My vote was clearly valid assuming you don't need to demonstrate that you actually comprehend both sides which seems to be the case in all my debates. I said that his arguments outweigh cons and I said why.
No one mentioned my arguments in the atheism debate, they only mentioned how me and my opponent defined the terms.
I find it interesting that you can delete my vote but not votes against me that literally just say "it was good".
If you must evaluate points by both sides then go delete every vote on the atheism debate, none of which even demonstrate that they understood my arguments.
the problem is he is trying to get me banned while also going out of his way to post on all my threads and vote on all my debates despite a RO being put on me.
He literally said he wanted to be my best friend and that he no longer believed in cutting ties so easily the way he used to, but then he acted like a 5 year old with NPD over gifs of kittens and blocked me.
He added me on discord and talked all this shit about how we should forgive each other and have a proper friendship but then we started talking about if cats should drink milk or not (even without lactose) and I kept sending him these adorable gifs of kittens drinking milk and he got all upset over it and said I was mocking him by sending them. Then he started acting like a prick and basically expecting me to kiss his ass and beg forgiveness and he blocked me on discord and on this website when I refused.
new rule: no one should be able to vote unless they demonstrate an understanding of both side's arguments. Sick of losing debates because of people who can't comprehend what I say due to their own stupidity.
All the votes on this debate are garbage but this latest one blatantly should be deleted. I think all 3 should be deleted because none of them even demonstrate that they understood my arguments.
It's like the logic I was using went completely over their heads. I noticed while we were debating though that I was genuinely seeing it in a flawed way when I created the proposition but instead of noticing it and doubling down you used an angle that I see as much weaker and never would have used if I was con in this debate.
Extreme atheism and extreme theism are both equally far away from being agnostic, but moderate atheism is genuinely able to be agnostic while moderate theism is only able to be half agnostic. I came up with this by combining our definitions and realizing both of our definitions can be more or less true depending how extreme the atheism/theism is.
I may join the tournament, because I am probably going to quit or take a break from debating since what I see as logical arguments don't seem to register in the minds of voters here, but that doesn't mean I can't vote and show people how that should be done (I'll probably get my votes deleted for being too logic-based though)
Two garbage votes again. There is a way that Lancelot could have actually cooked me and you STILL vote against me even though he used the stupidest fucking argument possible and just appealed to "popularity" instead. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that logic means nothing on this website.
how does allowing con to derail the debate with silly word games mitigate that? If I allow semantic arguments it won't be used for clarification, it will be used for intellectual dishonesty. This doesn't mean that semantics can't be discussed to clarify what your argument actually is, it just can't be used as the basis for an argument.
Common sense does. Semantics arguments are almost never helpful or intellectually honest on this website, they are nothing but cheap tactics to derail the intended debate and render a coherent position absurd by redefining it.
What if someone's sources undermine their own point? What if someone's sources do absolutely NOTHING to support their point? You're saying you should still give them points for completely ineffectual or self-refuting sources which is retarded.
It's even more retarded that conduct is seen as "oh no you said mean words" on this site but outright lying and distortion isn't seen as a conduct issue. It shows that truth doesn't matter at all to people on this site and votes are based on which opponent is seen as more likable and who is better at appealing to semantics and putting all the BoP on their opponent.
The only way con's final round holds water is if he were to substantiate that OT Judaism and modern Judaism are two different religions which he didn't. Essentially all 3 agree that Judaism is true, they just disagree what current religion is the proper successor of OG Judaism.
If anyone votes against me in this debate I know they are biased af. This was a complete stomp. I annihilated this guy and no one can tell me otherwise.
Not so, his sources didn't actually negate or prove anything substantial to the debate and he lost conduct by outright lying and twisting things all through the debate.
Remember that Lancelot used intellectually dishonest tactics and outright lies which I pointed out throughout the whole debate and you still voted for him. Remember that I debunked buddhism completely in the first round because it claims the universe operates with a moral framework with no moral agent governing it.
All 3 of you (we all know who the third is) are retarded ass holes who skimmed the debate looking for excuses to vote against me without thinking about any of my arguments at all. Look at your fucking votes, they ALL treat me as wrong by default and go out of their way to interpret the debate through pro's POV.
wow, 3 incredibly biased shitty votes in a row that are all based on not liking me as a person with long-winded explanations that attempt to mask bias with superfluous justifications that treat me as having higher BoP and pro as the default winner.
