Wyited switched accounts a long time ago, Most likely you typed W Y L, instead of W Y I when trying to tag him.
Anyways, you've got basically a day to post a response in the argument tab. You of course not limited to the ones I mentioned. You could even try to a racism Kritik (I don't advise this one, as it usually relies on the audience being Yes Men).
To save you a few headaches, try to imagine the possibility that Wyited is trolling with the intention of bringing attention to issues.
Hopefully you won't forfeit the remaining rounds...
Your basic paths to victory are:
1. The boring and expected approach, saying it's all explainable therefore "somehow" doesn't exist.
2. Absolute refutation, which is to say undermine each contention of pro's case.
3. Run a Semantics Kritik! The definition clearly states "an unfair advantage" but if you can show that it's perfectly fair by virtue of the divine bloodline of King Arthur (or whatever other white supremacist idol), then whites do not have an unfair advantage, thus not privlidge... Heck, you could take this a step further and show how disadvantages most white people are, being so very special in a way that only eugenics leaders like Trump recognize, and yet not all are born into the top 1% of wealth on the planet.
The last one is both joking, but would be a genuine tactic Wylted could pull off easily were the sides reversed.
ChatGPT is wonky. I am gradually getting it trained up, but it’s got leagues to go.
I wouldn’t trust an AI to vote on any complex debate. The single refinement I made for it on this one (which took multiple tries) was telling it that Shane.Roy was not a participant in this debate.
One of the first debate reviews I had it do, it turned out to have decided cons arguments were no good so wrote new better ones. Harmless in a review and easy to correct, but detrimental in a vote.
A better topic would be that it should take less debates to unlock said privileges... A bit on the nose, but more defensible as a legit debate which occurred (not that we're being sticklers for it these days, just try to be fair to both sides when you vote).
I tried having ChatGPT do a breakdown on this debate (it's not what I used when voting, I ended up scanning more). But here is the breakdown it provided...
== Debate Title ==
'''For children, time spent in school in most cases should be limited to 2 hours a day'''
==== Arguments Initiated by Pro (TheGreatSunGod) ====
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''School causes chronic sleep deprivation in children.'''<br>{{Q|Chronic sleep deprivation is rampant among children. The cause is primarily the demands of school.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Sleep deprivation is not necessarily due to school; students can still sleep 8 hours.'''<br>{{Q|They only need 8 hours of sleep, so if they sleep from 9pm-5am, it will not result in chronic sleep deprivation.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''8 hours is insufficient for children.'''<br>{{Q|The average amount of sleep required for a 13-year-old is 9.25 hours.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Most students do get enough sleep.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
::::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Most of these studies are flawed or untrue.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children retain very little from long school days.'''<br>{{Q|A 2015 study of high school students found that students only retained 20% of what they were taught.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Some students can retain a lot with good methods.'''<br>{{Q|The effectiveness of memory is up to the student and the techniques they use.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Children don't all have access to ideal study environments.'''<br>{{Q|That's not an excuse. The average student doesn't retain much; you can't expect perfection.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Reduced school time promotes better mental health.'''<br>{{Q|Shorter school time could lead to students being more relaxed and less depressed.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''School time is necessary structure.'''<br>{{Q|Structure and discipline are necessary, especially for kids who can't get it at home.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Structure doesn’t have to come from school.'''<br>{{Q|You can give children structure in other ways, such as planned activities.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Bullying and peer pressure are amplified in long school days.'''<br>{{Q|If kids only go to school for 2 hours, there's less time to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Bullying occurs regardless of hours.'''<br>{{Q|If they get bullied, it will happen regardless of how long they're there.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Less time reduces exposure.'''<br>{{Q|Less time around bullies means fewer opportunities to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children would be happier if their time was better respected.'''<br>{{Q|Respecting children’s time is respecting them as people.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Children lack maturity to make such decisions.'''<br>{{Q|You're arguing that we should let children decide what's best for them.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Autonomy helps development.'''<br>{{Q|Giving children some choice and freedom helps them grow.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''A 2-hour school day is insufficient to teach all necessary subjects.'''<br>{{Q|With only 2 hours of school, you would not be able to cover reading, math, history, science, etc.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Learning can happen outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You don’t need 8 hours of school to learn math.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Many students won’t learn outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You say they could do it at home, but many wouldn’t.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Parents and technology can support at-home learning.'''<br>{{Q|If you have involved parents or even just good software, students can thrive.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Not all families have access to those resources.'''<br>{{Q|This assumes privilege. Many students don’t have that kind of support.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''The 2-hour proposal lacks practicality.'''<br>{{Q|This would be an unworkable shift in how education is done.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Other countries succeed with short hours.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has shorter school hours and still ranks high in education.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Cultural and structural differences make comparisons invalid.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has a different society, economy, and values. It’s not an easy comparison.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
== Result ==
The voting period is still open, and the result is currently tied. This page presents a tiered breakdown of the full debate to aid readers and potential voters in assessing the strength of the arguments on both sides.
