Here we go again... I read a lot of debates on this site where somebody claims their opponent "conceded" the debate based on some technicality... And this debate is one of them, sadly. Con claims that you "conceded" that Jesus never fulfilled a single prophecy, but reading your opening statement, it looks like the very first thing you did was link to a Wikipedia article with a list of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, as well as cited one specifically. So... did I miss something later on where you retracted that, or is your opponent just making stuff up?
Of course! I'm glad to get your perspective on this. I'm sure I will hear an argument like this again someday and having an opportunity to refine my response is helpful. Out of curiosity, have you ever seen anyone else attempt a Stalin->God comparison before? Is that a common Atheist viewpoint as far as you know?
So, did you find it to be a good rebuttal in the way he used it, in response to where one of my sources claimed that God doesn't send people to hell? Or are you saying that he should have fleshed this out further to try to compare God to Stalin and gulags to hell?
When you refer to his Stalin argument, do you mean where he said; "This also would be like saying that Stalin did not send Russians to death camps, but rather the Russians chose to go there for disobeying Stalin."
I guess I also avoided using "specific examples" because I wanted to make an argument from as much of a "secular" position as possible, so that even non-christians who disagree with the Bible in general could follow along with my reasoning. Do you think it would have been better to have taken a "more theological" approach and responded to his Bible citations with counter-citations?
Interesting. So, if I understand correctly, you wanted to see more of an explanation of how hell (somewhat regardless of the "forever" angle) is moral beyond merely refuting Pro's interpretation? I could have gone that way, but to do that I would have probably had to completely alter the approach and not even addressed point #2. I felt that if I undermined the specific wording of his argument, specifically the claim that hell is proven to be "forever" then trying to explain the morality of hell would be largely unnecessary. In fact, the two things somewhat would contradict each other, because most sources I could draw upon to defend the morality of hell tend to take the "forever" stance, and the sources that oppose the "forever" interpretation tend to brush off the moral argument because it's largely moot if you don't think people will be there forever. So... I suppose I could do what you are suggesting, but it may require a lot more research, some more specific sources and a much longer argument (30,000 characters per round would have been necessary, most likely). I'll definitely take that under consideration for the future.
This may be the first time I've ever agreed with Castin on anything. Take note, those ignorant "winner selection" votes were bsh1's idea, because he doesn't like people getting points for sources and the other categories. He thinks you should only win based on arguments... unless there is a technicality, in which case he will complain for two weeks straight about how it's appropriate to win on a technicality.
I mean, hell, they are still at it over two weeks later. It's bad enough when some random user pulls a stunt like that, throwing a massive hissy fit because someone voted against them and refused to play by their obscene list of rules. But when moderators, the people who SUPPOSEDLY enforce the rules, are still crying and whining like two-year-olds even weeks later, there is a serious problem. It isn't even enough for just one moderator to do it either, but he has to call in his buddies to try to back him up.
That kind of piss-poor sportsmanship isn't the sign of a good debater, or an emotionally mature person in general. And just because your sixth-grade debate coach told you something doesn't mean people on the internet have to go along with it.
I may have to abstain from voting on this, because my opinion on this subject is just too strong.
I firmly believe the the moderators on this site are absolutely AWFUL debaters, which further hurts their credibility as moderators of a site like this...
Bsh1 and Virtuoso both have really awesome formatting and present amazing opening arguments... but their obsession with the formalities of "professional" debate are their downfall. After the opening volley, they literally waste the entire rest of the debate trying to weasel their way into an "easy" victory by setting up convoluted arguments about how their opponent violated some obscure rule... Such as bsh1 harassing a particular voter for several days straight about how "dropped points automatically become true!!!11" Notice how they are among the users who tack pointless and unenforceable extra rules onto the debate description, because they can't argue without all that stuff backing them up.
And as for rating... I've been told that DDO had serious issues with biased voting and abuse, so that fails as an argument in my eyes. And this site isn't much better, since troll debates contribute to rating and are easy to abuse.
