I mean, notice that Pro is suddenly no where to be found now that everyone is wise to his scheme. It honestly looks like some variant of this approach is his central strategy in every debate, where he wants to nitpick the definitions of words and the way they are used, rather than address actual scientific or philosophical issues related to the issue.
I didn't say you were an idiot or suicidal. I legitimately think you did a good job. And after thinking it over more, I also agree with you that Pro was trolling.
His overly aggressive act of threatening people with reprisal from the moderators was part of the game too. I actually feel bad having "fallen for" that part of the troll by assuming he was serious, when he knew he was BSing me all along.
Seriously, you did us all a favor by taking this one on. Can you imagine what would have happened if a new debater ended up in this mess?
Anyway, based on the way you guys are discussing this, I'm actually starting to think I gave Pro TOO MUCH credit, if anything. I tried to interpret his argument from a common sense standpoint and attempted to find some way, no matter how remote, that his argument could make sense. I reasoned that if I were standing on the beach in Los Angles and looking at the sunset, I would be physically facing the direction west, but would also be looking across the sea to where the Eastern hemisphere is located, thus causing the sun to be "setting" in the "East" in this unique scenario. I assumed that was why he used coastal cities along the Pacific Ocean as his examples, as opposed to giving places like Denver or Moscow that are inland.
But if what you guys are saying is true, and his whole scheme revolved around the context of the word "in" is used, then that is even more of a play on words than I was interpreting. In that case, I can definitely see where he was "trolling" with this debate, by giving it a seemingly impossible title which seemed easy to beat, even though he planned to steamroll his opponent with a goofy argument based on nothing but wordplay. That would be a trap at best or trolling at worst.
If that is the case, then I guess RM did everyone a favor by throwing himself on this grenade for the rest of us. Pro was probably hoping some poor noob would accept this debate and have no idea what to do.
I really liked your argument about the Hemispheres being social constructs, because I probably would not have thought of that myself and it was a clever way to throw a monkey wrench into Pro's argument.
I do wish that you had also taken the more "brute force" approach of simply finding a scientific source that says "the sun always rises in the East and sets in the West" and made that the centerpiece. If combined with the clever response about the Hemispheres, I honestly would have voted for that argument as unbearably correct.
I'm waiting on one final point of clarification from a moderator before I vote on this, but I suspect that this fiasco isn't going to end well for anyone.
I agree with your argument, but if I were you I would probably alter your actual challenge here.
I've already run into a situation where I thought I very clearly worded my debate and what specifically I was challenging my opponent to argue for. However, the rando who accepted the debate completely ignored everything I wrote in the debate description, as well as all of my opening arguments, and basically just made up his own topic that he wanted to argue about.
Frankly, I see the same thing happening here. Since this is an open debate, the first rando who comes along and thinks "ha, I can prove I don't hate the constitution" will quickly pounce on this, ignore everything you said about the first and second amendments in the debate description, and start rambling about how much they "LLLOOOOOUUUUVVVVEEE" the 298th Amendment making homosexuality compulsory. And then you will be stuck in the boat I'm in, where your debate becomes a fight over if your opponent has the necessary reading comprehension skills to figure out where on the page you posted the debate description at.
So I guess what I'm getting at is; Be careful with titles!
If you have defended your position so effectively as you claim, then this debate should be no problem for you. But you don't seem to want to accept it, so... that advice you gave... I'm sure you will figure it out (eventually).
I don't think he can delete his vote unless it is done very shortly after the vote has been placed. If you guys are sure he voted incorrectly, you can flag the vote for a moderator to look at it, the moderator can take it down and then he can put it back up.
As an aside, I gave a pretty legit review for this debate, regardless of it being a "troll" debate or not. Someone is reporting my votes just to be a dick and waste the moderator's time.
Mopac, just an FYI, I challenged Type1 to a follow-up debate on several of his arguments used in this debate (since there was some disagreement over your win), but Type1 declined.
I'm not saying hes right, or that I agree with him. And the debate isn't over yet anyway, so anyone could still win at this point. I just don't think being contradictory and confusing is the same thing as conceding. And stooping to his level and counter attacking him with insults isn't going to make the situation better.
But let me put it to you this way;
You think the voters are dishonest and will vote for whomever they like, rather than who was actually the better debater.
You think the mods are dishonest and they won't remove dishonest votes.
So you plan to fix the problem by reminding everyone how dishonest they are and threatening to have the (supposedly dishonest) mods act on your behalf.
