Something useful for you:
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
If a resolution contains multiple clauses, pro has not met BoP until each is supported.
If the clauses would support each other, pick one for the resolution, and use the other(s) as supporting contentions.
I do really advise keeping resolutions to single clauses, or even "assuming x, then y" statements.
One of my first debates was on if prison is more voluntary than not, and some nihilists complained that free will doesn't exist (which would be a fun debate in itself, but was not what I cared to discuss); so I added the clause 'assuming free will exists...' which reduced my opponents main argument down to a non-sequitur attempt to move the goalposts.
What is your opinion of the miscarriage contentions raised in this debate? Also what is your opinion of the conflicting sourcing for the effectiveness of abortion bans on affecting the rate of abortions?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro gave good arguments against abortion based on the life of a child. Also pro forfeited twice.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments way to vague, wholly missing whatever that other side offered, and nothing touching on sources.
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro, 1 to con.
>Reason for Decision: Con uses unreliable sources like Wikipedia to defend his case. Also Pro had good arguments based on the life of the child. Although Pro forfeited once.
>Reason for Mod Action:
No argument analysis, and highly questionable source analysis (I don't see where pro used the reliability to challenge any of cons sources).
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zing_book // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Con uses unreliable sources like Wikipedia. This platform can be easily hacked and people can change information presented.
>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
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Insufficient weighting.
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
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
Best.Korea
Added: 15 days ago
I was asked to give the vote. So here it is.
Since there is a chance sources are false, there is really no way to know which sources to trust. Media being free doesnt mean media wont lie.
So if it was up to these sources alone, we wouldnt be able to tell who is correct or more likely to be correct.
But the arguments seem to be in favor of Pro. His probability argument, Chinas great history of violation of human rights, and Chinas censorship label China as suspect in the least case. So while there is no full proof that favors Pro, there is probability argument mentioned by the Pro which makes him more likely to be right than wrong in this debate. Sources, while they may be equal when considering this isolated case, when used with the argument of probability and the history of China including its modern history they add to the pattern. So the odds are in favor of Pro especially considering that topic doesnt say millions of muslims. The odds that there is no, for example, 8 or more of innocent Uyghur muslims being detained in any way seem unlikely, especially when we are talking about the country famous for doing much worse things on much larger scale just as Pro noticed and Con never refuted. Con even confirmed Chinas mass censorship, which is another thing turning the scales in Pros favor.
So while there is no full proof, the proof of probability of being right is greatly on Pros side. Now, if the conditions of winning an argument require full proof, then let my vote be removed. I just voted because I was asked to vote.
Vote removed from Barney.
Reason for removal: user request.
Points: 3 to con.
RFD:
Pro attempts a semantic kritik that right can have multiple meanings, and con disagrees citing language structure making the commonly understand meaning to be more applicable. That's the entire debate.
Got through R1. I'll probably come back at some point.
Initial thoughts:
Kudos points for fun topic selection!
R1:
Pro does a really good job here using analogies to show other items (cars, food) that are comparable. I really liked his source at the end which showed how a government sponsored one would save the government money (as much as I would have liked it if pro expanded that a bit, rather than relying on voters reading up on it themselves).
Con counters that informed consent already fails, and follows trough with economic pressures targeting the poor (as pro predicted).
As a former medical professional, I can say with certainty that not snapping the neck or otherwise leaving obvious direct signs of trauma to it, doesn’t mean the airway was not impeded.
Granted, someone more healthy likely would have survived. There’s an eggshell principle which applies to crimes.
Do you dress like a pirate with a colander on your head every Friday? No?! You just disrespected the pastafarians!
While that is a joke, religious offense can be crazy. Within your own religion, how many of the faithful insulted Allah by rioting over some cartoons of him?
To some conservatives on the USA, it’s offensive to call Jesus the son of God when prophecy was obviously about Donald Trump (I seriously wish I was making this one up).
To some Odinists whom I have the misfortune to be related, it’s a crime against the Norse gods that black people are allowed to use the highways.
Religious offense tends to be pretty crazy, so it becomes a fools errand to try to regulate.
