Not all voters understand tabula rasa, they come into the debate with presumptions and involve that in their voting. While ideally, more voters would be like me, you yourself have benefitted from Ragnar failing to be that way in the debate I linked to earlier here.
It's a question of adapting to the voters and what they generally punish/assume.
There's more to quote if I was going to quote every part relevant but those are the actual parts that explicitly have the arrogant or whiny tone that came to really make it an upleasant read for me as a debate judge and I will explain why it's not just whining that's the issue.
Issues:
Pro does not identify as male on the website, I can't be bothered to screenshot a profile or prove this, I know Pro has not identified as male unless it was momentary, I've now and again seen Pro's profile. Con misgendered Pro and in 2022, that is actually bad conduct yes. I'm not exaggerating but sure it's not like he called a directly identified gender as another, Pro's gender section is left 'unknown' so Pro could be male.
Con tells that Pro has no right to set (not move, set) the goalposts of the debate in a way that dissatisfy Con, let alone define terms like 'school' or 'Creationism' in a way that Con feels is unfair. That's bullcrap, the debate is fine and Pro has every damn right to do that. If Con doesn't like it, Con can 'move the goalposts' elsewhere but be aware that the Kritik-ban rule in the description would stop Con challenging assumptions made by Pro regarding that debate's topic.
Con says the position is unwinnable and that not only should voters sympathise with his unwinnable position but punish Pro for having a debate that is worthy of site-rule enforcement. Holy shit, what a goddamn coward. No, really, what an absolute coward. I don't care about the crying, I'd be whining too in his position but seriously Benjamin, what are you doing?
If the debate is against site rules to take place because apparently Truisms are so bad to debate that mods need to get involved as code of conduct has been violated, why is Con encouraging vigilante justice by voters? Clearly, Con should tap the flag at the top of the debate, say he fucked up accepting a Truism (which he thinks is not allowed to take place as a debate, lmao) and ensure the mods punish Pro for violating the CoC, right?
Don't fuck around with me reporting my vote, Benjamin if you're not ready for a good spanking in the re-write. You're an absolute coward. I mean it.
You came into the debate knowing what the title was, knowing you couldn't Kritik your way out of an awkward framing Pro may put you into. If you knew that and accepted anyway, you can't just cry about about it and act like some pseudo-snitch that we ought to punish Pro with an elo-loss for you to gain rating at Pro's expense when Pro was the one who caught you hook, line and sinker. Fuck off with that attitude, seriously. You enter the debating ring as equals. If you didn't enter as an equal, that's on you, nobody forced you to click accept and you had every opportunity to insist why Pro's framing was wrong instead of using your entire Round 3 and over 70% of your Round 2 purely whining about Pro trapping you into a situation where you didn't feel comfortable fighting the teaching of Creationism in schools because you didn't fancy the debate title's reference to Creationism being taught in the way Pro recommended as being relevant to the debate.
Do not do that. Do not threaten your fellow debater with violating site rules and needing to fear repercussion mid-debate because you realise you have no way to win. Think things through before accepting a debate, learn to spot traps, learn to set traps if you want to but do not play victim here. Do not appeal to my sympathy.
Even more revolting than the cowardice is the fact that you yourself tried to define 'school' and tried to hint at a movement of goalposts that Pro didn't enjoy or agree to. What about when you do it? Is Pro a victim then?
I will just spam quotes from Con and sum my Conduct vote up at the end. This is a valid way to justify a Conduct vote because if, to me, Pro didn't say or do bad conduct in the debate there is therefore nothing to quote from Pro in comparison.
"PRO simply cannot re-define an already well known debate, especially now when it is not mentioned in the description."
"I don't think my opponent adequately supports this position. I hope he makes a case relevant to the real debate rather than try to defend himself moving the goalpost."
"PRO argues that people need to know about creation myths to understand society, history and religion. He refuses to acknowledge the actual meaning of teaching creationism at school, by cherry picking definitions and semantically redefining the meaning of the phrase to mean "telling some people somewhere something about some form of creation myth". This way of framing the resolution it becomes a truism. Additionally PRO disallowed Kritiks. He is guilty of creating a truism debate."
" And finally PRO'S grand assertion: CON should be able to sufficiently challenge the status quo and tell us why creationism should not be taught at all.
PRO argues that people need to know about creation myths to understand society, history and religion. He twists the resolution in such a semantic way as to make "teaching creationism in school" so obviously permissible and uncontroversial that the resolution becomes a truism. Removing all creation myths worldwide from religious, historic, social and philosophical studies for everyone including adults --- that is both nonsensical and unheard of. The CON position in this debate is effectively impossible.
