No need to bother admin, especially on an FF... However for clarity:
Con decided to drop the entire pro case without challenge (or even being read, as his #2 and #7 was already contradicted by pro's #2), and forfeiture.
Pretty straight forward, a benefit made available to twice the current population, at the expense of a negative effect applied to precisely zero people... Con's traditional values issue for example, is done without showing any way even one traditional value would be harmed (appeals to tradition need an actual appeal, like what would be harmed if girls learned how to tie knots?) ... The distracted angle was not shown to be meaningful and was countered with basic logic.
Note on the distracted clause: Pro technically if there were so many more gay people in the scouts, they would not be the ones banned, you would be for being so distracting to them; that is the standard con's logic proposes if taken to the conclusion. An additional point you could have done (not that it was needed), is since boy scouts are about teaching discipline, learning to deal with distractions (which I know, your number 2 prevents anyway, as the proposal specifically did not include the troops being mixed) would lead to greater self improvement for boys (which then goes back to traditional values being harmed by not doing it!).
If not trying to straw-person certain arguments to which you lost the previous debate, then please inform us of your real intent and opinion of said arguments?
You may want to delete this and remake it with the error corrected... Setting some extra parameters might also be good for a clean debate (God in what sense? What is considered evidence? etc.). Plus these religious debates get needlessly long, perhaps cut the character limit down to 5k-10k?
Arguments and Sources (my opinions, not moderation policy):
Evidence is used in convert assertions into arguments. If there's enough good evidence, sources may be awarded. These two things can end up going to opposite sides (Like 'oh wow this person researched their case well, but their logic still didn't line up so well'). However winning sources is somewhat about the effort differential; they're never awarded merely for 'had a source.' It's also important to note they are not awarded for source spamming (I actually hold it against people).
Nice to see evidence coming in from the comment section :)
I'm not Rational Madman... However, apparently I am Airmax, Bsh, BoT, and anyone else oppressing your badly misunderstood "freedom of speech." Oh and I'm not reading your PMs just to make you look bad.
And yes, those were all things to which I have been accused.
1. Use the description to define the debate you want to have (like if the bible is considered valid evidence, and God is assumed to exist).
2. Write your R1 before starting the debate, then grab the character count from it (word and Google docs make this easy... probably the same with every other application). Double and round that character counter count, and use it for the characters per argument (this way you don't get too far in over your head).
3. Never assume hurt feelings if people do not agree with you. By starting a debate, you are literally asking them to do just that. They might wholly agree with you, but are trying to help you strengthen your argument as if it were an academic paper being peer reviewed.
It was a question that would have defined my rebuttal tactic.
I live in the USA, where "certain inalienable rights" is a thing. ... Not that rights are never violated, but that the government is supposed to never violate them (and in general protect against their violation). Had pro agreed, I would have merely shown prisoners not being allowed to vote.
I do disagree with with your assessment that there were no sources, as I gave several to support my reasoning (the blue underlined words were links to evidence).
Wrink's vote is at best a troll vote. He changed a couple words from the old vote (deleted for failing to meet the standard), to dismiss any need to have read the debate or weight arguments within it... He voted his religious bias, not the debate content.
I say this as someone who dislikes Boat, and AOTBE would prefer to see him loss.
Under C3 (tied), and again under an entire section just for it...
"Sources:
"Con giving an outdated source sucks, but even his old political beliefs were not conclusively shown to be purely religious (or pro really should have shown the quote in the bible the border wall is based on). Plus, here's the big thing: if you have reason to challenge him to a debate, there should be something he's said somewhere to make you think the resolution is true, not merely his old profile from a dead website, or a religious conspiracy theory to which he happens to be listed as a member of said religion. So pro, next time quote him on something."
Regarding the not enough disk space error when in fact there is a ton of space... Usually that's an error with a partition, in particular the paging file size.
Good news, it's actually an easy and free fix: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/972502/there-is-not-enough-free-space-on-partition-c-error-when-you-try-to-up
First, please use the long description to set rules, such as "that my opponent believes the Torah and the Tanakh to be authoritative, I will also reference the Talmud several times." This will avoid a lot of problems.
Second, if at all possible please use consistent headings. You can share these, number them, and expand the number as needed. Following trains of thoughts through a lot of disorganized text is not fun.
