And here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/242?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=4
Out of a total of 5 non forfeit/concession votes.
And as for Bsh1, you are absolutely correct that I have voted for him 100% of the time. I have consistently and repeatedly voted for him in every single debate of his I have voted for: every single only one of them - this one.
So yet again: you’re flat out demonstrably full of shit. Which is why, again, you have absolutely no credibility.
No, I think the fact that you keep going on these nonsensical rants, with any proof of anything.
You’ve accused me of being the only person to vote in a particular way, when 3 other people also voted that same way. You’ve also asserted - with no evidence - that I only vote one way, and keep asserting that I only vote one way even after many, many, many examples of me voting other ways is presented.
I’m saying that you have a history of making things up, producing no evidence to support your claims: and then simply repeating those same lies over and over again because you think the “gentle reader” doesn’t see that you’re a liar. You have no credibility as a result.
If you can produce any specific example wher you think my vote was unfair or unreasonable - go ahead, and I will happily defend every vote I have made.
Until then, I’m going to treat your insane, paranoid claims - asserted with no evidence or justification - with the appropriate amount of disdain.
I’m going to finish analyzing arguments at some point today - as I think it’s fair to do so for the purpose of improvement.
Unfortunately: the lengthy set of rules make it clear that forfeits merit a loss. If I don’t vote in support of the debate rules here where there is a clear and unambiguous violation, then I have less moral authority to vote against anyone violating their own rules at any other time.
“The common mistake among valuers that leads to a 'totalizing' of values as 'absolutes' or 'ultimates' is to forget that any given value encompasses only an aspect of reality and ought not to be treated as transcendent or reducible to that reality”.
Could you please explain what you mean by “totalizing” in this context and throughout?
If you have a specific objection to anything I said, please specify what you think is wrong. If you’re unable or unwilling to do that, I will assume you’re just butthurt.
Note: I accidentally scored this as a tie, this should have gone to con, and I’m waiting to correct the vote.
In the debate, you claimed that the study was only from “dining rooms”, you specifically stated “in thee kitchen ice usually comes in a kind of chest where customers can't get their grubby hands on it and contaminate it”, that was completely unsupported by the sources, and I could find no reference to all the ice machines being accessible to customers in either of the sources. Pro points out this wasn’t true. If pro couldn’t find it, I couldn’t find it (and I looked originally - and again twice now, just to make sure I really didn’t miss it), and you didn’t clarify what it said and where I said it: then I am forced to conclude the reference did not exist - and pros argument stands.
If Pro hadn’t called you on it not existing, I would have scored this differently - but he did, so as the source agreed with him at first glance, I treated your argument as completely insufficient. I believe I included this in my voting decision.
This issue is your fault as a debater. If the source said that, you could have quoted the specific part of the source, and pointed it out what you meant. You could have pointed out that the type of bacteria was different. You could have argued it was the UK and thus not applicable to All locations in general. But you didnt.
You put in a throw away claim about a study that was unquoted, unsourced, didn’t appear in the source as far as I could tell, that pro objected to, and you didn’t clarify.
Tell me, why should I give that argument ANY credibility at all compared to pros claim that was backed up by a news source that appeared to back up that claim on its face?
Incidentally, this perfectly underscores why (and how) I vote on arguments and sources:
You said something that wasn’t backed up by clear facts - I treated it as a weak argument: as you made an argument alleging a fact without providing a strong justification of that fact. I literally score any argument in any debate I have seen in this way - regardless of whether I think the claim is good/bad/true/false. I doubt you’d want me to either: as if I start scoring what you argue based on whether I think it’s true, rather than what you argued: you’d rightly be able to claim bias.
The logical side is one part, but when you use sources well, it becomes a real time fact check on either side. If pro hadn’t used a source for the bacteria, it would have turned out to be a different story - as it would have been one bad set of arguments against another. Both sets of arguments became “is true” vs “might be true” as a result of this source; this is the main precondition for me awarding sources.
“Both debaters have an equal burden of proof because this is just asking which one is generally best, ordering with ice or without.”
The terms of debate, mentioned by you in the first line: is shared BOP asking which one is “best”, which is what I used to frame all arguments. Which is best.
Now, you said that this was “dining room ice”, pro argued that it wasnt, I checked the source and from the link he provided, and it agreed with him, not you, because the link he provided did not say that. (I think I mentioned this in my vote - and this is part of the reason source points were awarded too), if pro hadn’t said anything, I would have given your response more credit - but you didn’t. So in this respect, that was scored based on the source, the severity, your attack and his defense: I used that to conclude pro better argued that no ice isnbrst!- for that reason.
Thirdly, the spelling errors and frequent spelling errors in your debate arguments detracted from both readability and would have picked up in a basic spelling and grammar check. I think I have scored 4 out of all my votes where there was a genuine debate for spelling - and so it when someone is particularly lazy about spelling and grammar rather than the odd mistake, mistakes in language, or just a couple of odd phrases. We’re you the worst offender, no: but this was either the 3rd or 4th worst example of spelling/grammar in a debate.
Finally: when your argument relies on there being some undesirable delay, and you don’t specify what the delay is: only that there is a delay: I cannot consider that to be a strong argument. It’s not up to me to look up external data and facts to make your argument for you. I’m not going to take your word on your claim, and I’m not going to inject external data by trying to look it up or work it it for myself - that adds my own personal bias into the debate. I scored your argument as weak - giving you credit for it, rather than excluding it from my determination.
