I ran this through an AI detector (https://www.zerogpt.com/) and this came out as 97.47% Chat GPT AI. I don't know why you are responding to me with such. I checked your other posts and they are both obviously written by the same AI. I would suggest replying to me yourself if you think I have made some error. If it happens again you will just be blocked.
I don't know why you would say it is beside the point, it seems like you are confused about what the counter was.
If someone does not have to take any of the views mentioned in his round one case to be an atheist, the argument is simply irrelevant. This is because pro is supposed to be arguing that "Morality and Meaning Cannot Exist in an ATHEIST Universe (or Multiverse)."
Someone can also be a theist, and accept all the views that pro laid out in his ramble.
I have created the debate, you have no excuse from just clicking the accept button. I think you have made yourself look like a fool over the last few days so I would encourage you to stop fleeing and debate me.
Yeah, look, this has been going on for a long time: privately, publicly, etc. I think a lot of the fear comes from the idea that he has never actually lost one of these "online" formal debates before on record (DDO and DART combined). But I never thought it would get to the honestly amusing gesture that someone is a white supremacist for disagreeing with him or something along those lines, while sadly, this is not exceedingly out of character for him.
As stated above, and previously multiple times, I have given you a series of topics I would like to debate, many of which are your own positions.
If you think I will de-rail into some sort of meta-discussion you have no idea who I am. So, yes or no, are you going to debate me on those topics, or are you going to keep rambling to me about meta, and if I do not get a yes or no answer, I think I have wasted enough of my time with you.
Oh and of course that by my estimate, around 98-100% of everything said by the person below are just lies about me, but I think most people can figure that out themselves.
I am surprised this conspiracy is still going on, I was away for a while. Anyway, these sort of confused ramblings are interesting, and I think they are good because they present the moderator in a light that I think more people should see him in. It is also good that this debate is in the "hot" category because it just adds the benefit of eyes on this sort of humiliating tantrum.
I will just remind everyone once again that this is an attempt to derail in order to flee from debate, and that he has been dodging me for a period of a year or more now.
I think he is either trolling or this is a symptom of some condition. I feel second-hand embarrassment even filtering what he is saying at this point, but he is just trying to derail into spam, which I take to be another dodge tactic.
To be clear, I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be Filipino.
And I think I agree with you in principle, Barney is fond of taking out personal issues he has with people, which is almost boring to me as nearly everyone just sees this fit he is throwing as pathetic. I want him to debate me, and stop running away. I don't think that will happen because it seems he is scared to debate me (has too much value for the 0 at the end of his record). I am not saying that is the case, but I take it to be the best explanation.
Well I think I am done here. Looking past the conspiracy theory about me actually being a "white supremacist," which just seems like another un-interesting way to flee debate, I just take the person in question to be some sort of moron at this point.
While the dodging is mildly annoying, I think I have gained some utility from how I have made him look consistently. I suppose someone can let me know if he wants to debate me on the resolutions I have outlined, but the fact that this person has been running away from me for months (even privately dating back to over a year ago) tells me all I need to know.
Yeah, you already know I don't like my time being wasted.
I offered you three potential resolutions. Yes or no, are you going to debate me on them.
I will give you 3 tries to answer once again. If I don't get a yes/no, then I will just repeat the question. If you think I am going to get into some back and forth with you, you must be mistaken, because I not 10 years old. Feel free to keep running, or answer the question. If you just keep dodging...I mean, whatever.
We already have him making the claim that the Death Penalty is "[o]ccasionally necessary but misused." We can just debate a resolution along the lines of "The death penalty should be used in the United States, where I take a con position. We can also do a Gender Wage Gap topic (as stated previously) or the resolution "Being agnostic is more reasonable than being an Atheist," etc.
I see you mentioning your support of the death penalty, we could debate on that. If not, we could debate on some iterated topic from the gender pay gap -- a recent debate you did against some low hanging fruit. I am happy to make any of these debates happen.
Happy to debate Barney anytime, unfortunately it seems as if he is still running from me. To be honest, I don't even see him as serious competition anymore, but again, if he wants to debate I am available.
Hmm, a lot of confusion is going on here on your part.
I am or really convinced you know what a contradiction is in logic, are tracking what I am saying, have read the sources in question, or are tracking the claims I have made in the debate. Not really looking to explain this to you anymore, but I would encourage you not to make false claims.
