This is basic stuff that any voter should know...my suspicion is that you know this, but voted fraudulently knowing bsh1 would love to stick it to me and not remove your vote...whatever, I'm on the right side of history and when all the shit hits the fan from the voting coercion that I've observed going on, I'll know that I tried to do the right thing to stop such idiocy in votes.
Did Pro make that point?
No.
Then a good voter would accept that considering the conscious creatures that enhance our homeostasis is perfectly reasonable in the homeostatic principle.
One day the moderators will use their removal power to remove dishonesty from votes...one day.
Or is that like expecting punishment for violating an RO twice...not meritorious?
How does "Con could not ever meet his BoP. Con didn't actually fail due to lack of skill, he had no way to succeed in the first place" fit in with ignoring arguments?
By the voter constantly mentioning "Con covered himself" and "Con proved that homeostasis is sufficient enough to explain why there are objective moral facts" the arguments examined by the voter were shown to be main arguments by them making Con's argument able to "cover himself" and "sufficiently prove" his case.
RM makes no mention of any of Pro's arguments and again, as you pointed out in the removal of Outplayz's vote, RM had not "surveyed all or almost all of the main arguments of the debate--the voter talks with singular focus about the homeostasis argument" this could be written about RM's RFD, just look at it.
Yeah, but bifolkal's vote realized that there was only one moral action throughout the debate and of course we think of the child's homeostasis not some command never mentioned in the debate by a god that was never proven to exist...the moral commands were refuted and the refutation was dropped by Pro so that's probably why the most competent voter only glazed over it.
Ramshutu doesn't vote me down vindictively, just erroneously, but RM and his crew of circle-jerkers are definitively out to get me, it's been discussed thoroughly with moderation in private...it's not up for dispute.
">Reason for Mod Action: While the voter does an acceptable job of weighing arguments, it is not clear that the voter surveyed all or almost all of the main arguments of the debate--the voter talks with singular focus about the homeostasis argument (Con's case) while failing to address Pro's case. Since a comprehensive survey of the arguments is required to award argument points, the vote is insufficient."
If Pro didn't bring up that point, in fact, if Pro never responded to how suffering exists in opposition to homeostasis, you've no reason as the voter to think it doesn't, you treat it as a dropped point and you also treat Pro never responding to the claim that all MORAL actions can be reduced to homeostasis. Pro was asked every round and never responded.
From voter:
"Pro wins the debate because Con never ever, not even hinting at it, explains what is the reason for which we should have homeostasis as the basis of morality."
From Con in the debate:
"Homeostasis exists in opposition to suffering and maltreatment, things associated with actions of immorality, and is an objective way to measure whether or not an action is moral i.e. does it lead to homeostasis?...For example, if your child had been running around for hours, and, as a result, had become dehydrated, it would be a perfectly healthy behavior to administer water (H2O) to them, because this action would lead to their homeostasis."
There are examples, explanations, and a claim, dropped by Pro, that ALL moral actions can be reduced to the homeostatic principle, and if the voter were the least bit honest, he would have mentioned that too...this fucking site.
That's simply not true, because time is on a continuum with space (spacetime) and space is continuously expanding at a constant rate proportional to the distance between the galaxies and is continuously perpetuated by the cosmological constant.
If Chronons are a real particle, there's no indication that the passage of time is not continuous given the standard model of particle physics and cosmology.
-Conduct-
The final fatal blow to Con’s case comes from Con himself. After angrily demanding certain definitions be followed throughout the whole debate, Con finally snaps in the last round and embarks on a babyish gloating fit akin to those usually reserved for a contentious kickball battle at recess in the 3rd grade.
I directly quote:
“…a Con vote is required… mandating a Con vote… requiring a Con vote…a Con vote is required (it was repeated in the last round)…This requires a Con vote… I am winning far more major arguments than Pro is winning…VOTE CON”
This childish conduct is not only sufficient to cost him points on conduct, but if this is the only response Con ever has, to bully voters into voting a particular way by asserting he’s won with definitions he asserts should be followed, it quite substantially demonstrates that he never had a real rebuttal in the first place.