Read whiteflame's vote and tell me if you see an issue or not. He focuses way more on my arguments being wrong than pro's being right, as if he is treating me as the one who has higher BoP and pro as the default winner. He also doesn't actually substantiate his vote that much, he is mostly just saying "I don't agree with con because in my opinion he's wrong" with little to no elaboration.
Would your life be as fulfilling if your quality of life was drastically lower? Come on this isn't rocket science.
You're essentially holding me to a standard you're not holding him to and treating him as the default winner. Your vote is more about why my arguments aren't good enough than why his are sufficient.
If I report your vote that would be like reporting police brutality to the other cop who is beating me while two officers are beating me.
Your vote sucks and is dripping with bias. You are blatantly going out of your way to only see pro's side of the debate. You even say he did better in the evidence department when there is NO proof of buddhism and the things I mentioned at least might be proof of christianity. You are essentially saying "well pro provided no evidence, but I don't like con's evidence so I'm favoring pro's complete lack of anything that even remotely resembles evidence".
Your entire quality of life is thanks to Christianity. Every aspect of modern western society that you benefit from would be replaced with oppressive backwards shariah law muslim theocracies or with savage pagan tribes killing each other instead of building western civilization.
You say I am conceding on the meditation point. My point was clearly that buddhists can't benefit from what christianity has to offer but christians can benefit from what buddhists have to offer, but you went out of your way to superimpose a negative connotation because the entire mod team on this site has it out for me.
Every time someone votes for me mods delete it and every time a mod votes on one of my debates it's against me. You let retarded biased votes remain as long as they are against me.
If a mormon and a sun-worshipper can vote properly surely you can too. The mods have deleted my votes at least 10 times though, it seems like some kind of weird bias they have against me because often my votes seemed fine.
Rap is always my main genre but I also gravitate towards classical, hard rock, and sometimes pop (I used to think all pop was gay but I learned to appreciate some of it).
I could do the buddhism one, with minimal semantic arguments and engaging only in actual substance. I was disappointed in your response in the anesthesia debate because I was hoping for you to disprove the information hazard. I guess if I have a soul it won't be a problem though.
AdaptableRatman is better for the other one since he is actively Catholic. I'm leaning Presbyterian again currently.
That's based, I'm currently trying to figure out if I should become Christian or not. I will become Christian as long as I can't debunk Christianity or find another worldview which renders it obsolete on any level.
Mormonism I can completely understand ruling out lol, but what are the particular reasons you ruled out Catholicism? It has major issues but it's still a serious contender for me.
I've also been reading stuff like the Upanishads (Hindu theology/philosophy) and Abhidhamma Pitaka (practical interpretations of buddhist teaching)
I haven't converted yet, I'm just considering it. If I did convert I would probably go with Presbyterian though especially since I have trouble with the concept of free will. I would be a hypercalvinist in my view of free will but I think hypercalvinism is cringe in practice because they don't like spreading the gospel or doing other things that you should probably do as a Christian.
Remember this debate is about MORE positive impact, not just significant positive impact.
I'm not sure you really weighed that out in your vote. It's not enough to simply say "Con had better arguments and Islam contributed stuff" you have to actually say why you think Con had better arguments and why Islam hasn't contributed less overall.
sue me, I should have put "spouse" but what's done is done. Now it's up to con if he will play word games or debate as intended, and if he chooses to play word games I am armed with enough sexism to combat it.
Thomas Aquinas is overrated AF.
then apply your standards evenly and delete the 3 remaining votes in the debate where none of the voters actually compare my argument to con's
My vote was clearly valid assuming you don't need to demonstrate that you actually comprehend both sides which seems to be the case in all my debates. I said that his arguments outweigh cons and I said why.
No one mentioned my arguments in the atheism debate, they only mentioned how me and my opponent defined the terms.
Go ahead and delete them all, put your money where your mouth is. At least delete that last two.
I find it interesting that you can delete my vote but not votes against me that literally just say "it was good".
If you must evaluate points by both sides then go delete every vote on the atheism debate, none of which even demonstrate that they understood my arguments.
it's a rap battle, we post rap lyrics each round trying to destroy each other
Please do get the fuck out of my debates and threads
I just destroyed the great Thomas Aquinas, I have the right to insult him for that alone.