You would have won on the arguments if you had done the following:
1.) Not contradicted yourself between the “it makes you fat”, vs “it’s only a few more sips”. If you had provided a source about how many more calories, as a percentage, not ordering ice would have be, and quantified the specific health impact.
2.) quantify the extra wait in context. If you had found the average line length, and the average wait, and the average increase in pour time: you could have given a percentage time increase to an existing customer. It doesn’t even have to all be sourced - it could have been hypothetical. Instead, you mostly just said it would be longer
3.) Would you rather drink cold toilet water, or warm mineral water - that’s the core that lost you arguments (and to a great degree sources too). To any Normal human being, the choice would be the warm mineral water. That source from pro is not something I expected, and was basically the knock out source and knock out argument. You had to put a dent in it, by citing some other studies, or putting the risk in context: (Ie: well use it *can* be as full of bacteria in some respect as toilet water - but not the same bacteria, and it’s not like everyone is dying from fast food Ice.
You would have drawn (and possibly won) conduct if you didn’t drop all sorts of random (not aimed at the opponent), insults.
You would have won (or drawn) sources, if you had provided a source about the temperature of the drink AND a source concerning pour times and waiting times.
You would have drawn grammar if you had run the debate through a grammar/spellchecker.
I score everyone the same way, for the same reasons, to the same degree: if you don’t like my source, conduct or grammar vote application - that’s fine: but I am awarding them in the hope that it will make people improve the quality of their debates.
I award spelling and grammar in cases where the spelling and grammar are terrible and effect readability.
I award sources when one side presents sources to validate their primary claims, or directly supports their argument. Posting a source relating to a definition we all agree on, or is not contested - no source points. If you make a surprising claim, a knockout claim - then make it next to impossible for your opponent to argue the key facts - that will.
I award conduct if someone is especially douchey.
I award arguments for the person making the better arguments.
If you have a specific issue with the reasoning or justification I’ve given: I’m happy to clairify. But it seems your just upset because you have a different interpretation of voting rules, rather than thinking I’m voting outside the voting rules: and for that I have no sympathy whatsoever.
Firstly, it’s not irrelevant nonsense, it’s an abstract logic problem that uses the same logic as you, that helps explain the logical error.
Are you dismissing me the example because you don’t know the answer, or because you don’t want to answer knowing that it may deleterious to your position?
Secondly: Your whole argument is based on claiming God exists because of the way God is defined. Prior to the dictionary (a few hundred years), and the Bible (a few thousand), God and truth wasn’t defined in the way you are claiming because they weren’t defined at all.
When your “proof” of something’s existance is based on the definition of words: that is “defining it into existance”. This is exactly what you are doing it, and so far, you’ve gone dozens of pages saying that this is not what you’re doing, only to continually repeat the poor logic.
What is pretty clear here: is throughout these comments you’re trying to provide any actual explanation or respond to any arguments, you are almost invariably just repeating - over and over again - the same shoddy argument. If you can’t defend your position, this is probably not a good place to be.
Firstly, oddly enough: no part of that definition actually applies to me in this case: I think it’s just wishful thinking on your part to make yourself feel better.
If you’re just going to repeat the same bad logic, and not actually address the key issue with your argument (which I have been explaining throughout and you don’t appear to have really even acknowledged, leave alone addressed), I will take that as a confession on your part that you can’t defend your position.
For someone fixated on definitions, it seems you don’t know what the definition of superstitious is.
At this point, you haven’t really provided any actual logical defense of your illogical claims: it has mostly been an argument of denial!-!you have barely acknowledged leave alone responses to anything I’ve said: so I’m just going to drill home the followings
Zigs are Zags. Zigs are also Zogs.
If Zags exist, do Zigs?
I don’t think you understand logic well enough to answer that question, or justify it.
He’s not going to change his mind, at least not here. Changing a mind is not an event, it’s a process. My aim isn’t to change his mind, or even to start him down the path by some nugget of information. My reasons are three fold: change only happens under pressure, and while I’m sure he probably won’t change his mind ever, when confronted with contradictions, problems and issues, and challenged on hisn “facts”, the discomfort of generalized cognitive dissonance is more likely to do that than nothing at all. Secondly, maybe one day I will figure out the one way of getting through to the boneheaded and irrational: I won’t know unless I try. Thirdly, I enjoy coming up with ways of showing, explaining and coming up with logical reasons why people are wrong - so theres that too.
If you had read or understood ANYTHING I’ve said so far: you would understand that at no point an I arguing that reality, or whatever truly exists, or truth itself exists - but that just because they do, doesn’t mean God exists - despite your illogical assertions to the contrary.
Now, stating you won’t change your mind is one of the most ignorant and surefire way to tell someone who is wrong. If you started wrong, and won’t change your mind: you’ll stay wrong forever. It’s actually sad.
What you did: is you ignored the key issues with your arguments, picked up on some irrelevant and nonsensical difference, and asserted that Chewbacca doesn’t exist.
Unfortunately - your exact logic can be used to show Chewbacca exists because your logic is wrong.
That’s not what you were doing. What you were doing is pointing to a fact and claiming it shows God exists. You can do that for literally any fact that you want.
It’s a combination of cherry picking (you are forced to ignore all examples where it seems to disprove God), confirmation bias (for the same reason), and assessing only one way: IE not assessing the probability of the example being true in the converse.
I’m rejecting yor assertions because they are completely illogical nonsense.
You are misusing definitions by ignoring additional properties of God.
Your logic can be used to show Chewbacca exists.
It am not sure why you have gone dozens and dozens of posts and ignoring the key issues with your position, but your position is logically and theologically bankrupt.