That just doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think it is a very good debate strategy.
The statement is contradictory. It does one thing as much as it does the other thing, but the two things can't both be true at the same. That makes no sense, if taken only on the context you provide.
However, if taken in the larger context of the debate as a whole, we know he also pointed out that Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs based on the way humans have chosen to draw maps. Meaning that they don't really exist from a scientific standpoint. But from a scientific standpoint the Earth does have two magnetic poles (North and South) and the earth rotates on it's axis along these poles. And since the Earth always rotates the same direction, the sun will always appear to "rise" from the same direction regardless of which socially constructed hemisphere an observer happens to be physically located in. This was his rebuttal of your arguments made in round one, where you attempted to draw a distinction between how the sun "rises" in the Eastern versus Western hemispheres.
In other words, what he is trying to say in a very confusing and round about way, is that this whole argument is a bunch of irrelevant word-play which cannot change how the universe actually functions. I don't accept that as a concession, just a complex way of saying this entire discussion never made any sense to begin with, and still doesn't.
I have to say that I haven't seen a major problem with the moderation on this site so far. There are a few users who deserve a good smack upside the head, but the mods seem alright.
You can see from some of the comments below that I've had a few of my own votes removed and I didn't object because I actually agreed those votes weren't very good. So I went back and made better ones after they got taken down.
I wasn't ever one of the users of DDO (because when I signed up there, I saw everyone was moving here), so I don't know what drama may have taken place way back when, so I have to give this place a clean slate until I have reason to do otherwise.
And now we are talking about a second concession? I still never saw the first one...
And Magic, now that I think of it, what exactly did you mean when you claimed "that dishonest people try to vote others down" on this site?
From what I can see, you have only participated in one prior debate which ended in a tie because neither you or your opponent provided any arguments. So who has ever voted you down?
Some of those votes I changed admittedly weren't very good and I actually wanted to redo them anyway after learning more about how the site works. From here on out, my votes are likely to be fairly detailed.
I already have a feeling that this debate will provide me with plenty of material to comment on.
I personally understand if one debater politely asks for certain considerations as part of the debate. But the rules some people tack on get pretty outrageous.
I foresee a situation not unlike a certain episode of 'The Simpsons' where a person was challenged to make an argument without using the letter 'e' in the argument.
Hey mods, this debate actually brings up something I want to know about the rules (and which I can't find in the posted rules).
When someone creates a debate with "special rules" of their own creation, are those rules enforceable?
For example, if someone creates a rule that says "Moderators *must* remove votes that [X]" will a moderator actually remove votes that do whatever the statement says, or will moderators only enforce the *ACTUAL* rules which normally apply on all debates?
Con accuses Pro of trolling. Pro rebuts by threatening voters. "Bold" strategies in play here to say the least. Was this a debate to see who could lose the "conduct" vote?
I wouldn't have approached the argument the same way, I'll give you that.
However, Pro did what they did, they provided a citation to support their point and stuck with that point to the end. Con mostly responded with ah-hominem, rhetorical claims, a complete lack of any sources and forfeited one round. I really don't see much of a contest here over who really won this debate.
There is a reason why Type1 is the lowest ranked debater on this site and it isn't because he wins a lot of arguments with his witty retorts.
Pro clearly cited Merriam Webster dictionary specifically.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
I had absolutely no difficulty finding the spot where it says "the supreme or ultimate reality" as the very first definition. Literally took me about 30 seconds.
And I assume you noticed where he claimed the site is biased and people only voted for you because they are rallying around the side they agree with?
I guess he missed the part where the owner of this site is an atheist, his head moderator is gay, the highest ranked debater is pagan and most of the users are politically left-wing. I'm sure all of those guys really wanted God to win this one, yeah?
I mean, notice that Pro is suddenly no where to be found now that everyone is wise to his scheme. It honestly looks like some variant of this approach is his central strategy in every debate, where he wants to nitpick the definitions of words and the way they are used, rather than address actual scientific or philosophical issues related to the issue.
I didn't say you were an idiot or suicidal. I legitimately think you did a good job. And after thinking it over more, I also agree with you that Pro was trolling.
His overly aggressive act of threatening people with reprisal from the moderators was part of the game too. I actually feel bad having "fallen for" that part of the troll by assuming he was serious, when he knew he was BSing me all along.
