To avoid a trap such as saying people enjoy taking part in other ethical systems is technically low level hedonism, would you please refine the resolution into a meaningful statement?
Consistent headings would have been very useful in following each major point. Generally I advice major headings bolded and underlined, and subheadings just underlined (that way when someone is reading the debate, they know when say the Perjury section begins and ends, so they can follow it between rounds to see how it begins and ends):
tiny.cc/DebateArt
If you believe only research scientists are scientists; based on the need to add descriptive a word before scientist, should be your hint as to a problem with your understanding as to the scope of the word (as you already self-countered with Einstein). I won't spam links at you, but if you doubt me you can check any dictionary. If you insist, then we can have a debate on definitions within English.
I am sorry for the mocking slow clap. As a combat former medic, your negative words towards the medical field touched a nerve.
I think Turmeric was put there by Jesus to kill us. Jesus who has the same number of letters as Satan. And look, two S's transposed (and moved) for the place of two A's, obviously they're the same! Christ also has the same first letter as Claws, and another S at (or near) the end. The bible even warned us against listening to the bible, as Satan would try to trick us into believing in false ideologies! 😉
"An MD is not a scientist"
While I find that opinion laughable, I'll indulge by asking just what you imagine a scientist to be and why it excludes experts of the natural sciences?
"and most of those studies involve medicine, not evolution."
Thank you for echoing Dr. Wassyner's explanation for why evolution doesn't rise to the level of fact (as seen in the first paragraph: "Scientifically speaking, this theory does not qualify for classification as fact. It deals with history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation.").
"This is like citing a psychologist for a climate question"
An M.D. is an expert on on the physical form of one type of animal, an animal which shares homologous structures (same bones and such) with every species of mammal (perhaps save for the platypus), to include dolphins and whales. But you think the form of an animals is no more related to evolution than the mind is to the climate... *slow clap*
I don’t see most paywalls due to ad-blockers. The opinion piece in question was written by an M.D., so a valid appeal to authority on this topic; far better than any written by a journalist lacking such a background. As for the age, something being recent isn’t everything; if it were we would reject the theory of evolution for being so old.
It's a great theory, but depending on how you're defining fact, it falls short.
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/opinion/l-theory-of-evolution-has-never-been-proved-151289.html
Congratulations, our debate is officially part of the first annual Hall of Fame.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2908/congratulations-to-the-hof-inductees
Congratulations, your debate is officially part of the first annual Hall of Fame.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2908/congratulations-to-the-hof-inductees
Congratulations, your debate is officially part of the first annual Hall of Fame.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2908/congratulations-to-the-hof-inductees
The biggest thing I will say about your vote, is that it showcases the type of work you should be putting into your own debates... Which is the problem with it as a vote, as it was your fresh arguments more so than finding the strengths within cons.
Voting in favor of your own sources which neither debater provided, is never acceptable. Plus you're supposed to list at least one source that was used in the debate and explain how it affected things.
On conduct, our awards were very simpler but they differ in the presence of analysis. Yours excluded any consideration from con's own argument on the subject... Me I acknowledged it, but dismissed it (I could write a paragraph about how he turned down a free S&G award and in general improved the debate; but touching on both sides of their gentleman agreement implies I've read both sides).
Crossed,
When the Code of Conduct says "Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support" it does not mean go out and find your own source outside the debate. You could love Trump, but that would not charge that your vote is supposed to be for this debate's content, rather than your political bias.
The video link you gave has the targeted timestamp of nine-minutes six-seconds (probably when you stopped watching it), which is after all the relevant content. It's just something to be careful of in future.
The video has a targeted timestamp for an advertisement for algebra courses at the end. In case you're on right now, you've still got a few minutes to edit the post.
---RFD (1 of 3)---
Interpreting the resolution:
Pretty straight forward, with definitions open to argumentation.
1. Biblical Defects
I will say right off the bat that I do not buy the conclusion to pro’s five-part logical form (unless I’m mistaken it’s also not a syllogism, as that implies just two premises and a conclusion). It follows that the bible is not evidence for God (a step or two more could connect that to the probability ... don’t get me wrong, this is well executed, it’s just not an instant victory).
Con does an ok job defending the time discrepancy, even if it feels like it’s missing a couple key details. Pro points out that the time ends up in reverse of what it would be by cons defense.
Con’s defense of the prophecies got bad, as he dropped the bible being true to use a defense that it did not mean what is written in it (a really bad example of special pleading).
2. God is Incoherent
A genuinely nice syllogism introduction followed by some detailed discussion of attributes. A highlight being the comedy of monotheism on three distinct gods. Con much later defends t his that because they are all gods, they are all God (I don’t follow this logic at all, other than to understand that he believes it strongly).
These are basically dropped by con. Denial by assertion, and throwing a link out without saying any reason something is wrong just that someone else could make a convincing argument against it, just doesn’t cut it... This isn’t to be mean, but 10,000 is a lot of space, and how you budget it is part of debating.
