Took me a little while to see this, my apologies..
I accept this mini-debate, I will be con. And same as Melch, I will have one round.
The BoP is, "this debate is about something".
Pro needs to argue that this debate is about something
Con needs to argue that this debate is not about something
I accept the definition of something: "some indeterminate or unspecified thing"
I am arguing that this debate is not about something. This is because this debate is specific and determined. Let me address these both a little bit more..
- This is specific because it says what this debate is about, meaning we know specifically what we are debating about.
- This is determined because once again it says what the debate it about. This is not something that is vague, we know how to argue this debate.
Further, since you even made an argument it shows you know what we're debating about. What does this mean? Its specific enough for you to be able to debate this.
Almost every debater here uses sites to back up their knowledge or prove points. My points are sometimes used from my common knowledge after that, I simply just find evidence from other websites supporting my claims.
As for using Wikipedia, I tend to avoid it 99.9% of the time.
As in regards to your vote, thank you. I was initially going to provide the cost, however ran into a problem with the lack of characters the debate allowed.
I understand your point. I looked up many different definitions of "something".
They could very well use this definition:
Something is some thing; a certain undetermined or unspecified thing.
Well, lets see.. Unspecific thing? This is specific because its talking about "something". This debate is determined. As you say, it's a truism debate. Meaning this debate is determined.
I did think about this, however all I need to do is reject it. There are most likely multiple definitions on other websites of "something" and I could use that to my advantage.
Further, all it says is "something". What does this mean? Nobody knows. The resolution would be hard for the pro. That said, even if he did make a random valid argument I could counter it by saying it doesn't validate the title.
I'm not entirely experienced with debating on this topic, however I still have a somewhat passionate opinion on this topic. I prefer to be con, abortion is not murder.
Maybe in a few days of time, would you be willing to debate this topic with me? Same definitions, parameters the same except possible change increase of word limit and on balance.
I think con could figure out how to win in this situation but it doesn't seem they are saying anything. Even with that, I want to see if they do in fact respond.
I personally agree with Mps. The description states the BoP is on Pro. Con only needs to disprove of your arguments. This means you should write your argument even if he forfiets his first round.
You only extend if they haven't responded to your arguments.
Hopefully, you know extending is when you have an argument. It's alright if you don't, but this is for future reference.
I'm unsure what your meaning. Would your vote be biased against me or for me? Either case it doesn't matter being it would be a unfair vote - just curious. And by saying giving all points to me, is that your biased voting opinion? Or your none-biased voting opinion?
Along with this, I got a message from someone. Though it appears it has the same pop-up as this debate has "The instigator is no longer active and cannot participate in the debate." Its says something a bit different but along the same lines.
Decided to let you know just in case you perhaps didn't know.
Though with my opinion on the topic of this debate, I have nothing to judge. It's not that I am one-sided when it comes to my opinion however I am certain with my opinion. That is until someone possibly changes my mind. Unlikely, but possible? Yes.
If your talking about how I do my debates, I already am already aware of my errors. That said, my judgement has already been decided.
Hm.. This isn't much up for me to answer. My judgement could be questioned regularly outside of this debate or inside of this debate. Simply, yes, this debate regarding (or my personal idea) on this topic can affect how people view my judgement. However, what much is there to judge?
It's always good to be curious once and a while. I apologize if that sounded a bit harsh or aggressive. I wasn't sure if it was a genuine question or more so a "hate" comment. Hopefully my previous response answered your question.
I'm unsure what your point is concluding. This debate is not regarded off of "higher authority" on what is "right or wrong" and would be incorrect.
Debating is different for everyone. Debating can be to prove a point, enjoy or something following along. However for me personally it can change frequently as it could most. This being my first debate I have engaged in on DART I decided to come up with a topic I am somewhat passionate about.
Do you have a problem with this debate? If so, what? I'm curious to some degree.
Thank you for letting me know. I somewhat knew the idea but it's good to get a more approachable way to understand forfeits.
I think I understand what you mean. I guess I can start to understand why he doesn't vote for spelling, conduct, and sources. To fully understand, he doesn't like voting for the extras; not argument, because of the debate he "rewarded" you for?
