to enjoy one's partner from an objective standpoint because of it's dangers."
This depends on the context. If one's sexual habits are casual, then yes, there's a risk in contracting STI's. However, if my partner and I have no STI's and remain in an exclusive sexual relationship, then regardless of how many times we have sex, the "danger" is incidentally the same. Now, if we're characterizing pregnancy as a danger, then contraception is quite the effective remedy. And again, from personal experience, even trying "other forms," coitus is the best way to enjoy one's partner.
"If it infringes on the rights of others, like future children by giving them STIs, then they can just get the STIs treated. I don't think abortion should be an allowed option but that's a different topic."
"Future" children don't have rights. They've yet to be born; they've yet to have being. They have no more so say in their own creation than everyone else. Which rights can they exercise before they're conceived?
"Not all parties will inform the other of STIs that are had."
I know. That doesn't change, however, that one has the responsibility to be an agent in one's self-preservation. Hence, one "demands" that screening be conducted before engaging in coitus.
"Personal responsibility isn't always achieved..."
Personal responsibility isn't something achieved. It's innate; it's cultivated through one's experiences.
"...since some couples don't care about spreading STIs."
Which couples are those? And if they don't care about spreading STI's, then they warrant the consequences of their actions.
"Why should the kids from this arrangement suffer for the responsibility of the parents?"
They aren't kids; they are neither conceived nor born. We are speaking to prospect, not fact. For better or worse, children are the beneficiaries of their parents' positive and negative aspects. Since they aren't self-sufficient, and the zygote/embryo/fetus requires its mother's labor to gestate, it doesn't get to get to dictate its mother's participation--even her curing any STI's--because they zygote/embryo/fetus doesn't gestate itself. It doesn't provide the genetic material in its own conception. The womb belongs to its mother; the ovum and sperm belong to its mother and father, respectively. What claim does the zygote/embryo/fetus have?
I'm not at all advocating for spreading STI's, or infecting unborn children with them, but it is a terrible yet inevitable consequence of progenation.
Don't necessarily understand this debate's supposed resolution. When you propose an argument over "good" or "bad," do you mean moral or immoral? Effective or ineffective? Practical or impractical? What is it you want to argue? (If it's interesting, I might accept.)
"Sex shouldn't be on the basis of age but should be restricted. In order to have sex, you must have you and your partner be treated of all STDs and STIs. In addition, either you must be married to your partner or use birth control precisely 100% effective. There are outer course ways to enjoy your partner without having sex."
The parameters should be decided mutually by the involved parties--i.e. those who engage sexual activity. Of course, preferably, the parties involved would do the other party the courtesy of informing them of any complications--i.e. STI's, etc.--but it's the still the personal responsibility of anyone who engages sexual activity to demand that screening for STI's be conducted before engagement--especially women. I agree that contraception ought to be used effectively to prevent STI's and unplanned pregnancies, though abortion would still be an option. Furthermore, while there are other ways to enjoy one's partner, in my experience at least, coitus is the best way. The state really has no prerogative other one it imposes itself to interfere in the sex lives of others particularly and especially in the absence of duress.
You're right. This isn't a proper discussion given the subject of your debate. We can end this here.
"I still don't understand. Are you trying to ask me how limited the minimal government should be, or what should its goals and purpose be, or what?"
Both.
"What do you mean, in which cases? "
I'll rephrase: in what capacity do you envision this minimal government functioning?
"an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."
And in which cases do you believe that minimal state intervention is required in the lives of citizens?
"Also, you're a monarchist? That's interesting. Why are you a monarchist?"
Everything on my profile, with the exception of my speaking French, is hyperbolic to the point of ridicule. I don't actually subscribe to anything listed on my profile except when "IT"S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!"
"Well then I guess I'm not a libertarian, since I don't agree with that definition!"
I'm not the one who defined it; but I'm curious: what is your concept of Libertarianism?
"Based on what do you think that autarchism is required to be a libertarian?"
Based on the core priniciple of Libertarianism: liberty. Liberty among individuals cannot be expressed unless they can pursue all avenues in which it can manifest, i.e. autonomy, association, sovereignty, etc. If an individual must subject himself to the authority of another, then he is not "free"; he's merely the object in the pursuit of someone else, and not the subject of his own.
"I don't see anything inconsistent with my beliefs. You don't have to be an absolute. I can lean towards libertarianism but still not be an anarchist."
I would argue otherwise. While true that Libertarianism doesn't necessarily require one to be an "anarchist," it does require one subscribe to autarchism--i.e. each individual is his own final authority. How does one suppose to resolve this conflict with a centralized, hegemonic state?
"I'd say that I'm more libertarian then conservative, but I am fiscally conservative."
