SupaDudz
2 days ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
I hate K's and the case was pretty much not great and FF is bad conduct
If this was not a troll debate, please provide a link to any respectable news site verifying the "fornication with goats" mentioned in the description.
...
Admittedly, I am still new to the whole modding thing here. I meant to call this a troll debate in my vote as a matter of my opinion as a voter; not make any official proclamation.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague. This can be avoided in future by just naming 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 award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
DynamicSquid
4 days ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Hmm... it pains to see the contrast between a lenghy text and a short text. I feel like this is time wasted.
Therefor, I shall judge this debate based on quantity.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague. This can be avoided in future by just naming 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 award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
PressF4Respect
2 days ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Con provided ample evidence for his arguments, and soundly rebutted the only claim that Pro presented.
Many sources vs one source, it’s self-evident who wins here.
Your votes are not under review at this time. Pro offered no contest, so unless someone nitpicks, I don't generally care. That said, on any debate where there is a contest between them, please vote better (at least not adding excess categories to the vote without explanation).
BTW, I am trying to get a No Contest special case added to the COC, largely for debates like this, where you each already put in greater effective effort than one of the debaters.
If you have a problem with any vote, report it. As for Ram and myself having voted before them thus not seen them, that should be self explanatory...
I do see what you mean looking now. I'm not going to report them because I don't think their votes are likely to have any impact in the outcome, so it would be a waste of everyone's effort; doubly so with pro having made a case that people should just ignore the rules and vote however they want.
@Voters,
Something to note is that pro did make an argument in R2. That the rules specified he waive R1, transposed this to the first round for him, thus effectively (even if not technically) under the umbrella of full forfeit. On such a case points don't need to be justified, but there's no reason to imply his S&G were atrocious.
This debate has more than six weeks to attract more votes.
I won't lie, drama in comment sections has always decreased my propensity to vote, and I suspect it is likewise for many others... One advertising technique I would suggest (which would bury the current comments), would be maybe post an ethics meme (not for either of the two systems endorsed in this debate) in the comments every day or two?
I'm of course happy to clarify any part of my vote. I am very tired right now, and it's wholly possible I overlooked some important detail. (with just under two days left to vote, getting it submitted fast enough to be responded to was important)
There's no contest here, so I'm leaving your debate alone unless someone specifically files a report... But the content in it would generally only be applicable to the argument point (I'll call that area borderline, but each other area would be cause for the vote being removed).
Deleted the following vote, as users are not allowed to vote for themselves...
wildbill
21 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
This guy is an unappreciated genius this guy
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AntonZenz123 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Better arguments to Pro; Better sources to Pro; Better spelling and grammar to Pro; Better conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
">Reason for Mod Action: The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Voting from slave accounts is prohibited (be it the same user, or any other which cannot be readily told apart).
"
**************************************************
AntonZenz123
51 minutes ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
it is the height of hypocrisy to say a whole race is racist, thats racist isnt it? so you lose
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AntonZenz123 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Better arguments to Con; Better sources to Pro; Better spelling and grammar to Pro; Better conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: just garbage...
">Reason for Mod Action: The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Voting from slave accounts is prohibited (be it the same user, or any other which cannot be readily told apart).
"
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: JacquesBonhomme // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Better arguments to Con; Better sources to Pro; Better spelling and grammar to Pro; Better conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Voting from slave accounts is prohibited (be it the same user, or any other which cannot be readily told apart).
**************************************************
JacquesBonhomme
1 day ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Let me just say this the pr hedonism guy seemed to be more assertive in his points, but i'm old dying basically after 6 decades of"hedonism" did hedonism make me happy? no it made me miserable and ruined my health.. i wish i had devoted all the time and money i spent on a good time for myself on others, i do as i come closer to the day i face my maker irealize what a fool i wias what a fool everyone chasing a good time is , hedonism is an easy way to live it requires little effort, you feel good for a while then the hangover the herpes, the brain damaged from 20 years of cocaine abuse.. yu health in ruin you go cap in hand to your insurance company sure its your money but its still defeat.. so you yong people out for a good time i get it, and enjoy yourself just ry to remember how you end up old and sick and alone better to invest your time in your family your kids your wife and your community.. your life will mean more and youll probably die happier than some old sick man with lier cancer emphasema and the gift that keeps on giving hep c
>"Then JacquesBonhomme, an alt of banned user PaulVerliane votes for Pro, though his argument is FOR con. And though he has been proven an alt account and banned, his vote stands. How?"
