I am proposing that the Flood of mass extinction used in Biblical Mythology happened, and was likely directed by a metaphysical being. So, yes, that restricts arguments to human history. :)
Just to clarify, in the last argument my opponent points this out:
"My opponent has contradicted himself as well, so is it slowing down or speeding up? This flaw in my opponents argument can't go unnoticed."
I would just like to clarify that this is a writing error on my part, not an error in argumentation! I meant to say "That isn't even considering the fact that the moon's recession rate was FASTER in the past!" I have changed the error!
What I tend to do is say, "According to ___, '____'"
I made a big lapse in judgement, and I ended up cutting a lot of that out to have enough space for the actual argumentation.
I then elaborate on those quotations in my own words.
Contrary to what you say, my "entire argument" was not copy and paste, but "cards" of evidence strung together by my argumentation.
Did I spare my own elaboration and paraphrasing WAY too much, and end up ripping off other sources? Yes, absolutely.
I regret it and would craft it differently in hindsight. It is plagiarism, but it is not the entirety of my case. I assure you, I did not need to cite sources to write my own arguments, I just assumed it would make things seem more credible.
Also, I never INTENDED to rip off other writers, it never crossed my mind that that was what I was doing.
Regardless, plagiarism or not, it has no relevance over whether my points are valid. They clearly still are.
It was a crappy thing to do on my part, even if I wasn't consciously choosing to plagiarize.
However, it makes no sense to me to dwell on it in an online forum.
Dr.Franklin is no such thing, he is not a “fake Christian” for questioning and interrogating the universe. In fact, the God of the Bible invites people to “come, reason with me.” I would wager he simply has not been exposed to the solid, rational explanations of Creation but more of blind ignorance such as what you are spewing here.
Given that without these sorts of arguments being exposed to Christians, it’s easy to see why so many compromise parts of the Bible with secular science in order to remain rational in thought. I was one such Christian. I am not anymore, but only because I had people explaining the rationality of the Bible rather than talking down to me as lesser.
You are counter-productive to your own cause, if anything at all.
Upon reflection, I should have made an effort to paraphrase. Thank you for pointing that out, I shall be more careful about that. Although it does not detract from my arguments, I overlooked that very lazily.
It's a good constructive, I enjoyed reading it. I will get back to you within the next day for sure. For clarification, I am not allowed to quote your case directly until round 2, correct?
Roughly; it is oral debate, so that's in of itself a difference.
They have ballots where they give each individual/pairs feedback, and give a "reason for decision."
The judging is supposed to be more of "who has better arguments, conduct and sources" and less of "who is more articulate/looks the hawtest."
Those things play a part, but they are not as significant in the judging--similar to what you guys have for grammar scores vs arguments scores.
This is actually the LD topic that I will be having to debate at the NSDA Nationals in Dallas this coming week. That's why I practiced some argumentation here, to get a feel for what others would say in response to my Con :)
I am proposing that the Flood of mass extinction used in Biblical Mythology happened, and was likely directed by a metaphysical being. So, yes, that restricts arguments to human history. :)
Just to clarify, in the last argument my opponent points this out:
"My opponent has contradicted himself as well, so is it slowing down or speeding up? This flaw in my opponents argument can't go unnoticed."
I would just like to clarify that this is a writing error on my part, not an error in argumentation! I meant to say "That isn't even considering the fact that the moon's recession rate was FASTER in the past!" I have changed the error!
What I tend to do is say, "According to ___, '____'"
I made a big lapse in judgement, and I ended up cutting a lot of that out to have enough space for the actual argumentation.
I then elaborate on those quotations in my own words.
Contrary to what you say, my "entire argument" was not copy and paste, but "cards" of evidence strung together by my argumentation.
Did I spare my own elaboration and paraphrasing WAY too much, and end up ripping off other sources? Yes, absolutely.
I regret it and would craft it differently in hindsight. It is plagiarism, but it is not the entirety of my case. I assure you, I did not need to cite sources to write my own arguments, I just assumed it would make things seem more credible.
Also, I never INTENDED to rip off other writers, it never crossed my mind that that was what I was doing.
Regardless, plagiarism or not, it has no relevance over whether my points are valid. They clearly still are.
It was a crappy thing to do on my part, even if I wasn't consciously choosing to plagiarize.
However, it makes no sense to me to dwell on it in an online forum.
Dr.Franklin is no such thing, he is not a “fake Christian” for questioning and interrogating the universe. In fact, the God of the Bible invites people to “come, reason with me.” I would wager he simply has not been exposed to the solid, rational explanations of Creation but more of blind ignorance such as what you are spewing here.
Given that without these sorts of arguments being exposed to Christians, it’s easy to see why so many compromise parts of the Bible with secular science in order to remain rational in thought. I was one such Christian. I am not anymore, but only because I had people explaining the rationality of the Bible rather than talking down to me as lesser.
You are counter-productive to your own cause, if anything at all.
Upon reflection, I should have made an effort to paraphrase. Thank you for pointing that out, I shall be more careful about that. Although it does not detract from my arguments, I overlooked that very lazily.
My constructive is posted!
Alright, thanks
It's a good constructive, I enjoyed reading it. I will get back to you within the next day for sure. For clarification, I am not allowed to quote your case directly until round 2, correct?
Roughly; it is oral debate, so that's in of itself a difference.
They have ballots where they give each individual/pairs feedback, and give a "reason for decision."
The judging is supposed to be more of "who has better arguments, conduct and sources" and less of "who is more articulate/looks the hawtest."
Those things play a part, but they are not as significant in the judging--similar to what you guys have for grammar scores vs arguments scores.
I do hope we maintain good conduct throughout this.
This is actually the LD topic that I will be having to debate at the NSDA Nationals in Dallas this coming week. That's why I practiced some argumentation here, to get a feel for what others would say in response to my Con :)
Good job on this one, schooled him easy.
Good debate! Gave me proper run for my money! We will see who is the victor during judging :)
There is none, you win