*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Type1 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: All 7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: Pro essentially just made a bunch of arbitrary claims supported by nothing but "God says so" or "the bible says so". This both constitutes a shitty argument and shitty conduct. Also since his only source, not only in this debate but his only source of information in general is the bible, he also has shitty sources. Plus his grammar must be atrocious after reading so much bible bable, I mean seriously, who spells shall as 'shalt" anymore, that's like sooooooooooo 600 BC gurlfriend.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote does not meet the COC standards.
************************************************************************
The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources.
S/G is more than sufficient. Here's what they need to do to award S/G
To sufficiently ground awarding S&G points, a voter must start by giving specific references to the mistakes made by the debater(s). More importantly, though, these spelling and/or grammatical mistakes need to be excessive. A good rule of thumb is that if the spelling or grammar render the arguments incoherent or incomprehensible, the coherent side is awarded these points. While this can be somewhat subjective, it should be clear from the vote why a given argument is difficult to read, and not just how many errors a given side has made. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ S&G.
The voter does just that by comparing the two sides and showing why he felt that your arguments were incoherent or incomprehensible. That's the key. You could spell all the words correctly but still be dinged for s/g if your arguments are incoherent (A good example of this would be WisdomofAGES)
Vote Reported: Coreyinthehouse // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points for arguments, conduct, and grammar
Reason for decision:
I hold KawaiiKame had been conduct because some of the statements by Type1 seems very biased against Jews as a whole, I'm not saying they're antisemetic by any means but they seem to have something against the culture seeing as they brought up "every Jew will have 1000 gentile slaves when the messiah comes." And "Even the so-called Jews that are atheists will get hyper aggressive and intellectually dishonest on you with 1984-like doublethink and blind rage" this is stereotyping them as a whole, and doesn't belong in debates IMO.
The grammar and spelling was a tie, as I didn't notice any issues in either side.
Both sources seem to be fairly reliable, however one slated by Type1 called establishing them as a race "dangerous."
This IMO, is ridiculous and therefore I hold Kame's are more valid. Establishing a religious descendancy as a race is far from dangerous, as what exactly determines race is gray in the first place. The only way this would be "dangerous" is if the religious itself was "dangerous."
Kame's arguments are more convincing IMO largely because he cites more reliable sources and references more facts.
Reason for mod removal: This vote fails to meet the COC vote standards
Vote Reported: GeneralGrant // Mod Decision: Removed
Points awarded: Full points to con
RFD: Con had better arguments, besides no one can definitely prove the material existence or non existence of God.
Reason for mod decision: This vote fails to meet the COC standards
Vote report: oteske // mod decision: removed
points awarded: all 7 points to con
Rfd: The Pro didn’t provide sources, and tried to change the rules for the debate.
Reason: The vote fails to meet the COC standards
Vote Reported: Alec // Mod Decision: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to con for conduct
RFD
Conduct:
Pro said, "You are literally tying your own noose". I think Pro should have been describing himself when saying this so it would be more accurate.
Reason for mod decision: This vote is not sufficient.
Vote Report: Pilot // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and s/g
RFD:
Con provided clear evidence of the existence of viruses. Including how they were discovered, and providing vomit inducing images to prove they've been observed. Pro's only defense for that evidence was to claim the pictures could have been a picture of anything, yet pro provided no evidence that was effective at giving a good reason to question what those pictures were, only pro's word. Pro also showed pictures of viruses which only helped to solidify cons case. Pro would have done a better job if pro didn't show up for this debate at all.
Reason fro mod removal: The vote fails to meet the standard set forth by the COC
Vote Report: Alec // Mod Decision: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Pro said, "You was knocked out in round 1 so I don't know why you are still hanging around?". This is poor conduct.
