On your browser, under settings there's usually a button to switch to desktop view on a phone browser btw.
Idk about voting on this, honestly I don't see how Con is even a winnable position because the very nature of miracles is that they are unlikely to be miracles (they are unlikely to be at all and if they occur it can easily be 'luck').
I also don't like how hard you went on 'logical fallacies' when Pro genuinely didn't appeal to authority, if anybody committed fallacy it was you and your reliance on hearsay and subjective perception of events.
I don't see any aggression from Pro though, to be clear I think aggression is necessary to debate well.
I can convince a voter that they wringly allocated a point but as long as I pretend I am noy convincing them to change their point allocation, I am not manipulating their vote?
Part of debating is deception, part of it is getting away with fallacies. You have completely enabled voter manipulation and actually also let the debater increase the power of their fallacies. There is no stage in a debate where you get to talk judges into changing their judgement after they put it but here there seems to be.
Your vote is good, do not reinterpret the debate based on what Chris pushes. Part of skill in debate is understanding how people will interpret it on their initial read.
I intentionally didn't overly engage with his case and planned my Round 1 to be very apart from his (well basically my Round 1 was pretty much going to be similar regardless). The structure completely enables Con to choose to safely avoid Pro's case and present a constructive counter-case of Con's own, destroying Pro's ability to control the flow of the debate because in Round 2, Con has complete ability to justify tweaking more rebuttals against Pro's rebuttals or against Pro's Round 1, since the debate structure forces the dilemma onto Con.
I decided to just stick at a debate where my countercase is the focus, which meant Pro's Round 1 sits there for voters to neutrally judge against the one I reinforced, making a structural bias in my favour (depending how strong they believe his Round 1 is, of course).
I do not understand what your 'asshole meter' works on but there is absolutely no way to politely and respectfully reveal that:
1) I believe Eve gave Adam a blowjob when she swallowed the apple and that explains also what the snake actually was referring to.
2) I believe that when Adam partly swallowed an apple he was less literally reciprocating and instead was just embracing the experience, the sin was lust as opposed to gluttony or greed.
3) I think that God is responsible for all sinners if Chrisianity is true.
4) Jesus was just a theatrical sockpuppet for God that engaged in a Satanic sacrifice ritual to pretend to rid us of the sins that Eve never really 'gave' us in the first place.
5) None of this makes any logical sense to have affected the judgement regarding sins of other humans than Even, Adam and/or Jesus (if he is a human).
if that exact post from me came from anybody else, minus the vested interest, you'd have 0 issue with it because it correctly helps public-choice amend his vote.
As I have a vested interest here, I will give you a hint:
Redo your vote and keep the arguments justification the same as before (paste from the comment whiteflame has where he pasted it), then if you want to justify sourcing, you would need to give 2 examples from each debater (since both used them 2 or more times) and justify them.
Leave SnG and Conduct tied, I say this for both selfish reasons and sensible one because they were tied if you base SnG on legibility and Conduct on severe violations.
Philosophy tries to make a big fancy deal about the simple idea of good vs eviland the nuances that rely on social+situational awareness and EQ.
You cannot form a rigid logical framework for ethics because a psychopath and/or nihilist have no way to end up intentionally moral (rather than accidentally) as the root of ethics is empathy and emotion based, not logically based.
His style of presenting his arguments is so comical, I am surprised people don't get headaches from the unreadable bullet points on a phone browser that on computer view still are an eyesore.
He bullet points, LITERALLY, he doesn't form paragraphs, lmao! His winrate is impressive as is his rating but his eloquence is one of the worst of all debaters that are competent here. I am amazed at his success level here with that style.
Philosophy is the art of worrying about the parts of ethics that are most nitpick-focused and irrelevant, generally speaking.
I would rather be the best doer at something or thinker at strategy or a subject that gets results than best philosophical thinker. That said, I do not think philosophical thinking is shown by debating, it is shown by more passive exploratory discussions, the best philosopher persuade, not argue.
My age is irrelevant, if you think I'm an old man, I'll take it as a compliment. I am not 19 or below, I'll give that info. Ik you are 19 you said elsewhere.
so by non-interventionalism you mean as an extreme?