Again for the ten thousandth time: I am rejecting you bad logic
AgaIn, for the ten thousandth time, and you keep ignoring: you are using the definition of God to prove he exists. That is ridiculous.
The reason it is ridiculous, is because the definition of God is not ONLY reality, is reality AND a bunch of other stuff. That’s the massive glaring and obvious error which makes your logic so bad it can be used to prove a Chewbacca exists.
What’s your logic? As I have been saying for dozens and dozens of posts now:
What you are doing, is defining God as reality, and then saying as reality exists, God exists.
Reality exists, but we can’t tell if reality is an entity, that it has a mind, and creative reality. Because of that, we can’t tell whether reality has all the properties of God - and therefore whether God exists.
So defining God as reality is a pointless and meaningless exercise because of all the other properties of God you happen to ignore
This is the massive problem you keep ignoring in preference to the incoherent rants about how I’m not accepting The truth. No - you’re logic is idiotic and you don’t know how definitions work.
No, I’m rejecting your stupid logic which fails at a most basic logical level.
Not only that, you’re argument utterly fails on a theological basis too: your entire position completely links the existance of the supreme being, and divine creator of the entire Cosmos directly to the specific words that human beings have decided to attribute to him, and the meaning that those humans have assigned. Every man of learning and faith should rightly laugh at this, as it denigrates both the power and majesty of God by making his existence dependent on words..
If God doesn’t exist, he can’t be “the truth” - whether you, the bible, or the dictionary define him as the truth or not.
You're irrationally obsessed with definitions as if they prove anything in this regard - Chewbacca doesn’t exist, no matter how I define him - which illustrates perfectly how faulty your logic is.
But let’s say I accept your premise that God is Reality - though no dictionary defines him as such. The reason you’re entire position falls apart is that while reality exists - God is defined as more than just reality.
God, is Reality, and an entity, and has a mind of some kind, and has motivation of some kind, has intent of some kind, can exercise creative force in some degree.
That’s the error. One of The properties of God exists - good for you. Now show me the direct evidence that allllllll the other properties of God exist. If you can’t do that, you’re not proving God exists, you’re basically arguing that reality exists and you are desperately trying to inject all this other nonsense.
It’s exactly the same error with Chewbacca - furry creatures exist. Chewbacca is a furry creature - but Chewbacca is also fictional, 8 feet tall, and big into interstellar travel and smuggling and existed a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away - do those properties exist - no.
Chewbacca and God definitions fail for the same reason.
So, pro offered the main big points here,
And while I feel the big pros and cons were not well argued by either side in my view - they were roughly even with con having the edge. However, con threw out a number of small claims that were all batted away easily by pro that really eroded cons position.
If either side presented more in the way of concrete sources to support claims, or causal analysis: this analysis would be different, as I would have weighted the first big set of arguments more strongly. As that wasn’t really the case, the points above reflect which party “sounded” more reasonable and more logical on balance - which means that while I am completely against flat tax - I have to award this to pro.
There is room for improvement for both sides though.
This seems like an issue with one way a flat tax could be implemented. Pro points this out that there are different implementations - ones that include dividends and flat tax. I felt this refuted con well.
Pro 3.5:3
10.) lowering of charitable donations.
Con claims that reduction in income would lower charitable donations. Pro explains that they would be incentivized in other plans. I felt this rebutted cons argument here: con (or pro) could have done better by argument based on reduction of income, and citing the amount of money given to charity. As he did not, I have to give this I pro.
Pro 4:3
11.) Reduction in government jobs
Con argues that flat tax would reduce government jobs. It wasn’t clear how he felt this was the case - pro successfully (in my view), bats this claim away. Con has to do better here to support his points. Pros pro business argument acts as an additional counter
Pro 4.5:3
12.) overall affect - poverty and homelessness.
While I feel Con presents an argument in general about increased tax burden on the middle class and poor people (which has already been assessed), the argument about extreme poverty is in my view not well supported by con - as he doesn’t quantify it. Pro also manages to bay this away by talking about negative income tax and exemptions for low incomes that could alleviate this. I would award this to pro.
5.) rich getting richer - I believe this is a good point from con - and it serves both as a rebuttal and as individual supporting point. As mentioned - pros counter here didn’t really hold much water in my view, he talks more about existing brackets than really quantifying the impact. As I said - as no sources were provided, I am basing this off which argument “sounds”, more correct, with this, and with what I mentioned about pros argument 2, I have to go with Con on this one:
Con 3:2
6.) countries with a flat tax have tanked.
Little data is provided on either side. Con makes a reasonable sounding point, but pro casts doubt on the point by highlighting that con can’t link the economic issues to the flat tax as is being implied. I have to give this one to pro.
Saying that: as this was a smaller point, with little attention paid to each, I won’t score these the same as pros large points:
Con 3:2.5
7.) retirement is made harder
Con did better here, but I feel this argument already accounted for in the scoring first argument.
8.) Housing market.
I wasn’t certain from cons argument what impact a flat tax would have, he has said there would be a problem, but didn’t explain how the calculation would change, and how. Pro points this out in his rebuttal and it is not clarified by con.
3.) decreasing tax on companies would help investment and the economy.
Pro gave a logical explanation of how this works - but doesn’t quantify the effect, so as a judge, I can’t tell how much of a benefit this is. Con crafts a rebuttal concerning trickle down economics not working, but... I know the data shows it doesn’t work, I’ve seen studies and data - but con doesn’t show any of it: as a result, I’m faced with pro explaining how flat tax could boost the economy, and con saying “no”, with no justification as to why it wouldn’t: and just what amounts to an assertion that it doesn’t. As a result I just can’t give this one to con. This is why sources are so important, this point was there for the taking!