Conduct to Pro for these reasons.
Also, some might find it unfair that this vote is coming in 2 minutes prior to the end of the voting period, but if you’ve got a problem with it, well…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKRzfU3dHGQ
Con began but did not end his argument with sources. What’s strange is that it never made sense what Con’s sources were supposed to accomplish. Con wanted to disprove that the universe was created by god, so in the first round he linked to a BBC article which contains a quote describing that in fact the universe was created, which could still be god, and it mentions nothing negating god’s involvement, which is what Con was attempting with his source, and it read,
"So you can create virtual space-times just as you can create virtual particles."
You see this debate wasn't about how the universe was created, but whether or not god did the creating of the universe. The BBC article Con linked to says nothing about negating god’s involvement with the fluctuations and such, failing to support his argument.
Conversely, when Pro made a claim, he managed to supply a source (and directly and frequently quote from that source) which exactly said the same thing as the claim he was constructing. For example, when Pro states,
“The answer is God. There can be no duty in isolation,” which serves as a proof for omnibenevolence defined broadly as Pro requested it to be defined, he both links to and quotes from a source which says precisely that. As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of substantiating his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Con.
Sources to Pro for these reasons.
So what did Con do after mentioning this to everyone?
Con continued to have this delusional, time-wasting, should-be-rejected, unproductive discussion, antithetically contributing to the very harms he claimed were so “bubble-bursting” to know about when he brought them to our attention, which makes me think that this K isn’t serious.
It’d be like someone explaining why combustible engine emissions will likely contribute to our planet heating up to our sever detriment and then using a Hummer to do doughnuts in the parking lot for an hour only to refrain to a recreational vehicle for a long trip to the gas station.
If we buy Con’s K, then Con should have abstained from debating the rest of the debate, because he ended up feeding the delusion, mitigating the impact of the K, and proving that even Con doesn’t buy or choose to remedy the harms of his own K to the extent that Con even exacerbates those harms.
Pro shows a probable 4 O source of creation because Con did not cast enough doubt on the resolution or Pro’s 3 arguments in favor of the resolution.
3. The Moral Argument
If Objective moral facts exist, then God exists…Objective moral facts exist…Therefore, God exists.
*Con again leads with “For morality to be objective, it must be such that no rational person, thinking rationally, could reject it,” which overtly ignores Pro’s request in the debate for objective morality to be “the state of being true regardless of human opinion.”
Again, if I have to go against the previous request of the debater to buy Con’s attacks here, I wish to not violate my duty as a voter to honor the request of the debater whose interpretation seems more reasonable, and as such cannot buy Con’s arguments.
I also then must buy that without human opinion god must exist to command objective morals.
4. Con’s Kritik.
Con starts off with saying “Kritiks (Ks) are not prohibited by the rules of this debate.”
Sorry Con, the rules or lack thereof are not binding on voters or debaters…sorry, it’s a site policy, so while the arbitrary rules and definitions you thought you were agreeing to may not mention no Ks, I interpret Pro’s request in the debate to ignore the K as a request for voters to disallow the K.
Furthermore, Pro is reasonable in ignoring the K because Con mitigates it.
Con’s K includes ideas like,
“Discussions like this perpetuate a false delusion…delusions interfere with our ability to think and perceive rationally and should therefore be rejected…contributes to wasted time and effort…efforts could be more productive elsewhere…you should vote Con to reward Con for bursting the bubble of delusion”
Yeah, fraudulent votes don't get removed for voting on sources that weren't there...
No wait, yeah they do.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/386/comment_links/3561
Bifolkal, take it from a guy who doesn't have votes removed, you're correct, there is a small syndicate after me...I don't mind, it's flattering.
"Asserting the definitions are valid and accepted over and over and over again is not an acceptable rebuttal "
Except that you agreed to using those very definitions from the info...and Con conceded using the words from the info, so no assertion needed.
Nothing about adding definitions necessitates changing the other definitions and they weren't changed at all in fact.
Just to be clear, using the definitions in the info, you have no way to see that Con using those words from the info to concede the resolution necessarily requires a voter using those same info definitions to take that as a concession...there is no other way to see it.