Why can't I argue against not making war with China over fucking Taiwan?
Name me one place in North Africa or the Middle East that the US didn't absolutely leave just as bad or worse after it's shit stained massacres and involvement. I can't name a single one.
I have to report your vote as Chris and others definitely will.
Please ask Whiteflame or Barney to let you revote and allocate only arguments points. It is okay to allocate sources too but go further into how we used the sources, not just that mine is the Bible.
Idk how familiar you are with a game type known as clan-war gaming or real-time strategy (RTS) games.
Don't get into them properly, you need to pay actual money to cope and it is not remotely easy to last, it becomes a part time job, literally, if you take it serious at all.
The point is that there's no other gaming type which actually properly maps out how clans (equivalent of nations) interact in each server and later on a huge scale how the servers interact (but that's not that important, clans within a server that's growing and protected from invasions from older servers for some months are the key to my point).
You will consistently find that while obviously the 'richest' clans dominate the server, the apex clan is (after a couple months in and onwards) always the one who stuck by unwritten rules the most and did not piss off rogues to avenge them later. The servers rarely have any physical/game-encoded 'rules of conduct' they just have events that are more conducive to warfare and events that are more conducive to building, doing team missions etc. During the warfare events, everybody is obviously at war but even then tight alliances between 2 clans are important to maintain, the real focus is in the non-warfare periods the clans who stick to the 'don't bully the weaker clanned people'. You will find CONSISTENTLY that clans who minded their own business while growing end up the apex clans even if they started off fairly consistently only number 3 or 4. The reason is that they know how to play ball.
An exception to this is where a huge amount of people jump server with their alts who are rich and dedicated with alts/farm-accounts. This is allowed (number of legal alts per player is limited though depending on game) but unless there was massive jumping/hopping going on, the apex is the one who plays ball and doesn't overly bully to begin with. This seems irrational, you genuinely get huge bonuses for being the biggest bully clan early on. What ends up happening is that weaker clans don't 'die', their best members come crawling and begging other clans to let them join even paying irl money to catch up and qualify (once you're in a huge clan you have a huge growth spurt due to bonuses of being in the clan itself, this requires no further money to maintain on your individual part but harsher clans kick if you stagnate).
Then over time whispers of revenge and what assholes that other clan is spread. Eventually there comes a time when that alpha clan gets pounced on by an agreed coup or simply alternatively over time they lose members to other big clans, despite being the best statistically, because of the attitude leadership are taking, forcing their members to engage with and turn a blind eye to breaking the server's 'street rules' of how to operate in non-warfare times and who is ok vs not ok to pick on, how to farm fairly etc.
Okay then I want you to reword the title and description to make that clear.
I also want it made clear if 'America' is its economy, the wish of its people, the safety of its people, its international 'standing' as in semi-subjective power ranking' in influence or what it is.
I am not nitpicking, I've tried debates like this before, most recently this: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3419-us-military-response-to-chinese-invasion-of-taiwan
After that the voters being terrible (in my eyes) taught me that they value very blatantly pro-western rhetoric and that they do not care if America is completely hypocritical or pissing people off in the activities. Based on that alone, I already know you have the upper hand here.
Therefore, I want very clear topic and description, to me competitive debating isn't what it is for you. I can believe something and not debate it but I get the whole bravado thing 'if you really believe it stand by it in the arena' the problem is the arena isn't entirely fair or logical.
If I don't see crystal clear in the description and title what is bring prioritised then I don't care to debate it. I am also not massively about patriotism or jingoism of any sort. That is the biggest reason other than privacy why I avoid mentioning where I live and why I try to write things as international seeming as possible when I can. Obviously, I write primarily in 'British English' but the whole world other than US and some of South America and Canada (not even all of South/Latin America nor all of Canadians use American English) uses 'British English' with Australia being an outlier as it formed its own mix. I like to carry myself in a way that reminds me to be humble and not only value any one nation too highly, it's an OCD-like thing even that I developed as a young teen once I realised what bias was and how it affects your brain's ability to focus on truth in a scenario. I, of course, was still a massive victim to confirmation bias and have tried to slowly reduce it.
