I am currently reading through this debate with the intention of voting, but I noticed something on my first skim-through that I need cleared up first.
In general the term "nuclear" is used as shorthand for "nuclear fission". This is the way RM seems to use the term. Benjamin on the other hand seems to use the term in a highly non-standard way, using it to refer to both fission and fusion. Since the definition of the term is not specified in the description I need to ask... was the definition of "nuclear" agreed to beforehand? For example in PM or in a forum thread? If not, I am going to be forced to read "nuclear power" as equivalent to "nuclear fission" since that is how 100% of the population uses the term. This would lean my reading to vastly favor RM, so I encourage Benjamin to show evidence that both contestants agreed to use the non-standard definition before the debate began, assuming this is the case. I will continue my reading of the debate once this has been addressed.
Honestly I was pretty unimpressed by the RFD as well... Until I noticed the Google doc. After I noticed and skimmed through the doc I felt a lot better about it and look forward to seeing the one for my debate with the contender.
I am confused why people are saying this is so strongly pro-sided, there must be some common argument about this topic that I am not aware of. Guess I will have to read the debate to see.
In fact if Ragnar voted against me I would kinda prefer that in a way, at least then I would know I deserved the loss rather than losing to a blatant spite vote.
You can't in this case, and I don't disapprove of you doing so. Whether it is enough to give you the win is up to the voters and if Ragnar votes in your favor that's fine by me.
I think he is just making a general observation about how you point out that certain measurement statements cannot be used due to being nonsense but then go on to make an argument that has no specified measurements whatsoever yet supposedly measures an average and has all be above average.
I rrad your RFD and disagree with the first sentence. I think a better analogy would be "I predict my opponent will use a language". After all, after listing the three modes of persuasion they didn't even say which of the three pressF would use (if they had done that I think your analogy would be better than mine).
If you mean to post any debate arguments then yes. This debate was originally intended for Fauxlaw, who claimed to disagree with this statement in a forum conversation but declined to debate it. RM accepting the debate after I made it an open challenge is actually nice. He [RM] will likely at least say something worth reading so stay tuned.
Thank you both for voting. It can be a pain to go around trying to find people to vote and because of you guys I did not have to do so. Much appreciated. If either of you need any votes in future just PM me (though like with the time Von asked me to vote on that UFO debate between you two I cannot guarantee I will vote in favor of whoever asks me to vote lol).
I am considering possibly taking this. Is your position that cloning is inherently unethical or is your position that cloning technology could potentially be used in unethical ways?
Wish I had noticed this debate when it was opened. Easy win for con by pointing out that David couldn't possibly have JUST confirmed himself as a lunatic seeing as how he has in fact solidly done so years ago already.
The fact that your opponents position is a double negative (arguing AGAINST God being NOT omnipotent) and that your first round is a repost of something they said previously that disagrees with the opponents double negative (making it a triple negative) with the implication that you disagree with your opponents statement (making it a quadruple negative) makes the whole thing a bit harder to follow than it should be.
"God of the bible is omnipotent" with yourself as con would have been much much better.
I am very obviously not trying to debate you. I am asking for you to back up a claim you have made because I enjoy educating myself in scientific topics. If you would rather just make unsubstantiated claims and laud them as unquestionable truth that really doesn't bother me at all, just figured I would ask.
I hope you two realize that arguing over the definition is useless in this case since a definition was agreed to simply by accepting the debate (the definition in the description). That is the one the voters will be using for judgement.
Nah, he didn't make any argument to support his position. Just said a few lines about how Saddam is obviously guilty (some in all caps iirc). That's pretty much the same thing as a forfeit.
Yo Jeff, after you are done with this debate if you wish to have a forum discussion or second debate on this topic please tag me. I don't want to go into any details at the moment that would give unfair help to either side in this current debate but would like to discuss this topic.
The only part of your argument not easily dismissed by a basic highschool level of understanding of the topic is the claims you made under the heading "something from nothing" near the end of your first round. Assuming there is an actual scientific paper that exists to back up this claim I would be very interested in reading it. As you did not provide a link to one in your argument please provide one to me either in the comments section here or via PM.
Lmao@ referring to a sharpshooter badge as a "badge of honor". You have no idea how hilarious that is. You truly don't. I could explain it to you and I think you would be capable of understanding if I did, and I will later if you want to know and you ask me to, but I can't right now because I am laughing too hard.
It's a badge, not a medal.