I invoked the CoC calling this a truism debate and PRO DID NOT OBJECT, thus conceding the point. Therefore, vote CON as truism debates are unacceptable and the voting guides calls to punish such debates. PRO never provided arguments for a non-truism interpretation of the resolution, so he can by definition not have won a fair debate to earn votes. His BoP is hardly touched on even if we disregard everything else.
"A kritik (from the German Kritik, meaning "critique" or "criticism") is a form of argument in policy debate that challenges a certain mindset or assumption made by the opposing team, often from the perspective of critical theory."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms#Kritik
"A strategy used primarily (though not exclusively) by negative debaters designed to question the assumptions which underlie the other team’s advocacy."
- https://www.nfhs.org/media/1017640/introduction-to-kritiks-2016.pdf
Pro did not actually ever Kritik. In fact, it is a Kritik itself to say Pro moved the goalposts because PRO IS THE INSTIGATOR HERE, not only Pro wrote the topic, Pro gets to set the goalposts of the topic. You can only fight back via moving the goalposts yourself.
Con actually doesn't do this to my knowledge in the debate, he dedicated the entire debate to crying about Pro moving the goalposts. That is to say that when I cover Kritik-rule violation in my 'Conduct' part of my reason for deciding to vote Pro, I will not be considering Pro deciding that Creationism needn't be taught as part of the science syllabus nor even Pro deciding that 'school' includes further and/or higher education as Kritiks. If the voting moderator removes my vote for this again, I am not sure what recourse I have as the other voting mod has vested interest via having voted otherwise in this debate.
Sources:
Con. PART 1 Mediocre reliability, brutally inconsistent sourcing regularly claiming things without sources and most importantly using sources that completely capitulate certain points Con is making, exposing his side to attacks from Pro.
American .com but due to being Britannica (a well renowned Encylopedia) it is to be classified as educational. They are also behind the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Reliability: BACKFIRED Extreme, usage ~ trying to prove that Creationists are a modern and intellectually corrupt movement, out to remove evolution from being taught at schools, the literal quote that Con has as an excerpt from his source has this inside it:
" Today most creationists in the United States favour the elimination of evolution from the public school curriculum or at least the teaching of creationism alongside evolution as an equally legitimate scientific theory."
The part after the 'or' combined with the source itself having this within it:
"In 1950 Pope Pius XII released an encyclical confirming that there is no intrinsic conflict between the theory of evolution and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, provided that Catholics still believe that humans are endowed with a soul created by God. In 1996 Pope John Paul II expanded and reiterated the church’s position, affirming evolution as "more than a hypothesis.""
As well as Pro explicitly capitalising on the latter, via adding his own additional quote from Wikipedia to it (though Pro failed to reference it he hyperlinks text within the quoted excerpt so it's forgiven) lead me to believe that this source usage was a brutally poor usage of sourcing by Con to get his point across. Even though he quoted a part that said most American creationists want to remove evolution, he did not in any way cover how much is most (is it just 51% for instance) nor did he substantiate why this agenda itself means Creationism doesn't deserve the dignity to at least be taught in religious, historical and/or philosophical studies, which is the primary push that Pro had for it.
Edu link (educational)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Reliability: (passive usage, near-backfiring) Extreme, usage ~ passively lets us know that Creationism as an officially backed idea to be taught and movement supporting its inclusion in school is relatively recent to human history. If you ask me personally, that would mean it's actually more, not less, important to be making students aware of than if it were a long-gone idea losing its relevance. I think this virtually backfires on Con but I admit this was a decent source, however this is literally the only decent source usage by Con in the whole debate.
Con does give some sources at another point pushing 3 at once to prove that peer-review is a part of scientific theory of big bang... That is literally nothing to do with the debate. I do get how big bang can interfeere with Creationism somewhat but this is barely explored at all. In fact many Creationists say the big bang may have been God's work so I myself know as a default that needs fleshing out by Con to be taken as directly relevant to the debate in any way at all.
I will now explain why linking to a Google search is not qualified as a source from Con and why/how Con doesn't really leverage Pro's source against Pro whatsoever.
Con tells us 'Oxford definition' but to work out that he isn't bluffing or misleading us, readers of the debate need to not only open the Google search, they need to scroll down and furthermore have decent understanding of Google's site mechanics in the sense of that the first shown definitions on a page only let you know which link they are attached to by a small, hard-to-notice 'Definitions from Oxford Languages' written under 'definitions'. I am telling you, it is not easy to work that out for anybody who has less than slightly above-average computer literacy, I am pretty knowledgable about computers and know what most people do or don't know. The first linked URL below that for me was Wikipedia (but that's partly tailored to my previous searches etc) in fact, Oxford Dictionaries barely shows for me at all (won't specify where, that's my Google Data personal business). If another user who didn't realise that they had to click the tiny text under the very very top 'definitions' where it says 'Definitions from Oxford Languages' (clicking on the 'Oxford Languages') they'd never be able to ascertain with any remote ease that the definitions shown actually were Oxford definitions.