=== Evaluation Summary ===
* '''Logical Clarity''': Slight edge to '''Con''' for pragmatic framing and consistent rebuttals.
* '''Use of Evidence''': Relatively even; '''Pro''' offers some studies, while '''Con''' uses common-sense rebuttals.
* '''Debate Structure''': '''Con''' consistently responds to and frames issues across rounds.
* '''Rhetorical Framing''': '''Pro''' appeals to reform and autonomy; '''Con''' focuses on feasibility and equity.
'''Recommended Vote''':
* Vote '''Pro''' if you prioritize idealism, student-centered reform, or philosophical values.
* Vote '''Con''' if you value pragmatic feasibility, systemic equity, and rebuttal discipline.
Under traditional criteria (burden of proof, refutation, impact): '''Con''' holds a slight edge overall.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: bronskibeat // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 t o pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
bronskibeat
04.23.2025 10:17AM
Reason:
This was an interesting debate, and I enjoyed reading what both parties had to offer. Con has a unique style that can be difficult to follow at times, but their core arguments were clearly expressed. Con's arguments could have also used more sourcing. Ultimately, Con's arguments were a bit all over the place, and could stand against further scrutiny.
Pro offered very thorough, well-sourced, and strong arguments. Rebutted Con's arguments successfully point by point while offering consistent citations.
Someone remind me at the end, and I’ll make a wiki page in this, in large part to put the arguments into proper order.
Oh and Lancealot, not required by any means, but to make things easier on readers, the link to pro’s R1 is https://www.debateart.com/debates/6075/comments/63600
As a moderator, I find it is often needed (just consider the spam bots) even if it would be better if people were better and thus did not need to be censored.
He's the only one most people have heard of, so there might not be a challenger. If not, try changing the resolution to world leader (to which I'd say he needs to be in the top five).
I wrote it because I’ve seen it happen to too many times. Multiple of the examples were not hypothetical, but rather straight from things I’ve seen in the last year. There’s a Reptilian Heuristic page which has another personal account of that fallacy.
I did a writeup on this debate (heavily AI assisted, so apologies for any errors):
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/THB_in_the_Efficacy_of_Gender_Affirming_Care
The following vote has been reported:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926-one-should-believe-in-and-practice-the-direct-inverse-of-everything-christians-believe-in-and-practice?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
It has supporting information at:
#10 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62827
#18 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62879
In general, votes need not be perfect. Heck in my own vote I mislabeled pro as con at one point (context was still obvious IMO, but still a flaw).
If you want to formally report any vote, click the three dots next to the vote number to open the menu with report being probably the only option. As I voted on this debate, I'd prefer it if whiteflame reviewed any vote (you can also tag him and state that you are reporting whatever vote).
Speaking of which, my vote has been reported, so I need to message him or tag him in a comment (he checks the report log sometimes, but should my vote be removed I'd like to have the time to reread the debate and revote).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit on Cons part.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote has been removed to enable them to revote at their discretion.
**************************************************
I did a little experiment using this debate:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Direct_Inversion_of_Christianity_(Tiered)
This was created with ChatGPT, with only minimal input from me (mostly formatting, and the ever annoying need to tell it that quotes must be direct quotes rather than paraphrases).
As someone who read the debate, it's cool to see the differences in where such a tool focuses.
I think I was pretty clear, but a couple pieces were a little implicit, so…
1. I’m one of the most active voters.
2. I consider the definitions in the description to be a type of Scarecrow Argument (but there are other fallacies it could soundly be called), rather than valid definitions from any authority.
3. Because the description is so ingenuine, I will not dogmatically obey it in my vote.
You will still likely win. However, if your argument consists of pointing to the fallacies you put into the description instead of offering sound reasoning, your case will be crippled by it.
I'm going to get a jump start on this debate (while both have the opportunity to incorporate any feedback if they so desire).
Right off the start, that description should really give a scope statement. Like everything Christians believe and practice, is both broad and self contradictory due to the many branches of Christianity and the far wider number of Christians themselves (I don't yet know if either raises the point that Christian does not equal Christianity as a whole or the bible). Also qualifier word "direct" in the title significantly raises BoP (without it there'd be a wider range that would meet the BoP)
R1: Pro
I assume pro meets their basic BoP unless challenged.
Theism VS Atheism:
Pro is actually wrong to call this an Ad Hominem. It is however an obvious Scarecrow Argument, which risks being a Phantom Argument.
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Scarecrow_Argument
Appeal to authority VS genuine compassion:
Bad start, but then "The Bible supports slavery, genocide, burning "witches" at the stake, stoning faggots etc. " is a solid point, as much as a source would have been fantastic to back up that the bible does those things which it doesn't really do (I have an open mind, and can consider this point won if unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged; but I'll still call out errors).