From what you just posted, I am not seeing what exactly the contradiction is. It seems like one of my sources is talking about how eating meat makes the risk of these diseases go up, and the other is saying that a given resource deficiency can as well. Eating meat actually causes these diseases, whereas on some modes of veganism, the lack of something brings about a less bad result.
But it is just so frustrating to read a vote, when it is just plain obvious that there is clear confusion or just some sort of tracking failure. Really really irking to me because this happens so many times.
I absolutely hate just reading votes by people who are incapable of tracking things. I just hate nothing more than that. Hopefully this troll vote gets removed in time.
Moderators of this website are taking this action that is not stipulated in the rules. Like whiteflame has conceded below, there is no rule or policy that stipulates making this debate "unrated." The moderators have admitted to using their personal feelings to make decisions which have no bearing on whether I am in line with the rules and regulations of this website.
There is no reason this debate should be labeled as spam other than moderator bias, so I want to revert this back to "rated." It is not my fault as to who accepts my debates nor do I care who does. Full forfeits occur regularly on this site, yet no one seems to care about them. Why is it until I stand to benefit from one? Simply because the moderators have this weird prejudgment against me as noted by several other competent users.
As long as there is no rule that labels this debate in any manner entailing ammendment, I want this debate to be changed to "rated."
Wait a second, these debates were made well in advance of him accepting them. Both were published on the 26th of October, so regardless of what my opponent does, I am not seeing the debateart.com rule or guideline that labels this as such. Can you state the debateart.com rule or guideline that renders this debate "spam" ?
As stated before, we have a moderator acting like an idiot here. I will re-state each proposition.
So, (1) I did not consent for this debate to be made unrated, (2) This is not a spam debate, it was made well in advance (3) the debate is already in the voting stage. Please change this debate back to rated. Moderators have no right to change any full forfeit debate to unrated otherwise they would do this consistently with every full forfeit. I know SupaDudz is stupid, so I was hoping you could help here, because it seems obvious that once again, moderators that just can't control their emotions are abusing their power.
We have a moderator acting like an idiot here. So, (1) I did not consent for this debate to be made unrated, (2) This is not a spam debate, it was made well in advance Please change this debate back to rated. Moderators have no right to change any full forfeit debate to unrated otherwise they would do this consistently.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "extend," means "I'll give you another chance to make your argument." Extend just means I am extending what I have said. Now unless you are mind-reading, this proposition is going to be incoherent.
But even if it did mean this, there is still no rule against this, so you would be wrong regardless of the truth value of that proposition. I don't understand how much clearer this could be.
First the proposition is not going to be true unless you claim to be doing some weird mind-reading thing, and second, even it it was, it isn't going to break any of the rules of the debate as I laid them out.
Okay, I see no reason to believe in P3. I did not tell pro anything, unless you can show me where I did? Also, even if we grant that I did, that still would not be against any of the rules, so you would be wrong in both cases.
I didn't ask pro anything, I don't understand the inference here, this makes no sense? What is the syllogism for that?
Also, what argument did pro make, I don't know what debate you are looking at? Do you think the words "no, no," are an argument? By that same logic me saying "Extend," would be an argument. If not, what is the symmetry breaker?
I don't understand why I would wait for troll votes to be removed as opposed to banning the trolls from voting preemptively? If I had a farm, I would build a pig pen, rather than wait for pigs to run wild and damage my property.
These sorts of contests should have at least three votes from competent people.
I ran this through an AI detector (https://www.zerogpt.com/) and this came out as 97.47% Chat GPT AI. I don't know why you are responding to me with such. I checked your other posts and they are both obviously written by the same AI. I would suggest replying to me yourself if you think I have made some error. If it happens again you will just be blocked.
I don't know why you would say it is beside the point, it seems like you are confused about what the counter was.
If someone does not have to take any of the views mentioned in his round one case to be an atheist, the argument is simply irrelevant. This is because pro is supposed to be arguing that "Morality and Meaning Cannot Exist in an ATHEIST Universe (or Multiverse)."
Someone can also be a theist, and accept all the views that pro laid out in his ramble.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4215-the-majority-of-the-current-gender-wage-gap-between-men-and-women-is-a-result-of-sexism
I have created the debate, you have no excuse from just clicking the accept button. I think you have made yourself look like a fool over the last few days so I would encourage you to stop fleeing and debate me.