As for the attempt to leverage Pro's point against him. Pro utilised that source to prove that Creationism has been the subject of many debates and legal cases. That was not whatsoever the source that Pro used when defining 'school'. Con cannot play the victim to Pro twisting semantics inventing something called a 'semantical fallacy' as if defining a word how an opponent doesn't like is a fallacy. Also, just on a point of irony/note, 'semantical' as a term itself is a borderline semantic fallacy but it's fair enough, I am aware that Con is not a native English speaker and it does count somewhat as a word just not officially as such. 'Semantic' works both to describe semantics and to be the adjective of semantics-related stuff.
So, for the third actually used source by Con that wasn't just about complaining what Pro said/did, comes this source:
A near-blog-like 'catch all' 'come here to prove the fallacy' American .Com website
It is also important to note there is financial motive at play, this is clear because the only part of the website that would let you know about the owners or website's aim advertises a book and at the bottom of the webpage warns you who it's all (the website's contents) copyrighted to. There seems very little about it that is academically reliable other than the topic choice of logical fallacy.
Reliability: Mediocre at best, usage ~ To prove that moving the goalposts is a known thing that debaters do which this website considers a logical fallacy.
I am guessing that because of the popularity of the website (we can presume it, it's kinda mainstream amongst debate nerds/geeks), this was utilised to prove that Con wasn't making up a 'moving the goalposts' fallacy but was hearing about it from others and using it in a non made-up way. I find this amusing not because it was a bad idea to use the source but there were so many times in the debate where Con made claims that he did not source even to prove that it was popularly recognised as a decent idea. That's not too important to my vote though so I'll just leave it.
Non governmental organisation
National Center for Science Education
Reliability: Extreme, usage ~ Creationism has been the subject of many debates and legal cases
This is important to the case of Pro as it proves that Creationism is useful even in real world application for students to be aware of if they are to pursue law and/or politics.
======
2) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology/ (wrongly done by the hyperlinked 'cosmology' but made clear to be the intended link by being in the bottom of the bibliography at the bottom of Round 1).
Edu link (educational)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Reliability: Extreme, usage ~ proving that, via fields such as cosmology, Creationism is an important part of philosophy and that is a reason why to include Creationism as a taught part of school syllabuses.
=====
3) https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/si/ds/dos.asp
Officially Californian-Government-Approved
California Department of Education
Reliability: Significantly High, usage ~ proving that 'school' which is a debate-topic word and essential to define, actually officially includes higher education facilities.
I will post this to link to in my RFD, this will cover the Arguments point allocation:
Con's own source about Creationism says this: "In 1950 Pope Pius XII released an encyclical confirming that there is no intrinsic conflict between the theory of evolution and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, provided that Catholics still believe that humans are endowed with a soul created by God. In 1996 Pope John Paul II expanded and reiterated the church’s position, affirming evolution as "more than a hypothesis." and Pro strongly points this out in Round 2 as well as quoting a similar source on Wikipedia regarding these announcements. If Popes themselves are declaring evolution to work in tandem with Creationism, Con's point that we ought to discard Creationism from school curricula because it contradicts evolution... to back this up he points out that most Creationists consider it as valid as evolution (that isn't proof it contradicts). He did however prove that most creationists consider it as scientifically valid as evolution but yet again didn't prove that it wasn't as scientifically valid as evolution. In fact the only point he makes himself on the matter seems to be this: "creationism stands out as a weird outlier today."
That is literally his only point that wasn't just reiterating his sources on most Creationists not considering the Theory of Evolution as being superior in validity.
In contrast, Pro almost wins the entire debate in Round 2 by what is said at the end. Firstly, Pro successfully lies about moving the goalposts (Con never really explains how they were moved again, just cries about the debate being a truism and that schools are not always universities, but religion is taught even at school level so...). Then, after having already twisted Con's source against him, Pro says both can be taught (which Con's own source in Round 1 in the QUOTED SECTION THAT CON HAD AS AN EXCERPT says that most Creationists want both Creationism and Evolution being taught side by side. Then, Pro points out that Con's complaint about the motives of Creationists 'has been proven to be irrelevant because just because you believe something to be a more largely sinister movement, does not mean it is understood, taught, and accepted in this way.'