Reason for mod action: (1) In non FF debates, one must still analyze arguments should they leave them at a tie; (2) Per the COC standards:
To sufficiently ground awarding conduct points, the voter must provide specific references to the instances of poor conduct in their vote. There are two additional necessary criteria for conduct points to be sufficiently grounded. One debater must have been excessively rude, profane, or unfair, or broke the debate rules, or forfeited one or more rounds in the debate without reasonable and given cause. There must be some comparatively analysis between both debaters’ conduct
The voter fails to do this here. The vote is thus removed
Vote Reported: tbryson // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and spelling
RFD: he has no reason to be swayed
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC
Vote Reported: Christfollower // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to pro
RFD: He displayed the topic well and was well researched.
Reason for mod removal: The vote fails to meet the voting standards
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tie
>RFD: Good points on both sides..
>Reason for Mod Action: To award a tie the voter needs to analyze the debate and explain why it should be a tie.
**********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for sources and conduct
>RFD: Pro forfeit a round but arguments were comparable on both sides. Pro cited mostly biased sources.
>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct is sufficiently explained, though sources are not. In order to award sources, the voter is required to compare the sources. The voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for
***********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tie
>RFD: Good arguing on both sides..
>Reason for Mod Action: To award a tie the voter needs to analyze the debate and explain why it should be a tie.
***********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tie
>RFD: Trying to get the silver get 15 votes within 24 hours badge.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award a tie the voter needs to analyze the debate and explain why it should be a tie. Further using a tie to win points is not appreciated by the mod team.
***********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a troll/non standard debate so votes aren't moderated..
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a troll/non standard debate so votes aren't moderated..
************************************************************************
Vote Reported: Alec // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Tie
RFD: Good arguing on both sides.
Reason for removal: Tied votes are removed unless the debaters request it To award a tie, one still needs to analyze the arguments in the debate and give reasons for why the debate should be a tie
***************************
Vote Reported: Bifolkal // Mod Action: Removed
Points Awarded: 5 points for arguments and sources
RFD: See below
Reason for removal: This account is under reivew
***************************
Sources
Con's sources on intelligence won him the debate, because they showed intelligence to be a property of neurons that weren't around until recently (cosmologically speaking) and that negates an INTELLIGENT creator of the universe, even if I grant Pro the creator and necessary parts of their burden, and negates the resolution.
Pro's sources were used well, but for example, when Pro cited the Phil Papers for what philosophers thought, it not only seemed irrelevant to me, but Pro didn't use it to develop his case at all and another Pro's source was live science to show that quantum fluctuations were in fact caused, but when I weigh Pro's live science with Con's NASA and Cambridge sources on quantum fluctuations and inflation, I have to take direct, primary and reliable sources over indirect ones, and for this, sources to Con for effectively using credible sources to substantiate their case and negate the resolution.
Pro's sources were less effective for them.
This is the entirety of a positive case for an intelligent creator and it is simply assertions, I mean, there is not a hint of actually linking intelligence to the creator without asserting that it must be so or Pro double and even triple dipping into his other arguments. I mean, Pro was attempting proof by the stone when it came to an intelligence by simply asserting their entire case for intelligence.
From this gaping hole in Pro's case, Con was able to show not only that intelligence is a property of neuronal things, which Pro seemed to refuse to respond to Con's persistent nagging about it, but also that neurons didn't exist until some millions of years ago quite after the universe.
Pro put so much effort into the first two parts of his burden that he left the intelligence part of it very thin and it toppled his arguments.
I walk away from reading this debate thinking about intelligence and based on the debater's performances, I'm going to recall a memorable and substantial case for intelligence being a result of neurons/brains which had unanswered questions aimed directly at Pro to the effect of "Pro can you show intelligence without neurons? which Pro consistently ignored, and not have an inkling of an idea of how a timeless entity was somehow lacking these substrates yet possessed intelligence, not by anything Pro said in this debate.
Without the emergence of neurons being refuted, I must accept that this is when neurons emerged and that this is the only evidence of intelligence provided in the debate, as Con's source from Cambridge said that many non-human animals and of course humans have neurons for consciousness and Con's other source from the NIH showed the neurons emergence millions of years ago.
These both show that intelligence is a property of neurons, not available before the universe was created.