2:1 to pro.
4.) more efficient government spending.
Pro doesn’t give me any specific reason to believe that the government would be more responsible with money in flat tax - no argument is provided. While pro also explains how it can be “funded” by cutting other programs - pro doesn’t explain why this is okay - to me pro must justify the cuts as either unnecessary programs, or an easy place to get funding. Tax relief could be funded by eliminating the military, for example - but that doesn’t make it a good idea!
Pros main issue here, is as mentioned in point 2. That he shots himself in the foot by arguing it’s unfair to have the rich pay more than their fair share and the poorer should foot more of the bill - and then argue that programs that benefit the poor such as welfare and Obamacare should be cut at the same time: it seems wrong prima facia. Cons rebuttals vis a vis taxation on the poor were good enough to throw doubt on this argument - so I have to give this one to con too.
I would like to have seen source for pro on this, but the point is well argued. The tax do pay a large percentage of the tax burden. Pro does not quantify the impact on the average family for raising taxes - which is important for him to establish. It felt like con didn’t tackle this head on - but did point out the large increase the middle class would have to bear. What was missing for me, is con coming up with a justification of why it is okay for the top tier to pay an undue burden. Con argues it will be hard for the poor and middle class - and doesn’t explain why it’s fair for the rich to pay. As a result, I would score this for pro.
1:0 for pro
2.) it wont destroy the middle class.
I felt pro absolutely shot himself in the foot here. You can’t go from arguing that 90% of the poorest people pay 33% of the tax, then argue that a flat tax - which balances that out - won’t affect the middle class. It really draws attention to the problem of his first argument.
Con: to his credit tackled this argument - talking about retirement issues (unsourced) and his analysis of tax increases on the poor. I felt pros rebuttal to these points were very weak, claiming “the tax could be lower” than 14.5% is not compelling as it is not backed up by any data
Nothing is sourced here on either side though. Guys - you have to back these claims up with data!!!
While con didn’t tackle this head on, I felt that he did address the main issues with the middle class, and as pro eroded his own position: and with no sources on either side, cons argument “felt” more true this one goes to con.
And you just nailed the rebuttal of your own point.
You defined “God” as “the ultimate reality”.
by this reality, An ultimate reality lead by Vishnu, Allah, or simply has no God at all.... all these things could be said to be “God”, using this definition.
“Ultimate Reality” exists - this is true - reality exists.
“Creatures with fur” exists - this is also true - we see creatures with fur.
God is defined as the ultimate reality. This is true - this is how God is defined
Chewbacca is defined as a creature with fur. This is true - this is how Chewbacca is defined
As God is defined as the ultimate reality, and ultimate reality exists - God exists by definition.
As Chewbacca is defined as a creature with fur, and creatures with fur exits - Chewbacca exists by definition.
The logic between the two is identical, and neatly points out how logically fatuous your argument is. The reason this argument doesn’t prove Chewbacca exists is the same reason yours doesn’t prove God exists.
The issue is not that I don’t understand the argument you are making, the issue is that the argument you’re making doesn’t prove God exists, or even comes close.
You’re arguing that God exists because of how you - and others defined God. That’s not how definition works.
Reality exists.
Creatures with hair exist.
Arguing that because God is defined as ultimate reality -mhe must exist is exactly the same as arguing that’s chewbacca exists because he is a creature with hair and creatures with hair exist.
No, your argument is illogical and atrocious. you are attempting to define God into existance. Indeed, you are doing a horrible job at convincing me - and anyone because your argument is incredibly poor.
If you come up with a logical, or reasonable argument then we can talk - but what you’re doing here is effectively saying that you can prove God exists, because you’re saying god is reality and so must exist. Logic doesn’t work that way.
So, as we can all see: no evidence of any kind. again. He’s very good at making accusations, very poor at actually providing justification for them.
And like so many other times, when he actually makes specific claims, you end up proving yourself a liar.
I give virt all my votes? Omg that’s so true.
Except here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/311?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
And here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/242?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=4
Out of a total of 5 non forfeit/concession votes.
And as for Bsh1, you are absolutely correct that I have voted for him 100% of the time. I have consistently and repeatedly voted for him in every single debate of his I have voted for: every single only one of them - this one.
So yet again: you’re flat out demonstrably full of shit. Which is why, again, you have absolutely no credibility.
No, I think the fact that you keep going on these nonsensical rants, with any proof of anything.
You’ve accused me of being the only person to vote in a particular way, when 3 other people also voted that same way. You’ve also asserted - with no evidence - that I only vote one way, and keep asserting that I only vote one way even after many, many, many examples of me voting other ways is presented.
I’m saying that you have a history of making things up, producing no evidence to support your claims: and then simply repeating those same lies over and over again because you think the “gentle reader” doesn’t see that you’re a liar. You have no credibility as a result.
If you can produce any specific example wher you think my vote was unfair or unreasonable - go ahead, and I will happily defend every vote I have made.
Until then, I’m going to treat your insane, paranoid claims - asserted with no evidence or justification - with the appropriate amount of disdain.
Excellent observation - you are spot on noticing that no fortune cookies voted in this debate.
Frankly the rest of your angry fact-free rant is not based on anything resembling reality. Maybe we’re all part of the Illuminati?
No offence, but I’ve seen fortune cookies that were better at discerning the current state of reality than you are.
I’m going to finish analyzing arguments at some point today - as I think it’s fair to do so for the purpose of improvement.
