MisterChris

I suppose you could argue such a thing, but it would falter ultimately.

Morality can be objective because every person appeals to the same set of principles.

While a lot of people evaluate music as good if it has a certain melody, rhythm, or lyrics... those principles have way too much variation within themselves to be any consistent measure of objective standards. And enough people denounce those standards entirely, such as people who prefer instrumental music, or those who would rather listen to a tribal drumline than Katy Perry, that they can't be chalked up to be flukes of nature.

It affects percentage and your total number of won/lost debates, but not your rating.

I mean, I almost hit the ceiling once (in my tournament debate with Speed) but it was a non-issue.

lol. I'm mostly joking, but that Razor is a really solid response

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7:0; 7 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action: As this debate was conceded, the votes are non-moderated (except in the rare circumstance that someone votes in favor of the conceded party).

You're welcome for telling you how to handle Seldiora's inevitable semantics argument

AKA "Respond to what I meant, not what I said you turd."

And that's when the handy-dandy Grice's razor comes into play:
"As a principle of parsimony, conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for linguistic explanations."

And even if it were, I think we've already demonstrated how extrapolating Seldiora's stance to justify actions is a logical fallacy.

I feel like this is less of a representation of Seldiora's stance on the issue and more of Seldiora trying to cop the win.

Still not seeing what you're going for but ok

Lol, I should hope not. I don't even know how you could tie vegetative people into this.

Keep in mind that nothing you put in the comments actually counts in the debate, although that article was interesting to read

Definitely. If I were PRO, I would have argued that:

a. Humanity needs to act now to stop climate change from irreversibly harming our planet.
b. If humans do not stop climate change, it will exacerbate our resource supply exponentially leading to mass death and conflict.
c. Banning abortion worldwide will no-doubt be a lengthy and hard-fought goal, meaning the world will miss out on addressing climate change. The direct impact is a resource crisis.
d. The eventual banning of abortion results in a population surplus, thus exacerbating the situation even more.

All good stuff. I can think of some refutations to the stuff about what a CON world looks like, but it would have definitely given me a lot more trouble.

Also, I promise the Uncertainty Principle is a good argument, I just happen to be really bad at copy-pasting apparently lmao

You could have won, I think. If I were in your position, I would start going through the worst possible estimates of death tolls, crop eradication, droughts, natural disasters, etc. Maybe factor in the possibilities of war over resources too. I think it also would've been beneficial for you to establish that in the status quo, what we are doing to curb global warming is not even close to enough. Additionally, there were some stuff I argued you could've turned against me that you didn't.

Anyway, thanks a lot for voting!

"Con loses a lot of ground by missing out on arguing the Uncertainty Principle, which would have put the weight on his side for this"

That was such a facepalm moment for me! Next time I use it it won't be a flop I promise xD

Sorry for the incessant pings. I was trying to fix my vote and was having trouble. I wanted to give PRO more credit than I gave them initially in the first vote

Bump for votes

Gish galloping means to present a lot of individually weak arguments. As you can see, I've only made 3 main arguments. I would want the extra space to elaborate on my points more.

Can't blame you for thinking so. Choosing between two worldwide disasters based on their severity is an inherently egregious and unsettling topic

I will say, if you want a repeat on a topic like this, you need a higher character limit

Hopefully you see now where I am coming from at least?

we've been over this before, go look at our previous debate

I mean, I would agree? I just don't think that's actually happening.

You should try challenging Ragnar or Virtuoso to a debate like this.

ok thanks. I probably won't be accepting as I have two debates. However, I may take you up on it later

I would suggest to put the exact syllogism of the argument you want to use for the debate. That was one thing that kept me from taking it last time.

Yeah that really screwed you on sources, and I couldn't trace down some of them

If you'll note my debate with RM (which I won, by the way), it is simply a matter of dismantling the assumption of systematic corruption.

I am not fond of the practice of insulting other users through debate topics.

This is definitely considered a call-out debate. Do you want it taken down?

I don't think you're getting it. Even if you do cite PRO, you are literally only doing so to prove your own agenda that, lo and behold, the debate is a falsism.

"Con literally has 0 contentions that are true, literally. Just a series of disinformation and lies"

uh-huh, sure

Sure, you may think it is an objective fact, in your OPINION. That is your prerogative. But clearly others do not share that belief. So, then, you can not treat the debate as if it were a falsism and be justified.

It's entirely your prerogative to feel that way, I just think you should try and give an illusion of objectivity when voting

Something tells me you were a little too biased to be voting on this debate to begin with

For the sake of comedy, please accept this debate

On a further note, I hope someone had redirected you to here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346-about-dart-resources-for-new-members

You will find a list of debate jargon that can really help you figure out what's going on.

Then, there's the official debate guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CJQT_PS9k82QkgrsyTQMKaQ90uY9yubVT0KPMR9XFcc/edit

Ragnar has made a really good guide for formatting debates: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wgEoU2M4k7PvJZzvbwrjw8nOomkYqnBpDaLR4igvMe0/edit#heading=h.4gchlr7uwv2c

All of these resources will really help you become more competitive

I'm very glad you figured out how to use the quote format tool, it makes your debates a lot better on the eyes

Witness and be amazed JRob!

Since it's short, I'll bite.

I think he just likes to stick it to the formal debate community, personally

Yeah, but it doesn't matter that much lmao. It was funny

edited

Precisely. I don't consider it worth the time to debate tbh.

Not going to go after the low-hanging fruit this time around...that said, I'm curious why PRO argues this.

Stealing our topic I see >:(((((((((((((((((

Thief!!!!