Arguments
The debate description defines god as the necessary intelligent creator of the universe, so in my view, if Pro doesn't show 1. necessity, 2. intelligence, or 3. a creator of the universe, Pro cannot meet Pro's burden. Pro does very well and has clear arguments, but the debate was very long and this gave Con ample opportunity to refute Pro's rather loaded case.
Pro argues with the contingency argument and the Kalam argument basically attempting to show a necessary cause of the universe being that the universe is contingent on some necessary cause because the universe began to exist and the god attempting to be proven didn't begin to exist.
While I feel Con refutes those points sufficiently, it's rather immaterial, because even if I were to grant Pro the necessity and creator points, nothing about Pro's round 1 links this cause to an intelligence, except for what Pro said here
"So the necessary being must be personal and has volition / intelligence."
Perhaps Pro can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the only attempt at showing the intelligence part of Pro's burden in round 1.
This leaves me only really considering the intelligence point, because without one of the 3 things Pro has to show, 1. necessity, 2. intelligence, and 3. a creator of the universe, Pro cannot meet their burden, so I can even grant Pro #1 and #3 and just base my vote on the intelligence point, which is what I will be doing.
Here's the totality of Pro's case for intelligence.
1. "So the necessary being must be personal and has volition / intelligence."
2. "since the universe began to exist while the cause did not then the cause is personal and intelligent."
3. "God exists timelessly then due to his intelligent volition decides to create the universe."
4. "if the cause of the universe is impersonal and unintelligent, then the universe would be eternal. But since the universe began to exist, then the cause is personal and intelligent."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: dustryder // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
Anytime. Our hands are a bit tied and we have no definitive proof one way or the other, but there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant this move.
Removed
Reason:
Although I did not find the argument convincing based on the lack of input by Pro the Con position (Alex) should win. My reasoning is the trouble and time Con took as opposed to Pro shows merit. Pro did not attempt to refute Con at all.
Sources
Again, Con agreed that Pro's sources were reliable and credible and have no problems and it was with these sources, Wikipdeia and Oxford Dictionaries that Pro showed that all organisms were genetically modified by evolution and with University of Berkeley to show how the modification happens in evolution. Con's sources were fine except for one that cited Cali law "You should assume that the parties intended the words in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless you decide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning." This actually worked for Pro because Pro points out that it was clear what meaning he intended in the debate, having us accept his intended meaning so this source works against Con and for Pro who already used sources to win the argument. Sources to Pro.
Conduct
Con says he doesn't need to follow the rules of the debate, but Rule 1 says that debaters need to put some phrase in the first round to show acceptance and that this debater, Death23 cannot participate. The debater requested this quite clearly, so Con violated rules and Con should follow the definitions from the debate description, which support Pro's case quite nicely. I was once a stand up comedian in college and I had a heckler who would show up at some of my shows in the area, so I requested to the bar owners to at least not let him in when I was performing, and they were all understanding and saw to my wishes. I would expect such a thing for a debate performance. If you don't want to argue with someone on something, you should have the ability to request that. I found it very disrespectful for this person to accept the debate when it was requested that he not. Also, the swearing was rather over the top from Pro, but I like a little pepper in my steak sometimes, it shows passion, and I might have used some words at that heckler if he were to show up again, so i can relate a little, but the overt violations of the rules make the conduct vote easy for Pro.
Sources
Again, Con agreed that Pro's sources were reliable and credible and have no problems and it was with these sources, Wikipdeia and Oxford Dictionaries that Pro showed that all organisms were genetically modified by evolution and with University of Berkeley to show how the modification happens in evolution. Con's sources were fine except for one that cited Cali law "You should assume that the parties intended the words in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless you decide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning." This actually worked for Pro because Pro points out that it was clear what meaning he intended in the debate, having us accept his intended meaning so this source works against Con and for Pro who already used sources to win the argument.
I feel Pro wins the day here because Con violated two rules and had arguments and sources that were essentially agreed by Con.
