I love how Oromagi forgot to brown-nose Barney and has to do it now but still wants to wind others up that he doesn't feel he owes a thank you to, lmao!
I mean it's a scientific fact that a fetus is a human being too but scientists pick and choose to suit agendas, so I don't really think 'fact' vs 'theory' is up to a scientific author to draw.
Also your definition is absolutely ridiculous and I am not gonna take this debate with that definition there, it is going to cause all sorts of problems and trigger me.
Until recent times, there wasn't any point in history since US began that China was more right-wing than it. It's extremely debatable today if it is or not. I agree with you that it isn't more left-wing than modern US but the margin is less than you think when you factor in overall society and economics.
There is a reason why out of all highly developed nations, America is the one (or certainly tied joint last with others, at best) with the least provision for its poor.
I don't think you made the changes, I think you have changed your physical side without changing the framework so that you are Pro, you even still call yourself 'con' in the description still.
I do not want to appear as a contender to a debate with this title, it isn't a good look in my profile as it will look like I am Con, why don't you set it up so that the contender is on the side Con and you are Pro what it is you are actually defending?
Right now you are trying to trigger your opponent and play it all very dirty.
" I think focusing on what each of them has managed to tank in terms of hits at their best is a good choice, but you really have to scale those carefully, which yeah, does take time and research to do. I do think there's a good amount of evidence supporting Superman coming out on top in this matchup, but I also believe there's a case to be made for Goku managing this, it's just more of an uphill battle."
Actually the uphill battle is for Superman if it comes to tanking hits. Goku is more a lower IQ hypertank, Superman is an insanely fast dodger who has a reaction time almost like speed of light itself. The key is Superman's dodging, not what he can tank (both are extreme but reaction time and dodging is more extreme)
I didn't watch DBZ or Superman in-depth and even if I did, remembering and referring to specific movies, comics and the events in them would take so much work and not really be worth it for me.
Prior to accepting, I searched some things about this clash and the vast majority backed Superman. That was when I reckoned that I had the easier side.
What is your opinion of my vote (I do see your 2 edu sources in round 2 but one of them tried to define agnostic inna way that kind of violated the debate description so I felt like it was not truly more reliable inherently than a dictionary like merriam webster that Pro relied on).
"There was nothing like this mentioned in the debate. All Con did was quote the 7 levels of belief. If he didn't argue it I have no responsibility to refute it. You are injecting your own case into the debate."
No, it was a central Tenet of Con's entire logic and got fleshed out harder in Round 2. If you properly read Con's framework, the AoB vs atheism angle was his entire angle summarised clear as day for you to attack and critique. That right there was Con's actual framework, what he did was avoid plagiarising by accrediting it to Dawkins, which you said was bad of him to do but really wasn't.
In fact, the AoB vs Atheism framework was precisley how he turned your practicality points against you, since he noticed that you were noticing that within atheism and within Theism there's stronger and weaker levels of it and the weakest atheism may seem like it isn't more than 'lack of belief' but isn't. What Con did was flip it around and point out how you'd conceded that a purely neutral person has no Theism in them in any genuine sense, the same would go for their lack of any active atheism.
It was up to you to prove passive atheism, not Con to prove it didn't exist (and he didn't even try to, his angle was not that it didn't exist which you didn't capitalise on either).
It had no bearing, you also attacked it differently because 3RU7AL was using a different definition of it than is in the description.
If you will notice, the AoB thing you ignored wasn't about the default as much as it was about how the stronger a Theist is, the stronger their belief in the existence of the relevant god(s) and deity/ies of their theological outlook and that conversely what atheism has is a weak-to-strong element as well with pure agnostics in the middle.
You did not offer an alternative default, instead you said in your Round 1 already that you admit there is a default that isn't atheist but you see no practical use in not pooling them together with the pure neutrals.
You actually conceded the debate in Round 1 under your practical usage stuff because you were saying you wanted to make it so that atheists and pure neutral people could be pooled together.
Con addressed all the points you raised, the reason Con didn't address that particular element of practicality that you brought up is because it actually worked against you anyway.
