Here’s a crazy idea, if we’re going to continue going back and forth about this debate, then instead of “I would have won anyway”, we actually talk about the merits of the arguments? You still arguing that senate precedent makes your case when they agree with you but can be thrown in the trash when they don’t? Still ignoring my point about Robert’s not presiding because the entire point of the Chief Justice’s presence is to avoid a conflict of interest for the VP?
That’s because you seem to be focusing more on your interpretation of my motives than the point I am making.
I already explained that Ragnar’s vote was not based on complete information because my link was broken, which was the site’s error. That’s not on him, it just calls into question whether that might have made a difference in his vote.
One’s willingness to “debate the debate” and/or express their disagreement with an RFD is not an insinuation that others acted in any nefarious or irresponsible way. It just means I disagree with it and here is why. Again, it’s a debate site, that’s what we’re supposed to be here for.
“Again, after Pro continually argued atheism is not a belief (i.e., no position except a lack of belief in God or gods), he argued for a position. Does that make sense? How is that most reasonable?”
Pro never argued in favor of any particular worldview. Every argument he made was in refutation of theistic claims.
I understand your frustration in feeling like you were duped into a shared BoP debate only to be left having to prove your worldview while your opponent just gets to swat it down and not make any claims himself. The single biggest mistake you made was accepting the terms of the debate which clearly define atheism as a lack of belief. Once that happens the only thing Pro has to demonstrate is the reasonableness of not accepting god as defined.
As I strive to be objective in this debate and I see that perhaps the single biggest contention in this debate centers around the definition of atheism, the only thing I can do is see what the rules state and apply it. And once “lack of belief” is established, that renders nearly half of your case moot.
It’s always a shame when good debates go off on two different pages, but it’s on the participants to know the rules they agreed to and engage within them.
“ Again, it proves atheism is a worldview. Pro has filled his lack of belief in God with many other beliefs. Once he jettisoned God or gods, he was forced to look upon existence in a naturalistic framework.”
That’s just not true. One does not have to accept the claim “god does not exist” in order to not accept the claim “god exists”. They can instead just say “I don’t know if there’s a god”.
Even if one accepts other claims such as materialism, that doesn’t make materialism, atheism. That just makes one an atheist who *also* accepts materialism.
I don’t have time to respond to the rest. If there’s anything in particular you want a response on let me know.
This is a debate site. Expressing my opinion is what it’s for, so if you offer your opinion and I find it to be nonsense, I’m going to respond. That doesn’t mean I’m begging the entire site to jump in and “settle the score”.
In most debates the instigator makes their case and the challenger is responsible for refuting it. That’s called the burden of proof, and it’s is a much more productive way of going about because it’s far easier for the judges to be objective when determining whether the BoP was upheld as opposed to deciding which participant’s case was better. It also narrows the focus of the debate so things like, say, dropping arguments are more difficult to get away with.
“You can keep being salty. I’m happy to have more objective debators vote chime in if you want.”
No, actually I don’t. This is just downright silly and childish - you’re running around the site asking everyone to chime in on a year old debate for what? So one of us can beat our chests and declare ourselves smart because someone else said so? I got over this debate a long time ago, clearly you need this to validate yourself.
If you actually care about the arguments I’m fine with continuing a discussion on the merits of the arguments, but this long drawn out discussion over who thinks who won by this point is just getting stupid.
Like I said, if people want to read it and chime in I’m all for it, but you running around begging for more readers just makes both of us look petulant.
If you’re interested in reading the debate and providing your commentary I would certainly welcome it and appreciate you for your time. I just wouldn’t want you to do so as a favor to me because you or anyone else thinks Im in need some kind of validation. The only reason I’m engaging in this back and forth now is in response to ILikePie5’s comments here and in the elsewhere where he declared that he “destroyed me” because he didn’t like me pointing out his lack of seriousness in the forums.
So if you’re really interested then by all means I’d look forward to your input.
I did not say you won the debate cause of your friends, I was responding to your childish chest beating about how you “destroyed me”, pointing to the margin.
Fauxlaw was obviously going to vote for you. The guy is a hard right winger who claims to have such a great understanding of the constitution and it showed in his RFD. He lists your arguments and then talks about how you ‘understood the constitution correctly’, in other words, you made the case he already believed.