I truly dislike debates like this, which is why I have consistently lost geopolitical debates, even forfeiting one vs blamonkey as I knew he'd murk me (it was forced sides in an earlier tournament). The biggest problem is 'ought' (or 'should') is never ever framed to a certain nation's interests. In fact, it is also not made clear if we are to argue from a net-good of the world perspective either. Absolutely nothing is clear and I am a weak debater when goalposts move everywhere as I focus severely on the goalposts and tether my opponent to their BoP.
Your description distinguishes it completely from isolationism, making me think you support literally being a social pariah internationally which isn't optimal.
Care to take a dabble?
Playing dirty and losing anyway must feel bad.
Novice is the troll, not Mall.
Novice is the troll, not Mall.
Novice is the troll, not Mall.
Novice is the troll, not Mall.
Novice is the troll, not Mall.
I will consider who won because I need to try and understand where exactly the burden-of-proof line is for both.
On your browser, under settings there's usually a button to switch to desktop view on a phone browser btw.
Idk about voting on this, honestly I don't see how Con is even a winnable position because the very nature of miracles is that they are unlikely to be miracles (they are unlikely to be at all and if they occur it can easily be 'luck').
I also don't like how hard you went on 'logical fallacies' when Pro genuinely didn't appeal to authority, if anybody committed fallacy it was you and your reliance on hearsay and subjective perception of events.
I don't see any aggression from Pro though, to be clear I think aggression is necessary to debate well.
Can you give me a sine example of where Chris is not directly encouraging the voter to allocate the points in his favour vs what they did?
I can provide plenty of them. He is just not saying it explicitly.
What kind if insanity is that?
I can convince a voter that they wringly allocated a point but as long as I pretend I am noy convincing them to change their point allocation, I am not manipulating their vote?
Part of debating is deception, part of it is getting away with fallacies. You have completely enabled voter manipulation and actually also let the debater increase the power of their fallacies. There is no stage in a debate where you get to talk judges into changing their judgement after they put it but here there seems to be.
In your opinion, has Chris tried to manipulate votes here more than me? Is the moderation fair?
Please elaborate on the difference, so i know how to get away with doing the opposite. :)
You want to play games, let us play.
Between Chris and myself, who do you feel/think has violated a supposed rule against voter manipulation during these comments?
Do you feel/think whiteflame has justly muzzled us equally?
He is absolutely talking undefeatable into changing his vote and trying to influence any voters who read his comments.
CAN I argue back and convince undefeatable to stand by his vote?
Yes or no?
I want Barney to answer this as well.
Your vote is good, do not reinterpret the debate based on what Chris pushes. Part of skill in debate is understanding how people will interpret it on their initial read.
I expect the fullest punishment for Misterchris manipulating voters below.
Thanks for the vote! :)
I intentionally didn't overly engage with his case and planned my Round 1 to be very apart from his (well basically my Round 1 was pretty much going to be similar regardless). The structure completely enables Con to choose to safely avoid Pro's case and present a constructive counter-case of Con's own, destroying Pro's ability to control the flow of the debate because in Round 2, Con has complete ability to justify tweaking more rebuttals against Pro's rebuttals or against Pro's Round 1, since the debate structure forces the dilemma onto Con.
I decided to just stick at a debate where my countercase is the focus, which meant Pro's Round 1 sits there for voters to neutrally judge against the one I reinforced, making a structural bias in my favour (depending how strong they believe his Round 1 is, of course).
How un-north-korean of you to say.
I do not understand what your 'asshole meter' works on but there is absolutely no way to politely and respectfully reveal that:
1) I believe Eve gave Adam a blowjob when she swallowed the apple and that explains also what the snake actually was referring to.
2) I believe that when Adam partly swallowed an apple he was less literally reciprocating and instead was just embracing the experience, the sin was lust as opposed to gluttony or greed.
3) I think that God is responsible for all sinners if Chrisianity is true.
4) Jesus was just a theatrical sockpuppet for God that engaged in a Satanic sacrifice ritual to pretend to rid us of the sins that Eve never really 'gave' us in the first place.