Even if it was a medal...
Oh Jesus Christ you seriously have no idea how hilarious this is. It's like referring to a GED as a degree. I can't, I can't stop laughing. I need to go watch something sad and depressing before I actually suffocate.
Assuming you live in the United States you do have the right to pray in school and will not get in trouble for praying in school.
This debate is not about what should or should not be the law. This debate is about what is the law. As stipulated in the first line of my first round please read the description to see what the resolution is.
Round one complete. Two directions pro could take from here:
1) Differentiate between allowing things as debates versus allowing things on the forums
2) Come out with the real reason they dislike rap battles and say they should not be allowed on those grounds.
I will give some advice to you before I post my first round.
I will do this because I am a nice guy.
Here is my advice...
The resolution says "should", not "could". Therefore you should use your next round to try convincing the voters that there should be no rap battles on DART.
Lol by accepting this debate I am not saying that rap battles are debates, I am saying that rap battles should be allowed on DART. If you wanted to argue whether rap battles are debates then make a debate about whether rap battles are debates (that is not what you did here).
Easy win for me, sadly. I was looking forward to a challenge. Will post my first round after I get off work in 8 hours or so.
I mean what do you think of worker-owned companies now that you know it is possible to not require all employees of a company to perform management duties?
Where we left off on that conversation you said you were against worker-owned companies because according to you they require all employees to perform management duties. Now that you know this to be untrue what do you think of them?
Okay but I am curious now how you view worker-owned companies considering your primary objection to them was the fact that they require all employees to perform management duties (as you claimed in the comment that inspired this debate) and you now know that to be false.
"we are forced to assume Hitler must endure several centuries more of continuous rape and consumption by packs of horny, hungry bear-pigs"
Oromagi, I am begging you... when you finally get around to making this into an officially recognized religion by the government please please please notify me immediately so that I may send you my resume and application for official priesthood.
"Say a paper packer was too busy operating in the Dunder Mifflin warehouse and thus cannot DIRECTLY manage the company, he still makes money and makes the company money"
Lol wait, are you trying to convince me that you are now under the impression that 'manage' is a synonym for 'contribute'?
LMAO so what happened to your forum post where you say "an owner would have to do the job of a regional manager etc."??? I don't believe for a second that you think those two words are synonyms lol.
This topic is pretty straightforward. Either both the bullet points I made in round one are true and therefore the resolution is false or one of them is innaccurate and therefore my round one arguments are void, thus meaning the votes should go to my opponent.
So now I must ask... Do you think the covid-19 outbreak was started by a god? Also, if the answer to that is yes, was it to punish the Caucasian dudes?
Yes I am correct that pro means taking a side of an argument. I am also correct that it does not mean "shorthand for protagonist", which means you were incorrect when you said that is what it meant.
Is it possible for you to admit that you were incorrect?
Hmmm...
But anyway, as for your question to me...
I have answered this question already, comrade.
A debate is a discussion where people take positions on a topic and argue in favor of their position.
That is simply what the word debate means.
Look it up in the dictionary. "Debate" and "discussion" are not synonyms.
If you wanted a discussion where positions are not taken then you do not want a debate.
If you do not want a debate then you should not start a debate.
If you start a debate there is a chance that someone will accept your debate.
That is the reason that you should start a debate only if you want a debate.
So if what you seek is a discussion without a debate... Listen carefully...
If you do not know what the meaning of the word forum is then I will tell you:
An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.
This is the definition given by Wikipedia.
On the top of your screen there is a word which you may click. This word is "forum".
I am currently reading through this debate with the intention of voting, but I noticed something on my first skim-through that I need cleared up first.
In general the term "nuclear" is used as shorthand for "nuclear fission". This is the way RM seems to use the term. Benjamin on the other hand seems to use the term in a highly non-standard way, using it to refer to both fission and fusion. Since the definition of the term is not specified in the description I need to ask... was the definition of "nuclear" agreed to beforehand? For example in PM or in a forum thread? If not, I am going to be forced to read "nuclear power" as equivalent to "nuclear fission" since that is how 100% of the population uses the term. This would lean my reading to vastly favor RM, so I encourage Benjamin to show evidence that both contestants agreed to use the non-standard definition before the debate began, assuming this is the case. I will continue my reading of the debate once this has been addressed.
Might vote by Thursday.
I dont normally look at rap battles but I may take a look later.