3. The Bible is Unique
It’s an old book with lots of authors, and there are no disharmonious pieces of the bible (unless it’s countered I’ll treat that as true, but the different books included in different bibles wholly refutes this claim). It contains prophecies... “While these characteristics do not prove the claims of the Bible, it shows the prominence of it over any other book.”
Small thing I feel the need to clarify, “...rather than dismissing it as mythology.” As a couple nuns I know would say: Of course it’s mythology, which is not in any way a dismissal of it, merely an acknowledgement of our language.
Anyway, pro swiftly lists the fallacies to refute this contention. He then showed the existence of older religious texts, which by con’s argument would mean they’re better. And of course pointing out the failed prophecies he listed pre-refuted the prophecy talk offered by con.
4. The Bible is Trustworthy
It’s a very reliable collection of documents...
Pro casts doubt on the witnesses, for not being eyewitnesses, and then one who claimed to be an eyewitness but plagiarized those non-witnesses. He goes on to suggest John did not write John, and of course implies there’s much more.
5. The Bible is Exclusively True
Everyone else is wrong was the opening takeaway from this... The rest did not get much better, talk of how wonderful and perfect theocracies are, and a couple claims against the entire audience (and himself) which I cannot in good conscience repeat.
Pro counters the morality claim by pointing out how repugnant the biblical laws are, by citing ones such as how fun it is to murder babies, plus calls to commit rape and genocide. Con tries to defend these with special pleading that it was God being wishy washy...
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro showed that the bible failed too many times (con even agreed with the logic in the first contention), and no other big proof of God was offered for consideration.
Sources:
These probably should go to pro, but I’m a little too tired to add the justifications for that right now.
What I would do:
The type of discussion this is, plus my education, causes me to feel the need to offer an opinion outside of my vote...
DroneYoinker, research if other flight schools have yet started teaching electric engines. If not, it might prove to be a marketable thing for your school (hell, even one sitting on the ground for study but not actually being used in a plane...). However, until the technology does improve, I would stick with fuel as your primary one, as right now when pilots are being hired, they are going to be expected to know how to handle the current dominant technology. Plus by the sound of the safety features, it will end up being a slightly different plane for the electric engine, not merely a different engine swapped in place.
It is an idea the school should revisit periodically, as the tipping point will be crossed sooner or later (likely not as soon as we hope, but it seems like an eventuality).
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
Very open ended, and it even changed in the middle of the debate...
Gist:
It was a really good discussion more than a debate, but as a debate it was won by con for long term considerations and pollution.
1. Fossil Fuels are fading
A lot of fairly good information on personal vehicles and related matters, but then BP oil setting a 53 year estimate was a powerful appeal to authority, about like if Chuck Norris corrected technique on roundhouse kicks.
Dropped by pro.
2. Cost per distance
Pro asserts that electric are most costly.
Con counters that costs have almost equalized (at least for cars), and are projected to begin shifting in favor of electric. Very nice use of charts from a .gov source.
Conceded by pro.
3. Range
Pro suggests range limitations, in part tied to a lack of current airport facilities.
Con uses the average rate of improvement, to suggest in ten years batteries will be longer ranged than conventional fuel.
Pro brings things back to today with the lack of current airport facilities, highlighted by it being a newsworthy item when an airport adds a charging station for smaller aircrafts.
Con uses Tesla (and admits planes might not improve so fast), with a link explaining the improvement is basically like Moore’s Law but in slow motion (this does not assure no upper limit, but it’s a nice piece of evidence); and how quickly the auto industry installed the facilities to meet the demand for them.
4. Life
Battery life is non-ideal at this point.
Con uses Tesla to defend that the overall depreciation is normal.
5. Reliability
Less moving parts draws my mind to solid state hard drives... Likely a poor comparison, but intuitively fewer moving parts for the same result is a good thing.
6. Air pollution
The lead into the air was a powerful point, especially how it was banned in automobiles.
7. Noise pollution
Con used a source to show it is decreased to only a 1/1000th.
8. Safety
(pro introduced this first, but following the numbered points is a bit easier)
Batteries are apparently massively more dangerous in crashes. If an engine catches fire, we have good procedures for current engines, which would not work for electric. The separate electrical system current engines run on, serves as a nice failsafe in case the computers or whatever else the main electrical system of the plane is on fails.
Con counters that fuel is estimated to be responsible for 8% of the crash deaths already, and that the 10x figure is an unwarranted assertion.
9. Versatility
Pro reminds us that the technology is not there for airbus or other massive planes to use electric engines... at least not yet.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro ended up dropping a lot of argument lines, which is fine in a discussion, but hurts him in grading this as a debate.
Sources:
By con’s request, I am leaving these tied. They did however favor him by a good margin (early into the debate I thought I would end up tying the debate but giving him the source points)
Kritik (or just K), is the German word for critique. They differ in that while we always critique each other's arguments, we do not always Kritik the foundations on which they’re built. Put simply, a Kritik sidesteps evidence offered, and makes a case around such being irrelevant or outright harmful due to greater concerns.
https://tiny.cc/Kritik
"how can a human being resurrect itself?"