The remainder of the debate from Con is a continual character assassination of Pro, breaking of the Kritik rule to justify goalpost movement (which he doesn't move back, ever, he just keeps saying they are moved and that that is wrong but doesn't move them back) and basically a tantrum. Let me be clear, if the CoC really literally ruled out truisms, Con broke the CoC knowingly by accepting and enabling a banned debate to take place. So, really he should be begging voters to rethink that notion or they'd realise that he just accepted this for an easy win, instead of the accusation he has that Pro made an autowin Truism.
The man has so many signs of dementia, he really isn't fit to be president but the real people to blame are the Dems who voted for him in the primaries over the much better candidates.
When that guy with the french frog profile pic (later known as something havoc) was active, a lot of debates began to unfairly benefit the side that backed Theism. Similarly, when Ramshutu and Ragnar/Barney were the active voters, it was skewed in favour of secular positions.
Whiteflame is also a left-wing secular-oriented biased voter that people overglorify because he writes good-sounding RFDs and I admit they are often very well written.
The recent user Novice, most likely wanted to vote against me but your case genuinely had flaws that I pointed out.
You can believe the voting is unfair and I agree that FLRW's vote is as BS as some Ramshutu votes that never got removed. Unfortunately, the RFD criteria are so loose that if the voter even references one or two things, they can basically justify voting either way.
"However, I will offer 2 counter-Kritiks before proceeding to explain why the resolution is pretty much inherently true once we observe the actual definitions of 'natural' and 'transgender'."
I meant 'inherently false' I got confused for a second there, I'll correct in Round 2.
thanks for the vote but it would help if you made clearer the points the debaters brought forth rather than you own take on the points (as in what I said vs what Pro said, not what you say vs both).
You did this with carbon dating but that's about it, thanks anyway
Show me where in the debate that you specifically explained your goalposts and your understanding of the BoP (not Pro's and why it isnt fair in your eyes but your own one)
A dull semantic debate masked as a juice philosophical one.
Could have been much better if this was worded differently and either about theism or atheism's approach itself (which both sides pre-agreed on defining).
Firstly, because often voters seem to struggle to comprehend my arguments and leave it tied or even erroneously vote against me once (that debate wasn't linked to).
Secondly, I laid out the criteria for me to accept it in previous comments and until literally yesterday, Novice had blocked me which stops me being able to accept his/her/their debates.
If you really believed in the movement to stop Novice doing this, you'd participate like I do, by warning others in the comments section and protesting without accepting the abusive and unbeatable debates. Instead, you opt to accept what you see as a violation of a 'truism rule' that you pretend to hold sacred and then expect others to appease you for accepting a debate that you say is against the code of conduct to even be taking place.
Please can a vote mod address ADOL's vote at some point. It definitely is not justified in its conduct point and I would also report it for the 'sources' allocation.
I am probably losing anyway but I really think it's an unfair vote.
I mean, I definitely thought I was debating against nuclear fission, considering that nuclear fusion is extremely new in terms of it being done in any effective manner.
That said, I am willing to take the L here as I do see it as a very 'this or that' debate, it comes down to how one interprets the resolution and sees our points clashing. I went for a very 'counter' style rather than building a straightforward case for him to attack, this seemed to displease the other voters so far.
Not all voters understand tabula rasa, they come into the debate with presumptions and involve that in their voting. While ideally, more voters would be like me, you yourself have benefitted from Ragnar failing to be that way in the debate I linked to earlier here.
It's a question of adapting to the voters and what they generally punish/assume.
Don't underestimate the situation, lol.
He is one of the best even out of the best. He is the debater I'd be most scared against other than blamonkey on this website.
Let's debate that.
Systemic racism is why others did not stop him and why he felt it was okay to stop Floyd breathing.
Individually, his personal racism is not easy to directly prove.
Vote if you want to, thanks.
The biggest issue for me is both sides are correct.
Pro is correct if we stay within practical mathematical limitations. Con is correct if we deal with raw values and theoretically perfect mathematics.
Thanks for your disapproving vote
There's more to quote if I was going to quote every part relevant but those are the actual parts that explicitly have the arrogant or whiny tone that came to really make it an upleasant read for me as a debate judge and I will explain why it's not just whining that's the issue.
Issues:
Pro does not identify as male on the website, I can't be bothered to screenshot a profile or prove this, I know Pro has not identified as male unless it was momentary, I've now and again seen Pro's profile. Con misgendered Pro and in 2022, that is actually bad conduct yes. I'm not exaggerating but sure it's not like he called a directly identified gender as another, Pro's gender section is left 'unknown' so Pro could be male.
