"Because most of his rebuttals were based off of him trying to disprove my arguments."
Do you then except that your arguments are disproved and that they are wrong?
Going to have to go with Oro for this one. The definition he provided of Roman Catholic Church was literally "the largest Christian church" so it was a tautological loss for CON from the beginning.
In what dictionary does extend mean "I will give you a chance to reply". It clearly gives, especially in this site, an indication that no further arguments need to be made, and that all that has been said is to the sufficient liking of the contender.
If you are interested, I would be happy to engage with you in a debate like this, not out of bad blood or anything personal, but because I think this sort of debate is actually very interesting and unlike anything I have ever participated in. Although, i do understand if you are drained on proving that you are good.
I want to make clear that I don’t think you are a mere 1500 debater - just that you adopted the onus to prove that your resume would elevate anyone at that level to “good” (status quo is that you are 1500). You provided four debate examples to lift yourself out of the status quo, and despite Vici providing compelling refutations for them (that the oppositions are weak, that comedic debates are not indicative of a good debater), it is also quite reasonably argued that even if the debates were extraordinary, there is very little one can do to elevate themself into “good” level in such a small amount of debates. For the examples you provided, I had to think to myself “if a new no profile user came along and performed as you did in them, would I consider them good?” and the answer is no.
If you didn't act like this, you would have won the Barney debate. The very fact that so many people on this site dislikes you renders a vote for you emotionally difficult.
I usually do not look into on going vote dramas, but I think that, in the case of Barney's vote, his mind was made up prior to reading the debate. This is evident in the first line of his RFD, indicating Novice must win the debate with terms used "in plain English", implying that it is impossible for the instigator to win, despite the compelling justification of why a more compelling definition of person ought to be used.
I cannot imagine that anything Novice could have done would have adjusted his adjudication.
I'm not too bother in this instance as the ballot is unaffected by problematic votes, but I think this highlights the underlying issue of the current voting system. It's an issue which is blindingly easy to fix - just establish a time period between the last ballot that is allowed to be cast and subsequently the completion of the debate - say two days, where votes cannot be casted but moderators can impose judgement. If the site user is too busy to do this, moderators can send an announcement stipulating that, for any debate which is in voting period, no votes can be casted in the final two days (in spite of the fact that you physically can), and anyone who does receives harsh punishment. The latter is meant only to temporarily alleviate the issue.
I'm honestly surprised that the likes of Oromagi and Barny's streaks were not unjustly disrupted before their current records.
Change it to - THBT: All things considered, the problem of evil is not a significant problem for the existence of God, (with God being defined as one with the four omni's).
I agree here - the 72 gender they/them movement seriously convolutes the far more serious issue of transgender right - it undermines and makes a joke of some serious mental phenomenons.
I don't mind, although, if such a feature is possible, I think that, if an agreement can be made, FLRW's vote has got to go. Although, I respect that the voting has concluded and am fine with the vote remaining.
"Bones argument that 96% of biologists believe that life begins at fertilization is not true. This is based on a brief filed in the Supreme Court."
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
—Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
—Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
—Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 8
"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
— Princeton Education
“Development of human beings with fertilisation a process by which the sperm from the male and the egg from the female unite to give rise to a new organism which is the zygote”
—Dr. T.W Sadler
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoon and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." (1)
-EPM.org
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception”
-Dr. Michelle M. Mathews-Rohs, from Harvard Medical School,
“We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life”
-Ann Furedi, Chief executive of British Pregnancy Advisory Centre, the UK’s larger independent abortion provider.
“I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretence that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus”
-Faye Wattleton, longest reigning President of Planned Parenthood
“This (life beginning at conception) all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t a part of the common knowledge”
-Alan Guttmacher, former President of Planned Parenthood, (1933)
Again, thanks a bunch for the debate - I truly enjoyed it. Also, not bothered by the result at all, it's the best I could hope for against someone like you.
Thank you all very much for your insightful votes. I appreciate the fact that this was quite a long debate and am truly grateful that you took the time to look over it.
"But PRO himself advanced that the question in uncertain and the rights with which the USFG must concern itself with are not the human rights of zygotes but the Constitutional rights of people of people born or naturalized on US soil. The founding fathers gave the Federal govt no powers to preserve zygotes, though abortion was common enough in their era. The states may assume some new powers that the Federal govt may not, but the power of states to ban abortion is not our topic here."
