P2: This would have benefited from subheadings to clarify that the contention had not shifted with each... Also, sources would have been good here, but the assertions (such as the negative aspect of the FDA) were strong, but pro did a good counter to this bit with “please elaborate on how these regulations are specifically hurting businesses.” The main counter on this area again depended on counties, but con did a very good job naming examples which could then be easily cross referenced within the sources, pro basically just asserted that it’s wrong. On the healthcare plan, it really should have been stand alone and direct rebuttal to pro, rather than buried in here and somewhat easy to overlook as a directed reply.
C1: It follows.
4. Definition supplement
Since they are not conflicting, I haven’t a clue why this is a point of contention.
5. Lens (this was part of a later reply to healthcare, but it’s important...)
“It is quite possible for a socialist type policy to have benefits in the sector of society it is applied to, but still be bad for society as a whole.” This right here should have been the opening to the debate.
6. Nickolas Cage
This was so entertaining it deserves an extra highlight: “Number of drownings in a swimming pool per year is directly correlated with the amount of films Nicolas Cage has starred in.”
7. The VA
Pro could have made some good gains here, as con raises “Socialized medicine already exists in America in the form of the VA” which is actually a good system. Of course, with this claim unchallenged by pro, con successfully bolsters case with it.
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. Overall the healthcare point was a near tie, but quality of life point goes firmly to con; pro intentionally not refuting the evidence on it is what did him in.
Sources: Con
So con repeatedly used a specific source which I am highly biased against. While I assumed I would be leaving this tied due to my bias against con, his source execution ended up overwhelming the strength of the bias.
Both used a ton of sources, pro stabbed himself in the foot by just throwing them at the end of the rounds, which prevents judges from quickly checking details within them while reading the arguments. This becomes even more important when there’s raw numbers within them.
Con gained some ground by catching pro misrepresenting details from a source. I’d still leave it tied there, but...
The source on increased deaths in Canada was incredible, particularly how it was quoted within the debate to prove points.
Also see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15214
S&G: tied
At the very least reuse existing organizational headings if they’ve been introduced... Also to quote my guide: “Whatever style you use, be consistent within any single debate.”
Conduct: Con
Pro, never open a debate with Ad Hominems (even when they seem warranted). They were not that bad, but they needlessly distract from the topic.
“ Well that means these countries aren’t socialist “ <- Putting things inside quotation makes if the person did not say them is very much unacceptable.
“intentionally misrepresenting the point and he/she should be docked a conduct point.” Poor arguments are not poor conduct.
“...a result of my long torturous bout with depression. If anyone deserves a conduct point. It’s me.” You have my sympathy, but conduct is not given for pity (the proximity of the request is the problem here).
Got to thank con for pointing out he authorized the character count violation (sources posted elsewhere), I otherwise would have included it as a deduction against conduct and sources.
If there was any doubt, the questions contention sealed the deal, as pro was explicitly warned on this multiple times but still did the off topic attacks.
Thank you for conceding that "you're too delusional to be worth interacting with."
>> "My basis for being a coward in terms of debating requires the person to actually create a debate."
That you define bravery as cowardice is strong evidence your parents and teachers have failed you. For that you have my sympathy.
>>"Your failure to show your side"
As any not functionally-illiterate person can see, it starts with me correcting Death in #17 (whom drops out, which by any sane person's standards means just that he did not continue the discussion...). Within that post I explained my position that it is wrong to insult someone by calling them cowardly for an act of bravery. This is literally showing my side, which you comedically consider to be the mark of "failure to show [my] side."
So now that voting is closed, I'll share some of my honest opinions on this topic... Firstly the bible both teaches that, and teaches against it (it contradicts).
The old testament foretold the coming messiah, and outlined some of the things he would do. Bare in mind, the old testament is basically the Jewish bible (yes they've got a few more books than the Christian old testament, but paraphrasing is for simplicity). For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not.
The new testament starts with the heavy focus on Jesus, who is the Christian messiah (people later confused that with God, which indeed started so as to mock Caesar). The big problem became that as recruitment tactics they started writing in stuff like changing his birth to a miracle (the Greeks were big on that...), which right there actually prevents him from being of the right blood line to be the Jewish messiah. It's why there's a weird disconnect early in Matthew (it's called that, but it was not actually a single author; it was different scrolls assembled under that theme). There's other things, such as his lack of violence (the messiah was supposed to have a violet uprising to free his people), and rebuilding the temple (there ends up being a few potential messiah's throughout history who basically set that as their main goal to try to prove divinity; one of them had the awesome nickname "The Hammer").