Con tells that Pro has no right to set (not move, set) the goalposts of the debate in a way that dissatisfy Con, let alone define terms like 'school' or 'Creationism' in a way that Con feels is unfair. That's bullcrap, the debate is fine and Pro has every damn right to do that. If Con doesn't like it, Con can 'move the goalposts' elsewhere but be aware that the Kritik-ban rule in the description would stop Con challenging assumptions made by Pro regarding that debate's topic.
Con says the position is unwinnable and that not only should voters sympathise with his unwinnable position but punish Pro for having a debate that is worthy of site-rule enforcement. Holy shit, what a goddamn coward. No, really, what an absolute coward. I don't care about the crying, I'd be whining too in his position but seriously Benjamin, what are you doing?
If the debate is against site rules to take place because apparently Truisms are so bad to debate that mods need to get involved as code of conduct has been violated, why is Con encouraging vigilante justice by voters? Clearly, Con should tap the flag at the top of the debate, say he fucked up accepting a Truism (which he thinks is not allowed to take place as a debate, lmao) and ensure the mods punish Pro for violating the CoC, right?
Don't fuck around with me reporting my vote, Benjamin if you're not ready for a good spanking in the re-write. You're an absolute coward. I mean it.
You came into the debate knowing what the title was, knowing you couldn't Kritik your way out of an awkward framing Pro may put you into. If you knew that and accepted anyway, you can't just cry about about it and act like some pseudo-snitch that we ought to punish Pro with an elo-loss for you to gain rating at Pro's expense when Pro was the one who caught you hook, line and sinker. Fuck off with that attitude, seriously. You enter the debating ring as equals. If you didn't enter as an equal, that's on you, nobody forced you to click accept and you had every opportunity to insist why Pro's framing was wrong instead of using your entire Round 3 and over 70% of your Round 2 purely whining about Pro trapping you into a situation where you didn't feel comfortable fighting the teaching of Creationism in schools because you didn't fancy the debate title's reference to Creationism being taught in the way Pro recommended as being relevant to the debate.
Do not do that. Do not threaten your fellow debater with violating site rules and needing to fear repercussion mid-debate because you realise you have no way to win. Think things through before accepting a debate, learn to spot traps, learn to set traps if you want to but do not play victim here. Do not appeal to my sympathy.
Even more revolting than the cowardice is the fact that you yourself tried to define 'school' and tried to hint at a movement of goalposts that Pro didn't enjoy or agree to. What about when you do it? Is Pro a victim then?
I will just spam quotes from Con and sum my Conduct vote up at the end. This is a valid way to justify a Conduct vote because if, to me, Pro didn't say or do bad conduct in the debate there is therefore nothing to quote from Pro in comparison.
"PRO simply cannot re-define an already well known debate, especially now when it is not mentioned in the description."
"I don't think my opponent adequately supports this position. I hope he makes a case relevant to the real debate rather than try to defend himself moving the goalpost."
"PRO argues that people need to know about creation myths to understand society, history and religion. He refuses to acknowledge the actual meaning of teaching creationism at school, by cherry picking definitions and semantically redefining the meaning of the phrase to mean "telling some people somewhere something about some form of creation myth". This way of framing the resolution it becomes a truism. Additionally PRO disallowed Kritiks. He is guilty of creating a truism debate."
" And finally PRO'S grand assertion: CON should be able to sufficiently challenge the status quo and tell us why creationism should not be taught at all.
PRO argues that people need to know about creation myths to understand society, history and religion. He twists the resolution in such a semantic way as to make "teaching creationism in school" so obviously permissible and uncontroversial that the resolution becomes a truism. Removing all creation myths worldwide from religious, historic, social and philosophical studies for everyone including adults --- that is both nonsensical and unheard of. The CON position in this debate is effectively impossible.
I invoked the CoC calling this a truism debate and PRO DID NOT OBJECT, thus conceding the point. Therefore, vote CON as truism debates are unacceptable and the voting guides calls to punish such debates. PRO never provided arguments for a non-truism interpretation of the resolution, so he can by definition not have won a fair debate to earn votes. His BoP is hardly touched on even if we disregard everything else.
I ask voters to vote responsibly."
===========
Preface to my conduct vote:
Kritiks.
"A kritik (from the German Kritik, meaning "critique" or "criticism") is a form of argument in policy debate that challenges a certain mindset or assumption made by the opposing team, often from the perspective of critical theory."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms#Kritik
"A strategy used primarily (though not exclusively) by negative debaters designed to question the assumptions which underlie the other team’s advocacy."
- https://www.nfhs.org/media/1017640/introduction-to-kritiks-2016.pdf
Pro did not actually ever Kritik. In fact, it is a Kritik itself to say Pro moved the goalposts because PRO IS THE INSTIGATOR HERE, not only Pro wrote the topic, Pro gets to set the goalposts of the topic. You can only fight back via moving the goalposts yourself.