Then he can stay off my threads and debates or the RO can't be expected to work out.
the problem is he is trying to get me banned while also going out of his way to post on all my threads and vote on all my debates despite a RO being put on me.
He literally said he wanted to be my best friend and that he no longer believed in cutting ties so easily the way he used to, but then he acted like a 5 year old with NPD over gifs of kittens and blocked me.
He added me on discord and talked all this shit about how we should forgive each other and have a proper friendship but then we started talking about if cats should drink milk or not (even without lactose) and I kept sending him these adorable gifs of kittens drinking milk and he got all upset over it and said I was mocking him by sending them. Then he started acting like a prick and basically expecting me to kiss his ass and beg forgiveness and he blocked me on discord and on this website when I refused.
new rule: no one should be able to vote unless they demonstrate an understanding of both side's arguments. Sick of losing debates because of people who can't comprehend what I say due to their own stupidity.
delete his vote please and don't let him vote again, it's obvious that he just wants to vote against me as much as he can
Are you going to vote on this even though you don't have a single excuse to vote against me this time?
All the votes on this debate are garbage but this latest one blatantly should be deleted. I think all 3 should be deleted because none of them even demonstrate that they understood my arguments.
because there are only a handful of people who reliably will even vote on debates
It's like the logic I was using went completely over their heads. I noticed while we were debating though that I was genuinely seeing it in a flawed way when I created the proposition but instead of noticing it and doubling down you used an angle that I see as much weaker and never would have used if I was con in this debate.
Extreme atheism and extreme theism are both equally far away from being agnostic, but moderate atheism is genuinely able to be agnostic while moderate theism is only able to be half agnostic. I came up with this by combining our definitions and realizing both of our definitions can be more or less true depending how extreme the atheism/theism is.
I may join the tournament, because I am probably going to quit or take a break from debating since what I see as logical arguments don't seem to register in the minds of voters here, but that doesn't mean I can't vote and show people how that should be done (I'll probably get my votes deleted for being too logic-based though)
Two garbage votes again. There is a way that Lancelot could have actually cooked me and you STILL vote against me even though he used the stupidest fucking argument possible and just appealed to "popularity" instead. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that logic means nothing on this website.
voting is good for your health
how does allowing con to derail the debate with silly word games mitigate that? If I allow semantic arguments it won't be used for clarification, it will be used for intellectual dishonesty. This doesn't mean that semantics can't be discussed to clarify what your argument actually is, it just can't be used as the basis for an argument.
Common sense does. Semantics arguments are almost never helpful or intellectually honest on this website, they are nothing but cheap tactics to derail the intended debate and render a coherent position absurd by redefining it.
Your view of this is very much wrong.
What if someone's sources undermine their own point? What if someone's sources do absolutely NOTHING to support their point? You're saying you should still give them points for completely ineffectual or self-refuting sources which is retarded.
It's even more retarded that conduct is seen as "oh no you said mean words" on this site but outright lying and distortion isn't seen as a conduct issue. It shows that truth doesn't matter at all to people on this site and votes are based on which opponent is seen as more likable and who is better at appealing to semantics and putting all the BoP on their opponent.
The only way con's final round holds water is if he were to substantiate that OT Judaism and modern Judaism are two different religions which he didn't. Essentially all 3 agree that Judaism is true, they just disagree what current religion is the proper successor of OG Judaism.
If anyone votes against me in this debate I know they are biased af. This was a complete stomp. I annihilated this guy and no one can tell me otherwise.
Anyone who didn't vote for me in this debate is both retarded and has personal grudge against me
Not so, his sources didn't actually negate or prove anything substantial to the debate and he lost conduct by outright lying and twisting things all through the debate.
Remember that Lancelot used intellectually dishonest tactics and outright lies which I pointed out throughout the whole debate and you still voted for him. Remember that I debunked buddhism completely in the first round because it claims the universe operates with a moral framework with no moral agent governing it.
All 3 of you (we all know who the third is) are retarded ass holes who skimmed the debate looking for excuses to vote against me without thinking about any of my arguments at all. Look at your fucking votes, they ALL treat me as wrong by default and go out of their way to interpret the debate through pro's POV.
you interpreted the debate in a biased way designed to give him more benefit of the doubt and me more BoP.