Honestly I was pretty unimpressed by the RFD as well... Until I noticed the Google doc. After I noticed and skimmed through the doc I felt a lot better about it and look forward to seeing the one for my debate with the contender.
uhhh... both of you?
Vote, nerds.
Seems like an easy win for con...
I am confused why people are saying this is so strongly pro-sided, there must be some common argument about this topic that I am not aware of. Guess I will have to read the debate to see.
Convincing the AI it does not want to be released may be easier than you think.
In fact if Ragnar voted against me I would kinda prefer that in a way, at least then I would know I deserved the loss rather than losing to a blatant spite vote.
No pressure
You can't in this case, and I don't disapprove of you doing so. Whether it is enough to give you the win is up to the voters and if Ragnar votes in your favor that's fine by me.
I think he is just making a general observation about how you point out that certain measurement statements cannot be used due to being nonsense but then go on to make an argument that has no specified measurements whatsoever yet supposedly measures an average and has all be above average.
I rrad your RFD and disagree with the first sentence. I think a better analogy would be "I predict my opponent will use a language". After all, after listing the three modes of persuasion they didn't even say which of the three pressF would use (if they had done that I think your analogy would be better than mine).
If you mean to post any debate arguments then yes. This debate was originally intended for Fauxlaw, who claimed to disagree with this statement in a forum conversation but declined to debate it. RM accepting the debate after I made it an open challenge is actually nice. He [RM] will likely at least say something worth reading so stay tuned.
I was preparing my round one ahead of time to post right away but didn't expect someone to accept so fast, I should have it posted tomorrow sometime.
"This is truism"
That's just how I roll bro. Still, arguing a truism is only a guaranteed win if I actually make a logical argument.
Thank you both for voting. It can be a pain to go around trying to find people to vote and because of you guys I did not have to do so. Much appreciated. If either of you need any votes in future just PM me (though like with the time Von asked me to vote on that UFO debate between you two I cannot guarantee I will vote in favor of whoever asks me to vote lol).
I am considering possibly taking this. Is your position that cloning is inherently unethical or is your position that cloning technology could potentially be used in unethical ways?
Wish I had noticed this debate when it was opened. Easy win for con by pointing out that David couldn't possibly have JUST confirmed himself as a lunatic seeing as how he has in fact solidly done so years ago already.
Going to have to step it up pro. Con is right, "we are currently able to therefore we ought to be able to" is pretty weak...
The fact that your opponents position is a double negative (arguing AGAINST God being NOT omnipotent) and that your first round is a repost of something they said previously that disagrees with the opponents double negative (making it a triple negative) with the implication that you disagree with your opponents statement (making it a quadruple negative) makes the whole thing a bit harder to follow than it should be.
"God of the bible is omnipotent" with yourself as con would have been much much better.
If I have time this weekend I will.
I am very obviously not trying to debate you. I am asking for you to back up a claim you have made because I enjoy educating myself in scientific topics. If you would rather just make unsubstantiated claims and laud them as unquestionable truth that really doesn't bother me at all, just figured I would ask.
I hope you two realize that arguing over the definition is useless in this case since a definition was agreed to simply by accepting the debate (the definition in the description). That is the one the voters will be using for judgement.
I have a question for people that start debates but don't want to debate...
Why bother starting a debate?
There definitely seem to be objects in those videos. Are you contending that these objects can be identified and/or that they are not flying?
Where can I find the Pentagon releases of these videos?
"Was not forfeit"
Nah, he didn't make any argument to support his position. Just said a few lines about how Saddam is obviously guilty (some in all caps iirc). That's pretty much the same thing as a forfeit.
"I was shocked to see, after i had pressed publish, my opponent had actually replied, And had not forfeited."
Nah, they refused to argue in favor of their own side in the debate. They basically forfeited.
Yo Jeff, after you are done with this debate if you wish to have a forum discussion or second debate on this topic please tag me. I don't want to go into any details at the moment that would give unfair help to either side in this current debate but would like to discuss this topic.
The only part of your argument not easily dismissed by a basic highschool level of understanding of the topic is the claims you made under the heading "something from nothing" near the end of your first round. Assuming there is an actual scientific paper that exists to back up this claim I would be very interested in reading it. As you did not provide a link to one in your argument please provide one to me either in the comments section here or via PM.
Lmao@ referring to a sharpshooter badge as a "badge of honor". You have no idea how hilarious that is. You truly don't. I could explain it to you and I think you would be capable of understanding if I did, and I will later if you want to know and you ask me to, but I can't right now because I am laughing too hard.