Then make a forum thread so you can do your sophistry stuff there. I blocked you for a reason and you are only proving me right.
Right now, you're derailing a discussion between Double R and Oromagi about their vote by spamming the Comments section with your 'hot take' on the topic. That's allowed in the rules, since this isn't a forum thread and your derailing is technically within the debate's topic but do not assume you are fighting me when you quote my vote.
My real stance on this topic is that it depends on the definition and I can actually understand both sides. I side towards Con's side because I do believe that the core difference between a strong and weak atheist is how much they doubt and deny god (not that they don't deny god even in the weaker end). This is perfectly reflected in weak vs strong Theistic belief, in fact it is more blatant there.
My personal stance was not used in my reason for voting, instead I came in with an open mind.
Con did not ignore the arguments you made at all. It was you who ignored Con's arguments at a significant point where you wipe away one of Con's strongest angles with 'make your own arguments'.
The semantic angle that you are ignoring is that to 'disbelieve' is to believe in the falseness of something that you would otherwise believe in or be neutral on.
Something Con could have further pointed out is that in law you are presumed innocent over guilty, the default isn't neutral there which would be a stronger counter to Pro's point, I do appreciate Con's rebuttal though which highlighted that cases left in doubt did involve investigation, considering and active doubt instead of passive doubt with regards to the guilt of the suspect(s).
Con used active (not passive) disbelief and denial from Dawkins to display consideration of God taking place while Dawkins concludes that God is malicious and unrealistic. Con furthermore showed several atheists on and off this website considering god(s) and actively denying the god(s).
Further footnote regarding side-contentions like ignorance in court cases, I considered Con's rebuttals to Pro's Round 2 side-contentions as sufficient each time, thus not worth mentioning or venturing into. The angles were just repeats of the same concept that Con negated with (paraphrasing) 'of course defining their stance that way logically incoherent, that's why they deny despite considering and then deny that they considered.'
Footnote regarding tying sources: Con's many sources were mainly forum posts or .com type websites.
they weren't .edu, .org, .gov or such and were used casually.
I would have given Con the sources point if the Reddit blog post about Dawkins' scale of atheistic vs agnostic beliefs weren't undermined in Round 2 but Reddit as a source in a philosophy debate... Lol...
RFD part 1/2
Pro's argument is that it is logically untenable because... Well, I am kind of confused what he is saying and this confusion was excellently capitalised on by Con in the next Round. Since Con is taking a Theistic stance here, it allowed a comedic defense angle of essentially telling us that of course it's logically untenable to define atheism that way, since atheists themselves are logically incoherent and using untenable logic to deny God.
This got a small smile out of me and really entertained me to read, if entertainment were a factor in voting, I'd award the point to Con almost just for that alone.
For the remainder of the debate, Pro tries to dismiss everything that Con says by saying it's irrelevant but I don't agree as a reader that Con's points were irrelevant to the resolution. Instead, I see huge relevance in particular to the AoB vs atheism angle that Pro never once addressed other than to say 'on needs to make his own arguments, not link us to Wokeupbug. Without supporting argument his 7 levels of belief should be dismissed.' when Dawkins is one of the most renowned agnostics of this generation (well, he's previous generation but still alive and relevant so you get the point).
While Pro's use of essentially a single dictionary source is weak sourcing, Con undermining his already flimsy Reddit source by casting Dawkins as a strong atheist in the next Round despite trying to show that weak atheists and agnostics separate themselves from atheists in Round 1 make me leave sources tied. I appreciated the 'apology' to me though... Since, this debate became very semantic as predicted.
It was actually a shock to me who won this debate in my eyes. I expected Pro to push harder on semantics because other definitions of atheist and even capitalise harder on events such as Con's own error in Round 2 of highlighting that Dawkins says one thing and then acts another way with regards to Go. I saw very little engagement of Con's case by Pro and the problem is that the case was good. I don't have an issue with lazy debating where one allows weak points of the opponent to remain untouched but the untouched points by Con simply were not weak and were entirely relevant to the resolution.
