Going through some of my opponents arguments has made me realise a lot about how the perceptions others (particularly the active community of DART and the people in this comments section hold for certain users are not at all an accurate representation of their debating skill or honesty.
I look forward to the end of this debate!
Please note that my round 3 argument is a placement of my ROUND TWO argument
For an explanation: Last round was not forfeited by will of my own, but because of a glitch in the site upon posting my argument, similar to the glitch reportedly experienced by former user Incel_Chud in this debate I had with him https://www.debateart.com/debates/3357-women-should-be-the-property-of-men#
I have contacted the Mods about this but they cannot do anything for now. This was my round two argument and let it serve as my conclusion as well.
As I DID NOT FORFERIT because of my own will, and I have a justified reason, therefore I appeal that conduct is not take from me
"CON doesn't point out that his/her source says that the conclusion is both invalid and fallacious because it uses the divide by zero operation in the wrong way (anything divided by zero is undefined)"
---You are incorrect, the error can be demonstrated simply by considering human history, there was a time when the vast majority of humanity fervently believed in animism, that the sky was a fabric dome of some kind, etc.... including the "authorities", a logical form that only works in one cultural context is inherently fallacious as it contradicts the same form in all other contexts. Contrast with valid logic such as a mathematical proof, it does not depend on whether shamans out number PhDs---
Again, following the Neil Degrase Tyson aborition example, normative statements can't be justified by authority. POSITIVE statements absolutely can, because they are grounded in empricism, and evidence. I presented this evidence by explaining cosmic inflation, sourcing that it has been proven to be true, and asserting that this appears to be a scientific consensus.
---Not if the argument is invalid---
The argument is both sound and valid. The premises lead to the conclusion and each premise is true
You are so confidently wrong on this, stop embarrassing yourself.
--"That would be like saying "every scientist has accepted models that have proven the earth is round" is an appeal to authority."
It is, and it has no place in formal debate--
You clearly have no understanding of how a debate works, and have never been in one.
Again, if such a large proportion of authorities assert something, it isn't fallacious in any way.
Appeal to Authority: Neil Degrase Tyson says abortion is not wrong therefore aborion isn't wrong
Debate Claim: 98% of physicists have accepted cosmic inflation as various aspects of the theory have been proven
--There are a lot of problems with the framing of this debate, but without getting into those the above argument is a non-sequiter. In order for it to be valid p3 (mislabeled) would have to be: IF cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang THEN multiverse--
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The premise is true, therefore it is a justified statement. As long as I prove each premise to be true, the argument is sound. I have proven each premise to be true and therefore the argument is sound.
You cherrypicked one statement of me saying
"Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse"
Whereas my argument was on the basis of
p1) cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang
p2) cosmic inlfation has been proven to be true and is a scientific consensus (like the earth being round)
p2) inflation occurs diversely and inflationary models almost all lead to the multiverse
c) Therefore the multiverse is a possibility
No, listen.
It's irrelevant who says it, these are facts.
I cited that cosmic inflation has been proven to be true in many aspects therefore leading most astrological physicists to accept it. An appeal to authority isn't such when you cite the specific authorities of a field of study.
That would be like saying "every scientist has accepted models that have proven the earth is round" is an appeal to authority.
If 99% of an authroity in a feild asserts somthing it isn't fallacious
"Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse.
Following the big bang, the dispense of energy and matter created the inflation of the Universe or as Nasa states the "extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments."
As these theories assert "when the universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others" [4].
Following this idea, subsections or "bubbles" of spacetime likely were created and developed; leading to the possibility of their development into other universes. "
"it's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously" [7]"
I'm sorry but you have to be completely bonkers to say my whole argument is an appeal to authority.
I mean, did you even read?
I specifically argue that cosmic inflation models all lead to the multiverse. How can you be dishonest?
What appeals to authority? I just quoted scientific consensus, made an argument for the multiverse, and pointed out that PRO dropped it. As in, they literally did not even adress it, even when I was glitched out of a round
"very clearly implies the proponent will argue along the same lines as conservatives and religious fundamentalists who advocate for creationism to be taught alongside evolution"
Implying that a resolution must conforms to his own specific assumptions. This is not allowed in voting, and the vote must be removed
Jeff Goldblum has cast a vote that lies about me being bad faith or making a semantic ambush. It's completely biased and the conduct point is not justified
If it is tempting you should accept.
Not only am I more than happy to defeat you, I will avenge the amount of times you have cast biased, dishonest, and bad-faith votes againt me
Its a win win on all sides for me.