Jesus was of course a historical person, to which I don't actually care if he had superpowers. Who he was, what he did (not to mention how he did it), and finally what he inspired are the important things people discussing him should care about; as opposed things which have nothing to do with his personality such as if he the last son of Krypton.
Please point out this magical place where I conceded? Not continuing a discussion and conceding are worlds apart.
You and Death seem to believe those apparently cowardly users who dare to begin engaging in debates should be insulted for it. I disagree. You have a comprehension problem with analogies, which made me drop out of the discussion.
Nothing is stopping you or Death from opening your own debates on this topic you're criticizing. I don't think you are cowards for not, but by your own standards you're more cowardly than the instigator of this debate; and if you're being logical consistent should insult each other for said failing.
Nice rhetoric. The problem is that it's a distinction with a demonstrated difference, as seen: "at least he's debating."
There's many users (whom I shall not name), who hide in the forums and comment sections, refusing to ever engage in actual debates. Were this a physical sport such as boxing, he would be stepping into the ring and risking getting his head beat in; that he is not confident enough in his abilities to wager money on the fight, in no way implies he's a coward, in fact him stepping into the ring at all proves a commendable degree of bravery.
How is unrated cowardly? It shows lower confidence, but at least he's debating. I admit to preferring rated (just a feeling I can't put into words), but if the primary goal is the debate, there's no reason to insult the absence of point rewards.
You were trying to write a science thesis in that debate, it called for a lot of characters, and is quite unlikely to be fully read by anyone.
Do you know the terms Argumentum Ad Nauseam and Gish Gallop? If either of you approach 10k on a simple premise like this, one or both of those is probably being committed.
After just skimming R1, I feel the immediate need to give advice on sourcing...
Pro: Connect your sources to the places they are used, either as links inside your arguments, or as URLs (or numbers tied to a list at the end) right after. ... Where you bolded the names of sources would be a perfect place to put the links.
The entirety of https://www.washingtonpost.com/ is not a valid source. You've been debating long enough that you've probably faced someone saying 'Google it' as their evidence, while you're not this bad, it's the same type of blunder to not be repeated.
Another thing, some users will disagree with me on this, but I suggest being up front when recycling your own arguments.
Con: I usually say use less sources, but in this case more is a good thing. You're a bit of a one trick pony, using a website that outright takes pride in their bias... A small variety of websites, may technically be a band wagon appeal, but adds an air of credibility. Plus their name is just awful.
I will probably voting on this. Just bare in mind there's a massively different time investment involved in little things that that or FF votes, and properly weighting a debate like this one.
Unrated is just unrated, as in no effect to debater scores. You're currently #9 on the leader-boards, you could win or lose 100 unrated debates, but remain in the same spot.
Moderation is determined by the type of debate, in particular regards to the resolution. Debates are moderated unless they fall into the wide umbrella of Troll Debates (of which actual troll debates sometimes do not qualify as troll debates...).
Did you miss the part where those debates are not moderated? The lack of any damage done by voting ties? Or the lack of any relevance towards the shit vote in question on this debate?
Quick review of the votes complained about in the vote...
First of all, 'battles' are considered troll debates, thus not moderated.
Second, even were it real debates, it would not excuse the vote bomb in question.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049/vote_links/2721
Just a counter vote bomb. Complaining of this one, makes no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1113/vote_links/2725
A tied vote. I can agree that it is childish, but it's a no harm done situation.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120/vote_links/2711
A tied vote... And better, King_8's friend or alt account voted in King_8's favor as a counter to it (So good at math! No one's better at math!).
Something you might find interesting is that the Two-State Solution was tried way back in the 1940's, with the creation of Israel and Jordan. Prior to their attempted genocide in 1967, Jordan controlled the East Jerusalem.
A strong suggestion for arguing God is the cause of the universe, is to never leave God being created by us unchallenged. When that is unchallenged, there's no logical path remaining for God being an uncaused cause. When that's left in place, diet coke makes more sense (at least it can be verified to exist).
If that forum is anything like the one on DDO (the website most of us fled from), it is full of posers who are offended by any real religious discussion even if that discussion is explicitly to praise God. I once posted a paper from school, on why (assuming God is loving) God cannot be all powerful due to respect for free will in his role as a parent... Were it in person, I would have been stoned to death for sacrilege.
Neatly I used to be Christian, but scam artists at church got me one too many times. I still sometimes debate in favor of religion, since either side to these is an intellectual exercise which won't change anyone's mind...
Weird thing, I went to a bible study the other night (was visiting a very religious friend for their graduation), and there was a lady there who insisted with excitement in her eyes that Jesus kills hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people while riding around on a horse. This stemmed from a discussion of how wonderful it is that God murders innocent people and sends them to hell for not knowing him (most of the rest of the discussion was sane).