Not a clue. That they do not tend to do that, would have been a fantastic contention for you to make. Just because you're con, doesn't mean you cannot build a counter case separate from pro's contentions.
"Find me where Speedrace used [other reports during that time] as his argument."
To start, there were nine in R1...
"Luke 24:39 Jesus’ Own Testimony
"Revelation 1:18 Jesus’ Own Testimony
"John 20:14-16 Mary Magdalene
"Matthew 28:9 The Virgin Mary
"Luke 24:34 Peter
"Luke 24:13-16 Two Disciples On a Road
"John 20:19,20,24 The Disciples (except Thomas)
"John 26-28 All of the Disciples
"John 21:1,2 Seven Disciples
"Matthew 28:16,17 Eleven Disciples
"1 Corinthians 15:6 Over 500 people
"1 Corinthians 15:7 James
"Acts 9:3-5 Saul
"Acts 1:3 Saul"
"I don't remember a time if ever that a moderator removed a vote that was not deemed sufficient that you typed."
I've had a few votes deleted. I don't keep a list, but literally yesterday there was one (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1480/money-cant-buy-happiness).
>You didn't state what side made the better argument. You just said what both of us said.
To me this was not a terribly complex debate. I could have added lots of padded on words to the vote, IMO the debate largely boiled down to the insufficiently refuted historical accounts. The highlights of what each of you said, taken by itself implied which came out on top.
>>"You attempted to flip a source, but stabbed yourself in the foot with it."
>Please explain this.
...Con says none of pro’s case meets the criteria from said source, line by line listing them, to include “Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?” Which having read pro’s case was a resounding yes (the various manuscripts which were then compiled, and the number of witnesses to the single event this debate is supposed to be about).
>>"Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials"
>Your basically saying I lost this debate because I didn't define the word myself?
No, that is not what I said.
>>"You're of course welcome to report the vote."
>Under the rules of the website your vote is sufficient. You know that already and for you to even say this is condescending either you are implying I am stupid or have a short memory.
You're imagining slights against you, when none was intended. Getting an extra set of eyes or two to review any vote in question, is to me, never a bad idea. Were the vote called borderline by the moderators, that would be a major strike against it.
You're missing the context of the total rounds (points being separated by headings, does not imply they don't support each other) and sources, to launch a strawperson claim against the competing case; worse your focus is on the introduction rather than the real contentions. You attempted to flip a source, but stabbed yourself in the foot with it.
Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reliable). This plays both into copies of a single historical document, and collaborating documents. That the patriots won the Superbowl for example, you can say it was a mass hallucination by people smoking weed, and also compare the copies of the original broadcast to Hitler; but we would still left with strong reason to believe that the account of the victory is historically reliable (just like we would be left with information to suggest Hitler existed and is not a boogeyman made up up in the 21st century). ... There are other grounds to attack the soundness of said event, but on that area its validity is hard to make inroads against.
To break it back down from content already inside the vote: Con states “basically X person saw Jesus resurrect” would be reliable evidence. Pro already provided several accounts from different historical documents which did precisely that, to a total of just over 500 people. He further showed that these documents were unlikely to have been greatly altered by later generations. This sealed the debate, but I listed other areas for feedback.
Given the short description of "lol that's a funny joke" the no trolling rule might be best removed. Besides, someone on the pro side will likely call the denial of alternative facts trolling, so embracing the fun has clear benefits.
I posted my vote fifteen minutes ago, whereas your vote request was three hours ago. It's actually what pulled me to this debate to vote. So you not seeing that there, was a reliable witness testimony that it was not there.
I get annoyed at certain weak bits of arguments, like calling someone else's argument pathetic... The problem is so long as they are not calling the arguer themselves pathetic, it's not so much a conduct violation as it is just a glaring weakness in their case.
One suggestion I'll make is writing RFDs in a word editor, and copy/paste segments in reverse order (the end gets posted first). It makes long RFDs much easier to read.
---RFD (1 of 5)---
Interpreting the resolution and BoP:
Pretty straight forward, IF P(X)>Y, pro; IF P(Y)≥X, con.
X=Abrahamic God does not exist.
Y=One or more gods exist.
Gist:
The debate ends up favoring non-existence of any creator deity, largely by cons own arguments as flipped by pro. Pro’s arguments on the other hand were in large part intentionally dropped for disproving God, so there’s not much of a contest left…
1. God is incoherent
God (capital G) contradicts reality.
A simple syllogism backed up by a look at traits that prevent free will. (I will note that I do not buy the word itself being incoherent, just because people put God in a box … con later asks that I drop said point, which at least for the word itself is already without impact)
Con complains that he is not required to defend God’s existence (which is true, but it leaves the probability impact of this point wholly unrefuted). Then goes on to defend it via saying reality is meaningless to God which is supposed to somehow make God seem more likely… So there’s a point in debates where you should just drop a point and move on, rather than drawing more attention to it; this was that point.
2. The Problem of Evil
Did God not exist during WWII when “over 75 million people were killed in the worst genocide and bloodiest war in human history”? It’s an implied question for con to delve into, or otherwise prove the probability of some other god existing as greater than the probability of God not existing.