Because I don't think I performed as poorly in this debate as you all are suggesting.
wow, 3 incredibly biased shitty votes in a row that are all based on not liking me as a person with long-winded explanations that attempt to mask bias with superfluous justifications that treat me as having higher BoP and pro as the default winner.
Read whiteflame's vote and tell me if you see an issue or not. He focuses way more on my arguments being wrong than pro's being right, as if he is treating me as the one who has higher BoP and pro as the default winner. He also doesn't actually substantiate his vote that much, he is mostly just saying "I don't agree with con because in my opinion he's wrong" with little to no elaboration.
Would your life be as fulfilling if your quality of life was drastically lower? Come on this isn't rocket science.
You're essentially holding me to a standard you're not holding him to and treating him as the default winner. Your vote is more about why my arguments aren't good enough than why his are sufficient.
If I report your vote that would be like reporting police brutality to the other cop who is beating me while two officers are beating me.
Your vote sucks and is dripping with bias. You are blatantly going out of your way to only see pro's side of the debate. You even say he did better in the evidence department when there is NO proof of buddhism and the things I mentioned at least might be proof of christianity. You are essentially saying "well pro provided no evidence, but I don't like con's evidence so I'm favoring pro's complete lack of anything that even remotely resembles evidence".
Your entire quality of life is thanks to Christianity. Every aspect of modern western society that you benefit from would be replaced with oppressive backwards shariah law muslim theocracies or with savage pagan tribes killing each other instead of building western civilization.
You say I am conceding on the meditation point. My point was clearly that buddhists can't benefit from what christianity has to offer but christians can benefit from what buddhists have to offer, but you went out of your way to superimpose a negative connotation because the entire mod team on this site has it out for me.
Every time someone votes for me mods delete it and every time a mod votes on one of my debates it's against me. You let retarded biased votes remain as long as they are against me.
voting is necessary, voting is good
If a mormon and a sun-worshipper can vote properly surely you can too. The mods have deleted my votes at least 10 times though, it seems like some kind of weird bias they have against me because often my votes seemed fine.
Let the voting commence
Rap is always my main genre but I also gravitate towards classical, hard rock, and sometimes pop (I used to think all pop was gay but I learned to appreciate some of it).
I could do the buddhism one, with minimal semantic arguments and engaging only in actual substance. I was disappointed in your response in the anesthesia debate because I was hoping for you to disprove the information hazard. I guess if I have a soul it won't be a problem though.
AdaptableRatman is better for the other one since he is actively Catholic. I'm leaning Presbyterian again currently.
That's because you're an atheist materialist nihilist communist antinatalist pessimist satanist abortionist who needs Jesus.
I hope my opponent wins. I stumbled across this fucking information hazard and now I can't get it out of my head.
This requires a fair amount of voting to be administered.
That's based, I'm currently trying to figure out if I should become Christian or not. I will become Christian as long as I can't debunk Christianity or find another worldview which renders it obsolete on any level.
Mormonism I can completely understand ruling out lol, but what are the particular reasons you ruled out Catholicism? It has major issues but it's still a serious contender for me.
I've also been reading stuff like the Upanishads (Hindu theology/philosophy) and Abhidhamma Pitaka (practical interpretations of buddhist teaching)
I haven't converted yet, I'm just considering it. If I did convert I would probably go with Presbyterian though especially since I have trouble with the concept of free will. I would be a hypercalvinist in my view of free will but I think hypercalvinism is cringe in practice because they don't like spreading the gospel or doing other things that you should probably do as a Christian.
How about you?
"thanks for sucking my cock, I will now suck yours too!"
Oh I see, you voted for Con because you're a Muslim and are biased in favor of the pedophile religion!
Remember this debate is about MORE positive impact, not just significant positive impact.
I'm not sure you really weighed that out in your vote. It's not enough to simply say "Con had better arguments and Islam contributed stuff" you have to actually say why you think Con had better arguments and why Islam hasn't contributed less overall.
I am allowed to post debates about what I'm interested in. If it wasn't for me 90% of the debates would be about politics or if cereal counts as soup.
The time has come for voting.
sue me, I should have put "spouse" but what's done is done. Now it's up to con if he will play word games or debate as intended, and if he chooses to play word games I am armed with enough sexism to combat it.
Good thing this isn't a debate about political correctness