These philosophy debates tend to be the most interesting for me. That being said Ehyeh is the most philosophically literate person on this site I have seen, and Bones seems to be the strongest atheist, in my experience.
You can accept this one:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3773-the-majority-of-animal-agriculture-in-the-united-states-is-slavery
Someone else accepted it.
I am not here to have a conversation with you, nor am I here to have an extended back and forth with you.
I want you to accept the debate. Are you going to accept the debate which YOU YOURSELF called an "easy win."
If this is so "easy," by all means more power to you. You can accept the debate. If not, I will assume you are once again, afraid of debating your own position.
I may have to change my vote, I want to rather, but the time has ended. I would have left it as a placeholder tie, because I can add more analysis based on what people are bringing up in the comments section and I should actually go through some of the arguments.
Obviously, I have around 6 minutes left now. I did ask a few people to vote on this, however, they seem to have declined so, I will appreciate the help from anyone.
19 minutes, can anyone vote? It is a simple decision. All I needed was to give an argument, and I did.
I am very pressed for time here, remembered about this way too late.
See if you can do me a favor, I have two other debates like this (your best argument for...) that are running out of time. What is your prerogative on voting on them as well? I remembered you voted on a few of them already.
Interesting debate here, however, I suspect the instigator will be unable to defend such a proposition, especially given the weak framework, and the burdens involved. Even considering the debaters and/or potential contenders involved, the particulars of the outcomes I theorize are not flattering.
Whiteflame imperatively needs to stop making incompetent moderation decisions. I don't believe this has anything to do with MrChris, however, and on the face of it, he appears to have won this debate.
Suppose I were to vote on this, I would have no choice but to vote for pro because of rule 8. While it is a harsh rule, pro has established that a single rule violation is enough to result in an automatic forfeit, and con at this point has undeniably violated a rule regardless of if he is winning the debate.
While both debaters are doing well enough, pro laid out the rules perfectly, knowing exactly what the contender would argue, and knowing exactly how he argues.
> "I don't consider any burden of proof to be so great that NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER can win by default"
I am a little at odds here...this is actually exactly what the burden of proof entails. If someone holds the full burden of proof, all the contender needs to do is refute their arguments, and if none are provided, the contender wins. "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove." I am afraid you are using a logical fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) in your assessment. Do you disagree?
Here is a different URL. I am not sure why the previous one would mandate that people sign in, so for anyone else that wants to read the full 3500 words, you can make use of this link as well.
https://justpaste.it/7pvtv
FLRW's vote clearly does not meet the voting standards. Unfortunately, not a single moderator is online as of now, surprising absolutely no one. Additionally consider that this person is a troll and has done this many times in the past.
I already believe that reincarnation is logically possible, especially as a theist, so I already agree with such a position. I am only accepting these debates to directly benefit from incompetent people. I would say if reincarnation is true, it would be in a metaphysical sense which is not explicitly biological. I also want to place a halt on explicit metaphysics debates because for now because I want to read more into the branch. It seems to me that we agree on a lot more than we disagree in my impression however.
Bear in mind, it is possible you could be using terms/concepts Barney does not understand, and I just want this to be a productive interaction. Maybe explain these fallacies/legal terms if necessary?
Well yes, I suppose I agree that nothing may have tested you, but it seems better to simply win the debate; you probably only needed one syllogism, and Mall would likely just ignore it and repeat the same thing for the rest of the debate, allowing you to use minimal effort.
You are well read on philosophical matters, and you are matched up against someone who is quite probably the worst debater on this site who knows extremely little about this topic. You should have won this debate effortlessly, I guess I struggle to understand why you would throw this one away.
I am actually a conservative (although not mutually exclusive). I took debate primarily because I noticed the instigator placed "pbuh" (peace be upon him) beside Jesus's name, implying he is a Muslim, and consequently does not think Jesus is God. Thus, I observed he would have likely argued the wrong side by mistake and I saw it as amusing to watch a Muslim argue that Jesus is God.
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HsZABvP2Y) is basic propoganda, I don't know how anyone would unironically use this in a debate to make an assertion...
I would have kept this account, because your record had much more potential with it. Perhaps ban your own one?
These philosophy debates tend to be the most interesting for me. That being said Ehyeh is the most philosophically literate person on this site I have seen, and Bones seems to be the strongest atheist, in my experience.
I would remove the forfeit rule in case you accidentally miss a round.
If necessary, I will break the tie. If not, it is what it is.
Can't wait. I am just finishing my argument for our lobbying debate anyway.
I hate anime.
Hmm, maybe I will just respond to that.
You can accept this one:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3773-the-majority-of-animal-agriculture-in-the-united-states-is-slavery
Someone else accepted it.
I am not here to have a conversation with you, nor am I here to have an extended back and forth with you.
I want you to accept the debate. Are you going to accept the debate which YOU YOURSELF called an "easy win."