I would be mildly opposed to such a rule. However, I'd wholly understand someone opting to make a new account to distance themselves from their old behavior.
I know it's too late now, but I believe raaron's vote falls well short of the voting standards. It looks to me like a profile potentially made just to cast a vote on this debate.
Holy @&>/, an amature debate on this topic which entertained me.
I'll vote when on a proper terminal later. But credit to both for the back and forth on fallacies, use of sources (I disagree with posting any in the comments, but if doing so I suggest giving a link to the comment # containing them), and general consistency.
Here was the partial RFD, this is not a vote, merely sharing thoughts I had while reading this to help the debaters refine their future arguments...
The debate almost immediately shifted away from Con's opening evidence, so they will only be minimally addressed. As his evidence was dropped without direct challenge (I'll grant there was indirect), and the evidence was convincing, he attained base BoP (as I hate votes which don't go deeper, I'll continue).
I'd like to thank both debaters for using headings to make things easy to follow.
Argument lines:
1. BoP: Pro's discussion of this leads to his tactic, but he presumes an exclusivity qualifier statement which was not within "BoP on Con." It's a nice attempted gotcha moment, but unworthy of trying to replace the actual debate.
2. Alternative: Going to heavily paraphrase here... The Flying Spaghetti Monster (insert your favorite name for it) has tricked us into believing there's a world, but that spherical world is just an illusion. Pro got caught up trying to prove that if so voting for him still has meaning, but that strengthened the case that our observations of a spherical world have meaning (if the Earth is an illusion, and the illusion is spherical, then the Earth is still spherical). Pro's assertion that it's flat and round, conflicted with his BoP argument (if con indeed has sole BoP, both being true would give him the debate. It's with shared BoP that both being true results in a tie).
To be clear, I agree there are serious problems with our prison systems, in particular regards to abuse of three-strike laws.
In the case of shoplifting, just charging them for the merchandise and trespassing them, would be a more fitting solution than anything I've heard of produced by the criminal justice system for such a puny violation.
Someone remind me in a couple days and I'll vote on this. Actually started to write one, but the arguments under separate headings are starting to blur together (I need sleep).
Reminder, you've got eight hours remaining to post your R1. Given that you probably live in the US, you'll want to post before you go to sleep tonight.
"The lord doesn't want any to die."
With time travel, we could send everyone into the very end of time at the precise moment before their death. Thus no one dies...
"force the entire population of China into slavery so they could build him a giant sky-scraper sized steel dildo to get his rocks off with."
Ok, why did that point come from pro? It clearly shows how intelligent ST was to organize such... (not including this in my vote, it was just really funny to me)
I can't speak for Virtuoso, but I suspect the vote was just slightly below the level of detail the standard requires. For example: "Brining the justice system into the topic after the fact was pro's critical mistake." That I slapped the lily pads of that into the water, gets to the heart of the issue, but doesn't quite explain how I slapped them into the water (or for that matter how pro defended their inclusion).
Your comments were linked to a previous debate. This is a new debate with the same resolution, but with an added description (such as changing his mind not being a factor in voting).
That was a painful source to skim through (cold stone)...
"52% neg and 48% pos. (fair and balanced more than anyone else, but still tilted against Trump)."
So apparently if any source is off by even 2%, it's fake news to be complained about (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wG_h3U568w)... Got to wonder how they would rank by their own standards.
No need to bother admin, especially on an FF... However for clarity:
Con decided to drop the entire pro case without challenge (or even being read, as his #2 and #7 was already contradicted by pro's #2), and forfeiture.
Pretty straight forward, a benefit made available to twice the current population, at the expense of a negative effect applied to precisely zero people... Con's traditional values issue for example, is done without showing any way even one traditional value would be harmed (appeals to tradition need an actual appeal, like what would be harmed if girls learned how to tie knots?) ... The distracted angle was not shown to be meaningful and was countered with basic logic.
Note on the distracted clause: Pro technically if there were so many more gay people in the scouts, they would not be the ones banned, you would be for being so distracting to them; that is the standard con's logic proposes if taken to the conclusion. An additional point you could have done (not that it was needed), is since boy scouts are about teaching discipline, learning to deal with distractions (which I know, your number 2 prevents anyway, as the proposal specifically did not include the troops being mixed) would lead to greater self improvement for boys (which then goes back to traditional values being harmed by not doing it!).
