My apologies for misinterpreting your view on Muslims debating to be be favor of such, rather than a religious aversion to speaking up for their religion.
…
You’re welcome to start a debate on if mainstream Islam endorses those forms of child abuse, and use those historical pieces of evidence to support it. You can even argue something to the effect of any Muslim who does not support said abuses, is rejecting Muhammad and therefore not a true Muslim.
That said, an inferred accusation is still an accusation. If someone said “I hope I didn’t catch an STD while fucking so and sos mom last night” may argue they said they hoped they didn’t, but the context of implying they fucked said mother is still quite clear.
Again, this is not saying religions may not be insulted, it is however a reminder about the targeted harassment of singular site members and non-hypothetical family members.
While you seem quite knowledgeable on Islam (particularly the apparent sacred need for them to argue), in future please do not accuse someone of being a danger to their children based solely upon membership in a large and varied organization. This crosses so damned far beyond the line, that it's unacceptable.
As an example, if someone says they believe in Odin I do not assume they're committed to animal sacrifice and committing murder/suicide or else going to Hel... I know at least one branch of that religion features such utter stupidity, but I should take it for granted that any one random person online is not in such an extra insane sub-sect.
The first K which pops into my mind is they were exceptional, therefore their marriage was not merely normal.
Normal may be hard to properly define, as rich men marrying many women (and sometimes children), means most men never married. Thus for men in that culture at the time, marriage was not normal.
I’m pretty sure it at least was legal by the standards of the time; but hopefully it was incredibly infrequent.
…
“Rule No 1: No insult to my religion which is Islam and no insult to any person discussed in Debate, especially Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and mother Aisha (RA).”
This rule is unenforceable given the topic. We’re talking about what is by all modern standards a pedo. Sure an opponent should not bring up off topic other misdeeds, the direct topic cannot be discussed without character attacks against men who have sex with prepubescent girls for doing exactly that.
Oh regarding vote #1, I have passed your concerns to the other moderators. However, due to it both covering a decent amount of debate content and mentioning the auto loss rule, it is unlikely to be taken down. Were it taken down, the voter could recast minus everything other than the rule violation; so removing it seems frivolous to me.
In online discourse, you should expect trolls. The best policy is to not feed the trolls. If you choose to feed the trolls, then the conversation with one becomes consensual; if you do not engage with one, then any stalkerish behavior becomes something moderators may intercede against.
To be fair, we’ve repeatedly had “Muslim” trolls. While I don’t think that is a fair representation of all Muslims, it does lower quality expectations here.
A refinement I suggest for future debates about Muslims is using concise comparative facts. That Muslims sleep and eat does not help them, because it is taken for granted that so does everyone else. However their education levels, life expectancy, etc.; those are great for comparing.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-main-factors/
It will still be very subjective, such as if their abilities at war are a positive or a negative.
Hate to say it, but I've let myself get overwhelmed with stuff, and haven't properly reviewed the remaining rounds.
One problem I'm having is when I find a point particularly interesting, I do word searches to try to follow it; which is leading me to finding a lot of stuff from both sides just dropped. While I'm leaning towards con, it's not by a lot, so might just be my bias on the topic (as opposed to a slam dunk victory).
All that said, this deserves to be a HoF contender.
nulla. necessary
Con asserts if an action is unnecessary it is unjustified.
Pro defends the pre-agreed definition, defusing a minor attempt at moving the goal posts. That said, pro was shooting himself in the foot as he immediately moves on to an argument that it indeed was necessary due to resource scarcity.
Con accuses pro of moving the goalposts, insisting justified means ethics and morals... Probably going to be more back and forth on this, personally I'd have argued it was done for bad illegitimate reasons making them not justified.
Pro says con dropped that it should be action vs no action (I think con's R1 intuitively argues for no action against Poland).
l. Germany and Poland’s Truce
ll. Poland wasn’t a threat
Nuff said.
