Yeah, he is part of the group of dishonest tumors on this site who seek to cheapen the voting by posting contrarian votes, i.e. it's way obvious who actually won, but they want to see what ridiculous votes they can get by the moderation, and when they do this, they have to block you or their dashboard will be constantly flooded with dissension from you and all of the other debaters they've wronged.
They hit and run because they're cowards and they know they're wrong.
Raltar's just really obvious about it all; he has zero integrity.
Though you blocked me, thanks for clarifying you're not threatening on me on here.
Look man, I'm not really that bad a guy, so if you ever wish to unblock me and we could has out things, we don't have to hate each other. We may have common ground. If not, I understand too.
Well just a general reminder I'm here if anyone needs clarification on the vote.
I don't run from interaction because I'm on an internet debate website for said interaction.
Also, if there is something wrong with what I've done, I'm actually willing to remedy it if someone would just ask me about it.
Raltar blocked me because I asked him if he wanted to talk about his vote in the comments or in private messages and he blocked me.
That's it.
He placed a vote on me and ran way because he isn't adult enough to take on the push back...he blocks because he's afraid.
But the refute to Con's argument, that people who would be getting these high caloric drinks are unhealthy because of the high caloric drink they prefer to ingest, was that Con was committing an ad hominem, and because Con effectively negated that charge of ad hominem with Pro's own source on the matter Con batted down any impact Pro's argument attempted to have in refuting Con.
Misconduct should be reported to moderation rather than complained about in the forums. Even if an accusation or complaint is justified, it is not permissible to threaten another user on the basis of those accusations or complaints. Allow moderation to handle the situation. Threats are, for the purposes of this policy, personal attacks. They are not tolerated. Threats include (but are not limited to):
Threats of legal action.
Threats of violence (even oblique ones).
Threats of "Doxxing" someone, particularly if the threat implies exposing the user to political, religious or other persecution.
Threats of moderator reporting or moderator action.
I placed a thorough, honest vote on a debate that needed a vote.
If there are problems with the vote then present them, but I hardly think I should be threatened for putting up a vote, no?
If you are threatening me with consequences for voting, is that violating CoC?
Huh?
What does justice have to do with my vote?
If you find flaw in my vote, just ask me about it, I don't run away when approached, it's probably why I'm a good wrestler and coach i suppose.
Ok, you're judging me based on my one counter intuitive debate that you now admit didn't see coming and got sucked into, and so you see me as shady or whatever.
But if you knew anything about me on DDO it's that I was one of the good guys, giving newbies tips, voting really thorough and fair RFDs, I was even part of the voter's union.
I constantly would report votes for me because they were inadequate or were dishonest, even though in my favor.
I'm a teacher, I'm here to discuss and learn justr as much as I'm here to get people to think about linguistic trickery differently
"The omnipotence argument seemed silly to me because the definition that con uses is not the definition that is backed by oxford."
Did Pro make this point, that the definition or the argument was silly because it wasn't backed up by some source?
If you answer no to this, I urge you to remove your vote.
Raltar is one of the members of this site who is hellbent on being dishonest with his approach to debating in, interacting during, and voting on debates, to the extent he has to use a very cowardly maneuver called a "hit and run."
Cowards who use "hit and run" will lie about something to hurt your standing or argument and, when encountered about their dishonesty, block your interaction with them so they can digitally run away because they're not adult or brave enough to defend their obvious lies...by the way Raltar runs funny when he's running from defending an obvious lie.
"The omnipotence argument seemed silly to me because the definition that con uses is not the definition that is backed by oxford."
Did Pro make this point, that the definition or the argument was silly because it wasn't backed up by some source?
If you answer no to this, I urge you to remove your vote.
"It seems to me that this is simply con's interpretation of what that means"
Which was unchallenged by Pro, right?
"which I can say is not really correct."
Are you voting on what Pro says is not really correct or are you voting on what YOU say is not really correct?
" I think instigator addresses this satisfactorily."
Really?
Give an example.
"In the end, I think instigator argued better:"
Because of what YOU thought of or what the debater brought up?
1. Did Pro respond to the claim that any action considered by him to be moral is reducible to homeostasis?
2. Did Pro ever answer the question, without time how does Pro know the universe didn't create god?
3. Did Pro ever counter that without spacetime, creation is impossible?
I'm going to let you know that he didn't, and these are all resolution-impacting points.
You have to analyze Pro's performance for what Pro did, and because of the forfeit and the mispost, Pro did not fulfill his entire burden which was to show:
1. an entity not limited in power, in terms of number, quantity, or extent i.e. has all powers
2. an entity not limited in knowledge i.e. has all knowledge
3. an entity not limited in goodness, in terms of extent
4. an entity that used the process of creation to bring about the origin of the universe and therefore spacetime
5. an entity that exercises dominion over said originated universe
6. an entity that serves as a source of the principles concerning right and wrong with respect to the ways in which one acts towards others.