You've dropped the most important of all.
If you used the definitions from the info, Con conceded sun's superhumanity, conceded the sun is worshiped for various things, con even went so far as to concede the entire resolution, and here is your 6990 drop.
What fucking definition were you using when Con conceded every one of these points.
Put the definition here that you used and show how con didn't concede those definitions.
The definitions were not changed AT ALL, you are lying, definitions were added and they were still the same.
Drop this point again that being and existence are the same, added definitions or no.
" I weighted and assessed both arguments based on the definitions in the info. "
Oh, so when Con used the term god, from the info you agreed you're using, and conceded that god exists and humans depend on god to live, you weighed that not as concession to the info-based definitions?
When con conceded the resolution word for word, you were weighing the definitions from the info, yes or no?
What definition of god did you use when weighing whether or not Pro met the burden of "God exists?"
Failure to answer here is your concession that you should have used the definitions in the rules which remain unchanged by additions in the first round where definitions are wont to go anyway.
What definition of god did you use, and tell bsh1 that you used this definition when weighing whether or not Pro met his burden.
"You changed the definitions in the body of the debate. "
1. the change did not change anything, show me how it changed if being and existence are the same thing in the definitions.
2. Also, if you feel that I changed the definitions and that they were different, why not revert to the definitions provided pre-debate,even though you know they're the same?
"It is laughable that someone who continually demands complete tabula rasa ignorance from all voters in all matters - now demands that voters insert their external opinion the moment tabula rasa doesn’t go your way."
It's not an opinion to follow agreed to definitions.
You are inserting your own definition of god that was nowhere in the debate.
Tell me right now what is the definition of god you used when weighing the debate...in order for your vote to make any sense, you have to use a definition to weigh if the definition was met by pro.
What was the definition of god that you used when weighing your debate?
You've yet to answer this, and this makes my rage reasonable.
The mods agree btw.
Get bsh1 to agree with how your approach isn't errant in voting someone down with definitions NOT IN THE DEBATE or description.
What was the definition of god you used when weighing your vote?
I want you to run your voting approach by bsh1, particularly on this debate, and if he tells you you're correct I will shut the fuck up and concede you were right.
"If you feel that con:
- should have offered definitions in order for his argument to be valid"
When challenging definitions in debate, you necessarily provide another definition and you've failed to show Con's definition haven't you?
It's telling me I'm doing it wrong, but not offering anything better...you have to accept a substantiated definition over no definition.
"- incorrectly argued that an elephant could be considered as God"
Directly from the debate,
"god means EXACTLY what both debaters agreed to the meaning of god to be, "a superhuman existence worshiped for its powers over nature and human fortunes."
So, with this in mind, yes, god, to be superhuman, would need some powers greater than a human."
It was responded to an ignored by both voters.
"- incorrectly treated definitions of superhuman as the only part of the definition."
See above, I even referenced the agreed to definition with worship in mind.
"The best and most appropriate place to have put this, was in his final debate round 14 days ago. Not after voting is finished, and gave a result he doesn’t like."
I already put a safeguard to avoid all of this nonsense by having everyone agree before going in.
If you don't agree don't fucking go in!
Right, you should punish the guy trying to follow the rules that the definitions were agreed to.
The additional definitions did not change anything, and Con said NOTHING about the additional definitions.
Only my little anti-voter guys came up with that.
The rest of the quote doesn't negate that the voter ignored that Pro pointed out worshiping the earth doesn't negate worshiping the sun.
Why would the voter ignore something like that, in order to say it didn't happen when it did?
Come on.
To be clear Con did not put a definition up for god in the debate?
Here's what the voter put:
"For example, since an elephant is “stronger” than a man, this gives the elephant a “superhuman” trait according to Pro’s definition, and thus an elephant would be a “god” by such a definition."
The voter ignores that god must also be WORSHIPED in the definitions, and the so the voter ignorantly thinks that just being superhuman satisfies the definition. The voter is oblivious to the fact that the sun is worshiped for particular abilities that were demonstrated and conceded by Con.
