Prepping my closing statements, and it turns out I used exactly 42 sources. I wonder if that number will ever cease popping up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboZctrHfK8
Bare in mind, my vote here was very tryhard (as said, it was an experiment), so don't model your future votes on it...
The big flaw to your vote is not naming any key argument lines (you would not even need to name them all, but just make it easy for mods to verify you read the debate).
Next time I have insomnia I'll probably grade this.
Given that the name calling started in the debate listing "This guy is a idiot," I'll probably include a grade for comedy, as I believe this to be at least in part a troll debate.
That would have been a decent (if simplistic) rebuttal had my opponent made it. But on actual trials character witnesses are a thing (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/as-defendant-can-i-offer-evidence-good-character.html, https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/character-as-evidence.html). Someone having not committed a certain crime before, does not prove they are truly incapable, but does lower the likelihood. So yeah, they should still be investigated for the crime spree, but defense has every reason to show their lack of any criminal record.
I am focusing on disproving "They are the same in nature, essence, and being." To which my analogy holds up, since regardless of physical limitations, Bob and Robert are of different natures; just like Jesus and God (admittedly, were my opponent not a literalist he'd have an easier time disputing this).
While we also know that Batman and Bruce Wayne are different people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01vWvocMc6M), a strong argument could be made for them having the same nature and essence. They both go about helping Gotham, and Batman indeed does attend "fancy rich parties"; as highlighted in a 1997 documentary (wiki entry): "That night, a charity event is held by Wayne Enterprises with special guests, Batman and Robin, and [Poison Ivy] decides to use her abilities to seduce them. Mr. Freeze crashes the party and steals a diamond from the event."
Anyway, my opponent failed to find any logical fallacies within those introductory examples of how Jesus and God behave vastly different.
Taking it out of the mythology: imagine a blood test has revealed Bob (a man known for charitable works) is the son of Robert (a serial killer), and Bob is now on trial for a few dozen murders which Robert committed before Bob was even born. The prosecutor argues fathers and sons are the same, so he should be held accountable... Along with a few dozen other points, what's wrong with the defense using the superior character of Bob having a noted lack of any violent tendencies?
To quote my link:
"Plagiarism is the use of others' material without proper attribution. ... Please, please, please don't do it, even if your original material is in the public domain. ... Plagiarism and copyright are orthogonal. Plagiarism is about credit, copyright is about whether you're allowed to copy at all."
So my complaint is not about any copyright issues, it's about intellectual integrity. Not plagiarizing is pretty easy, some quotation marks and a URL is usually all it takes.
Were you and I debating this, you getting your bible lines from biblegateway.com and saying that would be fine (even without an explicit version listed). The way my opponent spammed them (especially so many ones which were off topic or already directly refuted), made me suspicious. The suspicion bore fruit that he was stealing not just which biblical lines to use (probably from a webpage which says to use those exact ones, regardless of context), but his actual arguments.
Good luck on this debate. A few words of advice...
1. You've picked a two clause resolution. While proving she's nuts (X), goes a long way toward proving she's unfit to govern (Y), both need to be supported.
2. I suggest defining some criteria for fitness to govern, to include in your opening round.
3. I advise the following as an aid to make whatever your case is easy to follow: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
People have a bad habit of interpreting the bible to say whatever they want. This is why hate groups such as Westboro Baptist Church can read the same bible as U2, but decide on polar opposite morals are contained within. Some even interpret the bible as predicting the messiah Donald Trump.
Not a complaint, but for future votes I suggest naming one source (the video introduction to the FSM, or the overview of consequentialism for example) to appease your fan-club.
A debate I suggest studying is "Fetuses as a replacement for the USD" (https://www.debateart.com/debates/866)
While that debate was [no comment], the extreme scale of the proposal is similar. Note the big areas pro focused on in R1: Justification, followed immediately by Practicality.
End of his R2's opening sentence confirms he's either talking to his opponent, or else insisting all readers have artificial red skin. By the context I choose to interpret that he was speaking to his opponent.
"I am green side, you are red. If you are a blind user of this website who reads the text on an audible means of taking them in, Please ask anyone you know who can see and that you trust to verify this."
Full agreement with pro's R1 followed by no case for the Chicago being at least equal by any standard (to my knowledge, Scott Adkins is not a pizza... even if he would be the most complete pizza). You guessed accurately that pro would forfeit, so you got a free win. Enjoy it.
"For this Round, Con agrees with most of what Pro has suggested so far. The NY flimsy-crust is a good lunch-to-dinner ranked meal that's low quantity+quality of cheese and dough and low time-consuming to make, relative to the Chicago luscious alternative."
On this one due to one side forfeiting more than half the rounds (or is it half or more? Not sure the current moderation standard to call something an FF), they cannot be awarded the majority of the points.
Why anyone bothered to report your vote on this one, seems to be an act of pettiness.
As for Ram's vote, it's non-removal was explained in detail in comment #8.
In the comics I turned against the act when Luke Cage was attacked at midnight in his home having not used his powers. Yet I do understand the dramatic tensions were needed, so Iron Man had to go about things in the worst possible way.
