People can forfeit and still have a more convincing argument; in fact that’s much of why a consuct allotment is available. An argument can be concise, and more convincing (especially when it bothers to be on topic). And again, the only reason you are winning this debate is that I voted to give it some attention. Without me, this debate would have remained unvoted and forgotten. If you are opposed to people voting on your debates, nominate a judge who has pre-agreed not to vote.
-> “ You haven't even bothered to mention a single one of my arguments.”
So you never mentioned how Islam should be compared to the level of authoritarianism of the west rather than just authoritarian or not? You never mentioned rape? You never mentioned anything to the effect of ‘ Allah>Everyone else’?
-> “ Instead you attribute things to me which I haven't said.”
What did I accuse you of saying which you did not?
Con has a great point that it’s really hard to prove intent, regardless of the results.
That said, I’ll need to read this again before I vote. Some of it really did t hold my attention, and the formatting of those images got messed up for me.
How old are you? You’re pulling g kindergarten tactics of ‘no they were off topic.’
And when I’m back on a computer instead of a cell phone, I’ll happily debate Islam with you. It being pretty much the only religion that forces itself as a government seals the outcome with only a minimum of effort. Heck, your own case on this one included at least one accidental concession of the whole topic.
It seriously feels like you’re offended anyone actually took the time to read the debate. This isn’t a safe space free from reading and criticism, this is a site for ideas to be challenged for their weaknesses.
I’m sure pro will win, but I got reading this before realizing it was a double forfeiture, so gave what is most likely only actual vote weighing arguments. The single vote will further get momentum for people to vote (as already evident by your own).
First it was one, then a clone of it with an extra round… it just kinda spiraled with being able to hold pro’s arguments in my head and see the different ways people tried to refute them. I will not be making a habit of this.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: PREZ-HILTON // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to pro, 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
For a debate like this, so long as the majority of the points go to the non-forfeiting side, the vote is automatically ok.
**************************************************
So regarding the definition issue...
I tell you I've got an elephant in the garage, you investigate and find no signs of such a large mammal in my garage; so conclude you've disproved that elephant.
It would be absurd for me either to insist you have not disproven elephants altogether, or that I didn't say /which/ garage. Were I to argue it's in another garage, I at that point should be able to indicate one containing said elephant to disprove the refutation or else the elephant will remain disproven. If I show one containing a hippo, while it's got much in common, it's still not an elephant.
I’m happy to discuss any other parts of this debate, along with the broader topic.
A major point I will make in favor of social media journalism is not having to align with the interests of the advertisers. Fox News for example will not merely lean a news story to fit their bid, they’ll pretend it never happened. If you want to be a reporter on the 10 o’clock news you’ve got to play ball. Online news outlets gives us the example of Project Veritos (spelling?) showing a return to investigative journalism instead of merely being mouthpieces for the commercials.
Pro’s R2 contained some problems. Most notably pointing out that many governments control their news networks, which inherently makes social media a vital resource for those affected. I also would not call the definitions uncontested, given that they were directly contested (even while I’m not buying it, it was there). A strength of his case this round was focus on Covid, which could have been nicely linked to the bad governments point with Russia’s fake news farms and such.
Played way too defensively. Main stream media also engaging in circle jerks, could have been a highlight with clips of stupid mainstream news people.
The definition thing is painful. There’s times when nuance in a definition is a deterministic to the outcome but this is reaching too far. Pokémon Go would be a news source under this definition and the attempts to apply it like that. I don’t know if pro catches this but when an attempt to define things this broadly it would be social media against every non-online interaction.
It seems to me the spirit intended at the onset of this debate was social media news >= mainstream media news.
Rings of Power makes for some interesting news stories but is not in itself news even while it technically contains information distributed by an organization.
Just finished reading R1. Pro is clearly ahead at that point, due to the Fox News circle jerk effect being leveraged against social media; in addition to the majority of cons points being far outside the scope.
To me the angel in revolution was disputed quite well with the whole shaping thing. If you dig a watering hole, have you created the water or just moved it around?
Limiting reports so that they take more than two clicks per report does enough.
While a forfeited and conceded debate is unimportant, there’s plenty of things which are; to include things which do not get logged like spambots hitting the forum (we delete and ban without any red tape).
For me argument strength is often determined while I am casting a vote. I may wholly agree with the side I vote against but find their reasoning in support of it to be lacking. This debate in particular due to one side missing too many rounds, left the outcome in my favor requiring no analysis.