Bottom line; Trying to bury your opponent in needless verbage and then claim victory on the basis of a technicality doesn't make someone a good debater.
Yeah, that certain collection... but anyway, please do! I'm especially looking for feedback on if what I presented was able to be easily understood by a "secular" audience or if it was too theological/apologetic for the average person to see what I was driving at. And even if Alec didn't refute all my points, I'm curious to see how well his overall argument stands up to the way I attacked it.
Alec, just to clarify, judged debates don't have any effect on your rating, so it won't actually matter who wins/loses/ties in this debate. It's basically just bragging points, at best.
Ramshutu, even though my opponent ran out of time, I hope you can score this debate as though it wasn't a forfeit. I hit this one with everything I had and I actually want to see how effective I was at convincing you on this topic.
I don't vote on my own debate and this is the last round, so there is no further action I can take anyway. It will be up to Ramshutu to decide how to weigh everything. Besides, who said I was a Christian?
Well, since this discussion has descended into a name calling temper tantrum (despite a denial to the contrary), I'm going to stop responding here and add another name to my block list.
We talked previously about the "burden of proof" issue and I agreed that you didn't have one. However I also pointed out that the way you dodged the burden of proof was sketchy and you clearly set this debate up knowing in advance what Mopac was going to do and in a way that would sabotage him while giving you an excuse to say nothing in defense of your own position. So, per Ramshutu's advice, had I been able to change my vote, you would have also lost points on conduct for that. In regards to the rest of what you said, you can believe whatever you want, but most of the mods on this site are atheist, so if they are biased, it surely isn't in my favor, or Mopac's favor. So you may want to give your theory some more thought, Chief.
"...bsh1 declared himself Victor before I had a chance to post."
You do that all the time.
You did it when you debated me on ice in fast food beverages.
You did it in the "can God lift a rock, bla, bla" debate.
So if your argument is that bsh1 should lose this debate because he declared victory before the debate was over, then you would also need to concede both of those other two debates.
Alright, good to know. Consider my accusation of PM Doxxing officially retracted.
That aside however, even if harassing PMs did take place, that still strikes me as an outside issue to the debate itself. Wylted would be right to complain about such an event, but not within the context of the debate itself.
The only thing I may have conceded was the point about ice supposedly being scooped from a bucket instead of dispensed from a machine. I've never personally witnessed this, but when I reviewed my own sources a second time I did find a brief mention of it.
However, the hang up there is that my source also said that ice scooped this way could be contaminated by the employee if their hand and/or the handle of the scoop came into contact with the ice. So it became a moot point anyway, since said ice could still be contaminated in spite of being inaccessible to customers.
As we (Ram, myself and Brutal) discussed several days ago (before Thanksgiving), I had asked Bsh1 to let me change my vote for this debate.
However, it looks like Virtuoso got to it first and decided that it is "more than sufficient."
I don't know if that makes it possible for the mods to still take it down or if we are stuck with it now...
BUT, even if I had changed the vote, it would not have really mattered. The only change I would have made was to remove what I said about the "burden of proof" and instead penalize Con on conduct points for evading the burden of proof by setting up an unfair debate (as Ram suggested I do). As such, Con actually gets more points from my current vote than he would otherwise, and since it looks like he is going to win anyway, changing my vote wouldn't even be to his advantage anymore.
Hopefully this resolves any further dispute over this issue.
I understand. The vote was wrong so it should have been deleted.
(It also didn't help me that Pro and Con seemed to have revered roles for this debate. The guy who is usually Conservative was arguing the liberal position and vice versa, which made it hard to keep track of who was on which side.)
I did read the debate and nothing is "obvious" based on my vote. If you want to delete my vote because it violates the rules, fine. I would appreciate you not hurling unsubstantiated false claims.
Besides, it wasn't as if I completely discounted everything you said. When you provided the claim that cups are filled with 50% to 75% ice before the beverage is poured, I used that as part of my own argument that ordering without ice gives you more beverage (which was my main point all along).