Dishonest vote from a dishonest voter.
Voter also put:
"Con also points out that the earth itself shares many of the same traits which Pro attributed to the sun (size, shape, essential for life, etc), so why doesn’t Pro also worship the sun? Again, Pro had no real rebuttal to any of this,"
Pro agreed that the earth is also worshiped and as Pro also pointed out, which was ignored by voter, this didn't negate the sun being worshiped so the voter LIED and said Pro had no rebuttal to it...but Pro did, and it didn't effect the reasoning.
Look if voters can just come in at the last second, put in a vote that only can be substantiated by definitions NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEBATE, and have the vote stand, then we're not having actual votes on debates, it's just people going in and voting on, well any topic they like.
For some reason everyone who has voted Pro down in this thinks they have the correct definition of god, instead of just using the one Pro requested via the rules of the debate.
Look, if moderators care anything about voting integrity, you should make an example of such an egregious vote bomb antithetical to the spirit of debate.
When definitions are challenged in a debate, other definitions are provided...hey what definitions for god was Con using?
Please indicate the definitions Con used to challenge the definitions.
This should be good.
In debate, definitions are posted 1st round, and given no other definitions provided by Con 1st round, you must accept the definitions provided.
I was kind enough to include the definitions pre-debate, but it's not required.
1st round definitions are normal.
Oh I'll definitely post a vote here...honest engine.
Hahaha consequentialists.
This is basic stuff that any voter should know...my suspicion is that you know this, but voted fraudulently knowing bsh1 would love to stick it to me and not remove your vote...whatever, I'm on the right side of history and when all the shit hits the fan from the voting coercion that I've observed going on, I'll know that I tried to do the right thing to stop such idiocy in votes.
Did Pro make that point?
No.
Then a good voter would accept that considering the conscious creatures that enhance our homeostasis is perfectly reasonable in the homeostatic principle.
Consciousness of animals that experience the heights of human experience. It was untouched by Pro as well...
Yeah whatever that meant...
One day the moderators will use their removal power to remove dishonesty from votes...one day.
Or is that like expecting punishment for violating an RO twice...not meritorious?
Unfair for all to see.
Votes will be removed for their monolithic focus...unless it's this one...perfect logic.
Wack
How does "Con could not ever meet his BoP. Con didn't actually fail due to lack of skill, he had no way to succeed in the first place" fit in with ignoring arguments?
By the voter constantly mentioning "Con covered himself" and "Con proved that homeostasis is sufficient enough to explain why there are objective moral facts" the arguments examined by the voter were shown to be main arguments by them making Con's argument able to "cover himself" and "sufficiently prove" his case.
RM makes no mention of any of Pro's arguments and again, as you pointed out in the removal of Outplayz's vote, RM had not "surveyed all or almost all of the main arguments of the debate--the voter talks with singular focus about the homeostasis argument" this could be written about RM's RFD, just look at it.
Yeah, but bifolkal's vote realized that there was only one moral action throughout the debate and of course we think of the child's homeostasis not some command never mentioned in the debate by a god that was never proven to exist...the moral commands were refuted and the refutation was dropped by Pro so that's probably why the most competent voter only glazed over it.
Ramshutu doesn't vote me down vindictively, just erroneously, but RM and his crew of circle-jerkers are definitively out to get me, it's been discussed thoroughly with moderation in private...it's not up for dispute.
">Reason for Mod Action: While the voter does an acceptable job of weighing arguments, it is not clear that the voter surveyed all or almost all of the main arguments of the debate--the voter talks with singular focus about the homeostasis argument (Con's case) while failing to address Pro's case. Since a comprehensive survey of the arguments is required to award argument points, the vote is insufficient."
This can be said of RM's vote as well.
I hope bsh1 can get to the reported votes before the voting period ends.
If Pro didn't bring up that point, in fact, if Pro never responded to how suffering exists in opposition to homeostasis, you've no reason as the voter to think it doesn't, you treat it as a dropped point and you also treat Pro never responding to the claim that all MORAL actions can be reduced to homeostasis. Pro was asked every round and never responded.
