his case was actually stronger than what you're making out, but you are right he worded it so terribly that his trap backfired and on top of that I liquidated what east and west on earth even mean defeating his trap altogether.
His argument was that the sun, literally sets on the west horizon while you're on the east of the earth every day while you're there. It also rises everyday on the east horizon of the west of the Earth if you're situated there.
Do not feel bad about your vote, I still won by defeating his very basis of there being an East or West of Earth at all as well as pointing out that if we take that into account the sun ACTUALLY rises on Earth on the socially constructed east of it and vice versa for setting and this is the reason the equally socially constructed timezones are what they are.
Dude, you are talking to a young guy who uses the site for Lols. Let him be. Goat is losing conduct no matter what and unless goat produces good arguments, I am voting Pro on that too because bringing new arguments when your opponent can't reply is out of order to even have those points considered (only exception is in a 1-round debate)
Mopac agreed to be in a debate where the description says only the Bible and nothing else is to be considered pertinent on the subject. So how can you then demand Mopac to prove claims in the Bible true beyond it when you're the one who constrained the debate via your description?
I will also attack the idea that all human entities are part of 'human community' and point out how we wilfully ignore north korea citizens and other elements of our wilful allowance of others to impose upon others what we consider sins or crimes
Just so you know P2 is going to be the main point on which we disagree as well as another point about suffering being worse than death and the aspect of the pregnant mother not owing life whereas she is owed the alleviation of suffering through the parasite etc.
Mods here are better than mods on DDO by far. Cannot compare this to fucking airmax and whiteflame. I don't even hate whiteflame at all, issue is just a matter of integrity.
Answer is they genuinely take it into strong consideration. If you say X can't vote that's almost always taken into consideration due to it being what the Contender agrees to when accepting the debate.
I don't mind that Pro's playing dirty, I am a master of balancing dirty play with rule-enforcing goody two-shoes stance. You can't outplay me, ever, you can only hope to get lucky in that enough voters 'feel' I am too wrong.
polyamorous one-big-family communist incest society is the optimal society ultimately but is too good to be true. Only then would everyone genuinely give enough of a shit about everyone else.
Both debaters used Round 5 for rebuttals so even though both agreed on Round 5 being closing statements without rebuttals, I am inclined to note that Round 5 wasn't pure-closing it was further defence including attacking points that the previous debater had just brought up from both parties. If 2 parties break a deal in the same way I am a person (and judge here) that will consider both consequentially valid in doing so. I have the exact same mentality with mutually ensured nuclear bombing as a means of maintaining world peace regardless of the legality of who has which bomb.
This mentality to me is perfectly justifiable and I will not at all be disregarding what was said in Round 5 despite the agreed structure.
Let's cut a long story short: I'm biased on this, I consider Pro to be speaking from a stance of absolute truth but one thing I didn't like is how Solipsist they were but I admit that most on my side are more subjectivists than objectivists. Reality to me is undeniably objective and thus there has to be a God at the core of it since a 'thing' can't be 'nothingness' and thus atheist reality at its core is self-defeated. Why am I saying this? Because I want to make it clear that to me Con is on the side that cannot at all be won, thus I admit I am fighting against bias but am going to be calmly explaining why Con lost and Pro won throughout this RFD.
I loved the first point that Pro brings up, really I loved it a lot. This argument was the strongest, most brutal stab at Con and it came first. Fantastic performance:
"The problem that rationalists have pointed out is that the claim that “all knowledge comes from the senses” is not itself knowledge that comes from the senses. There is simply no experiment or place where we can observe such a claim."
In order to reconcile this contradiction, Con basically says that Empiricism is not a known fact or truth, it's an opinion that he holds likely to be true... As in the very basis of how to know things is just an opinion that you are free to doubt. Well... Okay then? So Con concedes that his side isn't truth or known in any factual manner. This was not his fault, Con is on an unwinnable side that many brainwashed physicists have become trapped into believing as well as many shallow thinkers in philosophy such as Aristotle. I won't go into it now as that's my own arguments but believe me, Con couldn't win this debate unless Pro was lazy or an idiot and Pro was neither.
"Now, I have argued that empiricism itself cannot be justified using empiricism and con’s response is that empiricism itself is an unprovable axiom that lacks any justification. Con here makes the key concession that there is no evidence for empiricism since it lacks any justification and thus can only be accepted through blind dogmatic faith."
But the way he spoke after that begins to lead to my Conduct vote being against him but wasn't rude enough to be that. I don't mind arrogance, I'm a blissfully impressive narcissist myself but there comes a limit where you must understand that your opponent has no less right to feel arrogant than you yourself do. They are deluded in their arrogance, yes, but even though they are inferior it doesn't mean you have the right to make them feel that way. Debating is not just a sport, it's a battle of the finest most intellectually stimulating order. You are not entitled to just go ahead and tell your opponent that “ Con’s methodology is of course terrible,”... You do not need to use the word ‘terrible’ in place of irrational or something similar. Negativity and inferiority are not the same thing as inconsistency in reasoning.