Is this supposed to be a debate between a Muslim anyones beliefs? Your using Christianity as your beginning statement but then using Muslim (as your own belief). Thats indicating the opponent could use any of their beliefs. Being that both have their own scriptures how do you really win this debate? I can somewhat think of ideas but ill let you answer this.
I have a slight questions for you regarding your vote.
Based on some comments I have seen on other debates that you have commented on, you have stated something such as, "I regret rating them for spelling and grammar, conduct, better sources.." Why would you vote them as a tie on those sections (besides the argument section)? Im genuinely curious whats your reason behind voting like that, mainly because you have nothing to judge from the person who performed full forfeit.
Also, I am not saying your voting is right or wrong just genuinely curious.
Wow, i'm quite ashamed of my argument this round. Due to the lack of time I feel some of my mistakes have put me at a disadvantage, though I do think for the most part I have covered everything that was mainly in need for a rebuttal. Many of edits to my argument were not saved. However, I would much rather post an argument and have a few mistakes rather than not have any argument posted at all (with a forfeit round). Even with various things I was wanted to get rid of in my argument. That said, if anything doesn't make sense, I might clarify it in the next round or upon request.
References (that were not mentioned due to lack in time):
Utah University State. 2023.
O'Reilly. 2019. Retrieved from Elitedaily.
PubMed Central. 2012.
I'm not understanding the point of this argument. Is it to say "Ham is not or is good for you"? Based on your comments that's what I am assuming. However, the title just states "ham" meaning both sides can be correct as they're both talking about ham. There really aren't any rebuttals, nobody counters anything. I think the only thing that determines the winner is spelling and grammar. iamham states "and sfdhijahdfiu" which determines, though a small mistake, who is the winner.
I recommend using "none rated" as the rating mode next time considering its your first time debating on this website and you are trying to figure out how it works.
Also the debater, Barney, I heard has a helpful guide when it comes to figuring out this website and debating basics. I can't give you how helpful the guide is because I haven't used it. However others have said it has helped them get started.
Before taking this debate with Chloe I have already researched all of the debates (on DebateArt that circles around death penalty) including your tie with Austin. Though I give my thanks for mentioning it, I might have forgotten about it.
Considering you never mentioned this is specifically focused on the United States (or specific area) has also put you at a somewhat disadvantage. They could refer to any country, state, job and use that as their entire argument. Though you possibly did this on purpose?
Possibly. I have recognized your debate with RationalMadMan before I started this debate with Chloe_firm.
Seeing that he conceded to your argument makes me uneasy about possibly debating you.
When you say the same "topic" does this mean it consists of the same title, "Should death penalty to be allowed"?
Much appreciated.
I'm going to go ahead and mention a few people who showed interest in this debate..
Not sure about the others.
Do you guys mind voting? If possible.
(Would rather this not end in a tie)
Yes, it was, sorry about that. Regardless, thank you for the vote.
Took me a little while to see this, my apologies..
I accept this mini-debate, I will be con. And same as Melch, I will have one round.
The BoP is, "this debate is about something".
Pro needs to argue that this debate is about something
Con needs to argue that this debate is not about something
I accept the definition of something: "some indeterminate or unspecified thing"
I am arguing that this debate is not about something. This is because this debate is specific and determined. Let me address these both a little bit more..
- This is specific because it says what this debate is about, meaning we know specifically what we are debating about.
- This is determined because once again it says what the debate it about. This is not something that is vague, we know how to argue this debate.
Further, since you even made an argument it shows you know what we're debating about. What does this mean? Its specific enough for you to be able to debate this.
Going to go ahead and bump this.
Almost every debater here uses sites to back up their knowledge or prove points. My points are sometimes used from my common knowledge after that, I simply just find evidence from other websites supporting my claims.
As for using Wikipedia, I tend to avoid it 99.9% of the time.
Elaborate?
I would appreciate that.
As in regards to your vote, thank you. I was initially going to provide the cost, however ran into a problem with the lack of characters the debate allowed.
