"To think otherwise logically leads to conversion therapy, which we have known doesn't work for decades[1&2]."
Genuinely don't know why the constant insistence in linking to journalist articles instead of the actual research papers, but when you actually look into the details you automatically see why these papers are worthless to begin with.
The first one was done by, and I quote from the actual paper, "a survey was distributed through community-based outreach to transgender adults residing in the United States", which means it automatically excludes people that went through non-conforming methods that no longer identify as trans, which makes the data absolutely worthless by any honest metric (as there becomes zero way to determine if it had any positive effect or how much of one because it is limiting itself to those where it didn't work).
The second one was literally funded by those wanting to end the practice that was ultimately condemned, and there are numerous studies out there that show that researchers will often be biased in order to meet the desired outcome of the people funding them (as it leads to more funding in the future), it conflated "conversion therapies" done to homosexuals and people with gender dysphoria, interviewed people that still identify as LGBT, and reviewed studies that suffer the same exact problem as the first one linked.
The fact that this is often the issue, where methodological problems are abundant, when it comes to studies in regards to gender dysphoria is a joke that makes the overwhelming majority of the papers absolutely worthless.
"is one which will inevitably render some “women” (who don’t wish to conform to your proposed roles) “non females”."
This is honestly one thing that frustrates me. Feminists in the 70's-80's primarily were arguing against the need to conform to gender roles, that there was more than one way one could be a woman. Now, we have people arguing for a definition of 'woman' that runs entirely counter to this. So, by one standard the definition is 'sexist' while by another standard it is sometimes argued that not using said definition is transphobic. Great, you are stuck being some sort of bigot either way, so pick which you are more comfortable with!
This will be very interesting to read. I actually agree that if this is the era of Jedi that is being talked about that the Sith is better, though I would say joining Jensaarai (or even the Teepo/Gray Paladins) would probably be better than either the Jedi or Sith at this point. I am interested in seeing how Pro (whoever that ends up being) will make their case.
I do apologize for not having cast a vote though. Having seen others expressing they would vote made me feel as if my time as best spent elsewhere, but seeing the outcome I do regret not putting in that time.
I agree, I think Pro should have won. The reason I did not vote is because when reading I realized that it was difficult for me to come at both sides argument from an unbiased perspective. Of course, I could put in the extra effort to do so, but I really didn't feel like putting in that much time in voting when there is no expectation for me to do so. I also did decide to hold off a bit because I saw others say they would cast a vote and figured that having multiple votes would be good enough (though, sadly, not everyone went through with voting for one reason or another).
The "begins to exist" variation has been essentially replaced by the causal finitism version by prominent philosophers because of its strength. Grim Reaper Paradoxes make arguing for causal finitism so much easier in comparison, and from there you already can easily establish the existence of the uncaused cause(s). Going from there to said cause(s) being god(s) is not too dissimilar than what is used in the old Kalam.
For some reason, however, it is philosophers that spend their time dealing in apologetics that are taking the longest to pick up the new Kalam, which is disappointing.
It is always disappointing to see people use the old Kalam and not the new one. It acts as an indicator of looking at apologetics instead of philosophy.
Mall's vote has been removed multiple times already because there is no substance to it, but they continue to come back to repost it anyways. So no, there is nothing more than that meaningless statement in their vote.
Your vote has been removed every time you have made it and you still haven't changed it (this is what, the 5th time?). What makes you think it will stay up this time?
Because which word is used changes the resolution.
So far the only options makes it so that either you had to show that atheism should exclusively mean lack of belief (3RU7AL expressed in a different comment they treated it as if atheism could mean lack of belief as well as other things when voting, which would be different than this resolution)
OR
a you had to show that the should mostly mean lack of belief (3RU7AL is trying to call argumentum ad populum a fallacy, but under this interpretation of the resolution that would be incorrect).
BUT
it could mean something else that is not clear to me to allow 3RU7AL to be correct in calling argumentum ad populum a fallacy while not needing 'lack of belief' to be shown that it should be exclusively the understood meaning of 'atheism'.
You're still going on about this? And this is your response?
Hmm... what is a synonym for merely? Simply! What is related to simply (because why not just use a synonym but let's look for a synonym of a synonym!)?
Let's not use 'by and large', 'mainly', 'mostly', etc. (you know, don't use most of these 'related words'), as otherwise whining about argumentum ad populum is misplaced.
But wait! Let's look at https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/basically
What is this?
"Synonyms for basically
altogether, by and large, chiefly, generally, largely, mainly, mostly, overall, predominantly, primarily, principally, substantially"
Even jumping through all these hoops to make it look like this isn't a dishonest tactic makes it so the word you wish to replace 'merely' with still is most correctly, according to the site you are using, interpreted in a way where argumentum ad populum is not fallacious?
So, even if we try and use your BS hoop jumping to change the resolution, it results with you still being a dishonest hack! Good job!
I'm just honestly surprised at the trying to claim a definition for a word with a link that shows that definition is used when said word is preceded by 'not'. Like, how does someone honestly think they can get away with that when they include the URL?
At least with my vote I let any possible bias on my end be made clear in the first paragraph before going into my justification for points (thus making it so if there is a problem with my vote it is apparent). The idea of just making BS statements, being inconsistent, fallacious, and outright dishonest in order to justify a vote though? It is insane.
Did you really think no one would look at your linked source? Your second definition literally follows from "not merely". You know, the word 'not' is important there, right?
To copy from it,
"not merely
— used to say that one thing is true and that another thing is also true"
"PRO personally believes that the term "atheist" is best described as someone who "lacks a belief" in any and all (theistic) gods that they are currently aware of.
CON believes that nobody anywhere should use that definition"
And this makes it clear that you are not voting based on the actual resolution. Pro needs to argue that atheism is merely the lack of belief, but yet you have now changed the resolution to one where Con has the full BoP to show that no one should use that definition. These are two different resolutions, and based on this comment it is clear you aren't actually voting on this debate proper.
@whiteflame, does this not constitute reason to think this vote is fraudulent? If you are voting by acting like the debate resolution is something other than what it is, then it seems as if the vote violates the voting policy, specifically,
"Goes to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution"
"I was specifically presenting a SPECIFC example where etymology was OBVIOUSLY NOT RELEVANT."
That was completely irrelevant to the actual discussion, yes. Do you not know what a Red Herring is?
"Thanks for the argumentum ad hominem."