It isn't so much that *I* need to believe in your expertise, but the audience (as the people who vote for the winner) must believe you. Merely saying that you should be believed because you say that you work in fast food (and I'm confident you are telling the truth) doesn't prove that you are right. As I pointed out, that is an appeal to authority fallacy. It would be no different if I tried to win a debate on a military topic by citing my military experience. While it may help to win over the audience to point out personal experience, expertise or training, this alone doesn't equal the ability to provide outside sources to validate claimed facts.
No, but I saw her in some debates on this site awhile back and it looked like she had gone inactive and stopped responding to a lot of them. I figured she had gone back to DDO or something.
But again, that brings me back to the particle physics symposium analogy. If I were to attend such an event, it is likely that the speakers would be required to convey their complex ideas in a manner which would be totally "incomprehensible" to ME, but likely very clear to everyone else in the room. In that example, it is not the fault of the speakers, rather it is my own fault that I lack the necessary knowledge to comprehend what they are saying. It is hardly fair to punish the speaker because the listener lacks the knowledge needed to understand what is said.
"Are you saying that his excessive capitalization should not have had any meaningful impact in the readability of the debate?"
Yes. I said exactly that in comment #49:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/309/comment_links/2416
As I attempted to explain to you, what you call "excessive capitalization" is actually the way that Christians are REQUIRED to write out proper names of God. The same way you would capitalize the 'T' in the proper name 'Tim', Christians capitalize the first letter of any name which applies to God. This includes God, He, Him, The Truth, The Light, etc, etc, etc. The purpose of this is not to negatively impact the readability of the text, but actually to clarify it, so that you always know when the author is speaking about God, even when alternate titles and terms are used in place of his standard form of address.
So it is not "excessive capitalization" as you claim, but Pro is actually required to write that way. If he were taking a graduate-level college course at a Christian university and failed to capitalize words in this manner, he would actually be docked for poor grammar for failing to do this.
As for the other issues you have, I can only repeat myself that you would understand them if you had a greater knowledge of Christian theology. If you would like to sign up for a graduate-level class in hermeneutics I can arrange that for you, but regardless, his statements remain grammatically correct.
Just a side note here, anyone curious about what I have or haven't said, or what my position on the debate is, should refer back to comment #45;
https://www.debateart.com/debates/309/comment_links/2411
I agree that Con never specifically said God doesn't exist.
He and I also discussed it in these comments before the debate was over, and he directly told me that it is impossible for him to prove that God doesn't exist. He said that in comment #19;
https://www.debateart.com/debates/309/comment_links/2307
So I'm fully well aware of what Con did and (more importantly) didn't say.
As for my vote, it has been discussed with a moderator and there is a standing agreement between myself and Ramshutu that I am going to make some modifications in the near future which will better clarify a few critical points.
Like I said, I think he approached the argument in a way that won't appeal to the average layman, and I would consider it a valid criticism if you added that to a list of reasons why you think his argument failed to overcome Con's argument.
But it simply isn't a grammar issue. Nothing is wrong with the grammar. If you are going to hammer him for this, I just think it should be in the right category.
I believe that was what Wylted was getting at as well, though he worded it a little more... aggressively.
Just because one particular title (such as "The Truth") also means God, doesn't mean that all possible titles are interchangeable within the same context. The sentence doesn't become more clear if you switch the words around. The key is understanding that "The Truth" in this context has two meanings. It means "truth" as per the standard dictionary definition, but it also is a title for God, who himself is truth, which is why he capitalizes the first letter of each word. For the specific context of his argument to make sense in this sentence, you still have to refer to God as The Truth. You can't switch it out for The Light or any of the many, many, many other names by which He is known.
And I'm not saying that you personally have to understand the sentence for it to make sense. Again, it seems pretty obvious that the reason why you don't understand it is because this is a Christian theological argument, not a direct logical argument designed for a layman. This is part of the reason why if I were the one participating in the debate, I wouldn't have taken this approach. However, just because the argument is an advanced theological issue which some members of the audience may not grasp, that does NOT make it a grammatical error.
