It's way more complex than that, which is why we're able to have so many debates on it.
Granted, some claimed pro-lifers consider a woman simply not being pregnant to be the same as her butchering someone in possession of a drivers licence, so to some it's rather simple...
You should probably pre-define your terms a little. A valid counter argument right now would be that Jesus was several people, thus not "a" single historical person.
When awarding conduct only on a debate like this (not an FF or a concession), your vote should also include a statement of why you feel arguments were within the tied range. You can think of it a little bit like your own BoP, right now your vote only suggested you read one sentence of the debate...
Speaking of BoP: On most debates the instigator is at a BoP disadvantage, wherein if the cases come out neutral the contender wins.
In short, you need to take part in a couple debates in order to vote (or post a lot on the forums to indicate investment in the greater community, which is fastest to achieve by playing Mafia).
Voting here isn't about agreement with one side, but about weighting the performances (it need to cover every nuance, but it should list at least a couple highlights). As an example, there's a few users whom I can't stand whom have nonetheless won votes from me.
>> "suggestive and leading in helping others to formulate a particular opinion."
Not how I vote. Further, if anyone casts a vote merely piggybacking on mine (or any other) rather than forming their own opinions, they'll be deleted (if reported).
>> "Am I right?"
You are wrong. You may want to read pro's case again, and next time not drop the points related to human diseases. That was a key failing, to which I gave an extra highlight as it stuck in my mind.
>> "Nazi analogy taken out of context by you"
When you choose to exemplify Godwin's Law by pulling a Reductio ad Hitlerum, no one in their right mind is going to take you seriously on that contention.
Select Winner might be better if you want to decrease the impact of sources.
As a voter, I doubt I will see any reason to disregard the two weighing values.
I suspect this will come down to the aggregate AKA "on balance." Some benefits would be insane to throw out (GI benefits as an example), others are insane to continue (milk subsidies as an example).
If they don't make sense, would not defeat that they still make greater sense than enslaving women. Plus it does makes sense if opposed to abortion. It's an afternoon (or morning) of time, you walk out from the procedure, the discomfort is comparable to going through a single period... Plus with the vasectomy switch pretty far in development, undoing it when someone is ready for kids is easy and painless.
As an additional up side: You know it's what Darth Vader would do had they not been melted off. I totally bet Kylo Ren had it done to be more cybernetic like his idol.
Why would God be so limited to depend on surgery and herbs? And why herbs plural? It's God, so shouldn't there be a simple flower you can chew to regrow whatever limb?
Here's a handy guide to help your future debates. With just a little formatting, people will be able to see at a glance if you addressed the opposing case.
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Reading this on my cellphone due to GF’s school not having open guest WiFi...
A clear statement of what messed up means in context of this debate, should have been in the description. I can assume it’s comparative, but by which metric? Freedoms might decrease order, in which speaking against freedom of speech makes sense. Generally better off to whatever standard the voter likes, in which freedom of speech is a good thing. Etc.
Sad to see Clawer has yet to overcome his or her overt racism. In light of that lack of personal growth, I will most likely be recycling some points from our previous debate on this subject: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1133/israel-is-an-illegal-state
I hate to say it... While this looks like an epic debate, with how close things appear to be, my pet peeve about sourcing could be a problem. I’ll refrain from voting.
I will not be voting after-all. I R1 ended up losing me... Here is the start of my review (I hope it gives insight to voter frames of mind for future debates), but it's not going to be finished:
---
1. Part 1
A main syllogism, designed to lead into a secondary analysis to conclude things about said cause.
2. Part 2
Grim Reapers: It’s as good an analogy as any for showing a finite amount of time.
Heat death: Again, a nice showing that infinite years do not exist (not sure the point of this, as the big bang model replaced the static universe model a long time ago).
expansion of the universe: This shows there was no need for the previous two premises. I am very unclear as to where the leap in logic to personal agent came from; and yes, I see that it was done with a couple false dichotomies, but not why it would be necessary.
3. Part 3
References should be referenced in the debate proper. I’m actually cool with a further reading section, but it contributes nothing to weighting arguments and sources, and when mixed with sources causes confusion which forces me to reject them from consideration.
4. KCA is contradictory
A good use of invalidity to reject soundness, via rewriting the KCA.