Unfortunately: the lengthy set of rules make it clear that forfeits merit a loss. If I don’t vote in support of the debate rules here where there is a clear and unambiguous violation, then I have less moral authority to vote against anyone violating their own rules at any other time.
I’m still in the process of analyzing the arguments, but I wanted to record my vote first.
“The common mistake among valuers that leads to a 'totalizing' of values as 'absolutes' or 'ultimates' is to forget that any given value encompasses only an aspect of reality and ought not to be treated as transcendent or reducible to that reality”.
Could you please explain what you mean by “totalizing” in this context and throughout?
If you have a specific objection to anything I said, please specify what you think is wrong. If you’re unable or unwilling to do that, I will assume you’re just butthurt.
Note: I accidentally scored this as a tie, this should have gone to con, and I’m waiting to correct the vote.
To be fair, A wise man once said:
“I'm sorry. But pro didn't cite anything so how could you even give him that point?”
- Virtuoso: literally today, a few hours ago.
As far as I can see, con didn’t cite anything, so his could you think the vote could even give him that point?
For the people reporting votes. Con started this debate and did not post a single round.
Pro, forfeited two rounds, and posted “forfeit”, for two rounds. In this respect, pro turned up, and so punitive points against con are reasonable.
In the debate, you claimed that the study was only from “dining rooms”, you specifically stated “in thee kitchen ice usually comes in a kind of chest where customers can't get their grubby hands on it and contaminate it”, that was completely unsupported by the sources, and I could find no reference to all the ice machines being accessible to customers in either of the sources. Pro points out this wasn’t true. If pro couldn’t find it, I couldn’t find it (and I looked originally - and again twice now, just to make sure I really didn’t miss it), and you didn’t clarify what it said and where I said it: then I am forced to conclude the reference did not exist - and pros argument stands.
If Pro hadn’t called you on it not existing, I would have scored this differently - but he did, so as the source agreed with him at first glance, I treated your argument as completely insufficient. I believe I included this in my voting decision.
This issue is your fault as a debater. If the source said that, you could have quoted the specific part of the source, and pointed it out what you meant. You could have pointed out that the type of bacteria was different. You could have argued it was the UK and thus not applicable to All locations in general. But you didnt.
You put in a throw away claim about a study that was unquoted, unsourced, didn’t appear in the source as far as I could tell, that pro objected to, and you didn’t clarify.
Tell me, why should I give that argument ANY credibility at all compared to pros claim that was backed up by a news source that appeared to back up that claim on its face?
Incidentally, this perfectly underscores why (and how) I vote on arguments and sources:
You said something that wasn’t backed up by clear facts - I treated it as a weak argument: as you made an argument alleging a fact without providing a strong justification of that fact. I literally score any argument in any debate I have seen in this way - regardless of whether I think the claim is good/bad/true/false. I doubt you’d want me to either: as if I start scoring what you argue based on whether I think it’s true, rather than what you argued: you’d rightly be able to claim bias.
The logical side is one part, but when you use sources well, it becomes a real time fact check on either side. If pro hadn’t used a source for the bacteria, it would have turned out to be a different story - as it would have been one bad set of arguments against another. Both sets of arguments became “is true” vs “might be true” as a result of this source; this is the main precondition for me awarding sources.
“Both debaters have an equal burden of proof because this is just asking which one is generally best, ordering with ice or without.”
The terms of debate, mentioned by you in the first line: is shared BOP asking which one is “best”, which is what I used to frame all arguments. Which is best.
Now, you said that this was “dining room ice”, pro argued that it wasnt, I checked the source and from the link he provided, and it agreed with him, not you, because the link he provided did not say that. (I think I mentioned this in my vote - and this is part of the reason source points were awarded too), if pro hadn’t said anything, I would have given your response more credit - but you didn’t. So in this respect, that was scored based on the source, the severity, your attack and his defense: I used that to conclude pro better argued that no ice isnbrst!- for that reason.
Thirdly, the spelling errors and frequent spelling errors in your debate arguments detracted from both readability and would have picked up in a basic spelling and grammar check. I think I have scored 4 out of all my votes where there was a genuine debate for spelling - and so it when someone is particularly lazy about spelling and grammar rather than the odd mistake, mistakes in language, or just a couple of odd phrases. We’re you the worst offender, no: but this was either the 3rd or 4th worst example of spelling/grammar in a debate.
Finally: when your argument relies on there being some undesirable delay, and you don’t specify what the delay is: only that there is a delay: I cannot consider that to be a strong argument. It’s not up to me to look up external data and facts to make your argument for you. I’m not going to take your word on your claim, and I’m not going to inject external data by trying to look it up or work it it for myself - that adds my own personal bias into the debate. I scored your argument as weak - giving you credit for it, rather than excluding it from my determination.
You would have won on the arguments if you had done the following:
1.) Not contradicted yourself between the “it makes you fat”, vs “it’s only a few more sips”. If you had provided a source about how many more calories, as a percentage, not ordering ice would have be, and quantified the specific health impact.
2.) quantify the extra wait in context. If you had found the average line length, and the average wait, and the average increase in pour time: you could have given a percentage time increase to an existing customer. It doesn’t even have to all be sourced - it could have been hypothetical. Instead, you mostly just said it would be longer
3.) Would you rather drink cold toilet water, or warm mineral water - that’s the core that lost you arguments (and to a great degree sources too). To any Normal human being, the choice would be the warm mineral water. That source from pro is not something I expected, and was basically the knock out source and knock out argument. You had to put a dent in it, by citing some other studies, or putting the risk in context: (Ie: well use it *can* be as full of bacteria in some respect as toilet water - but not the same bacteria, and it’s not like everyone is dying from fast food Ice.