Going from calling you “stinky pigs offspring” and whatever else, that is indeed improvement.
And yes, while you are protected from stalking, this isn’t some safe space where people aren’t allowed to disagree with your belief system.
The FSM, God, and Allah are not protected members of this site. Therefore, endless insults may be leveled against them. Just as endless insults may be leveled against any of our nations.
First offense situation. Further, I resigned from full authority awhile back (not that I think we need to jump to banning everyone, but even if I wanted to, I would be overstepping). And speaking of which...
-> "Time is ticking mate, 40 years left, that is only if you die of natural causes :)"
Dude, seriously? Just imagine that in person for a moment; it's bordering close to 'what a lovely book shop you have, but books are so flammable, it'd be a shame if anything happened 😁.' What if someone used your exact words to your sister to try to convert them to whatever religion you dislike...
I've probably said this a dozen times or more to other religious people in a host of ways, but in short: don't in any way behave as a damned terrorist. Saying 'My religion is best due to X' is fine (often highly fallacious, but still fine). Making an issue that you've got a friend who is going to torture everyone you dislike for as long as they possibly can unless they do whatever you want, is crossing so many obvious lines.
Oh we're winning it... Nature has put up a good fight, but in short order we'll finish melting the ice caps, putting holes in the ozone layer, and more...
> Its the people not the religion
So the religion doesn't have a meaningful existence?
> Plus the US killed 3 million of my fellow Muslims for no reason.
Let's walk through your logic there...
Premise: US = Bad.
Conclusion: Therefore, Islam doesn't oppress women.
Prove the premise until the the heat death of the universe, and it still doesn't relate to the conclusion. This is why whataboutisms should not be used.
Whereas,
In Islam dominated countries, women are frequently mistreated.
Therefore, Islam oppresses women.
Do you see the difference? The second example connects the logic of the premise into the conclusion.
Granted, that premise alone would not be enough to prove the conclusion, it only implies it. Better evidence is seen in our previous conversation about how it commands men to act towards women (and your own agreement that striking them is /occasionally/ harmful), and how it sexually represses them (men are allowed 4 wives for sexual variety, but no matter how successful the woman she is allowed only 1... And the women are getting married off at 6! Which you say it's because they're so mature at that age, but I find that highly dubious).
Removed vote: Barney
Voter request (yes mine, I reconsidered).
Reason:
Utter BoP failure, which con rightly identifies and extends throughout the debate.
Pro on the other hand has a complaint, but he jumps to assuming everyone else would understand the implications and impacts, without bothering to share the actual evidence (a link to whatever debate is being complained about for example).
I watched as much of the pro-pedophilia video as I could stomach. The guy talking about how Islam says it's fine if the parents consent, does not change that it's pedophilia... In fact, it is sounding more like literal slavery.
You can argue Islam has much wisdom but should ultimately be rejected for being so outdated... But you seem to be arguing that it's flawless, to include its endorsement of pedophilia as not a sin.
...
As for the mandate to strike women, if it's not violent but a friendly little boop as you seem to claim, why does there need to be any rule against the face?
If he wanted something else from her too, does not change the fact that he was a pedophile. Him resisting his attraction to prepubescent girls until she was 9 does not change that he acted on it when she was only 9 years old. And is he either someone looked up to (perhaps even idolized?) in Islam or reviled for this unforgivable sin?
"Again, who are you to decide the age of marriage?"
Not a pedophile, nor an apologist for their ilk.
"How is this domestic abuse when men are not allowed to do these things?"
It instructs that they are to strike them (further, I would bet it doesn't likewise instruct the same of the wives, validating that treatment is unequal). If you're saying it is contradicted elsewhere, just means that it contradicts itself. As is, this sounds to me like advice for how to get away with domestic abuse /don't hit the face, people will see that/. Heck, if they're not allowed to leave any marks anyways, why is the face singled out as somewhere you're not allowed to strike? It's weird if there's a specific rule against a gentle silly playful tap on the nose /on no, you booped me, haha/, if that's all striking someone means in Islam.
"The Prophet married Aisha at 6 and consummated at 9."
