In this situation, do you think that 1) the rules of my description have been broken and 2) that the rules written in my description hold enough power so that they must be acted upon by voters? If yes, I’ll claim my free W.
Yes, but I didn’t make the name Fauxlaw capital because it’s your name, I made it capital because it was the first letter of the sentence. Moreover this is clearly a Kritik, as my intentions are clear. My win right off the bat .
Look here's the issue. One of the definitions of inferior is "lower in rank, status, or quality" [1]. I can argue that black people "rank lower" in terms of wealth [2], which is true but not racist. You've going to want to make your resolution more bullet proof.
I've already one uped you in a troll debate, so I won't be taking this one, but I recommend you retitle the resolution to "Black people are not morally inferior to white people". The truth is, I am certain that there are at least some fields in which black people are inferior to white people.
"I hope your opponent does not try to argue that the actual agreed upon number is closer to 12million"
The holocaust consisted of Jewish, ethnic and religious sterilisation, among other things, it was not just a Jewish killing spree. Would would be wrong with arguing this?
Look, my friend. Stop airing saying that I am dirty laundry in public. Surely you portraying me in a way that makes me look incorrect would have an influence on voters. How about you stop your blatant lying? Tell me where the words "probability" and "likelihood" come up between I.a to I.d. The only thing I see is you rebutting my generic defining of the BoP. I hope you understand there is a difference between establishing who bears the BoP, and what the resolution of the debate is. NOWHERE in your first 3 arguments do you make the case that my arguments are irrelevant and that they only affirm certainly instead not likelihood. This is a completely NEW case that you have made.
“The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.” I rebutted in R1, IV, that, no, the most marvelous creation is man. That is the last creation of all, saving the best for last on “day” 6. That new species have evolved since then is just evidence that creation continues by that mode, events which occurred after God rested on the 7th “day,” and did not retire as some allege. But all that is secondary to the main point: The creation of the world was accomplished on “day” 3, just another preparatory “day,” each day building toward the ultimate creation: us”
Again! Ignorance of my new (3 round old) syllogism! I literally set the new p1 as “the most marvellous creation is man” in my second argument!
Fair enough, but then it follows that the content of the debate cannot be discussed in the comment section, which leaves the question, what is the point of the comment section?
It was taken directly out of the debate round, word for word, so any potential voters there are would have read the same phrase. Obviously, this comment wouldn't bias the voters, at least not any more than them reading the same phrase in the debate.
Strike 1: Undefeatable simply offered a suggestion for me to clarify my argument. Nothing in his comment enhances or improves my contention.
Strike 2: I was not offering suggestions of interpretation, I simply quoted what I stated in the debate and commented that I was unaware how to further simply my argument.
Strike 3: Even if I was getting "assistance" from Undefeatable,
"There is nothing in the COC that says members can’t consult other members in debate arguments"
-David
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2992-flat-earth-is-physically-viable-plausible-if-space-agencies-are-lying-especially-nasa-and-roscosmos?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=18
So in the case that my argument was enhanced by Undefeatable's comment (it wasn't), that still is not an issue. Honestly, what is the point of a comment section if people cannot comment about the debate?
I mean I'm not too sure how I can simplify it. P1, the most marvellous creation is man, is pretty digestible, as it was a statement that my opponent made leaving no room for digestion. P2, doing X when handicapped is more marvellous than doing it not handicapped is also very simple (who would reasonably say running 100 meters is easier with 1 leg than with 2?). Therefore it follows that if a non-existent God is more marvellous than an existent God, the Christian God is not real, as it alleges to both exist and be the most marvellous. I do not see any possibility that I am over complicating things.
He ain't capping. There's a reason Fallon Fox broke his opponent's skull in the women UFC. Literally. Tamika Brents had her brain dribbling out of her nose after that fight.
Come on that's kind of a dick move. You've quit debating, you're about to forfeit half of this debate and you're going to lose. Just quicken up the process.
What do you make of the rule "no arguments in the last round"? The point of the rule is to allow both of us a chance to reply to everything that is said, so would you count rebuttals as a sort of "argument". After all, it would be hardly fair if you came through in the last round and swooped all my arguments off the floor without giving me a chance to reply. Just wanted to clarify before the last round comes.
[1] Craig, William Lane, editor. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. pp. 183-184
[2] ‘Arrow of Time’. Wikipedia, 2 Feb. 2021. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#Thermodynamic_arrow_of_time
[3] Garson, James. ‘Modal Logic’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2021, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/
[4] Maudlin, Tim. ‘XIV-Remarks on the Passing of Time’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 102, no. 3, Apr. 2002
[5] ‘What Is a Block Universe?’ Plus.Maths.Org, 30 Sept. 2016,
https://plus.maths.org/content/what-block-time#:~:text=When%20Einstein%20unified%20space%20and,way%20to%20picture%20our%20Universe.&text=A%20block%20universe%20is%20a,are%20there%20in%20that%20block.%22
[6] ‘Relativity of Simultaneity’. Wikipedia, 8 June 2021. Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
[7] ‘Relativity of Simultaneity’. Wikipedia, 8 June 2021. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#:~:text=Einstein%20imagined%20a%20stationary%20observer,to%20strike%20at%20different%20times
[8] Friederich, Simon, and Peter W. Evans. ‘Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2019, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2019. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/
[9]Physicists Provide Support for Retrocausal Quantum Theory, in Which the Future Influences the Past.