I leave the semantics tied though because Con did indeed not properly address why the semantics and lexicality is actually correct, however this helped Con out since Pro didn't think to flesh out that point at all.
the 'practical uselessness' angle was not DIRECTLY addressed by Con but INDIRECTLY, Con did address it regularly such as in the AoB vs atheism angle so I do consider it rebutted.
The Absence of belief (AoB) isn't atheism argument line was won by Con from the very moment he mentioned it. Pro's rebuttal is that Con ought to make his own arguments but that is toxic to say and misunderstands what Con presented. Con gave us proof that his take on atheism is actually backed by one of the most respected, high-esteem and renowned agnostic speakers, debaters, frontpeople etc of our era (namely, Richard Dawkins). If Pro genuinely wants to wave this away as simply 'Con ought to make his own arguments' that is like saying that the moment somebody tries to prove they aren't just talking baselessly on something, you then revert to saying 'but that's not your own argument' trapping them in a state of being unable to prove they aren't baselessly asserting an idea as accepted by a group, namely 'agnostics' in this case.
In actual fact, there could exist almost no better way for Con to drive this debate along the 'AoB =/= atheism' line than to pit agnostics (instead of Theists) against atheists.
The AoB point became a gaping hole in Pro's defense even though it actually was linking to a Redditor talking about Dawkins, which Pro barely touched on or pointed out. Furthermore, Pro didn't point out that Dawkins is agnostic and not atheist (though in reality he is a 'weak atheist' under his own definitions, he goes by agnostic). There was absolutely nothing from Pro to address this issue and that meant that when it came to establishing consensus, Con won hands down and brutally.
If Con has won the consensus aspect of the debate, the only path to victory left for Pro would be to prove that the consensus is wrong. Therefore, I agree with Pro and allow his defense towards Con that a dictionary defining a word a certain way doesn't inherently mean it SHOULD be defined that way but Con still has the initial advantage and holds his own there due to the definition favouring Con's side.
There was, however, a problem for Con. since Con uses Dawkins to back his AoB vs Atheism logic, it is extremely disconcerting that Con then tries to prove that Dawkins is actually a strongly denying atheist as opposed to weak atheist or agnostic in the Round following the AoB contention. It appears that Con undermined his own source there very hard as he is making clear that Dawkins (in Con's eyes) is actually an active atheist instead of an agnostic who has absence of belief in God. That being said, Pro does absolutely nothing to capitalise on this error at all, so I cannot truly score it actively against Con, it just lessens how seriously I take Con's AoB argument and definitely undermines an already sketchy sourcing of a Redditor posting about their own summary of what Dawkins preaches/teaches.
If you allow Con to restrict it to first trimester overall, I will accept the debate. If this is for full term allowance of abortion, I agree with Pro only insofar as restricting the time.
I honestly think Oromagi was seriously weak here at engaging the case of Pro on a fundamental level, both of them actually were completely missing the foundation of the other's case.
I love how Oromagi forgot to brown-nose Barney and has to do it now but still wants to wind others up that he doesn't feel he owes a thank you to, lmao!
If the religions are true, it is not, if they are fictional, maybe it is it depends what version you fancy happening.
Three corners, all-seeing eye in the middle.
God is the illuminati leader, who is the devil.
OT God becomes Satan.
Lucifer becomes Jesus, not Satan yet he is Satan via Trinity.
Holy Ghost becomes Allah.
Next level interpretation.
I mean it's a scientific fact that a fetus is a human being too but scientists pick and choose to suit agendas, so I don't really think 'fact' vs 'theory' is up to a scientific author to draw.
Based on this and other debates, I can tell that Jeff truly has US-centric blinkers on when observing geopolitics.
Thank you
I am a huge fan of JK Rowling, please make her proud.
do you both want me to vote?
I will avoid voting to avoid beef.
I know who I believe won. I will keep it to myself.
Better than France xD!!! Same as Canada?!!!!
Right, sure sure.