---RFD (1 of 9)---
Interpreting the resolution:
For pro to win, God must be implied to exist with some confidence (statistical or otherwise).
For con to win, God’s existence must be left within reasonable doubt.
Gist:
Pro’s whole case could have called for Zeus or Ra having done it (names he brought into this debate), with equal certainty to one of the other thousands of fictional beings did it. Con cast strong doubt on any of them, chiefly by reminding us that none of pro’s models actually calls for any God to be involved, and even if they did there’s no reason it’s God instead of the FSM.
In the final round there’s a list of five major things pro dropped, but he concedes them as not mattering (this includes that God is fictional!).
---RFD (2 of 9)---
Blunder:
I got barely started R2 before I noticed a massive tactical error from pro. Con gave a definition for God that would be wholly encapsulated by the FSM (all hail his noodly appendage); had con embraced that he would have flipped a good chunk of con’s own counter evidence to his favor. Instead by trying to argue against the validity of any being as likely as the FSM, he completely undermined his own case for any being of similar likelihood such as God.
0. Tests
Good start to the debate, two methods for validating evidence (as much as no one has been able to prove the FSM is fictional, nor even that Jesus Christ is not his son...). Pro’s argument against the FSM validity test was suspect, and based on false information which con quickly corrected (the nature of gods is never physical form; no one says ‘you called God HE, and men have penises, which are physical matter, so God cannot exist...’)
---RFD (3 of 9)---
1. Lack of evidence (No direct evidence)
Con counters the KCA via questioning the validity of composition AKA it’s not proven (which pro defends with repeating himself and making a diet coke straw-person), and more importantly that even if his premises were true the conclusions that one particular God did it was not even implied; to which pro left effectively unchallenged. The FSM test pro has a decent defense of “Adding superfluous details in order to make the argument seem stupid is not a real objection.” Granted con was not so much adding superfluous details as pointing them out; and pro decided to reject the FSM instead of using him as God (no evidence exists to say that’s not God’s true form).
---RFD (4 of 9)---
The teleological argument did not lead to any conclusion of God, merely attempted to imply we don’t know as much about our universe or the multiverse as we would like. To quote con on this point: “there is no necessity for that fine tuning to be performed by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being with an interest in human affairs.” Later this gets into how the universe is mostly hostile to life, which implies that it was not made by any smart creator (both debaters missed that this is proof of the FSM, as he was stupid and outright drunk when he made the universe... again, had pro just embraced the FSM he could have flipped all this evidence against his case to be in favor of it).
---RFD (5 of 9)---
Without proving God is somehow needed in any of his models, he insists “This constitutes direct evidence for a God.” He even doubles down on his lack of evidence being his evidence, insisting we need to just accept his appeal to authority without any (had the authority come with evidence rather than mere assertion, it would have been the non-fallacious form... the equation would not need to be typed into the debate, a quick link to where Penrose got his numbers would do a better job anyway). Note: this was a major place the writing of sources hurt an argument.
2. mundane explanations (no indirect evidence)
Pro does a two-line reply which does not really challenge this. I would call it dropped, but not outright conceded (I should look up the jargon, to ensure I’m using these terms correctly).
---RFD (6 of 9)---
3. God changes (likely made up)
Actually a good start, given thousands of false gods we imagined into being, why would a later one not stem from the same source? Pro majorly drops the ball here, conceding that con is right, but then insisting one random one of them he’s apparently met must have done it anyway (so much talk of probably, so if there’s ten-thousand false idols claiming to be God, what are the odds you’ve found the true one to which you are arguing in this debate? 0.01%). As con puts it “Unicorns may exist, the matrix may exist, the Star Wars universe may exist - but knowing that they are works of fiction makes that idea less likely plausible and inherently unlikely that humans ‘just so happened’ to invent a fictional super being, and turned out to be correct.” Pro tries to bring Zeus and others in, but nothing gets around the core problem of decreased likelihoods.
---RFD (7 of 9)---
4. Occams Razor (unnecessary to solve any specific problems)
On the multiverse, pro fully Leeroy Jenkined the composition fallacy con had already pointed out to him (why even make a pre-refuted argument?). It apparently violates the local laws we know, so can’t exist! *lol*
Neatly pro argues that minds randomly float around in space and before time, and it would be the composition fallacy to say they can’t be there (more credit would go to him here had he named it); but makes a rather obvious false attribution of BoP to the person not claiming the seeming impossible.
5. Mop up and drops
Seriously, I’m going to steal this for future debates, putting it in one round before the end. Pro ends up intentionally dropping (at this point I’d call that a concession) the entire bullet list.
---RFD (8 of 9)---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points.