Seriously, you did us all a favor by taking this one on. Can you imagine what would have happened if a new debater ended up in this mess?
Perhaps I missed that part.
Anyway, based on the way you guys are discussing this, I'm actually starting to think I gave Pro TOO MUCH credit, if anything. I tried to interpret his argument from a common sense standpoint and attempted to find some way, no matter how remote, that his argument could make sense. I reasoned that if I were standing on the beach in Los Angles and looking at the sunset, I would be physically facing the direction west, but would also be looking across the sea to where the Eastern hemisphere is located, thus causing the sun to be "setting" in the "East" in this unique scenario. I assumed that was why he used coastal cities along the Pacific Ocean as his examples, as opposed to giving places like Denver or Moscow that are inland.
But if what you guys are saying is true, and his whole scheme revolved around the context of the word "in" is used, then that is even more of a play on words than I was interpreting. In that case, I can definitely see where he was "trolling" with this debate, by giving it a seemingly impossible title which seemed easy to beat, even though he planned to steamroll his opponent with a goofy argument based on nothing but wordplay. That would be a trap at best or trolling at worst.
If that is the case, then I guess RM did everyone a favor by throwing himself on this grenade for the rest of us. Pro was probably hoping some poor noob would accept this debate and have no idea what to do.
I really liked your argument about the Hemispheres being social constructs, because I probably would not have thought of that myself and it was a clever way to throw a monkey wrench into Pro's argument.
I do wish that you had also taken the more "brute force" approach of simply finding a scientific source that says "the sun always rises in the East and sets in the West" and made that the centerpiece. If combined with the clever response about the Hemispheres, I honestly would have voted for that argument as unbearably correct.
Added! Thanks for the heads up.
I'm waiting on one final point of clarification from a moderator before I vote on this, but I suspect that this fiasco isn't going to end well for anyone.
I have challenged Jboy3r to a debate on Sega and am waiting to see if he will accept. https://www.debateart.com/debates/331
I agree with your argument, but if I were you I would probably alter your actual challenge here.
I've already run into a situation where I thought I very clearly worded my debate and what specifically I was challenging my opponent to argue for. However, the rando who accepted the debate completely ignored everything I wrote in the debate description, as well as all of my opening arguments, and basically just made up his own topic that he wanted to argue about.
Frankly, I see the same thing happening here. Since this is an open debate, the first rando who comes along and thinks "ha, I can prove I don't hate the constitution" will quickly pounce on this, ignore everything you said about the first and second amendments in the debate description, and start rambling about how much they "LLLOOOOOUUUUVVVVEEE" the 298th Amendment making homosexuality compulsory. And then you will be stuck in the boat I'm in, where your debate becomes a fight over if your opponent has the necessary reading comprehension skills to figure out where on the page you posted the debate description at.
So I guess what I'm getting at is; Be careful with titles!
If you have defended your position so effectively as you claim, then this debate should be no problem for you. But you don't seem to want to accept it, so... that advice you gave... I'm sure you will figure it out (eventually).
Sounds like good advice you might consider yourself.
You know, I could debate you here in the comments...
Or you could debate nmvarco in the actual debate.
Just sayin'.
If that is the case, why don't you take Pro for this debate?
I don't think he can delete his vote unless it is done very shortly after the vote has been placed. If you guys are sure he voted incorrectly, you can flag the vote for a moderator to look at it, the moderator can take it down and then he can put it back up.
Jboy3r, where do you stand on Sega?
As an aside, I gave a pretty legit review for this debate, regardless of it being a "troll" debate or not. Someone is reporting my votes just to be a dick and waste the moderator's time.
Mopac, just an FYI, I challenged Type1 to a follow-up debate on several of his arguments used in this debate (since there was some disagreement over your win), but Type1 declined.
Yes, I actually already had it on my favorites list. I'll be watching.
Also, I challenged Type1 to a debate on some of the smaller claims he made in this debate which I disagreed with. He declined.
I'm not saying hes right, or that I agree with him. And the debate isn't over yet anyway, so anyone could still win at this point. I just don't think being contradictory and confusing is the same thing as conceding. And stooping to his level and counter attacking him with insults isn't going to make the situation better.
But let me put it to you this way;
You think the voters are dishonest and will vote for whomever they like, rather than who was actually the better debater.
You think the mods are dishonest and they won't remove dishonest votes.
So you plan to fix the problem by reminding everyone how dishonest they are and threatening to have the (supposedly dishonest) mods act on your behalf.
