Thanks. I wanted to break with tradition and make a debate on this topic without repeating the simple mantra of "genocides, wars etc", and focus on some more important issues. From a Christian perspective, only the eternal judgement of God should matter.
Human civilisation considers itself more technologically advance than things that don't exist. By invertedly applying this logic to the description, we can deduce that aliens having a technological head start includes the notion of aliens existing. Aliens of course do not mean Mexicans or other humans but to extraterrestrial life.
I would just mention that the debate we are commenting on isn't rigged. I have no plan of removing votes, nor do I have an agreement with moderators to remove the votes. I of course know that moderators aren't gonna agree with the description. Even if you believe I wanted an auto-win, you would still know that my plan was to abuse the description to win the debate rather than actually remove the votes. Reading my R1 clearly shows that I do accept the possibility of losing as real, but I only regard it as invalid in STATISTICAL terms.
I severely disagree with your sources point. CON uses a single source and does not demonstrate which impact it had, other than PRO's victory being unfair, which doesn't at all disprove PRO's victory. My R1 source basically proves that my claim of chance is valid since a debate won by CON would violate statistical assumptions. Unless by sources point you merely mean to punish for what you see as conduct failure, I don't see any reason for giving it to CON rather than tie.
With arguments point, I am not sure I understand. I clearly stated that it is impossible to roll a seven on "A" normal dice. But you base both your rejection of my R2 source and your rejection of my R1 argument based on a misunderstanding that with two dice it is possible. My argument in R1 was that only with cheating (aka, using two dice or re-painting the single dice) can you roll a seven. Thus, to claim that there is a non-zero probability of rolling a seven with that one dice would violate assumptions (that seven is not a valid option on a normal dice), and thus not be a valid claim of chance. CON never rebuts my logical evidence, so I am curious as to why you gave him the argument point.
I ask you to at the very least re-vote with a correct understanding of my R1 dice example, and nurces points based ot give soon a misinterpretation of said point.
PRO starts out by claiming that the big bang theory has met the highest standard of scientific rigour. He supported that claim by mentioning multiple successful predictions of the big bang theory.
However, CON's appeal to the timeline of science does make a huge impact. Having clarified that it was the CURRENT expansion of the universe that was predicted, CON puts things into perspective. I simply buy his argument that the current expansion of the universe was used to predict the big bang, and not vice versa. PRO argues that the "earliest form of the Big Bang Theory" was being confirmed. Yet CON's demand for evidence (like a specific quote) wasn't met. The only thing that is left of PRO's argument is that "the universe expanding" was predicted and confirmed, which is neither specific nor impactful enough to support PRO's initial claim -- that of the big bang theory having stood "highest scientific rigour".
In my opinion, PRO should have used the argument that the universe expanding is actually direct proof of the big bang. If the universe expands today, and we assume uniformity, then there was indeed a "hotter and denser" universe in the past. As far as I know, that is the reason why the big bang theory is universally accepted among scientists. Using this argument would have assured PRO victory unless CON had access to extreme rebutting facts I am not aware of.
On with my analysis. The crime detective metaphor mentioned by PRO was indeed a good one. PRO shows us why the specifics numbers and other variables of the big bang theory aren't to be nitpicked. I was convinced that the age of the universe is not a crucial part of the big bang theory if a part at all. This does invalidate CON's argument that the big bang theory needs evidence for billions of years.
CON admits that the big bang theory predicted CMBr. He chooses to expose the inadequacies of the big bang model with regards to explaining our observations of CMBr. He appeals to fine-tuning of energy and the horizon problem. PRO's rebuttal is that the big bang theory is easily fixed if we insert cosmic inflation, a fact to which CON agrees. Interestingly enough, CON challenges the validity of the big bang theory based upon PRO's very statement. CON says that a theory is not valid if the observations it predicts force the theory itself to be changed. This should be partly true as per PRO's own standard presented in R1.