Con actually doesn't do this to my knowledge in the debate, he dedicated the entire debate to crying about Pro moving the goalposts. That is to say that when I cover Kritik-rule violation in my 'Conduct' part of my reason for deciding to vote Pro, I will not be considering Pro deciding that Creationism needn't be taught as part of the science syllabus nor even Pro deciding that 'school' includes further and/or higher education as Kritiks. If the voting moderator removes my vote for this again, I am not sure what recourse I have as the other voting mod has vested interest via having voted otherwise in this debate.
Sources:
Con. PART 1 Mediocre reliability, brutally inconsistent sourcing regularly claiming things without sources and most importantly using sources that completely capitulate certain points Con is making, exposing his side to attacks from Pro.
Examples
====
1) https://www.britannica.com/topic/creationism
American .com but due to being Britannica (a well renowned Encylopedia) it is to be classified as educational. They are also behind the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Reliability: BACKFIRED Extreme, usage ~ trying to prove that Creationists are a modern and intellectually corrupt movement, out to remove evolution from being taught at schools, the literal quote that Con has as an excerpt from his source has this inside it:
" Today most creationists in the United States favour the elimination of evolution from the public school curriculum or at least the teaching of creationism alongside evolution as an equally legitimate scientific theory."
The part after the 'or' combined with the source itself having this within it:
"In 1950 Pope Pius XII released an encyclical confirming that there is no intrinsic conflict between the theory of evolution and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, provided that Catholics still believe that humans are endowed with a soul created by God. In 1996 Pope John Paul II expanded and reiterated the church’s position, affirming evolution as "more than a hypothesis.""
As well as Pro explicitly capitalising on the latter, via adding his own additional quote from Wikipedia to it (though Pro failed to reference it he hyperlinks text within the quoted excerpt so it's forgiven) lead me to believe that this source usage was a brutally poor usage of sourcing by Con to get his point across. Even though he quoted a part that said most American creationists want to remove evolution, he did not in any way cover how much is most (is it just 51% for instance) nor did he substantiate why this agenda itself means Creationism doesn't deserve the dignity to at least be taught in religious, historical and/or philosophical studies, which is the primary push that Pro had for it.
==========
2) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/
Edu link (educational)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Reliability: (passive usage, near-backfiring) Extreme, usage ~ passively lets us know that Creationism as an officially backed idea to be taught and movement supporting its inclusion in school is relatively recent to human history. If you ask me personally, that would mean it's actually more, not less, important to be making students aware of than if it were a long-gone idea losing its relevance. I think this virtually backfires on Con but I admit this was a decent source, however this is literally the only decent source usage by Con in the whole debate.
Con does give some sources at another point pushing 3 at once to prove that peer-review is a part of scientific theory of big bang... That is literally nothing to do with the debate. I do get how big bang can interfeere with Creationism somewhat but this is barely explored at all. In fact many Creationists say the big bang may have been God's work so I myself know as a default that needs fleshing out by Con to be taken as directly relevant to the debate in any way at all.
SOURCES CON PART 2
I will now explain why linking to a Google search is not qualified as a source from Con and why/how Con doesn't really leverage Pro's source against Pro whatsoever.
Con tells us 'Oxford definition' but to work out that he isn't bluffing or misleading us, readers of the debate need to not only open the Google search, they need to scroll down and furthermore have decent understanding of Google's site mechanics in the sense of that the first shown definitions on a page only let you know which link they are attached to by a small, hard-to-notice 'Definitions from Oxford Languages' written under 'definitions'. I am telling you, it is not easy to work that out for anybody who has less than slightly above-average computer literacy, I am pretty knowledgable about computers and know what most people do or don't know. The first linked URL below that for me was Wikipedia (but that's partly tailored to my previous searches etc) in fact, Oxford Dictionaries barely shows for me at all (won't specify where, that's my Google Data personal business). If another user who didn't realise that they had to click the tiny text under the very very top 'definitions' where it says 'Definitions from Oxford Languages' (clicking on the 'Oxford Languages') they'd never be able to ascertain with any remote ease that the definitions shown actually were Oxford definitions.
As for the attempt to leverage Pro's point against him. Pro utilised that source to prove that Creationism has been the subject of many debates and legal cases. That was not whatsoever the source that Pro used when defining 'school'. Con cannot play the victim to Pro twisting semantics inventing something called a 'semantical fallacy' as if defining a word how an opponent doesn't like is a fallacy. Also, just on a point of irony/note, 'semantical' as a term itself is a borderline semantic fallacy but it's fair enough, I am aware that Con is not a native English speaker and it does count somewhat as a word just not officially as such. 'Semantic' works both to describe semantics and to be the adjective of semantics-related stuff.