Pro counters that Poland was goating Germany into it so that England could invade. Plus Bloody Sunday (which my reading indicates happened after Germany invaded, but no assurance on will catch that).
lll. Hitler’s justification was blatant slander
False flag etc.
Pro defends that the source is biased by being victims of the Nazis, so should be dismissed...
lV. Poland is the catalyst for Hitler’s downfall.
Nuff Said.
Pro counters that Poland was goating Germany into it so that England could invade.
V. Thanos
OMFG, well played!
Con calls this off topic.
VI. Lebensraum
Germans desired more living space.
Con defends that there were other means to attain food.
Pro says we can't really know what's in their hearts, and that he pre-refuted most means other than warfare.
VII. Freedom
More land equals more freedom...
Con makes an appeal to the genocide against native Germans, and that valuing freedom is impossible if not valuing freedom for other countries.
VIII. Do What's Right
This was really mislabeled, but good appeal to whataboutism while bolstering earlier points.
Con lands a great and simple retort "Hitler and Germany never claimed Malthusian as a reason"
IX. Black death
Mostly more of the above, before at last asserting at the very end the damage of the Versailles treaty (which should have been a cornerstone of the arguments, as one way or another they had to get out from under that; just look at how well off they are today... Which wouldn't actually make the reasons at the time good but con might not have caught that distinction).
Pro is able to leverage this again with the 500 billion dollar debt, limiting their options.
Read R1. I get the feeling con will win arguments but pro will win sources. Still, haven't gotten to the rebuttals so it's up in the air.
Here's my prelim (really, posting it since I have to go do other things).
Also in case I don't say this later: Pro, thank you for making this one fun to read.
nulla. necessary
Con asserts if an action is unnecessary it is unjustified. Pro defends the pre-agreed definition, defusing a minor attempt at moving the goal posts. That said, pro was shooting himself in the foot as he immediately moves on to an argument that it indeed was necessary due to resource scarcity.
l. Germany and Poland’s Truce
ll. Poland wasn’t a threat
lll. Hitler’s justification was blatant slander
lV. Poland is the catalyst for Hitler’s downfall.
V. Thanos
OMFG, well played!
VI. Lebensraum
Germans desired more living space.
VII. Freedom
More land equals more freedom...
VIII. Do What's Right
This was really mislabeled, but good appeal to whataboutism while bolstering earlier points.
IX. Black death
Mostly more of the above, before at last asserting at the very end the damage of the Versailles treaty (which should have been a cornerstone of the arguments, as one way or another they had to get out from under that; just look at how well off they are today... Which wouldn't actually make the reasons at the time good but con might not have caught that distinction).
Airmax only very briefly used this website, and none of us expect him to be back (he basically stopped in to troll an election). There are however a bunch of other members from DDO.
That's why I didn't say they're put to death for being LGBTQ, as the death penalty is for aggravated gay sex.
Sadly the reading I've done on it doesn't indicate any connection between these laws and trying to combat Aids, but rather to 'protect traditional values' and hallucinations of God demanding it.
I will say your biggest mistake was not simply showing some concrete examples of how "misinformation" got in the way of scientific research. That could have set the groundwork for con being unable to show any times said label got bad research aborted.
Also, generic rhetoric about Biden and the vaccine, feel like scope creep; which does nothing to advance the topical case.
I advise changing the topic to something like “Legalize Fatal Dueling.”
Making it a right is much harder to prove. We have the right to life and freedom from organ harvesting, the right to force someone else into a duel seems absurd.
I advise rather than Gish Galloping, cite three good ones to discuss.
The Bible is of course a lot worse if you take it literally. What Jesus looks like from Revelation, is horrifying and yet biblical literalists think thats what he looked like while he lived.
In case anyone was following this comment section and is curious, the Novice initiated debate did not happen with him feigning illiteracy in the comments to avoid debating. However the debate I initiated for him went forward, ultimately with RM standing in for Novice.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4221-barney-accused-novice-of-following-him-to-his-house
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the concession is in question, the the rest of the vote is fine due to the debate description specifying a special rule which voters may factor into their votes.