Largely because no one (not even you) clicked the report button on it.
I'm correcting this now... we moderators are not divine beings, please click report to bring things to our attention.
Your opponent has been banned. So long as you post something (anything really) voters will favor you. So don't put too much work in, but please still show up.
Purely out of curiosity, why do you consider conduct to be within the tied range when one side forfeited a round? Also, what annoyed you about the S&G before? ... Not asking you to change your vote or give a thesis.
You're doing well so far. And FYI...
Excerpts from https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
---Burden of Proof---
In each debate there are three sides, each with their own Burden of Proof (BoP).
>Pro has a duty to provide adequate evidence prove (or strongly imply) the resolution.
>Con has a duty to attempt to disprove (or cast strong doubt upon) the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or refuting all the evidence provided by pro.
>Voters have duties both to show they read the debate, and they are not merely voting in favor of pre-existing bias.
---Writing A Strong Resolution---
The topic is usually synonymous with resolution (if not, clarify in the detailed description).
Be precise to the debate you wish to have, and ideally make it a single clause statement.
If a resolution contains multiple clauses, pro has not met BoP until each are supported.
If the clauses would support each other, pick one for the resolution, and use the other(s) as supporting contentions.
The difficulty in proving the resolution ties both to the topic, and any qualifier statements included within the resolution. Absolutes (words like "always" and "never") are most hard to prove, complete uncertainties (words like "maybe" and "possible") are least hard to prove.
First, if using more than a couple lines from anyone else, put it into block quotation so the division is clear.
Second, as explained in the style guide (tiny.cc/DebateArt):
Plagiarism
Unless clearly indicated otherwise, you are taking credit for writing anything you post.
There are only three strict rules on avoiding accidental plagiarism:
If you copy/paste anything, put “quotation marks” around it, and provide a link.
If paraphrasing (putting what they said into your own words), still provide a link.
If no link is available, still give credit. Example: “Descartes put it best with his we think therefore we are.”
Author consent, does not dismiss plagiarism. Accidentally plagiarizing does not dismiss plagiarism. It not being many words copied does not dismiss plagiarism. Even common knowledge, does not dismiss plagiarism. Just follow the above rules.
As a debater, if you spot it, give the audience proof of the crime; then continue your case.
As a voter, automatically give conduct to the side which did not commit plagiarism (and state “plagiarism” in your RFD), then assign a penalty to arguments based on the degree of cheating. A minor slip up (like borrowing a line of rhetoric to emphasize a point) is wholly forgivable, building a case reliant upon plagiarized material (such as instead of making your own argument, merely copy/pasting one from Stephen Hawking) is not.
Either of you interested in movie comics outside of Iron Man? I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we get an Inhumans fan, as I've been trying to have an X-Men vs. Inhumans related debate.
I have not finished reading this, but I liked both sides of what I saw. My guess as to how I would grade the outcome, would be against Christianity unless con took a little time to show the alternative (null?) as worse, in which case Christianity (while flawed) would be a marked improvement to the lives and greater community of those who follow (or attempt to follow) it. However this may have happened, and responses I have not predicted could have refuted it.
Glad to hear you're not trying to fill that character limit (and yeah, I've debated people who have).
I apologize for lumping you in with the anti-choice advocates I have previously debated. They lowered my faith on the viewpoint, but you did not; you likely have a wholly fresh take on the issue. So I wish you the best on this debate. I'll be sure to at least skim your unique viewpoints when the debate finishes.
(obviously if I vote I'll read the whole case)
Dynasty, your vote contradicts the objective content of the debate to the point that even the person you're voting in favor of wholly disagrees with your RFD. Plus you have not yet read the site's rules and code of conduct, which is required before beginning to cast votes. As such, your vote will soon be removed by the admin team.