Just saying, I wasn’t directing the comment to you (more so towards some less charitable opponents who have objected to votes with the dozens of 200 word objections) - I was ovserving that people always seem never to change their minds (me included). Obviously, expressing frustration is fine - I was speaking more on contenders continually complaining over a period of days.
I find it interesting that people always disagree with votes that are casted against them. This seems to be a trend prevalent particularly on this site. I also contribute to this - I quite strongly disagree with Bareny's vote on pretty much every analysis he provides, despite him being a prestigious and respected voter. On the flip side, I particularly dislike when voters arduously complain about votes in the comment sections and spark "comment wars", hence me not expressing any comment on Barney's vote.
I agree that I probably didn't need to concede soft utilitarians, but I think that, as a whole, society adopts soft utilitarianism so it can be held as largely axiomatic.
As you've clearly read this debate, would you be interested in voting?
I won't disclose names but I have been in contact with most of top debaters on this cite and have had some reception. I debated Nyxified because, although her rating isn't particularly strong, her bio, if we accept as true, renders her a strong opposition. Whiteflames obviously is a top, if not the best debater on this cite. I have some more debates with top opponents coming, and if those are successful, I intend on further challenging myself with what may be considered some surprising advocacy's.
Thanks a bunch for the debate. I particularly contacted you to have this debate because I was genuinely interested in having a conversation with someone far more experienced than myself. This has definitely been a worthwhile experience for me!
Your burden of proof analysis is itself which you seem to require the contender to conceded. You ought instead, like Novice suggested, put the burden up for contention.
"Because most of his rebuttals were based off of him trying to disprove my arguments."
Do you then except that your arguments are disproved and that they are wrong?
Under a week to vote now.
Why did you not refute the rebuttals of Double_R?
Who do you think won Craig vs Carrol?
Bump
Would you be interested in debating the proposition that we ought to recognise one through their sex as opposed to gender?
Nothing would ever convince me of such a silly proposition ;)
Going to have to go with Oro for this one. The definition he provided of Roman Catholic Church was literally "the largest Christian church" so it was a tautological loss for CON from the beginning.
bump
In what dictionary does extend mean "I will give you a chance to reply". It clearly gives, especially in this site, an indication that no further arguments need to be made, and that all that has been said is to the sufficient liking of the contender.
If you are interested, I would be happy to engage with you in a debate like this, not out of bad blood or anything personal, but because I think this sort of debate is actually very interesting and unlike anything I have ever participated in. Although, i do understand if you are drained on proving that you are good.
Thanks for your thoughts!
I want to make clear that I don’t think you are a mere 1500 debater - just that you adopted the onus to prove that your resume would elevate anyone at that level to “good” (status quo is that you are 1500). You provided four debate examples to lift yourself out of the status quo, and despite Vici providing compelling refutations for them (that the oppositions are weak, that comedic debates are not indicative of a good debater), it is also quite reasonably argued that even if the debates were extraordinary, there is very little one can do to elevate themself into “good” level in such a small amount of debates. For the examples you provided, I had to think to myself “if a new no profile user came along and performed as you did in them, would I consider them good?” and the answer is no.
If you didn't act like this, you would have won the Barney debate. The very fact that so many people on this site dislikes you renders a vote for you emotionally difficult.
bump
This was actually a very interesting read. I wish it were longer though.
I usually do not look into on going vote dramas, but I think that, in the case of Barney's vote, his mind was made up prior to reading the debate. This is evident in the first line of his RFD, indicating Novice must win the debate with terms used "in plain English", implying that it is impossible for the instigator to win, despite the compelling justification of why a more compelling definition of person ought to be used.
I cannot imagine that anything Novice could have done would have adjusted his adjudication.
LMAO
I'm not too bother in this instance as the ballot is unaffected by problematic votes, but I think this highlights the underlying issue of the current voting system. It's an issue which is blindingly easy to fix - just establish a time period between the last ballot that is allowed to be cast and subsequently the completion of the debate - say two days, where votes cannot be casted but moderators can impose judgement. If the site user is too busy to do this, moderators can send an announcement stipulating that, for any debate which is in voting period, no votes can be casted in the final two days (in spite of the fact that you physically can), and anyone who does receives harsh punishment. The latter is meant only to temporarily alleviate the issue.
I'm honestly surprised that the likes of Oromagi and Barny's streaks were not unjustly disrupted before their current records.
A(↑)
Change it to - THBT: All things considered, the problem of evil is not a significant problem for the existence of God, (with God being defined as one with the four omni's).
Will be voting.