Arguments
Pro argues that humans must consume living organisms for macros and that all living organisms were genetically modified from evolving. I find this to be a sneaky type of argument because, as Con points out, in common parlance, genetically modified means modified by scientist lab people. But if you look the debate description definitions, what Pro points out, perfectly align with all living organisms because they evolved and descend with modification. Con agrees all organisms were genetically modified by nature, but he does not believe that you can call this genetically modified organisms. I was leaning Con at this point, right up until Con said something bizarre. He agreed that Pro's sources, including the sources used in the debate description he argued he need not follow were all credible and he had no problem with them. Pro brought forth a very clear definition from the source that Con said was OK that included natural genetic modification and it too had sourcing that pro brought forth showing the same thing. By debater performance, I have to accept Pro's sources as perfectly reasonable and particularly of common usage (wikipedia) because Con accepts them too. I cannot ignore that Pro's source says "in nature" in the definition of Genetically modified organisms, no matter how weird Con tries to tell me it is. Con already convinced me that the source was not weird, and it directly supported Pro's case. After reading this debate, I sit here convinced that all organisms are genetically modified and that I must eat them for macros. Con's appeals did not sway my duty as a voter to follow rules and accepted definitions.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DebateVoter // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See above.
>Reason for Mod Action: The moderator team is investigating this account.
************************************************************************
Yep that's basically what this debate is. Con can successfully negate the resolution by showing that the minimum wages should stay the same. The negative does not have to prove there should be no minimum wage. This isn't an all or nothing debate.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Forefeit the debate
Reason for Mod Action: This is not a full forfeit so the voter still needs to survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Type1 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: All 7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: Pro essentially just made a bunch of arbitrary claims supported by nothing but "God says so" or "the bible says so". This both constitutes a shitty argument and shitty conduct. Also since his only source, not only in this debate but his only source of information in general is the bible, he also has shitty sources. Plus his grammar must be atrocious after reading so much bible bable, I mean seriously, who spells shall as 'shalt" anymore, that's like sooooooooooo 600 BC gurlfriend.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote does not meet the COC standards.
************************************************************************
You have the patience of a saint.
Sources
The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources.
Again the voter does just that.
S/G is more than sufficient. Here's what they need to do to award S/G
To sufficiently ground awarding S&G points, a voter must start by giving specific references to the mistakes made by the debater(s). More importantly, though, these spelling and/or grammatical mistakes need to be excessive. A good rule of thumb is that if the spelling or grammar render the arguments incoherent or incomprehensible, the coherent side is awarded these points. While this can be somewhat subjective, it should be clear from the vote why a given argument is difficult to read, and not just how many errors a given side has made. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ S&G.
The voter does just that by comparing the two sides and showing why he felt that your arguments were incoherent or incomprehensible. That's the key. You could spell all the words correctly but still be dinged for s/g if your arguments are incoherent (A good example of this would be WisdomofAGES)
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Decision: Not Removed
Reason for mod decision: The vote is sufficient per the site's voting policies.
Vote Reported: Coreyinthehouse // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 5 points for arguments, conduct, and grammar
Reason for decision:
I hold KawaiiKame had been conduct because some of the statements by Type1 seems very biased against Jews as a whole, I'm not saying they're antisemetic by any means but they seem to have something against the culture seeing as they brought up "every Jew will have 1000 gentile slaves when the messiah comes." And "Even the so-called Jews that are atheists will get hyper aggressive and intellectually dishonest on you with 1984-like doublethink and blind rage" this is stereotyping them as a whole, and doesn't belong in debates IMO.
The grammar and spelling was a tie, as I didn't notice any issues in either side.
Both sources seem to be fairly reliable, however one slated by Type1 called establishing them as a race "dangerous."
This IMO, is ridiculous and therefore I hold Kame's are more valid. Establishing a religious descendancy as a race is far from dangerous, as what exactly determines race is gray in the first place. The only way this would be "dangerous" is if the religious itself was "dangerous."
Kame's arguments are more convincing IMO largely because he cites more reliable sources and references more facts.
Reason for mod removal: This vote fails to meet the COC vote standards
I'd honestly love to see you debate Somebody on this.
Oh looks like it’s gonna be a nice K from con. Popcorn out!
Are you serious about supporting flat earth? I sometimes think that all flat earthers are basically one giant Poe. At least I hope so.