Sexual intercourse with a 9 year old, that makes him a pedo.
"when a girl hits puberty, they are considered more mature and an adult."
Neat to know that about Islam. However, that doesn't make preying on children in any way okay (even if they did hit puberty extremely young).
"he committed no sin."
I dislike pedophiles, even if Islam endorses it.
That there are also rules for the marriage of women post menopause, does not change that there are rules for marrying underage girls (therefore okaying pedophilia).
As for men being required to not leave bruises when beating their wives, that is still violent domestic abuse intended to create an environment of fear.
A religion can only be judged by the followers of said religion.
To wholly separate a religion from what it inspires, would mean the religion itself is only a hypothetical (AKA fictional). About like when people defend communism by claiming every communist nation doesn't count because if anything went wrong then they weren't /really/ communist; which leaves actual communism a pipe dream, no more meaningful than the Invisible Pink Unicorns.
FYI, I've literally Muslims argue that Muhammad himself doesn't count for discussions of Islam, since he was only a Muslim, without any connection to Islam when he did those bad things.
I don't think it is going to be good evidence in this particular debate, as he is blaming terrorism on political repression, whereas the oppression of women is a very different matter. The oppression of women happens assholes are in control, not as the result of outside forces.
To wholly discount the actions of Muslims en mass as being connected to Islam, would lead to the conclusion that Islam doesn't actually exist.
My guess is pro will repeatedly argue No True Scotsman.
E.g.,
Pro: No Penn State Football Couch Raped Boys...
Con: What about Jerry Sandusky?
Pro: Well he wasn't being a true Penn State Football Couch when he did that, so it doesn't count.
Rm's habitual forfeitures do put him at a stark disadvantage.
A great example is the debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3464-the-user-who-votes-first-on-this-debate-will-most-likely-vote-con
If another voter favors him, he'll still only tie the debate, even with that being 2:1 people believing he won arguments.
That said, he still wins a good deal of debates via skill in the rounds for which he does show up.
Personally, I weight middle rounds the most strongly. I don't assign any precise formula to this, but the opening round isn't where the best conflict arises (the instigator hasn't even responded to attacks on their case); and the final round is more for summaries (as much as I do start reading some debates with this, to see which arguments the debaters themselves believe had the most impact), with last minute epiphanies rated fairly low as not an organic part of the debate.
I did read this debate, but due to the definitions in play I'm torn. Leaning toward con due to the cleverness of pulling the old static universe theory; but it's pretty close for me. I don't think I'll be voting.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>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
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
**************************************************
FLRW
Added: 2 days ago
Reason:
Instigator would have had a better chance if he titled the debate, Did God Exist. The Does God Exist requires irrefuteable proof that God currently exists. Pro makes a poor case with the cosmological argument and the fine-tuning argument, which many scientists have refuted. He no where provides an argument that God presently exits. Con says why would God would cause quantum fluctuations? This is a reason why Poor Design would exist. The debate does not provide any irreputable proof that God exists.
If trying to have a debate in defense of one of your votes, the debate should have a resolution scope of just that, instead of the outcome of the whole debate.
FYI, that would not be considered a concession. Concessions admit defeat and are actually good conduct, unlike the null they submitted.
Something useful for you:
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
If a resolution contains multiple clauses, pro has not met BoP until each is supported.
If the clauses would support each other, pick one for the resolution, and use the other(s) as supporting contentions.
I do really advise keeping resolutions to single clauses, or even "assuming x, then y" statements.
One of my first debates was on if prison is more voluntary than not, and some nihilists complained that free will doesn't exist (which would be a fun debate in itself, but was not what I cared to discuss); so I added the clause 'assuming free will exists...' which reduced my opponents main argument down to a non-sequitur attempt to move the goalposts.
What is your opinion of the miscarriage contentions raised in this debate? Also what is your opinion of the conflicting sourcing for the effectiveness of abortion bans on affecting the rate of abortions?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro gave good arguments against abortion based on the life of a child. Also pro forfeited twice.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Arguments way to vague, wholly missing whatever that other side offered, and nothing touching on sources.
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
**************************************************
Welcome to the site, and good luck on your future debates.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to pro, 1 to con.
