Perhaps we could do "Resolved: The Trinity is Unbiblical." Though I would be using more of the Tenakh as I dont' accept the New Testament. Perhaps I'd be willing to do "Resolved: Jesus is not God" and show from the New Testament that the discipels did not believe Jesus' divnity.
I suppose the question would hinge on the word "rational." I would view the idea of the Trinity to be irrational and that's my biggest logical objection.
I definitely agree with you @ Ramshutu. In the past I have removed tied votes that don’t explain arguments. We are most likely going to have to MEEP this when we have our next MEEP.
Yeah - that was my biggest struggle in the debate. It was hard to follow your argumnents and keep them organized. Notice how I made each contention a bolded headline.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RM // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Arguments to pro (3 points)
RFD: Either Con's morals/political beliefs are based on his own Christianity or societal standards, which in Western culture is almost entirely based on Christianity. Con never suggested a third source.
Reason for mod action:
The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
"How would you respond to the tyranny of the majority argument that happens with a national popular vote?"
Three ways:
First, the "tyranny of the majority" is protected by the constitution and the Bill of Rights;
Second, congress is set up in such a way that gives the "smaller states" a bigger voice in the Senate.
Last, the EC actually enables this "tyranny" because it requires a plurality of the vote in a state. If you vote Republican in California, your vote is automatically silenced by the EC.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con
RFD: This was mostly gibberish to my ears. I'm going with con because his stuff ultimately seems more plausible..... I think.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Yeah and that's why I didn't go as hard against your case as I did as I didn't htink it would be fair. I'd love to redo this debate. I think I needed some more evidence in my rebuttals. Had I provided that, I think I would have won.
I care about the integrity of the voting process and will report any vote that doesn't meet the standards on my debate - especially the ones who are on my side.
Already done. Even though the vote will be removed, I cannot remove votes on my own debate even when it clearly does not meet our standards. The vote has already been reported and bsh1 will get to it as soon as he can.
Lol. To be fair, I could have awarded con the conduct point due to the plagiarism, but I'm being a bit lenient with my voting given this is his first debate and taking his age into consideration.
In a debate such as this, I don't think it's 100% necessary, but bsh1 can certainly make that determination since it's my vote. If he deems that it is necessary, I will revote if he removes it.
I'm deciding on a point by meme basis.
Pro R1
1: Meh, didn't really get it, no point
Con R1
1: I don't get it, no point
Pro R2
1: I don't get it, no point
2: It's alright, a point
3: Hilarious, a point
Con R2
1: It's ok, a point
2: Alright, a point
3: Nice, a point
Pro R3
1: Nice, a point
2: Nice, but you misspelled vegan -_-, a point
3: Awesome, a point
4: Jabbing at theists + not funny, no point >.>
Con R3
1: Not bad, a point
2: Meh, a point
3: Ok, a point
4: I don't get it, no point
Pro R4
1: Not too bad, a point
2: LOL Nice, a point
3: Lol understandable, a point
4: I don't really get it, no point
Con R4
1: I don't really get it + you misspelled "stars," no point
2: Lol nice, a point
3: Not funny -_-, no point
4: Meh, a point
Pro R5
1: It's ok, a point
2: Ehhhhhhh it's ok, a point
3: LOL Me every day, a point
4: Nice lol, a point
5: Lol this was a good one, a point
Con R5
1: LOL Niiiiiiiice dude, a point
2: Meh, it's ok, a point
3: Not bad, a point
4: Nice, a point
5: LOL Nice photoshop on there, dude, a point
So overall, Pro got 14 points and Con got 13. This was super close, but Pro won out. Good job to both!
>Reported Vote: Speedrace // Mod action: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
Perhaps we could do "Resolved: The Trinity is Unbiblical." Though I would be using more of the Tenakh as I dont' accept the New Testament. Perhaps I'd be willing to do "Resolved: Jesus is not God" and show from the New Testament that the discipels did not believe Jesus' divnity.
That would be fine. The Trinity is logically incoherent and Unbiblical.
I suppose the question would hinge on the word "rational." I would view the idea of the Trinity to be irrational and that's my biggest logical objection.
Yes people can report their own votes. We actually have had peopel do that and ask us to delete their vote.
I'll try and vote on it if I can. I may not be able to get to it in time :(
If you want to debate me on this, feel free.
I definitely agree with you @ Ramshutu. In the past I have removed tied votes that don’t explain arguments. We are most likely going to have to MEEP this when we have our next MEEP.