Just re-read it, and at one point yeah. I do wish we could edit our RFDs.
Very nice debate structure!
Normally if I type lol it means I might have chuckled under my breath, but to this I actually laughed out loud. Thanks for improving everyone's day!
If not trying to straw-person certain arguments to which you lost the previous debate, then please inform us of your real intent and opinion of said arguments?
A pro case would be dependent upon the No True Scotsman.
I'm going to resist trolling this... however, I do suggest refining the resolution to have a more clear meaning.
You may want to delete this and remake it with the error corrected... Setting some extra parameters might also be good for a clean debate (God in what sense? What is considered evidence? etc.). Plus these religious debates get needlessly long, perhaps cut the character limit down to 5k-10k?
Arguments and Sources (my opinions, not moderation policy):
Evidence is used in convert assertions into arguments. If there's enough good evidence, sources may be awarded. These two things can end up going to opposite sides (Like 'oh wow this person researched their case well, but their logic still didn't line up so well'). However winning sources is somewhat about the effort differential; they're never awarded merely for 'had a source.' It's also important to note they are not awarded for source spamming (I actually hold it against people).
Nice to see evidence coming in from the comment section :)
I'm not Rational Madman... However, apparently I am Airmax, Bsh, BoT, and anyone else oppressing your badly misunderstood "freedom of speech." Oh and I'm not reading your PMs just to make you look bad.
And yes, those were all things to which I have been accused.
A couple bits of advice:
1. Use the description to define the debate you want to have (like if the bible is considered valid evidence, and God is assumed to exist).
2. Write your R1 before starting the debate, then grab the character count from it (word and Google docs make this easy... probably the same with every other application). Double and round that character counter count, and use it for the characters per argument (this way you don't get too far in over your head).
3. Never assume hurt feelings if people do not agree with you. By starting a debate, you are literally asking them to do just that. They might wholly agree with you, but are trying to help you strengthen your argument as if it were an academic paper being peer reviewed.
I'd simply go by when the expression of your rights (or freedoms to be more precise) would infringe upon the rights of another.
It was a question that would have defined my rebuttal tactic.
I live in the USA, where "certain inalienable rights" is a thing. ... Not that rights are never violated, but that the government is supposed to never violate them (and in general protect against their violation). Had pro agreed, I would have merely shown prisoners not being allowed to vote.
Thanks for voting.
And double thanks for taking the time to read the debate (I am not convinced anyone else has).
Take all the time you need.
Depends on the definition of right. If rights are inalienable, then it is of course not a right.
Thanks for the attempted vote.
I do disagree with with your assessment that there were no sources, as I gave several to support my reasoning (the blue underlined words were links to evidence).
Thanks for voting.
I take the side that to each their own.
Wrink's vote is at best a troll vote. He changed a couple words from the old vote (deleted for failing to meet the standard), to dismiss any need to have read the debate or weight arguments within it... He voted his religious bias, not the debate content.
I say this as someone who dislikes Boat, and AOTBE would prefer to see him loss.
Under C3 (tied), and again under an entire section just for it...
"Sources:
"Con giving an outdated source sucks, but even his old political beliefs were not conclusively shown to be purely religious (or pro really should have shown the quote in the bible the border wall is based on). Plus, here's the big thing: if you have reason to challenge him to a debate, there should be something he's said somewhere to make you think the resolution is true, not merely his old profile from a dead website, or a religious conspiracy theory to which he happens to be listed as a member of said religion. So pro, next time quote him on something."
Had you read my vote, you would know I mentioned that multiple times.
Thanks for voting.
So many different ways by different definitions... No True Scotsman will probably get heavily involved in this as a logical proof.
I could not find the quoted political belief explanations within the link, just one about how con identifies as culturally Asian.
That seems to be a weird vote for anyone to report. I'm guessing someone did a blanket report when he went to dozens of debates and voted profanity.
Regarding the not enough disk space error when in fact there is a ton of space... Usually that's an error with a partition, in particular the paging file size.
Good news, it's actually an easy and free fix: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/972502/there-is-not-enough-free-space-on-partition-c-error-when-you-try-to-up
Initial thoughts...
First, please use the long description to set rules, such as "that my opponent believes the Torah and the Tanakh to be authoritative, I will also reference the Talmud several times." This will avoid a lot of problems.