Not a problem! Would love to see those photos. Hope you can get them uploaded
Those photos are really cool!
Vote Reported: GeneralGrant // Mod Decision: Removed
Points awarded: Full points to con
RFD: Con had better arguments, besides no one can definitely prove the material existence or non existence of God.
Reason for mod decision: This vote fails to meet the COC standards
Thanks. It’ll be removed when I get home. Thanks
Vote report: oteske // mod decision: removed
points awarded: all 7 points to con
Rfd: The Pro didn’t provide sources, and tried to change the rules for the debate.
Reason: The vote fails to meet the COC standards
Once someone accepts the debate, you will have an option to publish your arguments.
This looks quite interesting. I'm not Australian so I'll sit back and watch. Hope you get a good opponent!!
Vote Reported: Alec // Mod Decision: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to con for conduct
RFD
Conduct:
Pro said, "You are literally tying your own noose". I think Pro should have been describing himself when saying this so it would be more accurate.
Reason for mod decision: This vote is not sufficient.
Vote Report: Pilot // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and s/g
RFD:
Con provided clear evidence of the existence of viruses. Including how they were discovered, and providing vomit inducing images to prove they've been observed. Pro's only defense for that evidence was to claim the pictures could have been a picture of anything, yet pro provided no evidence that was effective at giving a good reason to question what those pictures were, only pro's word. Pro also showed pictures of viruses which only helped to solidify cons case. Pro would have done a better job if pro didn't show up for this debate at all.
Reason fro mod removal: The vote fails to meet the standard set forth by the COC
Vote Report: Alec // Mod Decision: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to con for conduct
RFD: Pro said, "You was knocked out in round 1 so I don't know why you are still hanging around?". This is poor conduct.
Reason for mod action: (1) In non FF debates, one must still analyze arguments should they leave them at a tie; (2) Per the COC standards:
To sufficiently ground awarding conduct points, the voter must provide specific references to the instances of poor conduct in their vote. There are two additional necessary criteria for conduct points to be sufficiently grounded. One debater must have been excessively rude, profane, or unfair, or broke the debate rules, or forfeited one or more rounds in the debate without reasonable and given cause. There must be some comparatively analysis between both debaters’ conduct
The voter fails to do this here. The vote is thus removed
Vote Reported: tbryson // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and spelling
RFD: he has no reason to be swayed
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC
Vote Reported: Christfollower // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 7 points to pro
RFD: He displayed the topic well and was well researched.
Reason for mod removal: The vote fails to meet the voting standards
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tie
>RFD: Good points on both sides..
>Reason for Mod Action: To award a tie the voter needs to analyze the debate and explain why it should be a tie.
**********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for sources and conduct
>RFD: Pro forfeit a round but arguments were comparable on both sides. Pro cited mostly biased sources.
>Reason for Mod Action: Conduct is sufficiently explained, though sources are not. In order to award sources, the voter is required to compare the sources. The voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for
***********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tie
>RFD: Good arguing on both sides..
>Reason for Mod Action: To award a tie the voter needs to analyze the debate and explain why it should be a tie.
***********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tie
>RFD: Trying to get the silver get 15 votes within 24 hours badge.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award a tie the voter needs to analyze the debate and explain why it should be a tie. Further using a tie to win points is not appreciated by the mod team.
***********************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a troll/non standard debate so votes aren't moderated..
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to con for conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a troll/non standard debate so votes aren't moderated..
************************************************************************
Vote Reported: Alec // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Tie
RFD: Good arguing on both sides.
Reason for removal: Tied votes are removed unless the debaters request it To award a tie, one still needs to analyze the arguments in the debate and give reasons for why the debate should be a tie
***************************
Vote Reported: Bifolkal // Mod Action: Removed
Points Awarded: 5 points for arguments and sources
RFD: See below
Reason for removal: This account is under reivew
***************************
Sources
Con's sources on intelligence won him the debate, because they showed intelligence to be a property of neurons that weren't around until recently (cosmologically speaking) and that negates an INTELLIGENT creator of the universe, even if I grant Pro the creator and necessary parts of their burden, and negates the resolution.