Thanks for a great RFD
Ah. And that's exactly why I bought a mac. I had way too many issues with PCs
That's odd. What type of computer did you get? Is it still in warranty?
my advice is to always use a word doc or a google doc to write your arguments in and then C&P it into the debate.
Yeah - that was my biggest struggle in the debate. It was hard to follow your argumnents and keep them organized. Notice how I made each contention a bolded headline.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per our standards.
***********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RM // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Arguments to pro (3 points)
RFD: Either Con's morals/political beliefs are based on his own Christianity or societal standards, which in Western culture is almost entirely based on Christianity. Con never suggested a third source.
Reason for mod action:
The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Mod Action: Votes which do not award points are not subject to review because no standard exists in the COC against by which they can be removed.
************************************************************************
Bump for better votes
"How would you respond to the tyranny of the majority argument that happens with a national popular vote?"
Three ways:
First, the "tyranny of the majority" is protected by the constitution and the Bill of Rights;
Second, congress is set up in such a way that gives the "smaller states" a bigger voice in the Senate.
Last, the EC actually enables this "tyranny" because it requires a plurality of the vote in a state. If you vote Republican in California, your vote is automatically silenced by the EC.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Wrick-It-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to con
RFD: This was mostly gibberish to my ears. I'm going with con because his stuff ultimately seems more plausible..... I think.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
They do none of these things
*******************************************************************
Less than an hr.
Fair enough! Good luck! It’s nice to debate you again. Hopefully we will see this through the end.
You have less than a day to post.
Of course i would lol. Why is that a bad thing?
Yeah and that's why I didn't go as hard against your case as I did as I didn't htink it would be fair. I'd love to redo this debate. I think I needed some more evidence in my rebuttals. Had I provided that, I think I would have won.
Lol! Thanks for listening to our rambling. Blamonkey is a tough cookie to beat.
Thanks for a great RFD!!
Because semantically they’re essentially the same thing. They were used interchangeably a in our earliest documents.
False dichotomy.
I care about the integrity of the voting process and will report any vote that doesn't meet the standards on my debate - especially the ones who are on my side.
Already done. Even though the vote will be removed, I cannot remove votes on my own debate even when it clearly does not meet our standards. The vote has already been reported and bsh1 will get to it as soon as he can.
Thank you
I agree. I’d also like to see some Greens in Congress
I misunderstood your argument
Lol
This is actually quite controversial. I know many people who are against abolishing the EC.
bump
u
m
p
Lol. To be fair, I could have awarded con the conduct point due to the plagiarism, but I'm being a bit lenient with my voting given this is his first debate and taking his age into consideration.
In a debate such as this, I don't think it's 100% necessary, but bsh1 can certainly make that determination since it's my vote. If he deems that it is necessary, I will revote if he removes it.
Great minds think alike
Thank you! You were also great! I enjoyed this immensely
bumping for votes
Not a problem. I always copy and paste them in the comment section to make it easier for the voter to change their vote.
Vote deleted per your PM request!
I'm deciding on a point by meme basis.
Pro R1
1: Meh, didn't really get it, no point
Con R1
1: I don't get it, no point
Pro R2
1: I don't get it, no point
2: It's alright, a point
3: Hilarious, a point
Con R2
1: It's ok, a point
2: Alright, a point
3: Nice, a point
Pro R3
1: Nice, a point
2: Nice, but you misspelled vegan -_-, a point
3: Awesome, a point
4: Jabbing at theists + not funny, no point >.>
Con R3
1: Not bad, a point
2: Meh, a point
3: Ok, a point
4: I don't get it, no point
Pro R4
1: Not too bad, a point
2: LOL Nice, a point
3: Lol understandable, a point
4: I don't really get it, no point
Con R4
1: I don't really get it + you misspelled "stars," no point
2: Lol nice, a point
3: Not funny -_-, no point
4: Meh, a point
Pro R5
1: It's ok, a point
2: Ehhhhhhh it's ok, a point
3: LOL Me every day, a point
4: Nice lol, a point
5: Lol this was a good one, a point
Con R5
1: LOL Niiiiiiiice dude, a point
2: Meh, it's ok, a point
3: Not bad, a point
4: Nice, a point
5: LOL Nice photoshop on there, dude, a point
So overall, Pro got 14 points and Con got 13. This was super close, but Pro won out. Good job to both!
If you want to change your vote, PM me and I'll delete the vote. You will be able to re vote after that
>Reported Vote: Speedrace // Mod action: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
not sure if there are reliable polling for it.
yep
Fair enough. If no one accepts by the time I'm finished the one I'm in with you, I'll accept .