Unfortunately, like Ben Shapiro, political Libertarianism is more of a meme than it is a sound political/economic/moral philosophy. Most whom I've encountered who claim to be "Libertarian" are just minarchists in disguise. The contexts in which they accept liberty as fundamental to social interaction are almost always arbitrarily selected. It's never about the principles, but it's always about the circumstances. If that were case, then everyone can claim to be libertarian. One either accepts the philosophy in its entirety because it operates on fundamental axioms and consistent logic, or one doesn't accept the philosophy at all. One cannot have one's cake and eat it, too.
@Marc1123: I'm pleased that you were gratified by your first debate. And that's the spirit: try harder. Every experience you have in your future debates will be a lesson which hopefully will make your arguments that much more sharp and refined. I've been arguing for years, and I'm still learning.
@Ramshutu: I believe @oromagi hit the nail on the head in the beginning: the proposition was wide open to attack. Despite my understanding the implication of the proposition, his conclusion was inconsistent with the premise. The structure of the propositional statement essentially can be only read as one which sought to resolve "meaning" not "content." Semantics played an important role. Had he structured the statement as such, "In the 'Analysis' or 'Examination' of Truth, Do We Take into Account Feelings?" he would've had a stronger case. By using "pursuit," we delve into purpose; it's the "why?" instead of the "what?"
The format of our debate was delineated in the description:
Round One: Opening Arguments
Round Two: Rebuttals
Round Three: Rejoinders
Round Four: (Double) Rejoinders
Round Five: Closing Arguments
Not to mention, if there was something with which you were unsure, you could've waited for a response. After all, three days are allowed between our submissions. You're relatively new, so I'll chalk it up to that.
I just looked at his previous argument on the very subject. And the voting for it is at best questionable, and borderline lazy. Despite his forfeit, he provided a much better argument than omar2345. Good luck to you, too, Speedrace. Given his thorough list in the previous debate, it'll be difficult to argue against.
I agree with you. Good luck in your debate. And I hope you provide a very convincing argument.
You've submitted a rather sophistic argument. I never once referred to "the" age of consent. Take a look at the subject title, "Age of Consent Policies." Plural. And I presumed that the concept of "age of consent" was recognizable without explicit definition, but if you need it defined, I don't mind providing you a definition.
EDIT: I've added the definitions. Is it more definitive now?
My position is one against age of consent policies. Given the resolution, my position naturally supposes that age of consent policies are both logically inconsistent and immoral. Further elaboration will be submitted during the debate.
This is simply a repost of my previous challenge, "Age of Consent." This time, there's no rating requirement. Perhaps now, a challenger will emerge.
No worries.
I understand. If you wish to continue with the debate we can start with Round 2. If time doesn't allow then submit your post stating, "I concede." I believe that will end the debate quicker.
That's the reason I accepted the challenge. You're correct in that it's wide open to attack. Hopefully, this will be an informative debate.
Round was forfeited just as I was posting my argument. I concede this debate to you. When I have more time to invest in this debate, I'll challenge you directly (of course if you're still interested.) Until then.
My apologies for my forfeit. I grossly overestimated the time I had available to respond. It's up to you: we can end the debate here, and allow my forfeit to determine the outcome, or we can pick up where we left off in Round 3. Either decision is fine.
Now, if you all wouldn't mind, I would like to get back to my debate with RationalMadman. Please keep the comments relevant.
This is not about free speech. I can't restrict your speech; hence, I'm appealing to your sense. This isn't "tangential" either. It's an attack on my character, which in and of itself is at one's discretion had omar2345 decided to address me directly (and preferably in a less formal venue) but it's poor decorum in subjects of debate.
Second, I never "unblocked" you. The behavior you exhibited in DDO was very much like omar's behavior here. (They weren't just "heated debates"; you'd follow me into other debates where you weren't involved and attack my character.) Thus, I blocked you there, and I blocked you here. Granted, you haven't trolled me here, so if you want to start anew and wipe the slate the clean, I'm perfectly fine with that. You are n now unblocked.
Please don't indulge as Wrick put it, the "thick tension." I would ideally like the comments section to consist of commentary relevant to the subject matter (and the three of you should feel free to weigh in at your leisure.) If there's a particular member who wishes to troll this section, let him do it by himself.
I don't know of that which I've done to warrant such discourtesy from you, but I'm not a psychiatrist so I won't feign psychoanalysis. I leave you with this: post comments that are relevant to the subject matter. Attack my character again, and I will block you. Have a nice night, sir.
@Virtuoso: I did not appeal to quantity as far as the sources were concerned. I stated that Con substantiated his arguments with substantial sources. (I'm well aware that the number of sources in and of itself does not offer substance.) As for the argument point, I do not judge an argument by a standard of "agreement," but whether the logical connection between premise and conclusion is sound. I stated the reason Pro's argument was not convincing was that he abandoned his onus to the major premise of his inductive argument--i.e. "Everything we observe is physical." Without this his entire argument falls apart because it's the major premise. And he failed to substantiate said premise. As for conduct, I did point out specific examples. If this does not constitute misconduct, then fair enough. But I did not know that the standard on which Conduct was awarded would be based on extremes, and not the relatives which the question "Who had better conduct?" implicates.