Do you know what an ad hominem is? It is to attack the person as a way of attacking the position. I have made clear criticisms of your points and then added an observation, insulting as it might be, on top of that. That means that it is not an ad hominem, even if it might look that way to certain types of people.
"Honestly, at this rate I think you just want CON to be the winner (likely because you agree with CON's definition) and are just talking out your ass in order to justify it."
Only one person here has not used fallacies, has had their vote removed by moderation, etc.
Furthermore, if I was biased in that manner then I would have assigned the argument points to Con.
Everything was justified in my RFD without, I believe, a show of bias. The same cannot necessarily be said about you.
"instead of resting on your 561 individuals (not a representative sample) who you believe agree with you"
Way to just dismiss literally the only scientific survey that sought how a general populace views the term 'atheist'. I admitted its limitations at the very beginning when I brought it up, but also made it clear that said limitations are not as impactful when YOU and anyone else on Pro's side cannot counter it with an equally compelling (aka, scientific) poll/survey to show any other result.
"I never made the claim that "etymology is irrelevant" IN ALL POSSIBLE CASES."
In which case, bringing up that objection was a Red Herring in this discussion.
"Allowing other people to "self-define" is crucial."
In that case, language has no 'should' for meaning, and thus no one can win (yet you voted someone to win?). Someone very well could say that to them being an atheist means to believe that God is their best friend, and you have zero way of saying that usage is incorrect or that atheist should mean something else.
Of course, that is unless we consider that language is inherently tied to social cohesion, and thus we go right back to argumentum ad populum being non-fallacious.
Language is unnecessary if there is only a single individual, it only becomes a thing when there is the attempt to communicate ideas between individuals. If we let every individual use whatever definition for whatever word then we end up with no cohesion, and thus language becomes pointless.
Honestly, at this rate I think you just want Pro to be the winner (likely because you agree with Pro's definition) and are just talking out your ass in order to justify it. This explains your inconsistencies, your Red Herring, your strange way of trying to describe what language even is, etc. If I am right, and I am beginning to suspect that this is the case, then this discussion becomes pointless as no matter what point is made you won't actually take it into real consideration.
"It's certainly not because of the "history and etymology" of those particular words."
and
"PRO confirms the resolution by comparing the word "apolitical" to the word "atheist" which elegantly illustrates that simply adding an "a" prefix to another word DOES NOT necessarily mean that you are "anti" or "the opposite" of that word."
are inherently contradictory. Relying on the 'a' prefix is to inherently tie the discussion to etymology, but you also are saying that etymology is irrelevant. This shows clear lack of consistency on your part.
I do think etymology plays a weak role, as the history and origin of words tends to be tied to usage to an extent. Again, as I have continued to say, the key is context. Language is inherently a tool used to communicate ideas between individuals. That is what language is. This means that that context needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to the meaning of words.
If you are looking at things from a colloquial level, then common usage is what is relevant, and thus argumentum ad populum is non-fallacious.
If you are looking at things from a meme perspective, like with 'Let's go Brandon', then it becomes important to look at historical usages and see where the meme usage originates (and possibly how it has evolved), and thus how it is used within a particular subset of people (those that use the meme and the intended audience), even if that is not society as a whole.
If you are looking at things from an academic perspective, well language becomes standardized at points within academia and so using academic resources is a good way of determining meaning.
Etc.
As such, 'Let's go Brandon' can have different meanings depending on the context it is being used in.
"which according to your "context" qualifier would only apply to the Oxford campus"
When it is literally the only scientific survey of a general audience, even if it was limited to students on Oxford campus, it gives more weight to the survey than any random poll you could find.
"This is a non-trivial percentage of your "Oxford students""
Which becomes trivial when you consider that the 'is convinced that there is no God or gods' and 'believes that there is no God or gods' are similar enough that taking a more general 'no god(s)' approach creates such a massive majority (nearly 80%) in comparison, and that even if you don't find this appropriate that the 'believes that there is no God or gods.' is a majority (not just a plurality).
"Don't you think it's a bit of a conflict of interest to vote in a debate where you were counseling one of the participants?"
If I was helping them throughout the debate, sure. I didn't though, I only gave advice leading up to R1.
It is no different then if you regularly talked with someone about a topic, saw them debate it, and then gave a vote.
So long as you did not actually assist them throughout the debate, it does not seem necessarily like a conflict of interest has occurred.
I also made sure it was clear that I had done so in my RFD so that if a mod took issue with it that it could be removed (and I would have no complaint about that).
It is actually one of the things I recommended Con to address before the debate began.
The thing is that while there might be a lot of polls that people can appeal to, there is only one academic survey of popular usage that has ever been done and published. The source is the article 'Research Note: Sociology and the Study of Atheism' by Dr. Bullivant.
Of course, it is limited in nature (having only interviewed from a general population of Oxford students in 2007), but the fact that it remains the only "scientific survey"/ academically run and published survey is powerful. The results of the survey are as follows:
1. A person who is convinced that there is no God or gods. 199 (28.1%)
2. A person who believes that there is no God or gods. 362 (51.2%)
3. A person who lacks a belief in God or gods. 93 (13.6%)
4. Don’t know. 4 (0.6%)
5. Something else. (please specify) 29 (4.1%)
6. Both ticked one (or more) of the given options and specified something else. 6 (0.8%)
7. Ticked two or more of the given options. 14 (2.0%)
From it, we can see that some variation of "no gods" is wildly the most understood definition of the word while the "lack a belief" is quite small. Combine that with the "no gods" variation being consistent with academic usage as well and this could have been a strong line of reasoning Con could have used.
This survey automatically has more weight than any other that could be brought up because it is a scientific one, in a peer reviewed source. This makes it so that the limits to the original survey, as well as it being 15 years old at this point, would not be nearly as strong a rebuttal as no reliable alternative could be brought up instead.
It is one reason I am disappointed in Con's arguments to an extent. I recommended this and instead Con used "atheism has a world view" instead.
There is no such thing as a 'most correct usage' of language outside of the context that it is used in. If that is socially, then how it is understood by said society at large is absolutely the "most correct usage". If everyone uses the word one to mean the number that is between zero and two but some random person starts using the word one to mean paintbrush then the person would, in society, come off as speaking nonsense or speaking in a difficult to understand way (if they realized this meaning change). Because language functions as part of social cohesion, this automatically makes this usage of language worse than the common usage of language. As such, argumentum ad populum is not a fallacious use of reasoning in this context.
Just like in the example of emotional appeal I gave. No one can cry about an argumentum ad passiones if the topic is one where emotion is a key player (like if a particular story is a sad story or not).
And if we move to academic usage, we end up right back at how language is employed being one where crying 'argumentum ad verecundiam' is nonsense as well (as I already explained before).
The only way you can avoid this is to take some sort of realist approach to language, which is nonsensical, or to argue that language is not something that comes about due to a social dynamic (which is the only way you "language is anarchic" statement makes sense), but that would certainly be something difficult to ever be able to show as reasonable.
"CON is making an argumentum ad populum AND an argumentum ad verecundiam (with their reliance on famous quotes)."
I'm sorry, but how is an argumentum ad populum a fallacy in the context of this debate? It isn't a debate on what the 'fact of the matter' is, it is about how a word should be understood. Language, on a colloquial level, is inherently tied to societal communication. If society, at large, understand a word to mean X then using that word to mean Y creates confusion. Arguing that adhering to the societal understanding of a word, with understanding that societal understanding can shift over time, is a legitimate line of argument due to the nature of language. It is like claiming that someone is making an appeal to emotion fallacy when the debate is on which story is saddest.
Furthermore, language within an academic field is also standardized, to an extent, in order to ensure that miscommunication of ideas does not occur. Sometimes there is an authority that is not fallacious to appeal to. An argumentum ad verecundiam is specifically an appeal to an irrelevant authority, and while Con did commit this at times, some of those quotes are from more academic sources.
To quote from https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
"The argument from appeal to authority, the ad verecundiam fallacy, is characterized with examples and shown to be a fallacy when the appeal is to an irrelevant authority and nonfallacious when the appeal is to a relevant authority."
When it comes to academic usage of a word, appealing to a relevant authority (which Con did) can be useful. Sure, Con did not necessarily argue well enough that we should have our colloquial usage of a term more inline with the academic usage, which is something that could rightly be pointed out, but to argue that this is an 'argumentum ad verecundiam' without any actual detail is the misuse the fallacy.
The only one of these fallacies that could actually be relevant to the discussion is the argumentum ad verecundiam, but even then you need to actually go into detail on how this is being committed or else it looks like you are just pulling fallacies out your ass in order to justify your vote without even fully understanding them.
RFD(1/3)
Full disclosure, PGA and I did talk about how one would best go about making the Con case before this debate. Once the debate kicked off I did step back and am going to try to judge this from a neutral POV.
The tricky thing about this debate is that, depending on context, language can be either prescriptive (as is usually the case in academia) or descriptive (when it comes to more colloquial usage). As such, the resolution becomes tricky to actually argue for one way or the other (as pointed out by some in the comments). After all, by what standards do we determine how a word should be used?
To start with, I think both sides conducted themselves well.
Nothing to complain about in regards to Pro's spelling and grammar.
I am, however, docking Con points on the spelling and grammar due to Round 2. While the spacing issue can be understandable as a formatting issue, what really takes it for me is the statement "I agree, it is logically untenable, yet that is whatatheists do by citing "lack of evidence" and adenial that God/god exists." At first I thought this was Con conceding, but it is increasingly obvious that it is just Con not properly portraying the idea trying to be conveyed. It is the combination of this with the spacing issue that really makes me have to grant Pro points here.
Sources, on the other hand, I think undeniably go to Con. Within Pro's arguments he only made two uses of outside sources, one of which was a duplicate from the Description and the other was to use the Merriam-Webster definition of 'atheist'. On the other hand, Con made use of resources from Oxford, the SEP, etymonline, etc. to help construct his case and try to strengthen it. I won't say all of Con's sources were great, but when it comes to covering etymology and the more academic usage these sources help with building and strengthening Con's arguments. Because of this, I award source points to Con.
Arguments is trickier, however, and I will break down each round and give my thoughts on where I think things stood at various points.
ROUND 1
Pro makes two arguments in his round 1, and I must confess that I find the first argument used perplexing. Pro argues that "defining atheism as the belief in the non-existence of any gods is at its core logically untenable" due to the term god having many definitions, yet does so in a debate that a particular term should have only one definition. Appealing that a definition can be vague or have too many meanings in a debate for a term to be considered to only have a single accepted meaning seems like quite the issue that Con can capitalize on, but does Con actually capitalize on this issue?
Pro's argument on practical uselessness does, however, seem like a stronger argument, though not one I think is necessarily convincing. I think Con can refute it, but the question is if Con actually does or not.
RFD(2/3)
So, how was Con's first round? I would say it is a mixed bag.
I think Con's etymology argument was quite good, but a little short. The "atheism defined" section also is, I believe, quite powerful as in it Con looks at the academic usage of the word to support his position. I also think bringing up the SEP for the propositional definition is useful, but think that it doesn't constitute much of a new argument beyond the academic usage argument (these could be combined into one argument).
I think that Reddit user Wokeupbug does make convincing points, but the issue is that I think Con did not go into enough detail on this line of argumentation and so this section really did not seem that strong. We can only judge the parts Con used, and so sadly this section (which had potential) ended up wasted. I also think the "atheists in their own words" section was not useful, as all it takes is for Pro to show some self-identified atheists disagreeing to counter the usefulness of this line of argumentation.
Last, the section "an atheist has a worldview" is the section I think actually did more harm than good to Con. This section tries to attribute to atheists views outside of the non-existence of god, but none of the other strong arguments employed by Con would actually agree with this section. Using the academic literature wouldn't lead to the conclusions Con is trying to draw here, looking at the etymology won't either, etc.
In the end, I think that Con did make stronger opening arguments, but Con made, in my mind, a serious mistake that can lead to distraction from the issue in later rounds. After round 1 I would say Con is ahead, but there is a question on who can capitalize on the weakness of each others opening rounds more.
ROUND 2
Pro starts his round 2 by expressing disappointment that Con did not rebut arguments but instead presenting a case, saying that it was agreed that Pro would have the full BoP. I do not see where this is expressed though, but it ultimately has no bearing on the weight of the arguments.
Pro starts his rebuttals by attacking one of Con's stronger arguments, and it shows the exact worry I had after the first round (that Con did not spend enough time on the argument). I think most of the ways Pro tried to counter this argument would have failed had Con actually spent time to support the argument in round 1 instead of immediately jumping to make more arguments.
Pro rightly points out the weakness of the "atheists in their own words" section, but I think made a misstep in trying to rebut the "atheism defined" section. Con made sure to use academic sources to support this section while Pro used Merriam-Webster in order to do so (and this is the only time Pro uses a source to support an argument!), but the weight of these are not equal. This really seemed like a weak rebuttal to me.
When Pro addressed the "atheists have a worldview" section he just made a small argument that it is nonsense to attribute atheists having beliefs to atheism containing beliefs, but does not capitalize on showing that this line of argumentation conflicts with other arguments Con made.
Pro's response to the "propositional definition of atheism" section also was very lackluster. He does not go into detail and ignores the Law of Excluded Middle in relation to propositions despite having brought up the Law of Excluded Middle himself in a different point. I think Pro did not spend nearly the amount of time needed to rebut this point, especially when Con built this argument using the SEP as a source.
Pro did, however, rightly point out that Con was relying too much on Wokeupbug's words on Reddit and did not provide the needed support in the actual debate.
Pro's response to Con's question of Pro's authority was also lackluster, especially considering Pro's weak rebuttals to the academic definitions Con provided. Using other people's views, how a term is used by others, etc. in order to strengthen a case is actually a good thing, yet Pro tries to write off Con doing this by arguing the subjectivity of the resolution.
In the end, Pro did manage to defeat Con's weaker arguments and undermine the etymology argument (though I think Con has potential of coming back from that one), but I find the rest of Pro's arguments this round to be very lackluster. Considering how weak I found Pro's opening arguments, I think that Con has the potential to capitalize on this and, if he does so, leave Pro little room to catch up in the last round.
RFD(3/3)
So, did Con capitalize on this opportunity? Sadly, no.
I think Con did a good job pointing out Pro's lack of sourcing to support the "lack" definition, but a lot of the rest of Con's pre-R1 rebuttal seemed as if it was unneeded or belonged elsewhere in the round.
Con does, in the R1 rebuttal section, point out that Pro's position is more aligned with what is normally understood to be agnosticism, but there is hardly any actual space dedicated to showing this. Instead, Con jumps to use a Dawkins quote, which really seems quite weak. I do think Con's argument that an atheist is one that rejects any god concept is a decent enough rebuttal to Pro's "logically untenable" argument, but it is weakened by not narrowing down what "god" means, as without that Pro can still appeal to "god is too vague a term". Con could have, alternatively, gone down the route of arguing noncognitivism as a subset of atheism, but he doesn't do that either.
Even the response to the practical uselessness section was disappointing. I think that by appealing that Pro's "There is no lack of belief approach" statement that there at least becomes something that Pro needs to respond to, but there rebuttal was so lackluster that it really didn't do much to help Con's case.
This lackluster response also exists when Con tries to address Pro's rebuttals. The only one given any time to be worth anything is the response to etymology, and even then it isn't given the needed depth to be useful.
In the end, Con's round 2 was absolutely wasted potential. Pro managed to bring into doubt one of Con's good arguments and showed Con's weak arguments were just that. I don't think that Pro did a good job addressing all of Con's arguments though, but this round really helped Pro catch up in my mind. Con really could have had this in the bag after this round, instead they let Pro catch up, making it so that Pro very well could turn this around in Round 3.
ROUND 3
Pro starts this round by, imo, overstating how strong his case has been so far (not that I blame him after seeing Con's R2), but it really does not do him any good.
Pro starts the actual rebuttals by addressing Con's use of saying Pro's position is more generally understood to be agnosticism (or ignorance or apathy), but the problem is that the rebuttal to the agnostic label requires presupposing Pro's definitions for theism and atheism and not Con's (as Con made clear in his R1 via the SEP that these terms should be understood in relation to a preposition).
Pro dismantles Con's rebuttal of the logical coherence section of R2. The rest of Pro's R3 really seemed to only touch on the points being made or used, imo, some uncharitable interpretations. I do think, however, the Pro does correctly point out some of Con's inconsistencies in regards to if there is a middle position or not.
Con starts R2 giving his insight into how things have played out, but it really does not help his case when he is as behind as he is. The only part of this section that I think did help, at least on some level, was "Accept my definitions as opposed to Pros" part, but this really should have been saved for the end of the round.
Con then points out that Pro only ever used 2 sources, but this was unnecessary as it was already brought up in round 2 without a strong/convincing challenge to it.
Con then spends the rest of the round barely making a strong point against any of Pro's arguments or rebuttals so far.
In the end, Con wasted rounds 2 and 3 while having an almost solid round 1. The biggest issue is how many different lines of argumentation Con tried to use and uphold, causing him to not have enough time to give them adequate time in the following rounds. Pro did manage to keep his initial arguments at least somewhat standing, but also didn't create a strong counter to Con's stronger arguments. However, because Con did not actually spend enough time reinforcing these arguments in rounds 2 and 3 they really started to loose their "oomf". I honestly don't think that I can give Con points for arguments, but I also think Pro's arguments were lackluster and that Pro failed to give a truly solid rebuttal to Con's stronger arguments.
As such, I am leaving arguments at a tie.
I do think it was too much of an uphill battle that it was extremely unlikely that it could be turned around, but I don't discount the possibility of turning it around. There was just too much wasted potential in the first 2 rounds though.
I'm not much of a voter, but I have to agree with you on this RM. The mods especially should be setting the best standard for voting, especially when they have the power to also determine if votes meet the standards or not. Tabula rasa is, in my opinion, important for voters in a debate setting, and to see that the mods, who are supposed to be the golden standard, are doing what they are doing just seems off to me.
Just because a range of life permitting values exists doesn't mean that fine-tuning isn't the case. When my brother fine tunes his car there are numerous possible ranges for various things, but only a small section constitutes fine-tuning (even if that small section is a range of possible values).
One thing I have realized recently is that most people that argue that there isn't systemic racism would actually change their minds if they thought about it. Of course, they would come to a different idea than most who argue for systemic racism.
Specifically, Reservations. They are a great example of where systemic control causes a people of a certain race to be stuck in poverty, low income, poorer education on average, etc. and the locals have no authority to change it how they desire as Reservations are controlled top down rather than bottom up like the rest of the US.
"To think otherwise logically leads to conversion therapy, which we have known doesn't work for decades[1&2]."
Genuinely don't know why the constant insistence in linking to journalist articles instead of the actual research papers, but when you actually look into the details you automatically see why these papers are worthless to begin with.
The first one was done by, and I quote from the actual paper, "a survey was distributed through community-based outreach to transgender adults residing in the United States", which means it automatically excludes people that went through non-conforming methods that no longer identify as trans, which makes the data absolutely worthless by any honest metric (as there becomes zero way to determine if it had any positive effect or how much of one because it is limiting itself to those where it didn't work).
The second one was literally funded by those wanting to end the practice that was ultimately condemned, and there are numerous studies out there that show that researchers will often be biased in order to meet the desired outcome of the people funding them (as it leads to more funding in the future), it conflated "conversion therapies" done to homosexuals and people with gender dysphoria, interviewed people that still identify as LGBT, and reviewed studies that suffer the same exact problem as the first one linked.
The fact that this is often the issue, where methodological problems are abundant, when it comes to studies in regards to gender dysphoria is a joke that makes the overwhelming majority of the papers absolutely worthless.
"is one which will inevitably render some “women” (who don’t wish to conform to your proposed roles) “non females”."
This is honestly one thing that frustrates me. Feminists in the 70's-80's primarily were arguing against the need to conform to gender roles, that there was more than one way one could be a woman. Now, we have people arguing for a definition of 'woman' that runs entirely counter to this. So, by one standard the definition is 'sexist' while by another standard it is sometimes argued that not using said definition is transphobic. Great, you are stuck being some sort of bigot either way, so pick which you are more comfortable with!
You get all pissy that your lack of an even coherent RFD kept getting your vote taken down, and so you turn your vote into a debate topic?
This will be very interesting to read. I actually agree that if this is the era of Jedi that is being talked about that the Sith is better, though I would say joining Jensaarai (or even the Teepo/Gray Paladins) would probably be better than either the Jedi or Sith at this point. I am interested in seeing how Pro (whoever that ends up being) will make their case.
I do apologize for not having cast a vote though. Having seen others expressing they would vote made me feel as if my time as best spent elsewhere, but seeing the outcome I do regret not putting in that time.
I agree, I think Pro should have won. The reason I did not vote is because when reading I realized that it was difficult for me to come at both sides argument from an unbiased perspective. Of course, I could put in the extra effort to do so, but I really didn't feel like putting in that much time in voting when there is no expectation for me to do so. I also did decide to hold off a bit because I saw others say they would cast a vote and figured that having multiple votes would be good enough (though, sadly, not everyone went through with voting for one reason or another).
Exactly.
The "begins to exist" variation has been essentially replaced by the causal finitism version by prominent philosophers because of its strength. Grim Reaper Paradoxes make arguing for causal finitism so much easier in comparison, and from there you already can easily establish the existence of the uncaused cause(s). Going from there to said cause(s) being god(s) is not too dissimilar than what is used in the old Kalam.
For some reason, however, it is philosophers that spend their time dealing in apologetics that are taking the longest to pick up the new Kalam, which is disappointing.
It is always disappointing to see people use the old Kalam and not the new one. It acts as an indicator of looking at apologetics instead of philosophy.
Mall's vote has been removed multiple times already because there is no substance to it, but they continue to come back to repost it anyways. So no, there is nothing more than that meaningless statement in their vote.
Your vote has been removed every time you have made it and you still haven't changed it (this is what, the 5th time?). What makes you think it will stay up this time?
Because which word is used changes the resolution.
So far the only options makes it so that either you had to show that atheism should exclusively mean lack of belief (3RU7AL expressed in a different comment they treated it as if atheism could mean lack of belief as well as other things when voting, which would be different than this resolution)
OR
a you had to show that the should mostly mean lack of belief (3RU7AL is trying to call argumentum ad populum a fallacy, but under this interpretation of the resolution that would be incorrect).
BUT
it could mean something else that is not clear to me to allow 3RU7AL to be correct in calling argumentum ad populum a fallacy while not needing 'lack of belief' to be shown that it should be exclusively the understood meaning of 'atheism'.
These would all change how to vote.
He literally replied with "Exclusively". Stop trying to change the resolution in your own mind to justify your own BS.
You're still going on about this? And this is your response?
Hmm... what is a synonym for merely? Simply! What is related to simply (because why not just use a synonym but let's look for a synonym of a synonym!)?
Let's not use 'by and large', 'mainly', 'mostly', etc. (you know, don't use most of these 'related words'), as otherwise whining about argumentum ad populum is misplaced.
But wait! Let's look at https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/basically
What is this?
"Synonyms for basically
altogether, by and large, chiefly, generally, largely, mainly, mostly, overall, predominantly, primarily, principally, substantially"
Even jumping through all these hoops to make it look like this isn't a dishonest tactic makes it so the word you wish to replace 'merely' with still is most correctly, according to the site you are using, interpreted in a way where argumentum ad populum is not fallacious?
So, even if we try and use your BS hoop jumping to change the resolution, it results with you still being a dishonest hack! Good job!
I'm just honestly surprised at the trying to claim a definition for a word with a link that shows that definition is used when said word is preceded by 'not'. Like, how does someone honestly think they can get away with that when they include the URL?
At least with my vote I let any possible bias on my end be made clear in the first paragraph before going into my justification for points (thus making it so if there is a problem with my vote it is apparent). The idea of just making BS statements, being inconsistent, fallacious, and outright dishonest in order to justify a vote though? It is insane.
Did you really think no one would look at your linked source? Your second definition literally follows from "not merely". You know, the word 'not' is important there, right?
To copy from it,
"not merely
— used to say that one thing is true and that another thing is also true"
Don't be a dishonest hack your entire life.
""SHOULD BE ACCEPTED"
DOES NOT MEAN
"SHOULD BE THE ONLY POSSIBLE DEFINITION""
You are literally ignoring the word MERELY, which literally means ONLY.
Ya, I'm done with this discussion. You are clearly being dishonest at this point.
"PRO personally believes that the term "atheist" is best described as someone who "lacks a belief" in any and all (theistic) gods that they are currently aware of.
CON believes that nobody anywhere should use that definition"
And this makes it clear that you are not voting based on the actual resolution. Pro needs to argue that atheism is merely the lack of belief, but yet you have now changed the resolution to one where Con has the full BoP to show that no one should use that definition. These are two different resolutions, and based on this comment it is clear you aren't actually voting on this debate proper.
@whiteflame, does this not constitute reason to think this vote is fraudulent? If you are voting by acting like the debate resolution is something other than what it is, then it seems as if the vote violates the voting policy, specifically,
"Goes to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution"
"I was specifically presenting a SPECIFC example where etymology was OBVIOUSLY NOT RELEVANT."
That was completely irrelevant to the actual discussion, yes. Do you not know what a Red Herring is?
"Thanks for the argumentum ad hominem."
Do you know what an ad hominem is? It is to attack the person as a way of attacking the position. I have made clear criticisms of your points and then added an observation, insulting as it might be, on top of that. That means that it is not an ad hominem, even if it might look that way to certain types of people.
"Honestly, at this rate I think you just want CON to be the winner (likely because you agree with CON's definition) and are just talking out your ass in order to justify it."
Only one person here has not used fallacies, has had their vote removed by moderation, etc.
Furthermore, if I was biased in that manner then I would have assigned the argument points to Con.
Everything was justified in my RFD without, I believe, a show of bias. The same cannot necessarily be said about you.
"instead of resting on your 561 individuals (not a representative sample) who you believe agree with you"
Way to just dismiss literally the only scientific survey that sought how a general populace views the term 'atheist'. I admitted its limitations at the very beginning when I brought it up, but also made it clear that said limitations are not as impactful when YOU and anyone else on Pro's side cannot counter it with an equally compelling (aka, scientific) poll/survey to show any other result.
"I never made the claim that "etymology is irrelevant" IN ALL POSSIBLE CASES."
In which case, bringing up that objection was a Red Herring in this discussion.
"Allowing other people to "self-define" is crucial."
In that case, language has no 'should' for meaning, and thus no one can win (yet you voted someone to win?). Someone very well could say that to them being an atheist means to believe that God is their best friend, and you have zero way of saying that usage is incorrect or that atheist should mean something else.
Of course, that is unless we consider that language is inherently tied to social cohesion, and thus we go right back to argumentum ad populum being non-fallacious.
Language is unnecessary if there is only a single individual, it only becomes a thing when there is the attempt to communicate ideas between individuals. If we let every individual use whatever definition for whatever word then we end up with no cohesion, and thus language becomes pointless.
Honestly, at this rate I think you just want Pro to be the winner (likely because you agree with Pro's definition) and are just talking out your ass in order to justify it. This explains your inconsistencies, your Red Herring, your strange way of trying to describe what language even is, etc. If I am right, and I am beginning to suspect that this is the case, then this discussion becomes pointless as no matter what point is made you won't actually take it into real consideration.
"It's certainly not because of the "history and etymology" of those particular words."
and
"PRO confirms the resolution by comparing the word "apolitical" to the word "atheist" which elegantly illustrates that simply adding an "a" prefix to another word DOES NOT necessarily mean that you are "anti" or "the opposite" of that word."
are inherently contradictory. Relying on the 'a' prefix is to inherently tie the discussion to etymology, but you also are saying that etymology is irrelevant. This shows clear lack of consistency on your part.
I do think etymology plays a weak role, as the history and origin of words tends to be tied to usage to an extent. Again, as I have continued to say, the key is context. Language is inherently a tool used to communicate ideas between individuals. That is what language is. This means that that context needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to the meaning of words.
If you are looking at things from a colloquial level, then common usage is what is relevant, and thus argumentum ad populum is non-fallacious.
If you are looking at things from a meme perspective, like with 'Let's go Brandon', then it becomes important to look at historical usages and see where the meme usage originates (and possibly how it has evolved), and thus how it is used within a particular subset of people (those that use the meme and the intended audience), even if that is not society as a whole.
If you are looking at things from an academic perspective, well language becomes standardized at points within academia and so using academic resources is a good way of determining meaning.
Etc.
As such, 'Let's go Brandon' can have different meanings depending on the context it is being used in.
"which according to your "context" qualifier would only apply to the Oxford campus"
When it is literally the only scientific survey of a general audience, even if it was limited to students on Oxford campus, it gives more weight to the survey than any random poll you could find.
"This is a non-trivial percentage of your "Oxford students""
Which becomes trivial when you consider that the 'is convinced that there is no God or gods' and 'believes that there is no God or gods' are similar enough that taking a more general 'no god(s)' approach creates such a massive majority (nearly 80%) in comparison, and that even if you don't find this appropriate that the 'believes that there is no God or gods.' is a majority (not just a plurality).
"Don't you think it's a bit of a conflict of interest to vote in a debate where you were counseling one of the participants?"
If I was helping them throughout the debate, sure. I didn't though, I only gave advice leading up to R1.
It is no different then if you regularly talked with someone about a topic, saw them debate it, and then gave a vote.
So long as you did not actually assist them throughout the debate, it does not seem necessarily like a conflict of interest has occurred.
I also made sure it was clear that I had done so in my RFD so that if a mod took issue with it that it could be removed (and I would have no complaint about that).
It is actually one of the things I recommended Con to address before the debate began.
The thing is that while there might be a lot of polls that people can appeal to, there is only one academic survey of popular usage that has ever been done and published. The source is the article 'Research Note: Sociology and the Study of Atheism' by Dr. Bullivant.
Of course, it is limited in nature (having only interviewed from a general population of Oxford students in 2007), but the fact that it remains the only "scientific survey"/ academically run and published survey is powerful. The results of the survey are as follows:
1. A person who is convinced that there is no God or gods. 199 (28.1%)
2. A person who believes that there is no God or gods. 362 (51.2%)
3. A person who lacks a belief in God or gods. 93 (13.6%)
4. Don’t know. 4 (0.6%)
5. Something else. (please specify) 29 (4.1%)
6. Both ticked one (or more) of the given options and specified something else. 6 (0.8%)
7. Ticked two or more of the given options. 14 (2.0%)
From it, we can see that some variation of "no gods" is wildly the most understood definition of the word while the "lack a belief" is quite small. Combine that with the "no gods" variation being consistent with academic usage as well and this could have been a strong line of reasoning Con could have used.
This survey automatically has more weight than any other that could be brought up because it is a scientific one, in a peer reviewed source. This makes it so that the limits to the original survey, as well as it being 15 years old at this point, would not be nearly as strong a rebuttal as no reliable alternative could be brought up instead.
It is one reason I am disappointed in Con's arguments to an extent. I recommended this and instead Con used "atheism has a world view" instead.
"the best and or most correct usage of that word"
There is no such thing as a 'most correct usage' of language outside of the context that it is used in. If that is socially, then how it is understood by said society at large is absolutely the "most correct usage". If everyone uses the word one to mean the number that is between zero and two but some random person starts using the word one to mean paintbrush then the person would, in society, come off as speaking nonsense or speaking in a difficult to understand way (if they realized this meaning change). Because language functions as part of social cohesion, this automatically makes this usage of language worse than the common usage of language. As such, argumentum ad populum is not a fallacious use of reasoning in this context.
Just like in the example of emotional appeal I gave. No one can cry about an argumentum ad passiones if the topic is one where emotion is a key player (like if a particular story is a sad story or not).
And if we move to academic usage, we end up right back at how language is employed being one where crying 'argumentum ad verecundiam' is nonsense as well (as I already explained before).
The only way you can avoid this is to take some sort of realist approach to language, which is nonsensical, or to argue that language is not something that comes about due to a social dynamic (which is the only way you "language is anarchic" statement makes sense), but that would certainly be something difficult to ever be able to show as reasonable.
"CON is making an argumentum ad populum AND an argumentum ad verecundiam (with their reliance on famous quotes)."
I'm sorry, but how is an argumentum ad populum a fallacy in the context of this debate? It isn't a debate on what the 'fact of the matter' is, it is about how a word should be understood. Language, on a colloquial level, is inherently tied to societal communication. If society, at large, understand a word to mean X then using that word to mean Y creates confusion. Arguing that adhering to the societal understanding of a word, with understanding that societal understanding can shift over time, is a legitimate line of argument due to the nature of language. It is like claiming that someone is making an appeal to emotion fallacy when the debate is on which story is saddest.
Furthermore, language within an academic field is also standardized, to an extent, in order to ensure that miscommunication of ideas does not occur. Sometimes there is an authority that is not fallacious to appeal to. An argumentum ad verecundiam is specifically an appeal to an irrelevant authority, and while Con did commit this at times, some of those quotes are from more academic sources.
To quote from https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
"The argument from appeal to authority, the ad verecundiam fallacy, is characterized with examples and shown to be a fallacy when the appeal is to an irrelevant authority and nonfallacious when the appeal is to a relevant authority."
When it comes to academic usage of a word, appealing to a relevant authority (which Con did) can be useful. Sure, Con did not necessarily argue well enough that we should have our colloquial usage of a term more inline with the academic usage, which is something that could rightly be pointed out, but to argue that this is an 'argumentum ad verecundiam' without any actual detail is the misuse the fallacy.
The only one of these fallacies that could actually be relevant to the discussion is the argumentum ad verecundiam, but even then you need to actually go into detail on how this is being committed or else it looks like you are just pulling fallacies out your ass in order to justify your vote without even fully understanding them.
RFD(1/3)
Full disclosure, PGA and I did talk about how one would best go about making the Con case before this debate. Once the debate kicked off I did step back and am going to try to judge this from a neutral POV.
The tricky thing about this debate is that, depending on context, language can be either prescriptive (as is usually the case in academia) or descriptive (when it comes to more colloquial usage). As such, the resolution becomes tricky to actually argue for one way or the other (as pointed out by some in the comments). After all, by what standards do we determine how a word should be used?
To start with, I think both sides conducted themselves well.
Nothing to complain about in regards to Pro's spelling and grammar.
I am, however, docking Con points on the spelling and grammar due to Round 2. While the spacing issue can be understandable as a formatting issue, what really takes it for me is the statement "I agree, it is logically untenable, yet that is whatatheists do by citing "lack of evidence" and adenial that God/god exists." At first I thought this was Con conceding, but it is increasingly obvious that it is just Con not properly portraying the idea trying to be conveyed. It is the combination of this with the spacing issue that really makes me have to grant Pro points here.
Sources, on the other hand, I think undeniably go to Con. Within Pro's arguments he only made two uses of outside sources, one of which was a duplicate from the Description and the other was to use the Merriam-Webster definition of 'atheist'. On the other hand, Con made use of resources from Oxford, the SEP, etymonline, etc. to help construct his case and try to strengthen it. I won't say all of Con's sources were great, but when it comes to covering etymology and the more academic usage these sources help with building and strengthening Con's arguments. Because of this, I award source points to Con.
Arguments is trickier, however, and I will break down each round and give my thoughts on where I think things stood at various points.
ROUND 1
Pro makes two arguments in his round 1, and I must confess that I find the first argument used perplexing. Pro argues that "defining atheism as the belief in the non-existence of any gods is at its core logically untenable" due to the term god having many definitions, yet does so in a debate that a particular term should have only one definition. Appealing that a definition can be vague or have too many meanings in a debate for a term to be considered to only have a single accepted meaning seems like quite the issue that Con can capitalize on, but does Con actually capitalize on this issue?
Pro's argument on practical uselessness does, however, seem like a stronger argument, though not one I think is necessarily convincing. I think Con can refute it, but the question is if Con actually does or not.
RFD(2/3)
So, how was Con's first round? I would say it is a mixed bag.
I think Con's etymology argument was quite good, but a little short. The "atheism defined" section also is, I believe, quite powerful as in it Con looks at the academic usage of the word to support his position. I also think bringing up the SEP for the propositional definition is useful, but think that it doesn't constitute much of a new argument beyond the academic usage argument (these could be combined into one argument).
I think that Reddit user Wokeupbug does make convincing points, but the issue is that I think Con did not go into enough detail on this line of argumentation and so this section really did not seem that strong. We can only judge the parts Con used, and so sadly this section (which had potential) ended up wasted. I also think the "atheists in their own words" section was not useful, as all it takes is for Pro to show some self-identified atheists disagreeing to counter the usefulness of this line of argumentation.
Last, the section "an atheist has a worldview" is the section I think actually did more harm than good to Con. This section tries to attribute to atheists views outside of the non-existence of god, but none of the other strong arguments employed by Con would actually agree with this section. Using the academic literature wouldn't lead to the conclusions Con is trying to draw here, looking at the etymology won't either, etc.
In the end, I think that Con did make stronger opening arguments, but Con made, in my mind, a serious mistake that can lead to distraction from the issue in later rounds. After round 1 I would say Con is ahead, but there is a question on who can capitalize on the weakness of each others opening rounds more.
ROUND 2
Pro starts his round 2 by expressing disappointment that Con did not rebut arguments but instead presenting a case, saying that it was agreed that Pro would have the full BoP. I do not see where this is expressed though, but it ultimately has no bearing on the weight of the arguments.
Pro starts his rebuttals by attacking one of Con's stronger arguments, and it shows the exact worry I had after the first round (that Con did not spend enough time on the argument). I think most of the ways Pro tried to counter this argument would have failed had Con actually spent time to support the argument in round 1 instead of immediately jumping to make more arguments.
Pro rightly points out the weakness of the "atheists in their own words" section, but I think made a misstep in trying to rebut the "atheism defined" section. Con made sure to use academic sources to support this section while Pro used Merriam-Webster in order to do so (and this is the only time Pro uses a source to support an argument!), but the weight of these are not equal. This really seemed like a weak rebuttal to me.
When Pro addressed the "atheists have a worldview" section he just made a small argument that it is nonsense to attribute atheists having beliefs to atheism containing beliefs, but does not capitalize on showing that this line of argumentation conflicts with other arguments Con made.
Pro's response to the "propositional definition of atheism" section also was very lackluster. He does not go into detail and ignores the Law of Excluded Middle in relation to propositions despite having brought up the Law of Excluded Middle himself in a different point. I think Pro did not spend nearly the amount of time needed to rebut this point, especially when Con built this argument using the SEP as a source.
Pro did, however, rightly point out that Con was relying too much on Wokeupbug's words on Reddit and did not provide the needed support in the actual debate.
Pro's response to Con's question of Pro's authority was also lackluster, especially considering Pro's weak rebuttals to the academic definitions Con provided. Using other people's views, how a term is used by others, etc. in order to strengthen a case is actually a good thing, yet Pro tries to write off Con doing this by arguing the subjectivity of the resolution.
In the end, Pro did manage to defeat Con's weaker arguments and undermine the etymology argument (though I think Con has potential of coming back from that one), but I find the rest of Pro's arguments this round to be very lackluster. Considering how weak I found Pro's opening arguments, I think that Con has the potential to capitalize on this and, if he does so, leave Pro little room to catch up in the last round.
RFD(3/3)
So, did Con capitalize on this opportunity? Sadly, no.
I think Con did a good job pointing out Pro's lack of sourcing to support the "lack" definition, but a lot of the rest of Con's pre-R1 rebuttal seemed as if it was unneeded or belonged elsewhere in the round.
Con does, in the R1 rebuttal section, point out that Pro's position is more aligned with what is normally understood to be agnosticism, but there is hardly any actual space dedicated to showing this. Instead, Con jumps to use a Dawkins quote, which really seems quite weak. I do think Con's argument that an atheist is one that rejects any god concept is a decent enough rebuttal to Pro's "logically untenable" argument, but it is weakened by not narrowing down what "god" means, as without that Pro can still appeal to "god is too vague a term". Con could have, alternatively, gone down the route of arguing noncognitivism as a subset of atheism, but he doesn't do that either.
Even the response to the practical uselessness section was disappointing. I think that by appealing that Pro's "There is no lack of belief approach" statement that there at least becomes something that Pro needs to respond to, but there rebuttal was so lackluster that it really didn't do much to help Con's case.
This lackluster response also exists when Con tries to address Pro's rebuttals. The only one given any time to be worth anything is the response to etymology, and even then it isn't given the needed depth to be useful.
In the end, Con's round 2 was absolutely wasted potential. Pro managed to bring into doubt one of Con's good arguments and showed Con's weak arguments were just that. I don't think that Pro did a good job addressing all of Con's arguments though, but this round really helped Pro catch up in my mind. Con really could have had this in the bag after this round, instead they let Pro catch up, making it so that Pro very well could turn this around in Round 3.
ROUND 3
Pro starts this round by, imo, overstating how strong his case has been so far (not that I blame him after seeing Con's R2), but it really does not do him any good.
Pro starts the actual rebuttals by addressing Con's use of saying Pro's position is more generally understood to be agnosticism (or ignorance or apathy), but the problem is that the rebuttal to the agnostic label requires presupposing Pro's definitions for theism and atheism and not Con's (as Con made clear in his R1 via the SEP that these terms should be understood in relation to a preposition).
Pro dismantles Con's rebuttal of the logical coherence section of R2. The rest of Pro's R3 really seemed to only touch on the points being made or used, imo, some uncharitable interpretations. I do think, however, the Pro does correctly point out some of Con's inconsistencies in regards to if there is a middle position or not.
Con starts R2 giving his insight into how things have played out, but it really does not help his case when he is as behind as he is. The only part of this section that I think did help, at least on some level, was "Accept my definitions as opposed to Pros" part, but this really should have been saved for the end of the round.
Con then points out that Pro only ever used 2 sources, but this was unnecessary as it was already brought up in round 2 without a strong/convincing challenge to it.
Con then spends the rest of the round barely making a strong point against any of Pro's arguments or rebuttals so far.
In the end, Con wasted rounds 2 and 3 while having an almost solid round 1. The biggest issue is how many different lines of argumentation Con tried to use and uphold, causing him to not have enough time to give them adequate time in the following rounds. Pro did manage to keep his initial arguments at least somewhat standing, but also didn't create a strong counter to Con's stronger arguments. However, because Con did not actually spend enough time reinforcing these arguments in rounds 2 and 3 they really started to loose their "oomf". I honestly don't think that I can give Con points for arguments, but I also think Pro's arguments were lackluster and that Pro failed to give a truly solid rebuttal to Con's stronger arguments.
As such, I am leaving arguments at a tie.
I do think it was too much of an uphill battle that it was extremely unlikely that it could be turned around, but I don't discount the possibility of turning it around. There was just too much wasted potential in the first 2 rounds though.
I will get around to voting within the next few days, a little busy today and tomorrow so don't expect it immediately.
Have to say, this could have been an interesting debate but it is just so disappointing...
If you want to do this debate a second time then I would be game. Just let me know when you would like to give it a shot.
I'm not much of a voter, but I have to agree with you on this RM. The mods especially should be setting the best standard for voting, especially when they have the power to also determine if votes meet the standards or not. Tabula rasa is, in my opinion, important for voters in a debate setting, and to see that the mods, who are supposed to be the golden standard, are doing what they are doing just seems off to me.
Saw the debate title and was curious. Disappointing that it was a FF.
Just because a range of life permitting values exists doesn't mean that fine-tuning isn't the case. When my brother fine tunes his car there are numerous possible ranges for various things, but only a small section constitutes fine-tuning (even if that small section is a range of possible values).
One thing I have realized recently is that most people that argue that there isn't systemic racism would actually change their minds if they thought about it. Of course, they would come to a different idea than most who argue for systemic racism.
Specifically, Reservations. They are a great example of where systemic control causes a people of a certain race to be stuck in poverty, low income, poorer education on average, etc. and the locals have no authority to change it how they desire as Reservations are controlled top down rather than bottom up like the rest of the US.
Kinda disappointed that RM forfeited two rounds. When I saw the debate's resolution my first thoughts were on Con bringing up Go and RM did just that.
Wouldn't all someone needs to do to win is point to an ex-atheist? If anyone needs to do so then just use me as an example.