>Reason for Decision: Con uses unreliable sources like Wikipedia to defend his case. Also Pro had good arguments based on the life of the child. Although Pro forfeited once.
>Reason for Mod Action:
No argument analysis, and highly questionable source analysis (I don't see where pro used the reliability to challenge any of cons sources).
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zing_book // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Con uses unreliable sources like Wikipedia. This platform can be easily hacked and people can change information presented.
>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
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
These things are not mutually exclusive...
Bump
I've got some paperwork to tackle tonight. But I might try to get a vote in tomorrow.
Friday I've got a Five Finger Death Punch concert, and Saturday is comic con.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Insufficient weighting.
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
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
Best.Korea
Added: 15 days ago
I was asked to give the vote. So here it is.
Since there is a chance sources are false, there is really no way to know which sources to trust. Media being free doesnt mean media wont lie.
So if it was up to these sources alone, we wouldnt be able to tell who is correct or more likely to be correct.
But the arguments seem to be in favor of Pro. His probability argument, Chinas great history of violation of human rights, and Chinas censorship label China as suspect in the least case. So while there is no full proof that favors Pro, there is probability argument mentioned by the Pro which makes him more likely to be right than wrong in this debate. Sources, while they may be equal when considering this isolated case, when used with the argument of probability and the history of China including its modern history they add to the pattern. So the odds are in favor of Pro especially considering that topic doesnt say millions of muslims. The odds that there is no, for example, 8 or more of innocent Uyghur muslims being detained in any way seem unlikely, especially when we are talking about the country famous for doing much worse things on much larger scale just as Pro noticed and Con never refuted. Con even confirmed Chinas mass censorship, which is another thing turning the scales in Pros favor.
So while there is no full proof, the proof of probability of being right is greatly on Pros side. Now, if the conditions of winning an argument require full proof, then let my vote be removed. I just voted because I was asked to vote.
Vote removed from Barney.
Reason for removal: user request.
Points: 3 to con.
RFD:
Pro attempts a semantic kritik that right can have multiple meanings, and con disagrees citing language structure making the commonly understand meaning to be more applicable. That's the entire debate.
Got through R1. I'll probably come back at some point.
Initial thoughts:
Kudos points for fun topic selection!
R1:
Pro does a really good job here using analogies to show other items (cars, food) that are comparable. I really liked his source at the end which showed how a government sponsored one would save the government money (as much as I would have liked it if pro expanded that a bit, rather than relying on voters reading up on it themselves).
Con counters that informed consent already fails, and follows trough with economic pressures targeting the poor (as pro predicted).
For such a controversial topic, I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention.
tl;dr: bump.
I might be able to vote on this. But first I need sleep
You’re engaging in confirmation bias.
As a former medical professional, I can say with certainty that not snapping the neck or otherwise leaving obvious direct signs of trauma to it, doesn’t mean the airway was not impeded.
Granted, someone more healthy likely would have survived. There’s an eggshell principle which applies to crimes.
Interesting kritik. I'll probably get around to voting on this.
Do you dress like a pirate with a colander on your head every Friday? No?! You just disrespected the pastafarians!
While that is a joke, religious offense can be crazy. Within your own religion, how many of the faithful insulted Allah by rioting over some cartoons of him?
To some conservatives on the USA, it’s offensive to call Jesus the son of God when prophecy was obviously about Donald Trump (I seriously wish I was making this one up).
To some Odinists whom I have the misfortune to be related, it’s a crime against the Norse gods that black people are allowed to use the highways.
Religious offense tends to be pretty crazy, so it becomes a fools errand to try to regulate.
Going from calling you “stinky pigs offspring” and whatever else, that is indeed improvement.
And yes, while you are protected from stalking, this isn’t some safe space where people aren’t allowed to disagree with your belief system.
The FSM, God, and Allah are not protected members of this site. Therefore, endless insults may be leveled against them. Just as endless insults may be leveled against any of our nations.
-> "Really? Is that all he gets?"
First offense situation. Further, I resigned from full authority awhile back (not that I think we need to jump to banning everyone, but even if I wanted to, I would be overstepping). And speaking of which...