Furthermore, CON argues that cosmic inflation doesn't adequately fit PRO's criteria of a scientific theory. He sources multiple experts who agree that cosmic inflation is too flexible and vague to really be falsified, and makes the argument that infinite possibilities make the theory unfalsifiable. PRO rebuts by providing his own expert quote that explains predictions of cosmic inflation. PRO also claims that a scientific theory being updated multiple times doesn't disprove its validity. I fully buy this. I also buy PRO's argument that the theory of the universe being hotter and denser in the past made a reliable prediction of the universe's temperature. I don't think PRO fully overcame the argument of inflation being a pseudoscience. CON's argument that inflation is too flexible to be truly falsified is an impactful one and also supported by the fact that inflation has been changed multiple times -- weakening PRO's argument from its successful predictions. PRO did not provide a specific method of falsification of inflation, apart from his 5 predictions. Having said that, PRO's argument for science becoming more specific as time goes on does redeem inflation. I also don't think that PRO needed specific quotes or evidence to support his claim that inflation is the simplest and best model.
The resolution states that the Big Bang probably happened. PRO's definition of the Big Bang Theory is simple enough to not require the details which CON attacks. While CON successfully disproves PRO's claim of the big bang theory being a theory of the highest standards, I don't think he disproved the resolution. The current expansion of the universe, even if it was used to predict the big bang and not vice versa, would still be one major argument for the big bang as defined by PRO. Furthermore, PRO shows us why the theory is valid despite being refined and changed multiple times.
Arguments: PRO.
PRO successfully defends the resolution. Despite losing a lot from his initial claim of the highest scientific rigour, he still holds on to the crucial idea of the universe previously being hotter and denser. Unfortunately for CON, his valiant effort didn't cut it to win this uphill battle against established science. The results were pretty close though. CON successfully defeats any claim of the big bang theory being of "highest scientific rigour". He shows why rather it's a patched up and modified theory that must constantly be updated to fit new data. However, PRO does not disprove the resolution.
Sources: CON.
Cutting it close, just as with arguments. Sources from both sides were reliable. I give this point based on two factors.
(1): CON won at least two major sources battles. He defeated PRO's claim of the big bang theory predicting the Hubble constant, and also showed why inflation is unfalsifiable. Both of these points were won by CON using sources more effectively. Voter bias also forced CON to use sources to support his points where PRO sometimes could rely on voters agreeing.
(2): With voter bias, it doesn't make sense to give PRO arguments point based on slight advantage and not give CON the sources point based on slight advantage
Not part of the vote:
PRO's most impactful argument was the crime-detective example. You could nitpick on his calculations of where the shooter stood, but the holes in the wall clearly prove that a shooting occurred. I don't need specific predictions beyond a hole in the wall to accept a theory of a shooting.
CON's most impactful argument was the spring example. Inflation, which is necessary for the big bang to make sense, simply assumes that energy was contracted and able to cause inflation. Unfortunately for PRO, any explanation for the big bang would simply assume something: whether it be the existence of God or a multiverse or infinite expansion, any theory would face the same issue. CON's argument thus doesn't convince me.
"Nevermind. I truly hate the layout of debateart and not only that but it is amazingly difficult to use. I tried posting the simplest of simple debates to get everything started and the website would not allow me to post. No loss. Oh well. However, I truly appreciate the offering. Thanx very kindly.
Please tc and haveth thee fun."
I must say I am very disappointed by your vote. First and foremost you ignore every single argument that I made to show why it would be impossible to even hit EVE. Even if I were wrong, PRO did not rebut, and so you completely ignoring this crucial argument disproving PRO's case makes your vote utterly biased. Secondly, your very own experience as a "feat debater" is your only way to even claim that PRO won the argument point. I literally used scientific sources to show how future materials will have properties today considered impossible. This leads to my third objection, and that is that you do not give the sources argument. I literally proved my sources to be more reliable than PRO's, while also using scientific sources to prove that future materials could have properties today considered impossible. Coupled with my analysis of the actual source material in the movies, my sources actually back up my claims that EVE has impossibly resistant armour.