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
**************************************************
I don't remember him from DDO, so I'd say shortly after this site started. The earliest negative interaction I can find is in a thread discussing how the site itself could handle forfeitures.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1655-auto-loss-for-forfeits?page=1&post_number=17
Regarding BoP
I'd say by nature of the setup pro has primary BoP. However, the setup states shared BoP, which mandates con do more than pure refutations.
Further, while the resolution does not have any softening qualifiers (most likely), it likewise lacks absolutes (definitely).
Pro's case seems to largely be that the ban on discussions actually does the very harm it is supposed to be trying to prevent.
I do like con's bullet point breakdown of pro's case. Pro goes overboard with the rejection of it, as the Canada thing seemed to be a fair misinterpretation of the facts as they were laid out (Canada was mentioned first).
If someone does this and it's a strawman, the best course of action is to correct it to how you would like your case summarized.
So going in, I expect minimums from each side
...
Just got a notification that I have an argument due. I'll have to get back to the rereading and voting later.
Skimmed this: I don’t foresee any way around the definitions which makes the resolution inherently true.
They used to mandate some abortions.
“ I feel as though Con was the better debator here”
This explains nothing about the debate. Nor does it imply you having so much as skimmed it.
Please familiarize yourself with the voting policy before voting again.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
“ mentally and physically healthy.” is a great definition choice, as we can measure it without so much guesswork about society so very long ago.
My apologies for misinterpreting your view on Muslims debating to be be favor of such, rather than a religious aversion to speaking up for their religion.
…
You’re welcome to start a debate on if mainstream Islam endorses those forms of child abuse, and use those historical pieces of evidence to support it. You can even argue something to the effect of any Muslim who does not support said abuses, is rejecting Muhammad and therefore not a true Muslim.
That said, an inferred accusation is still an accusation. If someone said “I hope I didn’t catch an STD while fucking so and sos mom last night” may argue they said they hoped they didn’t, but the context of implying they fucked said mother is still quite clear.
Again, this is not saying religions may not be insulted, it is however a reminder about the targeted harassment of singular site members and non-hypothetical family members.
While you seem quite knowledgeable on Islam (particularly the apparent sacred need for them to argue), in future please do not accuse someone of being a danger to their children based solely upon membership in a large and varied organization. This crosses so damned far beyond the line, that it's unacceptable.
As an example, if someone says they believe in Odin I do not assume they're committed to animal sacrifice and committing murder/suicide or else going to Hel... I know at least one branch of that religion features such utter stupidity, but I should take it for granted that any one random person online is not in such an extra insane sub-sect.
The first K which pops into my mind is they were exceptional, therefore their marriage was not merely normal.
Normal may be hard to properly define, as rich men marrying many women (and sometimes children), means most men never married. Thus for men in that culture at the time, marriage was not normal.
I’m pretty sure it at least was legal by the standards of the time; but hopefully it was incredibly infrequent.
…
“Rule No 1: No insult to my religion which is Islam and no insult to any person discussed in Debate, especially Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and mother Aisha (RA).”
This rule is unenforceable given the topic. We’re talking about what is by all modern standards a pedo. Sure an opponent should not bring up off topic other misdeeds, the direct topic cannot be discussed without character attacks against men who have sex with prepubescent girls for doing exactly that.
Oh regarding vote #1, I have passed your concerns to the other moderators. However, due to it both covering a decent amount of debate content and mentioning the auto loss rule, it is unlikely to be taken down. Were it taken down, the voter could recast minus everything other than the rule violation; so removing it seems frivolous to me.
In online discourse, you should expect trolls. The best policy is to not feed the trolls. If you choose to feed the trolls, then the conversation with one becomes consensual; if you do not engage with one, then any stalkerish behavior becomes something moderators may intercede against.
To be fair, we’ve repeatedly had “Muslim” trolls. While I don’t think that is a fair representation of all Muslims, it does lower quality expectations here.