Can someone please cast another vote. All of the votes were removed and the the same person that casted a previously bad vote has obviously done so again
"by looking at GDP per capita which Singapore's is over 50,00 and Mexico is around 8000"
Just so you know this is meant to be "50,000" it was a slight error.
But in that scenario, your vote was the really bad one.
Ragnar actually made a decent one there, but at least he did the right thing,
That debate was a destruction of the oponent on my part
1. 333...is just another way of writing 1/3 just as 2/6 is. It is not approximate at all. I already proved this, so I think you are either being purposely annoying or just too lazy to actually regard the fact.
2. I don't know if you are being genuinely dumb here, but I have told you that I specifically responded to this, and you just repeat the same thing. The answer would resolve to undefined. Even Wikipedia uses it as an example of fallacious mathematics. Regardless it's completely irrelevant.
Are you a little off because I responded directly to that in my round 3, debunking it easily.
CON's spelling, grammar, and organization was horrible so I believe that goes to me.
Conduct to me because CON used a curse word in round 3.
Arguments to me because CON did not refute any of my arguments and I refuted all of theirs. Both mathematical proofs were still upheld by the end of the debate
I think it may be more of the very last thing you wrote
The resolution is creationism should be taught in schools, and I argued that creationism should be taught in schools.
Anyone who thinks I have made a single Kritik is completely wrong, and has no understanding of what the term means
Some people are so incompetent they can't even manage to cast a propper vote. It's absolutely revolting and reading this almost made me vomit in my mouth
Thanks and no problem, I understand people have lives and not everyone has time to vote
Imagine waving the first round in a two round debate
Let's keep it that I am not saying anything about anyone.
Going through some of my opponents arguments has made me realise a lot about how the perceptions others (particularly the active community of DART and the people in this comments section hold for certain users are not at all an accurate representation of their debating skill or honesty.
I look forward to the end of this debate!
thanks a lot!
TIme is running out fast, and I hope someone is able to vote on this.
I don't want a voteless tie again
Thank you very much for voting!
Please note that my round 3 argument is a placement of my ROUND TWO argument
For an explanation: Last round was not forfeited by will of my own, but because of a glitch in the site upon posting my argument, similar to the glitch reportedly experienced by former user Incel_Chud in this debate I had with him https://www.debateart.com/debates/3357-women-should-be-the-property-of-men#
I have contacted the Mods about this but they cannot do anything for now. This was my round two argument and let it serve as my conclusion as well.
As I DID NOT FORFERIT because of my own will, and I have a justified reason, therefore I appeal that conduct is not take from me
Regardless, thanks for your consideration
Please Vote!
CON literally agreed to the resolution...
VERY SHORT DEBATE, that would be good for any of you to kindly VOTE for!
I really hope they accept it.
I am very eager to debate the LGBTQ people within the site, and (hopefully) beat every single one of them
This debate should have a larger pool of interest than it currently has.
LMAO
I did say that
"CON doesn't point out that his/her source says that the conclusion is both invalid and fallacious because it uses the divide by zero operation in the wrong way (anything divided by zero is undefined)"
Following this, I will accept it as a concession and droping all all my points.
---You are incorrect, the error can be demonstrated simply by considering human history, there was a time when the vast majority of humanity fervently believed in animism, that the sky was a fabric dome of some kind, etc.... including the "authorities", a logical form that only works in one cultural context is inherently fallacious as it contradicts the same form in all other contexts. Contrast with valid logic such as a mathematical proof, it does not depend on whether shamans out number PhDs---
Again, following the Neil Degrase Tyson aborition example, normative statements can't be justified by authority. POSITIVE statements absolutely can, because they are grounded in empricism, and evidence. I presented this evidence by explaining cosmic inflation, sourcing that it has been proven to be true, and asserting that this appears to be a scientific consensus.
---Not if the argument is invalid---
The argument is both sound and valid. The premises lead to the conclusion and each premise is true
Perhaps you should admit being wrong on this
Please vote!
You are so confidently wrong on this, stop embarrassing yourself.
--"That would be like saying "every scientist has accepted models that have proven the earth is round" is an appeal to authority."
It is, and it has no place in formal debate--
You clearly have no understanding of how a debate works, and have never been in one.
Again, if such a large proportion of authorities assert something, it isn't fallacious in any way.