If Pro did not counter any of the charges that Con brought up for each of these, then you cannot vote Pro.
I mean this is ridiculous that I have to explain this when it's obvious from the forfeit and mispost that this debate goes to Con.
Stop voting your opinions.
"You not understanding what God means does not shift the burden of proof to instigator."
My understanding of god is irrelevant, what do the definitions of god in the debate say?
That's the definition of god to be talked about, no other definitions.
"Sorry, I found instigator more convincing."
It's ok to find the instigator more convincing, but to say that Pro met their burden without showing how they met their burden, you're voting in how YOU would counter these arguments, not the debater.
Also, you ignoring the obvious drops by Pro is unfair.
Are you aware of Pro's drops, or no?
"You said there could be objective morality without God, but that doesn't make sense because there is no objectivity without God."
Ok, while it may not make sense to you, you need to show HOW Pro countered this, not how you think it should have been countered.
The truth is, that Pro never countered my homeostasis examples and you simply ignored that.
" I find it much more difficult to believe that everything began to exist out of nothing for no reason than to believe that everything came into being because of a cause."
While it's nice to know how you perceive things, it's irrelevant to HOW the debater countered my quantum fluctuation argument and the argument of temporal creation.
Did you consider these things when you voted?
I know, but the rules of the debate have voters considering all resolution impacting points. As it stands, you've mentioned none of them. Again, thank you for your vote, but if you could analyze points like the creation of the universe, omnipotence, and objective morality, you can put up a solid vote to show how Pro's burden, to prove a creator of the universe, was met or not met. Rewrite it and include all resolution-impacting points. Otherwise it might get removed.
While I appreciate the vote, and realize it's for me, it is in no way thorough enough or addresses all of the resolution impacting points. Also, you can't vote your opinion, you have to vote on debater performance.
I appreciate you voting, but if Pro did not respond to all of Con's contentions that directly impact the resolution and show how Pro has not met his burden, you can't give Pro argument points because of YOUR thoughts on how there is absolute truth, or there must be a creator. You have to vote based on debater performance, and even Pro in this case has mentioned that he did not meet his burden.
I ask that you reconsider your vote to reflect debater performance instead of your own opinions about it.
You stated in your RFD that I won arguments because the burden was not met, but you didn't award me points because you need to analyze it further?
You said tri omni was not met, you can't just give me the points?
1. Is the ability to fly a power that god has?
2. Is the ability to fly "triangling a circle?"
3. Birds can fly and are not limited by unnatural means yet to admit that god could fly, would be to admit his utter submission to the laws of gravity and aerodynamics and that he needs to maneuver around them to travel distance in the air, so is god still omnipotent given this natural lack of an ability to fly?
""having power in terms of authority and as well as the ability not limited or restricted, by any unnatural means in terms of number, quantity, or extent; able to do anything, that is not a logical absurdity like to triangle a circle."
This definition makes you and I both omnipotent just like that definition of golf made baseball golf.
"Nobody can violate logic, even god. He is still omnipotent, it is just nonsense to ask if he can do shit like "make a square octupus rectangle himself blu in the basketball" nonsense,"
Why is it nonsense when the claim is that god is UNLIMITED?
That's the nonsense part.
"no less sensible than trying to refute omnipotence by asking if he can make a rock even he can't move or hwatever lame scenario kids are talking about these days."
Why is it not sensible, if the claim is that god is able to do anything, as nearly every definition of all powerful i.e. omni-potent corroborates, for god to be UNABLE to violate logic would be a direct contradiction and if he does violate logic then the power to infinitely remain logical is not possessed by him and thus is limited in the number of powers...it's not omnipotence, period.
It's not about the loss it's about the learn.
You will learn so much you won't care if you win or lose.
Awesome, take the debate.
Some's gotta want to defend humans here.
Oh, i figured it was a mistake.
Dude what gives man?
He full forfeited!
Yeah, he is part of the group of dishonest tumors on this site who seek to cheapen the voting by posting contrarian votes, i.e. it's way obvious who actually won, but they want to see what ridiculous votes they can get by the moderation, and when they do this, they have to block you or their dashboard will be constantly flooded with dissension from you and all of the other debaters they've wronged.
They hit and run because they're cowards and they know they're wrong.
Raltar's just really obvious about it all; he has zero integrity.
Though you blocked me, thanks for clarifying you're not threatening on me on here.
Look man, I'm not really that bad a guy, so if you ever wish to unblock me and we could has out things, we don't have to hate each other. We may have common ground. If not, I understand too.