Also your definition is absolutely ridiculous and I am not gonna take this debate with that definition there, it is going to cause all sorts of problems and trigger me.
It really is not. If you'd change the question into a statement, you'd realise the problem.
You are defining right-wing so simple-minded btw.
Until recent times, there wasn't any point in history since US began that China was more right-wing than it. It's extremely debatable today if it is or not. I agree with you that it isn't more left-wing than modern US but the margin is less than you think when you factor in overall society and economics.
There is a reason why out of all highly developed nations, America is the one (or certainly tied joint last with others, at best) with the least provision for its poor.
I don't think you made the changes, I think you have changed your physical side without changing the framework so that you are Pro, you even still call yourself 'con' in the description still.
I do not want to appear as a contender to a debate with this title, it isn't a good look in my profile as it will look like I am Con, why don't you set it up so that the contender is on the side Con and you are Pro what it is you are actually defending?
Right now you are trying to trigger your opponent and play it all very dirty.
I am sure the past rednecks and blacks alike would have something to say to your BS. That is ignoring the raped and slaughtered natives.
America has been as right-wing as it gets throughout most of its history.
please vote on this debate if you wish to.
It is. This is what the right wing has done throughout history.
What is wrong with tinyurl, I can just cut down hyperlinked text for even shorter character count.
" I think focusing on what each of them has managed to tank in terms of hits at their best is a good choice, but you really have to scale those carefully, which yeah, does take time and research to do. I do think there's a good amount of evidence supporting Superman coming out on top in this matchup, but I also believe there's a case to be made for Goku managing this, it's just more of an uphill battle."
Actually the uphill battle is for Superman if it comes to tanking hits. Goku is more a lower IQ hypertank, Superman is an insanely fast dodger who has a reaction time almost like speed of light itself. The key is Superman's dodging, not what he can tank (both are extreme but reaction time and dodging is more extreme)
Thanks for your vote.
I didn't watch DBZ or Superman in-depth and even if I did, remembering and referring to specific movies, comics and the events in them would take so much work and not really be worth it for me.
Prior to accepting, I searched some things about this clash and the vast majority backed Superman. That was when I reckoned that I had the easier side.
Why exactly have you blocked me, Intelligence?
Intelligence blocked me for voting for him here.
thanks for your vote, the thing is that he kept lying about Goku.
Goku needs to charge before his Qi based moves.
I had nothing more to add in final round but yeah my bad for not posting. There was truly barely anything to add. vote as you see fit.
I did not vote for a thank you itself but you are welcome. What did you think of my vote's reasoning?
You better not pull that shit on my kissing debate.
I am publicly asking you to consider a voter countering a vote by another voter.
Is this approach allowed?
If not I then report computernerd's RFD.
If yes, I really do not care
What is your opinion of my vote (I do see your 2 edu sources in round 2 but one of them tried to define agnostic inna way that kind of violated the debate description so I felt like it was not truly more reliable inherently than a dictionary like merriam webster that Pro relied on).
"There was nothing like this mentioned in the debate. All Con did was quote the 7 levels of belief. If he didn't argue it I have no responsibility to refute it. You are injecting your own case into the debate."
No, it was a central Tenet of Con's entire logic and got fleshed out harder in Round 2. If you properly read Con's framework, the AoB vs atheism angle was his entire angle summarised clear as day for you to attack and critique. That right there was Con's actual framework, what he did was avoid plagiarising by accrediting it to Dawkins, which you said was bad of him to do but really wasn't.
In fact, the AoB vs Atheism framework was precisley how he turned your practicality points against you, since he noticed that you were noticing that within atheism and within Theism there's stronger and weaker levels of it and the weakest atheism may seem like it isn't more than 'lack of belief' but isn't. What Con did was flip it around and point out how you'd conceded that a purely neutral person has no Theism in them in any genuine sense, the same would go for their lack of any active atheism.
It was up to you to prove passive atheism, not Con to prove it didn't exist (and he didn't even try to, his angle was not that it didn't exist which you didn't capitalise on either).