From voter:
"Pro wins the debate because Con never ever, not even hinting at it, explains what is the reason for which we should have homeostasis as the basis of morality."
From Con in the debate:
"Homeostasis exists in opposition to suffering and maltreatment, things associated with actions of immorality, and is an objective way to measure whether or not an action is moral i.e. does it lead to homeostasis?...For example, if your child had been running around for hours, and, as a result, had become dehydrated, it would be a perfectly healthy behavior to administer water (H2O) to them, because this action would lead to their homeostasis."
There are examples, explanations, and a claim, dropped by Pro, that ALL moral actions can be reduced to the homeostatic principle, and if the voter were the least bit honest, he would have mentioned that too...this fucking site.
You know what really says "Yeah I assessed debater performance?"
"Con didn't actually fail due to lack of skill, he had no way to succeed in the first place."
You can't win, so I vote Pro...come on voters who have blocked me and I've blocked them and are vindictively trying to vote me down!
Come on!
That's simply not true, because time is on a continuum with space (spacetime) and space is continuously expanding at a constant rate proportional to the distance between the galaxies and is continuously perpetuated by the cosmological constant.
If Chronons are a real particle, there's no indication that the passage of time is not continuous given the standard model of particle physics and cosmology.
Never mind
-Conduct-
The final fatal blow to Con’s case comes from Con himself. After angrily demanding certain definitions be followed throughout the whole debate, Con finally snaps in the last round and embarks on a babyish gloating fit akin to those usually reserved for a contentious kickball battle at recess in the 3rd grade.
I directly quote:
“…a Con vote is required… mandating a Con vote… requiring a Con vote…a Con vote is required (it was repeated in the last round)…This requires a Con vote… I am winning far more major arguments than Pro is winning…VOTE CON”
This childish conduct is not only sufficient to cost him points on conduct, but if this is the only response Con ever has, to bully voters into voting a particular way by asserting he’s won with definitions he asserts should be followed, it quite substantially demonstrates that he never had a real rebuttal in the first place.
Conduct to Pro for these reasons.
Also, some might find it unfair that this vote is coming in 2 minutes prior to the end of the voting period, but if you’ve got a problem with it, well…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKRzfU3dHGQ
-Sources-
Con began but did not end his argument with sources. What’s strange is that it never made sense what Con’s sources were supposed to accomplish. Con wanted to disprove that the universe was created by god, so in the first round he linked to a BBC article which contains a quote describing that in fact the universe was created, which could still be god, and it mentions nothing negating god’s involvement, which is what Con was attempting with his source, and it read,
"So you can create virtual space-times just as you can create virtual particles."
You see this debate wasn't about how the universe was created, but whether or not god did the creating of the universe. The BBC article Con linked to says nothing about negating god’s involvement with the fluctuations and such, failing to support his argument.
Conversely, when Pro made a claim, he managed to supply a source (and directly and frequently quote from that source) which exactly said the same thing as the claim he was constructing. For example, when Pro states,
“The answer is God. There can be no duty in isolation,” which serves as a proof for omnibenevolence defined broadly as Pro requested it to be defined, he both links to and quotes from a source which says precisely that. As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of substantiating his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Con.
Sources to Pro for these reasons.
So what did Con do after mentioning this to everyone?
Con continued to have this delusional, time-wasting, should-be-rejected, unproductive discussion, antithetically contributing to the very harms he claimed were so “bubble-bursting” to know about when he brought them to our attention, which makes me think that this K isn’t serious.
It’d be like someone explaining why combustible engine emissions will likely contribute to our planet heating up to our sever detriment and then using a Hummer to do doughnuts in the parking lot for an hour only to refrain to a recreational vehicle for a long trip to the gas station.
If we buy Con’s K, then Con should have abstained from debating the rest of the debate, because he ended up feeding the delusion, mitigating the impact of the K, and proving that even Con doesn’t buy or choose to remedy the harms of his own K to the extent that Con even exacerbates those harms.
Pro shows a probable 4 O source of creation because Con did not cast enough doubt on the resolution or Pro’s 3 arguments in favor of the resolution.