Gender is a fairly ambiguous term. Pro argued it was simply synonymous with sexual organ identification but also more limited. I argued it’s a social term for part of someone’s self identity (thus far more diverse).
With less than a week remaining, and Novice committing to his best Brave Sir Robin impersonation, anyone at all is welcome to accept the challenge. If nothing else, you’ll be instantly proven to be a better debater than him.
Looks like Novice will not allow you to see the evidence to be able to stand in for him.
I’ll open the debate up for any friend of his to accept (assuming he has any). Failing that, maybe just maybe there’s someone left who believes there’s any merit to his words; based on the available evidence not even Novice believes anything he writes but I’ve been surprised before.
When someone misses rounds you have two good options:
1. Extend. Literally just type "Extend." to serve as a round.
2. Expand your arguments to bury them should they come back (some opponents will always forfeit one round, so for them this is best).
Also research and memory are both academic skills. That the scope is narrow, does not change that.
Not all that different from various debates on if God exists. One person presents their evidence, the other argues that the evidence is insufficient.
Voters may opt to honor rules in the description, so those votes are fine.
That you think your arguments did not contain mention of the west, already shows that I’m more familiar with what you posted than you are.
People can forfeit and still have a more convincing argument; in fact that’s much of why a consuct allotment is available. An argument can be concise, and more convincing (especially when it bothers to be on topic). And again, the only reason you are winning this debate is that I voted to give it some attention. Without me, this debate would have remained unvoted and forgotten. If you are opposed to people voting on your debates, nominate a judge who has pre-agreed not to vote.
-> “ You haven't even bothered to mention a single one of my arguments.”
So you never mentioned how Islam should be compared to the level of authoritarianism of the west rather than just authoritarian or not? You never mentioned rape? You never mentioned anything to the effect of ‘ Allah>Everyone else’?
-> “ Instead you attribute things to me which I haven't said.”
What did I accuse you of saying which you did not?
Con has a great point that it’s really hard to prove intent, regardless of the results.
That said, I’ll need to read this again before I vote. Some of it really did t hold my attention, and the formatting of those images got messed up for me.
How old are you? You’re pulling g kindergarten tactics of ‘no they were off topic.’
And when I’m back on a computer instead of a cell phone, I’ll happily debate Islam with you. It being pretty much the only religion that forces itself as a government seals the outcome with only a minimum of effort. Heck, your own case on this one included at least one accidental concession of the whole topic.
It seriously feels like you’re offended anyone actually took the time to read the debate. This isn’t a safe space free from reading and criticism, this is a site for ideas to be challenged for their weaknesses.
Con dropped a lot, as did you.
Not to mention how bizarrely off topic most of your case was.
I’m sure pro will win, but I got reading this before realizing it was a double forfeiture, so gave what is most likely only actual vote weighing arguments. The single vote will further get momentum for people to vote (as already evident by your own).
I’ve debated this before, and it can be a very fun topic. Sadly, it gets long winded, which discourages voters.
Your round is due within 30 minutes
First it was one, then a clone of it with an extra round… it just kinda spiraled with being able to hold pro’s arguments in my head and see the different ways people tried to refute them. I will not be making a habit of this.
Good luck on the rematch.
I advise at least reviewing this useful tool before posting arguments:
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Oh is this a rematch to the other one I read earlier?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: PREZ-HILTON // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 2 to pro, 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
For a debate like this, so long as the majority of the points go to the non-forfeiting side, the vote is automatically ok.
**************************************************
I thought I had voted on this… I’ll get something g together
Feels like both weee arguing the same thing…
@con
Please keep the sources classy... Which is to say PG-13.
And communism is the supreme form of government... We just haven't tried it yet...
You're welcome. This one was pretty informative of someone I have not studied.
I of course think systemic racism is a large problem in the US; but you made TS' case compelling.
So regarding the definition issue...
I tell you I've got an elephant in the garage, you investigate and find no signs of such a large mammal in my garage; so conclude you've disproved that elephant.
It would be absurd for me either to insist you have not disproven elephants altogether, or that I didn't say /which/ garage. Were I to argue it's in another garage, I at that point should be able to indicate one containing said elephant to disprove the refutation or else the elephant will remain disproven. If I show one containing a hippo, while it's got much in common, it's still not an elephant.
Note:
If one side does not give enough of a topical argument to weigh, then there is no need to write a more detailed vote than their lack of a case.
Debates with the same name, I lost track of this one. I’ll get to it soonish
I’m happy to discuss any other parts of this debate, along with the broader topic.
