Just because his win ratio and opponents aren't impressive, doesn't mean the debater is bad. You use a metric of ELO and win percentage, ignoring the fact that people can be inherently good debaters but happen to queue against bad debaters.
So you encourage the censorship and silencing of millions of free thinkers in exchange for a religion which prides itself on being a peaceful and accepting religion?
Also you need to answer the Catch-22 (If one is sinning violently and brutally in order to force others into Islam, they are both a good Muslim and yet a complete Munafiq to the verses teaching love and peace), I see this as an important thing.
"The Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser, or simply the Dreadnaught, was a type of capital ship built for planetary occupation and space combat used by the Galactic Republic, Galactic Empire, New Republic, local governments, and various other organizations."
Can you consider elaborating a bit? In such a close debate, every point matters, and you just threw him 3 points for a one line reason that can't be deciphered in a meaningful sense.
While I do not believe myself qualified to vote on a debate of this caliber, I will offer this:
Agnosticism is NOT a religion, and since every religion has an amount of agnosticism rooted in it, they all have an equal amount of truth, that of a possibly or most likely truth.
(Dissertation of the most important argument CON offered, does not break rules about arguments in comments)
The point FLRW was making is that God cannot be:
The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God of the bible.
Since you would have to prove all these points, and you conceded the "gratuitous evils" point, he wins by default.
Bones is an experienced debater, rising to 7th on the leaderboards in a year, specializing in religious debates and abortion.
Knowing the lengths he goes to prove his arguments, I would not be so confident in anything debating him.
Either you didn't read the arguments, or you don't know what it means. I had full BOP here, so if he proved ONE point of mine to be incorrect, the BOP stays unfulfilled and CON wins anyway. I'll make sure to make more BOP balanced topics in the future.
Format much?
Due to events, I will have little time to post my next argument. So, could you delay your own argument until as late as possible? Thank you.
Just a cordial heads up, 3 days left.
I remembered ChatGPT used predictive text so I assumed that was what GPT stands for.
Whoops. Well, the meaning is pretty clear.
Fair enough
If you had kept going, a London System would have followed, or perhaps a Queen's Gambit.
Not very practical, you'd have to make 5 or 6 debates to finish it.
Definitely interested in this one, I'll try and vote.
What would that stand for exactly?
If you hadn't included that rule in the description, I would have voted for you, hands down.
Stop being a whiny little b**** please. You might be more sensitive than Novice_II, and that says something.
Just because his win ratio and opponents aren't impressive, doesn't mean the debater is bad. You use a metric of ELO and win percentage, ignoring the fact that people can be inherently good debaters but happen to queue against bad debaters.
I have clarified it in both descriptions. What is the matter?
I'd appreciate you not accepting this one. I want to try my hand against other debate styles.
Really a toss-up... one misguided vote could change everything.
So you encourage the censorship and silencing of millions of free thinkers in exchange for a religion which prides itself on being a peaceful and accepting religion?
Also you need to answer the Catch-22 (If one is sinning violently and brutally in order to force others into Islam, they are both a good Muslim and yet a complete Munafiq to the verses teaching love and peace), I see this as an important thing.
Are you serious?
Are you serious?
Are you serious?
Are you serious?
Are you serious?
I gotchu :)
That's all it takes?
Since when was this a "quality debate?"
Do consider RM's suggestions if we are to have a reelection.
Not the best conclusion, but adequate.
You need to accept other religions. It's like saying, "Oh, you're xxxxxx? Well, we DON'T want you here, so you can go leave." It's irrational.
That's a serious devil's advocate.
Using sources is allowed, but you need to make sure to quote sources and provide a link.
Do NOT say I'm being dumb, just following the rules PRO set.
Not contesting that, but it if both sides missed the others point, it depends on what the voter thinks the better foundation was.
"The Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser, or simply the Dreadnaught, was a type of capital ship built for planetary occupation and space combat used by the Galactic Republic, Galactic Empire, New Republic, local governments, and various other organizations."
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Dreadnaught-class_heavy_cruiser
Fairly certain they meant it in a broader sense, like fighter jets or hub ships or something...
Now it's dreadnoughts...
I'm just imagining a tiny battle carrier vs a huge spacecraft bigger than a city smh.
Apologies. I know if I do vote I will be called out for being "narrowminded" or "biased" towards you.
Can you consider elaborating a bit? In such a close debate, every point matters, and you just threw him 3 points for a one line reason that can't be deciphered in a meaningful sense.
+ Fossil Findings and Noticeable Differences between Alike Species
Wait so you're denying centuries of biological evidence? Interesting...
Come on, it's a concession...
While I do not believe myself qualified to vote on a debate of this caliber, I will offer this:
Agnosticism is NOT a religion, and since every religion has an amount of agnosticism rooted in it, they all have an equal amount of truth, that of a possibly or most likely truth.
(Dissertation of the most important argument CON offered, does not break rules about arguments in comments)
Can you specify what you mean by narrow-minded?
I definitely feel like Novice's confidence made him a little overconfident in his own statements.
He did make some good points, but you stayed pretty calm and logical in my opinion. So, good job!
The point FLRW was making is that God cannot be:
The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God of the bible.
Since you would have to prove all these points, and you conceded the "gratuitous evils" point, he wins by default.
Putting forth a presumptuous statement with only one round posted.
But for real that argument was dumb so.... fair.
That was more directed towards Novice... I don't appreciate full-blown arrogance in a debate you are not a part of.
Also,, your BOP is lopsided due to him just having to find one flaw, and then it's not "definitely".
Bones is an experienced debater, rising to 7th on the leaderboards in a year, specializing in religious debates and abortion.
Knowing the lengths he goes to prove his arguments, I would not be so confident in anything debating him.
Either you didn't read the arguments, or you don't know what it means. I had full BOP here, so if he proved ONE point of mine to be incorrect, the BOP stays unfulfilled and CON wins anyway. I'll make sure to make more BOP balanced topics in the future.
No words... +1 win for the GOAT