I would also like to share this PDF version of my argument. It has no changes to character count whatsoever, but it is formatted in a way that I think is easier on the eyes than DART's. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fi_q7uIE39cl6JoGzY_0KdeZL2roe-kc/view?usp=sharing
Due to character restraints, I did not include the usual pleasantries at the beginning, so let me say here: thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate, and thank you in advance to any who read and/or vote.
Hey Croc, I appreciate your earlier expressions of interest in this debate, and your detailed RFD has me interested. I'm hopeful you'll still be able to get a vote in.
I would really appreciate if you voted. I am proud of this debate and would hate for it to end with just one vote, especially after all the interest it initially generated.
Thanks for your interest in this debate. Earlier, you mentioned you were preparing an in-depth RFD. Do you think we'll still get your vote on this debate?
If necessary, I'm fine with deleting the debate and re-posting arguments in a new one. However, is it ok for Oromagi to post a link to an open Google Doc with his R3 argument? (assuming, of course, that he respects the 7.42k character limit) We could ask that all voters indicate they have seen Oro's R3 in the comments in their RFDs.
Regardless, do not yet delete this debate! I need to copy and paste my arguments into separate docs first.
One of the difficulties in a debate like this is the impossibility of determining where Black Lives Matter begins and ends. There might be a Foundation with a legal address and all that, but it's a movement, as you say. When should the action(s) of an individual be attributed to BLM, and to what degree? Pinning down attribution with a high degree of precision is impossible, as far as I can tell.
Of course, this difficulty may not necessarily prevent a fruitful debate from occurring. But I wouldn't be surprised if Pro and Con tussle over what the 'real' BLM is, just like people debate what 'real' Christianity or 'real' Islam is.
Thank you for your comment. When I was younger, I wanted to remain on the pro-pride side, but over time, my pride was chipped away by qualifications and caveats, until I was forced to abandon the position entirely.
Of course, Oromagi is quite the debater. Maybe he'll change my mind!
This debate misses the point entirely. Nobody has a bone to pick with "All Lives Matter" because it is a factually incorrect statement. They have a bone to pick with it because it is a counter-phrase to the Black Lives Matter movement, which aims to address systemic injustices. In other words, within the context it is used, "All Lives Matter" is a phrase intended to shut down attempts to fix social ills.
Croc is right. The use of "can" means Con would have to argue that it is impossible for money to bring happiness under any circumstance, which is obviously an impossible task.
ELO is a score attached to all our profiles. It starts out at 1500 and adjusts in responses to our wins, losses, and ties. Under this system, it's a bigger deal to beat someone with a higher score than it is to beat someone with a lower score.
It's derived from Chess rankings and was developed by someone named Elo. There's a whole Wikipedia page devoted to it.
On DART, our rankings on the Leaderboard are determined by ELO score.
That's real sweet of you
NBD
Thanks for voting! What are the permissions on that RFD doc? I am unable to open it.
You asked for this ping after a week. Thank you in advance if you are able to find the time.
bump
bump
Cool, thank you!
Does anyone plan to vote?
At 10k characters and 2-week debate time, I'd take this as Con.
I would also like to share this PDF version of my argument. It has no changes to character count whatsoever, but it is formatted in a way that I think is easier on the eyes than DART's. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fi_q7uIE39cl6JoGzY_0KdeZL2roe-kc/view?usp=sharing
Due to character restraints, I did not include the usual pleasantries at the beginning, so let me say here: thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate, and thank you in advance to any who read and/or vote.
Debates about creationism really bring out the best in people, it would seem.
Hey Croc, I appreciate your earlier expressions of interest in this debate, and your detailed RFD has me interested. I'm hopeful you'll still be able to get a vote in.
It's quite alright. Do what makes you comfortable.
Thanks for taking the time to vote.
I would really appreciate if you voted. I am proud of this debate and would hate for it to end with just one vote, especially after all the interest it initially generated.
bump
woe is me
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4494-bsh1-memorial-profile-pick-of-the-week-no-23-leviathan-smiles?page=2&post_number=26
Thanks for your interest in this debate. Earlier, you mentioned you were preparing an in-depth RFD. Do you think we'll still get your vote on this debate?
Hi faux,
Thanks for committing yourself to voting a couple days ago. Do you think you'll still be able to?
This is going to tick off DART's witch community.
TO ALL VOTERS:
Please note that Oromagi has not dropped R3. He is posting his final argument in the comments. When you vote, please indicate that you've seen his R3.
If necessary, I'm fine with deleting the debate and re-posting arguments in a new one. However, is it ok for Oromagi to post a link to an open Google Doc with his R3 argument? (assuming, of course, that he respects the 7.42k character limit) We could ask that all voters indicate they have seen Oro's R3 in the comments in their RFDs.
Regardless, do not yet delete this debate! I need to copy and paste my arguments into separate docs first.
Nice of you to defer to me. Please, go ahead and remedy.
bump
One of the difficulties in a debate like this is the impossibility of determining where Black Lives Matter begins and ends. There might be a Foundation with a legal address and all that, but it's a movement, as you say. When should the action(s) of an individual be attributed to BLM, and to what degree? Pinning down attribution with a high degree of precision is impossible, as far as I can tell.
Of course, this difficulty may not necessarily prevent a fruitful debate from occurring. But I wouldn't be surprised if Pro and Con tussle over what the 'real' BLM is, just like people debate what 'real' Christianity or 'real' Islam is.
After a little sleuthing, I finally found my old account. It's in a lot better shape than I remembered it. (80+ debates. Holy shit!!!)
https://www.debate.org/MyDinosaurHands/
Man, everyone name-dropping these DDO legends takes me back.
Well fought.
Thank you for your comment. When I was younger, I wanted to remain on the pro-pride side, but over time, my pride was chipped away by qualifications and caveats, until I was forced to abandon the position entirely.
Of course, Oromagi is quite the debater. Maybe he'll change my mind!
I challenge you to justify this debate's existence. In what way is it valuable?
This debate misses the point entirely. Nobody has a bone to pick with "All Lives Matter" because it is a factually incorrect statement. They have a bone to pick with it because it is a counter-phrase to the Black Lives Matter movement, which aims to address systemic injustices. In other words, within the context it is used, "All Lives Matter" is a phrase intended to shut down attempts to fix social ills.
Croc is right. The use of "can" means Con would have to argue that it is impossible for money to bring happiness under any circumstance, which is obviously an impossible task.
If you can't access any of my sources, I can share a PDF.
Thank you for voting.
bump
Hey y'all,
You were all mentioned in this debate, so I'm tagging you in case you're interested in voting.
So is the central question of the debate whether Adam and Eve produced the human genome as it exists today without any outside contribution?
bump
bump
bump
"Allowed" as in legally permitted?
ELO is a score attached to all our profiles. It starts out at 1500 and adjusts in responses to our wins, losses, and ties. Under this system, it's a bigger deal to beat someone with a higher score than it is to beat someone with a lower score.
It's derived from Chess rankings and was developed by someone named Elo. There's a whole Wikipedia page devoted to it.
On DART, our rankings on the Leaderboard are determined by ELO score.
I was too enthusiastic to wait any longer.
If you increase to at least one week for argument I *WILL* accept.
If you switch the time for arguments to at least one week, I'd strongly consider taking it.
I plan to vote before time runs out.
Hell of a vote-bomb, BrotherDThomas. Good thing your vote did not change the outcome of the debate.
bump