It would be as if I went to a symposium on particle physics and then criticized the speaker for his "bad grammar" because I don't know anything about particle physics. Just because I don't personally know what the speaker means when he talks doesn't make his grammar wrong if he is still speaking in a way which is correct for the topic at hand.
If a Buddhist gave you an obscure quote from his religion, would you accuse him of bad grammar, or would you stop to ask that maybe he is referencing some element of his faith that you aren't familiar with?
I believe you are correct. I know I always see the editing button when I first post a vote, but after approximately the time limit you describe it has been removed.
Either way, Bsh1 stated that he would take the vote down and allow me to repost a new one in a few hours. So problem solved.
Unless I'm seriously mistaken, there is a time limit to remove or edit a vote. I no longer see those options on my screen, so I believe that time limit has passed while we have been discussing this.
I'm glad you appreciate that we are having a mature discussion about this.
That said,
"I would strongly contend that while you may 'understand' sentences such as this [...] it likely took you several reads, notes, and several minutes of squinting."
Uh, no. I understood that sentence just fine, even though it was actually several sentences that you quoted. As I said in my RFD, I don't think it was a very strong argument, but I had no difficulty in understanding his message.
If it helps to clarify things for you, "The Truth" in this passage is a direct reference to God. He is literally saying "God is The Truth."
"...that is detrimental to the reader due to the choice of capitalization..."
Again, this is a theology issue which you seem not to have knowledge of. When a Christian refers to God, we capitalize the first letter of His name, the same way we would capitalize any formal name. This rule also applies when we refer to God by a different "title" than God. For example, in a sentence where I refer to "Him" in the third-person, I capitalize the 'H' in the word Him.
The only thing I can gather from your objections here is that you don't understand that when a Christian capitalizes a word in this manner, it is intended to inform the reader that the word in question is the literal name of God. So when he capitalizes "The Truth" the way that he does, he is doing that on purpose because you as the reader are intended to understand that he is talking about God.
This isn't a grammar error. This is literally the way that Christians write.
And FYI, I messaged Bsh1 about the RFD and asked if he is open to allowing me to change it as you have requested. I will let you know the outcome.
BUT Con says "I don't claim gods don't exist" (as he did)...
THEN Con has not actually challenged the "claim" being made by Pro...
In which case Pro's "claim" was unchallenged due to Con never presenting any argument against it.
I suppose you can nitpick my use of the term "burden of proof" in this case, but even if that nitpick has any accuracy, I could just delete it from my RFD and then the RFD would be valid as it currently stands, based on the same criticism that Con spent the entire debate ranting about the dictionary (the "other argument you claim I didn't consider is still an argument about the dictionary).
In fact, you know what? I'll even cut you a break on this one Ramshutu.
I'm going to message Bsh1 and ask if my vote can be taken down without penalty, and I'll rewrite it without the "Burden of Proof" phrase included ANYWHERE in the debate. However, I'll still stand by everything else I said, including Con's failure to ever directly challenge the existence of God. I'll even slap him with those conduct points you mentioned, if you like.
Here we go again... I read a lot of debates on this site where somebody claims their opponent "conceded" the debate based on some technicality... And this debate is one of them, sadly. Con claims that you "conceded" that Jesus never fulfilled a single prophecy, but reading your opening statement, it looks like the very first thing you did was link to a Wikipedia article with a list of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, as well as cited one specifically. So... did I miss something later on where you retracted that, or is your opponent just making stuff up?
Good to know. Thanks for all your feedback!
Of course! I'm glad to get your perspective on this. I'm sure I will hear an argument like this again someday and having an opportunity to refine my response is helpful. Out of curiosity, have you ever seen anyone else attempt a Stalin->God comparison before? Is that a common Atheist viewpoint as far as you know?
So, did you find it to be a good rebuttal in the way he used it, in response to where one of my sources claimed that God doesn't send people to hell? Or are you saying that he should have fleshed this out further to try to compare God to Stalin and gulags to hell?