A refinement I suggest for future debates about Muslims is using concise comparative facts. That Muslims sleep and eat does not help them, because it is taken for granted that so does everyone else. However their education levels, life expectancy, etc.; those are great for comparing.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-main-factors/
It will still be very subjective, such as if their abilities at war are a positive or a negative.
There is no direct way to reset a debate once it has started. Were there such a way, it would require explicit permission from both sides.
A better way to handle things at this point is to concede this one, but use existing arguments from before the forfeiture in a rematch.
There is an argument to be made for 1984. 👀
Hate to say it, but I've let myself get overwhelmed with stuff, and haven't properly reviewed the remaining rounds.
One problem I'm having is when I find a point particularly interesting, I do word searches to try to follow it; which is leading me to finding a lot of stuff from both sides just dropped. While I'm leaning towards con, it's not by a lot, so might just be my bias on the topic (as opposed to a slam dunk victory).
All that said, this deserves to be a HoF contender.
Ok, got through R2.
nulla. necessary
Con asserts if an action is unnecessary it is unjustified.
Pro defends the pre-agreed definition, defusing a minor attempt at moving the goal posts. That said, pro was shooting himself in the foot as he immediately moves on to an argument that it indeed was necessary due to resource scarcity.
Con accuses pro of moving the goalposts, insisting justified means ethics and morals... Probably going to be more back and forth on this, personally I'd have argued it was done for bad illegitimate reasons making them not justified.
Pro says con dropped that it should be action vs no action (I think con's R1 intuitively argues for no action against Poland).
l. Germany and Poland’s Truce
ll. Poland wasn’t a threat
Nuff said.
Pro counters that Poland was goating Germany into it so that England could invade. Plus Bloody Sunday (which my reading indicates happened after Germany invaded, but no assurance on will catch that).
lll. Hitler’s justification was blatant slander
False flag etc.
Pro defends that the source is biased by being victims of the Nazis, so should be dismissed...
lV. Poland is the catalyst for Hitler’s downfall.
Nuff Said.
Pro counters that Poland was goating Germany into it so that England could invade.
V. Thanos
OMFG, well played!
Con calls this off topic.
VI. Lebensraum
Germans desired more living space.
Con defends that there were other means to attain food.
Pro says we can't really know what's in their hearts, and that he pre-refuted most means other than warfare.
VII. Freedom
More land equals more freedom...
Con makes an appeal to the genocide against native Germans, and that valuing freedom is impossible if not valuing freedom for other countries.
VIII. Do What's Right
This was really mislabeled, but good appeal to whataboutism while bolstering earlier points.
Con lands a great and simple retort "Hitler and Germany never claimed Malthusian as a reason"
IX. Black death
Mostly more of the above, before at last asserting at the very end the damage of the Versailles treaty (which should have been a cornerstone of the arguments, as one way or another they had to get out from under that; just look at how well off they are today... Which wouldn't actually make the reasons at the time good but con might not have caught that distinction).
Pro is able to leverage this again with the 500 billion dollar debt, limiting their options.
I’m in the middle of being stood up for plans today, so I should be able to get to it shortly.
https://youtu.be/1zY1orxW8Aw
Regarding that website error, please clear your catche, and if that fails try in a different browser.
Read R1. I get the feeling con will win arguments but pro will win sources. Still, haven't gotten to the rebuttals so it's up in the air.
Here's my prelim (really, posting it since I have to go do other things).
Also in case I don't say this later: Pro, thank you for making this one fun to read.
nulla. necessary
Con asserts if an action is unnecessary it is unjustified. Pro defends the pre-agreed definition, defusing a minor attempt at moving the goal posts. That said, pro was shooting himself in the foot as he immediately moves on to an argument that it indeed was necessary due to resource scarcity.
l. Germany and Poland’s Truce
ll. Poland wasn’t a threat
lll. Hitler’s justification was blatant slander
lV. Poland is the catalyst for Hitler’s downfall.
V. Thanos
OMFG, well played!
VI. Lebensraum
Germans desired more living space.
VII. Freedom
More land equals more freedom...
