You forfeit 50% of the arguments including the first one.
Thats the rule. Kinda sucks in a 2 rounds debate, but that is the rule. Others can vote on the merits. I have opted to vote purely on the rule.
A lesson for all you kids out there. Don't skip rounds especially the first. Don't eat yellow snow, and if a stranger comes into your room and night and says they are the tooth fairy, scream for mamma.
Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful objection.
In your objection, you point out how you deduced the number. The issue I had was that you attributed your deduction to those woman in a marriage.
You actually state "meaning that a majority of women do view reproduction as a priority in marriage." While you did qualify this at the beginning as a "lets say," it is still an appeal to science based on fraud. You imply that is an actual number. Perhaps your objective was to show there are two sides to the coin.
I read it as a deliberate misdirect, based on fake statistics. I may not have gotten your idea, so the only thing I could say it watch out for how your terms could be referenced :)
I do really appreciate how civil your objection was. Thank you;.
I do not understand your judgment. All you stated was that Pro's argument lacked intelligence, however, that does not mean the entire debate is stupid. In fact, Con brought up some very valid points, clearly demonstrating intelligence which is an antonym for stupid.
It was pretty well argued indeed. I really liked your argument in the Instigate a Con debate. Your closing bit was a real effective hammer. You are really getting good.
Let's see what you have for the Rap debate. Keep up the good work.
Question for you guys. There are some very important scientific elements in my argument. Is it my obligation to explain those concepts, or can I just refer to them as a common understanding? Things like the electromagnetic spectrum, phase arrays, power measurements (watts, joules, calories). Do I have to provide proof of conversion equations etc?
I want to make sure that I provide enough information, without making it too assumption, or on the opposite too verbose.
And I said, well can you prove you exist. If you cant prove you exist, then there is no one to disprove. Solipsism is an individual justification of your existence. It does not prove you exist. You could be part of a big simulation. You could be an entity of someone else's dream.
The point is don't be so obnoxious and say something like you did above.
I will retort after the debate is done. It is my belief that it is just not pragmatic to take be tied to a textualist view of 230 years ago. But you will see that in my debate.
Easy win for Con here. Pro just admitted S.H. was found guilty of killing four people unlawfully. To be found guilty means you are guilty (from a linguistic sense). The debate title is Saddam Huseisen is not guilty. Topic does not say "Should not have been found guilty". and the description does not even qualify that the guilty verdict was in error.
There is morality iv virtually every other known civilization, some more so than others. Just because you believe a guy was crucified and rose from the dead, and he may come back does not make you moral. Christianity does not bring morality.
I have changed the description to make it clear that I am not splitting hairs about a single study. I will attempt to show a pattern of poor science.
I am concerned about dropping the response time, and length because people need to be able to have time to do their research.
Envisage I dropped it to 10k chars, and 4 rounds, but left at 2 days. I commit to respond quick (i.e.less then 24hours), but you/whoever will have time to respond and do your research if needed. If we don't need the extra rounds we can agree to turf them.
You forfeit 50% of the arguments including the first one.
Thats the rule. Kinda sucks in a 2 rounds debate, but that is the rule. Others can vote on the merits. I have opted to vote purely on the rule.
A lesson for all you kids out there. Don't skip rounds especially the first. Don't eat yellow snow, and if a stranger comes into your room and night and says they are the tooth fairy, scream for mamma.
Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful objection.
In your objection, you point out how you deduced the number. The issue I had was that you attributed your deduction to those woman in a marriage.
You actually state "meaning that a majority of women do view reproduction as a priority in marriage." While you did qualify this at the beginning as a "lets say," it is still an appeal to science based on fraud. You imply that is an actual number. Perhaps your objective was to show there are two sides to the coin.
I read it as a deliberate misdirect, based on fake statistics. I may not have gotten your idea, so the only thing I could say it watch out for how your terms could be referenced :)
I do really appreciate how civil your objection was. Thank you;.