Con also chooses to drop this in a manner which also hurts his #5 talk of morality, since he drops morality as a component to the divine. His request to drop this whole point from the debate is seems to be without foundation; double so when con himself chose to include morality as one of his arguments.
On the DNA if designed then tumors and such are God’s evil will or the result of poor (rather than perfect) design, to which con does not give a real defense “You can claim that DNA is designed with flaws, but without a designer, DNA would not exist for you to criticize.” Pro had literally just argued that it was unlikely with a designer, so claiming he can’t have done that, leaves this point stronger than it otherwise would have been (I initially skimmed past any talk of DNA here, had it not been mentioned in the rebuttals I would not have known it was there to strengthen pro’s case beyond the wholly dropped WWII introduction).
3. Atheism better predicts our universe
Pro does a very good job by basically tying prophecy into favoring the non-existence of any god.
Con says these things are not mutually exclusive (fair point), but goes on to cite his didit fallacy (“are instantaneously solved” and calling anything which requires deep thinking “nonsense”). The didit fallacy only becomes weaker by repetition.
4. Immaterial Realities
Some of these ties closely to #2.
Con asks “how can immaterial truths exist apart from a metaphysically ultimate being?” So once I read this, I would have easily bet $50 that what was to follow would contain a chain of didit fallacies, which pro would point out.
Con explaining that bears and humans obey the same objectively enforced code of morality… I’m lost trying to figure out where con was going with this.
Pro of course counters by pointing out the didit fallacy, discredits sources, and uses the bible to show that at least the capital G God is immoral by our apparently objective standards (for commanding rape and murder of children), which while not refuting every God, hedges the probabilities against the one to favor his side of the resolution.
5. KCA
“Whatever exists has to have had a cause. Something does not spontaneously appear from nothing.” Linking this to Occam’s Razer is self-refuting that any god is less probable as they needed a cause, and tossing them before a chain of causes is just adding extra complexity. Or as pro predictably puts it “Con's KCA goes against his position. … So, what exactly caused God? If you say that God has no need for a cause, then your argument commits the fallacy of special pleading and is thus soundly refuted.” Con counters with literal special pleading and more didit fallacy (or “Goddidit” as he expends it it).
6. Intelligent Design and Biogenesis
This ties closely to #3, without refuting it. So I did not find this convincing, as it is but one more didit fallacy in the chain; and using the word of religious people as evidence rather than finding any neutral sources, kind of damns itself… This debate is not about the probability of religious people existing.
Pro counters that if the universe is designed, it is designed in such a way as to make intelligent people disbelieve in God (fine-tuned to make black holes, hostile to life, etc.).
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Con started to lose ground during his opening preamble, when he described how we should believe whichever theory or hypothesis has less variables, and then said he’s going to take all he same ones and add another to be less (it’s like saying 10+1≤10).
Also on debates you can use continuous numbering rather than reset it. Contention 4-6 as I listed above, would not have been hurt had they been listed as such inside the debate (rather I would have had an easier time following the replies).
Sources:
Evidence is a powerful tool when discussing probabilities. Had pro just said ‘ha! E=evolution, and chickens came from dinosaurs, therefore I win!’ his points would not have carried. From supporting his WWII death toll onward, there were links we could double check (WWII is a very neutral thing, only the most deranged YEC think it wasn’t in the bible therefore it did not happen. Further, it is not generally written about as Nazis suck therefore there is no God).
In contrast, the very first line of cons first source was disavowing said source (“The views expressed in our content reflect individual perspectives and do not represent the official views of the Baha'i Faith.”). Worse pro immediately challenged it, in particular for the first source using a discredited doctor who repeatedly engaged in malpractice. Con of course never defends the credibility of his sources when they are under attack (“My opponent simply discredits my source. Fine…”)
Conduct:
First, I got it say it, be blood careful putting anything inside quotation marks. If I see a contention with quotation marks, I do a word search for what’s inside those to double check what is being referenced.
Con missing a round is still noticed, and it decreases his margin of victory (admittedly had I not been giving him arguments and sources, I would probably leave it within the tied range for not being an outright forfeiture, especially in light of him having previously given con an extension).
I am about to go on a date, but I expect to have some time tomorrow.
I will quickly say that intuitively it looks like you're farther behind than you are. Con's back to back postings was only actually one extra round, not two. (when I was much less experienced at voting, I would have been biased by that; but I am less and less convinced by what goes into the final round, as much as I usually read that first these days to see which points each debater thinks are important and thus deserve the most of my attention).
To avoid a trap such as saying people enjoy taking part in other ethical systems is technically low level hedonism, would you please refine the resolution into a meaningful statement?
Very short voting time for something so long... I'll try to get around to it; sadly I suspect I will be the only voter.
Consistent headings would have been very useful in following each major point. Generally I advice major headings bolded and underlined, and subheadings just underlined (that way when someone is reading the debate, they know when say the Perjury section begins and ends, so they can follow it between rounds to see how it begins and ends):
tiny.cc/DebateArt
If you believe only research scientists are scientists; based on the need to add descriptive a word before scientist, should be your hint as to a problem with your understanding as to the scope of the word (as you already self-countered with Einstein). I won't spam links at you, but if you doubt me you can check any dictionary. If you insist, then we can have a debate on definitions within English.
