I did not ask to be given all points (on the basis of forfeits). Rather, I even asked the readers to NOT penalize PRO for his forfeitures. What I talked of in my previous comment was to elaborate why I think I deserved more. You could still vote beyond conduct. PRO put forth some arguments, I believe I have successfully rebutted them and I believe I have successfully countered and refuted them.
BUT what you meant was "I did not read the debate. Just voted based on the policy." Then that is different.
If otherwise, here are some for example:
* The clearest one is the clash on abortion and economy: Pro was not clear, I highlighted it and countered even football has such costs.
* life and potential: Pro argued fetus is life, I argued even parasytes have life but people are not forced to maintain parasytes.
* bible issue: I pointed out bible is not binding as initially acknowledged by PRO himself. Then he still insisted, I pointed out bible does not talk of terminating pregnancy.
Hello guys. While I appreciate your spending time for reading and voting, I can not believe you gave tie votes for arguments and legibility.
To the debate, I have introduced the legal personhood argument, bodyly autonomy (though not verbatimly), a parasite analogy that rebutted "fetus is a life" argument,. Then for legibility, PRO did not make it clear what his point was on "taxes and costs" issue even though I emphasized it in the first round, he was still unclear in the second round.
21Pilots even gave shared point on "conduct" as well. Pro was saying things like "con loves red herrings."
All in all, I believe I deserved more and you maybe unconsciously biased.
Wylted or anyone interested in, I have started another debate on this topic: https://www.debateart.com/debates/6353-the-reasoning-of-the-ontological-argument-yields-contradiction-when-universally-applied?argument_number=1
It is about the Ontological argument yielding contradictory results when applied universally
I am not interested in Godel's mathematical formulation as I know it requires deep math and mine is nowhere close. However, we can debate other versions. The ontological so-called argument is so bad that it should just be mocked, not taken seriously but I would still take it seriously and demonstrate it. Like any other theistic argument, it is just a lie repeated often enough
I read you RFT. You talked that con should have head burden of proof in this debate.
If you want, let us debate if the atheist side has (or should have) burden of proof in the disputation about the existence of god.
Also, you made some misleading remarks in your RFT but the jury is you and I am not gonna dispute your spectation.
My case for naturalism makes the belief in god self-defeating, I will try to demonsrate that.
But yes, now your proposal sparked a new idea in me. The debate title and its content may well be updated to "either naturalism or absolute skepticism"
Your concept of god (god being energy, energy being god) has nothing against naturalistic ontology and ontological naturalism.
You may become a pantheist for example, saying the universe itself is god. That too is not violating naturalism. But nor pantheistic neither your proposal is super-naturalistic god.
Look, I now realized I made a small mistake when typing the rules. This one:
"Similarly, PRO will have to write "nothing to be written in this round". - You have to write so in the last round. I am making it clear in my first round speech.
If you want, we can still have debate on this one.
You can choose either way: 1) 1 debate, with each of us arguing for different levels of burden of proof. 2) Two debates, 1 will be titled "Abortion should be legal" and in second debate the title will be "Abortion should be illegal". in one of them I will be PRO and in one you will be PRO. In each debate, only PRO will have burden of proof.
Or if you want, I am updating this debate's rules in accordance with your request and reducing it to 3 rounds. I (pro) will start the debate outright and con will end it at the 3rd round
We (me and the contender of this debate) will have 2 (two) debates:
In both debates, only the PRO side will have the burden of proof and in the description of both debates, the other debate will be referenced as "Proponent view" and "Opponent view". With both debates being titled "Abortion" debate.
Both debates will take place concurrently and both debates will feature the link of the other debate.
As I said in my previous comment, BoP is to be not shared in this debate but if you want, I may compromise for you and make it shared.
But on that case, I will start the debate.
But why burden of proof should be "shared"?
If I am asserting "drinking coffee should be prohibited" for example, I would have burden of proof - why would you need to demonstrate that drinking coffee should be allowed?
You are con, meaning you will be arguing against the motion? e.g. you are gonna assert that abortion should NOT be illegal?
I oppose the motion, I would accept it if otherwise, though I am going through an unplanned busy schedule
Well. Clarification was good. Title update is also good.
If not accepted within few days, I may contend it but with a slightly different title. The resolution would be something like this: "Islam oppresses women."
I would be PRO and assume the Burden of Proof. You (CON) do not need to raise any argument - all you need to do would be to rebutt (and refute) my claims. See you within several days
The title stands vague. Which of the following is intended:
1) Muslim women are oppressed but the cause/reason they are oppressed is NOT Islam
2) Muslim women are NOT oppressed thanks to Islam (e.g. Islam is the reason that muslim women are free from oppression).
The challenge is accepted. Good luck
no no. it is not matter of winning or losing. When it comes to conduct only, person feels underestimed, un-appreciated. That was why
I did not ask to be given all points (on the basis of forfeits). Rather, I even asked the readers to NOT penalize PRO for his forfeitures. What I talked of in my previous comment was to elaborate why I think I deserved more. You could still vote beyond conduct. PRO put forth some arguments, I believe I have successfully rebutted them and I believe I have successfully countered and refuted them.
BUT what you meant was "I did not read the debate. Just voted based on the policy." Then that is different.
If otherwise, here are some for example:
* The clearest one is the clash on abortion and economy: Pro was not clear, I highlighted it and countered even football has such costs.
* life and potential: Pro argued fetus is life, I argued even parasytes have life but people are not forced to maintain parasytes.