Yeah, so now he is just asking me the same question I have been asking him, or...something...? This is just really interesting projecting.
Oh is he still dodging debate? Of course, I forgot that we were actually doing the thing where I am the one that is dodging the debate and not him.
I am not really interested in the persons projecting, I just want him to stop dodging
Well, it seems like he is still just fleeing debate with me, and that is all I care about.
Yeah, look, this has been going on for a long time: privately, publicly, etc. I think a lot of the fear comes from the idea that he has never actually lost one of these "online" formal debates before on record (DDO and DART combined). But I never thought it would get to the honestly amusing gesture that someone is a white supremacist for disagreeing with him or something along those lines, while sadly, this is not exceedingly out of character for him.
As stated above, and previously multiple times, I have given you a series of topics I would like to debate, many of which are your own positions.
If you think I will de-rail into some sort of meta-discussion you have no idea who I am. So, yes or no, are you going to debate me on those topics, or are you going to keep rambling to me about meta, and if I do not get a yes or no answer, I think I have wasted enough of my time with you.
Yeah, so this is when he insists that I am actually the one refusing to debate and not him. Ah yes, the classic "no you."
Psychologists call this projecting.
Oh and of course that by my estimate, around 98-100% of everything said by the person below are just lies about me, but I think most people can figure that out themselves.
I am surprised this conspiracy is still going on, I was away for a while. Anyway, these sort of confused ramblings are interesting, and I think they are good because they present the moderator in a light that I think more people should see him in. It is also good that this debate is in the "hot" category because it just adds the benefit of eyes on this sort of humiliating tantrum.
I will just remind everyone once again that this is an attempt to derail in order to flee from debate, and that he has been dodging me for a period of a year or more now.
I think he is either trolling or this is a symptom of some condition. I feel second-hand embarrassment even filtering what he is saying at this point, but he is just trying to derail into spam, which I take to be another dodge tactic.
To be clear, I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be Filipino.
And I think I agree with you in principle, Barney is fond of taking out personal issues he has with people, which is almost boring to me as nearly everyone just sees this fit he is throwing as pathetic. I want him to debate me, and stop running away. I don't think that will happen because it seems he is scared to debate me (has too much value for the 0 at the end of his record). I am not saying that is the case, but I take it to be the best explanation.
Well I think I am done here. Looking past the conspiracy theory about me actually being a "white supremacist," which just seems like another un-interesting way to flee debate, I just take the person in question to be some sort of moron at this point.
While the dodging is mildly annoying, I think I have gained some utility from how I have made him look consistently. I suppose someone can let me know if he wants to debate me on the resolutions I have outlined, but the fact that this person has been running away from me for months (even privately dating back to over a year ago) tells me all I need to know.
So this is going to be chance #2.
I offered you three potential resolutions. Yes or no, are you going to debate me on any of them them?
Yeah, you already know I don't like my time being wasted.
I offered you three potential resolutions. Yes or no, are you going to debate me on them.
I will give you 3 tries to answer once again. If I don't get a yes/no, then I will just repeat the question. If you think I am going to get into some back and forth with you, you must be mistaken, because I not 10 years old. Feel free to keep running, or answer the question. If you just keep dodging...I mean, whatever.
We already have him making the claim that the Death Penalty is "[o]ccasionally necessary but misused." We can just debate a resolution along the lines of "The death penalty should be used in the United States, where I take a con position. We can also do a Gender Wage Gap topic (as stated previously) or the resolution "Being agnostic is more reasonable than being an Atheist," etc.
I see you mentioning your support of the death penalty, we could debate on that. If not, we could debate on some iterated topic from the gender pay gap -- a recent debate you did against some low hanging fruit. I am happy to make any of these debates happen.
Happy to debate Barney anytime, unfortunately it seems as if he is still running from me. To be honest, I don't even see him as serious competition anymore, but again, if he wants to debate I am available.
I would ignore people like the person you are in a back and forth with, because it seems like he is just failing to understand what you are saying.
This is a very well formulated set of rules. In principle, I agree with the topic, and the debate seems nearly impossible for a contender to win.
Hmm, a lot of confusion is going on here on your part.
I am or really convinced you know what a contradiction is in logic, are tracking what I am saying, have read the sources in question, or are tracking the claims I have made in the debate. Not really looking to explain this to you anymore, but I would encourage you not to make false claims.