Sources: tied
Pro, next time I suggest using the advice at: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Due to effort I am leaving this tied... However, either make links in arguments and/or number your sources.
In case it’s not been explained before: Books are not the type of sources judges here care about, we look for what we can easy verify on websites (an example being links to scientific papers, which so long as there’s a summary we can read we trust it without needing to pay to access them).
S&G: con
Pro intentionally wasted the time of the voters by claiming R1 or R2 contained the list of (as he outright quoted) "Objections so horrendously bad I couldn't have made them up"; which it did not, rendering his reply both incoherent and incomprehensible, while self-accusing his own prior arguments of being just that for not containing what he specified they contained.
---RFD (9 of 9)---
Similarly, while his sources themselves were fine, the connections to his arguments were left incoherent by the poor method of their display. Pro, this kind of mistake can cause accidental plagiarism, so please take my advice as seen in the sources section.
Speaking of numbers, even if headings change, maintaining the numbers on them would have made arguments less painful to track down when trying to follow the thread of each through the 30,000 character rounds.
Conduct: tied
Con was better (particularly that final round nicety), but I am putting the major offense here into the S&G category as pro is new, so may have never been told before what quotations mean in written debates.
For character limits I suggest pre-write your R1, then triple the length. To attract voters, 5k is the longest you'd want to go, but 10k gives a strong safety net.
They'd be the best way to verify it, but watching (particularly without sound) would take too long for most historical events to be a casual way to learn.
I'm about a quarter of the way through this monstrosity... I have a social life to get to, so I'll analyze some more arguments tomorrow or the next day.
@PGA2.0
I blocked you from tagging me in things due to your repeated shit behavior at: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1936
I never tagged you in anything after that, and you make this call-out in my debate only to block me to prevent yourself from being tagged. *slow-clap*
If you've gained the maternity to challenge someone to a debate, rather than just being a forum troll, bring it.
Thanks for the debate. While I did not address it in my arguments, you did an amazing job! Seriously, you actually got me to concede a subpoint to one of my contentions, which is rare.
We can debate again sometime, and I'm also open to discussing the topic in a non-combative manner (just don't be an ad infinitum moron).
I probably would not have attacked sources so hard (not to mention some of the smaller points, like ectopic pregnancy), were it not for a couple people who should not vote swearing they would... For context to why it's a problem with abortion debates: On another site there was a small group of people who would vote in favor of any pro-life argument (even if the argument was babies make better foodstuff than fetuses...), because they believe pro-lifers are in need of participation trophies and public safe spaces free from their ideas being challenged... While the promised voters here are not such idiots, I was still going to stack the deck again them (for clarity, neither of them ended up voting).
I was away for the weekend... I'll put some work in on it today; and I'm not really worried about the details of this debate, as it seems more like a beta test for how to get this type of thing working.
Thanks for the feedback on this debate. I suspect you are the first person to read it all.
> "Jesus is that brutal serial killer God of His creation which makes it hard for me to call Him ever loving and forgiving, but I have to accept this and move on."
Well if you don't call him "ever loving and forgiving," it's off to the torture chambers for you.
> "I do not try and apologetically spin doctor His true self away"
It's honestly a breath of fresh air, particularly (as I proved in the debate with multiple scientific sources) since the vast majority of Christians only know Jesus by reputation, rather than reading the bible.
> "our 1400 square mile Heaven"
Hate to be a naysayer, but that should be cubed miles; as it was a massive square (I wonder if Star Trek writers were picturing this when they made the Borg?). Anyway this should decrease the overcrowding, and give a much bigger perimeter to walk around... I admit to finding it weird that this measurement was verified; the writer is reported to have actually spent several months (or years) double checking everything with a rod.
Would you two mind redoing this with either a third round or actually starting in R1? ... based on the flow of comments, more rounds might be warrnted.
It was back on DDO, I believe the main debate for it got deleted for hate speech (AKA, someone cried enough about how they could not take a joke), but there's some samples of it remaining: https://www.debate.org/opinions/does-australia-exist
P2: This would have benefited from subheadings to clarify that the contention had not shifted with each... Also, sources would have been good here, but the assertions (such as the negative aspect of the FDA) were strong, but pro did a good counter to this bit with “please elaborate on how these regulations are specifically hurting businesses.” The main counter on this area again depended on counties, but con did a very good job naming examples which could then be easily cross referenced within the sources, pro basically just asserted that it’s wrong. On the healthcare plan, it really should have been stand alone and direct rebuttal to pro, rather than buried in here and somewhat easy to overlook as a directed reply.
C1: It follows.
4. Definition supplement
Since they are not conflicting, I haven’t a clue why this is a point of contention.