I want to debate the same topic, with the same rules as I have outlined. I have re-created it. Feel free to accept.
If this is so "easy," by all means more power to you. You can accept the debate. If not, I will assume you are once again, afraid of debating your own position.
Can you remove my current vote for now?
I may have to change my vote, I want to rather, but the time has ended. I would have left it as a placeholder tie, because I can add more analysis based on what people are bringing up in the comments section and I should actually go through some of the arguments.
Obviously, I have around 6 minutes left now. I did ask a few people to vote on this, however, they seem to have declined so, I will appreciate the help from anyone.
19 minutes, can anyone vote? It is a simple decision. All I needed was to give an argument, and I did.
I am very pressed for time here, remembered about this way too late.
See if you can do me a favor, I have two other debates like this (your best argument for...) that are running out of time. What is your prerogative on voting on them as well? I remembered you voted on a few of them already.
Interesting debate here, however, I suspect the instigator will be unable to defend such a proposition, especially given the weak framework, and the burdens involved. Even considering the debaters and/or potential contenders involved, the particulars of the outcomes I theorize are not flattering.
Whiteflame imperatively needs to stop making incompetent moderation decisions. I don't believe this has anything to do with MrChris, however, and on the face of it, he appears to have won this debate.
Yeah, I will restart it.
Well done here.
Unfortunately, I would never instigate a debate with longer than 3 days for arguments, so I will have to decline such a proposal.
I have done so.
Yes, I can.
You mean Thomas Sowell, and yes, if the need arises.
Suppose I were to vote on this, I would have no choice but to vote for pro because of rule 8. While it is a harsh rule, pro has established that a single rule violation is enough to result in an automatic forfeit, and con at this point has undeniably violated a rule regardless of if he is winning the debate.
While both debaters are doing well enough, pro laid out the rules perfectly, knowing exactly what the contender would argue, and knowing exactly how he argues.
I have an urgent need for a vote on this debate. There are only just over 3 days left at this time. I hope there is anyone who can assist here.
I know I said I would vote on this a few days ago, I just got occupied with different tasks. I still plan on voting.
I almost forgot about this. Two hours for arguments, and 100 characters.
I really need a vote on this, if anyone can help.
I think I would rather PM this conversation.
> "I don't consider any burden of proof to be so great that NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER can win by default"
I am a little at odds here...this is actually exactly what the burden of proof entails. If someone holds the full burden of proof, all the contender needs to do is refute their arguments, and if none are provided, the contender wins. "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove." I am afraid you are using a logical fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) in your assessment. Do you disagree?
Are you sure this is possible?
Here is a different URL. I am not sure why the previous one would mandate that people sign in, so for anyone else that wants to read the full 3500 words, you can make use of this link as well.
https://justpaste.it/7pvtv
For the majority of us who know how to read, we can observe that Bones did not complain about anything.
FLRW's vote clearly does not meet the voting standards. Unfortunately, not a single moderator is online as of now, surprising absolutely no one. Additionally consider that this person is a troll and has done this many times in the past.
I was too busy to post a round one, take the opportunity to go first.
You were just one second ahead of me.
The newest vote here takes the initiative to argue against the instigator for some reason.
I will vote on this tomorrow.
I already believe that reincarnation is logically possible, especially as a theist, so I already agree with such a position. I am only accepting these debates to directly benefit from incompetent people. I would say if reincarnation is true, it would be in a metaphysical sense which is not explicitly biological. I also want to place a halt on explicit metaphysics debates because for now because I want to read more into the branch. It seems to me that we agree on a lot more than we disagree in my impression however.
However, I can almost certainly tell you that my vote heavily leans towards pro, despite me most likely scoring a tie later today.
Bear in mind, it is possible you could be using terms/concepts Barney does not understand, and I just want this to be a productive interaction. Maybe explain these fallacies/legal terms if necessary?
Okay, it is 3 days now.
One week? That seems unnecessary, can you do 3 days?
Well yes, I suppose I agree that nothing may have tested you, but it seems better to simply win the debate; you probably only needed one syllogism, and Mall would likely just ignore it and repeat the same thing for the rest of the debate, allowing you to use minimal effort.
You are well read on philosophical matters, and you are matched up against someone who is quite probably the worst debater on this site who knows extremely little about this topic. You should have won this debate effortlessly, I guess I struggle to understand why you would throw this one away.
Perhaps you would be interested in accepting this challenge?
I am actually a conservative (although not mutually exclusive). I took debate primarily because I noticed the instigator placed "pbuh" (peace be upon him) beside Jesus's name, implying he is a Muslim, and consequently does not think Jesus is God. Thus, I observed he would have likely argued the wrong side by mistake and I saw it as amusing to watch a Muslim argue that Jesus is God.
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HsZABvP2Y) is basic propoganda, I don't know how anyone would unironically use this in a debate to make an assertion...
Much appreciated.