5. KCA commits Equivocation Fallacy
I don’t quite find this justified, but looking forward to pro’s response...
6. KCA commits Circular Reasoning
Confusing opening to this, as it shows a flaw but not one of circular reasoning. (it was in this section I stopped)
FYI, another moderator might rule differently, but to me this is in essence a FF. Pro waived R1, making his R2 effectively his R1, and forfeited thereafter.
At my discretion in light of the concession I chose to forgive the earlier conduct breach. So long as the majority of points weight in favor of the person to which the concession was issued, the vote is not moderated. It's of course not wrong to call conduct tied, merely different interpretations of the same data.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Patmos // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Points Awarded: 3:0; 3 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
Votes need not be their own debates. While brief and not touching on every contention, it indeed shows enough depth of understanding to the arguments presented.
**************************************************
With three only rounds, you should be careful in defining your terms to minimize ambiguity right away.
Two resources you may find useful:
tiny.cc/DebateArt
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_ambiguity
Orcs are a social construct!
That was an unfortunate outcome.
Given your dislike of sources, I highly suggest using the choose winner voting method in future.
I do look forward to reading future debates from you. You are very skilled at language.
This debate reminds me of arguments for if C or K is the most useless letter.
Forgot all about this one. Sorry it went unvoted.
It's way more complex than that, which is why we're able to have so many debates on it.
Granted, some claimed pro-lifers consider a woman simply not being pregnant to be the same as her butchering someone in possession of a drivers licence, so to some it's rather simple...
This is a fine example of a debate which needs more grading categories. Con deserves some points for the balls of accepting the challenge.
Congrats on the win.
You should probably pre-define your terms a little. A valid counter argument right now would be that Jesus was several people, thus not "a" single historical person.
Here's a handy guide: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Congrats... Very narrow margin!
When awarding conduct only on a debate like this (not an FF or a concession), your vote should also include a statement of why you feel arguments were within the tied range. You can think of it a little bit like your own BoP, right now your vote only suggested you read one sentence of the debate...
Speaking of BoP: On most debates the instigator is at a BoP disadvantage, wherein if the cases come out neutral the contender wins.
This debate exemplified organization headings pretty well.
>> "hey im new to this site and was just wondering how voting works?"
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
In short, you need to take part in a couple debates in order to vote (or post a lot on the forums to indicate investment in the greater community, which is fastest to achieve by playing Mafia).
Voting here isn't about agreement with one side, but about weighting the performances (it need to cover every nuance, but it should list at least a couple highlights). As an example, there's a few users whom I can't stand whom have nonetheless won votes from me.
You should probably just start a debate on if Reductio ad Hitlerum is still a fallacy or not when used in abortion debates.
>> "suggestive and leading in helping others to formulate a particular opinion."
Not how I vote. Further, if anyone casts a vote merely piggybacking on mine (or any other) rather than forming their own opinions, they'll be deleted (if reported).
>> "Am I right?"
You are wrong. You may want to read pro's case again, and next time not drop the points related to human diseases. That was a key failing, to which I gave an extra highlight as it stuck in my mind.
>> "Nazi analogy taken out of context by you"
When you choose to exemplify Godwin's Law by pulling a Reductio ad Hitlerum, no one in their right mind is going to take you seriously on that contention.
Select Winner might be better if you want to decrease the impact of sources.
As a voter, I doubt I will see any reason to disregard the two weighing values.
I suspect this will come down to the aggregate AKA "on balance." Some benefits would be insane to throw out (GI benefits as an example), others are insane to continue (milk subsidies as an example).
>> "mandatory vasectomies dont make sense"
If they don't make sense, would not defeat that they still make greater sense than enslaving women. Plus it does makes sense if opposed to abortion. It's an afternoon (or morning) of time, you walk out from the procedure, the discomfort is comparable to going through a single period... Plus with the vasectomy switch pretty far in development, undoing it when someone is ready for kids is easy and painless.
As an additional up side: You know it's what Darth Vader would do had they not been melted off. I totally bet Kylo Ren had it done to be more cybernetic like his idol.
[Bump to encourage voting.]
>> "mandatory vasectomies seem better than mandatory childbirth in an effort to eliminate abortions."
Wholly agree.
Very nice vote!
Oddly, I find con's R1 argument very convincing. "Due to outside circumstances" implies something was not made to be perfect.