-> "Time is ticking mate, 40 years left, that is only if you die of natural causes :)"
Dude, seriously? Just imagine that in person for a moment; it's bordering close to 'what a lovely book shop you have, but books are so flammable, it'd be a shame if anything happened 😁.' What if someone used your exact words to your sister to try to convert them to whatever religion you dislike...
I've probably said this a dozen times or more to other religious people in a host of ways, but in short: don't in any way behave as a damned terrorist. Saying 'My religion is best due to X' is fine (often highly fallacious, but still fine). Making an issue that you've got a friend who is going to torture everyone you dislike for as long as they possibly can unless they do whatever you want, is crossing so many obvious lines.
Thank you for the noteworthy improvement. As Allah is not a member of this site, he or she has no protection from insults or otherwise.
Confirmation bias.
Oh we're winning it... Nature has put up a good fight, but in short order we'll finish melting the ice caps, putting holes in the ozone layer, and more...
> Its the people not the religion
So the religion doesn't have a meaningful existence?
> Plus the US killed 3 million of my fellow Muslims for no reason.
Let's walk through your logic there...
Premise: US = Bad.
Conclusion: Therefore, Islam doesn't oppress women.
Prove the premise until the the heat death of the universe, and it still doesn't relate to the conclusion. This is why whataboutisms should not be used.
Whereas,
In Islam dominated countries, women are frequently mistreated.
Therefore, Islam oppresses women.
Do you see the difference? The second example connects the logic of the premise into the conclusion.
Granted, that premise alone would not be enough to prove the conclusion, it only implies it. Better evidence is seen in our previous conversation about how it commands men to act towards women (and your own agreement that striking them is /occasionally/ harmful), and how it sexually represses them (men are allowed 4 wives for sexual variety, but no matter how successful the woman she is allowed only 1... And the women are getting married off at 6! Which you say it's because they're so mature at that age, but I find that highly dubious).
Removed vote: Barney
Voter request (yes mine, I reconsidered).
Reason:
Utter BoP failure, which con rightly identifies and extends throughout the debate.
Pro on the other hand has a complaint, but he jumps to assuming everyone else would understand the implications and impacts, without bothering to share the actual evidence (a link to whatever debate is being complained about for example).
IMO it's fine.
I've debated this before... I do like to play devil's advocate.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/950-the-bible-teaches-that-jesus-christ-is-god
Are women in Islam each allowed to marry 4 husbands at the same time?
Further, how many women are prophets?
Are women in Islam allowed 13 husbands? If not, you’re admitting their treatment is anything but equal.
Please refrain from accusing fellow debaters of being suicide risks. Likewise please refrain from accusing fellow debaters of targeting children.
This is not to say you must get along, merely that there are some very minimal etiquette expectations.
The Code of Conduct may be found at: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules
-Barney, assistant moderator
I watched as much of the pro-pedophilia video as I could stomach. The guy talking about how Islam says it's fine if the parents consent, does not change that it's pedophilia... In fact, it is sounding more like literal slavery.
You can argue Islam has much wisdom but should ultimately be rejected for being so outdated... But you seem to be arguing that it's flawless, to include its endorsement of pedophilia as not a sin.
...
As for the mandate to strike women, if it's not violent but a friendly little boop as you seem to claim, why does there need to be any rule against the face?
"The Prophet did not just want sex from Aisha"
As you informed me: "consummated at 9."
If he wanted something else from her too, does not change the fact that he was a pedophile. Him resisting his attraction to prepubescent girls until she was 9 does not change that he acted on it when she was only 9 years old. And is he either someone looked up to (perhaps even idolized?) in Islam or reviled for this unforgivable sin?
"Again, who are you to decide the age of marriage?"
Not a pedophile, nor an apologist for their ilk.
"How is this domestic abuse when men are not allowed to do these things?"
