Total votes: 166
No arguments. Pro's "round" was explicitly stated to be a forfeit.
No arguments made on either side. Conduct to pro for forfeiture on the part of con
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Pro continually insists that a small chance of survival would be preferable to zero chance. This 1. ignores Con's points of how dangerous jumping out of a commercial airline, especially at cruising altitude and given that the vast majority of passengers are not trained to use a parachute. 2. falsely assumes that an engine failure on a plane results in 100% fatalities unless over water. 3. ignores the fact given by Con that the vast majority of airplane crashes take place while taking off or landing.
Furthermore, Pro seems to think there is some meaningful distinction between a parachute and a "parachute mechanism," further stating that the latter would be deployed merely by a button or similar function. Changing the deployment method doesn't make it not a parachute, and Con's points on training and safety still apply.
If Pro has a desire to jump out of a plane, they can bring their own parachute as Con said, but I suspect most people would rather keep their carry-on.
Mall never argues that War is bad. Their first "argument" (R2) agreed with RM, and R3 was just a question.
Forfeiture
Con's arguments were far from persuasive, or even logical.
"When you're a Christian. It's reasonable or correct or valid to hold that belief."
This merely passes the buck to whether it is reasonable to be a Christian.
"If you believe in or administer baptisms, it is logical."
This makes even less sense, as baptisms were administered before the Resurrection of Christ.
"If you believe in the death of Christ, it logically follows to believe in the Resurrection also."
This makes the least logical sense so far. Death is a certainty (along with taxes, as the idiom goes), but Resurrection flies in the face of thousands of years of people not getting resurrected, as well as our best understanding of biology. As someone who lived 2000 years ago, it is logical to believe that Jesus died, but it would require Extraordinary Evidence to justify a belief in his resurrection.
"There can be no resurrection without death."
True, but there CAN be death without resurrection. This is, in fact the far more common condition.
"When you understand the doctrine of salvation wanting it, it'd be reasonable to believe in the resurrection."
This requires that one already believes A. that there is a need for salvation and B. that salvation has been provided.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Forfeiture.
Note to Pro: even if you put your full argument in the description (which I wouldn't recommend, but you do you) just copy past to the first round and you would have at least had a chance of winning.
Full forfeit
Con handily disarms the arguments of traditional Chinese rule on the island of Taiwan, as well as the so called "independence" movement following Japanese withdrawal. The first by evidence that the Portuguese and Dutch have been active on the island for roughly the same amount of time as China, and the second by clarifying the order of events. The ROC ruled China brought the island under its rule, then the PRC took over all of China except Taiwan, which definitionally remained the ROC. Arguments to Con
Pro provided no sources for his claims. Con on the other hand provided sources for all of his claims. Pretty simple. Sources to Con.
Pro doesn't contest that the commandment not to murder is found in the Bible and is also a precept of Christianity, as argued by Con. Based on how the title claim is worded, even a single positive example on Con's part is enough to disprove Pro's position. There is a difference between the Con position on "all of what Christianity is/has become IS NOT found in the Bible" and the Pro position on "all of what Christianity is/has become IS found in the Bible" The second position is much more strict.
Pro argues that what country is the best is subjective, as a contention of the definition given by Con. While this argument may call into question the ability to evaluate the "best" country, it fails to satisfy the BoP, which requires that Pro argue that Burundi is the best country. At best, Pro's argument proves that there is NO best country, but does nothing to promote Burundi over any other.
As a side note, I am getting tired of these Mall-Novice pick the topic debates. Novice continues to use them by giving Mall incredibly difficult to impossible claims to defend, and neither party are putting in the effort I would expect to see if these were genuine debates. This will likely be the last of this kind I will vote on.
Debate description reads: "we only consider debateart because debate.org is gone and we don't know about it"
All of Con's arguments are based on statistics gathered on the DART site. They unambiguously demonstrate that Barney is well above the average user in terms of being able to win debates (which is if not definitionally, the most commonly accepted goal of a "good" debater.) Pro's only counter to this evidence is the argument that this metric means nothing because no one on this site is a "good" debater. Con rebuts this based on the debate description. Arguments to Con
Con provides the most valuable sources, as well as an impressive amount of BTS math on his own rankings, they cover the majority of his claims regarding different statistics on DART, as well as voting outcomes, he also provides definitions for the relevant topics of statistics and logical fallacies. Pro doesn't completely fail to provide sources, but a lot of the things he says are completely without a source, such as the first paragraph about Plato and Chaotic states, the list of other "good debaters" and who they have beaten. Sources to Con
S&G are equal. I had no difficulty reading/understanding either argument, nor did I notice any egregious errors. Tied.
