Re BOP: I copied and pasted this from another debate. I will make note of the issue with the BOP. I agree that it should be shared. But I think I have an irrefutable case.
@Yassine Thanks for the suggestions. I'm sorry if my wording wasn't clear. I have never done a debate on this topic before so I thought it would be interesting. Would you be interested in debating me next on this topic?
There is nothing in the COC that says members can’t consult other members in debate arguments. This could warrant the loss of a conduct point, but there is nothing wrong with a member offering assistance. Whether or not that warrants losing a conduct point is to the opinion of the voters. This issue is certainly something I’d consider MEEPing
Pro completelyed ignored every one of Con's opening arguments with their first response, replying with a confusing syllogism that appears to be a complete non-sequitur. It's literally impossible for Con to lose, unless he goes out of his way to concede his opponent's viewpoint that Earth is flat.
Which incredibly, he does, by admitting that Earth's surface is indeed flat.
What?
In spite of all the incoherence and multiple non-sequiturs from Pro, Con never recovers from this grievous concession and I am forced to give Pro points for more convincing arguments.
Regarding sources, I'm disinclined to hover or visit every hyperlink to judge the veracity of all of them, but I'm almost tempted to give Pro source points just because he helpfully labeled them in the first round with the names of the websites. But I won't.
This is the most frustrating thing I have read. I so want to go for Pro here. I am well versed on the subject. The debate definition is something that is very clear. The word "may" crated a technicality that I think both parties avoided (except for Pro trying to invoke it in the last round). And even as TheJackle keeps attacking me and others, they did a good job here. Even with the swearing and unconventional language, they did a good job. I tried to agree with Pro, i just could not find a way.
PRO:
Starts out with a position with a conspiracy theory reference. Conspiracy theories are not the foundation of evidence. Some elements of a conspiracy theory may support a well-founded thesis, but should not be the corpus of one. Pro provides links to Wiki quotes on the following subjects:
1. General Conspiracy theory. --> Pro says it is now contemporary understanding
2. Big Pharma financial motives --> Pro claims alternative medicines are the target
3. Other Parties motives --> Pro claims lawyers, and legal groups also benefit
Pro starts out with these elements but does not develop on them.
For sanitation, Pro tries to establish that vaccines are reducing sensitivity to sanitation concerns by highlighting a few OCD diagnosis cases. Pro does not show any cause and effect.
Later on, Pro continues repeating the quotes from Wikipedia, without developing those ideas and offers an example of paracetamol as an example.
Pro writes extensively about sanitation and makes some great points about how important sanitation is as part of the war on disease. However, there is no cause and effect established.
Pro hints that some new vaccines support his financial motives. But he frustratingly Pro does not develop anything related to CDC patents, the fact that so many current big pharma execs used to work at the CDC or FDA, the lobbying done, the fact that FDA recommended no testing for Gardasil 9... the contradictions by the WHO. Another HUGE area that was not developed was the fact that drug companies are indemnified by the federal government for any injuries caused by vaccines. There was so much potential and Pro did not address any of it.
Pro then keeps circling back saying arguments had been made that had not. Pro admits to agreeing to everything that Con was saying but just wanted
Con to add sanitation to his/her agenda. That was not the debate purpose.
Con, was rather direct, and rude. Swearing, and showing written forms of frustration. However, Con was focused. Stayed direct to the point. Con showed that Pro never established there is, or intended to be profiteering. Con also brought up over and over again that those connections weren't being made.
Con then provided some good resources supporting vaccine and sanitation as part of a co strategy.
Points to Con
POINT ARGUMENT - CON. for above reasons
POINT SOURCES - CON. Had much better variety, and more sources of the first reference. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
POINT. S&G - TIE. Nothing in it
POINT CONDUCT - Kind of tough. Con was rude, with some swearing, but I did not see any attacking behavior that warranted a penalty. Nothing wrong with Pro.
I am not good at this formal stuff.
Pro: Argument "that a perfect person still struggles each and every time such circumstances are presented."
Con: Argument "what is good", "what is evil", "what is struggle", blah blah... "not all challenge is a struggle"
Biggest problem for Pro. He never uses the phrase "every time" anywhere outside of Round1. So he just kinda says it, and never proves that a struggle happens always. He never showed it happens every time in a clear way.