When you refer to his Stalin argument, do you mean where he said; "This also would be like saying that Stalin did not send Russians to death camps, but rather the Russians chose to go there for disobeying Stalin."
I guess I also avoided using "specific examples" because I wanted to make an argument from as much of a "secular" position as possible, so that even non-christians who disagree with the Bible in general could follow along with my reasoning. Do you think it would have been better to have taken a "more theological" approach and responded to his Bible citations with counter-citations?
Interesting. So, if I understand correctly, you wanted to see more of an explanation of how hell (somewhat regardless of the "forever" angle) is moral beyond merely refuting Pro's interpretation? I could have gone that way, but to do that I would have probably had to completely alter the approach and not even addressed point #2. I felt that if I undermined the specific wording of his argument, specifically the claim that hell is proven to be "forever" then trying to explain the morality of hell would be largely unnecessary. In fact, the two things somewhat would contradict each other, because most sources I could draw upon to defend the morality of hell tend to take the "forever" stance, and the sources that oppose the "forever" interpretation tend to brush off the moral argument because it's largely moot if you don't think people will be there forever. So... I suppose I could do what you are suggesting, but it may require a lot more research, some more specific sources and a much longer argument (30,000 characters per round would have been necessary, most likely). I'll definitely take that under consideration for the future.
This may be the first time I've ever agreed with Castin on anything. Take note, those ignorant "winner selection" votes were bsh1's idea, because he doesn't like people getting points for sources and the other categories. He thinks you should only win based on arguments... unless there is a technicality, in which case he will complain for two weeks straight about how it's appropriate to win on a technicality.
I mean, hell, they are still at it over two weeks later. It's bad enough when some random user pulls a stunt like that, throwing a massive hissy fit because someone voted against them and refused to play by their obscene list of rules. But when moderators, the people who SUPPOSEDLY enforce the rules, are still crying and whining like two-year-olds even weeks later, there is a serious problem. It isn't even enough for just one moderator to do it either, but he has to call in his buddies to try to back him up.
That kind of piss-poor sportsmanship isn't the sign of a good debater, or an emotionally mature person in general. And just because your sixth-grade debate coach told you something doesn't mean people on the internet have to go along with it.
I may have to abstain from voting on this, because my opinion on this subject is just too strong.
I firmly believe the the moderators on this site are absolutely AWFUL debaters, which further hurts their credibility as moderators of a site like this...
Bsh1 and Virtuoso both have really awesome formatting and present amazing opening arguments... but their obsession with the formalities of "professional" debate are their downfall. After the opening volley, they literally waste the entire rest of the debate trying to weasel their way into an "easy" victory by setting up convoluted arguments about how their opponent violated some obscure rule... Such as bsh1 harassing a particular voter for several days straight about how "dropped points automatically become true!!!11" Notice how they are among the users who tack pointless and unenforceable extra rules onto the debate description, because they can't argue without all that stuff backing them up.
And as for rating... I've been told that DDO had serious issues with biased voting and abuse, so that fails as an argument in my eyes. And this site isn't much better, since troll debates contribute to rating and are easy to abuse.
Bottom line; Trying to bury your opponent in needless verbage and then claim victory on the basis of a technicality doesn't make someone a good debater.
Is type1 going to take this debate? I thought he had gone inactive again.
Yeah, that certain collection... but anyway, please do! I'm especially looking for feedback on if what I presented was able to be easily understood by a "secular" audience or if it was too theological/apologetic for the average person to see what I was driving at. And even if Alec didn't refute all my points, I'm curious to see how well his overall argument stands up to the way I attacked it.
Alec, just to clarify, judged debates don't have any effect on your rating, so it won't actually matter who wins/loses/ties in this debate. It's basically just bragging points, at best.
Ramshutu, even though my opponent ran out of time, I hope you can score this debate as though it wasn't a forfeit. I hit this one with everything I had and I actually want to see how effective I was at convincing you on this topic.
There is probably an option that says "other" or something along those lines.
But your profile also says you are a Christian and you argued that God is evil. So I dunno how much we aught to trust profiles on this site...