I already broke down how coals points were not about the debate in the comments.
I accept Ragnars vote but it hinged largely on a false understating of my point because the link I posted was broken. That was the site’s error. He remarked that it was a “powerful bit and a shame” that happened, but he already voted so it’s possible that would have changed his vote or neutralized his verdict.
That leaves Pauchu. He’s the only vote I take as clear, I just think he didn’t understand the debate properly. The biggest piece he latched into was the senate precedent part, but I already explained below why that is an absurd and self defeating argument. The question of whether an act is constitutional is answered by reading and understanding the constitution, not by following what a bunch of senators 200 years later have to say about it. An argument you yourself explicitly made by calling it “tyranny of congress” for them to convict Belknap. But they gave it to you anyway, I find that insane.
Pauchu also gave you that its non-constitutionality was upheld in the verdict, not understanding the difference between a vote to try vs a vote to convict.
So in the end, sure you won, I just don’t think you did so with any legitimate arguments. If you really want my opinion, the biggest problem was that your arguments were so full of nonsense that I didn’t have space to address it all, and the skill you displayed was shoveling it in in a way that made no sense but sounded good. You didn’t even respond to any of my criticisms of your points, all you did was repeat the same points over again essentially dropping my arguments and got credit for it anyway.
The problem with the layout was that I was “not allowed” to respond to your arguments until a full round later. By then opinions tend to harden so it’s harder to refute. Ragnar also commented on this. Plus I’m not doing the whole two separate arguments thing. It’s just too much info in one debate so none of it gets proper attention and plays into the judges bias because it forces them to adopt their own understanding much more so than judging on our back and forth.
I never said you did not win the debate fairly and squarely. According to the rules, you did.
I also was not implying that you went and grabbed people to come here and vote for you. I was mainly pointing to Fauxlaw, and perhaps Coal as your buddies.
The fact of the matter and my ultimate point was that if you read the RFD’s everyone here except Ragnar voted based on what they thought about the resolution apart from our arguments. You can call that a legitimate victory if you want, I would have preferred to hear what people had to say based on yours and my arguments, not their preconceived opinions.
The layout of this debate was also problematic, I will not agree to that again.
We’re arguing about whether senate precedent is relevant to the question of whether the senate trial was constitutional. You say it is but your arguments say the opposite. But whatever, we can agree to disagree I guess.
I must say I agree, but not just in this debate. I don’t see why sources get two points, and even if they were one point I would still not award them except in extreme cases.
Provide a hypothetical example where a senate impeachment trial goes against the constitution but becomes constitutionality legitimate as a result of historical precedent.
I understand what you wrote, I do not understand what your are writing in response to. I don't believe I have expressed anything in opposition to what you just stated.
I wasn't trying to insinuate anything. When I said in the debate that historical precedent was not a strong argument for whether the trial was constitutional everyone seemed to think I was crazy, so I'm trying to understand if it was just me.
I don't know how else I can put it. Senate precedent either matters or it does not, yet you're arguing both at the same time. It matters to the resolution when it supports your position, but if it doesn't support your position then it doesn't matter because the trial is unconstitutional anyway. It's having your cake and eating it too.
I don’t understand why you call Pelosi holding the articles an unconstitutional act when the constitution doesn’t say anything about it. McConnell made clear that the trial wouldn’t have gotten underway till Trump was already out, so holding the articles to give him an opportunity to mount a defense and the senate an opportunity to get settled in seemed like common sense.
That was the impression I got from your RFD, if your position is that senate precedent doesn’t matter with regards to the resolution (as I am hearing now) then I’m not sure why you brought it up, but ok then. Apologies for misunderstanding.
So if the senate acquits a former office holder, it sets a valid historical precedent which should be considered by future senates. But if the senate convicts a former office holder, it’s a constitutional violation which should be disregarded by future senates.
Hey I’m just curious about something... if the senate did vote to convict Trump, would your position regarding future impeachments be that the senate can now constitutionally try private citizens?
“Con further asserts that this is to prevent the VP running the trial and being able to take power (a source for this really would have been ideal).”