I am sorry for the mocking slow clap. As a combat former medic, your negative words towards the medical field touched a nerve.
I think Turmeric was put there by Jesus to kill us. Jesus who has the same number of letters as Satan. And look, two S's transposed (and moved) for the place of two A's, obviously they're the same! Christ also has the same first letter as Claws, and another S at (or near) the end. The bible even warned us against listening to the bible, as Satan would try to trick us into believing in false ideologies! 😉
A resource you might benefit from:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
"An MD is not a scientist"
While I find that opinion laughable, I'll indulge by asking just what you imagine a scientist to be and why it excludes experts of the natural sciences?
"and most of those studies involve medicine, not evolution."
Thank you for echoing Dr. Wassyner's explanation for why evolution doesn't rise to the level of fact (as seen in the first paragraph: "Scientifically speaking, this theory does not qualify for classification as fact. It deals with history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation.").
"This is like citing a psychologist for a climate question"
An M.D. is an expert on on the physical form of one type of animal, an animal which shares homologous structures (same bones and such) with every species of mammal (perhaps save for the platypus), to include dolphins and whales. But you think the form of an animals is no more related to evolution than the mind is to the climate... *slow clap*
I did forget about trolls... But at a certain point, things fall short of being a real debate.
I don’t see most paywalls due to ad-blockers. The opinion piece in question was written by an M.D., so a valid appeal to authority on this topic; far better than any written by a journalist lacking such a background. As for the age, something being recent isn’t everything; if it were we would reject the theory of evolution for being so old.
But is turmeric a Natural Biological Phenomenon?
I can't imagine this debate going beyond a semantic battle or an FF.
It's a great theory, but depending on how you're defining fact, it falls short.
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/opinion/l-theory-of-evolution-has-never-been-proved-151289.html
Maybe you two should debate this topic?
I am glad to see an explanation on what we should vote on.
Three were cast... But yeah, it sucks. The shortage of voters is part of why I am taking a long break from debating.
Just skimmed this, and while the formatting could do with some improvement, good job all around.
I was seconding the sentiment.
"Of course some debate types mandate Kritiks; countering truisms for example."
https://tiny.cc/Kritik
Thanks. However, I suspect he was closer to being on the Reich track than the right one. 😂
Congratulations, our debate is officially part of the first annual Hall of Fame.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2908/congratulations-to-the-hof-inductees
Congratulations, your debate is officially part of the first annual Hall of Fame.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2908/congratulations-to-the-hof-inductees
Congratulations, your debate is officially part of the first annual Hall of Fame.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2908/congratulations-to-the-hof-inductees
The biggest thing I will say about your vote, is that it showcases the type of work you should be putting into your own debates... Which is the problem with it as a vote, as it was your fresh arguments more so than finding the strengths within cons.
Voting in favor of your own sources which neither debater provided, is never acceptable. Plus you're supposed to list at least one source that was used in the debate and explain how it affected things.
On conduct, our awards were very simpler but they differ in the presence of analysis. Yours excluded any consideration from con's own argument on the subject... Me I acknowledged it, but dismissed it (I could write a paragraph about how he turned down a free S&G award and in general improved the debate; but touching on both sides of their gentleman agreement implies I've read both sides).
Crossed,
When the Code of Conduct says "Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support" it does not mean go out and find your own source outside the debate. You could love Trump, but that would not charge that your vote is supposed to be for this debate's content, rather than your political bias.
The video link you gave has the targeted timestamp of nine-minutes six-seconds (probably when you stopped watching it), which is after all the relevant content. It's just something to be careful of in future.
The video has a targeted timestamp for an advertisement for algebra courses at the end. In case you're on right now, you've still got a few minutes to edit the post.
---RFD (1 of 3)---
Interpreting the resolution:
Pretty straight forward, with definitions open to argumentation.
1. Biblical Defects
I will say right off the bat that I do not buy the conclusion to pro’s five-part logical form (unless I’m mistaken it’s also not a syllogism, as that implies just two premises and a conclusion). It follows that the bible is not evidence for God (a step or two more could connect that to the probability ... don’t get me wrong, this is well executed, it’s just not an instant victory).
Con does an ok job defending the time discrepancy, even if it feels like it’s missing a couple key details. Pro points out that the time ends up in reverse of what it would be by cons defense.
Con’s defense of the prophecies got bad, as he dropped the bible being true to use a defense that it did not mean what is written in it (a really bad example of special pleading).
2. God is Incoherent
A genuinely nice syllogism introduction followed by some detailed discussion of attributes. A highlight being the comedy of monotheism on three distinct gods. Con much later defends t his that because they are all gods, they are all God (I don’t follow this logic at all, other than to understand that he believes it strongly).
These are basically dropped by con. Denial by assertion, and throwing a link out without saying any reason something is wrong just that someone else could make a convincing argument against it, just doesn’t cut it... This isn’t to be mean, but 10,000 is a lot of space, and how you budget it is part of debating.
