Voting can be tricky. I honestly haven't gotten used to the requirements here, I am used to a much lower standard of voter BoP (make it clear you read the debate, and are not voting just as a game of who/what you like). I'd call voting here a trinity system, which isn't bad, it just isn't what I'm used to.
Try! ... Bare in mind, pro is the one with the real burden of proof. If you so much as cast sufficient doubt on Messi being objectively better (as a human being, humanitarian works, whatever...), you win.
Regarding the trinity I was speaking of the rule you set for this debate, that it is off limits: "Please stay on topic. This is not a debate about ... how God can be two seperate persons and still one God."
FYI, I went to a catholic university. As such, I know the history of the bible better than most. ... I could technically argue this from either side, but discussing it while excluding the trinity seems like an interesting challenge; to which I've thought of a solid counter.
I have decided not to vote on this. I began an analysis, but found myself pulled toward con more than con had yet earned.
This is my bias against a whiny baby who thinks that facts are subjective (Trump, not Our_Boat), and another day I might be feeling the pull of it less, but today I cannot say my analysis would be fair enough.
---Initial thoughts toward voting---
BoP:
Usually pro would have BoP, but this debate setup places it upon con. Until con has shown subject X to be a racist, the debate is assumed to be given to pro.
Conduct:
Con gets a lot of credit here for waiving the final round, when the debate rules made no such specification (basically, I'd probably give him conduct if giving pro arguments).
Sources:
Sourcing in this debate was a hot mess. It looks like it gets better later, but tossing a couple links at the end of a round not connected to arguments does no favors, nor does “Watch the video. This actually is a perfect example of Trump not being racist” without a video link.
C1 (tie): Gish Gallop
By tie I mean neither managed to prove anything with this. (subpoints which gain ground will be given their own Contention listings)
R1 I’d call a bit of a Gish Gallop. It could have been improved with some analysis over a smaller number of examples. (and yeah, I know the intent was to overwhelm with a preponderance of evidence)
Pro mostly countered this with pointing out the missing context. (note: greater context I am aware of does not count, it is con’s analysis of the data which I can judge, followed by any counters from pro).
C2 (): Lynne Parton
To answer the question directed at the voters: yes, a racist would still be capable of those actions. One of the head's of the Heritage Front for example, always maintained exactly one black friend, in case a character witness was needed (it's damned creepy).
It's a weird one, because feelings override truth. We even have the term "alternate facts" to spare the feelings of someone who is objectively wrong. So well it should not be the case, if we don't consider feelings the search for truth gets set back by book burnings and the like.
I can envision some good arguments for and against.
For fan fiction, Steven Moffat wrote Doctor Who fan fiction before going on to writing the actual show; and Max Landis' fan fiction ending to Wonder Woman was far superior to what we actually got (still a great movie).
Against fan fiction, the majority of fan fiction is really bad, and then a good deal just is terrible... Let us not forget that Mary Sue originated in fan fiction, before she went on to damage so many beloved series (joke, she would have existed even if not named).
Someone came out with a GoT extended ending, and while intended as comedy, I'd say it's a nice improvement! https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/1130581319593783296
"Please stay on topic. This is not a debate about ... how God can be two seperate persons and still one God."
Were this a debate about Jesus Christ is Zeus, that rule would be equally logical. It really seems like you want to debate that many believe the interpretation of monotheism without question, and ignoring any challenge that a whole pantheon might negate that.
At this point anything other than a concession from con would be poor conduct to be dismissed. Final round blitzkriegs are not a tactic anyone with integrity rewards.
There's no true altruism is an interesting but non-falsifiable hypothesis. I ultimately take the side that it's without significance if good people do good because they enjoy it.
I could honestly argue either side of this, but given the warning from Alec, it's important to give the instigator a chance to clarify his or his stance.
If trying to reply to someone, put their name in the receivers textbox, otherwise they will not get a notification.
"did not say that christians are terrorists"
The threat of 'do what I want or be tortured,' is itself a terrorist threat. If it doesn't count because you believe you are right, would mean the 9/11 terrorist attacks were not acts of terror, because they thought they were right and that god was on their side.
Welcome to the site, and good luck!
You've got four hours. I left holes in my case to make at least claim I. winnable for you... Not so much for II., all hail the FSM!
Voting can be tricky. I honestly haven't gotten used to the requirements here, I am used to a much lower standard of voter BoP (make it clear you read the debate, and are not voting just as a game of who/what you like). I'd call voting here a trinity system, which isn't bad, it just isn't what I'm used to.
First time I heard that term was in reference to Sasha Grey... I'll resist trolling the debate.
You can probably win this one without arguments, if you simply don't forfeit.
Thanks.
I rarely do the professional sourcing, but due to my history with neo-nazis I like to put their ideals down with prejudice.
Try! ... Bare in mind, pro is the one with the real burden of proof. If you so much as cast sufficient doubt on Messi being objectively better (as a human being, humanitarian works, whatever...), you win.
Regarding the trinity I was speaking of the rule you set for this debate, that it is off limits: "Please stay on topic. This is not a debate about ... how God can be two seperate persons and still one God."
FYI, I went to a catholic university. As such, I know the history of the bible better than most. ... I could technically argue this from either side, but discussing it while excluding the trinity seems like an interesting challenge; to which I've thought of a solid counter.
I have not seen Poe's Law used so well in a very long time. Well done!