I disproved the effectiveness of every weapon by PRO individually, and he never rebutted. How dare you then as a voter to disregard what happened in the actual debate and instead bring up your own experience? Even if you bought the semantical argument that "anything is possible" you still can't deny that the overwhelming majority of arguments were won by me and that all battles between sources were won by me. I also raise the question of where PRO proved anything. Apart from giving us a number of watts, PRO never proved at all that the star wars army could harm EVE. That's like saying that my rifle has a calibre of x and then claiming that I could penetrate a tank. Without comparing the strength of each part no conclusion can be made. Meanwhile, I actually compared the armour of EVE to the weaponry of the star wars army and showed why EVE would go unharmed. Yet again, even if I were wrong, PRO didn't rebut.
Your vote simply ignores every point I made, and every rebuttal I made. Your vote then is utterly unfair.
Did you simply not read the argument, or did you leave out most points made in the debate specifically for me to lose?
Remember how we discussed line-by-line rebuttals? Look at my R1 rebuttals in this debate. Hillarious.
Budgies are actually not from hell, they are from Australia.
Your back as usual
Very good first argument.
I think divide and conquer would not work. Nations don't need much coordination to fire their missiles.
My comment was a complement to your writing skill.
6 days isn't enough. I would need a PhD in English literature to properly comprehend your argument. Well, the dictionary must be sufficient for now.
Thanks. I wanted to break with tradition and make a debate on this topic without repeating the simple mantra of "genocides, wars etc", and focus on some more important issues. From a Christian perspective, only the eternal judgement of God should matter.
Silly me
Human civilisation considers itself more technologically advance than things that don't exist. By invertedly applying this logic to the description, we can deduce that aliens having a technological head start includes the notion of aliens existing. Aliens of course do not mean Mexicans or other humans but to extraterrestrial life.
qwrweqw uiopipouoi zvzxczxvczxv. gjkiyifgfuifgi ureioqrueqwopureoqpwruqowp, jzvcx,zvcn,zxcv oåopåoåp? mkomomomk!"?:?":?"!:?!:!?":"!
I would just mention that the debate we are commenting on isn't rigged. I have no plan of removing votes, nor do I have an agreement with moderators to remove the votes. I of course know that moderators aren't gonna agree with the description. Even if you believe I wanted an auto-win, you would still know that my plan was to abuse the description to win the debate rather than actually remove the votes. Reading my R1 clearly shows that I do accept the possibility of losing as real, but I only regard it as invalid in STATISTICAL terms.
I understand your conduct point.
I severely disagree with your sources point. CON uses a single source and does not demonstrate which impact it had, other than PRO's victory being unfair, which doesn't at all disprove PRO's victory. My R1 source basically proves that my claim of chance is valid since a debate won by CON would violate statistical assumptions. Unless by sources point you merely mean to punish for what you see as conduct failure, I don't see any reason for giving it to CON rather than tie.
With arguments point, I am not sure I understand. I clearly stated that it is impossible to roll a seven on "A" normal dice. But you base both your rejection of my R2 source and your rejection of my R1 argument based on a misunderstanding that with two dice it is possible. My argument in R1 was that only with cheating (aka, using two dice or re-painting the single dice) can you roll a seven. Thus, to claim that there is a non-zero probability of rolling a seven with that one dice would violate assumptions (that seven is not a valid option on a normal dice), and thus not be a valid claim of chance. CON never rebuts my logical evidence, so I am curious as to why you gave him the argument point.
I ask you to at the very least re-vote with a correct understanding of my R1 dice example, and nurces points based ot give soon a misinterpretation of said point.
As stated in my R1, the debate you are commenting on is not the same as this debate. I have no plan of removing votes.
I see you are guilty of systemic discrimination of Coal
PRO starts out by claiming that the big bang theory has met the highest standard of scientific rigour. He supported that claim by mentioning multiple successful predictions of the big bang theory.
However, CON's appeal to the timeline of science does make a huge impact. Having clarified that it was the CURRENT expansion of the universe that was predicted, CON puts things into perspective. I simply buy his argument that the current expansion of the universe was used to predict the big bang, and not vice versa. PRO argues that the "earliest form of the Big Bang Theory" was being confirmed. Yet CON's demand for evidence (like a specific quote) wasn't met. The only thing that is left of PRO's argument is that "the universe expanding" was predicted and confirmed, which is neither specific nor impactful enough to support PRO's initial claim -- that of the big bang theory having stood "highest scientific rigour".