Arguments to Pro.
3. The Moral Argument
If Objective moral facts exist, then God exists…Objective moral facts exist…Therefore, God exists.
*Con again leads with “For morality to be objective, it must be such that no rational person, thinking rationally, could reject it,” which overtly ignores Pro’s request in the debate for objective morality to be “the state of being true regardless of human opinion.”
Again, if I have to go against the previous request of the debater to buy Con’s attacks here, I wish to not violate my duty as a voter to honor the request of the debater whose interpretation seems more reasonable, and as such cannot buy Con’s arguments.
I also then must buy that without human opinion god must exist to command objective morals.
4. Con’s Kritik.
Con starts off with saying “Kritiks (Ks) are not prohibited by the rules of this debate.”
Sorry Con, the rules or lack thereof are not binding on voters or debaters…sorry, it’s a site policy, so while the arbitrary rules and definitions you thought you were agreeing to may not mention no Ks, I interpret Pro’s request in the debate to ignore the K as a request for voters to disallow the K.
Furthermore, Pro is reasonable in ignoring the K because Con mitigates it.
Con’s K includes ideas like,
“Discussions like this perpetuate a false delusion…delusions interfere with our ability to think and perceive rationally and should therefore be rejected…contributes to wasted time and effort…efforts could be more productive elsewhere…you should vote Con to reward Con for bursting the bubble of delusion”
Actually fair point.
Yeah, fraudulent votes don't get removed for voting on sources that weren't there...
No wait, yeah they do.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/386/comment_links/3561
Bifolkal, take it from a guy who doesn't have votes removed, you're correct, there is a small syndicate after me...I don't mind, it's flattering.
"and a self professed smart guy"
When have I ever said that?
Come on man.
"I actually think you need to spend time on reading comprehension."
We're done here.
I think you need to have a chat with the mods.
"Asserting the definitions are valid and accepted over and over and over again is not an acceptable rebuttal "
Except that you agreed to using those very definitions from the info...and Con conceded using the words from the info, so no assertion needed.
Nothing about adding definitions necessitates changing the other definitions and they weren't changed at all in fact.
Just to be clear, using the definitions in the info, you have no way to see that Con using those words from the info to concede the resolution necessarily requires a voter using those same info definitions to take that as a concession...there is no other way to see it.
Still no definitions from Con?
Noted.
Finally some reasonableness.
It just sucks that the mods can't do anything about them.
You've dropped the most important of all.
If you used the definitions from the info, Con conceded sun's superhumanity, conceded the sun is worshiped for various things, con even went so far as to concede the entire resolution, and here is your 6990 drop.
What fucking definition were you using when Con conceded every one of these points.
Put the definition here that you used and show how con didn't concede those definitions.
The definitions were not changed AT ALL, you are lying, definitions were added and they were still the same.
Drop this point again that being and existence are the same, added definitions or no.
" I weighted and assessed both arguments based on the definitions in the info. "
Oh, so when Con used the term god, from the info you agreed you're using, and conceded that god exists and humans depend on god to live, you weighed that not as concession to the info-based definitions?
When con conceded the resolution word for word, you were weighing the definitions from the info, yes or no?
What definition of god did you use when weighing whether or not Pro met the burden of "God exists?"
Failure to answer here is your concession that you should have used the definitions in the rules which remain unchanged by additions in the first round where definitions are wont to go anyway.
What definition of god did you use, and tell bsh1 that you used this definition when weighing whether or not Pro met his burden.
"You changed the definitions in the body of the debate. "
1. the change did not change anything, show me how it changed if being and existence are the same thing in the definitions.
2. Also, if you feel that I changed the definitions and that they were different, why not revert to the definitions provided pre-debate,even though you know they're the same?
"It is laughable that someone who continually demands complete tabula rasa ignorance from all voters in all matters - now demands that voters insert their external opinion the moment tabula rasa doesn’t go your way."
It's not an opinion to follow agreed to definitions.
You are inserting your own definition of god that was nowhere in the debate.
