Oh my goodness I'm so sorry! You didn't need to lose more sleep for a less serious debate like this one, you could've just forfeited a round! Thank you for doing it, though.
Thanks! I figured that it would be an interesting case study for a debate to focus on how one can confuse a debate. I'm trying to use most of the ways that people in real life actually confuse the truth. Like in the round I just published (R3), I blamed the definitions not supporting my cause on an "evil organization", mimicking anti-vaxxers saying that evidence against them was made by big pharma. I was tempted to call this organization big fish but figured that was too on the nose.
"All furries are bad and i have yet to see a person prove otherwise" is what con posted. But they're posting as con, meaning their against the topic sentence. So why put "and I have yet to see a person prove otherwise"? That description targets the instigator, but the instigator is con meaning they disagree with the claim, so they're disagreeing with their own experiences?
Maybe they wanted to put pro and mixed it up, who knows.
The claim for this debate is as follows in case it wasn't clear:
If you're not homosexual, you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated.
Let's begin with definitions:
"Such" in this case isn't directly defined. So, let's begin by defining it. The sentence says "you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction". This must mean that the "such behaviors" is referring to a behavior which can be done as a resort to sexual satisfaction. In other words, it can be things like masturbation, sexual intercourse, or other such sexual activities. For rewriting the claim to be more clear, we get:
If you're not homosexual, you will not engage in sexual behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated.
If pro has any problems with this amended definition of the claim (to make it more clear what "such" is referring to) please say so in your next response or it will be assumed that you accept this amended definition as what you meant.
Next, for arguments:
The claim places the burden of proof on pro, which must provide evidence for the claim that if you are not homosexual, you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated. The argument that pro gives doesn't cite any evidence for it's claims, thus it has not fulfilled the burden of proof. Without proof, there is no argument. If pro fails to provide any proof and doesn't fulfill the burden of proof, I automatically win the debate as they cannot defend their points.
I did add a description, but I only added it under the "short description" category because I assumed (incorrectly) that the short description would also be under the main description. If you look at the debate on the main site and not in the actual link of the debate you'd see the short description. I'll paste it here to be more clear:
This argument will not cover whether or not abortion is moral, just whether or not the argument of "my body, my choice" is a good argument for it. The debate will assume that both sides agree that abortion is moral, but the con side believes that the argument of "my body, my choice" is a poor argument in support of the morality of abortion.
Yeah, basically. It just means that god cannot reasonably exist in the bible as the words found in the bible contradict each other and prove god doesn't exist. I'm basically arguing that the bible disproves and contradicts itself within the text.
I would be if not the fact that your definition of socialism is one that is extreme (the workers control the entirety of the means of production, i.e. communism). There are more conservative versions of socialism which is basically just arguing for a heavily regulated economy but there is still a free (but highly limited) economy where anyone can found a business and where the means of production are not solely in the hands of the people.
You're welcome :)
That's fine!
Just a reminder that you have 7 hours (at the time of writing this) to post your response.
Oh my goodness I'm so sorry! You didn't need to lose more sleep for a less serious debate like this one, you could've just forfeited a round! Thank you for doing it, though.
Thanks! I figured that it would be an interesting case study for a debate to focus on how one can confuse a debate. I'm trying to use most of the ways that people in real life actually confuse the truth. Like in the round I just published (R3), I blamed the definitions not supporting my cause on an "evil organization", mimicking anti-vaxxers saying that evidence against them was made by big pharma. I was tempted to call this organization big fish but figured that was too on the nose.
It's fine :D
This is a tough one, not sure which to vote for. They each had really good arguments.
"All furries are bad and i have yet to see a person prove otherwise" is what con posted. But they're posting as con, meaning their against the topic sentence. So why put "and I have yet to see a person prove otherwise"? That description targets the instigator, but the instigator is con meaning they disagree with the claim, so they're disagreeing with their own experiences?
Maybe they wanted to put pro and mixed it up, who knows.
Oops, I accidentally posted my argument as a comment. Please ignore that.
The claim for this debate is as follows in case it wasn't clear:
If you're not homosexual, you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated.
Let's begin with definitions:
"Such" in this case isn't directly defined. So, let's begin by defining it. The sentence says "you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction". This must mean that the "such behaviors" is referring to a behavior which can be done as a resort to sexual satisfaction. In other words, it can be things like masturbation, sexual intercourse, or other such sexual activities. For rewriting the claim to be more clear, we get:
If you're not homosexual, you will not engage in sexual behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated.
If pro has any problems with this amended definition of the claim (to make it more clear what "such" is referring to) please say so in your next response or it will be assumed that you accept this amended definition as what you meant.
Next, for arguments:
The claim places the burden of proof on pro, which must provide evidence for the claim that if you are not homosexual, you will not engage in such behaviors as a resort to sexual satisfaction while incarcerated. The argument that pro gives doesn't cite any evidence for it's claims, thus it has not fulfilled the burden of proof. Without proof, there is no argument. If pro fails to provide any proof and doesn't fulfill the burden of proof, I automatically win the debate as they cannot defend their points.
I did add a description, but I only added it under the "short description" category because I assumed (incorrectly) that the short description would also be under the main description. If you look at the debate on the main site and not in the actual link of the debate you'd see the short description. I'll paste it here to be more clear:
This argument will not cover whether or not abortion is moral, just whether or not the argument of "my body, my choice" is a good argument for it. The debate will assume that both sides agree that abortion is moral, but the con side believes that the argument of "my body, my choice" is a poor argument in support of the morality of abortion.
Yeah, basically. It just means that god cannot reasonably exist in the bible as the words found in the bible contradict each other and prove god doesn't exist. I'm basically arguing that the bible disproves and contradicts itself within the text.
I would be if not the fact that your definition of socialism is one that is extreme (the workers control the entirety of the means of production, i.e. communism). There are more conservative versions of socialism which is basically just arguing for a heavily regulated economy but there is still a free (but highly limited) economy where anyone can found a business and where the means of production are not solely in the hands of the people.