5. Lens (this was part of a later reply to healthcare, but it’s important...)
“It is quite possible for a socialist type policy to have benefits in the sector of society it is applied to, but still be bad for society as a whole.” This right here should have been the opening to the debate.
6. Nickolas Cage
This was so entertaining it deserves an extra highlight: “Number of drownings in a swimming pool per year is directly correlated with the amount of films Nicolas Cage has starred in.”
7. The VA
Pro could have made some good gains here, as con raises “Socialized medicine already exists in America in the form of the VA” which is actually a good system. Of course, with this claim unchallenged by pro, con successfully bolsters case with it.
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. Overall the healthcare point was a near tie, but quality of life point goes firmly to con; pro intentionally not refuting the evidence on it is what did him in.
Sources: Con
So con repeatedly used a specific source which I am highly biased against. While I assumed I would be leaving this tied due to my bias against con, his source execution ended up overwhelming the strength of the bias.
Both used a ton of sources, pro stabbed himself in the foot by just throwing them at the end of the rounds, which prevents judges from quickly checking details within them while reading the arguments. This becomes even more important when there’s raw numbers within them.
Con gained some ground by catching pro misrepresenting details from a source. I’d still leave it tied there, but...
The source on increased deaths in Canada was incredible, particularly how it was quoted within the debate to prove points.
Also see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15214
S&G: tied
At the very least reuse existing organizational headings if they’ve been introduced... Also to quote my guide: “Whatever style you use, be consistent within any single debate.”
Conduct: Con
Pro, never open a debate with Ad Hominems (even when they seem warranted). They were not that bad, but they needlessly distract from the topic.
“ Well that means these countries aren’t socialist “ <- Putting things inside quotation makes if the person did not say them is very much unacceptable.
“intentionally misrepresenting the point and he/she should be docked a conduct point.” Poor arguments are not poor conduct.
“...a result of my long torturous bout with depression. If anyone deserves a conduct point. It’s me.” You have my sympathy, but conduct is not given for pity (the proximity of the request is the problem here).
Got to thank con for pointing out he authorized the character count violation (sources posted elsewhere), I otherwise would have included it as a deduction against conduct and sources.
If there was any doubt, the questions contention sealed the deal, as pro was explicitly warned on this multiple times but still did the off topic attacks.
Thank you for conceding that "you're too delusional to be worth interacting with."
>> "My basis for being a coward in terms of debating requires the person to actually create a debate."
That you define bravery as cowardice is strong evidence your parents and teachers have failed you. For that you have my sympathy.
>>"Your failure to show your side"
As any not functionally-illiterate person can see, it starts with me correcting Death in #17 (whom drops out, which by any sane person's standards means just that he did not continue the discussion...). Within that post I explained my position that it is wrong to insult someone by calling them cowardly for an act of bravery. This is literally showing my side, which you comedically consider to be the mark of "failure to show [my] side."
Again, "please point out this magical place where I conceded?"
Since you are now repeatedly insisting it is there, either you can find a quote, or you're too delusional to be worth interacting with.
So now that voting is closed, I'll share some of my honest opinions on this topic... Firstly the bible both teaches that, and teaches against it (it contradicts).
The old testament foretold the coming messiah, and outlined some of the things he would do. Bare in mind, the old testament is basically the Jewish bible (yes they've got a few more books than the Christian old testament, but paraphrasing is for simplicity). For Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, he would need to live up to those things. As every Christian knows, he did not.
The new testament starts with the heavy focus on Jesus, who is the Christian messiah (people later confused that with God, which indeed started so as to mock Caesar). The big problem became that as recruitment tactics they started writing in stuff like changing his birth to a miracle (the Greeks were big on that...), which right there actually prevents him from being of the right blood line to be the Jewish messiah. It's why there's a weird disconnect early in Matthew (it's called that, but it was not actually a single author; it was different scrolls assembled under that theme). There's other things, such as his lack of violence (the messiah was supposed to have a violet uprising to free his people), and rebuilding the temple (there ends up being a few potential messiah's throughout history who basically set that as their main goal to try to prove divinity; one of them had the awesome nickname "The Hammer").
Jesus was of course a historical person, to which I don't actually care if he had superpowers. Who he was, what he did (not to mention how he did it), and finally what he inspired are the important things people discussing him should care about; as opposed things which have nothing to do with his personality such as if he the last son of Krypton.
Please point out this magical place where I conceded? Not continuing a discussion and conceding are worlds apart.
You and Death seem to believe those apparently cowardly users who dare to begin engaging in debates should be insulted for it. I disagree. You have a comprehension problem with analogies, which made me drop out of the discussion.