In my opinion, PRO should have used the argument that the universe expanding is actually direct proof of the big bang. If the universe expands today, and we assume uniformity, then there was indeed a "hotter and denser" universe in the past. As far as I know, that is the reason why the big bang theory is universally accepted among scientists. Using this argument would have assured PRO victory unless CON had access to extreme rebutting facts I am not aware of.
On with my analysis. The crime detective metaphor mentioned by PRO was indeed a good one. PRO shows us why the specifics numbers and other variables of the big bang theory aren't to be nitpicked. I was convinced that the age of the universe is not a crucial part of the big bang theory if a part at all. This does invalidate CON's argument that the big bang theory needs evidence for billions of years.
CON admits that the big bang theory predicted CMBr. He chooses to expose the inadequacies of the big bang model with regards to explaining our observations of CMBr. He appeals to fine-tuning of energy and the horizon problem. PRO's rebuttal is that the big bang theory is easily fixed if we insert cosmic inflation, a fact to which CON agrees. Interestingly enough, CON challenges the validity of the big bang theory based upon PRO's very statement. CON says that a theory is not valid if the observations it predicts force the theory itself to be changed. This should be partly true as per PRO's own standard presented in R1.
Furthermore, CON argues that cosmic inflation doesn't adequately fit PRO's criteria of a scientific theory. He sources multiple experts who agree that cosmic inflation is too flexible and vague to really be falsified, and makes the argument that infinite possibilities make the theory unfalsifiable. PRO rebuts by providing his own expert quote that explains predictions of cosmic inflation. PRO also claims that a scientific theory being updated multiple times doesn't disprove its validity. I fully buy this. I also buy PRO's argument that the theory of the universe being hotter and denser in the past made a reliable prediction of the universe's temperature. I don't think PRO fully overcame the argument of inflation being a pseudoscience. CON's argument that inflation is too flexible to be truly falsified is an impactful one and also supported by the fact that inflation has been changed multiple times -- weakening PRO's argument from its successful predictions. PRO did not provide a specific method of falsification of inflation, apart from his 5 predictions. Having said that, PRO's argument for science becoming more specific as time goes on does redeem inflation. I also don't think that PRO needed specific quotes or evidence to support his claim that inflation is the simplest and best model.
The resolution states that the Big Bang probably happened. PRO's definition of the Big Bang Theory is simple enough to not require the details which CON attacks. While CON successfully disproves PRO's claim of the big bang theory being a theory of the highest standards, I don't think he disproved the resolution. The current expansion of the universe, even if it was used to predict the big bang and not vice versa, would still be one major argument for the big bang as defined by PRO. Furthermore, PRO shows us why the theory is valid despite being refined and changed multiple times.
Arguments: PRO.
PRO successfully defends the resolution. Despite losing a lot from his initial claim of the highest scientific rigour, he still holds on to the crucial idea of the universe previously being hotter and denser. Unfortunately for CON, his valiant effort didn't cut it to win this uphill battle against established science. The results were pretty close though. CON successfully defeats any claim of the big bang theory being of "highest scientific rigour". He shows why rather it's a patched up and modified theory that must constantly be updated to fit new data. However, PRO does not disprove the resolution.
Sources: CON.
Cutting it close, just as with arguments. Sources from both sides were reliable. I give this point based on two factors.
(1): CON won at least two major sources battles. He defeated PRO's claim of the big bang theory predicting the Hubble constant, and also showed why inflation is unfalsifiable. Both of these points were won by CON using sources more effectively. Voter bias also forced CON to use sources to support his points where PRO sometimes could rely on voters agreeing.
(2): With voter bias, it doesn't make sense to give PRO arguments point based on slight advantage and not give CON the sources point based on slight advantage
Not part of the vote:
PRO's most impactful argument was the crime-detective example. You could nitpick on his calculations of where the shooter stood, but the holes in the wall clearly prove that a shooting occurred. I don't need specific predictions beyond a hole in the wall to accept a theory of a shooting.