Appeal to Authority: Neil Degrase Tyson says abortion is not wrong therefore aborion isn't wrong
Debate Claim: 98% of physicists have accepted cosmic inflation as various aspects of the theory have been proven
--There are a lot of problems with the framing of this debate, but without getting into those the above argument is a non-sequiter. In order for it to be valid p3 (mislabeled) would have to be: IF cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang THEN multiverse--
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The premise is true, therefore it is a justified statement. As long as I prove each premise to be true, the argument is sound. I have proven each premise to be true and therefore the argument is sound.
you are extemely ignorant and it shows
You cherrypicked one statement of me saying
"Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse"
Whereas my argument was on the basis of
p1) cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang
p2) cosmic inlfation has been proven to be true and is a scientific consensus (like the earth being round)
p2) inflation occurs diversely and inflationary models almost all lead to the multiverse
c) Therefore the multiverse is a possibility
No, listen.
It's irrelevant who says it, these are facts.
I cited that cosmic inflation has been proven to be true in many aspects therefore leading most astrological physicists to accept it. An appeal to authority isn't such when you cite the specific authorities of a field of study.
That would be like saying "every scientist has accepted models that have proven the earth is round" is an appeal to authority.
If 99% of an authroity in a feild asserts somthing it isn't fallacious
I am just tagging some people to vote because time is running out.
Please vote!
"Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse.
Following the big bang, the dispense of energy and matter created the inflation of the Universe or as Nasa states the "extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments."
As these theories assert "when the universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others" [4].
Following this idea, subsections or "bubbles" of spacetime likely were created and developed; leading to the possibility of their development into other universes. "
"it's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously" [7]"
I'm sorry but you have to be completely bonkers to say my whole argument is an appeal to authority.
I mean, did you even read?
I specifically argue that cosmic inflation models all lead to the multiverse. How can you be dishonest?
What appeals to authority? I just quoted scientific consensus, made an argument for the multiverse, and pointed out that PRO dropped it. As in, they literally did not even adress it, even when I was glitched out of a round
Please vote if you can. I tagged whiteflame just because, and I tagged you because you commented in the debate
Please vote
PLEASE VOTE
Please vote
Please vote. Time is running out and I can't have another unovted tie
The pain of defeat
leaves me once again
crestfallen
Something went wrong with my round.
It was not supposed to forfeit
please vote
We will see, indeed.
The pain of a tie, in a debate I know that I have won.
This moron further states:
"very clearly implies the proponent will argue along the same lines as conservatives and religious fundamentalists who advocate for creationism to be taught alongside evolution"
Implying that a resolution must conforms to his own specific assumptions. This is not allowed in voting, and the vote must be removed
Jeff Goldblum has cast a vote that lies about me being bad faith or making a semantic ambush. It's completely biased and the conduct point is not justified
I don't believe you actually accepted.
You had the undefeated streak. I don't believe you actually accepted this...no way
"Systemic racism is why others did not stop him and why he felt it was okay to stop Floyd breathing"
Systemic racism is a conspiracy theory
If it is tempting you should accept.
Not only am I more than happy to defeat you, I will avenge the amount of times you have cast biased, dishonest, and bad-faith votes againt me
Its a win win on all sides for me.
No...is this a joke?
Please Vote!
Can someone please cast another vote. All of the votes were removed and the the same person that casted a previously bad vote has obviously done so again
"by looking at GDP per capita which Singapore's is over 50,00 and Mexico is around 8000"
Just so you know this is meant to be "50,000" it was a slight error.
But in that scenario, your vote was the really bad one.
Ragnar actually made a decent one there, but at least he did the right thing,
That debate was a destruction of the oponent on my part
1. 333...is just another way of writing 1/3 just as 2/6 is. It is not approximate at all. I already proved this, so I think you are either being purposely annoying or just too lazy to actually regard the fact.
2. I don't know if you are being genuinely dumb here, but I have told you that I specifically responded to this, and you just repeat the same thing. The answer would resolve to undefined. Even Wikipedia uses it as an example of fallacious mathematics. Regardless it's completely irrelevant.
Are you a little off because I responded directly to that in my round 3, debunking it easily.
CON's spelling, grammar, and organization was horrible so I believe that goes to me.
Conduct to me because CON used a curse word in round 3.
Arguments to me because CON did not refute any of my arguments and I refuted all of theirs. Both mathematical proofs were still upheld by the end of the debate
I think it may be more of the very last thing you wrote
The resolution is creationism should be taught in schools, and I argued that creationism should be taught in schools.
Anyone who thinks I have made a single Kritik is completely wrong, and has no understanding of what the term means
Some people are so incompetent they can't even manage to cast a propper vote. It's absolutely revolting and reading this almost made me vomit in my mouth