I provided a source but for some reason it never linked. I thought it was my error at first, but my “1” shows up underlined with blue font so something went wrong. Since you’re a mod, I thought I’d ask if there is a way to fix that? I left the url in comment #14. Thanks either way.
If you think your biases will get on the way of a fair vote then I’m certainly in agreement with you, but you are always welcome to cast a tie vote and provide your feedback as an RFD.
I don’t want you to change your vote. People are going to disagree and that’s fine. The time to say something in my opinion is when voters are not basing their votes on the debate itself.
As I wrote this it happened again, this time in reverse.
FLDW, the below criticism applies to yourself as well. Maybe it’s a thing on this site I don’t know. But I’m shutting up about it now...
Or, maybe you should have read the debate before voting on it.
Almost nothing in your RFD reflected what was actually argued. Pro never claimed disqualification was separate process. You even stated in your RFD that he missed this point, but yet your vote was largely based in this so your vote clearly has nothing to do with the debate.
Pro also never attacked my sources or my understanding of them, so thank you for further confirming your bias.
“ But the plain language of the rest of Cl. 7 makes clear that this is a separate procedure than impeachment... the fact that the legislature may separately vote to disqualify him from holding future office is irrelevant”
I really hate responding to the judges but this was not Pro’s argument, it’s yours. Your RFD wasn’t based on the debate.
The senate was on recess, but a signature from Schumer and McConnell would have called the Senate back in session. Schumer signed it, McConnell refused. That’s why Pelosi didn’t send the articles, there would have been no one there to receive them.
There was nothing weird about it. The democrats wanted to do it while he was still in office but McConnell refused, citing that he was entitled to an opportunity to mount a legal defense. Funny how that works - "we can't try him because we don't have enough time", then "we can't try him because time ran out".
Here’s a crazy idea, if we’re going to continue going back and forth about this debate, then instead of “I would have won anyway”, we actually talk about the merits of the arguments? You still arguing that senate precedent makes your case when they agree with you but can be thrown in the trash when they don’t? Still ignoring my point about Robert’s not presiding because the entire point of the Chief Justice’s presence is to avoid a conflict of interest for the VP?
That’s because you seem to be focusing more on your interpretation of my motives than the point I am making.
I already explained that Ragnar’s vote was not based on complete information because my link was broken, which was the site’s error. That’s not on him, it just calls into question whether that might have made a difference in his vote.
One’s willingness to “debate the debate” and/or express their disagreement with an RFD is not an insinuation that others acted in any nefarious or irresponsible way. It just means I disagree with it and here is why. Again, it’s a debate site, that’s what we’re supposed to be here for.
Forgot to tag you…
“Again, after Pro continually argued atheism is not a belief (i.e., no position except a lack of belief in God or gods), he argued for a position. Does that make sense? How is that most reasonable?”
Pro never argued in favor of any particular worldview. Every argument he made was in refutation of theistic claims.
I understand your frustration in feeling like you were duped into a shared BoP debate only to be left having to prove your worldview while your opponent just gets to swat it down and not make any claims himself. The single biggest mistake you made was accepting the terms of the debate which clearly define atheism as a lack of belief. Once that happens the only thing Pro has to demonstrate is the reasonableness of not accepting god as defined.
As I strive to be objective in this debate and I see that perhaps the single biggest contention in this debate centers around the definition of atheism, the only thing I can do is see what the rules state and apply it. And once “lack of belief” is established, that renders nearly half of your case moot.
It’s always a shame when good debates go off on two different pages, but it’s on the participants to know the rules they agreed to and engage within them.
“ Again, it proves atheism is a worldview. Pro has filled his lack of belief in God with many other beliefs. Once he jettisoned God or gods, he was forced to look upon existence in a naturalistic framework.”
That’s just not true. One does not have to accept the claim “god does not exist” in order to not accept the claim “god exists”. They can instead just say “I don’t know if there’s a god”.
Even if one accepts other claims such as materialism, that doesn’t make materialism, atheism. That just makes one an atheist who *also* accepts materialism.
I don’t have time to respond to the rest. If there’s anything in particular you want a response on let me know.
This is a debate site. Expressing my opinion is what it’s for, so if you offer your opinion and I find it to be nonsense, I’m going to respond. That doesn’t mean I’m begging the entire site to jump in and “settle the score”.