Hating pleasure VS hedonism:
"Suffering is treated as a virtue while pleasure is treated as evil in Christianity" if unchallenged, this is a great argument; and actually one you could have backed up with biblical sources.
Continuing on feels like reading a Gish Gallop; it reduces the impact of the individual points, as it makes me more inclined to think of them as a single contention rather than a nuanced set of them.
...
R1 con:
Con hits hard and keeps nailing in from "Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S."
He even brings up an interesting point that it would be impossible to do the opposite of such a wide set of beliefs.
“do unto others…” while using it to compare Christianity to another religion, raises the point of something which people intuitively should not reject (I'd have liked to see that part of it more in focus). He does come back to this a little later adding "being humble, forgiving, and generous" as values in Christianity one ought to not do the opposite of.
Oh a call for sources, great to see that! Pro may actually deliver, but it creates a great falsifiability moment.
...
R2 pro:
"different denominations share core beliefs and values. " a mild moving of the goalposts, but it fits the themes of the debate enough to have validity.
The return to the Gish Gallop is actually painful... Maybe were it presented here as a numbered list it'd be less bad, but the way it's offered it's be better to just say "extend all arguments from my previous round," and thematically explain why they still hold weight (instead of individually).
I did not initially catch it due to the potty mouth, but "The opposite of Christianity is veganism" is a pretty good point due to the inclusion of "heart disease."
"This isn't even relevant since I'm not a Muslim" leaves the core do unto others bit unchallenged... Ah, God doesn't obey it in the bible isn't the worst point (but kinda misses the point of if those words inspire good actions from Christians or not)
Oh damn, I did not expect to see any sources from pro. Great job! Cherry picked evidence in all, but I'll count it (without these sources would have surely gone to con, but now I'll leave them in the tied range).
Basically this site works differently than just about all of the others. Two people go head to head in each debate. Others I've seen are more like a list of points made by every random person, without any conclusion.
If it can’t be resolved, it would be good conduct to for you to post a link to his comments post in your next round. The proper link is: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62809
This is of course not required. You may argue however you’d like. Some voters will probably discount it for being posted wrong; but I believe in the spirit of fairness.
>Reported Vote: MAV99 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Quite obviously this is a rare example of a true vote bomb. Please review the voting standards before casting future votes
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
Pro very effectively demonstrated in R1, using Scripture and reasoning to show a distinction in persons. Especially with his main body. Con then brings in other references that seem to point out a univocality in God which Pro in R2 effectively answered with:
"Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine nature, they remain truly distinct Persons." Using the word "nature" here pretty much sealed the debate as it is a term of universality meaning it is said of many things and also "person" which is a term of particularity. That is in accordance with basic rules of logic and definitions.
While Con does seem to have a decent grasp of scripture, it seems to me he is confusing "Holy Spirit" with "holy and spiritual". Those two phrases refer to different things. Also his whole:
"So you read about the spirit interceding and your understanding is .....well there has to be two because that's the only way it "makes sense" to me." is rather undermining Con since he is trying to do the same thing. It would be unreasonable to simply read the words at face value and leave it at that without using our God-given reason to delve into it.
Initial thoughts... Need to go get breakfast, but I expect I'll get back to this debate at some point before voting ends.
---
First of all, sources... It's very very difficult to win sources on biblical debates, because I literally wrote into the rules that discussing the topic itself does not equate to winning sources. However, citing the bible is likely to indicate a strong argument... Conversely, , the lack of a biblical foundation may harm arguments for either side.
Conduct: Using the wrong citation could be an innocent mistake, so not automatically deducting for that. That said, it's one that could easily be leveraged to undermine their argument (writing this as I read, so haven't seen how well he utilizes the correct version yet). That said, the grasping at straws of the dispute over the rules makes it harder for me to take arguments seriously.
R1:
Pro is able to give examples of the Holy Spirit being sent as an agent of the other guys, which indeed strongly implies a distinction.
Con argues in a well done example of circular reasoning: "My position doesn't contain the concept or doctrine of a person, persons or personhood or personalities. It's just , Holy Spirit being Father God period." He also argues it doesn't explicitly state that they are not the same person ("We can't find any where in scripture that the Father is one person, Holy Spirit is another.") therefore they must be.
Moderator here... I thought I had already addressed this...
So the rule is:
"Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited. Dispensation may be granted on a case-by-case basis, such as for multiple users within a single residence; but they will have certain restrictions applied (e.g., never voting on each other’s debates)."
That said, we give the benefit of doubt so long as there's no signs of exploitative intent. Exploits would be things like if you keep debating each other but one kept intentionally losing to boost the others rating, or if you two voted on each others debaters (which was a huge problem back in the day, and literally caused the need for the no multi-account rule). But so long as nothing bad like those occur, we in the moderation team will trust that you're just good friends.