I have decided not to vote on this. I began an analysis, but found myself pulled toward con more than con had yet earned.
This is my bias against a whiny baby who thinks that facts are subjective (Trump, not Our_Boat), and another day I might be feeling the pull of it less, but today I cannot say my analysis would be fair enough.
---Initial thoughts toward voting---
BoP:
Usually pro would have BoP, but this debate setup places it upon con. Until con has shown subject X to be a racist, the debate is assumed to be given to pro.
Conduct:
Con gets a lot of credit here for waiving the final round, when the debate rules made no such specification (basically, I'd probably give him conduct if giving pro arguments).
Sources:
Sourcing in this debate was a hot mess. It looks like it gets better later, but tossing a couple links at the end of a round not connected to arguments does no favors, nor does “Watch the video. This actually is a perfect example of Trump not being racist” without a video link.
C1 (tie): Gish Gallop
By tie I mean neither managed to prove anything with this. (subpoints which gain ground will be given their own Contention listings)
R1 I’d call a bit of a Gish Gallop. It could have been improved with some analysis over a smaller number of examples. (and yeah, I know the intent was to overwhelm with a preponderance of evidence)
Pro mostly countered this with pointing out the missing context. (note: greater context I am aware of does not count, it is con’s analysis of the data which I can judge, followed by any counters from pro).
C2 (): Lynne Parton
To answer the question directed at the voters: yes, a racist would still be capable of those actions. One of the head's of the Heritage Front for example, always maintained exactly one black friend, in case a character witness was needed (it's damned creepy).
C3
Ah, football.
Here's a useful source for information on them (this is actually a truism debate): https://michelacosta.com/en/messi-vs-ronaldo/
It's a weird one, because feelings override truth. We even have the term "alternate facts" to spare the feelings of someone who is objectively wrong. So well it should not be the case, if we don't consider feelings the search for truth gets set back by book burnings and the like.
I can envision some good arguments for and against.
For fan fiction, Steven Moffat wrote Doctor Who fan fiction before going on to writing the actual show; and Max Landis' fan fiction ending to Wonder Woman was far superior to what we actually got (still a great movie).
Against fan fiction, the majority of fan fiction is really bad, and then a good deal just is terrible... Let us not forget that Mary Sue originated in fan fiction, before she went on to damage so many beloved series (joke, she would have existed even if not named).
Someone came out with a GoT extended ending, and while intended as comedy, I'd say it's a nice improvement! https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/1130581319593783296
You have a truism, so expect someone to troll you. Stick to the facts and actually login again, for an easy win.
Glad to hear fun was had.
Boat was the instigator in Speed's previous debate on this topic, so it would probably just be a repeat or extension of the same points.
"Please stay on topic. This is not a debate about ... how God can be two seperate persons and still one God."
Were this a debate about Jesus Christ is Zeus, that rule would be equally logical. It really seems like you want to debate that many believe the interpretation of monotheism without question, and ignoring any challenge that a whole pantheon might negate that.
Thanks for voting.
Note: I have zero objections to any of the votes cast.
You may want to give context.
Truisms are rarely well supported.
Plus Orwell.
Thanks for voting.
In case you're worried about spoilers from episodes 68-73, I have a large warning around the small bit of discussion I give to them.
I've seen every episode. To include episode 6. I really liked how Bran met Osha as an enemy, but they were destined to be allies.
At this point anything other than a concession from con would be poor conduct to be dismissed. Final round blitzkriegs are not a tactic anyone with integrity rewards.
Just re-read the rules. I remembered FF's being forfeiting more than half the rounds, but I was mistaken. Thanks for the clarification.
Please don't put recent spoilers into debate titles.
Hopefully you get a non-troll contender...
Thanks for re-voting!
It sounds like you've already ended up having to give the arguments at least a good skimming. If you're not too busy, would you mind casting a vote?
I made the same bet when I accepted this debate.
Oh well, at least it taught me something about the mental state of certain (not all) pro-lifers.
Re-voting (following the COC guidelines of course) would be appreciated.
There's no true altruism is an interesting but non-falsifiable hypothesis. I ultimately take the side that it's without significance if good people do good because they enjoy it.
Please don't use racist nicknames for people.
I could honestly argue either side of this, but given the warning from Alec, it's important to give the instigator a chance to clarify his or his stance.
You're right, we need to save the babies from eternal damnation! >:)
If trying to reply to someone, put their name in the receivers textbox, otherwise they will not get a notification.
"did not say that christians are terrorists"
The threat of 'do what I want or be tortured,' is itself a terrorist threat. If it doesn't count because you believe you are right, would mean the 9/11 terrorist attacks were not acts of terror, because they thought they were right and that god was on their side.
I am thus far unconvinced by the affirmative case...
Laughing my ass off (lmao).
"by virtue of his position being ever slightly more palatable than Pro's"
Palatable... Delicious pun!
Attack on two fronts!
You beat me to accepting by mere seconds! Anyway, best of luck to you.
Thanks for voting.
Well said!
Something to consider in future would be a moderation-lite option for debates like this.
"You have used man's definition of Christianity, but not God's definition."
This is the most funny thing I have read all day.
I hope you enjoyed the rest of the debate. And of course, please vote.
Suggested K: Australia does not exist, so self defense cannot take place there.
Thanks for voting!
And it's good to see someone else handle final round blitzkriegs in the same way as me.