Looking forward to a third debate, but unfortunately it will have to wait until the new site becomes usable. I think DART is going down at any moment, and we got lucky that this debate made it to the end of the voting period before that happened.
Rules around semantics always become complicated, because it's hard to determine at what point an argument or topic becomes "semantic." If the resolution says it's about something in particular, it seems like that should be taken into account. On the flip side, almost every argument could be classified as semantic since they're all made of words. It was never clear exactly what's considered "nitpicking" in this debate.
I thought you contested the wording of the resolution before, so I was surprised you didn't tell Mikal to change it here as a prerequisite for accepting.
Do you want me to vote? I was going to recuse myself because of your distrust toward me, but if you just want more votes, I will try to be as unbiased as I can.
Okay, but saying "Resolved: The modal ontological argument is sound" isn't the same as saying the Pro side is true, it's just setting up a topic. Similar to "This house believes that..."
The description just defines what the argument is, accepting the debate doesn't mean accepting the argument as sound. The rules are pretty clear about that.
But if Pro says common sense dictates one thing and Con says it dictates another, is it just up to the voter to decide? Wouldn't that allow for bias in voting, something you've expressed concern about in the past?
Well, they're supposed to vote based on who makes the better argument. Arguing over whether something is good or not is one of the most common categories of debate on this site.
Debate is designed to make "the year of our Lord" win this for Con.
i.e. "This debate is not construed to represent a Christian-only limited condition, considering the title-not-name of “Lord,” or “God,” so there will be no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration."
It arguably does have religious significance, but Con doesn't even need to argue that.
I've thanked people for voting before even when they voted against me. Reading and voting requires a big time commitment. In this case, I didn't thank AnonYmous_Icon, since his vote was removed and I thought it might come across as backhanded.
Lol. I know about Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, but is there an example of someone using Retro Hoc? Or did you write the article because someone is going to use that fallacy in the future?
That's a decent summary by AI standards. I don't know if I would trust ChatGPT to do a more thorough analysis than that, but it does seem like it actually looked at the debate rather than just making something up, which it sometimes does.
The site will probably be gone soon anyway.
Congrats on the win, btw. I'm gonna archive this before the site goes down.
Looking forward to a third debate, but unfortunately it will have to wait until the new site becomes usable. I think DART is going down at any moment, and we got lucky that this debate made it to the end of the voting period before that happened.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for the effort regardless. (This is a long debate to read.) It's nice to see some of your thoughts, even if it's not a full RFD.
Rules around semantics always become complicated, because it's hard to determine at what point an argument or topic becomes "semantic." If the resolution says it's about something in particular, it seems like that should be taken into account. On the flip side, almost every argument could be classified as semantic since they're all made of words. It was never clear exactly what's considered "nitpicking" in this debate.
I thought you contested the wording of the resolution before, so I was surprised you didn't tell Mikal to change it here as a prerequisite for accepting.
Do you want me to vote? I was going to recuse myself because of your distrust toward me, but if you just want more votes, I will try to be as unbiased as I can.
Thanks for voting!
When Lucy or Wylted changes their profile photo, half the votes are gonna make no sense lol.
One week is fine
Should I leave it up until then or take it down and repost in a week or so?
Lmk if these specifications work for you
jonrohith, did you use ChatGPT to write your arguments? IamAdityaDhaka told me you admitted to this but I don't see where.
No because I don't think any voters or even David are going to interpret the rules in the way you're suggesting.
Okay, but saying "Resolved: The modal ontological argument is sound" isn't the same as saying the Pro side is true, it's just setting up a topic. Similar to "This house believes that..."
The assumption in the resolution is that Pro defends the ontological argument and Con attacks it, not that they both agree to it.
Also rule 6 says no challenging assumptions in the resolution but doesn't mention the description.
The description just defines what the argument is, accepting the debate doesn't mean accepting the argument as sound. The rules are pretty clear about that.
"Con has to Kritik to win btw."
Why? Con is allowed to challenge the premises of the argument.
Learn to pander to those people then
Why ask the same people to vote if you didn't like the way they voted before?
But if Pro says common sense dictates one thing and Con says it dictates another, is it just up to the voter to decide? Wouldn't that allow for bias in voting, something you've expressed concern about in the past?
"semantic arguments are forbidden"
Ok so who decides what anything means?
It was close. I mentioned arguments that could have won.
What makes you think I don't like you as a person?
Wait nvm
"It seems that the biggest clash Pro directly has with Con's case is sola fide. "
I think that's the other debate...
Fauxlaw posted his rounds in the comments, which was allowed per the rules. He didn't forfeit.
Fauxlaw did not forfeit, he posted his rounds in the comments.
>any voter can consider any reason good
Well, they're supposed to vote based on who makes the better argument. Arguing over whether something is good or not is one of the most common categories of debate on this site.
I'm guessing "good reasons" is the crux of the debate.
I wouldn't say the description is hidden though. And obviously it helps set the parameters of the debate, or there would be no point in including it.
"Did I offer conditions for the debate in my Resolution, or description?"
Yes, when you say "For purposes of this debate..."
I didn't say the agenda was hidden...
Debate is designed to make "the year of our Lord" win this for Con.
i.e. "This debate is not construed to represent a Christian-only limited condition, considering the title-not-name of “Lord,” or “God,” so there will be no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration."
It arguably does have religious significance, but Con doesn't even need to argue that.
I've thanked people for voting before even when they voted against me. Reading and voting requires a big time commitment. In this case, I didn't thank AnonYmous_Icon, since his vote was removed and I thought it might come across as backhanded.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for the vote!
I might specify "as of [date]" because otherwise the aggregate effects "so far" will keep changing between rounds.
Thanks for voting!
Please vote!
"As a condition, if you accept this debate before 2026, then you automatically lose."
Why create it now?
Lol. I know about Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, but is there an example of someone using Retro Hoc? Or did you write the article because someone is going to use that fallacy in the future?
"I actually suggest the Dev from this site to allow vote less debates"
You can also just ignore the votes.
I think you should debate @Mall. Islam vs Christianity.
I referenced your last round in my vote. I even said what sort of arguments might sway me, but they didn't show up in your second or third rounds.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
Con is paraphrasing, that's acceptable.
Arguments (10)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)
Very compelling case.
Nominations happen once a year or so. At that point anyone can suggest a debate.
That's a decent summary by AI standards. I don't know if I would trust ChatGPT to do a more thorough analysis than that, but it does seem like it actually looked at the debate rather than just making something up, which it sometimes does.