You would have drawn (and possibly won) conduct if you didn’t drop all sorts of random (not aimed at the opponent), insults.
You would have won (or drawn) sources, if you had provided a source about the temperature of the drink AND a source concerning pour times and waiting times.
You would have drawn grammar if you had run the debate through a grammar/spellchecker.
I score everyone the same way, for the same reasons, to the same degree: if you don’t like my source, conduct or grammar vote application - that’s fine: but I am awarding them in the hope that it will make people improve the quality of their debates.
I award spelling and grammar in cases where the spelling and grammar are terrible and effect readability.
I award sources when one side presents sources to validate their primary claims, or directly supports their argument. Posting a source relating to a definition we all agree on, or is not contested - no source points. If you make a surprising claim, a knockout claim - then make it next to impossible for your opponent to argue the key facts - that will.
I award conduct if someone is especially douchey.
I award arguments for the person making the better arguments.
If you have a specific issue with the reasoning or justification I’ve given: I’m happy to clairify. But it seems your just upset because you have a different interpretation of voting rules, rather than thinking I’m voting outside the voting rules: and for that I have no sympathy whatsoever.
Firstly, it’s not irrelevant nonsense, it’s an abstract logic problem that uses the same logic as you, that helps explain the logical error.
Are you dismissing me the example because you don’t know the answer, or because you don’t want to answer knowing that it may deleterious to your position?
Secondly: Your whole argument is based on claiming God exists because of the way God is defined. Prior to the dictionary (a few hundred years), and the Bible (a few thousand), God and truth wasn’t defined in the way you are claiming because they weren’t defined at all.
When your “proof” of something’s existance is based on the definition of words: that is “defining it into existance”. This is exactly what you are doing it, and so far, you’ve gone dozens of pages saying that this is not what you’re doing, only to continually repeat the poor logic.
What is pretty clear here: is throughout these comments you’re trying to provide any actual explanation or respond to any arguments, you are almost invariably just repeating - over and over again - the same shoddy argument. If you can’t defend your position, this is probably not a good place to be.
Zigs and Zags, Zigs are also Zogs. Zags exist - do Zigs?
No they don’t. They come from logical analysis of your argument.
Firstly, oddly enough: no part of that definition actually applies to me in this case: I think it’s just wishful thinking on your part to make yourself feel better.
If you’re just going to repeat the same bad logic, and not actually address the key issue with your argument (which I have been explaining throughout and you don’t appear to have really even acknowledged, leave alone addressed), I will take that as a confession on your part that you can’t defend your position.
For someone fixated on definitions, it seems you don’t know what the definition of superstitious is.
At this point, you haven’t really provided any actual logical defense of your illogical claims: it has mostly been an argument of denial!-!you have barely acknowledged leave alone responses to anything I’ve said: so I’m just going to drill home the followings
Zigs are Zags. Zigs are also Zogs.
If Zags exist, do Zigs?
I don’t think you understand logic well enough to answer that question, or justify it.
He’s not going to change his mind, at least not here. Changing a mind is not an event, it’s a process. My aim isn’t to change his mind, or even to start him down the path by some nugget of information. My reasons are three fold: change only happens under pressure, and while I’m sure he probably won’t change his mind ever, when confronted with contradictions, problems and issues, and challenged on hisn “facts”, the discomfort of generalized cognitive dissonance is more likely to do that than nothing at all. Secondly, maybe one day I will figure out the one way of getting through to the boneheaded and irrational: I won’t know unless I try. Thirdly, I enjoy coming up with ways of showing, explaining and coming up with logical reasons why people are wrong - so theres that too.
FWIW: I haven’t yelled at my phone screen like I do on other religious debates.
Or God doesn’t exist, in which case all of that is nonsense.
Thus far, as demonstrated, the only reason you’ve given me to believe God exists is logically faulty.
If you had read or understood ANYTHING I’ve said so far: you would understand that at no point an I arguing that reality, or whatever truly exists, or truth itself exists - but that just because they do, doesn’t mean God exists - despite your illogical assertions to the contrary.
Now, stating you won’t change your mind is one of the most ignorant and surefire way to tell someone who is wrong. If you started wrong, and won’t change your mind: you’ll stay wrong forever. It’s actually sad.
I completely understand your logic, you just don’t seem to understand the major flaw with it:
A Zig is a Zog, a Zig is also a Zag.
If Zogs exist, do Zigs?
Actually, everything I’m saying is true.
What you did: is you ignored the key issues with your arguments, picked up on some irrelevant and nonsensical difference, and asserted that Chewbacca doesn’t exist.
Unfortunately - your exact logic can be used to show Chewbacca exists because your logic is wrong.
It’s like a basic logic question on an IQ test.
A Zig is a Zog, a Zig is also a Zag.
If Zogs exist, do Zigs?
You claim yes: basic logic shows no.
“Just stop this low Iq voter cult. Pass a quiz to vote please.”
- RationalMadman about Ramshutu.
That’s not what you were doing. What you were doing is pointing to a fact and claiming it shows God exists. You can do that for literally any fact that you want.
It’s a combination of cherry picking (you are forced to ignore all examples where it seems to disprove God), confirmation bias (for the same reason), and assessing only one way: IE not assessing the probability of the example being true in the converse.
Because it appears you’re trolling
I’m rejecting yor assertions because they are completely illogical nonsense.
You are misusing definitions by ignoring additional properties of God.
Your logic can be used to show Chewbacca exists.