I am. I’m not telling them not to read it, I’m telling you that this whole thing makes both look petulant.
In most debates the instigator makes their case and the challenger is responsible for refuting it. That’s called the burden of proof, and it’s is a much more productive way of going about because it’s far easier for the judges to be objective when determining whether the BoP was upheld as opposed to deciding which participant’s case was better. It also narrows the focus of the debate so things like, say, dropping arguments are more difficult to get away with.
“You can keep being salty. I’m happy to have more objective debators vote chime in if you want.”
No, actually I don’t. This is just downright silly and childish - you’re running around the site asking everyone to chime in on a year old debate for what? So one of us can beat our chests and declare ourselves smart because someone else said so? I got over this debate a long time ago, clearly you need this to validate yourself.
If you actually care about the arguments I’m fine with continuing a discussion on the merits of the arguments, but this long drawn out discussion over who thinks who won by this point is just getting stupid.
Like I said, if people want to read it and chime in I’m all for it, but you running around begging for more readers just makes both of us look petulant.
If you’re interested in reading the debate and providing your commentary I would certainly welcome it and appreciate you for your time. I just wouldn’t want you to do so as a favor to me because you or anyone else thinks Im in need some kind of validation. The only reason I’m engaging in this back and forth now is in response to ILikePie5’s comments here and in the elsewhere where he declared that he “destroyed me” because he didn’t like me pointing out his lack of seriousness in the forums.
So if you’re really interested then by all means I’d look forward to your input.
I did not say you won the debate cause of your friends, I was responding to your childish chest beating about how you “destroyed me”, pointing to the margin.
Fauxlaw was obviously going to vote for you. The guy is a hard right winger who claims to have such a great understanding of the constitution and it showed in his RFD. He lists your arguments and then talks about how you ‘understood the constitution correctly’, in other words, you made the case he already believed.
I already broke down how coals points were not about the debate in the comments.
I accept Ragnars vote but it hinged largely on a false understating of my point because the link I posted was broken. That was the site’s error. He remarked that it was a “powerful bit and a shame” that happened, but he already voted so it’s possible that would have changed his vote or neutralized his verdict.
That leaves Pauchu. He’s the only vote I take as clear, I just think he didn’t understand the debate properly. The biggest piece he latched into was the senate precedent part, but I already explained below why that is an absurd and self defeating argument. The question of whether an act is constitutional is answered by reading and understanding the constitution, not by following what a bunch of senators 200 years later have to say about it. An argument you yourself explicitly made by calling it “tyranny of congress” for them to convict Belknap. But they gave it to you anyway, I find that insane.
Pauchu also gave you that its non-constitutionality was upheld in the verdict, not understanding the difference between a vote to try vs a vote to convict.
So in the end, sure you won, I just don’t think you did so with any legitimate arguments. If you really want my opinion, the biggest problem was that your arguments were so full of nonsense that I didn’t have space to address it all, and the skill you displayed was shoveling it in in a way that made no sense but sounded good. You didn’t even respond to any of my criticisms of your points, all you did was repeat the same points over again essentially dropping my arguments and got credit for it anyway.
The problem with the layout was that I was “not allowed” to respond to your arguments until a full round later. By then opinions tend to harden so it’s harder to refute. Ragnar also commented on this. Plus I’m not doing the whole two separate arguments thing. It’s just too much info in one debate so none of it gets proper attention and plays into the judges bias because it forces them to adopt their own understanding much more so than judging on our back and forth.
I never said you did not win the debate fairly and squarely. According to the rules, you did.
I also was not implying that you went and grabbed people to come here and vote for you. I was mainly pointing to Fauxlaw, and perhaps Coal as your buddies.
The fact of the matter and my ultimate point was that if you read the RFD’s everyone here except Ragnar voted based on what they thought about the resolution apart from our arguments. You can call that a legitimate victory if you want, I would have preferred to hear what people had to say based on yours and my arguments, not their preconceived opinions.
The layout of this debate was also problematic, I will not agree to that again.
The site would benefit by removing these kinds of debates from the list, our flagging them somehow before users even click on it
Nothing to do with race? Do you think white people got ahead of black people because of their contributions to the free market?
Glad we agree
If it’s only precedent when it lines up with the constitution, then the constitution is the only thing that matters.