Due to lack of characters, here's my sources:
1. Norwich bulletin. 2009. (https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/opinion/letters/2009/05/24/school-uniforms-should-not-be/64946323007/)
2. White House. 1791. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20First%20Amendment%20provides%20that,for%20a%20redress%20of%20grievances.)
I'm still writing my response.
Don't worry, I'll try to get it in by today. Also, this debate is a two week response time anyways.
Might take me a little while to respond, I wasn't expecting a response this quick.
Oh, I see. Thank you.
I also expect them to forfeit this debate either way.
I understand your point. I looked up many different definitions of "something".
They could very well use this definition:
Something is some thing; a certain undetermined or unspecified thing.
Well, lets see.. Unspecific thing? This is specific because its talking about "something". This debate is determined. As you say, it's a truism debate. Meaning this debate is determined.
I did think about this, however all I need to do is reject it. There are most likely multiple definitions on other websites of "something" and I could use that to my advantage.
Further, all it says is "something". What does this mean? Nobody knows. The resolution would be hard for the pro. That said, even if he did make a random valid argument I could counter it by saying it doesn't validate the title.
I doubt he will even make an argument and just go offline forever.
Even if they do have something, I accepted this knowing it's also something I can rebuttal against even with the poor resolution.
Easy qualification. :)
Oh, I see.
I'm not entirely experienced with debating on this topic, however I still have a somewhat passionate opinion on this topic. I prefer to be con, abortion is not murder.
My bad, didn't see the comment made by Public-Choice at the time.
Maybe in a few days of time, would you be willing to debate this topic with me? Same definitions, parameters the same except possible change increase of word limit and on balance.
I think con could figure out how to win in this situation but it doesn't seem they are saying anything. Even with that, I want to see if they do in fact respond.
I personally agree with Mps. The description states the BoP is on Pro. Con only needs to disprove of your arguments. This means you should write your argument even if he forfiets his first round.
You only extend if they haven't responded to your arguments.
Hopefully, you know extending is when you have an argument. It's alright if you don't, but this is for future reference.
This seems like a good debate along with good judges.
I'm glad to be spectating.
I could never agree with you more on your vote.
Pineapple on pizza? Disgusting.
It's quite unfortunate. I was actually looking for a head-on debate about this topic despite it being only one round and two hours.
In any case, if you do decide to log back into this account, feel free to message me to debate this topic for real.
Thank you, I appreciate it as well.
Quite unfortunate you won't be able to vote.
I'm unsure what your meaning. Would your vote be biased against me or for me? Either case it doesn't matter being it would be a unfair vote - just curious. And by saying giving all points to me, is that your biased voting opinion? Or your none-biased voting opinion?
Along with this, I got a message from someone. Though it appears it has the same pop-up as this debate has "The instigator is no longer active and cannot participate in the debate." Its says something a bit different but along the same lines.
Decided to let you know just in case you perhaps didn't know.
Im glad your enjoying this debate.
I'm not sure if I should worry.. Right now, I think I am in a solid area. But who knows..
If nobody else accepts this, I'll consider accepting this for the fun of it.
However, I did have the same thought as Intelligence.
I agree with you.
Though with my opinion on the topic of this debate, I have nothing to judge. It's not that I am one-sided when it comes to my opinion however I am certain with my opinion. That is until someone possibly changes my mind. Unlikely, but possible? Yes.
If your talking about how I do my debates, I already am already aware of my errors. That said, my judgement has already been decided.
Hm.. This isn't much up for me to answer. My judgement could be questioned regularly outside of this debate or inside of this debate. Simply, yes, this debate regarding (or my personal idea) on this topic can affect how people view my judgement. However, what much is there to judge?
That's good.
It's always good to be curious once and a while. I apologize if that sounded a bit harsh or aggressive. I wasn't sure if it was a genuine question or more so a "hate" comment. Hopefully my previous response answered your question.
Forgot to mention your user, my apologies.
I'm unsure what your point is concluding. This debate is not regarded off of "higher authority" on what is "right or wrong" and would be incorrect.