The entirety of Con’s case rests on the fallacious notion that since we use senses to analyse the reality around us that the way we conclude said observations are valid and theories about links between said observations are true is the senses and the physicality of what’s known itself but this is not true and Pro again and again disproves Con on this while upholding the truism that we must reason first and last and senses are a middle-man (which Con doesn’t realise he’s agreeing to the whole time such as here:
“The axioms are chosen based on personal choice, as are any given rule of inference. Thus all subsequent theorems within that logical framework are a result of that choice and that choice alone. “
Whether Con realised it or not, the entire debate was actively forfeited at that point by Con and since I can’t say my own piece I’ll let Pro speak for me to prove my vote here is correct:
“Con has not only failed to address this argument but almost seems unaware of their existence which would explain why he keeps repeating that the axioms of rationalism are held on the basis of personal choice. The justification for each claim, under rationalism, would be the rational argumentation given for the claim, which would eventually trace down to more fundamental axioms.”
This entire ‘objectivity of truth’ section is the only necessary path to win or lose the debate. The rest was fluff and unless a moderator can prove to me otherwise I will leave it at that. I guarantee you I have read the entire debate and thought about this deeply and in an unbiased manner.
his case was actually stronger than what you're making out, but you are right he worded it so terribly that his trap backfired and on top of that I liquidated what east and west on earth even mean defeating his trap altogether.
His argument was that the sun, literally sets on the west horizon while you're on the east of the earth every day while you're there. It also rises everyday on the east horizon of the west of the Earth if you're situated there.
Do not feel bad about your vote, I still won by defeating his very basis of there being an East or West of Earth at all as well as pointing out that if we take that into account the sun ACTUALLY rises on Earth on the socially constructed east of it and vice versa for setting and this is the reason the equally socially constructed timezones are what they are.
he's winning rn
Dude, you are talking to a young guy who uses the site for Lols. Let him be. Goat is losing conduct no matter what and unless goat produces good arguments, I am voting Pro on that too because bringing new arguments when your opponent can't reply is out of order to even have those points considered (only exception is in a 1-round debate)
I actually like it but I agree with you and Pro on this, it's a worse option if you don't like water in and of itself.
Mopac agreed to be in a debate where the description says only the Bible and nothing else is to be considered pertinent on the subject. So how can you then demand Mopac to prove claims in the Bible true beyond it when you're the one who constrained the debate via your description?
I am not sure how to do it without it being a rebuttal
I will also attack the idea that all human entities are part of 'human community' and point out how we wilfully ignore north korea citizens and other elements of our wilful allowance of others to impose upon others what we consider sins or crimes
Idk how to word it all well right now but that will be the angle I am taking.
Just so you know P2 is going to be the main point on which we disagree as well as another point about suffering being worse than death and the aspect of the pregnant mother not owing life whereas she is owed the alleviation of suffering through the parasite etc.
You are not allowed to alter people's votes like this. This is violating my rights as a debater.
Mods here are better than mods on DDO by far. Cannot compare this to fucking airmax and whiteflame. I don't even hate whiteflame at all, issue is just a matter of integrity.
Why the fuck do you need to bring Hitler into this? Literally your entire closing statement of r4 is Hitler Hitler hitler
Because he'd lose due to rule 6 as polyamory is a Kritik'd take on Polygamy, nice try to trap the guy though.
Answer is they genuinely take it into strong consideration. If you say X can't vote that's almost always taken into consideration due to it being what the Contender agrees to when accepting the debate.
I don't mind that Pro's playing dirty, I am a master of balancing dirty play with rule-enforcing goody two-shoes stance. You can't outplay me, ever, you can only hope to get lucky in that enough voters 'feel' I am too wrong.
polyamorous one-big-family communist incest society is the optimal society ultimately but is too good to be true. Only then would everyone genuinely give enough of a shit about everyone else.
As a pagan progressive I am 100% Pro on this topic.
You meant polyamory, trust me on this polygamy is gender-specific to one male many females only.
Good game, Well played. ;)
I want to time this for later, I will let the timer go down for a day.
GG WP
I was saying to report it to bsh1
Last round
will be posting here, be ready
FF...
Report pro for the death threat to bsh1 and remind anyone who votes you down on conduct of what we implied.
FF easy
easy ff
For the record, I do believe out_boat_is_right has won but the margin is very small and I'm not that inclined to vote.
I will give you full feedback if you okay my vote. You will benefit from it.
Stalk?
I can prove it to you if you want.
You have totally and utterly misportrayed, misunderstood and muddied the waters of Pro's argument in your entire RFD.