Nothing is stopping you or Death from opening your own debates on this topic you're criticizing. I don't think you are cowards for not, but by your own standards you're more cowardly than the instigator of this debate; and if you're being logical consistent should insult each other for said failing.
Your problem understanding subtext is not something I care to help you with.
Your end statement gets to the heart of the problem of insulting members for engaging in debates.
Nice rhetoric. The problem is that it's a distinction with a demonstrated difference, as seen: "at least he's debating."
There's many users (whom I shall not name), who hide in the forums and comment sections, refusing to ever engage in actual debates. Were this a physical sport such as boxing, he would be stepping into the ring and risking getting his head beat in; that he is not confident enough in his abilities to wager money on the fight, in no way implies he's a coward, in fact him stepping into the ring at all proves a commendable degree of bravery.
How is unrated cowardly? It shows lower confidence, but at least he's debating. I admit to preferring rated (just a feeling I can't put into words), but if the primary goal is the debate, there's no reason to insult the absence of point rewards.
You were trying to write a science thesis in that debate, it called for a lot of characters, and is quite unlikely to be fully read by anyone.
Do you know the terms Argumentum Ad Nauseam and Gish Gallop? If either of you approach 10k on a simple premise like this, one or both of those is probably being committed.
30,000 characters... that is about 26k too many.
tiny.cc/DebateArt
After just skimming R1, I feel the immediate need to give advice on sourcing...
Pro: Connect your sources to the places they are used, either as links inside your arguments, or as URLs (or numbers tied to a list at the end) right after. ... Where you bolded the names of sources would be a perfect place to put the links.
The entirety of https://www.washingtonpost.com/ is not a valid source. You've been debating long enough that you've probably faced someone saying 'Google it' as their evidence, while you're not this bad, it's the same type of blunder to not be repeated.
Another thing, some users will disagree with me on this, but I suggest being up front when recycling your own arguments.
Con: I usually say use less sources, but in this case more is a good thing. You're a bit of a one trick pony, using a website that outright takes pride in their bias... A small variety of websites, may technically be a band wagon appeal, but adds an air of credibility. Plus their name is just awful.
I will probably voting on this. Just bare in mind there's a massively different time investment involved in little things that that or FF votes, and properly weighting a debate like this one.
Yes. This rule was solidified by a MEEP awhile back.
On a moderated debate, the vote which was countered would have been insufficient anyway.
No.
Unrated is just unrated, as in no effect to debater scores. You're currently #9 on the leader-boards, you could win or lose 100 unrated debates, but remain in the same spot.
Moderation is determined by the type of debate, in particular regards to the resolution. Debates are moderated unless they fall into the wide umbrella of Troll Debates (of which actual troll debates sometimes do not qualify as troll debates...).
Did you miss the part where those debates are not moderated? The lack of any damage done by voting ties? Or the lack of any relevance towards the shit vote in question on this debate?
Quick review of the votes complained about in the vote...
First of all, 'battles' are considered troll debates, thus not moderated.
Second, even were it real debates, it would not excuse the vote bomb in question.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049/vote_links/2721
Just a counter vote bomb. Complaining of this one, makes no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1113/vote_links/2725
A tied vote. I can agree that it is childish, but it's a no harm done situation.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120/vote_links/2711
A tied vote... And better, King_8's friend or alt account voted in King_8's favor as a counter to it (So good at math! No one's better at math!).
Thanks for voting.
Something you might find interesting is that the Two-State Solution was tried way back in the 1940's, with the creation of Israel and Jordan. Prior to their attempted genocide in 1967, Jordan controlled the East Jerusalem.
By what standard do you believe Israel is not a state?
Bare in mind, the usual definition for country is "a state or nation." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/country
?
Thank you so much for voting. This will be the last time I take on a debate even half this long.
I fully agree on my second area of contention being weak. It was meant primarily to be entertaining.
Why do you bump this so often?
A strong suggestion for arguing God is the cause of the universe, is to never leave God being created by us unchallenged. When that is unchallenged, there's no logical path remaining for God being an uncaused cause. When that's left in place, diet coke makes more sense (at least it can be verified to exist).
I was tempted to say truism, but there's actually a good counter case here.
Not the case I would make, but he's got an alibi in all the other homes he broke into that night!
If that forum is anything like the one on DDO (the website most of us fled from), it is full of posers who are offended by any real religious discussion even if that discussion is explicitly to praise God. I once posted a paper from school, on why (assuming God is loving) God cannot be all powerful due to respect for free will in his role as a parent... Were it in person, I would have been stoned to death for sacrilege.
Neatly I used to be Christian, but scam artists at church got me one too many times. I still sometimes debate in favor of religion, since either side to these is an intellectual exercise which won't change anyone's mind...
