Bringerofrain

I haven't read your debates on the subject. I don't like the semantic route. Semantics need to be taken care of prior to the debate in PMs or in the comment section. I have a few issues with your definition but would love to talk about how to define it in a way we both find fair, so we can stay on topic

I'll prove it. I'll argue both pro and con on this against you and win both if you take the silly rules out of the description.

"Burden of proof is shared. However, pro only has to show more likely than not, while con has to show their side beyond a reasonably doubt. This is because the resolution doesn’t favor pro."

That's riduliculous. And unfair. I will just vote against you and find a way to justify it. You need to debate so that way you both have equal ground to argue. Why would you ask judges to just assume systematic racism unless it is proven wrong?

Please just have fair debates

Once I clear off a debate I wouldn't mind doing some variation of this if the topic can be narrowed down to talking about whether things like disproportionate sentencing is the result of racist judges or juries or some other factors.

You think it gives con an advantage to have less characters for their argument because they have to do rebuttals that round also?

It seems more fair to give both sides the same amount of time for opening statements. Thanks for the explanation though. Perhaps it makes sense if that isn't the norm.

This annoys me and is the second debate I have seen you do this in. Why are you saying arguments are dropped when round one is for opening arguments and round 2 is rebuttals?

He has no alibi, motive, means and opportunity.

There was a lot of physical evidence at the scene of the alleged offense. A lot of ritualistic devices and con can be placed in the area, considering the location

Why don't you tell the witch to her face she is unfalsifiable

I assume others exist. The witch had to put us under this spell, so she exists also.

I don't disagree with that. You stated you wanted to assume the reality of the universe. The nature of reality can be doubted by a non solipsist. I was just pointing out your definition of solipsist might be overly broad and paint people who think we are in a witches spell and mass hallucination as solipsists. I don't want anyone who thinks we are in a collective witches reality distorting spell to be painted as crazy solipsists.

Solipsism would be working with the assumption that you can only prove your own existence. Brain in a vat theory would be a solipsist like theory, but other theories about the nature of reality that assume other consciousnesses would not

I'm just joking. Had lots of coffee today. Sorry

I might run a kritik for why I should be allowed to use a solipsist argument. Tabula Rasa judges will be forced to consider my arguments.

Why did you state no solipsism or kritika? You do know that a kritika would be an argument for why your "rules" should be ignored and could very well use solipsism?

Fauxlaw, you can't argue that something, anything is certain so long as any possibility it exists is wrong. Good luck proving you are not currently in a dream and anything you perceived and know is definitely not because of your current dream state

That would be a terrible argument

rM is right the appeal to authority and bare assertion would unfortunately sway most voters

500 characters to overcome confirmation bias is unfair

I have a more complete RFD written out and the notes I took, but wanted to get the vote out sooner so just summarized them. I am partially paralyzed so when I edit the speech to text, I just chicken peck the keyboard.

I literally summarized both debaters arguments and summarized how I weighed them.

I try to get as close to what a super computer would spit out as I can to determine winners. Assuming the computer is completely tabula Rasa

I don't care how anyone else votes. I am not pushing any philosophy by explaining mine. In fact I am just inviting criticism of my philosophy by explaining it, so I can improve

I don't have much knowledge anyway, so it's not much to throw away. Barely an inconvenience.

I disagree with me chris. I think tabula Rasa does mean throwing away even 1st grade level reasoning. Reasonable minds can disagree though

Literally in 4 or 5 hours when I have alone time. The reason being is that it is all voice to text and I want to make it more comprehensible to people reading it. If I can't do that I will post as is.

This sucks. I did not want to be the deciding vote at like 3 am

I have read the debate. Both people seem friendly towards each other. I don't understand the conduct points LOL. I'm just voting argument points as usual

I have an RFD written. Will break the tie later if somebody does not beat me to it

Was the debate really this close? I can't wait to read it

This is easy.

Take it. 30k limit will annoy me and am in 2 debates right now. I don't want it anymore

I can still vote fairly even if I think con's profile picture is racist. Just as a heads up

Kind of want to vote on this. I think the guy who has the picture of Goebbels as his profile did a good job as well as pro did a good job

Althea ugh I would appreciate if you made it 10k characters

Hey challenge me directly or let me accept please. I really want this one

I know, I just can't control myself with the wise cracks sometimes

I appreciate your complement. I have read your debates as 9spaceking in preparation for this. I think you are a funny guy, and clever

Maybe not 30k character limit is ridiculous

Remind me to vote

I think that is a philosophical question and the mods won't be able to offer anything other than personal opinion

13 more non spam posts to make a vote. Just giving this a bump so maybe somebody else can vote prior to mine going up

I was referencing source votes in general, because I saw people talking about source points. I disagree with bsh1's guide.

My philosophy is make debaters earn source votes by making arguments for the source vote themselves. I think it is more inline with tabula Rasa judging.

I think I am probably in the minority with how stingy I will be with source points. My point is that controversy over the allocation of source points would be minimized if everyone was as stingy as me.

I am not attacking your vote, just laying out my philosophy for discussion because it seems relevant to what is being discussed.

Honestly this is why votes on sources should be extremely rare. They really only should be awarded based on the arguments the debaters give on whether they deserve them or not. When people do award them they often do it incorrectly, for example by trying to analyze whether the sources came from a biased source.

Okay God was first cause and Jesus was resurrected . Great. You should have probably focused on YEC though.

Pro did not accept the bible. Just the gospels and just that the gospels supported the fact a person performed magic and actually existed and was worshipped.

He didn't prove the conservation of energy. He proved geologic evidence, radiological testing and evolution .

You never argued thatatthew mark like and John considered God the divine author of the bible, and you had opportunity in round 2 to provide evidence for that and refused.

You'll never improve as a debater if you ignore the advice of voters and continue to think you won a debate that you not only lost, but lost extremely convincingly. It wasn't a particularly hard debate to win either either considering he is still learning the ropes of debating

If I remember time not existing was not brought up until round 3 when it was too late for new arguments. Plus it was a bare assertion anyway and ai did accept some of your bare assertions in my analysis because they went unchallenged or because pro conceded.

Wrong we assumed YEC was the default position of the bible. Christianity can exist independently of the bible. All that is required for you to be a christian is John 3:16. That verse does not include believing in the entirety of the bible