Con gave very good reason why a challenge is not a struggle every time.
The definitions of good, evil etc all are pointless Pro said there is a struggle every time. Con said sometimes it might not be a struggle. Absolutes are a problem. But Con gave good reasons why struggle every time is not necessary. The analogues are funny. A vegetarian fox. hehehe But it worked. I understood what Con was trying to say. I agree now that a struggle does not occur every time. Points for Con.
Pro referenced religious sources, even when he said he wont. Con did not reference anything. Tie.
Spelling and stuff. Tie. Better then I could do.
Pro was very unfair to con by going religious when the promise was not. Thats bullshit. Manipulative wordsmith bullshit. Point to Con.
Theory: A scientific concept proposed which has not yet earned “fact” status while still called a theory, regardless of its pervasive use in scientific protocol as a fact. Example: the Theory of Relativity.
In reality, a theory is "an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing." Example: The Germ Theory of Disease
I will post my arguments tomorrow
Old debate has been deleted
thanks for the clarification. i am enjoying this debate
Challenge sent. I deleted definitions because I assume most people know what we are talking about. I also updated the rules to say the BOP is shared
I wouldn't mind a parallel debate as it is obvious my opponent isn't even going to try.
I’d love your thoughts on my arguments
Re BOP: I copied and pasted this from another debate. I will make note of the issue with the BOP. I agree that it should be shared. But I think I have an irrefutable case.
Sorry if my wording wasn't clear.
@Yassine Thanks for the suggestions. I'm sorry if my wording wasn't clear. I have never done a debate on this topic before so I thought it would be interesting. Would you be interested in debating me next on this topic?
@Best.Korea please don't preserve your Quran in piss. Piss did nothing to deserve to be preserving a Quran.
There is nothing in the COC that says members can’t consult other members in debate arguments. This could warrant the loss of a conduct point, but there is nothing wrong with a member offering assistance. Whether or not that warrants losing a conduct point is to the opinion of the voters. This issue is certainly something I’d consider MEEPing
VOTE REMOVED: Pucachu
Pro completelyed ignored every one of Con's opening arguments with their first response, replying with a confusing syllogism that appears to be a complete non-sequitur. It's literally impossible for Con to lose, unless he goes out of his way to concede his opponent's viewpoint that Earth is flat.
Which incredibly, he does, by admitting that Earth's surface is indeed flat.
What?
In spite of all the incoherence and multiple non-sequiturs from Pro, Con never recovers from this grievous concession and I am forced to give Pro points for more convincing arguments.
Regarding sources, I'm disinclined to hover or visit every hyperlink to judge the veracity of all of them, but I'm almost tempted to give Pro source points just because he helpfully labeled them in the first round with the names of the websites. But I won't.
Reason: Requested by voter
I agree. This was really fun. I want to do another round with you.
Bump. More votes would be nice
Want to debate me on this next?
Thanks for the vote!
Go ahead!
Atheism
there are no rules with how to do debate arguments. Oro can certainly place their arguments in a google doc
That is correct. We cannot remove arguments.
done
Yeah though I don’t intend on making new arguments in r 2
Settings changed
That’s fine by me
Yeah. How does 1 week arguments and 2 week of voting sound?
Agreed. America won't survive 4 more years.
Excellent use of the resolution to press for a win! That's why you should always be clear about the resolution.
Since this is considered a "troll/non-standard" debate, the votes cannot be moderated.
Thank you, my friend.
Thank you. i'm glad you enjoyed the debate.
Awesome!
you mean the comments?
Can we embed sources as hyperlinks to save space or do we have to put them in the text?
You’ve been watching too much Kent Hovind
Lol
Sorry. I fell asleep before I posted my arguments. Let's just continue.
I can't delete debates once they're finished. Sorry.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: DrSpy // Mod Action: Not removed
Reason: This vote is fine
*******************************************************************
Lol. Yeah, I was adding a third argument but felt the first two were good enough. Plus I really want to avoid gish galloping.
Ignore the ". Similarly, an invisible pink unicorn cannot exist because." I forgot to delete that
Thank you, my friend! Good luck.
Hence my problem with Christianity: It's all about faith and not evidence.