I don't vote on my own debate and this is the last round, so there is no further action I can take anyway. It will be up to Ramshutu to decide how to weigh everything. Besides, who said I was a Christian?
I'm planning to vote since RM asked me to awhile back. I just need a good opportunity to listen to all the songs.
LOL! Love the round 1 response. Type 1 is famous for his off-topic rants.
I agree with blamonkey. Setting up a debate where you attempt to lump the entire burden of proof onto your opponent really isn't a very honest tactic.
Well, since this discussion has descended into a name calling temper tantrum (despite a denial to the contrary), I'm going to stop responding here and add another name to my block list.
We talked previously about the "burden of proof" issue and I agreed that you didn't have one. However I also pointed out that the way you dodged the burden of proof was sketchy and you clearly set this debate up knowing in advance what Mopac was going to do and in a way that would sabotage him while giving you an excuse to say nothing in defense of your own position. So, per Ramshutu's advice, had I been able to change my vote, you would have also lost points on conduct for that. In regards to the rest of what you said, you can believe whatever you want, but most of the mods on this site are atheist, so if they are biased, it surely isn't in my favor, or Mopac's favor. So you may want to give your theory some more thought, Chief.
But as I pointed out in my vote, the silly extra rules that people tack onto the description aren't strictly enforceable.
"...bsh1 declared himself Victor before I had a chance to post."
You do that all the time.
You did it when you debated me on ice in fast food beverages.
You did it in the "can God lift a rock, bla, bla" debate.
So if your argument is that bsh1 should lose this debate because he declared victory before the debate was over, then you would also need to concede both of those other two debates.
Hmmm...
Oh, I'm sure. I doubt you would say something like that.
But even if it were true, for the purpose of the debate, it wouldn't matter on who actually won. So it was an irrelevant "argument" anyway.
Alright, good to know. Consider my accusation of PM Doxxing officially retracted.
That aside however, even if harassing PMs did take place, that still strikes me as an outside issue to the debate itself. Wylted would be right to complain about such an event, but not within the context of the debate itself.
"I believe it has been discussed and approved that you can disclose mod PMs"
I was not aware of this. If true, I retract any accusation that it was a violation of the rules.
But is that the case? Can we disclose moderator PMs?
Lol wut? That was the oddest closing argument ever.
"my opponent conceded my facts were true."
Er... No?
The only thing I may have conceded was the point about ice supposedly being scooped from a bucket instead of dispensed from a machine. I've never personally witnessed this, but when I reviewed my own sources a second time I did find a brief mention of it.
However, the hang up there is that my source also said that ice scooped this way could be contaminated by the employee if their hand and/or the handle of the scoop came into contact with the ice. So it became a moot point anyway, since said ice could still be contaminated in spite of being inaccessible to customers.
As we (Ram, myself and Brutal) discussed several days ago (before Thanksgiving), I had asked Bsh1 to let me change my vote for this debate.
However, it looks like Virtuoso got to it first and decided that it is "more than sufficient."
I don't know if that makes it possible for the mods to still take it down or if we are stuck with it now...
BUT, even if I had changed the vote, it would not have really mattered. The only change I would have made was to remove what I said about the "burden of proof" and instead penalize Con on conduct points for evading the burden of proof by setting up an unfair debate (as Ram suggested I do). As such, Con actually gets more points from my current vote than he would otherwise, and since it looks like he is going to win anyway, changing my vote wouldn't even be to his advantage anymore.
Hopefully this resolves any further dispute over this issue.
I understand. The vote was wrong so it should have been deleted.
(It also didn't help me that Pro and Con seemed to have revered roles for this debate. The guy who is usually Conservative was arguing the liberal position and vice versa, which made it hard to keep track of who was on which side.)
What happened was that I got Pro and Con confused, because this was one of the very first debates I voted on after joining this site.
I did read the debate and nothing is "obvious" based on my vote. If you want to delete my vote because it violates the rules, fine. I would appreciate you not hurling unsubstantiated false claims.