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html
[10] Faye, Jan. ‘Backward Causation’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2021, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/#His
[11] ‘Bell Test’. Wikipedia, 6 May 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test
[13] ‘Theism vs. Naturalism’. Https://Www.Apa.Org,https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/god#:~:text=While%20naturalistic%20psychologists%20deny%20the,two%20viewpoints%20incompatible%2C%20says%20Slife.
4 rounds would be optimal. Also I have trouble understanding the resolution. "Cruise ship holidays are far better compared to any other type of holiday". Far better for who? Far better on average? Perhaps you can change it to "For most people, Cruise ship holidays are far better compared to any other type of holiday".
"p1 Humans ought to avoid pain that is not resultant in greater pleasure
p2 Confronting said "friends" from the resolution would result in pain without any greater pleasure
p3 Therefore, Humans ought not confront said friends from the referenced resolution"
On an unrelated note...
p1 Humans ought to maximise pleasure (well being)
p2. Certain actions do not maximise pleasure (well being)
c1. Therefore, humans ought not to do certain things.
Objective morality, incase you didn't get the memo. Thoughts?
In this situation, do you think that 1) the rules of my description have been broken and 2) that the rules written in my description hold enough power so that they must be acted upon by voters? If yes, I’ll claim my free W.
Yes, but I didn’t make the name Fauxlaw capital because it’s your name, I made it capital because it was the first letter of the sentence. Moreover this is clearly a Kritik, as my intentions are clear. My win right off the bat .
I can make it 20 k and increase the time for debating if you want.
Look here's the issue. One of the definitions of inferior is "lower in rank, status, or quality" [1]. I can argue that black people "rank lower" in terms of wealth [2], which is true but not racist. You've going to want to make your resolution more bullet proof.
[1] https://www.lexico.com/definition/inferior
[2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disparities-in-wealth-by-race-and-ethnicity-in-the-2019-survey-of-consumer-finances-20200928.htm
Just pinging random religious people. Any of you interested?
http://tiny.cc/Kritik
Written by the man himself.
"Black people are not morally inferior to white people". This way, it should be pretty kritik proof.
I could accept and could very easily nullify the resolution, but it is likely that voters will see my kritik as cheating.
I've already one uped you in a troll debate, so I won't be taking this one, but I recommend you retitle the resolution to "Black people are not morally inferior to white people". The truth is, I am certain that there are at least some fields in which black people are inferior to white people.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2774-children-are-not-inferior
Thanks for the vote.
This debate could have actually been won very easily by the instigator with the use of a kritik. Very easily.
Thank you for the vote.
I would appreciate it if any of you guys (or anyone else) could get a vote in (this is really quite a short debate). All good if you're too busy.
"I hope your opponent does not try to argue that the actual agreed upon number is closer to 12million"
The holocaust consisted of Jewish, ethnic and religious sterilisation, among other things, it was not just a Jewish killing spree. Would would be wrong with arguing this?
I refer you to rule 2
Look, my friend. Stop airing saying that I am dirty laundry in public. Surely you portraying me in a way that makes me look incorrect would have an influence on voters. How about you stop your blatant lying? Tell me where the words "probability" and "likelihood" come up between I.a to I.d. The only thing I see is you rebutting my generic defining of the BoP. I hope you understand there is a difference between establishing who bears the BoP, and what the resolution of the debate is. NOWHERE in your first 3 arguments do you make the case that my arguments are irrelevant and that they only affirm certainly instead not likelihood. This is a completely NEW case that you have made.
“ VII Defense: Pro’s failure of a proper Resolution”
Withdrawing rebuttals until the last round. Seriously?
“The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.” I rebutted in R1, IV, that, no, the most marvelous creation is man. That is the last creation of all, saving the best for last on “day” 6. That new species have evolved since then is just evidence that creation continues by that mode, events which occurred after God rested on the 7th “day,” and did not retire as some allege. But all that is secondary to the main point: The creation of the world was accomplished on “day” 3, just another preparatory “day,” each day building toward the ultimate creation: us”
Again! Ignorance of my new (3 round old) syllogism! I literally set the new p1 as “the most marvellous creation is man” in my second argument!
"Is there an afterlife"
"There is in Minecraft"
Well faux did say "I am referring to the whole". Whole, I would assume, would refer to all including possible.
Fair enough, but then it follows that the content of the debate cannot be discussed in the comment section, which leaves the question, what is the point of the comment section?
It was taken directly out of the debate round, word for word, so any potential voters there are would have read the same phrase. Obviously, this comment wouldn't bias the voters, at least not any more than them reading the same phrase in the debate.
Back in the day, I swear you were a Christian.
impossible for con to win.