I do not understand your judgment. All you stated was that Pro's argument lacked intelligence, however, that does not mean the entire debate is stupid. In fact, Con brought up some very valid points, clearly demonstrating intelligence which is an antonym for stupid.
Embed them is easiest for judges think. Nice catch Virtuoso. All the little bugs we need to sort out
There is an undertone argument that Christianity is relevant.
Is the point system what you wanted?
I am very curious about this and how the micro debate works especially for something like torture.
Good Luck to both participants.
I am watching this one with immense curiosity.
So the parents who spank should increase the frequency or the number of parents who spank should increase?
It was pretty well argued indeed. I really liked your argument in the Instigate a Con debate. Your closing bit was a real effective hammer. You are really getting good.
Let's see what you have for the Rap debate. Keep up the good work.
I can only vote based on the rules. The rule is clear.
Calling me a dumbass does not change the rules. All you had to do was say.. my position stands. You gambled with the rules and you lost.
If you want to just leave it where it is I agree to void the last round if you want to
Do you want to clear anything up before your last round?
谢谢 Ragnar
Question for you guys. There are some very important scientific elements in my argument. Is it my obligation to explain those concepts, or can I just refer to them as a common understanding? Things like the electromagnetic spectrum, phase arrays, power measurements (watts, joules, calories). Do I have to provide proof of conversion equations etc?
I want to make sure that I provide enough information, without making it too assumption, or on the opposite too verbose.
Sorry for the noob question.
Done.
That is. not proof. Thats the point.
This is not about what I can prove.
You said:
"You literally can't disprove me."
And I said, well can you prove you exist. If you cant prove you exist, then there is no one to disprove. Solipsism is an individual justification of your existence. It does not prove you exist. You could be part of a big simulation. You could be an entity of someone else's dream.
The point is don't be so obnoxious and say something like you did above.
But can you prove that you exist? If you cant prove you exist then you cant prove your perception.
Good to know. Thanks for that.
Sorry for the spelling errors. I did not intend on writing such a big response.
I read the rules for voting, and they. are ridiculous. You gotta review every point or have the vote discounted.
I don't think I will do any more voting. No wonder debates go unvoted here..
I just finished a debate about UFO's existing. Of course, there are things it the skies that have Unidentified. Flying things. Objects really.
Are you talking about aliens?
I don't think that it is fair to use one of their debates as evidence against another. I debate both sides all the time.
I will expand when the debate is over. I do not want to have a side debate in the comments.
Feel free to open a new debate a purely textual analysis of the constitution is pragmatic. I will take that on any day.
I will retort after the debate is done. It is my belief that it is just not pragmatic to take be tied to a textualist view of 230 years ago. But you will see that in my debate.
Speak the truth in a way that is convincing.
If you wish to debate that you think Saddam Hussein was genuinely guilty,
---------------------
Sure. Set the topic, set the limit to 5k characters, 24 hour response time, 3 rounds and wikipedia cant be used as a source.
You said about 42k words into round 2. "Saddam Hussein did indeed get found guilty, "
Easy win for Con here. Pro just admitted S.H. was found guilty of killing four people unlawfully. To be found guilty means you are guilty (from a linguistic sense). The debate title is Saddam Huseisen is not guilty. Topic does not say "Should not have been found guilty". and the description does not even qualify that the guilty verdict was in error.
There is morality iv virtually every other known civilization, some more so than others. Just because you believe a guy was crucified and rose from the dead, and he may come back does not make you moral. Christianity does not bring morality.
My opening is ready, and under 10k without references.
What do I do? If I include the references as links to source numbers will that count as characters?
Round count dropped again.
I have changed the description to make it clear that I am not splitting hairs about a single study. I will attempt to show a pattern of poor science.
I am concerned about dropping the response time, and length because people need to be able to have time to do their research.
Envisage I dropped it to 10k chars, and 4 rounds, but left at 2 days. I commit to respond quick (i.e.less then 24hours), but you/whoever will have time to respond and do your research if needed. If we don't need the extra rounds we can agree to turf them.