“You tell me lol”
We’re arguing about whether senate precedent is relevant to the question of whether the senate trial was constitutional. You say it is but your arguments say the opposite. But whatever, we can agree to disagree I guess.
“I can’t”
Then what are we arguing about?
I must say I agree, but not just in this debate. I don’t see why sources get two points, and even if they were one point I would still not award them except in extreme cases.
Provide a hypothetical example where a senate impeachment trial goes against the constitution but becomes constitutionality legitimate as a result of historical precedent.
Eh, it was worth a shot. I understand though, thanks for trying.
I understand what you wrote, I do not understand what your are writing in response to. I don't believe I have expressed anything in opposition to what you just stated.
I wasn't trying to insinuate anything. When I said in the debate that historical precedent was not a strong argument for whether the trial was constitutional everyone seemed to think I was crazy, so I'm trying to understand if it was just me.
I don't know how else I can put it. Senate precedent either matters or it does not, yet you're arguing both at the same time. It matters to the resolution when it supports your position, but if it doesn't support your position then it doesn't matter because the trial is unconstitutional anyway. It's having your cake and eating it too.
I don’t understand why you call Pelosi holding the articles an unconstitutional act when the constitution doesn’t say anything about it. McConnell made clear that the trial wouldn’t have gotten underway till Trump was already out, so holding the articles to give him an opportunity to mount a defense and the senate an opportunity to get settled in seemed like common sense.
That was the impression I got from your RFD, if your position is that senate precedent doesn’t matter with regards to the resolution (as I am hearing now) then I’m not sure why you brought it up, but ok then. Apologies for misunderstanding.
So in other words... the constitutionality of a senate trial isn’t determined by what previous senates did.
Did I hear wrong?
So if the senate acquits a former office holder, it sets a valid historical precedent which should be considered by future senates. But if the senate convicts a former office holder, it’s a constitutional violation which should be disregarded by future senates.
That’s all. Thank you for explaining.
Hey I’m just curious about something... if the senate did vote to convict Trump, would your position regarding future impeachments be that the senate can now constitutionally try private citizens?
“Con further asserts that this is to prevent the VP running the trial and being able to take power (a source for this really would have been ideal).”
I provided a source but for some reason it never linked. I thought it was my error at first, but my “1” shows up underlined with blue font so something went wrong. Since you’re a mod, I thought I’d ask if there is a way to fix that? I left the url in comment #14. Thanks either way.
If you think your biases will get on the way of a fair vote then I’m certainly in agreement with you, but you are always welcome to cast a tie vote and provide your feedback as an RFD.
I don’t want you to change your vote. People are going to disagree and that’s fine. The time to say something in my opinion is when voters are not basing their votes on the debate itself.
As I wrote this it happened again, this time in reverse.
FLDW, the below criticism applies to yourself as well. Maybe it’s a thing on this site I don’t know. But I’m shutting up about it now...
Actually, correction, Pro did attack my use of sources... my misciting of George Mason, who I never cited.
Or, maybe you should have read the debate before voting on it.
Almost nothing in your RFD reflected what was actually argued. Pro never claimed disqualification was separate process. You even stated in your RFD that he missed this point, but yet your vote was largely based in this so your vote clearly has nothing to do with the debate.
Pro also never attacked my sources or my understanding of them, so thank you for further confirming your bias.
“ But the plain language of the rest of Cl. 7 makes clear that this is a separate procedure than impeachment... the fact that the legislature may separately vote to disqualify him from holding future office is irrelevant”
I really hate responding to the judges but this was not Pro’s argument, it’s yours. Your RFD wasn’t based on the debate.
Whoops, don’t know how that happened...
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S3-C6-1-2/ALDE_00000707/
Found myself with some extra time this weekend, the week ahead will be much tougher...
The senate was on recess, but a signature from Schumer and McConnell would have called the Senate back in session. Schumer signed it, McConnell refused. That’s why Pelosi didn’t send the articles, there would have been no one there to receive them.
There was nothing weird about it. The democrats wanted to do it while he was still in office but McConnell refused, citing that he was entitled to an opportunity to mount a legal defense. Funny how that works - "we can't try him because we don't have enough time", then "we can't try him because time ran out".