My mind goes to deep regulation, but with some limited legal avenues. This of course doesn’t feel like either side of the debate, but instead a third option to the dilemma.
I know this wasn't much of a debate, but even the lowest hanging fruit needs to comment on something not completely generic about the debate to imply you read it.
Your vote is removed, but you may revote at any time.
MAV99
01.17.2025 06:27PM
Con arguments is better psychologically speaking.
---RFD---
con argues dreams are due to biology and stimuli, such as being able to be manipulated (presumably, without the researcher manipulating any god or gods).
"experience is not evidence" technically it's just very weak evidence, known as antidotal. Still, good point.
Pro does an immediate gambit at the start with a word dump... I strongly advise separating paragraphs in future.
Pro's states he will argue dreams "are not merely products of the brain but can be divine in nature, carrying spiritual meaning and purpose."
One says they're chemistry, the other says they're a gift or curse from the divine... As a voter, I'm going to treat this issue as on balance; or to say victory goes to the most and most likely.
---
Pro moves on to describe three separate types of dreams. One comes from a god, the other comes another god, and the third comes from man. This immediately begs the question of how to tell any of them apart (as con calls it, bridge the gap in that seeming contradiction); but I will treat either of the first two as spiritual if they can be proven.
Pro says holy books say dreams are divine and/or spiritual.
Con of course gives the obvious counter that other religions exist (it's strong, but not quite as strong as he would like it to be, since pro's writeup included more than one god).
Pro gives a personal accounting... A dream featuring a horse cart, which prevented him from dying of a heart attack or something worse than dying of a heart attack... I am not believing that pro believes this.
Con challenges that this interpretation is pure speculation.
Pro attempts to hand wave away pro's case, by reiterating parts of his own. This is sometimes merited, but we really need a mechanism to differentiate man-made dreams from others if this is to hold water (and just that all true dreams will be remembered doesn't do this so long as others are remembered too).
Rebuttal 4 (the hypotheses are not mutually exclusive) was almost good; it just fell back on the appeal to false authority of holy books. In this note, the mud example was quite effective in affirming that said authority is false; and this was further bolstered with the sources for dreams predating Islam (as unsoun
As con summarizes: "Pro's argument fails to show how the supposed gap between the psychological understanding of dreams and their potential spiritual significance is bridged."
The problem here is that this
A minor disagreement I am left with for con is his re-review of the single dream in question, and statements that it wouldn’t count even if it did accurately and measurably predict the future. That would be the type of proof a scientist would look for to connect dreams to the super
—-
Concerning allegations of misconduct… I am not spotting anything con is doing to force how pro argues, merely requests to add real warrants to his case in whatever form they take.
I have not reviewed the comment section, but at a breif glance it looks needlessly dramatic (if anyone bugs me I’ll review it, but to keep my head clear and on the main arguments, I’m not prioritizing it).
—-
Sources lean to con, but not by enough. This is in part because I believe in scaling the difficulty (if I gave pro arguments, the better sources from con would easily carry it to his favor; but he’s already getting arguments, so it’s a steeper hill to get a further two points).
—-
Legibility (S&G) is pretty clearly in the tied range. I can give a little advice to pro, but to lose the point someone would have to distract me from the debate with atrocities against the alphabet.
—-
PS: Marvin is clearly a vampire, but I am not finding the evidence convincing that he is also rich (logically valid, but indeed an unsound stereotype).
FYI, your vote needed a bit more detail; even while I see how such a blunder can shift everything. Even just a short analysis of how that was then leveraged would improve things significantly (the debate is already over, so it doesn't matter too much, just thoughts for future votes).
Wyited switched accounts a long time ago, Most likely you typed W Y L, instead of W Y I when trying to tag him.
Anyways, you've got basically a day to post a response in the argument tab. You of course not limited to the ones I mentioned. You could even try to a racism Kritik (I don't advise this one, as it usually relies on the audience being Yes Men).
To save you a few headaches, try to imagine the possibility that Wyited is trolling with the intention of bringing attention to issues.
Hopefully you won't forfeit the remaining rounds...
Your basic paths to victory are:
1. The boring and expected approach, saying it's all explainable therefore "somehow" doesn't exist.
2. Absolute refutation, which is to say undermine each contention of pro's case.
3. Run a Semantics Kritik! The definition clearly states "an unfair advantage" but if you can show that it's perfectly fair by virtue of the divine bloodline of King Arthur (or whatever other white supremacist idol), then whites do not have an unfair advantage, thus not privlidge... Heck, you could take this a step further and show how disadvantages most white people are, being so very special in a way that only eugenics leaders like Trump recognize, and yet not all are born into the top 1% of wealth on the planet.
The last one is both joking, but would be a genuine tactic Wylted could pull off easily were the sides reversed.