This was a super tough debate to vote on. I had to delete my vote and repost it like four times before I felt like it was good enough.
Either one of you up for that SEGA debate?
Besides, it wasn't as if I completely discounted everything you said. When you provided the claim that cups are filled with 50% to 75% ice before the beverage is poured, I used that as part of my own argument that ordering without ice gives you more beverage (which was my main point all along).
It isn't so much that *I* need to believe in your expertise, but the audience (as the people who vote for the winner) must believe you. Merely saying that you should be believed because you say that you work in fast food (and I'm confident you are telling the truth) doesn't prove that you are right. As I pointed out, that is an appeal to authority fallacy. It would be no different if I tried to win a debate on a military topic by citing my military experience. While it may help to win over the audience to point out personal experience, expertise or training, this alone doesn't equal the ability to provide outside sources to validate claimed facts.
Ah, that explains it then.
No, but I saw her in some debates on this site awhile back and it looked like she had gone inactive and stopped responding to a lot of them. I figured she had gone back to DDO or something.
When did YeshuaBought return from whatever void she fell into?
I'll add it to my favorites.
We talked about that. #67 and #45. Waiting on a moderator at this point. Chill.
But again, that brings me back to the particle physics symposium analogy. If I were to attend such an event, it is likely that the speakers would be required to convey their complex ideas in a manner which would be totally "incomprehensible" to ME, but likely very clear to everyone else in the room. In that example, it is not the fault of the speakers, rather it is my own fault that I lack the necessary knowledge to comprehend what they are saying. It is hardly fair to punish the speaker because the listener lacks the knowledge needed to understand what is said.
"Are you saying that his excessive capitalization should not have had any meaningful impact in the readability of the debate?"
Yes. I said exactly that in comment #49:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/309/comment_links/2416
As I attempted to explain to you, what you call "excessive capitalization" is actually the way that Christians are REQUIRED to write out proper names of God. The same way you would capitalize the 'T' in the proper name 'Tim', Christians capitalize the first letter of any name which applies to God. This includes God, He, Him, The Truth, The Light, etc, etc, etc. The purpose of this is not to negatively impact the readability of the text, but actually to clarify it, so that you always know when the author is speaking about God, even when alternate titles and terms are used in place of his standard form of address.
So it is not "excessive capitalization" as you claim, but Pro is actually required to write that way. If he were taking a graduate-level college course at a Christian university and failed to capitalize words in this manner, he would actually be docked for poor grammar for failing to do this.
As for the other issues you have, I can only repeat myself that you would understand them if you had a greater knowledge of Christian theology. If you would like to sign up for a graduate-level class in hermeneutics I can arrange that for you, but regardless, his statements remain grammatically correct.
Just a side note here, anyone curious about what I have or haven't said, or what my position on the debate is, should refer back to comment #45;
https://www.debateart.com/debates/309/comment_links/2411
I agree that Con never specifically said God doesn't exist.
He and I also discussed it in these comments before the debate was over, and he directly told me that it is impossible for him to prove that God doesn't exist. He said that in comment #19;
https://www.debateart.com/debates/309/comment_links/2307
So I'm fully well aware of what Con did and (more importantly) didn't say.
As for my vote, it has been discussed with a moderator and there is a standing agreement between myself and Ramshutu that I am going to make some modifications in the near future which will better clarify a few critical points.
Like I said, I think he approached the argument in a way that won't appeal to the average layman, and I would consider it a valid criticism if you added that to a list of reasons why you think his argument failed to overcome Con's argument.
But it simply isn't a grammar issue. Nothing is wrong with the grammar. If you are going to hammer him for this, I just think it should be in the right category.
I believe that was what Wylted was getting at as well, though he worded it a little more... aggressively.
Just because one particular title (such as "The Truth") also means God, doesn't mean that all possible titles are interchangeable within the same context. The sentence doesn't become more clear if you switch the words around. The key is understanding that "The Truth" in this context has two meanings. It means "truth" as per the standard dictionary definition, but it also is a title for God, who himself is truth, which is why he capitalizes the first letter of each word. For the specific context of his argument to make sense in this sentence, you still have to refer to God as The Truth. You can't switch it out for The Light or any of the many, many, many other names by which He is known.