Pro's sources were used well, but for example, when Pro cited the Phil Papers for what philosophers thought, it not only seemed irrelevant to me, but Pro didn't use it to develop his case at all and another Pro's source was live science to show that quantum fluctuations were in fact caused, but when I weigh Pro's live science with Con's NASA and Cambridge sources on quantum fluctuations and inflation, I have to take direct, primary and reliable sources over indirect ones, and for this, sources to Con for effectively using credible sources to substantiate their case and negate the resolution.
Pro's sources were less effective for them.
This is the entirety of a positive case for an intelligent creator and it is simply assertions, I mean, there is not a hint of actually linking intelligence to the creator without asserting that it must be so or Pro double and even triple dipping into his other arguments. I mean, Pro was attempting proof by the stone when it came to an intelligence by simply asserting their entire case for intelligence.
From this gaping hole in Pro's case, Con was able to show not only that intelligence is a property of neuronal things, which Pro seemed to refuse to respond to Con's persistent nagging about it, but also that neurons didn't exist until some millions of years ago quite after the universe.
Pro put so much effort into the first two parts of his burden that he left the intelligence part of it very thin and it toppled his arguments.
I walk away from reading this debate thinking about intelligence and based on the debater's performances, I'm going to recall a memorable and substantial case for intelligence being a result of neurons/brains which had unanswered questions aimed directly at Pro to the effect of "Pro can you show intelligence without neurons? which Pro consistently ignored, and not have an inkling of an idea of how a timeless entity was somehow lacking these substrates yet possessed intelligence, not by anything Pro said in this debate.
Without the emergence of neurons being refuted, I must accept that this is when neurons emerged and that this is the only evidence of intelligence provided in the debate, as Con's source from Cambridge said that many non-human animals and of course humans have neurons for consciousness and Con's other source from the NIH showed the neurons emergence millions of years ago.
These both show that intelligence is a property of neurons, not available before the universe was created.
Arguments
The debate description defines god as the necessary intelligent creator of the universe, so in my view, if Pro doesn't show 1. necessity, 2. intelligence, or 3. a creator of the universe, Pro cannot meet Pro's burden. Pro does very well and has clear arguments, but the debate was very long and this gave Con ample opportunity to refute Pro's rather loaded case.
Pro argues with the contingency argument and the Kalam argument basically attempting to show a necessary cause of the universe being that the universe is contingent on some necessary cause because the universe began to exist and the god attempting to be proven didn't begin to exist.
While I feel Con refutes those points sufficiently, it's rather immaterial, because even if I were to grant Pro the necessity and creator points, nothing about Pro's round 1 links this cause to an intelligence, except for what Pro said here
"So the necessary being must be personal and has volition / intelligence."
Perhaps Pro can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the only attempt at showing the intelligence part of Pro's burden in round 1.
This leaves me only really considering the intelligence point, because without one of the 3 things Pro has to show, 1. necessity, 2. intelligence, and 3. a creator of the universe, Pro cannot meet their burden, so I can even grant Pro #1 and #3 and just base my vote on the intelligence point, which is what I will be doing.
Here's the totality of Pro's case for intelligence.
1. "So the necessary being must be personal and has volition / intelligence."
2. "since the universe began to exist while the cause did not then the cause is personal and intelligent."
3. "God exists timelessly then due to his intelligent volition decides to create the universe."
4. "if the cause of the universe is impersonal and unintelligent, then the universe would be eternal. But since the universe began to exist, then the cause is personal and intelligent."
I agree 100%. This is one of the best debates I've seen in a while and definitely one of the best debate on the site.
You no say?
The mod team is doing a full interrogation and investigation.
All four accounts has been banned. We are going to be doing a full investigation.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: dustryder // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
Anytime. Our hands are a bit tied and we have no definitive proof one way or the other, but there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant this move.
The mod team has decided, for now, to forbid the two from voting on each other’s debates and from both voting on the same debate.
Removed
Reason:
Although I did not find the argument convincing based on the lack of input by Pro the Con position (Alex) should win. My reasoning is the trouble and time Con took as opposed to Pro shows merit. Pro did not attempt to refute Con at all.