Tell me right now what is the definition of god you used when weighing the debate...in order for your vote to make any sense, you have to use a definition to weigh if the definition was met by pro.
What was the definition of god that you used when weighing your debate?
You've yet to answer this, and this makes my rage reasonable.
The mods agree btw.
Get bsh1 to agree with how your approach isn't errant in voting someone down with definitions NOT IN THE DEBATE or description.
What was the definition of god you used when weighing your vote?
I just added the definitions to show my steps i took, nothing was actually changed
Can you tell me how the additional definitions made anything different?
You've yet to show that
I want you to run your voting approach by bsh1, particularly on this debate, and if he tells you you're correct I will shut the fuck up and concede you were right.
"If you feel that con:
- should have offered definitions in order for his argument to be valid"
When challenging definitions in debate, you necessarily provide another definition and you've failed to show Con's definition haven't you?
It's telling me I'm doing it wrong, but not offering anything better...you have to accept a substantiated definition over no definition.
"- incorrectly argued that an elephant could be considered as God"
Directly from the debate,
"god means EXACTLY what both debaters agreed to the meaning of god to be, "a superhuman existence worshiped for its powers over nature and human fortunes."
So, with this in mind, yes, god, to be superhuman, would need some powers greater than a human."
It was responded to an ignored by both voters.
"- incorrectly treated definitions of superhuman as the only part of the definition."
See above, I even referenced the agreed to definition with worship in mind.
"The best and most appropriate place to have put this, was in his final debate round 14 days ago. Not after voting is finished, and gave a result he doesn’t like."
I already put a safeguard to avoid all of this nonsense by having everyone agree before going in.
If you don't agree don't fucking go in!
Right, you should punish the guy trying to follow the rules that the definitions were agreed to.
The additional definitions did not change anything, and Con said NOTHING about the additional definitions.
Only my little anti-voter guys came up with that.
Also the definitions were agreed to by accepting, but who cares about the rules of a debate anyway?
The rest of the quote doesn't negate that the voter ignored that Pro pointed out worshiping the earth doesn't negate worshiping the sun.
Why would the voter ignore something like that, in order to say it didn't happen when it did?
Come on.
To be clear Con did not put a definition up for god in the debate?
see below
Here's what the voter put:
"For example, since an elephant is “stronger” than a man, this gives the elephant a “superhuman” trait according to Pro’s definition, and thus an elephant would be a “god” by such a definition."
The voter ignores that god must also be WORSHIPED in the definitions, and the so the voter ignorantly thinks that just being superhuman satisfies the definition. The voter is oblivious to the fact that the sun is worshiped for particular abilities that were demonstrated and conceded by Con.
Dishonest vote from a dishonest voter.
Voter also put:
"Con also points out that the earth itself shares many of the same traits which Pro attributed to the sun (size, shape, essential for life, etc), so why doesn’t Pro also worship the sun? Again, Pro had no real rebuttal to any of this,"
Pro agreed that the earth is also worshiped and as Pro also pointed out, which was ignored by voter, this didn't negate the sun being worshiped so the voter LIED and said Pro had no rebuttal to it...but Pro did, and it didn't effect the reasoning.
Look if voters can just come in at the last second, put in a vote that only can be substantiated by definitions NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEBATE, and have the vote stand, then we're not having actual votes on debates, it's just people going in and voting on, well any topic they like.
For some reason everyone who has voted Pro down in this thinks they have the correct definition of god, instead of just using the one Pro requested via the rules of the debate.
Look, if moderators care anything about voting integrity, you should make an example of such an egregious vote bomb antithetical to the spirit of debate.
When definitions are challenged in a debate, other definitions are provided...hey what definitions for god was Con using?
Please indicate the definitions Con used to challenge the definitions.
This should be good.
The last comment was directed at raltar not you
You know what's good voter conduct?
Waiting to the last minute to vote someone down.
Really cowardly given the voter knows the mods can't remove it.
In debate, definitions are posted 1st round, and given no other definitions provided by Con 1st round, you must accept the definitions provided.
I was kind enough to include the definitions pre-debate, but it's not required.
1st round definitions are normal.