It had no bearing, you also attacked it differently because 3RU7AL was using a different definition of it than is in the description.
If you will notice, the AoB thing you ignored wasn't about the default as much as it was about how the stronger a Theist is, the stronger their belief in the existence of the relevant god(s) and deity/ies of their theological outlook and that conversely what atheism has is a weak-to-strong element as well with pure agnostics in the middle.
You did not offer an alternative default, instead you said in your Round 1 already that you admit there is a default that isn't atheist but you see no practical use in not pooling them together with the pure neutrals.
You actually conceded the debate in Round 1 under your practical usage stuff because you were saying you wanted to make it so that atheists and pure neutral people could be pooled together.
Con addressed all the points you raised, the reason Con didn't address that particular element of practicality that you brought up is because it actually worked against you anyway.
The command wasn't veiled.
Then make a forum thread so you can do your sophistry stuff there. I blocked you for a reason and you are only proving me right.
Right now, you're derailing a discussion between Double R and Oromagi about their vote by spamming the Comments section with your 'hot take' on the topic. That's allowed in the rules, since this isn't a forum thread and your derailing is technically within the debate's topic but do not assume you are fighting me when you quote my vote.
My real stance on this topic is that it depends on the definition and I can actually understand both sides. I side towards Con's side because I do believe that the core difference between a strong and weak atheist is how much they doubt and deny god (not that they don't deny god even in the weaker end). This is perfectly reflected in weak vs strong Theistic belief, in fact it is more blatant there.
My personal stance was not used in my reason for voting, instead I came in with an open mind.
That's a funny way to show it; quoting my vote's reasoning.
Con did not ignore the arguments you made at all. It was you who ignored Con's arguments at a significant point where you wipe away one of Con's strongest angles with 'make your own arguments'.
Are you arguing about my vote or about the debate's topic
The semantic angle that you are ignoring is that to 'disbelieve' is to believe in the falseness of something that you would otherwise believe in or be neutral on.
Something Con could have further pointed out is that in law you are presumed innocent over guilty, the default isn't neutral there which would be a stronger counter to Pro's point, I do appreciate Con's rebuttal though which highlighted that cases left in doubt did involve investigation, considering and active doubt instead of passive doubt with regards to the guilt of the suspect(s).
Thank you for your argument and input, Pro never said that though and therefore it cannot factor into my vote.
And what Con argued is that the default is agnostic, not atheist. My vote is justified.
Con used active (not passive) disbelief and denial from Dawkins to display consideration of God taking place while Dawkins concludes that God is malicious and unrealistic. Con furthermore showed several atheists on and off this website considering god(s) and actively denying the god(s).
Further footnote regarding side-contentions like ignorance in court cases, I considered Con's rebuttals to Pro's Round 2 side-contentions as sufficient each time, thus not worth mentioning or venturing into. The angles were just repeats of the same concept that Con negated with (paraphrasing) 'of course defining their stance that way logically incoherent, that's why they deny despite considering and then deny that they considered.'
Footnote regarding tying sources: Con's many sources were mainly forum posts or .com type websites.
they weren't .edu, .org, .gov or such and were used casually.
I would have given Con the sources point if the Reddit blog post about Dawkins' scale of atheistic vs agnostic beliefs weren't undermined in Round 2 but Reddit as a source in a philosophy debate... Lol...
RFD part 1/2
Pro's argument is that it is logically untenable because... Well, I am kind of confused what he is saying and this confusion was excellently capitalised on by Con in the next Round. Since Con is taking a Theistic stance here, it allowed a comedic defense angle of essentially telling us that of course it's logically untenable to define atheism that way, since atheists themselves are logically incoherent and using untenable logic to deny God.
This got a small smile out of me and really entertained me to read, if entertainment were a factor in voting, I'd award the point to Con almost just for that alone.