That just doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think it is a very good debate strategy.
The statement is contradictory. It does one thing as much as it does the other thing, but the two things can't both be true at the same. That makes no sense, if taken only on the context you provide.
However, if taken in the larger context of the debate as a whole, we know he also pointed out that Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs based on the way humans have chosen to draw maps. Meaning that they don't really exist from a scientific standpoint. But from a scientific standpoint the Earth does have two magnetic poles (North and South) and the earth rotates on it's axis along these poles. And since the Earth always rotates the same direction, the sun will always appear to "rise" from the same direction regardless of which socially constructed hemisphere an observer happens to be physically located in. This was his rebuttal of your arguments made in round one, where you attempted to draw a distinction between how the sun "rises" in the Eastern versus Western hemispheres.
In other words, what he is trying to say in a very confusing and round about way, is that this whole argument is a bunch of irrelevant word-play which cannot change how the universe actually functions. I don't accept that as a concession, just a complex way of saying this entire discussion never made any sense to begin with, and still doesn't.
I have to say that I haven't seen a major problem with the moderation on this site so far. There are a few users who deserve a good smack upside the head, but the mods seem alright.
You can see from some of the comments below that I've had a few of my own votes removed and I didn't object because I actually agreed those votes weren't very good. So I went back and made better ones after they got taken down.
I wasn't ever one of the users of DDO (because when I signed up there, I saw everyone was moving here), so I don't know what drama may have taken place way back when, so I have to give this place a clean slate until I have reason to do otherwise.
And now we are talking about a second concession? I still never saw the first one...
And Magic, now that I think of it, what exactly did you mean when you claimed "that dishonest people try to vote others down" on this site?
From what I can see, you have only participated in one prior debate which ended in a tie because neither you or your opponent provided any arguments. So who has ever voted you down?
Thanks.
Some of those votes I changed admittedly weren't very good and I actually wanted to redo them anyway after learning more about how the site works. From here on out, my votes are likely to be fairly detailed.
I already have a feeling that this debate will provide me with plenty of material to comment on.
Thanks. Good to know.
I personally understand if one debater politely asks for certain considerations as part of the debate. But the rules some people tack on get pretty outrageous.
I foresee a situation not unlike a certain episode of 'The Simpsons' where a person was challenged to make an argument without using the letter 'e' in the argument.
Hey mods, this debate actually brings up something I want to know about the rules (and which I can't find in the posted rules).
When someone creates a debate with "special rules" of their own creation, are those rules enforceable?
For example, if someone creates a rule that says "Moderators *must* remove votes that [X]" will a moderator actually remove votes that do whatever the statement says, or will moderators only enforce the *ACTUAL* rules which normally apply on all debates?
I haven't seen a concession yet, despite your claim.
Con accuses Pro of trolling. Pro rebuts by threatening voters. "Bold" strategies in play here to say the least. Was this a debate to see who could lose the "conduct" vote?
I wouldn't have approached the argument the same way, I'll give you that.
However, Pro did what they did, they provided a citation to support their point and stuck with that point to the end. Con mostly responded with ah-hominem, rhetorical claims, a complete lack of any sources and forfeited one round. I really don't see much of a contest here over who really won this debate.
There is a reason why Type1 is the lowest ranked debater on this site and it isn't because he wins a lot of arguments with his witty retorts.
Pro clearly cited Merriam Webster dictionary specifically.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
I had absolutely no difficulty finding the spot where it says "the supreme or ultimate reality" as the very first definition. Literally took me about 30 seconds.
Rational Madman was trying to summon the DebateArt 'god' to smite Jboy3r!
Oh. My bad.
"All he did was cite some "sources"(in quotes because they aren't credible sources, as the sources equally did not prove their claims)"
So the dictionary is no longer credible and it has to "prove" what words mean?
Hey, I'm still new to this site. Does anyone know how I can post a reaction GIF of a person looking confused in response to a baffling statement?
And I assume you noticed where he claimed the site is biased and people only voted for you because they are rallying around the side they agree with?
I guess he missed the part where the owner of this site is an atheist, his head moderator is gay, the highest ranked debater is pagan and most of the users are politically left-wing. I'm sure all of those guys really wanted God to win this one, yeah?
Man, I hope Con provides his final rebuttal before the Duck God smites him!
Bro, you better take ducks seriously. Those things got pointy beaks and poison.