3. The Bible is Unique
It’s an old book with lots of authors, and there are no disharmonious pieces of the bible (unless it’s countered I’ll treat that as true, but the different books included in different bibles wholly refutes this claim). It contains prophecies... “While these characteristics do not prove the claims of the Bible, it shows the prominence of it over any other book.”
Small thing I feel the need to clarify, “...rather than dismissing it as mythology.” As a couple nuns I know would say: Of course it’s mythology, which is not in any way a dismissal of it, merely an acknowledgement of our language.
Anyway, pro swiftly lists the fallacies to refute this contention. He then showed the existence of older religious texts, which by con’s argument would mean they’re better. And of course pointing out the failed prophecies he listed pre-refuted the prophecy talk offered by con.
4. The Bible is Trustworthy
It’s a very reliable collection of documents...
Pro casts doubt on the witnesses, for not being eyewitnesses, and then one who claimed to be an eyewitness but plagiarized those non-witnesses. He goes on to suggest John did not write John, and of course implies there’s much more.
5. The Bible is Exclusively True
Everyone else is wrong was the opening takeaway from this... The rest did not get much better, talk of how wonderful and perfect theocracies are, and a couple claims against the entire audience (and himself) which I cannot in good conscience repeat.
Pro counters the morality claim by pointing out how repugnant the biblical laws are, by citing ones such as how fun it is to murder babies, plus calls to commit rape and genocide. Con tries to defend these with special pleading that it was God being wishy washy...
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro showed that the bible failed too many times (con even agreed with the logic in the first contention), and no other big proof of God was offered for consideration.
Sources:
These probably should go to pro, but I’m a little too tired to add the justifications for that right now.
I’ll try to get this voted on in the next couple days.
What I would do:
The type of discussion this is, plus my education, causes me to feel the need to offer an opinion outside of my vote...
DroneYoinker, research if other flight schools have yet started teaching electric engines. If not, it might prove to be a marketable thing for your school (hell, even one sitting on the ground for study but not actually being used in a plane...). However, until the technology does improve, I would stick with fuel as your primary one, as right now when pilots are being hired, they are going to be expected to know how to handle the current dominant technology. Plus by the sound of the safety features, it will end up being a slightly different plane for the electric engine, not merely a different engine swapped in place.
It is an idea the school should revisit periodically, as the tipping point will be crossed sooner or later (likely not as soon as we hope, but it seems like an eventuality).
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
Very open ended, and it even changed in the middle of the debate...
Gist:
It was a really good discussion more than a debate, but as a debate it was won by con for long term considerations and pollution.
1. Fossil Fuels are fading
A lot of fairly good information on personal vehicles and related matters, but then BP oil setting a 53 year estimate was a powerful appeal to authority, about like if Chuck Norris corrected technique on roundhouse kicks.
Dropped by pro.
2. Cost per distance
Pro asserts that electric are most costly.
Con counters that costs have almost equalized (at least for cars), and are projected to begin shifting in favor of electric. Very nice use of charts from a .gov source.
Conceded by pro.
3. Range
Pro suggests range limitations, in part tied to a lack of current airport facilities.
Con uses the average rate of improvement, to suggest in ten years batteries will be longer ranged than conventional fuel.
Pro brings things back to today with the lack of current airport facilities, highlighted by it being a newsworthy item when an airport adds a charging station for smaller aircrafts.
Con uses Tesla (and admits planes might not improve so fast), with a link explaining the improvement is basically like Moore’s Law but in slow motion (this does not assure no upper limit, but it’s a nice piece of evidence); and how quickly the auto industry installed the facilities to meet the demand for them.
4. Life
Battery life is non-ideal at this point.
Con uses Tesla to defend that the overall depreciation is normal.
5. Reliability
Less moving parts draws my mind to solid state hard drives... Likely a poor comparison, but intuitively fewer moving parts for the same result is a good thing.
6. Air pollution
The lead into the air was a powerful point, especially how it was banned in automobiles.
7. Noise pollution
Con used a source to show it is decreased to only a 1/1000th.
8. Safety
(pro introduced this first, but following the numbered points is a bit easier)
Batteries are apparently massively more dangerous in crashes. If an engine catches fire, we have good procedures for current engines, which would not work for electric. The separate electrical system current engines run on, serves as a nice failsafe in case the computers or whatever else the main electrical system of the plane is on fails.
Con counters that fuel is estimated to be responsible for 8% of the crash deaths already, and that the 10x figure is an unwarranted assertion.
9. Versatility
Pro reminds us that the technology is not there for airbus or other massive planes to use electric engines... at least not yet.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro ended up dropping a lot of argument lines, which is fine in a discussion, but hurts him in grading this as a debate.
Sources:
By con’s request, I am leaving these tied. They did however favor him by a good margin (early into the debate I thought I would end up tying the debate but giving him the source points)
This did not finish quite in time for this year's HoF, but I've added it to my list of great debates for future consideration.