I plan on using three main arguments: the problem of evil, biblical defects, and contradictory properties.
Hello user.
Interested?
This is the most frustrating thing I have read. I so want to go for Pro here. I am well versed on the subject. The debate definition is something that is very clear. The word "may" crated a technicality that I think both parties avoided (except for Pro trying to invoke it in the last round). And even as TheJackle keeps attacking me and others, they did a good job here. Even with the swearing and unconventional language, they did a good job. I tried to agree with Pro, i just could not find a way.
PRO:
Starts out with a position with a conspiracy theory reference. Conspiracy theories are not the foundation of evidence. Some elements of a conspiracy theory may support a well-founded thesis, but should not be the corpus of one. Pro provides links to Wiki quotes on the following subjects:
1. General Conspiracy theory. --> Pro says it is now contemporary understanding
2. Big Pharma financial motives --> Pro claims alternative medicines are the target
3. Other Parties motives --> Pro claims lawyers, and legal groups also benefit
Pro starts out with these elements but does not develop on them.
For sanitation, Pro tries to establish that vaccines are reducing sensitivity to sanitation concerns by highlighting a few OCD diagnosis cases. Pro does not show any cause and effect.
Later on, Pro continues repeating the quotes from Wikipedia, without developing those ideas and offers an example of paracetamol as an example.
Pro writes extensively about sanitation and makes some great points about how important sanitation is as part of the war on disease. However, there is no cause and effect established.
Pro hints that some new vaccines support his financial motives. But he frustratingly Pro does not develop anything related to CDC patents, the fact that so many current big pharma execs used to work at the CDC or FDA, the lobbying done, the fact that FDA recommended no testing for Gardasil 9... the contradictions by the WHO. Another HUGE area that was not developed was the fact that drug companies are indemnified by the federal government for any injuries caused by vaccines. There was so much potential and Pro did not address any of it.
Pro then keeps circling back saying arguments had been made that had not. Pro admits to agreeing to everything that Con was saying but just wanted
Con to add sanitation to his/her agenda. That was not the debate purpose.
Con, was rather direct, and rude. Swearing, and showing written forms of frustration. However, Con was focused. Stayed direct to the point. Con showed that Pro never established there is, or intended to be profiteering. Con also brought up over and over again that those connections weren't being made.
Con then provided some good resources supporting vaccine and sanitation as part of a co strategy.
Points to Con
POINT ARGUMENT - CON. for above reasons
POINT SOURCES - CON. Had much better variety, and more sources of the first reference. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
POINT. S&G - TIE. Nothing in it
POINT CONDUCT - Kind of tough. Con was rude, with some swearing, but I did not see any attacking behavior that warranted a penalty. Nothing wrong with Pro.
Removed vote. Please see DM
Vote removed:
I am not good at this formal stuff.
Pro: Argument "that a perfect person still struggles each and every time such circumstances are presented."
Con: Argument "what is good", "what is evil", "what is struggle", blah blah... "not all challenge is a struggle"
Biggest problem for Pro. He never uses the phrase "every time" anywhere outside of Round1. So he just kinda says it, and never proves that a struggle happens always. He never showed it happens every time in a clear way.
Con gave very good reason why a challenge is not a struggle every time.
The definitions of good, evil etc all are pointless Pro said there is a struggle every time. Con said sometimes it might not be a struggle. Absolutes are a problem. But Con gave good reasons why struggle every time is not necessary. The analogues are funny. A vegetarian fox. hehehe But it worked. I understood what Con was trying to say. I agree now that a struggle does not occur every time. Points for Con.
Pro referenced religious sources, even when he said he wont. Con did not reference anything. Tie.
Spelling and stuff. Tie. Better then I could do.
Pro was very unfair to con by going religious when the promise was not. Thats bullshit. Manipulative wordsmith bullshit. Point to Con.
Please check your DM
What does 'information" mean?
What do you mean? The Theory of Relativity is also a theory in and of itself.
You're wrong about the word "theory."
Theory: A scientific concept proposed which has not yet earned “fact” status while still called a theory, regardless of its pervasive use in scientific protocol as a fact. Example: the Theory of Relativity.
In reality, a theory is "an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing." Example: The Germ Theory of Disease