* bible issue: I pointed out bible is not binding as initially acknowledged by PRO himself. Then he still insisted, I pointed out bible does not talk of terminating pregnancy.
Hello guys. While I appreciate your spending time for reading and voting, I can not believe you gave tie votes for arguments and legibility.
To the debate, I have introduced the legal personhood argument, bodyly autonomy (though not verbatimly), a parasite analogy that rebutted "fetus is a life" argument,. Then for legibility, PRO did not make it clear what his point was on "taxes and costs" issue even though I emphasized it in the first round, he was still unclear in the second round.
21Pilots even gave shared point on "conduct" as well. Pro was saying things like "con loves red herrings."
All in all, I believe I deserved more and you maybe unconsciously biased.
I am grateful for the votes. Without you, the debate could have ended undecided and thus a tie
1000 characters is not enough for that. if you want, we can make it serious debate. make it 10K
it stands vague. expand. beneficial for what? individual? society? humankind in general?
Wylted or anyone interested in, I have started another debate on this topic: https://www.debateart.com/debates/6353-the-reasoning-of-the-ontological-argument-yields-contradiction-when-universally-applied?argument_number=1
It is about the Ontological argument yielding contradictory results when applied universally
I mean, I do not know theorems enough. but we can evaluate the philosophical ones
I am not interested in Godel's mathematical formulation as I know it requires deep math and mine is nowhere close. However, we can debate other versions. The ontological so-called argument is so bad that it should just be mocked, not taken seriously but I would still take it seriously and demonstrate it. Like any other theistic argument, it is just a lie repeated often enough
Wylted or anyone else, If you are interested in this manipulation called ontological argument, challenge me. I will take con's position
The challenge is accepted. I feel privileged and advantaged to be the attorney of arguably the most benevolent country in the history of the mankind.
I accept the challenge. I wish good luck
I read you RFT. You talked that con should have head burden of proof in this debate.
If you want, let us debate if the atheist side has (or should have) burden of proof in the disputation about the existence of god.
Also, you made some misleading remarks in your RFT but the jury is you and I am not gonna dispute your spectation.
Yes, I did not specify it properly, my bad. Next times I will not make such mistake.
So, what do you suggest the title should be?
My case for naturalism makes the belief in god self-defeating, I will try to demonsrate that.
But yes, now your proposal sparked a new idea in me. The debate title and its content may well be updated to "either naturalism or absolute skepticism"
Like yours, naming something natural as god. Oxygen for example. Your case would just be re-naming things.
But Joseph Smith had a material god that was in no way super-natural but yet somehow god: mind, power etc.
Pantheistic god for example can be called naturalistic god. God, yet not "super"-natural but the nature itself.
Paul Tillich's case is interesting and maybe worth considering. For him, it is wrong to say god exists - rather, existense itself is god.
Your concept of god (god being energy, energy being god) has nothing against naturalistic ontology and ontological naturalism.
You may become a pantheist for example, saying the universe itself is god. That too is not violating naturalism. But nor pantheistic neither your proposal is super-naturalistic god.
Here for example, in this debate, I set it in a way that states burden of proof is completely on me. My adversary does not have any burden of proof.
Look, I now realized I made a small mistake when typing the rules. This one:
"Similarly, PRO will have to write "nothing to be written in this round". - You have to write so in the last round. I am making it clear in my first round speech.
If you want, we can still have debate on this one.
You can choose either way: 1) 1 debate, with each of us arguing for different levels of burden of proof. 2) Two debates, 1 will be titled "Abortion should be legal" and in second debate the title will be "Abortion should be illegal". in one of them I will be PRO and in one you will be PRO. In each debate, only PRO will have burden of proof.
Replying to your comment at #9.
One debate will be to argue "Abortion should be legal" - it is "proponent wivew". Ib that debate, I would be pro and advocate that it is to be legal.
In the opponent view, you would be the pro and have the burden of proof, advocating abortion should be illegal
Or if you want, I am updating this debate's rules in accordance with your request and reducing it to 3 rounds. I (pro) will start the debate outright and con will end it at the 3rd round
What about this proposal of mine:
We (me and the contender of this debate) will have 2 (two) debates:
In both debates, only the PRO side will have the burden of proof and in the description of both debates, the other debate will be referenced as "Proponent view" and "Opponent view". With both debates being titled "Abortion" debate.
Both debates will take place concurrently and both debates will feature the link of the other debate.
As I said in my previous comment, BoP is to be not shared in this debate but if you want, I may compromise for you and make it shared.
But on that case, I will start the debate.
3 rounds are enough?
But why burden of proof should be "shared"?
If I am asserting "drinking coffee should be prohibited" for example, I would have burden of proof - why would you need to demonstrate that drinking coffee should be allowed?
You are con, meaning you will be arguing against the motion? e.g. you are gonna assert that abortion should NOT be illegal?
I oppose the motion, I would accept it if otherwise, though I am going through an unplanned busy schedule
Well. Clarification was good. Title update is also good.
If not accepted within few days, I may contend it but with a slightly different title. The resolution would be something like this: "Islam oppresses women."
I would be PRO and assume the Burden of Proof. You (CON) do not need to raise any argument - all you need to do would be to rebutt (and refute) my claims. See you within several days
The title stands vague. Which of the following is intended:
1) Muslim women are oppressed but the cause/reason they are oppressed is NOT Islam
2) Muslim women are NOT oppressed thanks to Islam (e.g. Islam is the reason that muslim women are free from oppression).
I want to contend the topic once it is clarified.