I've debated many anti-choice advocates. Even the very best of them (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024/should-abortion-be-made-illegal) had to call women real estate (as opposed to people) to support his opinions against them.
"What's wrong with a high character limit?"
1. Decreased voters
2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#Argumentum_ad_tl.3Bdr
3. I don't want to read a potential 150,000 characters of misogyny, and pick which bits I reply to (no matter how concise my replies).
"one would still have more than three full days."
It's a nice calculation, but it misses the reality of peoples lives and priorities. Technically every single member of this site has enough time to vote on every debate, but they do not.
Anyway, I wish you the best. I might get around to voting on this, but I do have other things going on (Halloween week is always very busy for me).
You asked for a week period due to your schedule, I tried to respect that by withholding my opening case until you were a little less swamped (you just finished another debate yesterday for example). Posting now (9 hours after your last comment).
As the second biggest voter on the site, I will say that I rarely read any debates before they're finished. I hate excessively long voting periods, but a week is very short...
Due to the shared BoP (one must prove good, the other bad), a tie is possible.
I am keeping my fingers crossed for other voters, as I am working every day for then next week, and recently bumped into an awful Christian I used to know (on detailed debates like this, I prefer voting from a wholly neutral stance, rather than having to consider if my bias is affecting anything).
SupaDudz
2 days ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
I hate K's and the case was pretty much not great and FF is bad conduct
He seems like one of the better ones.
If this was not a troll debate, please provide a link to any respectable news site verifying the "fornication with goats" mentioned in the description.
...
Admittedly, I am still new to the whole modding thing here. I meant to call this a troll debate in my vote as a matter of my opinion as a voter; not make any official proclamation.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague. This can be avoided in future by just naming 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 award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
**************************************************
DynamicSquid
4 days ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Hmm... it pains to see the contrast between a lenghy text and a short text. I feel like this is time wasted.
Therefor, I shall judge this debate based on quantity.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague. This can be avoided in future by just naming 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 award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
**************************************************
PressF4Respect
2 days ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Con provided ample evidence for his arguments, and soundly rebutted the only claim that Pro presented.
Many sources vs one source, it’s self-evident who wins here.
Your vote has been deleted as per your request. The previous RFD was in Morse Code (I think)...
"..-. --- .-. . ..-. .. -"
Your votes are not under review at this time. Pro offered no contest, so unless someone nitpicks, I don't generally care. That said, on any debate where there is a contest between them, please vote better (at least not adding excess categories to the vote without explanation).
BTW, I am trying to get a No Contest special case added to the COC, largely for debates like this, where you each already put in greater effective effort than one of the debaters.
If you have a problem with any vote, report it. As for Ram and myself having voted before them thus not seen them, that should be self explanatory...
I do see what you mean looking now. I'm not going to report them because I don't think their votes are likely to have any impact in the outcome, so it would be a waste of everyone's effort; doubly so with pro having made a case that people should just ignore the rules and vote however they want.
@Voters,
Something to note is that pro did make an argument in R2. That the rules specified he waive R1, transposed this to the first round for him, thus effectively (even if not technically) under the umbrella of full forfeit. On such a case points don't need to be justified, but there's no reason to imply his S&G were atrocious.
This debate has more than six weeks to attract more votes.
I won't lie, drama in comment sections has always decreased my propensity to vote, and I suspect it is likewise for many others... One advertising technique I would suggest (which would bury the current comments), would be maybe post an ethics meme (not for either of the two systems endorsed in this debate) in the comments every day or two?
I'm of course happy to clarify any part of my vote. I am very tired right now, and it's wholly possible I overlooked some important detail. (with just under two days left to vote, getting it submitted fast enough to be responded to was important)
Your opponent has been banned. If you just show up and challenge his R1, you win.
This debate is looking splendid!
Always good to see when someone can argue both sides to a topic, as seen previously: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1392/0-999-1
Please remind me to vote (like a day or two out, not right now).
And I got to say it, but the things are not mutually exclusive.