Second, if at all possible please use consistent headings. You can share these, number them, and expand the number as needed. Following trains of thoughts through a lot of disorganized text is not fun.
He technically wrote " "
I would be mildly opposed to such a rule. However, I'd wholly understand someone opting to make a new account to distance themselves from their old behavior.
It is oddly tempting...
I am pro. For the most part, I believe instigators should word resolutions such that they are the pro side, as it makes everything easier.
To bother following him around and reporting his votes on forfeited debates, someone small minded must really hate him.
I know it's too late now, but I believe raaron's vote falls well short of the voting standards. It looks to me like a profile potentially made just to cast a vote on this debate.
Holy @&>/, an amature debate on this topic which entertained me.
I'll vote when on a proper terminal later. But credit to both for the back and forth on fallacies, use of sources (I disagree with posting any in the comments, but if doing so I suggest giving a link to the comment # containing them), and general consistency.
Not the weakest conspiracy theory I've disproven. Still, two pages handled with half a page, feels nice.
Here was the partial RFD, this is not a vote, merely sharing thoughts I had while reading this to help the debaters refine their future arguments...
The debate almost immediately shifted away from Con's opening evidence, so they will only be minimally addressed. As his evidence was dropped without direct challenge (I'll grant there was indirect), and the evidence was convincing, he attained base BoP (as I hate votes which don't go deeper, I'll continue).
I'd like to thank both debaters for using headings to make things easy to follow.
Argument lines:
1. BoP: Pro's discussion of this leads to his tactic, but he presumes an exclusivity qualifier statement which was not within "BoP on Con." It's a nice attempted gotcha moment, but unworthy of trying to replace the actual debate.
2. Alternative: Going to heavily paraphrase here... The Flying Spaghetti Monster (insert your favorite name for it) has tricked us into believing there's a world, but that spherical world is just an illusion. Pro got caught up trying to prove that if so voting for him still has meaning, but that strengthened the case that our observations of a spherical world have meaning (if the Earth is an illusion, and the illusion is spherical, then the Earth is still spherical). Pro's assertion that it's flat and round, conflicted with his BoP argument (if con indeed has sole BoP, both being true would give him the debate. It's with shared BoP that both being true results in a tie).
3. Obligations: Just BoP again.
Biblical or historical?
Thanks for the debate.
To be clear, I agree there are serious problems with our prison systems, in particular regards to abuse of three-strike laws.
In the case of shoplifting, just charging them for the merchandise and trespassing them, would be a more fitting solution than anything I've heard of produced by the criminal justice system for such a puny violation.
Thanks for voting.
Someone remind me in a couple days and I'll vote on this. Actually started to write one, but the arguments under separate headings are starting to blur together (I need sleep).
Reminder, you've got eight hours remaining to post your R1. Given that you probably live in the US, you'll want to post before you go to sleep tonight.
At casual skimming, it looks like a well researched debate by both sides.
However, due to ethical principles I do not vote on abortion debates (I'm too biased).
"The lord doesn't want any to die."
With time travel, we could send everyone into the very end of time at the precise moment before their death. Thus no one dies...
Never considered the issue of what it would take to rename a quarter-century old movie.
Not accepting the debate, as my arguments would probably amount to a K (sidestepping the true topic pro wishes to discuss).
"force the entire population of China into slavery so they could build him a giant sky-scraper sized steel dildo to get his rocks off with."
Ok, why did that point come from pro? It clearly shows how intelligent ST was to organize such... (not including this in my vote, it was just really funny to me)
Thanks for voting.
I can't speak for Virtuoso, but I suspect the vote was just slightly below the level of detail the standard requires. For example: "Brining the justice system into the topic after the fact was pro's critical mistake." That I slapped the lily pads of that into the water, gets to the heart of the issue, but doesn't quite explain how I slapped them into the water (or for that matter how pro defended their inclusion).
I don't know if the old one is still accessible.
Your comments were linked to a previous debate. This is a new debate with the same resolution, but with an added description (such as changing his mind not being a factor in voting).
That was a painful source to skim through (cold stone)...
"52% neg and 48% pos. (fair and balanced more than anyone else, but still tilted against Trump)."
So apparently if any source is off by even 2%, it's fake news to be complained about (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wG_h3U568w)... Got to wonder how they would rank by their own standards.
...
Also subscribed to PewDiePie.