ChatGPT is wonky. I am gradually getting it trained up, but it’s got leagues to go.
I wouldn’t trust an AI to vote on any complex debate. The single refinement I made for it on this one (which took multiple tries) was telling it that Shane.Roy was not a participant in this debate.
One of the first debate reviews I had it do, it turned out to have decided cons arguments were no good so wrote new better ones. Harmless in a review and easy to correct, but detrimental in a vote.
In casual conversation, of course... Trying to quantify it, as a clear statistically significant occurrence today, not so easy to do.
That said, it is easy to prove among cat populations, but such has nothing to do with this debate.
You'd be surprised how fast I've gotten at those (at least unrefined ones like that).
A better topic would be that it should take less debates to unlock said privileges... A bit on the nose, but more defensible as a legit debate which occurred (not that we're being sticklers for it these days, just try to be fair to both sides when you vote).
I tried having ChatGPT do a breakdown on this debate (it's not what I used when voting, I ended up scanning more). But here is the breakdown it provided...
== Debate Title ==
'''For children, time spent in school in most cases should be limited to 2 hours a day'''
== Participants ==
* '''Pro''': TheGreatSunGod
* '''Con''': TheRizzler
== Round-by-Round Breakdown ==
=== Argument Tree ===
==== Arguments Initiated by Pro (TheGreatSunGod) ====
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''School causes chronic sleep deprivation in children.'''<br>{{Q|Chronic sleep deprivation is rampant among children. The cause is primarily the demands of school.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Sleep deprivation is not necessarily due to school; students can still sleep 8 hours.'''<br>{{Q|They only need 8 hours of sleep, so if they sleep from 9pm-5am, it will not result in chronic sleep deprivation.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''8 hours is insufficient for children.'''<br>{{Q|The average amount of sleep required for a 13-year-old is 9.25 hours.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Most students do get enough sleep.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
::::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Most of these studies are flawed or untrue.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children retain very little from long school days.'''<br>{{Q|A 2015 study of high school students found that students only retained 20% of what they were taught.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Some students can retain a lot with good methods.'''<br>{{Q|The effectiveness of memory is up to the student and the techniques they use.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Children don't all have access to ideal study environments.'''<br>{{Q|That's not an excuse. The average student doesn't retain much; you can't expect perfection.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Reduced school time promotes better mental health.'''<br>{{Q|Shorter school time could lead to students being more relaxed and less depressed.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''School time is necessary structure.'''<br>{{Q|Structure and discipline are necessary, especially for kids who can't get it at home.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Structure doesn’t have to come from school.'''<br>{{Q|You can give children structure in other ways, such as planned activities.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Bullying and peer pressure are amplified in long school days.'''<br>{{Q|If kids only go to school for 2 hours, there's less time to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Bullying occurs regardless of hours.'''<br>{{Q|If they get bullied, it will happen regardless of how long they're there.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Less time reduces exposure.'''<br>{{Q|Less time around bullies means fewer opportunities to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children would be happier if their time was better respected.'''<br>{{Q|Respecting children’s time is respecting them as people.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Children lack maturity to make such decisions.'''<br>{{Q|You're arguing that we should let children decide what's best for them.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Autonomy helps development.'''<br>{{Q|Giving children some choice and freedom helps them grow.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
==== Arguments Initiated by Con (TheRizzler) ====
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''A 2-hour school day is insufficient to teach all necessary subjects.'''<br>{{Q|With only 2 hours of school, you would not be able to cover reading, math, history, science, etc.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Learning can happen outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You don’t need 8 hours of school to learn math.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Many students won’t learn outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You say they could do it at home, but many wouldn’t.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Parents and technology can support at-home learning.'''<br>{{Q|If you have involved parents or even just good software, students can thrive.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Not all families have access to those resources.'''<br>{{Q|This assumes privilege. Many students don’t have that kind of support.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''The 2-hour proposal lacks practicality.'''<br>{{Q|This would be an unworkable shift in how education is done.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Other countries succeed with short hours.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has shorter school hours and still ranks high in education.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Cultural and structural differences make comparisons invalid.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has a different society, economy, and values. It’s not an easy comparison.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
== Result ==
The voting period is still open, and the result is currently tied. This page presents a tiered breakdown of the full debate to aid readers and potential voters in assessing the strength of the arguments on both sides.
=== Evaluation Summary ===
* '''Logical Clarity''': Slight edge to '''Con''' for pragmatic framing and consistent rebuttals.
* '''Use of Evidence''': Relatively even; '''Pro''' offers some studies, while '''Con''' uses common-sense rebuttals.
* '''Debate Structure''': '''Con''' consistently responds to and frames issues across rounds.
* '''Rhetorical Framing''': '''Pro''' appeals to reform and autonomy; '''Con''' focuses on feasibility and equity.
