RM, of course none of those three were. Why it's a double edged sword is that your opponent could name three similar men who happened to be Muslim (I will not do his research for him by listing examples).
Alec, I have no clue how you could twist that so badly. Plus comments (while related) are not the debate. Some people try to prove themselves right after debates end, but it doesn't count. Nor would arguments from anyone other than the debaters... I will however say that you could cast non-scoring votes, so as to get practice. Your biggest problem right now is wanting to commit what looks like revenge voting.
How do you each prefer to be referred? And do either of you object to a vote from me? If objections exist (be it due to my voting style, or more likely military service in Iraq), I will assign no points.
I have not read it all yet, but I am finding it engaging enough to continue (save for certain things which should have been handled prior to the start).
...
I will say right now I liked the reference to "Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela." As much as it is a rather obvious double edged sword. In any case, showing ways a religion can be considered "of peace," avoids attempted K's to the topic by saying 'religion cannot be of peace,' and gives a nice potential area for contrasting evidence.
For a little entertainment, Iraq used to report having 100% voter turnout. SNL did a nice summery of how democracy worked there: https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/election-night-coverage/2869239
R1 to pro.
R2 to con (I did not care for the vocals in pro's choice).
R3 to con (Christmas cats put it over).
R4 tied.
R5 to con (liked the dark feel of that choice a little more).
However, not casting a vote as I don't view this as a debate per se...
Thanks for the vote, and I really like your one sentence summary of this debate: "On balance, here, the argument falls down to pro saying there is no evidence, so no sides should be taken - con says that there is evidence, so the middle ground is logically invalid."
Next time instead of reporting every vote that isn't in your favor, how about take part in the debate to give some possible reason why a vote could be cast in your favor?
It's a nice hypothetical you present, but ultimately lacking in meaning.
Were they the same person, it would be on him to clarify (make a post to the original that he has changed his name...) and request a reevaluation. As of this moment, there is absolutely nothing to suggest they are the same person; plus he chose to present the arguments in the form of plagiarism, it would be an outright disrespect to his intellectual integrity to judge him otherwise.
That is aside from the obvious sloppy copy/paste job. That it's broken infers lack of access to the original writing (fresh copy/paste from the original writing, as opposed to how it was displayed on a random website, would lack the preponderance of errors).
RM, of course none of those three were. Why it's a double edged sword is that your opponent could name three similar men who happened to be Muslim (I will not do his research for him by listing examples).
Alec, I have no clue how you could twist that so badly. Plus comments (while related) are not the debate. Some people try to prove themselves right after debates end, but it doesn't count. Nor would arguments from anyone other than the debaters... I will however say that you could cast non-scoring votes, so as to get practice. Your biggest problem right now is wanting to commit what looks like revenge voting.
How do you each prefer to be referred? And do either of you object to a vote from me? If objections exist (be it due to my voting style, or more likely military service in Iraq), I will assign no points.
I have not read it all yet, but I am finding it engaging enough to continue (save for certain things which should have been handled prior to the start).
...
I will say right now I liked the reference to "Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela." As much as it is a rather obvious double edged sword. In any case, showing ways a religion can be considered "of peace," avoids attempted K's to the topic by saying 'religion cannot be of peace,' and gives a nice potential area for contrasting evidence.
Of course I read R1, I would not have voted otherwise.
For a little entertainment, Iraq used to report having 100% voter turnout. SNL did a nice summery of how democracy worked there: https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/election-night-coverage/2869239
Thanks for the debate. Now that voting has ended, feel free to ask me anything you like. I'm happy to discuss the topic, and/or debates in general.
I prefer categorized voting as well.
And I just realized the irony of this debate. Pro's stance that forfeiture doesn't mean anything, has validity within the select winner system.
Just the one song, and it's a very subjective stylistic thing. One singer was doing a flat low toned mumble I could rarely understand.
Yeah, sorry for the confusion. Leftover habit from DDO.
R1 to pro.
R2 to con (I did not care for the vocals in pro's choice).
R3 to con (Christmas cats put it over).
R4 tied.
R5 to con (liked the dark feel of that choice a little more).
However, not casting a vote as I don't view this as a debate per se...
Thanks for the vote, and I really like your one sentence summary of this debate: "On balance, here, the argument falls down to pro saying there is no evidence, so no sides should be taken - con says that there is evidence, so the middle ground is logically invalid."
This debate should probably have a link to a news story in the description. Also a definition of witch hunt.
... I am going to try to give him to benefit of the doubt, as I don't want to believe anyone is that damned pathetic.
You poor baby!
Next time instead of reporting every vote that isn't in your favor, how about take part in the debate to give some possible reason why a vote could be cast in your favor?
Under my proposed refinement to S&G, RM would have won that point as well. A block of text vs the work he put in...
I'm going to re-read this one more time... It's close... Likely I'll end up concluding a tie.
It's a nice hypothetical you present, but ultimately lacking in meaning.
Were they the same person, it would be on him to clarify (make a post to the original that he has changed his name...) and request a reevaluation. As of this moment, there is absolutely nothing to suggest they are the same person; plus he chose to present the arguments in the form of plagiarism, it would be an outright disrespect to his intellectual integrity to judge him otherwise.
That is aside from the obvious sloppy copy/paste job. That it's broken infers lack of access to the original writing (fresh copy/paste from the original writing, as opposed to how it was displayed on a random website, would lack the preponderance of errors).