It's a badge, not a medal.
Even if it was a medal...
Oh Jesus Christ you seriously have no idea how hilarious this is. It's like referring to a GED as a degree. I can't, I can't stop laughing. I need to go watch something sad and depressing before I actually suffocate.
Assuming you live in the United States you do have the right to pray in school and will not get in trouble for praying in school.
This debate is not about what should or should not be the law. This debate is about what is the law. As stipulated in the first line of my first round please read the description to see what the resolution is.
Round one complete. Two directions pro could take from here:
1) Differentiate between allowing things as debates versus allowing things on the forums
2) Come out with the real reason they dislike rap battles and say they should not be allowed on those grounds.
Easy round two for me either way.
I will give some advice to you before I post my first round.
I will do this because I am a nice guy.
Here is my advice...
The resolution says "should", not "could". Therefore you should use your next round to try convincing the voters that there should be no rap battles on DART.
You have not tried to do that yet.
This is all the advice I will give to you.
You are welcome.
I will post my argument shortly.
Good bye.
Lol by accepting this debate I am not saying that rap battles are debates, I am saying that rap battles should be allowed on DART. If you wanted to argue whether rap battles are debates then make a debate about whether rap battles are debates (that is not what you did here).
Easy win for me, sadly. I was looking forward to a challenge. Will post my first round after I get off work in 8 hours or so.
I once tried to start a debate with fauxlaw and he told me he was against the idea of either side waiving any rounds on principal =(
I mean what do you think of worker-owned companies now that you know it is possible to not require all employees of a company to perform management duties?
Where we left off on that conversation you said you were against worker-owned companies because according to you they require all employees to perform management duties. Now that you know this to be untrue what do you think of them?
Okay but I am curious now how you view worker-owned companies considering your primary objection to them was the fact that they require all employees to perform management duties (as you claimed in the comment that inspired this debate) and you now know that to be false.
You aren't really doing either debating or discussing though...
"we are forced to assume Hitler must endure several centuries more of continuous rape and consumption by packs of horny, hungry bear-pigs"
Oromagi, I am begging you... when you finally get around to making this into an officially recognized religion by the government please please please notify me immediately so that I may send you my resume and application for official priesthood.
"Say a paper packer was too busy operating in the Dunder Mifflin warehouse and thus cannot DIRECTLY manage the company, he still makes money and makes the company money"
Lol wait, are you trying to convince me that you are now under the impression that 'manage' is a synonym for 'contribute'?
LMAO so what happened to your forum post where you say "an owner would have to do the job of a regional manager etc."??? I don't believe for a second that you think those two words are synonyms lol.
Accidentally setting the character limit so low was annoying but the challenge was fun. I shall have to try this again some time.
Oops, I thought this was a 4 round debate (that is the reason for the last sentence in the last round). Oh well lol.
Pretty sure fauxlaw just had a stroke...
This topic is pretty straightforward. Either both the bullet points I made in round one are true and therefore the resolution is false or one of them is innaccurate and therefore my round one arguments are void, thus meaning the votes should go to my opponent.
I just called you pro lol
I don't understand the first line of your last round. I never referred to any person as male or female during the entire debate.
I mean that I understand you are pointing out that you are a she, I just don't understand why since I never called you a he.
So now I must ask... Do you think the covid-19 outbreak was started by a god? Also, if the answer to that is yes, was it to punish the Caucasian dudes?
These are my questions to you.
Yes I am correct that pro means taking a side of an argument. I am also correct that it does not mean "shorthand for protagonist", which means you were incorrect when you said that is what it meant.
Is it possible for you to admit that you were incorrect?
Hmmm...
But anyway, as for your question to me...
I have answered this question already, comrade.
A debate is a discussion where people take positions on a topic and argue in favor of their position.
That is simply what the word debate means.
Look it up in the dictionary. "Debate" and "discussion" are not synonyms.
If you wanted a discussion where positions are not taken then you do not want a debate.
If you do not want a debate then you should not start a debate.
If you start a debate there is a chance that someone will accept your debate.
That is the reason that you should start a debate only if you want a debate.
So if what you seek is a discussion without a debate... Listen carefully...
If you do not know what the meaning of the word forum is then I will tell you:
An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.
This is the definition given by Wikipedia.
On the top of your screen there is a word which you may click. This word is "forum".
I think I have given you enough hints for now...