It instructs that they are to strike them (further, I would bet it doesn't likewise instruct the same of the wives, validating that treatment is unequal). If you're saying it is contradicted elsewhere, just means that it contradicts itself. As is, this sounds to me like advice for how to get away with domestic abuse /don't hit the face, people will see that/. Heck, if they're not allowed to leave any marks anyways, why is the face singled out as somewhere you're not allowed to strike? It's weird if there's a specific rule against a gentle silly playful tap on the nose /on no, you booped me, haha/, if that's all striking someone means in Islam.
But what about Bill Clinton?
"The Prophet married Aisha at 6 and consummated at 9."
Sexual intercourse with a 9 year old, that makes him a pedo.
"when a girl hits puberty, they are considered more mature and an adult."
Neat to know that about Islam. However, that doesn't make preying on children in any way okay (even if they did hit puberty extremely young).
"he committed no sin."
I dislike pedophiles, even if Islam endorses it.
That there are also rules for the marriage of women post menopause, does not change that there are rules for marrying underage girls (therefore okaying pedophilia).
As for men being required to not leave bruises when beating their wives, that is still violent domestic abuse intended to create an environment of fear.
Most obviously: The whole pedophilia thing endorsed by the prophet.
Further, I did a quick Google search, and the Quran seems to have rules detailing marrying underage girls (https://legacy.quran.com/65/1-4).
Qur'an 4:34 seems to encourage beating of wives.
A religion can only be judged by the followers of said religion.
To wholly separate a religion from what it inspires, would mean the religion itself is only a hypothetical (AKA fictional). About like when people defend communism by claiming every communist nation doesn't count because if anything went wrong then they weren't /really/ communist; which leaves actual communism a pipe dream, no more meaningful than the Invisible Pink Unicorns.
FYI, I've literally Muslims argue that Muhammad himself doesn't count for discussions of Islam, since he was only a Muslim, without any connection to Islam when he did those bad things.
Thanks for sharing that.
I don't think it is going to be good evidence in this particular debate, as he is blaming terrorism on political repression, whereas the oppression of women is a very different matter. The oppression of women happens assholes are in control, not as the result of outside forces.
To wholly discount the actions of Muslims en mass as being connected to Islam, would lead to the conclusion that Islam doesn't actually exist.
How many suicide bombers from the UK do you think it would take to be worth investigating the UK as a source of blame?
My guess is pro will repeatedly argue No True Scotsman.
E.g.,
Pro: No Penn State Football Couch Raped Boys...
Con: What about Jerry Sandusky?
Pro: Well he wasn't being a true Penn State Football Couch when he did that, so it doesn't count.
Rm's habitual forfeitures do put him at a stark disadvantage.
A great example is the debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3464-the-user-who-votes-first-on-this-debate-will-most-likely-vote-con
If another voter favors him, he'll still only tie the debate, even with that being 2:1 people believing he won arguments.
That said, he still wins a good deal of debates via skill in the rounds for which he does show up.
Personally, I weight middle rounds the most strongly. I don't assign any precise formula to this, but the opening round isn't where the best conflict arises (the instigator hasn't even responded to attacks on their case); and the final round is more for summaries (as much as I do start reading some debates with this, to see which arguments the debaters themselves believe had the most impact), with last minute epiphanies rated fairly low as not an organic part of the debate.
Welcome to the site!
I likewise disagree with that static universe theory, but it is one route to denying the absolute requirement of God.
I'm really hoping that was a joke.
I did read this debate, but due to the definitions in play I'm torn. Leaning toward con due to the cleverness of pulling the old static universe theory; but it's pretty close for me. I don't think I'll be voting.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: FLRW // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>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
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
**************************************************
FLRW
Added: 2 days ago
Reason:
Instigator would have had a better chance if he titled the debate, Did God Exist. The Does God Exist requires irrefuteable proof that God currently exists. Pro makes a poor case with the cosmological argument and the fine-tuning argument, which many scientists have refuted. He no where provides an argument that God presently exits. Con says why would God would cause quantum fluctuations? This is a reason why Poor Design would exist. The debate does not provide any irreputable proof that God exists.
I'd rate the odds at about 2/3 in favor of Bones.
If trying to have a debate in defense of one of your votes, the debate should have a resolution scope of just that, instead of the outcome of the whole debate.
You may wish to study the following:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy