I know this wasn't what MC was doing here, but imagine being like "to quote my opponent..." and then making up something that supports your argument. It has a > 0% chance of working.
Yeah, I think you did fine here for going against someone at the top of the leaderboard. Just with the format and Novice being unable to post in the second round, there wasn't much opportunity for a back-and-forth.
Per Rule 3, I am not allowed to make new arguments that haven't been discussed. But am I allowed to make new responses (i.e. links and counterargument) that I didn't make in R2, so long as they pertain to the arguments we've been discussing? I'm assuming yes, but just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Just to clarify, when Rule 3 talks about counterarguments in the final round, am I allowed to respond to points you make in R3, or just points made in R1 and R2?
I think it's probably fine, actually. To my knowledge, arguments for church authority don't tend to involve the Old Testament canon much anyway. (Also with papal infallibility, there might be some confusion because Catholics don't believe the pope is infallible all the time, just in some cases.)
Not sure how relevant this is to the topic, but with agreement on the NRSV as canon, you may be limited to Orthodox and Protestants who accept the deuterocanonical books (Tobit, both Maccabees, etc.)
I'll address this in broad strokes since going into the minutiae of my vote after one side has asked me to revote risks allegations of vote rigging or undue influence.
I confess to not covering every detail of the debate, and there were points on both sides I could have described in more detail but didn't. There were parts I paraphrased. The reason being that in general, many of the minor points didn't change the way I weighed points at the end or weren't significant enough to outweigh other factors. There were some details brought up by either side that the other debater just didn't address, and I had to weigh which case was more directly arguing the resolution. I really do commend both sides for making a strong case for their side, but at some point arguments had to be weighed against each other.
That's not necessarily super helpful feedback, but even if I deleted my vote and added 3x as much detail, I don't think it would satisfy everyone or change the way I weighed arguments. At best, revoting or discussing the specifics of the vote would just lead to controversy over what caused me to revote or alter my interpretation of the debate, which is the type of thing that mods have gotten dragged into before.
If you think my vote or any other is insufficient or does not address both sides, I can only recommend you report it, as that allows the mods to evaluate whether it meets site standards. Really, I won't take it personally, although I do think it's unlikely to be removed.
I do realize I probably could have gone into more detail on that point. When I say you didn't dispute the historicity of the "experiences," I meant in terms of the disciples believing they had seen Jesus. It was clear to me you didn't believe that they were right about having seen Jesus, so in my view the debate came down to how the disciples could believe they had seen a dead person if they hadn't. I thought the main factor there was hallucinations, although that was mainly me focusing on the point of contention I thought was most decisive.
Yeah, it's an interesting approach to take. The "universe can't have a creator because there was no time before the universe" argument is something I didn't expect, but I do see a few ways Con could argue around that.
One kid at my school tried to do that with a gun he brought from home. A lot of kids were running in the hall that day, but fortunately, he was there to stop them from hurting someone.
Gish should win argument points if his strategy succeeds, but if his opponent is just more knowledgeable to the point that gish galloping fails, I don't think Gish should be rewarded for his "strategy" that failed to convince the audience.
Idk if I'll have the time to accept, but it seems like the most effective strategy is just whatever one is more convincing. If someone uses what I might deem a "bad strategy" but succeeds in countering their opponent's points, then their strategy probably wasn't bad at all.
Fallacies like appealing to authority or appealing to emotion or gish galloping might be good strategies but shouldn't be rewarded.
There are a few angles Con can take on this, but it's going to require more than just arguing semantics, which is what a lot of these debates have become. Despite the "always" in the resolution, it's going to be hard to trap Pro completely. Outargue, sure, but that requires more effort than a semantic trap.
No, I mean before the abortion even starts. If being a doctor implies consent to performing an abortion, and consent can be revoked, then the doctor could revoke that consent when an abortion is requested.
And if people aren't allowed to do only half of something because it's dangerous, then this has bad implications for abortion proponents. After all, an abortion is cutting a pregnancy short halfway through.
Nice work on this. You did a good job articulating your position imo.
I might be able to do another debate on infallibility at some point in the future, though I'll have to see how my schedule looks.
Thanks for taking the time to vote on this! I know it was a long one.
Guess it's up to you to break the tie in the next 16 hrs, if you get the chance.
Thank you! Excited to see what you have to say about this one.
I know this wasn't what MC was doing here, but imagine being like "to quote my opponent..." and then making up something that supports your argument. It has a > 0% chance of working.
I'm a bit confused with WF saying MisterChris quote his opponent at the end of his first round. It looks like he actually quoted himself.
Thank you for voting!
Thank you for taking the time to vote!
Thanks! This was a fun one.
Yeah, I think you did fine here for going against someone at the top of the leaderboard. Just with the format and Novice being unable to post in the second round, there wasn't much opportunity for a back-and-forth.
Thanks for taking the time to vote!
Plz vote on this if you get the chance!
Plz vote if you get the chance!
Plz vote when you get the chance! I know it's long, but there are only two weeks, so I'd like to get some committed voters to read this early.
Thx, got it.
Per Rule 3, I am not allowed to make new arguments that haven't been discussed. But am I allowed to make new responses (i.e. links and counterargument) that I didn't make in R2, so long as they pertain to the arguments we've been discussing? I'm assuming yes, but just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Got it, thx
Just to clarify, when Rule 3 talks about counterarguments in the final round, am I allowed to respond to points you make in R3, or just points made in R1 and R2?
I've been itching to debate, so I'll take this one.
I think it's probably fine, actually. To my knowledge, arguments for church authority don't tend to involve the Old Testament canon much anyway. (Also with papal infallibility, there might be some confusion because Catholics don't believe the pope is infallible all the time, just in some cases.)
Not sure how relevant this is to the topic, but with agreement on the NRSV as canon, you may be limited to Orthodox and Protestants who accept the deuterocanonical books (Tobit, both Maccabees, etc.)
I'll address this in broad strokes since going into the minutiae of my vote after one side has asked me to revote risks allegations of vote rigging or undue influence.
I confess to not covering every detail of the debate, and there were points on both sides I could have described in more detail but didn't. There were parts I paraphrased. The reason being that in general, many of the minor points didn't change the way I weighed points at the end or weren't significant enough to outweigh other factors. There were some details brought up by either side that the other debater just didn't address, and I had to weigh which case was more directly arguing the resolution. I really do commend both sides for making a strong case for their side, but at some point arguments had to be weighed against each other.
That's not necessarily super helpful feedback, but even if I deleted my vote and added 3x as much detail, I don't think it would satisfy everyone or change the way I weighed arguments. At best, revoting or discussing the specifics of the vote would just lead to controversy over what caused me to revote or alter my interpretation of the debate, which is the type of thing that mods have gotten dragged into before.
If you think my vote or any other is insufficient or does not address both sides, I can only recommend you report it, as that allows the mods to evaluate whether it meets site standards. Really, I won't take it personally, although I do think it's unlikely to be removed.
I do realize I probably could have gone into more detail on that point. When I say you didn't dispute the historicity of the "experiences," I meant in terms of the disciples believing they had seen Jesus. It was clear to me you didn't believe that they were right about having seen Jesus, so in my view the debate came down to how the disciples could believe they had seen a dead person if they hadn't. I thought the main factor there was hallucinations, although that was mainly me focusing on the point of contention I thought was most decisive.
Idk if it's just me, but I can't hear you talking in your second video.
"There should probably be some pill that can cure people from being straight."
It's called cyanide. It also cures depression.
How is that different from regular reproduction?
Wylted made the videos himself and his opponent said they were fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrIFInKjZ80&ab_channel=bikashsaikia95
The limit is 10k chars, not 10k words.
You have to make a certain amount of posts I think. Just comment on an existing thead.
Go to the forum, click on a topic, then select "+ New Topic"
https://www.debateart.com/forum/politics/topics
Yeah, it does seem like the more inefficient route.
If he proves the first one, it seems like the second one is a given.
Yeah, it's an interesting approach to take. The "universe can't have a creator because there was no time before the universe" argument is something I didn't expect, but I do see a few ways Con could argue around that.
Pro's best bet would be to use an all-good, all-powerful definition of God and then argue the problem of evil or something.
Surprised you haven't accepted. This seems right up your alley.
One kid at my school tried to do that with a gun he brought from home. A lot of kids were running in the hall that day, but fortunately, he was there to stop them from hurting someone.
Don't challenge an OG troll like Wylted.
Gish should win argument points if his strategy succeeds, but if his opponent is just more knowledgeable to the point that gish galloping fails, I don't think Gish should be rewarded for his "strategy" that failed to convince the audience.
Idk if I'll have the time to accept, but it seems like the most effective strategy is just whatever one is more convincing. If someone uses what I might deem a "bad strategy" but succeeds in countering their opponent's points, then their strategy probably wasn't bad at all.
Fallacies like appealing to authority or appealing to emotion or gish galloping might be good strategies but shouldn't be rewarded.
A lot of troll votes. Some low-effort votes even changed the outcome of debates and weren't removed in time.
Well that was a quick debate
There are a few angles Con can take on this, but it's going to require more than just arguing semantics, which is what a lot of these debates have become. Despite the "always" in the resolution, it's going to be hard to trap Pro completely. Outargue, sure, but that requires more effort than a semantic trap.
> as a lawyer I know pointed out, if someone adds value to a business, they are a fixture of that business and aren’t allowed to ever quit
That does sound like a lawyer, lol
No, I mean before the abortion even starts. If being a doctor implies consent to performing an abortion, and consent can be revoked, then the doctor could revoke that consent when an abortion is requested.
And if people aren't allowed to do only half of something because it's dangerous, then this has bad implications for abortion proponents. After all, an abortion is cutting a pregnancy short halfway through.
Sure, but then the doctor could also revoke consent to performing the operation (or even being a doctor at all).
Most abortion advocates would say that consent can be revoked at any time.
Airborne combat medics are movable between locations.
Forcing unwilling doctors into servitude as chattel for another, is by definition making them a slave.
Slavery is modern-day slavery