Oh and for formatting, this should be helpful: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
There's no contest here, so I'm leaving your debate alone unless someone specifically files a report... But the content in it would generally only be applicable to the argument point (I'll call that area borderline, but each other area would be cause for the vote being removed).
Deleted the following vote, as users are not allowed to vote for themselves...
wildbill
21 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
This guy is an unappreciated genius this guy
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AntonZenz123 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Better arguments to Pro; Better sources to Pro; Better spelling and grammar to Pro; Better conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
">Reason for Mod Action: The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Voting from slave accounts is prohibited (be it the same user, or any other which cannot be readily told apart).
"
**************************************************
AntonZenz123
51 minutes ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
it is the height of hypocrisy to say a whole race is racist, thats racist isnt it? so you lose
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AntonZenz123 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Better arguments to Con; Better sources to Pro; Better spelling and grammar to Pro; Better conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: just garbage...
">Reason for Mod Action: The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Voting from slave accounts is prohibited (be it the same user, or any other which cannot be readily told apart).
"
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: JacquesBonhomme // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Better arguments to Con; Better sources to Pro; Better spelling and grammar to Pro; Better conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Voting from slave accounts is prohibited (be it the same user, or any other which cannot be readily told apart).
**************************************************
JacquesBonhomme
1 day ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Let me just say this the pr hedonism guy seemed to be more assertive in his points, but i'm old dying basically after 6 decades of"hedonism" did hedonism make me happy? no it made me miserable and ruined my health.. i wish i had devoted all the time and money i spent on a good time for myself on others, i do as i come closer to the day i face my maker irealize what a fool i wias what a fool everyone chasing a good time is , hedonism is an easy way to live it requires little effort, you feel good for a while then the hangover the herpes, the brain damaged from 20 years of cocaine abuse.. yu health in ruin you go cap in hand to your insurance company sure its your money but its still defeat.. so you yong people out for a good time i get it, and enjoy yourself just ry to remember how you end up old and sick and alone better to invest your time in your family your kids your wife and your community.. your life will mean more and youll probably die happier than some old sick man with lier cancer emphasema and the gift that keeps on giving hep c
>"Then JacquesBonhomme, an alt of banned user PaulVerliane votes for Pro, though his argument is FOR con. And though he has been proven an alt account and banned, his vote stands. How?"
Largely because no one (not even you) clicked the report button on it.
I'm correcting this now... we moderators are not divine beings, please click report to bring things to our attention.
Your opponent has been banned. So long as you post something (anything really) voters will favor you. So don't put too much work in, but please still show up.
Easy argument for you to win this...
R2: "Children should be preventing from competing in combat sports, because they're fragile."
R3: "Extend."
And again, nothing prevents you from opening a new debate on this topic to seek a real opponent.
Purely out of curiosity, why do you consider conduct to be within the tied range when one side forfeited a round? Also, what annoyed you about the S&G before? ... Not asking you to change your vote or give a thesis.
Zombie by The Cranberries is more hard core, as is Sunday Blood Sunday by U2.
You're doing well so far. And FYI...
Excerpts from https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
---Burden of Proof---
In each debate there are three sides, each with their own Burden of Proof (BoP).
>Pro has a duty to provide adequate evidence prove (or strongly imply) the resolution.
>Con has a duty to attempt to disprove (or cast strong doubt upon) the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or refuting all the evidence provided by pro.
>Voters have duties both to show they read the debate, and they are not merely voting in favor of pre-existing bias.
---Writing A Strong Resolution---
The topic is usually synonymous with resolution (if not, clarify in the detailed description).
Be precise to the debate you wish to have, and ideally make it a single clause statement.
If a resolution contains multiple clauses, pro has not met BoP until each are supported.
If the clauses would support each other, pick one for the resolution, and use the other(s) as supporting contentions.
The difficulty in proving the resolution ties both to the topic, and any qualifier statements included within the resolution. Absolutes (words like "always" and "never") are most hard to prove, complete uncertainties (words like "maybe" and "possible") are least hard to prove.
You have a pretty low BoP with how the resolution is worded, so just make a meaningful case and you stand a fair chance.