PART 1 OF RFD
Both debaters used Round 5 for rebuttals so even though both agreed on Round 5 being closing statements without rebuttals, I am inclined to note that Round 5 wasn't pure-closing it was further defence including attacking points that the previous debater had just brought up from both parties. If 2 parties break a deal in the same way I am a person (and judge here) that will consider both consequentially valid in doing so. I have the exact same mentality with mutually ensured nuclear bombing as a means of maintaining world peace regardless of the legality of who has which bomb.
This mentality to me is perfectly justifiable and I will not at all be disregarding what was said in Round 5 despite the agreed structure.
Let's cut a long story short: I'm biased on this, I consider Pro to be speaking from a stance of absolute truth but one thing I didn't like is how Solipsist they were but I admit that most on my side are more subjectivists than objectivists. Reality to me is undeniably objective and thus there has to be a God at the core of it since a 'thing' can't be 'nothingness' and thus atheist reality at its core is self-defeated. Why am I saying this? Because I want to make it clear that to me Con is on the side that cannot at all be won, thus I admit I am fighting against bias but am going to be calmly explaining why Con lost and Pro won throughout this RFD.
PART 2 OF RFD
I loved the first point that Pro brings up, really I loved it a lot. This argument was the strongest, most brutal stab at Con and it came first. Fantastic performance:
"The problem that rationalists have pointed out is that the claim that “all knowledge comes from the senses” is not itself knowledge that comes from the senses. There is simply no experiment or place where we can observe such a claim."
In order to reconcile this contradiction, Con basically says that Empiricism is not a known fact or truth, it's an opinion that he holds likely to be true... As in the very basis of how to know things is just an opinion that you are free to doubt. Well... Okay then? So Con concedes that his side isn't truth or known in any factual manner. This was not his fault, Con is on an unwinnable side that many brainwashed physicists have become trapped into believing as well as many shallow thinkers in philosophy such as Aristotle. I won't go into it now as that's my own arguments but believe me, Con couldn't win this debate unless Pro was lazy or an idiot and Pro was neither.
PART 3 OF RFD
Pro absolutely correctly responds with:
"Now, I have argued that empiricism itself cannot be justified using empiricism and con’s response is that empiricism itself is an unprovable axiom that lacks any justification. Con here makes the key concession that there is no evidence for empiricism since it lacks any justification and thus can only be accepted through blind dogmatic faith."
But the way he spoke after that begins to lead to my Conduct vote being against him but wasn't rude enough to be that. I don't mind arrogance, I'm a blissfully impressive narcissist myself but there comes a limit where you must understand that your opponent has no less right to feel arrogant than you yourself do. They are deluded in their arrogance, yes, but even though they are inferior it doesn't mean you have the right to make them feel that way. Debating is not just a sport, it's a battle of the finest most intellectually stimulating order. You are not entitled to just go ahead and tell your opponent that “ Con’s methodology is of course terrible,”... You do not need to use the word ‘terrible’ in place of irrational or something similar. Negativity and inferiority are not the same thing as inconsistency in reasoning.
PART FINAL OF RFD
The entirety of Con’s case rests on the fallacious notion that since we use senses to analyse the reality around us that the way we conclude said observations are valid and theories about links between said observations are true is the senses and the physicality of what’s known itself but this is not true and Pro again and again disproves Con on this while upholding the truism that we must reason first and last and senses are a middle-man (which Con doesn’t realise he’s agreeing to the whole time such as here:
“The axioms are chosen based on personal choice, as are any given rule of inference. Thus all subsequent theorems within that logical framework are a result of that choice and that choice alone. “
Whether Con realised it or not, the entire debate was actively forfeited at that point by Con and since I can’t say my own piece I’ll let Pro speak for me to prove my vote here is correct:
“Con has not only failed to address this argument but almost seems unaware of their existence which would explain why he keeps repeating that the axioms of rationalism are held on the basis of personal choice. The justification for each claim, under rationalism, would be the rational argumentation given for the claim, which would eventually trace down to more fundamental axioms.”
This entire ‘objectivity of truth’ section is the only necessary path to win or lose the debate. The rest was fluff and unless a moderator can prove to me otherwise I will leave it at that. I guarantee you I have read the entire debate and thought about this deeply and in an unbiased manner.
yes
Powerbump
Powerbump
Powerbump
Bump to increase tension and anticipation for the RM R1.
Not at all, I made a flawless one.
Why did he? Did you even read what I wrote?
You have no idea what you are doing or how to think
You spend the whole last sentence complimenting me and vote con thank you very little
When the fuck did I say 0.9r = 0.0r1
Just stop this low Iq voter cult. Pass a quiz to vote please.
Category: Education
No need to* not now need to
used the wrong song, but it was an even better choice.
Enjoy the show.
clam not calm**