'''Recommended Vote''':
* Vote '''Pro''' if you prioritize idealism, student-centered reform, or philosophical values.
* Vote '''Con''' if you value pragmatic feasibility, systemic equity, and rebuttal discipline.
Under traditional criteria (burden of proof, refutation, impact): '''Con''' holds a slight edge overall.
[[Category:Debates]]
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: bronskibeat // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 t o pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
bronskibeat
04.23.2025 10:17AM
Reason:
This was an interesting debate, and I enjoyed reading what both parties had to offer. Con has a unique style that can be difficult to follow at times, but their core arguments were clearly expressed. Con's arguments could have also used more sourcing. Ultimately, Con's arguments were a bit all over the place, and could stand against further scrutiny.
Pro offered very thorough, well-sourced, and strong arguments. Rebutted Con's arguments successfully point by point while offering consistent citations.
Someone remind me at the end, and I’ll make a wiki page in this, in large part to put the arguments into proper order.
Oh and Lancealot, not required by any means, but to make things easier on readers, the link to pro’s R1 is https://www.debateart.com/debates/6075/comments/63600
Fair point. It reminds me of common definitions of what rights should be (effectively limited just by when their abuse infringes upon others).
Aside from bots, there are other things that require intervention. A married couple with a nude profile picture for example (yes, this happened).
In case it hasn’t been said, they’re there to limit the number of unqualified white men given jobs over better qualified diverse people.
There are also incentives, such as veterans get discriminated against so the government gives incentives to hire them.
A rare recovery in this topic!
As a moderator, I find it is often needed (just consider the spam bots) even if it would be better if people were better and thus did not need to be censored.
This will be an easy victory for someone
Tough topic. Good to see both sides doing a good job.
He's the only one most people have heard of, so there might not be a challenger. If not, try changing the resolution to world leader (to which I'd say he needs to be in the top five).
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
I wrote it because I’ve seen it happen to too many times. Multiple of the examples were not hypothetical, but rather straight from things I’ve seen in the last year. There’s a Reptilian Heuristic page which has another personal account of that fallacy.
Reminds me of this fallacy:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Retro_Hoc_Propter_Ex_Futuro
That said, it’s a fun hypothetical
I created a writeup on this debate:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Personhood_Begins_at_Conception
I did a writeup on this debate (heavily AI assisted, so apologies for any errors):
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/THB_in_the_Efficacy_of_Gender_Affirming_Care
A statement like that should probably be qualified in the description. Like ranked within the bottom five.
*nor
Nice opening argument. IMO you’ve reached the point that until counter biblical evidence is provided, you can just point to your existing case.
The following vote has been reported:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926-one-should-believe-in-and-practice-the-direct-inverse-of-everything-christians-believe-in-and-practice?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
It has supporting information at:
#10 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62827
#18 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62879
In general, votes need not be perfect. Heck in my own vote I mislabeled pro as con at one point (context was still obvious IMO, but still a flaw).
If you want to formally report any vote, click the three dots next to the vote number to open the menu with report being probably the only option. As I voted on this debate, I'd prefer it if whiteflame reviewed any vote (you can also tag him and state that you are reporting whatever vote).
Speaking of which, my vote has been reported, so I need to message him or tag him in a comment (he checks the report log sometimes, but should my vote be removed I'd like to have the time to reread the debate and revote).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit on Cons part.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote has been removed to enable them to revote at their discretion.
**************************************************
FYI, con had technical difficulties and posted his rounds in the comment section.
I did a little experiment using this debate:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Direct_Inversion_of_Christianity_(Tiered)
This was created with ChatGPT, with only minimal input from me (mostly formatting, and the ever annoying need to tell it that quotes must be direct quotes rather than paraphrases).
As someone who read the debate, it's cool to see the differences in where such a tool focuses.
I think I was pretty clear, but a couple pieces were a little implicit, so…
1. I’m one of the most active voters.
2. I consider the definitions in the description to be a type of Scarecrow Argument (but there are other fallacies it could soundly be called), rather than valid definitions from any authority.
3. Because the description is so ingenuine, I will not dogmatically obey it in my vote.
You will still likely win. However, if your argument consists of pointing to the fallacies you put into the description instead of offering sound reasoning, your case will be crippled by it.
Another bump a day or two ago would have been nice. Just saw this now, and there's not nearly enough time to properly review and vote on it.
As a voter, I will not be obeying the Scarecrow Arguments (aka strawman) in the description.
I'm going to get a jump start on this debate (while both have the opportunity to incorporate any feedback if they so desire).
Right off the start, that description should really give a scope statement. Like everything Christians believe and practice, is both broad and self contradictory due to the many branches of Christianity and the far wider number of Christians themselves (I don't yet know if either raises the point that Christian does not equal Christianity as a whole or the bible). Also qualifier word "direct" in the title significantly raises BoP (without it there'd be a wider range that would meet the BoP)
R1: Pro
I assume pro meets their basic BoP unless challenged.