Just a friendly reminder that there is now only one day remaining to post arguments.
Two immediate things...
First, if using more than a couple lines from anyone else, put it into block quotation so the division is clear.
Second, as explained in the style guide (tiny.cc/DebateArt):
Plagiarism
Unless clearly indicated otherwise, you are taking credit for writing anything you post.
There are only three strict rules on avoiding accidental plagiarism:
If you copy/paste anything, put “quotation marks” around it, and provide a link.
If paraphrasing (putting what they said into your own words), still provide a link.
If no link is available, still give credit. Example: “Descartes put it best with his we think therefore we are.”
Author consent, does not dismiss plagiarism. Accidentally plagiarizing does not dismiss plagiarism. It not being many words copied does not dismiss plagiarism. Even common knowledge, does not dismiss plagiarism. Just follow the above rules.
As a debater, if you spot it, give the audience proof of the crime; then continue your case.
As a voter, automatically give conduct to the side which did not commit plagiarism (and state “plagiarism” in your RFD), then assign a penalty to arguments based on the degree of cheating. A minor slip up (like borrowing a line of rhetoric to emphasize a point) is wholly forgivable, building a case reliant upon plagiarized material (such as instead of making your own argument, merely copy/pasting one from Stephen Hawking) is not.
A debate like this basically demands a Kritik.
I'm looking forward to reading this one.
I have not forgotten this debate, I just got unexpectedly very busy. I’ll post my argument this Friday or at the latest Saturday.
Either of you interested in movie comics outside of Iron Man? I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we get an Inhumans fan, as I've been trying to have an X-Men vs. Inhumans related debate.
It is very nice!
Sorry I will not be able to vote on this in time.
I have not finished reading this, but I liked both sides of what I saw. My guess as to how I would grade the outcome, would be against Christianity unless con took a little time to show the alternative (null?) as worse, in which case Christianity (while flawed) would be a marked improvement to the lives and greater community of those who follow (or attempt to follow) it. However this may have happened, and responses I have not predicted could have refuted it.
Glad to hear you're not trying to fill that character limit (and yeah, I've debated people who have).
I apologize for lumping you in with the anti-choice advocates I have previously debated. They lowered my faith on the viewpoint, but you did not; you likely have a wholly fresh take on the issue. So I wish you the best on this debate. I'll be sure to at least skim your unique viewpoints when the debate finishes.
(obviously if I vote I'll read the whole case)
Dynasty, your vote contradicts the objective content of the debate to the point that even the person you're voting in favor of wholly disagrees with your RFD. Plus you have not yet read the site's rules and code of conduct, which is required before beginning to cast votes. As such, your vote will soon be removed by the admin team.
I've debated many anti-choice advocates. Even the very best of them (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024/should-abortion-be-made-illegal) had to call women real estate (as opposed to people) to support his opinions against them.
"What's wrong with a high character limit?"
1. Decreased voters
2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#Argumentum_ad_tl.3Bdr
3. I don't want to read a potential 150,000 characters of misogyny, and pick which bits I reply to (no matter how concise my replies).
"one would still have more than three full days."
It's a nice calculation, but it misses the reality of peoples lives and priorities. Technically every single member of this site has enough time to vote on every debate, but they do not.
Anyway, I wish you the best. I might get around to voting on this, but I do have other things going on (Halloween week is always very busy for me).
You asked for a week period due to your schedule, I tried to respect that by withholding my opening case until you were a little less swamped (you just finished another debate yesterday for example). Posting now (9 hours after your last comment).
As the second biggest voter on the site, I will say that I rarely read any debates before they're finished. I hate excessively long voting periods, but a week is very short...
Good luck. If not for the massive character limit for something which often boils down to misogyny, I would have accepted the challenge.
Why such a high character limit?
When and where did the concession happen?
Due to the shared BoP (one must prove good, the other bad), a tie is possible.
I am keeping my fingers crossed for other voters, as I am working every day for then next week, and recently bumped into an awful Christian I used to know (on detailed debates like this, I prefer voting from a wholly neutral stance, rather than having to consider if my bias is affecting anything).