It am not sure why you have gone dozens and dozens of posts and ignoring the key issues with your position, but your position is logically and theologically bankrupt.
Again for the ten thousandth time: I am rejecting you bad logic
AgaIn, for the ten thousandth time, and you keep ignoring: you are using the definition of God to prove he exists. That is ridiculous.
The reason it is ridiculous, is because the definition of God is not ONLY reality, is reality AND a bunch of other stuff. That’s the massive glaring and obvious error which makes your logic so bad it can be used to prove a Chewbacca exists.
What’s your logic? As I have been saying for dozens and dozens of posts now:
What you are doing, is defining God as reality, and then saying as reality exists, God exists.
Reality exists, but we can’t tell if reality is an entity, that it has a mind, and creative reality. Because of that, we can’t tell whether reality has all the properties of God - and therefore whether God exists.
So defining God as reality is a pointless and meaningless exercise because of all the other properties of God you happen to ignore
This is the massive problem you keep ignoring in preference to the incoherent rants about how I’m not accepting The truth. No - you’re logic is idiotic and you don’t know how definitions work.
No, I’m rejecting your stupid logic which fails at a most basic logical level.
Not only that, you’re argument utterly fails on a theological basis too: your entire position completely links the existance of the supreme being, and divine creator of the entire Cosmos directly to the specific words that human beings have decided to attribute to him, and the meaning that those humans have assigned. Every man of learning and faith should rightly laugh at this, as it denigrates both the power and majesty of God by making his existence dependent on words..
Unfortunately no. You’re making some major logical errors, and appear to simply cling to the same faulty argument.
Defining God as Reality doesn’t make God exist.
Reality exists - but does the reality that exist have a mind? Is the reality that exists an entity? Does it have creative ability?
No.
So by definition reality existing does not prove an entity with a mind and creative ability exists - therefore it does not prove yor Hod exists.
If God doesn’t exist, he can’t be “the truth” - whether you, the bible, or the dictionary define him as the truth or not.
You're irrationally obsessed with definitions as if they prove anything in this regard - Chewbacca doesn’t exist, no matter how I define him - which illustrates perfectly how faulty your logic is.
But let’s say I accept your premise that God is Reality - though no dictionary defines him as such. The reason you’re entire position falls apart is that while reality exists - God is defined as more than just reality.
God, is Reality, and an entity, and has a mind of some kind, and has motivation of some kind, has intent of some kind, can exercise creative force in some degree.
That’s the error. One of The properties of God exists - good for you. Now show me the direct evidence that allllllll the other properties of God exist. If you can’t do that, you’re not proving God exists, you’re basically arguing that reality exists and you are desperately trying to inject all this other nonsense.
It’s exactly the same error with Chewbacca - furry creatures exist. Chewbacca is a furry creature - but Chewbacca is also fictional, 8 feet tall, and big into interstellar travel and smuggling and existed a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away - do those properties exist - no.
Chewbacca and God definitions fail for the same reason.
I’ll be quite happy to clarify anything about my vote: or offer any thoughts or advice about how style or content could be improved.
So, pro offered the main big points here,
And while I feel the big pros and cons were not well argued by either side in my view - they were roughly even with con having the edge. However, con threw out a number of small claims that were all batted away easily by pro that really eroded cons position.
If either side presented more in the way of concrete sources to support claims, or causal analysis: this analysis would be different, as I would have weighted the first big set of arguments more strongly. As that wasn’t really the case, the points above reflect which party “sounded” more reasonable and more logical on balance - which means that while I am completely against flat tax - I have to award this to pro.
There is room for improvement for both sides though.
Conduct to pro due to forfeit.
9.) May not apply to other forms of income.
This seems like an issue with one way a flat tax could be implemented. Pro points this out that there are different implementations - ones that include dividends and flat tax. I felt this refuted con well.
Pro 3.5:3
10.) lowering of charitable donations.
Con claims that reduction in income would lower charitable donations. Pro explains that they would be incentivized in other plans. I felt this rebutted cons argument here: con (or pro) could have done better by argument based on reduction of income, and citing the amount of money given to charity. As he did not, I have to give this I pro.
Pro 4:3
11.) Reduction in government jobs
Con argues that flat tax would reduce government jobs. It wasn’t clear how he felt this was the case - pro successfully (in my view), bats this claim away. Con has to do better here to support his points. Pros pro business argument acts as an additional counter
Pro 4.5:3
12.) overall affect - poverty and homelessness.
While I feel Con presents an argument in general about increased tax burden on the middle class and poor people (which has already been assessed), the argument about extreme poverty is in my view not well supported by con - as he doesn’t quantify it. Pro also manages to bay this away by talking about negative income tax and exemptions for low incomes that could alleviate this. I would award this to pro.
Pro 5:3.
5.) rich getting richer - I believe this is a good point from con - and it serves both as a rebuttal and as individual supporting point. As mentioned - pros counter here didn’t really hold much water in my view, he talks more about existing brackets than really quantifying the impact. As I said - as no sources were provided, I am basing this off which argument “sounds”, more correct, with this, and with what I mentioned about pros argument 2, I have to go with Con on this one:
Con 3:2
6.) countries with a flat tax have tanked.
Little data is provided on either side. Con makes a reasonable sounding point, but pro casts doubt on the point by highlighting that con can’t link the economic issues to the flat tax as is being implied. I have to give this one to pro.
Saying that: as this was a smaller point, with little attention paid to each, I won’t score these the same as pros large points:
Con 3:2.5
7.) retirement is made harder
Con did better here, but I feel this argument already accounted for in the scoring first argument.