Theism VS Atheism:
Pro is actually wrong to call this an Ad Hominem. It is however an obvious Scarecrow Argument, which risks being a Phantom Argument.
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Scarecrow_Argument
Appeal to authority VS genuine compassion:
Bad start, but then "The Bible supports slavery, genocide, burning "witches" at the stake, stoning faggots etc. " is a solid point, as much as a source would have been fantastic to back up that the bible does those things which it doesn't really do (I have an open mind, and can consider this point won if unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged; but I'll still call out errors).
Hating pleasure VS hedonism:
"Suffering is treated as a virtue while pleasure is treated as evil in Christianity" if unchallenged, this is a great argument; and actually one you could have backed up with biblical sources.
Continuing on feels like reading a Gish Gallop; it reduces the impact of the individual points, as it makes me more inclined to think of them as a single contention rather than a nuanced set of them.
...
R1 con:
Con hits hard and keeps nailing in from "Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S."
He even brings up an interesting point that it would be impossible to do the opposite of such a wide set of beliefs.
“do unto others…” while using it to compare Christianity to another religion, raises the point of something which people intuitively should not reject (I'd have liked to see that part of it more in focus). He does come back to this a little later adding "being humble, forgiving, and generous" as values in Christianity one ought to not do the opposite of.
Oh a call for sources, great to see that! Pro may actually deliver, but it creates a great falsifiability moment.
...
R2 pro:
"different denominations share core beliefs and values. " a mild moving of the goalposts, but it fits the themes of the debate enough to have validity.
The return to the Gish Gallop is actually painful... Maybe were it presented here as a numbered list it'd be less bad, but the way it's offered it's be better to just say "extend all arguments from my previous round," and thematically explain why they still hold weight (instead of individually).
I did not initially catch it due to the potty mouth, but "The opposite of Christianity is veganism" is a pretty good point due to the inclusion of "heart disease."
"This isn't even relevant since I'm not a Muslim" leaves the core do unto others bit unchallenged... Ah, God doesn't obey it in the bible isn't the worst point (but kinda misses the point of if those words inspire good actions from Christians or not)
Oh damn, I did not expect to see any sources from pro. Great job! Cherry picked evidence in all, but I'll count it (without these sources would have surely gone to con, but now I'll leave them in the tied range).
Basically this site works differently than just about all of the others. Two people go head to head in each debate. Others I've seen are more like a list of points made by every random person, without any conclusion.
If it can’t be resolved, it would be good conduct to for you to post a link to his comments post in your next round. The proper link is: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62809
This is of course not required. You may argue however you’d like. Some voters will probably discount it for being posted wrong; but I believe in the spirit of fairness.
>Reported Vote: MAV99 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Quite obviously this is a rare example of a true vote bomb. Please review the voting standards before casting future votes
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
This was pretty clearly a win for Pro.
Pro very effectively demonstrated in R1, using Scripture and reasoning to show a distinction in persons. Especially with his main body. Con then brings in other references that seem to point out a univocality in God which Pro in R2 effectively answered with:
"Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine nature, they remain truly distinct Persons." Using the word "nature" here pretty much sealed the debate as it is a term of universality meaning it is said of many things and also "person" which is a term of particularity. That is in accordance with basic rules of logic and definitions.
While Con does seem to have a decent grasp of scripture, it seems to me he is confusing "Holy Spirit" with "holy and spiritual". Those two phrases refer to different things. Also his whole:
"So you read about the spirit interceding and your understanding is .....well there has to be two because that's the only way it "makes sense" to me." is rather undermining Con since he is trying to do the same thing. It would be unreasonable to simply read the words at face value and leave it at that without using our God-given reason to delve into it.
Initial thoughts... Need to go get breakfast, but I expect I'll get back to this debate at some point before voting ends.
---
First of all, sources... It's very very difficult to win sources on biblical debates, because I literally wrote into the rules that discussing the topic itself does not equate to winning sources. However, citing the bible is likely to indicate a strong argument... Conversely, , the lack of a biblical foundation may harm arguments for either side.
Conduct: Using the wrong citation could be an innocent mistake, so not automatically deducting for that. That said, it's one that could easily be leveraged to undermine their argument (writing this as I read, so haven't seen how well he utilizes the correct version yet). That said, the grasping at straws of the dispute over the rules makes it harder for me to take arguments seriously.
R1:
Pro is able to give examples of the Holy Spirit being sent as an agent of the other guys, which indeed strongly implies a distinction.
Con argues in a well done example of circular reasoning: "My position doesn't contain the concept or doctrine of a person, persons or personhood or personalities. It's just , Holy Spirit being Father God period." He also argues it doesn't explicitly state that they are not the same person ("We can't find any where in scripture that the Father is one person, Holy Spirit is another.") therefore they must be.