I was tempted to take conduct points from Pro as I find the premise of the argument itself disrespectful, but I suspect that it violates the voting policy somehow, and anyway, he was civil during the debate itself.
As a critical note I wish someone had taken the time to define "good" in this debate. It was danced around very loosely and while I feel the arguments themselves were unambiguous, it was left to the voter to decide how they should evaluate the arguments in terms of the claim itself. RM or Intelligence (as well as myself) would almost definitely not have left this unaddressed, and I personally feel the debate suffers for it.
*sigh* another forfeit
" by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Con made a clear definitional distinction between status groups and [social] class, as well as a strong argument indicating why PoCs' are the former. Pro completely ignored this claim and distinction and tried to argue a concession by deliberately misinterpreting Con's response to his question.
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
-DArt Voting Policy
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases. "
"Prove that nature created a design. I can't prove that."
"anything that is innate and not externally influenced by education or programming is natural. ... In other words, something that just is alone."
Pro gives a clear definition of "design" in this debate. Con never contends these definitions. "purpose or intention," "deliberate purposive," " means to an end"; all of these are indicative of an intelligent will doing something with INTENT, which Con fails to demonstrate nature has. Con has burden of proof as the instigator, despite how he words the title claim, BoP is on the party making the affirmative claim, i.e., "homosexuality is nature's design of or for birth control."
Although this is a winner selection debate, the legibility of Con's arguments was so egregious that i had to bring it up. Use the quote blocks for longer (several times multiple paragraphs were quoted at once) quotes, especially if they are of the opponent's argument. I had to reread Con's rounds several times because it was difficult to keep track of when he was quoting.
Pro wins
Con has BoP in this debate, so I will primarily be weighing his arguments vs. Pro's counterarguments. As a result, Pro's R1 arguments have little bearing on the rest of the debate, though I will note that Pro's argument for God being fictional in R1 is fairly sound, it doesn't directly address the contentions that the debate rests on.
Arguments:
R1
Con opens R1 by pointing out that by disproving either that 1. god was founded on hearsay or 2. that god is a fictional character, Con will have upheld his BoP. This point is never contested by Pro, so I will be rating arguments in these two categories.
1. "founded on hearsay"
Con's main arguments around this are that because the idea of God was coherent before it was spread around, it wasn't FOUNDED in hearsay.
2. "fictional character"
Con contends that based on the definition of "character," god wouldn't qualify, therefore disproving the claim "god is a fictional character." The reasons he doesn't fit the definition are as follows, first, the Bible or other religious works referencing God don't qualify as a "drama or novel", second, God is not a "person" and therefore cannot be a character.
Rebuttals
R2
Pro
Pro counters Con's first argument with the points that it was A. still spread by hearsay, and B. the "idea of God" is distinct from "God" itself. For the second argument, Pro argues that because the Bible cannot be verified, it should be considered fictional, and that the idea that God is not a person is "irrlevent" to whether he meets the definition of character.
Con
Hearsay arguments
Con argues that God being real as a concept or idea disproves Pro's title claim, and compares it to Superman being real as a concept. Furthering the analogy, he argues that Superman ISN'T founded in hearsay because he was a concept developed by DC Comics before the public even knew about him in order to spread hearsay and rumors, which is no different from God existing as a concept before it was "disseminated," which, as he had already argued in R1, means that "God" was not FOUNDED in hearsay.
Con also criticizes the argument that the idea of "God" being separate from "God" by comparing it to other abstract concepts like "nihilism," and can similarly exist as a pure concept or idea.
Fictional Character Arguments
Con starts by criticizing Pro's definition of "character," pointing out that it is uncited, and likely made up by Pro himself. He dismisses this definition and continues to insist that by the official definition, a character must be a person, which, since Pro never argued that "God" must be a person, disproves the character portion of the title claim.
Ignored argument: Con fails to address the Pro's definition/argument of fiction as "Neither the bible nor any "Holy text" can be validated or proven true. Therefore, everything in it is only true if you believe which makes it subjective and thus can be described as fictional book"
Conclusion:
The distinction of being FOUNDED in hearsay and being DISSEMINATED via hearsay is fair and was not refuted.
The definition of character as given by Con was not properly contended, nor did the title claim meet said definition.
The definition of fiction was refuted, and then ignored by Con.
The distinction between the "idea of God" and ""God" existing were proven to be semantics at best by Con.