8.) Housing market.
I wasn’t certain from cons argument what impact a flat tax would have, he has said there would be a problem, but didn’t explain how the calculation would change, and how. Pro points this out in his rebuttal and it is not clarified by con.
3:3
3.) decreasing tax on companies would help investment and the economy.
Pro gave a logical explanation of how this works - but doesn’t quantify the effect, so as a judge, I can’t tell how much of a benefit this is. Con crafts a rebuttal concerning trickle down economics not working, but... I know the data shows it doesn’t work, I’ve seen studies and data - but con doesn’t show any of it: as a result, I’m faced with pro explaining how flat tax could boost the economy, and con saying “no”, with no justification as to why it wouldn’t: and just what amounts to an assertion that it doesn’t. As a result I just can’t give this one to con. This is why sources are so important, this point was there for the taking!
2:1 to pro.
4.) more efficient government spending.
Pro doesn’t give me any specific reason to believe that the government would be more responsible with money in flat tax - no argument is provided. While pro also explains how it can be “funded” by cutting other programs - pro doesn’t explain why this is okay - to me pro must justify the cuts as either unnecessary programs, or an easy place to get funding. Tax relief could be funded by eliminating the military, for example - but that doesn’t make it a good idea!
Pros main issue here, is as mentioned in point 2. That he shots himself in the foot by arguing it’s unfair to have the rich pay more than their fair share and the poorer should foot more of the bill - and then argue that programs that benefit the poor such as welfare and Obamacare should be cut at the same time: it seems wrong prima facia. Cons rebuttals vis a vis taxation on the poor were good enough to throw doubt on this argument - so I have to give this one to con too.
2:2
Arguments:
1.) The rich pay most of the tax.
I would like to have seen source for pro on this, but the point is well argued. The tax do pay a large percentage of the tax burden. Pro does not quantify the impact on the average family for raising taxes - which is important for him to establish. It felt like con didn’t tackle this head on - but did point out the large increase the middle class would have to bear. What was missing for me, is con coming up with a justification of why it is okay for the top tier to pay an undue burden. Con argues it will be hard for the poor and middle class - and doesn’t explain why it’s fair for the rich to pay. As a result, I would score this for pro.
1:0 for pro
2.) it wont destroy the middle class.
I felt pro absolutely shot himself in the foot here. You can’t go from arguing that 90% of the poorest people pay 33% of the tax, then argue that a flat tax - which balances that out - won’t affect the middle class. It really draws attention to the problem of his first argument.
Con: to his credit tackled this argument - talking about retirement issues (unsourced) and his analysis of tax increases on the poor. I felt pros rebuttal to these points were very weak, claiming “the tax could be lower” than 14.5% is not compelling as it is not backed up by any data
Nothing is sourced here on either side though. Guys - you have to back these claims up with data!!!
While con didn’t tackle this head on, I felt that he did address the main issues with the middle class, and as pro eroded his own position: and with no sources on either side, cons argument “felt” more true this one goes to con.
1:1 tied.
If you can find me a single person on this site whose mind can be changed on something
Substantive, I’ll go argue with them :P
And you just nailed the rebuttal of your own point.
You defined “God” as “the ultimate reality”.
by this reality, An ultimate reality lead by Vishnu, Allah, or simply has no God at all.... all these things could be said to be “God”, using this definition.
Your argument hinges on Chewbacca - the famously furry creature from Star Wars - not being furry?
Bahahaha
lol which definitions do you think I’m making up? That Chewbacca is furry? Or that furry creatures exist.
Ultimate Reality exists - and God is defined as ultimate reality - therefore God exists.
Furry creatures exist - and Chewbacca is defined as a furry creature - therefore Chewbacca exists.
Your logic is so bad, that it means Chewbacca exists... calling me an idiot doesn’t make your logic any better.
I just “proved” Chewbacca exists using the same logic you are using to prove God existsz
If I can prove a fictional being exists using your logic - your logic is wrong.
A definition isn’t a logical fallacy; twisting the definition in the way you do to argue something exists IS a logical fallacy.
Chewbacca is a furred animal - furred animals exist - Chewbacca exists.
Using the same logic you are using to prove God, I can prove Chewbacca exists.
“Ultimate Reality” exists - this is true - reality exists.
“Creatures with fur” exists - this is also true - we see creatures with fur.
God is defined as the ultimate reality. This is true - this is how God is defined
Chewbacca is defined as a creature with fur. This is true - this is how Chewbacca is defined
As God is defined as the ultimate reality, and ultimate reality exists - God exists by definition.
As Chewbacca is defined as a creature with fur, and creatures with fur exits - Chewbacca exists by definition.
The logic between the two is identical, and neatly points out how logically fatuous your argument is. The reason this argument doesn’t prove Chewbacca exists is the same reason yours doesn’t prove God exists.
The issue is not that I don’t understand the argument you are making, the issue is that the argument you’re making doesn’t prove God exists, or even comes close.
You’re arguing that God exists because of how you - and others defined God. That’s not how definition works.
Reality exists.
Creatures with hair exist.
Arguing that because God is defined as ultimate reality -mhe must exist is exactly the same as arguing that’s chewbacca exists because he is a creature with hair and creatures with hair exist.
It doesn’t work that way
No, your argument is illogical and atrocious. you are attempting to define God into existance. Indeed, you are doing a horrible job at convincing me - and anyone because your argument is incredibly poor.
If you come up with a logical, or reasonable argument then we can talk - but what you’re doing here is effectively saying that you can prove God exists, because you’re saying god is reality and so must exist. Logic doesn’t work that way.