Welcome to the site! Sorry you got trolled like that on your first debate here... I recently had a debate on the same topic, which reading it may help you refine your arguments against my side (yup, I respectfully firmly disagree with you): https://www.debateart.com/debates/949
"The rebel fleet, traveling through the vacuum of space, should be able to maintain its speed without the additional expenditure of fuel for propulsion"
I had no problem with the fuel bit, but the related thing that if burning fuel they are accelerating, and then unconscious people fly faster than them...
I could argue either side of that one. However, I have a job interview this weekend, so really shouldn't get involved in another debate (I've got a weird one going on right now).
I of course advise knowing the common arguments against it being outright ruined, and have counters ready. Expect minor K's in the form of 'well the old movies are not harmed' and 'well they can ignore it like that did with Star Trek: Intro Darkness' (obvious counter to the second being that rebuilding something does not mean it was not ruined).
I'd be more interested in this in the forums... But what precisely do you mean by the Avengers Movement? I feel like you mean the Superhuman Registration Act, but it is unclear.
You likely got frustrated (justifiably so), but ended up saying this: "THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU A RIGHT TO CONCEDE TO MY TOPICS PRESENTED!!! AND THAT IS NOT OFF-TOPIC IN ANYWAY, SHAPE, OR FORM!"
You got 4 points instead of 5, it's more or less me reminding you to be careful in future debates.
Prepping my closing statements, and it turns out I used exactly 42 sources. I wonder if that number will ever cease popping up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboZctrHfK8
https://www.debateart.com/debates/965/comment_links/12743
A resource you may find useful: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Bare in mind, my vote here was very tryhard (as said, it was an experiment), so don't model your future votes on it...
The big flaw to your vote is not naming any key argument lines (you would not even need to name them all, but just make it easy for mods to verify you read the debate).
It's basically taking land away from people of the wrong skin pigment... This includes vital farm land, without any skilled managers to replace them.
For a recent example: https://www.dw.com/en/zimbabwe-between-land-ownership-and-food-security/a-49056618
A decent topic might be "Zimbabwe: land redistribution is a good policy"
I oddly agree with BoP being shared on this. It hopefully leads to each side presenting a case, instead of just the BoP game.
Expect to get someone with comedic answers.
This will be an easy win for someone...
Please define existence.
By some standards God exists, by others God does not.
Next time I have insomnia I'll probably grade this.
Given that the name calling started in the debate listing "This guy is a idiot," I'll probably include a grade for comedy, as I believe this to be at least in part a troll debate.
You have 12 hours left to post something. Literally posting "BoP on pro." will most likely be enough to give you victory.
It's all good.
That would have been a decent (if simplistic) rebuttal had my opponent made it. But on actual trials character witnesses are a thing (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/as-defendant-can-i-offer-evidence-good-character.html, https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/character-as-evidence.html). Someone having not committed a certain crime before, does not prove they are truly incapable, but does lower the likelihood. So yeah, they should still be investigated for the crime spree, but defense has every reason to show their lack of any criminal record.
I am focusing on disproving "They are the same in nature, essence, and being." To which my analogy holds up, since regardless of physical limitations, Bob and Robert are of different natures; just like Jesus and God (admittedly, were my opponent not a literalist he'd have an easier time disputing this).
While we also know that Batman and Bruce Wayne are different people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01vWvocMc6M), a strong argument could be made for them having the same nature and essence. They both go about helping Gotham, and Batman indeed does attend "fancy rich parties"; as highlighted in a 1997 documentary (wiki entry): "That night, a charity event is held by Wayne Enterprises with special guests, Batman and Robin, and [Poison Ivy] decides to use her abilities to seduce them. Mr. Freeze crashes the party and steals a diamond from the event."
You might have tagged the wrong person...
Anyway, my opponent failed to find any logical fallacies within those introductory examples of how Jesus and God behave vastly different.
Taking it out of the mythology: imagine a blood test has revealed Bob (a man known for charitable works) is the son of Robert (a serial killer), and Bob is now on trial for a few dozen murders which Robert committed before Bob was even born. The prosecutor argues fathers and sons are the same, so he should be held accountable... Along with a few dozen other points, what's wrong with the defense using the superior character of Bob having a noted lack of any violent tendencies?
Thanks for commenting.
To quote my link:
"Plagiarism is the use of others' material without proper attribution. ... Please, please, please don't do it, even if your original material is in the public domain. ... Plagiarism and copyright are orthogonal. Plagiarism is about credit, copyright is about whether you're allowed to copy at all."
So my complaint is not about any copyright issues, it's about intellectual integrity. Not plagiarizing is pretty easy, some quotation marks and a URL is usually all it takes.
Were you and I debating this, you getting your bible lines from biblegateway.com and saying that would be fine (even without an explicit version listed). The way my opponent spammed them (especially so many ones which were off topic or already directly refuted), made me suspicious. The suspicion bore fruit that he was stealing not just which biblical lines to use (probably from a webpage which says to use those exact ones, regardless of context), but his actual arguments.
