That was an attribution error on my part and I am sorry for that, but I still feel pro didn't counter that point sufficiently.
My real issue was this statement:
"We’re simply not in a position to make the judgement that God doesn’t have reasons for permitting suffering"
I even gave some examples of how we could judge the issue of suffering. I misattributed the "so what" phrase, but the meaning was the same. Pro dismissed the issue claiming we were not in a position to make judgments.
The philosophical tack of hinting "we just can't know" skews more in favor of non-existence, and this was the real reason for my vote.
I'm not sure I should vote on this. most of this debate on a cursory readthrough appeared to be centered on semantic arguments and less focused on meaty arguments. Whiteflame's much better at evaluating these types of debates.
You did really well, it's just you have to pay attention to definitions and resolutions or you can accidentally create a very difficult debate skewed to one side.
tomorrow...quick skim...why did Slainte concede on the cost? Recurring subscriptions on stream services that are not canceled in a timely manner when not used is a big factor as to why it's more profitable...
That also makes me kind of biased, as my main job is to prepare students by helping them to channel stress, become more productive citizens, solve problems, and compete in an unforgiving world.
You should be very careful about making debate resolutions with words like"best" in them. It is very easy for opposition to win the argument by providing a single contradicting example.
I think the way the debate proposition was worded made it easy. It seems all con had to do was present reasonable doubt that DC was not a racist. It would have been a lot harder to prove DC was a racist than to simply prove he might have been a racist. This is probably why he was not criminally charged for being a racist.
What a lopsided debate. Just going by the metric of human casualties, More people died manufacturing and installing solar panels this year than all deaths combined from Nuclear power ever.
I will vote.
I forgot to vote on this...sorry.
Ty Akrasia!
That was an attribution error on my part and I am sorry for that, but I still feel pro didn't counter that point sufficiently.
My real issue was this statement:
"We’re simply not in a position to make the judgement that God doesn’t have reasons for permitting suffering"
I even gave some examples of how we could judge the issue of suffering. I misattributed the "so what" phrase, but the meaning was the same. Pro dismissed the issue claiming we were not in a position to make judgments.
The philosophical tack of hinting "we just can't know" skews more in favor of non-existence, and this was the real reason for my vote.
hugs
I'm not sure I should vote on this. most of this debate on a cursory readthrough appeared to be centered on semantic arguments and less focused on meaty arguments. Whiteflame's much better at evaluating these types of debates.
I love you all.
lol!
Wait... why Am I doing a practice debate on the same topic with you before this is done? Am I not giving RM easy arguments?
are you angry at me? I gave good rfd
RM is pretty good at this.
You better not drop the ball on this debate sir!
<3.
You did really well, it's just you have to pay attention to definitions and resolutions or you can accidentally create a very difficult debate skewed to one side.
What a nail biter!
tomorrow...quick skim...why did Slainte concede on the cost? Recurring subscriptions on stream services that are not canceled in a timely manner when not used is a big factor as to why it's more profitable...
I really should recuse myself from this one, sorry.
That also makes me kind of biased, as my main job is to prepare students by helping them to channel stress, become more productive citizens, solve problems, and compete in an unforgiving world.
Pretty sure you know where that would put me.
If you really need me to :D
You probably already know what my votes going to be though unless con did a very good job.
Heh, I always try to vote first before reading the comments as I want to try to be unbiased.
I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating – and it gets everywhere.
I hope I wasn't too brutal with my Reason for Vote :O
Nice debate
Can't believe you used the tragedy of the commons as your lynchpin. Too bad he forfeited.
Thanks for the tie, I had privately messaged my opponent and wanted a tie on this. Worked out perfect.
You should be very careful about making debate resolutions with words like"best" in them. It is very easy for opposition to win the argument by providing a single contradicting example.
Kinsey would have loved this debate.
I think the way the debate proposition was worded made it easy. It seems all con had to do was present reasonable doubt that DC was not a racist. It would have been a lot harder to prove DC was a racist than to simply prove he might have been a racist. This is probably why he was not criminally charged for being a racist.
What a lopsided debate. Just going by the metric of human casualties, More people died manufacturing and installing solar panels this year than all deaths combined from Nuclear power ever.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Amy%20Schumer
I can't believe Con used Amy Schumer to support his arguments....
Are you going to be arguing the constitutionality of a Federal minimum wage?