CON's most impactful argument was the spring example. Inflation, which is necessary for the big bang to make sense, simply assumes that energy was contracted and able to cause inflation. Unfortunately for PRO, any explanation for the big bang would simply assume something: whether it be the existence of God or a multiverse or infinite expansion, any theory would face the same issue. CON's argument thus doesn't convince me.
Oh boy, your votes are truly epic. I wonder why anyone bothers to read debates when they could instead be reading your votes.
Thank you for voting.
Actually, it is. The debate wherein the moderators refuse to accept the rules isn't actually this debate.
You did read the description, didn't you?
No. Not Elo farming. I honestly enjoyed writing this argument.
If you read my debates, you will see that I like to debate strange topics, especially those where one side should have a considerable advantage.
We are both getting roasted it seems.
Thank you for your vote
You are a brave one
Thank you
Understandeable. Thank you anyways.
This topic might interest you.
Also, a vote would be highly appreciated.
vote bump
Good luck. This is the first time we go head to head in an official debate. I guess I'll need the dictionary to properly understand your arguments.
I will try. LOL.
It would be possible to simply copy past backwardsedens arguments into Dart. LOL. I am sure BrotherDThomas wouldn't notice the difference.
Amazingly, this is his response:
"Nevermind. I truly hate the layout of debateart and not only that but it is amazingly difficult to use. I tried posting the simplest of simple debates to get everything started and the website would not allow me to post. No loss. Oh well. However, I truly appreciate the offering. Thanx very kindly.
Please tc and haveth thee fun."
I think he never read this debate.
Your source leads to a 404 page, could you please send me another one?
I must say I am very disappointed by your vote. First and foremost you ignore every single argument that I made to show why it would be impossible to even hit EVE. Even if I were wrong, PRO did not rebut, and so you completely ignoring this crucial argument disproving PRO's case makes your vote utterly biased. Secondly, your very own experience as a "feat debater" is your only way to even claim that PRO won the argument point. I literally used scientific sources to show how future materials will have properties today considered impossible. This leads to my third objection, and that is that you do not give the sources argument. I literally proved my sources to be more reliable than PRO's, while also using scientific sources to prove that future materials could have properties today considered impossible. Coupled with my analysis of the actual source material in the movies, my sources actually back up my claims that EVE has impossibly resistant armour.
I disproved the effectiveness of every weapon by PRO individually, and he never rebutted. How dare you then as a voter to disregard what happened in the actual debate and instead bring up your own experience? Even if you bought the semantical argument that "anything is possible" you still can't deny that the overwhelming majority of arguments were won by me and that all battles between sources were won by me. I also raise the question of where PRO proved anything. Apart from giving us a number of watts, PRO never proved at all that the star wars army could harm EVE. That's like saying that my rifle has a calibre of x and then claiming that I could penetrate a tank. Without comparing the strength of each part no conclusion can be made. Meanwhile, I actually compared the armour of EVE to the weaponry of the star wars army and showed why EVE would go unharmed. Yet again, even if I were wrong, PRO didn't rebut.
Your vote simply ignores every point I made, and every rebuttal I made. Your vote then is utterly unfair.
Did you simply not read the argument, or did you leave out most points made in the debate specifically for me to lose?
Thank you for voting
Yes
Perfect idea
Thank you for the vote
If any of you want to vote I will highly appreciate it.
Time is running out with no votes yet.
The vote doesn't need to be long.
Thank you for voting
I wish you good luck.
This is the first time we ever debate, I hope this will be interesting.
I could have that debate also if you want.
Interesting argument:
"If we assume God is all-powerful, we are assuming that he could always do otherwise"
I like that line of reasoning.
Going to show this to my mom. Maybe she will be less worried about me becoming a cold-blooded killer by playing a tactical shooter. LOL.
I agree
Vote bump
Seeing your comment about voting on this debate, and knowing that time is running out, I add a friendly reminder. Do you still want to vote?
Ok. But can you send me a link to your preferred model of the earth?
Why did you forfeit?