Kritik (or just K), is the German word for critique. They differ in that while we always critique each other's arguments, we do not always Kritik the foundations on which they’re built. Put simply, a Kritik sidesteps evidence offered, and makes a case around such being irrelevant or outright harmful due to greater concerns.
https://tiny.cc/Kritik
"how can a human being resurrect itself?"
Not a clue. That they do not tend to do that, would have been a fantastic contention for you to make. Just because you're con, doesn't mean you cannot build a counter case separate from pro's contentions.
"Find me where Speedrace used [other reports during that time] as his argument."
To start, there were nine in R1...
"Luke 24:39 Jesus’ Own Testimony
"Revelation 1:18 Jesus’ Own Testimony
"John 20:14-16 Mary Magdalene
"Matthew 28:9 The Virgin Mary
"Luke 24:34 Peter
"Luke 24:13-16 Two Disciples On a Road
"John 20:19,20,24 The Disciples (except Thomas)
"John 26-28 All of the Disciples
"John 21:1,2 Seven Disciples
"Matthew 28:16,17 Eleven Disciples
"1 Corinthians 15:6 Over 500 people
"1 Corinthians 15:7 James
"Acts 9:3-5 Saul
"Acts 1:3 Saul"
"I don't remember a time if ever that a moderator removed a vote that was not deemed sufficient that you typed."
I've had a few votes deleted. I don't keep a list, but literally yesterday there was one (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1480/money-cant-buy-happiness).
>You didn't state what side made the better argument. You just said what both of us said.
To me this was not a terribly complex debate. I could have added lots of padded on words to the vote, IMO the debate largely boiled down to the insufficiently refuted historical accounts. The highlights of what each of you said, taken by itself implied which came out on top.
>>"You attempted to flip a source, but stabbed yourself in the foot with it."
>Please explain this.
...Con says none of pro’s case meets the criteria from said source, line by line listing them, to include “Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?” Which having read pro’s case was a resounding yes (the various manuscripts which were then compiled, and the number of witnesses to the single event this debate is supposed to be about).
>>"Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials"
>Your basically saying I lost this debate because I didn't define the word myself?
No, that is not what I said.
>>"You're of course welcome to report the vote."
>Under the rules of the website your vote is sufficient. You know that already and for you to even say this is condescending either you are implying I am stupid or have a short memory.
You're imagining slights against you, when none was intended. Getting an extra set of eyes or two to review any vote in question, is to me, never a bad idea. Were the vote called borderline by the moderators, that would be a major strike against it.
You're missing the context of the total rounds (points being separated by headings, does not imply they don't support each other) and sources, to launch a strawperson claim against the competing case; worse your focus is on the introduction rather than the real contentions. You attempted to flip a source, but stabbed yourself in the foot with it.
Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reliable). This plays both into copies of a single historical document, and collaborating documents. That the patriots won the Superbowl for example, you can say it was a mass hallucination by people smoking weed, and also compare the copies of the original broadcast to Hitler; but we would still left with strong reason to believe that the account of the victory is historically reliable (just like we would be left with information to suggest Hitler existed and is not a boogeyman made up up in the 21st century). ... There are other grounds to attack the soundness of said event, but on that area its validity is hard to make inroads against.
To break it back down from content already inside the vote: Con states “basically X person saw Jesus resurrect” would be reliable evidence. Pro already provided several accounts from different historical documents which did precisely that, to a total of just over 500 people. He further showed that these documents were unlikely to have been greatly altered by later generations. This sealed the debate, but I listed other areas for feedback.
You're of course welcome to report the vote.
Given the short description of "lol that's a funny joke" the no trolling rule might be best removed. Besides, someone on the pro side will likely call the denial of alternative facts trolling, so embracing the fun has clear benefits.
I posted my vote fifteen minutes ago, whereas your vote request was three hours ago. It's actually what pulled me to this debate to vote. So you not seeing that there, was a reliable witness testimony that it was not there.
I get annoyed at certain weak bits of arguments, like calling someone else's argument pathetic... The problem is so long as they are not calling the arguer themselves pathetic, it's not so much a conduct violation as it is just a glaring weakness in their case.
One suggestion I'll make is writing RFDs in a word editor, and copy/paste segments in reverse order (the end gets posted first). It makes long RFDs much easier to read.
---RFD (1 of 5)---
Interpreting the resolution and BoP:
Pretty straight forward, IF P(X)>Y, pro; IF P(Y)≥X, con.
X=Abrahamic God does not exist.
Y=One or more gods exist.
Gist:
The debate ends up favoring non-existence of any creator deity, largely by cons own arguments as flipped by pro. Pro’s arguments on the other hand were in large part intentionally dropped for disproving God, so there’s not much of a contest left…
1. God is incoherent
God (capital G) contradicts reality.
A simple syllogism backed up by a look at traits that prevent free will. (I will note that I do not buy the word itself being incoherent, just because people put God in a box … con later asks that I drop said point, which at least for the word itself is already without impact)
Con complains that he is not required to defend God’s existence (which is true, but it leaves the probability impact of this point wholly unrefuted). Then goes on to defend it via saying reality is meaningless to God which is supposed to somehow make God seem more likely… So there’s a point in debates where you should just drop a point and move on, rather than drawing more attention to it; this was that point.