Overall, points to Con
Sources: Con provided definition sources in the form of Merriam-Webster, a reputable dictionary source. Pro links the Wikipedia articles to the Old and New Testaments, but fails to actually cite them. You can link as many sources as you want, but if they aren't actually used in the argument, they count for nothing.
Points to Con.
Legibility: There were a few mistakes on both, but nothing egregious and meaning was clear throughout.
Points Tied.
Nothing of note for Conduct
Points Tied.
Full forfeiture.
Full Forfeiture.
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
-DART Voting Policy
Pro forfeited 1 round and asked for a rematch in a second.
Fofeiture.
I originally voted to tie as I considered a lack of arguments on both sides to supersede the Burden of Proof. However, the fact that Mall continued in each iteration to refuse to make any sort of argument in repeats made it clear that he was not "arguing" in the spirit of Debate, but merely attempting to make Novice assert his own beliefs, something much better suited to a forum discussion or a PM. The best way to force Novice to make an argument would have been to make an argument himself. Novice was prepared to make an argument, but it was never necessitated by Mall's behavior.
I originally voted to tie as I considered a lack of arguments on both sides to supersede the Burden of Proof. However, the fact that Mall continued in each iteration to refuse to make any sort of argument in repeats made it clear that he was not "arguing" in the spirit of Debate, but merely attempting to make Novice assert his own beliefs, something much better suited to a forum discussion or a PM. The best way to force Novice to make an argument would have been to make an argument himself. Novice was prepared to make an argument, but it was never necessitated by Mall's behavior.
I originally voted to tie as I considered a lack of arguments on both sides to supersede the Burden of Proof. However, the fact that Mall continued in each iteration to refuse to make any sort of argument in repeats made it clear that he was not "arguing" in the spirit of Debate, but merely attempting to make Novice assert his own beliefs, something much better suited to a forum discussion or a PM. The best way to force Novice to make an argument would have been to make an argument himself. Novice was prepared to make an argument, but it was never necessitated by Mall's behavior.
I originally voted to tie as I considered a lack of arguments on both sides to supersede the Burden of Proof. However, the fact that Mall continued in each iteration to refuse to make any sort of argument in repeats made it clear that he was not "arguing" in the spirit of Debate, but merely attempting to make Novice assert his own beliefs, something much better suited to a forum discussion or a PM. The best way to force Novice to make an argument would have been to make an argument himself. Novice was prepared to make an argument, but it was never necessitated by Mall's behavior.
Forfeiture
"Con the instigator did not turn up"
neither did you.
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases." -DART Voting Policy
"What the hell happened here?" - Scott Lang
Arguments: Once again I seem to have found a debate where at least one participant seems to be arguing a different claim than the title of the debate states. It would be really nice if this was clarified in the description so that it is absolutely clear beforehand what is in question. I will be rating this debate in terms of the title claim, "suffering occurs due to false belief" rather than any posited afterwards. This bodes badly for Pro because he manages to use the phrase "false belief(s)" exactly once in all of his arguments.
R1. Pro starts by making points to the effect that " suffering is a mental concept and never a physical one," and "If you have faith that there’s a reason and meaning for suffering, you’ll be able to endure it, even if you don’t know exactly what that reason is, and by being able to endure suffering, you will not be a slave to pleasure and comfort, an by not being a slave to pleasure and comfort, you’ll retain your freedom, and by retaining your freedom, you’ll be able to serve any idea you want, rather than the idea someone else wants you to serve." (this run-on sentence will be addressed in the S&G section as well.)
Con contends this by giving examples of suffering that are independent of beliefs, e.g., amputation. He also brings up the point that "[j]ust because you can endure suffering doesn't make it non-suffering" in rebuttal to the run-on sentence above.
R2 I will be ignoring the arguments surrounding definition in this portion, as they have little bearing on the claims being made, despite the amount of time Pro spends contending them. The main rebuttals Pro makes here is 1. that kamikazes don't suffer and 2. the statement "I never said suffering is always avoidable. You will always suffer as we always have expectations."
Con refutes the second argument by pointing out the moved goalposts, arguing that these "expectations" do not have to be false to induce suffering, and in fact are often true.
The first argument I honestly couldn't follow, but as far as I can tell a single example of belief decreasing or eliminating suffering isn't a knockdown argument.
R3: "I've lost interest in continuing this discussion" I hesitate to call this a concession, but it does weaken Pro's position, and he fails to rebut R2's arguments.