A major point I will make in favor of social media journalism is not having to align with the interests of the advertisers. Fox News for example will not merely lean a news story to fit their bid, they’ll pretend it never happened. If you want to be a reporter on the 10 o’clock news you’ve got to play ball. Online news outlets gives us the example of Project Veritos (spelling?) showing a return to investigative journalism instead of merely being mouthpieces for the commercials.
Con does well with the reminder of the attention seeking terrorists… and problems with mainstream news as well during Covid.
Pro basically extends to close out the debate.
Pro’s R2 contained some problems. Most notably pointing out that many governments control their news networks, which inherently makes social media a vital resource for those affected. I also would not call the definitions uncontested, given that they were directly contested (even while I’m not buying it, it was there). A strength of his case this round was focus on Covid, which could have been nicely linked to the bad governments point with Russia’s fake news farms and such.
Read con’s R2…
Played way too defensively. Main stream media also engaging in circle jerks, could have been a highlight with clips of stupid mainstream news people.
The definition thing is painful. There’s times when nuance in a definition is a deterministic to the outcome but this is reaching too far. Pokémon Go would be a news source under this definition and the attempts to apply it like that. I don’t know if pro catches this but when an attempt to define things this broadly it would be social media against every non-online interaction.
It seems to me the spirit intended at the onset of this debate was social media news >= mainstream media news.
Rings of Power makes for some interesting news stories but is not in itself news even while it technically contains information distributed by an organization.
Just finished reading R1. Pro is clearly ahead at that point, due to the Fox News circle jerk effect being leveraged against social media; in addition to the majority of cons points being far outside the scope.
I’ll delay posting my round until Friday. And if Michael gets functionality restored in time, I’ll also gladly change this to unrated if you’d like.
If you get a chance, please review whiteflame’s vote in this debate. Both he and I are ineligible due to conflicts of interest.
To me the angel in revolution was disputed quite well with the whole shaping thing. If you dig a watering hole, have you created the water or just moved it around?
Wylted had too many bad moments to count; but people grow and change.
As Prez he’s got my respect.
Regarding the moderation chat, it’s really informal these days. To such ends, at least to me he’s got an equal voice to anyone else.
Friendly reminder that your opening argument is due.
Limiting reports so that they take more than two clicks per report does enough.
While a forfeited and conceded debate is unimportant, there’s plenty of things which are; to include things which do not get logged like spambots hitting the forum (we delete and ban without any red tape).
For starters, Genesis 1 was leveraged with inductive logic to show them existing without God having necessarily created them.
I’ll try to knock out at least some feedback today. Would you both like the tags updated?
Pretty sure an abortion is not a flock of crows. 🙃
Two hour argument time… victory is all but assured to whomever happens to login with that time.
Actual slavery hasn’t gone away.
For me argument strength is often determined while I am casting a vote. I may wholly agree with the side I vote against but find their reasoning in support of it to be lacking. This debate in particular due to one side missing too many rounds, left the outcome in my favor requiring no analysis.
Gender is a fairly ambiguous term. Pro argued it was simply synonymous with sexual organ identification but also more limited. I argued it’s a social term for part of someone’s self identity (thus far more diverse).
To me funny need not equal stupid. Taking something funny as the right kind of serious, tickles my funny bone.
Black Adder for example, is funny because it’s so witty; not because anyone farts… well, except Hugh Laurie.
You are almost out of time.
https://youtu.be/vW6se0AGQf0
With less than a week remaining, and Novice committing to his best Brave Sir Robin impersonation, anyone at all is welcome to accept the challenge. If nothing else, you’ll be instantly proven to be a better debater than him.
https://youtu.be/jYFefppqEtE
You two need to watch Person of Interest!
A safety vote or two would be appreciated.
Good luck!
Looks like Novice will not allow you to see the evidence to be able to stand in for him.
I’ll open the debate up for any friend of his to accept (assuming he has any). Failing that, maybe just maybe there’s someone left who believes there’s any merit to his words; based on the available evidence not even Novice believes anything he writes but I’ve been surprised before.
When someone misses rounds you have two good options:
1. Extend. Literally just type "Extend." to serve as a round.
2. Expand your arguments to bury them should they come back (some opponents will always forfeit one round, so for them this is best).
Someone got booped:
https://youtu.be/cwZyoaiSsgU?t=28
This one is a matter of intellectual integrity.
Also research and memory are both academic skills. That the scope is narrow, does not change that.
Not all that different from various debates on if God exists. One person presents their evidence, the other argues that the evidence is insufficient.