That's literally the first thing con does.
Looks like a really good debate. I have sadly been too burnt out lately to put time into voting.
>> "con ignored my arguments"
Ignored by leveraging your own premise that life in a simulation would be meaningless?
>> "I dhould have been able to forfeit the last 2 rounds and still won"
That would be a full forfeit. Good luck with that.
You two have already gone more in depth on this than the debate. You should probably have a formal debate on it.
Why would God be so limited to depend on surgery and herbs? And why herbs plural? It's God, so shouldn't there be a simple flower you can chew to regrow whatever limb?
Note:
This debate was clearly not that the minimum wage should be raised to $15. Rather, it was that it should be lowered to $0.
But why should they not be able to? They were created by God to cure things, and God is all powerful and all knowing.
Follow your own logic: Why not a plant which cures the arm being cut off?
Here's a handy guide to help your future debates. With just a little formatting, people will be able to see at a glance if you addressed the opposing case.
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
I'm not sure the basics of this could be fit into the 1K limit...
Reading this on my cellphone due to GF’s school not having open guest WiFi...
A clear statement of what messed up means in context of this debate, should have been in the description. I can assume it’s comparative, but by which metric? Freedoms might decrease order, in which speaking against freedom of speech makes sense. Generally better off to whatever standard the voter likes, in which freedom of speech is a good thing. Etc.
I'll try to go over this in the morning.
Thanks for voting. And got to say it, I missed you saying that's poor conduct.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting, and doubly so for actually analyzing arguments even when it was destined to end in such a manner.
For the love of both Baby Jesus and Baby Yoda, please learn how to make testable hypotheses!
Here's a primer for you:
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=scientific_method
You’re running very low on time to publish an argument.
Sad to see Clawer has yet to overcome his or her overt racism. In light of that lack of personal growth, I will most likely be recycling some points from our previous debate on this subject: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1133/israel-is-an-illegal-state
I hate to say it... While this looks like an epic debate, with how close things appear to be, my pet peeve about sourcing could be a problem. I’ll refrain from voting.
Such numbers are an ideal reference point. You can even embed the links into them without it costing characters.
Generally in online debating there isn't a benefit to using MLA or any other academic standard.
I will not be voting after-all. I R1 ended up losing me... Here is the start of my review (I hope it gives insight to voter frames of mind for future debates), but it's not going to be finished:
---
1. Part 1
A main syllogism, designed to lead into a secondary analysis to conclude things about said cause.
2. Part 2
Grim Reapers: It’s as good an analogy as any for showing a finite amount of time.
Heat death: Again, a nice showing that infinite years do not exist (not sure the point of this, as the big bang model replaced the static universe model a long time ago).
expansion of the universe: This shows there was no need for the previous two premises. I am very unclear as to where the leap in logic to personal agent came from; and yes, I see that it was done with a couple false dichotomies, but not why it would be necessary.
3. Part 3
References should be referenced in the debate proper. I’m actually cool with a further reading section, but it contributes nothing to weighting arguments and sources, and when mixed with sources causes confusion which forces me to reject them from consideration.
4. KCA is contradictory
A good use of invalidity to reject soundness, via rewriting the KCA.
5. KCA commits Equivocation Fallacy
I don’t quite find this justified, but looking forward to pro’s response...
6. KCA commits Circular Reasoning
Confusing opening to this, as it shows a flaw but not one of circular reasoning. (it was in this section I stopped)
---
I'll try to vote on this. I just read another on the same topic as a warm up; but am now a bit sleepy.
I am having a hard time imagining any reason why someone would report your vote.
FYI, another moderator might rule differently, but to me this is in essence a FF. Pro waived R1, making his R2 effectively his R1, and forfeited thereafter.
https://info.debateart.com/statements/code-of-conduct#special-circumstances
At my discretion in light of the concession I chose to forgive the earlier conduct breach. So long as the majority of points weight in favor of the person to which the concession was issued, the vote is not moderated. It's of course not wrong to call conduct tied, merely different interpretations of the same data.
If you haven't already, I suggest watching the TV show Person of Interest.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Patmos // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Points Awarded: 3:0; 3 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
Votes need not be their own debates. While brief and not touching on every contention, it indeed shows enough depth of understanding to the arguments presented.
**************************************************