VIII. Do What's Right
This was really mislabeled, but good appeal to whataboutism while bolstering earlier points.
IX. Black death
Mostly more of the above, before at last asserting at the very end the damage of the Versailles treaty (which should have been a cornerstone of the arguments, as one way or another they had to get out from under that; just look at how well off they are today... Which wouldn't actually make the reasons at the time good but con might not have caught that distinction).
Airmax only very briefly used this website, and none of us expect him to be back (he basically stopped in to troll an election). There are however a bunch of other members from DDO.
Pastafarianism is better.
I advise adding a definition for women into this debate.
Damn fine first round from both sides!
That's why I didn't say they're put to death for being LGBTQ, as the death penalty is for aggravated gay sex.
Sadly the reading I've done on it doesn't indicate any connection between these laws and trying to combat Aids, but rather to 'protect traditional values' and hallucinations of God demanding it.
Your argument is due.
Your argument is due early tomorrow.
Totally meant to grade this one.
Thank you for the vote!
The spelling and grammar in the title alone told me that con would have a sweeping victory.
I will say your biggest mistake was not simply showing some concrete examples of how "misinformation" got in the way of scientific research. That could have set the groundwork for con being unable to show any times said label got bad research aborted.
Also, generic rhetoric about Biden and the vaccine, feel like scope creep; which does nothing to advance the topical case.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/21/africa/uganda-lgbtq-law-passes-intl/index.html
I advise changing the topic to something like “Legalize Fatal Dueling.”
Making it a right is much harder to prove. We have the right to life and freedom from organ harvesting, the right to force someone else into a duel seems absurd.
Oh this is a fun one!
False dilemma
I advise rather than Gish Galloping, cite three good ones to discuss.
The Bible is of course a lot worse if you take it literally. What Jesus looks like from Revelation, is horrifying and yet biblical literalists think thats what he looked like while he lived.
Strong first round from con.
In case anyone was following this comment section and is curious, the Novice initiated debate did not happen with him feigning illiteracy in the comments to avoid debating. However the debate I initiated for him went forward, ultimately with RM standing in for Novice.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4221-barney-accused-novice-of-following-him-to-his-house
I’m just trying to encourage anyone who may be on the fence to step up.
And yes, a better definition should be suggested before the debate commences.
Thank you for the debate!
While this wasn't either of our best offerings, it was nice to go head to head with you.
It's looking like no one here believes the resolution to be true.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the concession is in question, the the rest of the vote is fine due to the debate description specifying a special rule which voters may factor into their votes.
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
**************************************************
-> When did this beef between y’all start?
I don't remember him from DDO, so I'd say shortly after this site started. The earliest negative interaction I can find is in a thread discussing how the site itself could handle forfeitures.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1655-auto-loss-for-forfeits?page=1&post_number=17
Oh, and thank you for voting!
Thank you for voting.
Regarding BoP
I'd say by nature of the setup pro has primary BoP. However, the setup states shared BoP, which mandates con do more than pure refutations.
Further, while the resolution does not have any softening qualifiers (most likely), it likewise lacks absolutes (definitely).
Pro's case seems to largely be that the ban on discussions actually does the very harm it is supposed to be trying to prevent.
I do like con's bullet point breakdown of pro's case. Pro goes overboard with the rejection of it, as the Canada thing seemed to be a fair misinterpretation of the facts as they were laid out (Canada was mentioned first).
If someone does this and it's a strawman, the best course of action is to correct it to how you would like your case summarized.
So going in, I expect minimums from each side
...
Just got a notification that I have an argument due. I'll have to get back to the rereading and voting later.
He might be so “based” to be black pill.
I advise adding some basics into the description, to avoid it all having to be explained inside the debate.
For a topic like this, I’d say BoP rests more strongly with con. Peace is a default state we can assume until evidence of the contrary is presented.
I had to Google Sneako to find out if he was or was not a Smurf.
I initially misread the resolution as well.
A good point of comparison would be how neighboring countries without said loans are doing.