From what you just posted, I am not seeing what exactly the contradiction is. It seems like one of my sources is talking about how eating meat makes the risk of these diseases go up, and the other is saying that a given resource deficiency can as well. Eating meat actually causes these diseases, whereas on some modes of veganism, the lack of something brings about a less bad result.
"One source claimed that strokes were reduced while another claimed that strokes increased due to a veg/vegan diet."
Can you show quotes in question indexed to each source? All due respect, this is not really telling me anything other than repeating the claim.
Thanks for voting, but can you specifically show what the contradiction in sources was? I didn't really follow what you were talking about there.
Thanks
But it is just so frustrating to read a vote, when it is just plain obvious that there is clear confusion or just some sort of tracking failure. Really really irking to me because this happens so many times.
I absolutely hate just reading votes by people who are incapable of tracking things. I just hate nothing more than that. Hopefully this troll vote gets removed in time.
Votes needed with a mere 5 days remaining.
Votes needed here
The utter confusion in this message is worrying to me, wow. Very peculiar tracking.
6 days left
Votes needed, please. Only a week's time is allowed.
Please vote, there is just a week.
vote needed
You should vote here, given that an incompetent person cast a vote against me.
Moderators of this website are taking this action that is not stipulated in the rules. Like whiteflame has conceded below, there is no rule or policy that stipulates making this debate "unrated." The moderators have admitted to using their personal feelings to make decisions which have no bearing on whether I am in line with the rules and regulations of this website.
There is no reason this debate should be labeled as spam other than moderator bias, so I want to revert this back to "rated." It is not my fault as to who accepts my debates nor do I care who does. Full forfeits occur regularly on this site, yet no one seems to care about them. Why is it until I stand to benefit from one? Simply because the moderators have this weird prejudgment against me as noted by several other competent users.
As long as there is no rule that labels this debate in any manner entailing ammendment, I want this debate to be changed to "rated."
Wait a second, these debates were made well in advance of him accepting them. Both were published on the 26th of October, so regardless of what my opponent does, I am not seeing the debateart.com rule or guideline that labels this as such. Can you state the debateart.com rule or guideline that renders this debate "spam" ?
I am not sure I am following you here precisely. What is the "spam" of this debate?
As stated before, we have a moderator acting like an idiot here. I will re-state each proposition.
So, (1) I did not consent for this debate to be made unrated, (2) This is not a spam debate, it was made well in advance (3) the debate is already in the voting stage. Please change this debate back to rated. Moderators have no right to change any full forfeit debate to unrated otherwise they would do this consistently with every full forfeit. I know SupaDudz is stupid, so I was hoping you could help here, because it seems obvious that once again, moderators that just can't control their emotions are abusing their power.
We have a moderator acting like an idiot here. So, (1) I did not consent for this debate to be made unrated, (2) This is not a spam debate, it was made well in advance Please change this debate back to rated. Moderators have no right to change any full forfeit debate to unrated otherwise they would do this consistently.
I did not give permission for this debate to be changed to "unrated." Please change it back immediately.
I did not give permission for this debate to be changed to "unrated." Please change it back immediately.
I believe he accepted the first one and forgot about it, hence his final round. So he accepted the second one to make his argument.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "extend," means "I'll give you another chance to make your argument." Extend just means I am extending what I have said. Now unless you are mind-reading, this proposition is going to be incoherent.
But even if it did mean this, there is still no rule against this, so you would be wrong regardless of the truth value of that proposition. I don't understand how much clearer this could be.
First the proposition is not going to be true unless you claim to be doing some weird mind-reading thing, and second, even it it was, it isn't going to break any of the rules of the debate as I laid them out.
Okay, I see no reason to believe in P3. I did not tell pro anything, unless you can show me where I did? Also, even if we grant that I did, that still would not be against any of the rules, so you would be wrong in both cases.
I didn't ask pro anything, I don't understand the inference here, this makes no sense? What is the syllogism for that?
Also, what argument did pro make, I don't know what debate you are looking at? Do you think the words "no, no," are an argument? By that same logic me saying "Extend," would be an argument. If not, what is the symmetry breaker?
How did I possibly break the rules by my conduct in round 4? What is the argument for that?
I don't understand why I would wait for troll votes to be removed as opposed to banning the trolls from voting preemptively? If I had a farm, I would build a pig pen, rather than wait for pigs to run wild and damage my property.