5) None of this makes any logical sense to have affected the judgement regarding sins of other humans than Even, Adam and/or Jesus (if he is a human).
Really BS deterrance of someone voting for me.
if that exact post from me came from anybody else, minus the vested interest, you'd have 0 issue with it because it correctly helps public-choice amend his vote.
When whiteflame tells you on PM exactly what I told you here, please revote, or don't apparently it's manipulation to ask.
Vote to your own beliefs, not what you feel pressured to.
I literally did nothing wrong here at all.
I told him exactly what you did, in clearer words.
It is pretty much a fact, not an opinion.
As I have a vested interest here, I will give you a hint:
Redo your vote and keep the arguments justification the same as before (paste from the comment whiteflame has where he pasted it), then if you want to justify sourcing, you would need to give 2 examples from each debater (since both used them 2 or more times) and justify them.
Leave SnG and Conduct tied, I say this for both selfish reasons and sensible one because they were tied if you base SnG on legibility and Conduct on severe violations.
Philosophy tries to make a big fancy deal about the simple idea of good vs eviland the nuances that rely on social+situational awareness and EQ.
You cannot form a rigid logical framework for ethics because a psychopath and/or nihilist have no way to end up intentionally moral (rather than accidentally) as the root of ethics is empathy and emotion based, not logically based.
His style of presenting his arguments is so comical, I am surprised people don't get headaches from the unreadable bullet points on a phone browser that on computer view still are an eyesore.
He bullet points, LITERALLY, he doesn't form paragraphs, lmao! His winrate is impressive as is his rating but his eloquence is one of the worst of all debaters that are competent here. I am amazed at his success level here with that style.
Nice strawman of what I said.
Maybe I am transitioning from INTP/INFP to INTJ after all.
Philosophy is the art of worrying about the parts of ethics that are most nitpick-focused and irrelevant, generally speaking.
I would rather be the best doer at something or thinker at strategy or a subject that gets results than best philosophical thinker. That said, I do not think philosophical thinking is shown by debating, it is shown by more passive exploratory discussions, the best philosopher persuade, not argue.
We disagree on oromagi's skill level as a debater but sure, I will look and vote.
I don't want drama. I refuse to vote unless you promise no revenge voting if I vote against.
I have honestly got little interest on this debate so I am neutral now, not having an agenda. If you ask me to vote, I will then do so and be frank.
I have had a miracle or two happen in my life, curse type things too. I am also sure some lie and exaggerate, so I am neutral on this.
My age is irrelevant, if you think I'm an old man, I'll take it as a compliment. I am not 19 or below, I'll give that info. Ik you are 19 you said elsewhere.
Wow, Mall is genuinely outclassing his opponent... Good on you, remember to add sources.
so by non-interventionalism you mean as an extreme?
Why can't I argue against not making war with China over fucking Taiwan?
Name me one place in North Africa or the Middle East that the US didn't absolutely leave just as bad or worse after it's shit stained massacres and involvement. I can't name a single one.
so defensive acts for allies is interventionalist?
Yeah, I sensed something was off here.
https://c.tenor.com/nVzcrTJoCnAAAAAC/well-hey-wink.gif
You do realise this has no weight on the actual debate right?
Wow, you say you can't be noninterventionist while being pqrt of NATO... wow... glad I didnt accept this bs.
I have to report your vote as Chris and others definitely will.
Please ask Whiteflame or Barney to let you revote and allocate only arguments points. It is okay to allocate sources too but go further into how we used the sources, not just that mine is the Bible.
Go more into arguments from us as well, please.
Idk how familiar you are with a game type known as clan-war gaming or real-time strategy (RTS) games.
Don't get into them properly, you need to pay actual money to cope and it is not remotely easy to last, it becomes a part time job, literally, if you take it serious at all.
The point is that there's no other gaming type which actually properly maps out how clans (equivalent of nations) interact in each server and later on a huge scale how the servers interact (but that's not that important, clans within a server that's growing and protected from invasions from older servers for some months are the key to my point).