Moderator here... I thought I had already addressed this...
So the rule is:
"Multi-accounting and any action indistinguishable from it is prohibited. Dispensation may be granted on a case-by-case basis, such as for multiple users within a single residence; but they will have certain restrictions applied (e.g., never voting on each other’s debates)."
That said, we give the benefit of doubt so long as there's no signs of exploitative intent. Exploits would be things like if you keep debating each other but one kept intentionally losing to boost the others rating, or if you two voted on each others debaters (which was a huge problem back in the day, and literally caused the need for the no multi-account rule). But so long as nothing bad like those occur, we in the moderation team will trust that you're just good friends.
That second line… oh well, I’ll give this a full read later.
Really depends how murder is defined. That said, miscarriage is considered murder in some places, and God takes responsibility for all of those.
Always a fun topic.
My mind goes to deep regulation, but with some limited legal avenues. This of course doesn’t feel like either side of the debate, but instead a third option to the dilemma.
I know this wasn't much of a debate, but even the lowest hanging fruit needs to comment on something not completely generic about the debate to imply you read it.
Your vote is removed, but you may revote at any time.
MAV99
01.17.2025 06:27PM
Con arguments is better psychologically speaking.
3 points to con
https://www.debateart.com/debates?type=&status=&order_type=comments_number
One of your others is #3, this one is #8, and trailing well back another is #18.
This debate has made it into the top ten most commented of all time, and is fast approaching the top five.
On the up side, it finally got a junk debate of mine off the first page of that leaderboard.
---RFD---
con argues dreams are due to biology and stimuli, such as being able to be manipulated (presumably, without the researcher manipulating any god or gods).
"experience is not evidence" technically it's just very weak evidence, known as antidotal. Still, good point.
Pro does an immediate gambit at the start with a word dump... I strongly advise separating paragraphs in future.
Pro's states he will argue dreams "are not merely products of the brain but can be divine in nature, carrying spiritual meaning and purpose."
One says they're chemistry, the other says they're a gift or curse from the divine... As a voter, I'm going to treat this issue as on balance; or to say victory goes to the most and most likely.
---
Pro moves on to describe three separate types of dreams. One comes from a god, the other comes another god, and the third comes from man. This immediately begs the question of how to tell any of them apart (as con calls it, bridge the gap in that seeming contradiction); but I will treat either of the first two as spiritual if they can be proven.
Pro says holy books say dreams are divine and/or spiritual.
Con of course gives the obvious counter that other religions exist (it's strong, but not quite as strong as he would like it to be, since pro's writeup included more than one god).
Pro gives a personal accounting... A dream featuring a horse cart, which prevented him from dying of a heart attack or something worse than dying of a heart attack... I am not believing that pro believes this.
Con challenges that this interpretation is pure speculation.
Pro attempts to hand wave away pro's case, by reiterating parts of his own. This is sometimes merited, but we really need a mechanism to differentiate man-made dreams from others if this is to hold water (and just that all true dreams will be remembered doesn't do this so long as others are remembered too).
Rebuttal 4 (the hypotheses are not mutually exclusive) was almost good; it just fell back on the appeal to false authority of holy books. In this note, the mud example was quite effective in affirming that said authority is false; and this was further bolstered with the sources for dreams predating Islam (as unsoun
As con summarizes: "Pro's argument fails to show how the supposed gap between the psychological understanding of dreams and their potential spiritual significance is bridged."
The problem here is that this
A minor disagreement I am left with for con is his re-review of the single dream in question, and statements that it wouldn’t count even if it did accurately and measurably predict the future. That would be the type of proof a scientist would look for to connect dreams to the super
—-
Concerning allegations of misconduct… I am not spotting anything con is doing to force how pro argues, merely requests to add real warrants to his case in whatever form they take.
I have not reviewed the comment section, but at a breif glance it looks needlessly dramatic (if anyone bugs me I’ll review it, but to keep my head clear and on the main arguments, I’m not prioritizing it).
—-
Sources lean to con, but not by enough. This is in part because I believe in scaling the difficulty (if I gave pro arguments, the better sources from con would easily carry it to his favor; but he’s already getting arguments, so it’s a steeper hill to get a further two points).
—-
Legibility (S&G) is pretty clearly in the tied range. I can give a little advice to pro, but to lose the point someone would have to distract me from the debate with atrocities against the alphabet.
—-
PS: Marvin is clearly a vampire, but I am not finding the evidence convincing that he is also rich (logically valid, but indeed an unsound stereotype).
I’ve read the first round, and have started notes for a vote. I expect the have some time tomorrow read the rest.
FYI, your vote needed a bit more detail; even while I see how such a blunder can shift everything. Even just a short analysis of how that was then leveraged would improve things significantly (the debate is already over, so it doesn't matter too much, just thoughts for future votes).