Good luck on this debate. A few words of advice...
1. You've picked a two clause resolution. While proving she's nuts (X), goes a long way toward proving she's unfit to govern (Y), both need to be supported.
2. I suggest defining some criteria for fitness to govern, to include in your opening round.
3. I advise the following as an aid to make whatever your case is easy to follow: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
From the description: "Pro: AOC is Competent ... Con: AOC is Incompetent"
To anyone accepting this, read the description first: The pro side is in defense of her, the con side is affirming the negative statement.
I cannot speak for other voters, but trying to get a cheap win by arguing you're too dumb to understand, will not bode well for you.
Actually surprised you did not get a No True Scotsman opponent.
People have a bad habit of interpreting the bible to say whatever they want. This is why hate groups such as Westboro Baptist Church can read the same bible as U2, but decide on polar opposite morals are contained within. Some even interpret the bible as predicting the messiah Donald Trump.
Also thanks for voting multiple times.
Thanks for voting... multiple times apparently.
Not a complaint, but for future votes I suggest naming one source (the video introduction to the FSM, or the overview of consequentialism for example) to appease your fan-club.
Glad to see you're back on this site, and good luck with this debate.
Please clarify which side of the debate you are taking.
A debate I suggest studying is "Fetuses as a replacement for the USD" (https://www.debateart.com/debates/866)
While that debate was [no comment], the extreme scale of the proposal is similar. Note the big areas pro focused on in R1: Justification, followed immediately by Practicality.
I'm in R3, and a debate this length should not take this long to read. For future debates, please use better organization: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
The organization in this debate has finally made me go write a formatting guide for debates here...
That said, I've starting writing a RFD, but am only a round in. I have a pub crawl to attend tonight, so I'll probably publish a vote tomorrow.
End of his R2's opening sentence confirms he's either talking to his opponent, or else insisting all readers have artificial red skin. By the context I choose to interpret that he was speaking to his opponent.
"I am green side, you are red. If you are a blind user of this website who reads the text on an audible means of taking them in, Please ask anyone you know who can see and that you trust to verify this."
Full agreement with pro's R1 followed by no case for the Chicago being at least equal by any standard (to my knowledge, Scott Adkins is not a pizza... even if he would be the most complete pizza). You guessed accurately that pro would forfeit, so you got a free win. Enjoy it.
"For this Round, Con agrees with most of what Pro has suggested so far. The NY flimsy-crust is a good lunch-to-dinner ranked meal that's low quantity+quality of cheese and dough and low time-consuming to make, relative to the Chicago luscious alternative."
R1.
It's more complicated than this, but a reminder about blind nationalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo
If no one votes on this, remind me.
On this one due to one side forfeiting more than half the rounds (or is it half or more? Not sure the current moderation standard to call something an FF), they cannot be awarded the majority of the points.
Why anyone bothered to report your vote on this one, seems to be an act of pettiness.
As for Ram's vote, it's non-removal was explained in detail in comment #8.
In the comics I turned against the act when Luke Cage was attacked at midnight in his home having not used his powers. Yet I do understand the dramatic tensions were needed, so Iron Man had to go about things in the worst possible way.
If you keep coming back this should be a free win for you, as AKmath seems to have dropped off this site in the middle of debates.
Welcome to the site! Sorry you got trolled like that on your first debate here... I recently had a debate on the same topic, which reading it may help you refine your arguments against my side (yup, I respectfully firmly disagree with you): https://www.debateart.com/debates/949
The most powerful and skilled force user of all time... In her sleep...
"The rebel fleet, traveling through the vacuum of space, should be able to maintain its speed without the additional expenditure of fuel for propulsion"
And of course Carrie Fisher's duex ex machina.
I had no problem with the fuel bit, but the related thing that if burning fuel they are accelerating, and then unconscious people fly faster than them...
I could argue either side of that one. However, I have a job interview this weekend, so really shouldn't get involved in another debate (I've got a weird one going on right now).
I of course advise knowing the common arguments against it being outright ruined, and have counters ready. Expect minor K's in the form of 'well the old movies are not harmed' and 'well they can ignore it like that did with Star Trek: Intro Darkness' (obvious counter to the second being that rebuilding something does not mean it was not ruined).
What's your definition of Ruined?
I'd be more interested in this in the forums... But what precisely do you mean by the Avengers Movement? I feel like you mean the Superhuman Registration Act, but it is unclear.
Both of you, nice job on biblical interpretations.
Given that number of abortions God performs within the bible...
He is gorgeous! ... Glad someone caught that snippet.
Nice catch. If you haven't already, I strongly advise reading the Bonus History Lesson (it's great fuel for mocking people later).
You likely got frustrated (justifiably so), but ended up saying this: "THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU A RIGHT TO CONCEDE TO MY TOPICS PRESENTED!!! AND THAT IS NOT OFF-TOPIC IN ANYWAY, SHAPE, OR FORM!"
You got 4 points instead of 5, it's more or less me reminding you to be careful in future debates.
But math is so hard... 1-7=0 right?
/sarcasm