You will consistently find that while obviously the 'richest' clans dominate the server, the apex clan is (after a couple months in and onwards) always the one who stuck by unwritten rules the most and did not piss off rogues to avenge them later. The servers rarely have any physical/game-encoded 'rules of conduct' they just have events that are more conducive to warfare and events that are more conducive to building, doing team missions etc. During the warfare events, everybody is obviously at war but even then tight alliances between 2 clans are important to maintain, the real focus is in the non-warfare periods the clans who stick to the 'don't bully the weaker clanned people'. You will find CONSISTENTLY that clans who minded their own business while growing end up the apex clans even if they started off fairly consistently only number 3 or 4. The reason is that they know how to play ball.
An exception to this is where a huge amount of people jump server with their alts who are rich and dedicated with alts/farm-accounts. This is allowed (number of legal alts per player is limited though depending on game) but unless there was massive jumping/hopping going on, the apex is the one who plays ball and doesn't overly bully to begin with. This seems irrational, you genuinely get huge bonuses for being the biggest bully clan early on. What ends up happening is that weaker clans don't 'die', their best members come crawling and begging other clans to let them join even paying irl money to catch up and qualify (once you're in a huge clan you have a huge growth spurt due to bonuses of being in the clan itself, this requires no further money to maintain on your individual part but harsher clans kick if you stagnate).
Then over time whispers of revenge and what assholes that other clan is spread. Eventually there comes a time when that alpha clan gets pounced on by an agreed coup or simply alternatively over time they lose members to other big clans, despite being the best statistically, because of the attitude leadership are taking, forcing their members to engage with and turn a blind eye to breaking the server's 'street rules' of how to operate in non-warfare times and who is ok vs not ok to pick on, how to farm fairly etc.
I either want it to be America or the world.
Its allies can be included in either scenario, that's to be based around the real focus.
Okay then I want you to reword the title and description to make that clear.
I also want it made clear if 'America' is its economy, the wish of its people, the safety of its people, its international 'standing' as in semi-subjective power ranking' in influence or what it is.
I am not nitpicking, I've tried debates like this before, most recently this: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3419-us-military-response-to-chinese-invasion-of-taiwan
After that the voters being terrible (in my eyes) taught me that they value very blatantly pro-western rhetoric and that they do not care if America is completely hypocritical or pissing people off in the activities. Based on that alone, I already know you have the upper hand here.
Therefore, I want very clear topic and description, to me competitive debating isn't what it is for you. I can believe something and not debate it but I get the whole bravado thing 'if you really believe it stand by it in the arena' the problem is the arena isn't entirely fair or logical.
If I don't see crystal clear in the description and title what is bring prioritised then I don't care to debate it. I am also not massively about patriotism or jingoism of any sort. That is the biggest reason other than privacy why I avoid mentioning where I live and why I try to write things as international seeming as possible when I can. Obviously, I write primarily in 'British English' but the whole world other than US and some of South America and Canada (not even all of South/Latin America nor all of Canadians use American English) uses 'British English' with Australia being an outlier as it formed its own mix. I like to carry myself in a way that reminds me to be humble and not only value any one nation too highly, it's an OCD-like thing even that I developed as a young teen once I realised what bias was and how it affects your brain's ability to focus on truth in a scenario. I, of course, was still a massive victim to confirmation bias and have tried to slowly reduce it.
I truly dislike debates like this, which is why I have consistently lost geopolitical debates, even forfeiting one vs blamonkey as I knew he'd murk me (it was forced sides in an earlier tournament). The biggest problem is 'ought' (or 'should') is never ever framed to a certain nation's interests. In fact, it is also not made clear if we are to argue from a net-good of the world perspective either. Absolutely nothing is clear and I am a weak debater when goalposts move everywhere as I focus severely on the goalposts and tether my opponent to their BoP.
Your description distinguishes it completely from isolationism, making me think you support literally being a social pariah internationally which isn't optimal.
I support what you describe as 'non-interventionism' as a pragmatic reality.
Neither isolationism nor brute force bullying are optimal even if you believe in the cause.
If you are saying isolationism is beyond that, then we disagree.
For any who care to vote, the debate is now complete.
For any who care to vote, the debate is now complete.
Lmao...