And I'm not saying that you personally have to understand the sentence for it to make sense. Again, it seems pretty obvious that the reason why you don't understand it is because this is a Christian theological argument, not a direct logical argument designed for a layman. This is part of the reason why if I were the one participating in the debate, I wouldn't have taken this approach. However, just because the argument is an advanced theological issue which some members of the audience may not grasp, that does NOT make it a grammatical error.
It would be as if I went to a symposium on particle physics and then criticized the speaker for his "bad grammar" because I don't know anything about particle physics. Just because I don't personally know what the speaker means when he talks doesn't make his grammar wrong if he is still speaking in a way which is correct for the topic at hand.
If a Buddhist gave you an obscure quote from his religion, would you accuse him of bad grammar, or would you stop to ask that maybe he is referencing some element of his faith that you aren't familiar with?
I believe you are correct. I know I always see the editing button when I first post a vote, but after approximately the time limit you describe it has been removed.
Either way, Bsh1 stated that he would take the vote down and allow me to repost a new one in a few hours. So problem solved.
Unless I'm seriously mistaken, there is a time limit to remove or edit a vote. I no longer see those options on my screen, so I believe that time limit has passed while we have been discussing this.
I'm glad you appreciate that we are having a mature discussion about this.
That said,
"I would strongly contend that while you may 'understand' sentences such as this [...] it likely took you several reads, notes, and several minutes of squinting."
Uh, no. I understood that sentence just fine, even though it was actually several sentences that you quoted. As I said in my RFD, I don't think it was a very strong argument, but I had no difficulty in understanding his message.
If it helps to clarify things for you, "The Truth" in this passage is a direct reference to God. He is literally saying "God is The Truth."
"...that is detrimental to the reader due to the choice of capitalization..."
Again, this is a theology issue which you seem not to have knowledge of. When a Christian refers to God, we capitalize the first letter of His name, the same way we would capitalize any formal name. This rule also applies when we refer to God by a different "title" than God. For example, in a sentence where I refer to "Him" in the third-person, I capitalize the 'H' in the word Him.
The only thing I can gather from your objections here is that you don't understand that when a Christian capitalizes a word in this manner, it is intended to inform the reader that the word in question is the literal name of God. So when he capitalizes "The Truth" the way that he does, he is doing that on purpose because you as the reader are intended to understand that he is talking about God.
This isn't a grammar error. This is literally the way that Christians write.
And FYI, I messaged Bsh1 about the RFD and asked if he is open to allowing me to change it as you have requested. I will let you know the outcome.
Ram, I'll explain it one more time;
IF Pro makes a "claim" that God exists...
BUT Con says "I don't claim gods don't exist" (as he did)...
THEN Con has not actually challenged the "claim" being made by Pro...
In which case Pro's "claim" was unchallenged due to Con never presenting any argument against it.
I suppose you can nitpick my use of the term "burden of proof" in this case, but even if that nitpick has any accuracy, I could just delete it from my RFD and then the RFD would be valid as it currently stands, based on the same criticism that Con spent the entire debate ranting about the dictionary (the "other argument you claim I didn't consider is still an argument about the dictionary).
In fact, you know what? I'll even cut you a break on this one Ramshutu.
I'm going to message Bsh1 and ask if my vote can be taken down without penalty, and I'll rewrite it without the "Burden of Proof" phrase included ANYWHERE in the debate. However, I'll still stand by everything else I said, including Con's failure to ever directly challenge the existence of God. I'll even slap him with those conduct points you mentioned, if you like.
Sound good?
Brutal, I've been addressing Ramshutu this whole time.
I haven't spoken to you at all today.
Thus, I never tried to tell you anything, least of all what you believe.
If you don't like my vote, you have the option to report it and see what the moderators will do about it.
Otherwise, I would prefer you either be polite about your concerns or keep them to yourself.