2. The Problem of Evil
Did God not exist during WWII when “over 75 million people were killed in the worst genocide and bloodiest war in human history”? It’s an implied question for con to delve into, or otherwise prove the probability of some other god existing as greater than the probability of God not existing.
Con also chooses to drop this in a manner which also hurts his #5 talk of morality, since he drops morality as a component to the divine. His request to drop this whole point from the debate is seems to be without foundation; double so when con himself chose to include morality as one of his arguments.
On the DNA if designed then tumors and such are God’s evil will or the result of poor (rather than perfect) design, to which con does not give a real defense “You can claim that DNA is designed with flaws, but without a designer, DNA would not exist for you to criticize.” Pro had literally just argued that it was unlikely with a designer, so claiming he can’t have done that, leaves this point stronger than it otherwise would have been (I initially skimmed past any talk of DNA here, had it not been mentioned in the rebuttals I would not have known it was there to strengthen pro’s case beyond the wholly dropped WWII introduction).
3. Atheism better predicts our universe
Pro does a very good job by basically tying prophecy into favoring the non-existence of any god.
Con says these things are not mutually exclusive (fair point), but goes on to cite his didit fallacy (“are instantaneously solved” and calling anything which requires deep thinking “nonsense”). The didit fallacy only becomes weaker by repetition.
4. Immaterial Realities
Some of these ties closely to #2.
Con asks “how can immaterial truths exist apart from a metaphysically ultimate being?” So once I read this, I would have easily bet $50 that what was to follow would contain a chain of didit fallacies, which pro would point out.
Con explaining that bears and humans obey the same objectively enforced code of morality… I’m lost trying to figure out where con was going with this.
Pro of course counters by pointing out the didit fallacy, discredits sources, and uses the bible to show that at least the capital G God is immoral by our apparently objective standards (for commanding rape and murder of children), which while not refuting every God, hedges the probabilities against the one to favor his side of the resolution.
5. KCA
“Whatever exists has to have had a cause. Something does not spontaneously appear from nothing.” Linking this to Occam’s Razer is self-refuting that any god is less probable as they needed a cause, and tossing them before a chain of causes is just adding extra complexity. Or as pro predictably puts it “Con's KCA goes against his position. … So, what exactly caused God? If you say that God has no need for a cause, then your argument commits the fallacy of special pleading and is thus soundly refuted.” Con counters with literal special pleading and more didit fallacy (or “Goddidit” as he expends it it).
6. Intelligent Design and Biogenesis
This ties closely to #3, without refuting it. So I did not find this convincing, as it is but one more didit fallacy in the chain; and using the word of religious people as evidence rather than finding any neutral sources, kind of damns itself… This debate is not about the probability of religious people existing.
Pro counters that if the universe is designed, it is designed in such a way as to make intelligent people disbelieve in God (fine-tuned to make black holes, hostile to life, etc.).
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Con started to lose ground during his opening preamble, when he described how we should believe whichever theory or hypothesis has less variables, and then said he’s going to take all he same ones and add another to be less (it’s like saying 10+1≤10).
Also on debates you can use continuous numbering rather than reset it. Contention 4-6 as I listed above, would not have been hurt had they been listed as such inside the debate (rather I would have had an easier time following the replies).
Sources:
Evidence is a powerful tool when discussing probabilities. Had pro just said ‘ha! E=evolution, and chickens came from dinosaurs, therefore I win!’ his points would not have carried. From supporting his WWII death toll onward, there were links we could double check (WWII is a very neutral thing, only the most deranged YEC think it wasn’t in the bible therefore it did not happen. Further, it is not generally written about as Nazis suck therefore there is no God).
In contrast, the very first line of cons first source was disavowing said source (“The views expressed in our content reflect individual perspectives and do not represent the official views of the Baha'i Faith.”). Worse pro immediately challenged it, in particular for the first source using a discredited doctor who repeatedly engaged in malpractice. Con of course never defends the credibility of his sources when they are under attack (“My opponent simply discredits my source. Fine…”)
Conduct:
First, I got it say it, be blood careful putting anything inside quotation marks. If I see a contention with quotation marks, I do a word search for what’s inside those to double check what is being referenced.
Con missing a round is still noticed, and it decreases his margin of victory (admittedly had I not been giving him arguments and sources, I would probably leave it within the tied range for not being an outright forfeiture, especially in light of him having previously given con an extension).
I am about to go on a date, but I expect to have some time tomorrow.
I will quickly say that intuitively it looks like you're farther behind than you are. Con's back to back postings was only actually one extra round, not two. (when I was much less experienced at voting, I would have been biased by that; but I am less and less convinced by what goes into the final round, as much as I usually read that first these days to see which points each debater thinks are important and thus deserve the most of my attention).
Reported the vote for voting on his own debate.
Glancing through this debate, I am very glad to see it doesn’t boil down to appeals to novelty vs. appeals to tradition.
I wish you had accepted the debate. Your "half-eaten gogurt tube" would have been a good argument.