So, for the third actually used source by Con that wasn't just about complaining what Pro said/did, comes this source:
3) https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Moving-the-Goalposts
A near-blog-like 'catch all' 'come here to prove the fallacy' American .Com website
It is also important to note there is financial motive at play, this is clear because the only part of the website that would let you know about the owners or website's aim advertises a book and at the bottom of the webpage warns you who it's all (the website's contents) copyrighted to. There seems very little about it that is academically reliable other than the topic choice of logical fallacy.
Reliability: Mediocre at best, usage ~ To prove that moving the goalposts is a known thing that debaters do which this website considers a logical fallacy.
I am guessing that because of the popularity of the website (we can presume it, it's kinda mainstream amongst debate nerds/geeks), this was utilised to prove that Con wasn't making up a 'moving the goalposts' fallacy but was hearing about it from others and using it in a non made-up way. I find this amusing not because it was a bad idea to use the source but there were so many times in the debate where Con made claims that he did not source even to prove that it was popularly recognised as a decent idea. That's not too important to my vote though so I'll just leave it.
Sources:
Pro. Extremely reliable, consistent sourcing.
Examples
=====
1)
https://ncse.ngo/ten-major-court-cases-about-evolution-and-creationism
Non governmental organisation
National Center for Science Education
Reliability: Extreme, usage ~ Creationism has been the subject of many debates and legal cases
This is important to the case of Pro as it proves that Creationism is useful even in real world application for students to be aware of if they are to pursue law and/or politics.
======
2) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology/ (wrongly done by the hyperlinked 'cosmology' but made clear to be the intended link by being in the bottom of the bibliography at the bottom of Round 1).
Edu link (educational)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Reliability: Extreme, usage ~ proving that, via fields such as cosmology, Creationism is an important part of philosophy and that is a reason why to include Creationism as a taught part of school syllabuses.
=====
3) https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/si/ds/dos.asp
Officially Californian-Government-Approved
California Department of Education
Reliability: Significantly High, usage ~ proving that 'school' which is a debate-topic word and essential to define, actually officially includes higher education facilities.
I will post this to link to in my RFD, this will cover the Arguments point allocation:
Con's own source about Creationism says this: "In 1950 Pope Pius XII released an encyclical confirming that there is no intrinsic conflict between the theory of evolution and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, provided that Catholics still believe that humans are endowed with a soul created by God. In 1996 Pope John Paul II expanded and reiterated the church’s position, affirming evolution as "more than a hypothesis." and Pro strongly points this out in Round 2 as well as quoting a similar source on Wikipedia regarding these announcements. If Popes themselves are declaring evolution to work in tandem with Creationism, Con's point that we ought to discard Creationism from school curricula because it contradicts evolution... to back this up he points out that most Creationists consider it as valid as evolution (that isn't proof it contradicts). He did however prove that most creationists consider it as scientifically valid as evolution but yet again didn't prove that it wasn't as scientifically valid as evolution. In fact the only point he makes himself on the matter seems to be this: "creationism stands out as a weird outlier today."
That is literally his only point that wasn't just reiterating his sources on most Creationists not considering the Theory of Evolution as being superior in validity.
In contrast, Pro almost wins the entire debate in Round 2 by what is said at the end. Firstly, Pro successfully lies about moving the goalposts (Con never really explains how they were moved again, just cries about the debate being a truism and that schools are not always universities, but religion is taught even at school level so...). Then, after having already twisted Con's source against him, Pro says both can be taught (which Con's own source in Round 1 in the QUOTED SECTION THAT CON HAD AS AN EXCERPT says that most Creationists want both Creationism and Evolution being taught side by side. Then, Pro points out that Con's complaint about the motives of Creationists 'has been proven to be irrelevant because just because you believe something to be a more largely sinister movement, does not mean it is understood, taught, and accepted in this way.'
The remainder of the debate from Con is a continual character assassination of Pro, breaking of the Kritik rule to justify goalpost movement (which he doesn't move back, ever, he just keeps saying they are moved and that that is wrong but doesn't move them back) and basically a tantrum. Let me be clear, if the CoC really literally ruled out truisms, Con broke the CoC knowingly by accepting and enabling a banned debate to take place. So, really he should be begging voters to rethink that notion or they'd realise that he just accepted this for an easy win, instead of the accusation he has that Pro made an autowin Truism.
Fan of Warren myself
https://youtu.be/sBpkQfuQp9g
You replied to me clearly asking it to whiteflame.
I'm not asking how your RFD will pass review, no. Totally different question.
more importantly, I'm curious how Barney can justify that con didn't kritik.