Sources
Again, Con agreed that Pro's sources were reliable and credible and have no problems and it was with these sources, Wikipdeia and Oxford Dictionaries that Pro showed that all organisms were genetically modified by evolution and with University of Berkeley to show how the modification happens in evolution. Con's sources were fine except for one that cited Cali law "You should assume that the parties intended the words in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless you decide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning." This actually worked for Pro because Pro points out that it was clear what meaning he intended in the debate, having us accept his intended meaning so this source works against Con and for Pro who already used sources to win the argument. Sources to Pro.
Conduct
Con says he doesn't need to follow the rules of the debate, but Rule 1 says that debaters need to put some phrase in the first round to show acceptance and that this debater, Death23 cannot participate. The debater requested this quite clearly, so Con violated rules and Con should follow the definitions from the debate description, which support Pro's case quite nicely. I was once a stand up comedian in college and I had a heckler who would show up at some of my shows in the area, so I requested to the bar owners to at least not let him in when I was performing, and they were all understanding and saw to my wishes. I would expect such a thing for a debate performance. If you don't want to argue with someone on something, you should have the ability to request that. I found it very disrespectful for this person to accept the debate when it was requested that he not. Also, the swearing was rather over the top from Pro, but I like a little pepper in my steak sometimes, it shows passion, and I might have used some words at that heckler if he were to show up again, so i can relate a little, but the overt violations of the rules make the conduct vote easy for Pro.
Sources
Again, Con agreed that Pro's sources were reliable and credible and have no problems and it was with these sources, Wikipdeia and Oxford Dictionaries that Pro showed that all organisms were genetically modified by evolution and with University of Berkeley to show how the modification happens in evolution. Con's sources were fine except for one that cited Cali law "You should assume that the parties intended the words in their contract to have their usual and ordinary meaning unless you decide that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning." This actually worked for Pro because Pro points out that it was clear what meaning he intended in the debate, having us accept his intended meaning so this source works against Con and for Pro who already used sources to win the argument.
I feel Pro wins the day here because Con violated two rules and had arguments and sources that were essentially agreed by Con.
Arguments
Pro argues that humans must consume living organisms for macros and that all living organisms were genetically modified from evolving. I find this to be a sneaky type of argument because, as Con points out, in common parlance, genetically modified means modified by scientist lab people. But if you look the debate description definitions, what Pro points out, perfectly align with all living organisms because they evolved and descend with modification. Con agrees all organisms were genetically modified by nature, but he does not believe that you can call this genetically modified organisms. I was leaning Con at this point, right up until Con said something bizarre. He agreed that Pro's sources, including the sources used in the debate description he argued he need not follow were all credible and he had no problem with them. Pro brought forth a very clear definition from the source that Con said was OK that included natural genetic modification and it too had sourcing that pro brought forth showing the same thing. By debater performance, I have to accept Pro's sources as perfectly reasonable and particularly of common usage (wikipedia) because Con accepts them too. I cannot ignore that Pro's source says "in nature" in the definition of Genetically modified organisms, no matter how weird Con tries to tell me it is. Con already convinced me that the source was not weird, and it directly supported Pro's case. After reading this debate, I sit here convinced that all organisms are genetically modified and that I must eat them for macros. Con's appeals did not sway my duty as a voter to follow rules and accepted definitions.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DebateVoter // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See above.
>Reason for Mod Action: The moderator team is investigating this account.
************************************************************************
Vote Reported: DebateVoter // Mod Action: Not removed
Reason for non removal: This vote is sufficient.
Game on. Ironically I absolutely agree with trade unions being brought back in full.
Yep that's basically what this debate is. Con can successfully negate the resolution by showing that the minimum wages should stay the same. The negative does not have to prove there should be no minimum wage. This isn't an all or nothing debate.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient
***********************************************************************
Fair enough. Your vote is sufficient for me now.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Forefeit the debate
Reason for Mod Action: This is not a full forfeit so the voter still needs to survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot
************************************************************************