I agree here - the 72 gender they/them movement seriously convolutes the far more serious issue of transgender right - it undermines and makes a joke of some serious mental phenomenons.
And I ignored that because that is one study - you are ignoring Embryology text books, Princeton Education, and Human Embryology and Teratology.
I hear chit chat, but see an unaccepted debate titled to you?
I don't mind, although, if such a feature is possible, I think that, if an agreement can be made, FLRW's vote has got to go. Although, I respect that the voting has concluded and am fine with the vote remaining.
"Bones argument that 96% of biologists believe that life begins at fertilization is not true. This is based on a brief filed in the Supreme Court."
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
—Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
—Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”
—Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 8
"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
— Princeton Education
“Development of human beings with fertilisation a process by which the sperm from the male and the egg from the female unite to give rise to a new organism which is the zygote”
—Dr. T.W Sadler
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoon and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." (1)
-EPM.org
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception”
-Dr. Michelle M. Mathews-Rohs, from Harvard Medical School,
“We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life”
-Ann Furedi, Chief executive of British Pregnancy Advisory Centre, the UK’s larger independent abortion provider.
“I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretence that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus”
-Faye Wattleton, longest reigning President of Planned Parenthood
“This (life beginning at conception) all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t a part of the common knowledge”
-Alan Guttmacher, former President of Planned Parenthood, (1933)
Okay it's not a very important point, especially as I was saying "4th" to imply that you were an early voter.
Again, thanks a bunch for the debate - I truly enjoyed it. Also, not bothered by the result at all, it's the best I could hope for against someone like you.
Below
Thank you all very much for your insightful votes. I appreciate the fact that this was quite a long debate and am truly grateful that you took the time to look over it.
Either I'm hallucinating all this isn't true. You were like the 4th person to vote...
Ok I usually do not comment on votes but what the fuck are you doing
"But PRO himself advanced that the question in uncertain and the rights with which the USFG must concern itself with are not the human rights of zygotes but the Constitutional rights of people of people born or naturalized on US soil. The founding fathers gave the Federal govt no powers to preserve zygotes, though abortion was common enough in their era. The states may assume some new powers that the Federal govt may not, but the power of states to ban abortion is not our topic here."
The first 1v2 in Dart history.
CON with the late comeback, possibly reverse sweeping the scorecards.
Just saying, I wasn’t directing the comment to you (more so towards some less charitable opponents who have objected to votes with the dozens of 200 word objections) - I was ovserving that people always seem never to change their minds (me included). Obviously, expressing frustration is fine - I was speaking more on contenders continually complaining over a period of days.
I find it interesting that people always disagree with votes that are casted against them. This seems to be a trend prevalent particularly on this site. I also contribute to this - I quite strongly disagree with Bareny's vote on pretty much every analysis he provides, despite him being a prestigious and respected voter. On the flip side, I particularly dislike when voters arduously complain about votes in the comment sections and spark "comment wars", hence me not expressing any comment on Barney's vote.
Thanks for your observation. As this debate is pretty short on votes, would you be interested in voting?
I agree that I probably didn't need to concede soft utilitarians, but I think that, as a whole, society adopts soft utilitarianism so it can be held as largely axiomatic.
As you've clearly read this debate, would you be interested in voting?
I'm genuinely curious, has there ever been a vote casted against you which you agreed with?
Some more votes would be appreciated. Pinging you too as you have explicitly expressed interest in the comments.
Just consider what is in already written in the debate i.e, rules, arguments regarding the burden from both parties.
Come on now he's not quite there yet ;)
I won't disclose names but I have been in contact with most of top debaters on this cite and have had some reception. I debated Nyxified because, although her rating isn't particularly strong, her bio, if we accept as true, renders her a strong opposition. Whiteflames obviously is a top, if not the best debater on this cite. I have some more debates with top opponents coming, and if those are successful, I intend on further challenging myself with what may be considered some surprising advocacy's.
Thanks a bunch for the debate. I particularly contacted you to have this debate because I was genuinely interested in having a conversation with someone far more experienced than myself. This has definitely been a worthwhile experience for me!
LMAO
1. Preview the argument.
2. Save it into google docs.
Well I only have one padawan so...
The beginning of my young padawans career.
Three rounds (so four if we waive the first and last) is enough. We can debate the BoP for it is a matter of contention.
Also, make it four rounds - I promise that three rounds of contest is more than enough.
Your burden of proof analysis is itself which you seem to require the contender to conceded. You ought instead, like Novice suggested, put the burden up for contention.