Points to Con
Sources: As a philosophical argument, statements of fact don't play into this debate too much. However, the sources used by Pro consists of two quotes, one by Victor Frankl, a psychiatrist, and Dostoevsky, a Russian fiction writer. On the other hand, Con's sources include the eminent Merriam-Webster Dictionary in his contention of Pro's definitions, cites multiple articles to support his points on human physiology and psychology, and has a nice pop culture reference in the form of Star Wars. While the last counts for little in terms of debate, the overview points to Con for professional rigor. Points to Con.
Spelling and Grammar: In terms of formatting, it WAS slightly annoying that the entirety of Pro's R1 argument was italicised, but the tipping point for me was this behemoth of a run-on sentence. "If you have faith that there’s a reason and meaning for suffering, you’ll be able to endure it, even if you don’t know exactly what that reason is, and by being able to endure suffering, you will not be a slave to pleasure and comfort, an by not being a slave to pleasure and comfort, you’ll retain your freedom, and by retaining your freedom, you’ll be able to serve any idea you want, rather than the idea someone else wants you to serve." Points to Con
Conduct: Pro pulls the "English isn't your first language" card. "I understand you might not believe me; English isn't your first language, after all" I honestly didn't know that Con was from China until today because his English on this site has been impeccable, and even his formatting is well above average, so not only was this a "dick move" as I like to call it, but completely groundless. The ad hominem attack inherent in dismissing Con's definitions (which are sourced from one of the most reputable English dictionaries around, mind you)on these grounds is inexcusable. Additionally, Pro basically concedes in R3. Points to Con.
"Please don't cherry pick language in desperate attempt to make an argument." This was said by Pro after Con pointed out that the process described by Pro fails to meet the definition of reincarnation (which is an integral part of the debate title and claim). This is not cherry picking, but pointing out that Pro's arguments fail to even broach the correct topic.
As a note, this is why I like to put definitions in my description so that this kind of Kritik can't happen.
In the end, Pro concedes the debate.
"'Changing form is not reincarnation.' "
Never said it was. Pay sharp attention to the exact order of words.
My position has nothing to do with reincarnation itself."
Literally states that he has no arguments on the grounds of reincarnation.
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
-DART Voting Policy
Concession
It is a matter of fact that the mentioned debate
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3403-atheism-is-simply-a-lack-of-belief
didn't end in a tie.
Any debate along the lines of "does the Bible say x" or "does the Bible condone _____" are very tricky. First of all the Bible LOVES to contradict itself, especially between the New and Old Testament. In this case, both sides were able to find scriptures supporting their case, and the burden of proof was poorly defined. Here is my best interpretation.
The title of the debate introduces the question as to whether "the biblical scriptures justify/support/permit marital divorce." This is actually the extent to which the topic was defined, as no definitions or burden of proof were given in the debate description. Generally speaking burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim, which in this case would be Pro, as they are being expected to provide evidence in favor of marital divorce being permitted in the Bible.
Pro's arguments:
1. a verse laying out an exception for divorce under the circumstances of sexual immorality
2. a passage laying out an exception for abandonment by a non-believing spouse.
While neither of these are in the most straightforward phrasing, the first is unambiguous, with the clause "excepting sexual immorality" clearly marking a special case allowing for divorce. The second is more open to interpretation, but Pro was able to provide a source establishing that the grounds for divorce or "separation" is a common interpretation.
Con's Rebuttals
Con's rebuttal to the first appears to be either a misunderstanding of the sentence, or else ignoring the critical clause quoted above. Either way, this point was not refuted. The second rebuttal primarily pointed to the ambiguity surrounding the phrase "let it be so," which is a fair point, but no effort was made to offer an alternative interpretation, so while this point is rather weaker than the first, I still consider it unrefuted.
Conclusion: I consider Pro's arguments more than sufficient to prove that the Bible has at least one case in which it supports/justifies/permits divorce.
Non-argument points
While I am aware that points on winner/loser debates are dependent only on the quality of the arguments themselves, I would like to mention a few other critiques as a matter of giving things to improve on in the future.
Format: Especially to Con, try not to use the same markers to indicate quotations from earlier in the debate and outside quotes. Personally I like to use the markdown quote box for the former, as it can nest if necessary, and quotation marks for outside quotes. The main point though is to have a consistent distinction.
full forfeit by Pro, but no real argument established in the first place.
Full Forfeiture
Snake eyes
" by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
"I've lost interest in this debate so im not going to respond to any of your arguments."
Also forfeiture of R2
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases." -DA Voting Policy
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases." DA Voting Policy
Forfeiture