For the remainder of the debate, Pro tries to dismiss everything that Con says by saying it's irrelevant but I don't agree as a reader that Con's points were irrelevant to the resolution. Instead, I see huge relevance in particular to the AoB vs atheism angle that Pro never once addressed other than to say 'on needs to make his own arguments, not link us to Wokeupbug. Without supporting argument his 7 levels of belief should be dismissed.' when Dawkins is one of the most renowned agnostics of this generation (well, he's previous generation but still alive and relevant so you get the point).
While Pro's use of essentially a single dictionary source is weak sourcing, Con undermining his already flimsy Reddit source by casting Dawkins as a strong atheist in the next Round despite trying to show that weak atheists and agnostics separate themselves from atheists in Round 1 make me leave sources tied. I appreciated the 'apology' to me though... Since, this debate became very semantic as predicted.
It was actually a shock to me who won this debate in my eyes. I expected Pro to push harder on semantics because other definitions of atheist and even capitalise harder on events such as Con's own error in Round 2 of highlighting that Dawkins says one thing and then acts another way with regards to Go. I saw very little engagement of Con's case by Pro and the problem is that the case was good. I don't have an issue with lazy debating where one allows weak points of the opponent to remain untouched but the untouched points by Con simply were not weak and were entirely relevant to the resolution.
I leave the semantics tied though because Con did indeed not properly address why the semantics and lexicality is actually correct, however this helped Con out since Pro didn't think to flesh out that point at all.
the 'practical uselessness' angle was not DIRECTLY addressed by Con but INDIRECTLY, Con did address it regularly such as in the AoB vs atheism angle so I do consider it rebutted.
RFD part 2/2
The Absence of belief (AoB) isn't atheism argument line was won by Con from the very moment he mentioned it. Pro's rebuttal is that Con ought to make his own arguments but that is toxic to say and misunderstands what Con presented. Con gave us proof that his take on atheism is actually backed by one of the most respected, high-esteem and renowned agnostic speakers, debaters, frontpeople etc of our era (namely, Richard Dawkins). If Pro genuinely wants to wave this away as simply 'Con ought to make his own arguments' that is like saying that the moment somebody tries to prove they aren't just talking baselessly on something, you then revert to saying 'but that's not your own argument' trapping them in a state of being unable to prove they aren't baselessly asserting an idea as accepted by a group, namely 'agnostics' in this case.
In actual fact, there could exist almost no better way for Con to drive this debate along the 'AoB =/= atheism' line than to pit agnostics (instead of Theists) against atheists.
The AoB point became a gaping hole in Pro's defense even though it actually was linking to a Redditor talking about Dawkins, which Pro barely touched on or pointed out. Furthermore, Pro didn't point out that Dawkins is agnostic and not atheist (though in reality he is a 'weak atheist' under his own definitions, he goes by agnostic). There was absolutely nothing from Pro to address this issue and that meant that when it came to establishing consensus, Con won hands down and brutally.
If Con has won the consensus aspect of the debate, the only path to victory left for Pro would be to prove that the consensus is wrong. Therefore, I agree with Pro and allow his defense towards Con that a dictionary defining a word a certain way doesn't inherently mean it SHOULD be defined that way but Con still has the initial advantage and holds his own there due to the definition favouring Con's side.
There was, however, a problem for Con. since Con uses Dawkins to back his AoB vs Atheism logic, it is extremely disconcerting that Con then tries to prove that Dawkins is actually a strongly denying atheist as opposed to weak atheist or agnostic in the Round following the AoB contention. It appears that Con undermined his own source there very hard as he is making clear that Dawkins (in Con's eyes) is actually an active atheist instead of an agnostic who has absence of belief in God. That being said, Pro does absolutely nothing to capitalise on this error at all, so I cannot truly score it actively against Con, it just lessens how seriously I take Con's AoB argument and definitely undermines an already sketchy sourcing of a Redditor posting about their own summary of what Dawkins preaches/teaches.
If you allow Con to restrict it to first trimester overall, I will accept the debate. If this is for full term allowance of abortion, I agree with Pro only insofar as restricting the time.
O is not a
A is not o
I honestly think Oromagi was seriously weak here at engaging the case of Pro on a fundamental level, both of them actually were completely missing the foundation of the other's case.