Weird thing, I went to a bible study the other night (was visiting a very religious friend for their graduation), and there was a lady there who insisted with excitement in her eyes that Jesus kills hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people while riding around on a horse. This stemmed from a discussion of how wonderful it is that God murders innocent people and sends them to hell for not knowing him (most of the rest of the discussion was sane).
---RFD (1 of 9)---
Interpreting the resolution:
For pro to win, God must be implied to exist with some confidence (statistical or otherwise).
For con to win, God’s existence must be left within reasonable doubt.
Gist:
Pro’s whole case could have called for Zeus or Ra having done it (names he brought into this debate), with equal certainty to one of the other thousands of fictional beings did it. Con cast strong doubt on any of them, chiefly by reminding us that none of pro’s models actually calls for any God to be involved, and even if they did there’s no reason it’s God instead of the FSM.
In the final round there’s a list of five major things pro dropped, but he concedes them as not mattering (this includes that God is fictional!).
---RFD (2 of 9)---
Blunder:
I got barely started R2 before I noticed a massive tactical error from pro. Con gave a definition for God that would be wholly encapsulated by the FSM (all hail his noodly appendage); had con embraced that he would have flipped a good chunk of con’s own counter evidence to his favor. Instead by trying to argue against the validity of any being as likely as the FSM, he completely undermined his own case for any being of similar likelihood such as God.
0. Tests
Good start to the debate, two methods for validating evidence (as much as no one has been able to prove the FSM is fictional, nor even that Jesus Christ is not his son...). Pro’s argument against the FSM validity test was suspect, and based on false information which con quickly corrected (the nature of gods is never physical form; no one says ‘you called God HE, and men have penises, which are physical matter, so God cannot exist...’)
---RFD (3 of 9)---
1. Lack of evidence (No direct evidence)
Con counters the KCA via questioning the validity of composition AKA it’s not proven (which pro defends with repeating himself and making a diet coke straw-person), and more importantly that even if his premises were true the conclusions that one particular God did it was not even implied; to which pro left effectively unchallenged. The FSM test pro has a decent defense of “Adding superfluous details in order to make the argument seem stupid is not a real objection.” Granted con was not so much adding superfluous details as pointing them out; and pro decided to reject the FSM instead of using him as God (no evidence exists to say that’s not God’s true form).
---RFD (4 of 9)---
The teleological argument did not lead to any conclusion of God, merely attempted to imply we don’t know as much about our universe or the multiverse as we would like. To quote con on this point: “there is no necessity for that fine tuning to be performed by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being with an interest in human affairs.” Later this gets into how the universe is mostly hostile to life, which implies that it was not made by any smart creator (both debaters missed that this is proof of the FSM, as he was stupid and outright drunk when he made the universe... again, had pro just embraced the FSM he could have flipped all this evidence against his case to be in favor of it).
---RFD (5 of 9)---
Without proving God is somehow needed in any of his models, he insists “This constitutes direct evidence for a God.” He even doubles down on his lack of evidence being his evidence, insisting we need to just accept his appeal to authority without any (had the authority come with evidence rather than mere assertion, it would have been the non-fallacious form... the equation would not need to be typed into the debate, a quick link to where Penrose got his numbers would do a better job anyway). Note: this was a major place the writing of sources hurt an argument.
2. mundane explanations (no indirect evidence)
Pro does a two-line reply which does not really challenge this. I would call it dropped, but not outright conceded (I should look up the jargon, to ensure I’m using these terms correctly).
---RFD (6 of 9)---
3. God changes (likely made up)
Actually a good start, given thousands of false gods we imagined into being, why would a later one not stem from the same source? Pro majorly drops the ball here, conceding that con is right, but then insisting one random one of them he’s apparently met must have done it anyway (so much talk of probably, so if there’s ten-thousand false idols claiming to be God, what are the odds you’ve found the true one to which you are arguing in this debate? 0.01%). As con puts it “Unicorns may exist, the matrix may exist, the Star Wars universe may exist - but knowing that they are works of fiction makes that idea less likely plausible and inherently unlikely that humans ‘just so happened’ to invent a fictional super being, and turned out to be correct.” Pro tries to bring Zeus and others in, but nothing gets around the core problem of decreased likelihoods.
---RFD (7 of 9)---
4. Occams Razor (unnecessary to solve any specific problems)
On the multiverse, pro fully Leeroy Jenkined the composition fallacy con had already pointed out to him (why even make a pre-refuted argument?). It apparently violates the local laws we know, so can’t exist! *lol*
Neatly pro argues that minds randomly float around in space and before time, and it would be the composition fallacy to say they can’t be there (more credit would go to him here had he named it); but makes a rather obvious false attribution of BoP to the person not claiming the seeming impossible.