Strike 1: Undefeatable simply offered a suggestion for me to clarify my argument. Nothing in his comment enhances or improves my contention.
Strike 2: I was not offering suggestions of interpretation, I simply quoted what I stated in the debate and commented that I was unaware how to further simply my argument.
Strike 3: Even if I was getting "assistance" from Undefeatable,
"There is nothing in the COC that says members can’t consult other members in debate arguments"
-David
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2992-flat-earth-is-physically-viable-plausible-if-space-agencies-are-lying-especially-nasa-and-roscosmos?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=18
So in the case that my argument was enhanced by Undefeatable's comment (it wasn't), that still is not an issue. Honestly, what is the point of a comment section if people cannot comment about the debate?
I mean I'm not too sure how I can simplify it. P1, the most marvellous creation is man, is pretty digestible, as it was a statement that my opponent made leaving no room for digestion. P2, doing X when handicapped is more marvellous than doing it not handicapped is also very simple (who would reasonably say running 100 meters is easier with 1 leg than with 2?). Therefore it follows that if a non-existent God is more marvellous than an existent God, the Christian God is not real, as it alleges to both exist and be the most marvellous. I do not see any possibility that I am over complicating things.
Is there a reason why you ignored the revised anti-ontological syllogism?
Two weeks till voting ends.
He ain't capping. There's a reason Fallon Fox broke his opponent's skull in the women UFC. Literally. Tamika Brents had her brain dribbling out of her nose after that fight.
Come on that's kind of a dick move. You've quit debating, you're about to forfeit half of this debate and you're going to lose. Just quicken up the process.
What do you make of the rule "no arguments in the last round"? The point of the rule is to allow both of us a chance to reply to everything that is said, so would you count rebuttals as a sort of "argument". After all, it would be hardly fair if you came through in the last round and swooped all my arguments off the floor without giving me a chance to reply. Just wanted to clarify before the last round comes.
Thanks for the praise. I'll be interested to see how this one plays out.
References
[1] Craig, William Lane, editor. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. pp. 183-184
[2] ‘Arrow of Time’. Wikipedia, 2 Feb. 2021. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#Thermodynamic_arrow_of_time
[3] Garson, James. ‘Modal Logic’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2021, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/
[4] Maudlin, Tim. ‘XIV-Remarks on the Passing of Time’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 102, no. 3, Apr. 2002
[5] ‘What Is a Block Universe?’ Plus.Maths.Org, 30 Sept. 2016,
https://plus.maths.org/content/what-block-time#:~:text=When%20Einstein%20unified%20space%20and,way%20to%20picture%20our%20Universe.&text=A%20block%20universe%20is%20a,are%20there%20in%20that%20block.%22
[6] ‘Relativity of Simultaneity’. Wikipedia, 8 June 2021. Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
[7] ‘Relativity of Simultaneity’. Wikipedia, 8 June 2021. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#:~:text=Einstein%20imagined%20a%20stationary%20observer,to%20strike%20at%20different%20times
[8] Friederich, Simon, and Peter W. Evans. ‘Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2019, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2019. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/
[9]Physicists Provide Support for Retrocausal Quantum Theory, in Which the Future Influences the Past.
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html
[10] Faye, Jan. ‘Backward Causation’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2021, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/#His
[11] ‘Bell Test’. Wikipedia, 6 May 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test
[12] ‘Occam’s Razor | Origin, Examples, & Facts’. Encyclopedia Britannica,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor
[13] ‘Theism vs. Naturalism’. Https://Www.Apa.Org,https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/god#:~:text=While%20naturalistic%20psychologists%20deny%20the,two%20viewpoints%20incompatible%2C%20says%20Slife.
[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsDl-EMomqM&t=550s
I know this is a long one, but perhaps you would like to vote if interested? It'll give you some good, unique atheist arguments.
I'm an atheist who is against abortion.
The man the myth the legend
Year 6 was also when I started using technology at school, so that seems to be the norm.
unblock madman, I want to watch this debate.
No problemo, I'll get back to you asap.
Returned the favour.
thx, that was quick.
Good luck, I'm very new with this topic and know literally nothing about the PRO's and CON's side of things.
Perhaps you guys would be interested?
Change it to "religious" instead of Christian and change the voting period to 2 weeks.
Got there before me.
4 rounds would be optimal. Also I have trouble understanding the resolution. "Cruise ship holidays are far better compared to any other type of holiday". Far better for who? Far better on average? Perhaps you can change it to "For most people, Cruise ship holidays are far better compared to any other type of holiday".
5 rounds for a fun topic like this is quite extensive.
"Could" is truism.
"p1 Humans ought to avoid pain that is not resultant in greater pleasure
p2 Confronting said "friends" from the resolution would result in pain without any greater pleasure
p3 Therefore, Humans ought not confront said friends from the referenced resolution"
On an unrelated note...
p1 Humans ought to maximise pleasure (well being)
p2. Certain actions do not maximise pleasure (well being)
c1. Therefore, humans ought not to do certain things.
Objective morality, incase you didn't get the memo. Thoughts?