Well just a general reminder I'm here if anyone needs clarification on the vote.
I don't run from interaction because I'm on an internet debate website for said interaction.
Also, if there is something wrong with what I've done, I'm actually willing to remedy it if someone would just ask me about it.
Oh my bad.
The person asked why he blocked him and the answer was that he's a coward...that's it.
Raltar blocked me because I asked him if he wanted to talk about his vote in the comments or in private messages and he blocked me.
That's it.
He placed a vote on me and ran way because he isn't adult enough to take on the push back...he blocks because he's afraid.
Did Con post a link in his 3rd round?
Am I allowed to analyze content within the debate?
Iron clad.
The vote is iron clad.
But the refute to Con's argument, that people who would be getting these high caloric drinks are unhealthy because of the high caloric drink they prefer to ingest, was that Con was committing an ad hominem, and because Con effectively negated that charge of ad hominem with Pro's own source on the matter Con batted down any impact Pro's argument attempted to have in refuting Con.
You got me all wrong man.
Your boy wronged me first, not the other way around, btw.
Do you have any contentions with the vote?
If not, I don;t see why I'm considered to be harassing.
I believe you said something to the effect of:
"Either way you're no longer his issue for long. The worse harassment has consequences"
Hey what's that last one say?
Misconduct should be reported to moderation rather than complained about in the forums. Even if an accusation or complaint is justified, it is not permissible to threaten another user on the basis of those accusations or complaints. Allow moderation to handle the situation. Threats are, for the purposes of this policy, personal attacks. They are not tolerated. Threats include (but are not limited to):
Threats of legal action.
Threats of violence (even oblique ones).
Threats of "Doxxing" someone, particularly if the threat implies exposing the user to political, religious or other persecution.
Threats of moderator reporting or moderator action.
I placed a thorough, honest vote on a debate that needed a vote.
If there are problems with the vote then present them, but I hardly think I should be threatened for putting up a vote, no?
If you are threatening me with consequences for voting, is that violating CoC?
If you want to break CoC then private message me, I can handle it.
Huh?
What does justice have to do with my vote?
If you find flaw in my vote, just ask me about it, I don't run away when approached, it's probably why I'm a good wrestler and coach i suppose.
Ok, you're judging me based on my one counter intuitive debate that you now admit didn't see coming and got sucked into, and so you see me as shady or whatever.
But if you knew anything about me on DDO it's that I was one of the good guys, giving newbies tips, voting really thorough and fair RFDs, I was even part of the voter's union.
I constantly would report votes for me because they were inadequate or were dishonest, even though in my favor.
I'm a teacher, I'm here to discuss and learn justr as much as I'm here to get people to think about linguistic trickery differently
Huh, that's funny, I remember a bunch of irrelevant sources and Con using Pro's source way better...is something amiss?
Oh, I'm well aware of the source points making sense.
It's like, man Con used that source so much better, right?
Nice.
I really tried to be tabula rasa...I think it showed.
Accept and find out
This one's not a counter-intuitive debate, it's exactly what it says it is.
The best part is, I won't run away from any questions about my vote...I'm not a coward.
Oh, what do ya know...no votes yet...
"The omnipotence argument seemed silly to me because the definition that con uses is not the definition that is backed by oxford."
Did Pro make this point, that the definition or the argument was silly because it wasn't backed up by some source?
If you answer no to this, I urge you to remove your vote.
Raltar is one of the members of this site who is hellbent on being dishonest with his approach to debating in, interacting during, and voting on debates, to the extent he has to use a very cowardly maneuver called a "hit and run."
Cowards who use "hit and run" will lie about something to hurt your standing or argument and, when encountered about their dishonesty, block your interaction with them so they can digitally run away because they're not adult or brave enough to defend their obvious lies...by the way Raltar runs funny when he's running from defending an obvious lie.
That's why he blocked you.
Ok, well I urge you to urge the mods to remove it.
"The omnipotence argument seemed silly to me because the definition that con uses is not the definition that is backed by oxford."
Did Pro make this point, that the definition or the argument was silly because it wasn't backed up by some source?
If you answer no to this, I urge you to remove your vote.
"It seems to me that this is simply con's interpretation of what that means"
Which was unchallenged by Pro, right?
"which I can say is not really correct."
Are you voting on what Pro says is not really correct or are you voting on what YOU say is not really correct?
" I think instigator addresses this satisfactorily."
Really?
Give an example.
"In the end, I think instigator argued better:"
Because of what YOU thought of or what the debater brought up?
Can you chime in on this being the debater in this silly vote.
Please tell Mopac what's up.
Ok, please respond to my questions first.