5. Mop up and drops
Seriously, I’m going to steal this for future debates, putting it in one round before the end. Pro ends up intentionally dropping (at this point I’d call that a concession) the entire bullet list.
---
---RFD (8 of 9)---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points.
Sources: tied
Pro, next time I suggest using the advice at: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Due to effort I am leaving this tied... However, either make links in arguments and/or number your sources.
In case it’s not been explained before: Books are not the type of sources judges here care about, we look for what we can easy verify on websites (an example being links to scientific papers, which so long as there’s a summary we can read we trust it without needing to pay to access them).
S&G: con
Pro intentionally wasted the time of the voters by claiming R1 or R2 contained the list of (as he outright quoted) "Objections so horrendously bad I couldn't have made them up"; which it did not, rendering his reply both incoherent and incomprehensible, while self-accusing his own prior arguments of being just that for not containing what he specified they contained.
---RFD (9 of 9)---
Similarly, while his sources themselves were fine, the connections to his arguments were left incoherent by the poor method of their display. Pro, this kind of mistake can cause accidental plagiarism, so please take my advice as seen in the sources section.
Speaking of numbers, even if headings change, maintaining the numbers on them would have made arguments less painful to track down when trying to follow the thread of each through the 30,000 character rounds.
Conduct: tied
Con was better (particularly that final round nicety), but I am putting the major offense here into the S&G category as pro is new, so may have never been told before what quotations mean in written debates.
For character limits I suggest pre-write your R1, then triple the length. To attract voters, 5k is the longest you'd want to go, but 10k gives a strong safety net.
They'd be the best way to verify it, but watching (particularly without sound) would take too long for most historical events to be a casual way to learn.
I'm about a quarter of the way through this monstrosity... I have a social life to get to, so I'll analyze some more arguments tomorrow or the next day.
Welcome back!
Your very first point is my total feelings on this debate.
@PGA2.0
I blocked you from tagging me in things due to your repeated shit behavior at: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1936
I never tagged you in anything after that, and you make this call-out in my debate only to block me to prevent yourself from being tagged. *slow-clap*
If you've gained the maternity to challenge someone to a debate, rather than just being a forum troll, bring it.
Thanks for the debate. While I did not address it in my arguments, you did an amazing job! Seriously, you actually got me to concede a subpoint to one of my contentions, which is rare.
We can debate again sometime, and I'm also open to discussing the topic in a non-combative manner (just don't be an ad infinitum moron).
I probably would not have attacked sources so hard (not to mention some of the smaller points, like ectopic pregnancy), were it not for a couple people who should not vote swearing they would... For context to why it's a problem with abortion debates: On another site there was a small group of people who would vote in favor of any pro-life argument (even if the argument was babies make better foodstuff than fetuses...), because they believe pro-lifers are in need of participation trophies and public safe spaces free from their ideas being challenged... While the promised voters here are not such idiots, I was still going to stack the deck again them (for clarity, neither of them ended up voting).
The obvious K comes to mind of proving that elephants are better than humans.
I was away for the weekend... I'll put some work in on it today; and I'm not really worried about the details of this debate, as it seems more like a beta test for how to get this type of thing working.
A lot of misinformation about his divine noodliness. To minimize confusion, I suggest watching this quick primer: https://vimeo.com/31543194
Thank you both for voting!
Thanks for the feedback on this debate. I suspect you are the first person to read it all.
> "Jesus is that brutal serial killer God of His creation which makes it hard for me to call Him ever loving and forgiving, but I have to accept this and move on."
Well if you don't call him "ever loving and forgiving," it's off to the torture chambers for you.
> "I do not try and apologetically spin doctor His true self away"
It's honestly a breath of fresh air, particularly (as I proved in the debate with multiple scientific sources) since the vast majority of Christians only know Jesus by reputation, rather than reading the bible.
> "our 1400 square mile Heaven"
Hate to be a naysayer, but that should be cubed miles; as it was a massive square (I wonder if Star Trek writers were picturing this when they made the Borg?). Anyway this should decrease the overcrowding, and give a much bigger perimeter to walk around... I admit to finding it weird that this measurement was verified; the writer is reported to have actually spent several months (or years) double checking everything with a rod.
Minor correction: Reverse racism does not exist, as the term racism already covers everything people try to lump inside it.
Would you two mind redoing this with either a third round or actually starting in R1? ... based on the flow of comments, more rounds might be warrnted.
On it... And in case my RFD does not contain this enough: GROSS!
It was back on DDO, I believe the main debate for it got deleted for hate speech (AKA, someone cried enough about how they could not take a joke), but there's some samples of it remaining: https://www.debate.org/opinions/does-australia-exist