Debating is different for everyone. Debating can be to prove a point, enjoy or something following along. However for me personally it can change frequently as it could most. This being my first debate I have engaged in on DART I decided to come up with a topic I am somewhat passionate about.
Do you have a problem with this debate? If so, what? I'm curious to some degree.
I see.
Guess it just sparked something.
Thank you for letting me know. I somewhat knew the idea but it's good to get a more approachable way to understand forfeits.
I think I understand what you mean. I guess I can start to understand why he doesn't vote for spelling, conduct, and sources. To fully understand, he doesn't like voting for the extras; not argument, because of the debate he "rewarded" you for?
Alright, I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
Though I don't necessarily agree, I do respect your decision.
My bad for the mistake. Its supposed to be: "Is this supposed to be a debate between a Muslim and anyones beliefs?"
I am a bit confused with this topic.
Is this supposed to be a debate between a Muslim anyones beliefs? Your using Christianity as your beginning statement but then using Muslim (as your own belief). Thats indicating the opponent could use any of their beliefs. Being that both have their own scriptures how do you really win this debate? I can somewhat think of ideas but ill let you answer this.
I have a slight questions for you regarding your vote.
Based on some comments I have seen on other debates that you have commented on, you have stated something such as, "I regret rating them for spelling and grammar, conduct, better sources.." Why would you vote them as a tie on those sections (besides the argument section)? Im genuinely curious whats your reason behind voting like that, mainly because you have nothing to judge from the person who performed full forfeit.
Also, I am not saying your voting is right or wrong just genuinely curious.
Wow, i'm quite ashamed of my argument this round. Due to the lack of time I feel some of my mistakes have put me at a disadvantage, though I do think for the most part I have covered everything that was mainly in need for a rebuttal. Many of edits to my argument were not saved. However, I would much rather post an argument and have a few mistakes rather than not have any argument posted at all (with a forfeit round). Even with various things I was wanted to get rid of in my argument. That said, if anything doesn't make sense, I might clarify it in the next round or upon request.
References (that were not mentioned due to lack in time):
Utah University State. 2023.
O'Reilly. 2019. Retrieved from Elitedaily.
PubMed Central. 2012.
I'll see about it, still gotta finish my argument for the day with Best. Korea.
I'll let you know when i'm finished?
I was about to accept this debate till I realized the rating. Maybe next time, I got other debates anyways.
I'm not understanding the point of this argument. Is it to say "Ham is not or is good for you"? Based on your comments that's what I am assuming. However, the title just states "ham" meaning both sides can be correct as they're both talking about ham. There really aren't any rebuttals, nobody counters anything. I think the only thing that determines the winner is spelling and grammar. iamham states "and sfdhijahdfiu" which determines, though a small mistake, who is the winner.
Simply stating this for when I come back to vote.
I'll simply just bump this being an easy vote (ff).
I recommend using "none rated" as the rating mode next time considering its your first time debating on this website and you are trying to figure out how it works.
Also the debater, Barney, I heard has a helpful guide when it comes to figuring out this website and debating basics. I can't give you how helpful the guide is because I haven't used it. However others have said it has helped them get started.
I apologize if that came off rude, just simply something I noticed. I didn't realize it was "unrated".
Always good practice to put yourself out there once in awhile.
I appreciate your advice.
Before taking this debate with Chloe I have already researched all of the debates (on DebateArt that circles around death penalty) including your tie with Austin. Though I give my thanks for mentioning it, I might have forgotten about it.
Considering you never mentioned this is specifically focused on the United States (or specific area) has also put you at a somewhat disadvantage. They could refer to any country, state, job and use that as their entire argument. Though you possibly did this on purpose?
Possibly. I have recognized your debate with RationalMadMan before I started this debate with Chloe_firm.
Seeing that he conceded to your argument makes me uneasy about possibly debating you.
When you say the same "topic" does this mean it consists of the same title, "Should death penalty to be allowed"?
I appreciate this invite.
In the end of Argument A, it is supposed to state: "Living murders are not immobilized to continue crimes." I apologize for the misspelling.