1. Did Pro respond to the claim that any action considered by him to be moral is reducible to homeostasis?
2. Did Pro ever answer the question, without time how does Pro know the universe didn't create god?
3. Did Pro ever counter that without spacetime, creation is impossible?
I'm going to let you know that he didn't, and these are all resolution-impacting points.
You have to analyze Pro's performance for what Pro did, and because of the forfeit and the mispost, Pro did not fulfill his entire burden which was to show:
1. an entity not limited in power, in terms of number, quantity, or extent i.e. has all powers
2. an entity not limited in knowledge i.e. has all knowledge
3. an entity not limited in goodness, in terms of extent
4. an entity that used the process of creation to bring about the origin of the universe and therefore spacetime
5. an entity that exercises dominion over said originated universe
6. an entity that serves as a source of the principles concerning right and wrong with respect to the ways in which one acts towards others.
If Pro did not counter any of the charges that Con brought up for each of these, then you cannot vote Pro.
I mean this is ridiculous that I have to explain this when it's obvious from the forfeit and mispost that this debate goes to Con.
Stop voting your opinions.
In your reading of the arguments, did Pro drop any arguments...be honest
"You not understanding what God means does not shift the burden of proof to instigator."
My understanding of god is irrelevant, what do the definitions of god in the debate say?
That's the definition of god to be talked about, no other definitions.
"Sorry, I found instigator more convincing."
It's ok to find the instigator more convincing, but to say that Pro met their burden without showing how they met their burden, you're voting in how YOU would counter these arguments, not the debater.
Also, you ignoring the obvious drops by Pro is unfair.
Are you aware of Pro's drops, or no?
"You said there could be objective morality without God, but that doesn't make sense because there is no objectivity without God."
Ok, while it may not make sense to you, you need to show HOW Pro countered this, not how you think it should have been countered.
The truth is, that Pro never countered my homeostasis examples and you simply ignored that.
" I find it much more difficult to believe that everything began to exist out of nothing for no reason than to believe that everything came into being because of a cause."
While it's nice to know how you perceive things, it's irrelevant to HOW the debater countered my quantum fluctuation argument and the argument of temporal creation.
Did you consider these things when you voted?
I know, but the rules of the debate have voters considering all resolution impacting points. As it stands, you've mentioned none of them. Again, thank you for your vote, but if you could analyze points like the creation of the universe, omnipotence, and objective morality, you can put up a solid vote to show how Pro's burden, to prove a creator of the universe, was met or not met. Rewrite it and include all resolution-impacting points. Otherwise it might get removed.
While I appreciate the vote, and realize it's for me, it is in no way thorough enough or addresses all of the resolution impacting points. Also, you can't vote your opinion, you have to vote on debater performance.
Looks like I'm gonna need those argument points bud.
A forfeit and a misposted round are not enough to fend off theist voters.
Look at the comment below for Mopac's vote please.
I appreciate you voting, but if Pro did not respond to all of Con's contentions that directly impact the resolution and show how Pro has not met his burden, you can't give Pro argument points because of YOUR thoughts on how there is absolute truth, or there must be a creator. You have to vote based on debater performance, and even Pro in this case has mentioned that he did not meet his burden.
I ask that you reconsider your vote to reflect debater performance instead of your own opinions about it.
You stated in your RFD that I won arguments because the burden was not met, but you didn't award me points because you need to analyze it further?
You said tri omni was not met, you can't just give me the points?
Ok.
1. Is the ability to fly a power that god has?
2. Is the ability to fly "triangling a circle?"
3. Birds can fly and are not limited by unnatural means yet to admit that god could fly, would be to admit his utter submission to the laws of gravity and aerodynamics and that he needs to maneuver around them to travel distance in the air, so is god still omnipotent given this natural lack of an ability to fly?
""having power in terms of authority and as well as the ability not limited or restricted, by any unnatural means in terms of number, quantity, or extent; able to do anything, that is not a logical absurdity like to triangle a circle."
This definition makes you and I both omnipotent just like that definition of golf made baseball golf.
"Nobody can violate logic, even god. He is still omnipotent, it is just nonsense to ask if he can do shit like "make a square octupus rectangle himself blu in the basketball" nonsense,"
Why is it nonsense when the claim is that god is UNLIMITED?
That's the nonsense part.
"no less sensible than trying to refute omnipotence by asking if he can make a rock even he can't move or hwatever lame scenario kids are talking about these days."
Why is it not sensible, if the claim is that god is able to do anything, as nearly every definition of all powerful i.e. omni-potent corroborates, for god to be UNABLE to violate logic would be a direct contradiction and if he does violate logic then the power to infinitely remain logical is not possessed by him and thus is limited in the number of powers...it's not omnipotence, period.
Look at you run away...you run funny!