Congrats on the win. Glad I had the luck if opponents to not face you prior to the finals.
I will definitely do my homework if I do a science debate again, they're very nitpicky which is nit my forte.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3328-biological-women-are-psychologically-better-suited-than-biological-men-to-raise-and-care-for-children
Sometimes, incompetent voting helps you out ;)
The man has so many signs of dementia, he really isn't fit to be president but the real people to blame are the Dems who voted for him in the primaries over the much better candidates.
I did that with 9.999... vs 10 actually
defining terms is not a Kritik... come on.
You did not properly read Pro's case. This is obvious in your RFD.
That is actually what Pro agreed to. That they should be taught about the religious model, not that it should be taught as a scientific model.
I am not twisting your words here, your words are the same goalpost.
When that guy with the french frog profile pic (later known as something havoc) was active, a lot of debates began to unfairly benefit the side that backed Theism. Similarly, when Ramshutu and Ragnar/Barney were the active voters, it was skewed in favour of secular positions.
Whiteflame is also a left-wing secular-oriented biased voter that people overglorify because he writes good-sounding RFDs and I admit they are often very well written.
The recent user Novice, most likely wanted to vote against me but your case genuinely had flaws that I pointed out.
You can believe the voting is unfair and I agree that FLRW's vote is as BS as some Ramshutu votes that never got removed. Unfortunately, the RFD criteria are so loose that if the voter even references one or two things, they can basically justify voting either way.
Even though I have won and site mechanics do not let your verdict alter my win, please address the vote reasoning by FLRW.
I am curious if it is borderline acceptable or not
I am not entirely sure what precisely matters more; if the claim is realistic or if it's severe.
This debate is consisting of unrealistic and severe threats/claims meeting realistic and tame threats/claims from both sides.
Perhaps it was you who couldn't keep up with my arguments.
I thought I was debating Pro for transgender is unnatural, when I said it is true (I made this error twice) it is obvious what I meant.
"However, I will offer 2 counter-Kritiks before proceeding to explain why the resolution is pretty much inherently true once we observe the actual definitions of 'natural' and 'transgender'."
I meant 'inherently false' I got confused for a second there, I'll correct in Round 2.
thank you for voting.
thanks for the vote but it would help if you made clearer the points the debaters brought forth rather than you own take on the points (as in what I said vs what Pro said, not what you say vs both).
You did this with carbon dating but that's about it, thanks anyway
You are welcome.
The only difference between saying you believe gods do not exist and that you disbelieve they exist is playing around with words.
Con is actually correct but Pro has more dictionary backing.
You will find that your gripe will end up entirely lexical/semantic. Give it time.
I have an opinion about the debate via its topic, yes
Show me where in the debate that you specifically explained your goalposts and your understanding of the BoP (not Pro's and why it isnt fair in your eyes but your own one)
A dull semantic debate masked as a juice philosophical one.
Could have been much better if this was worded differently and either about theism or atheism's approach itself (which both sides pre-agreed on defining).
Firstly, because often voters seem to struggle to comprehend my arguments and leave it tied or even erroneously vote against me once (that debate wasn't linked to).
Secondly, I laid out the criteria for me to accept it in previous comments and until literally yesterday, Novice had blocked me which stops me being able to accept his/her/their debates.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/146-0-999-repeating-equals-1
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1620-0-999-1
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2119-0-999-recurring-is-not-equal-to-1
If you really believed in the movement to stop Novice doing this, you'd participate like I do, by warning others in the comments section and protesting without accepting the abusive and unbeatable debates. Instead, you opt to accept what you see as a violation of a 'truism rule' that you pretend to hold sacred and then expect others to appease you for accepting a debate that you say is against the code of conduct to even be taking place.
Increase time to 2 days
I disagree to Ragnar's request.
Increase to 7k
Why did you say 949havoc?
if you're keen to vote on the FF's here's one too:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3385-tell-me-your-life-story
thanks in advance
I have come up with the proper way to counter what Pro will do.
Please see here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/146-0-999-repeating-equals-1
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1620-0-999-1
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2119-0-999-recurring-is-not-equal-to-1
Please can a vote mod address ADOL's vote at some point. It definitely is not justified in its conduct point and I would also report it for the 'sources' allocation.
I am probably losing anyway but I really think it's an unfair vote.
I mean, I definitely thought I was debating against nuclear fission, considering that nuclear fusion is extremely new in terms of it being done in any effective manner.
That said, I am willing to take the L here as I do see it as a very 'this or that' debate, it comes down to how one interprets the resolution and sees our points clashing. I went for a very 'counter' style rather than building a straightforward case for him to attack, this seemed to displease the other voters so far.