Remember evidence requires it to be reliable to be good. This can be with the site itself being reliable or the sources it proves to be reliable to draw their conclusions.
>>That’s like saying you can throw quantum theory out the window because it’s too complicated to understand
Quantum theory is studied in science which tries to make sense of it. That is their aim and what is going on. I am guessing scholars are not using the same standards as scientists which is why it is not considered a science. It best based on written work with no observable evidence apart from that written work.
>>My point was that saying you don’t understand my argument doesn’t make my argument any less credible
Yes it does. The burden is on you to provide your case in the current system that deems your stance to be reliable and credible. If it isn't then everything is neither right or wrong. If we can't understand your position it can be thrown to the side until you can provide an explanation.
>>I'm not "wrong." I simply have a different preferred debate structure. Like I said, it would be only logical for you to have full control over the rules and create a debate.
Yes you are wrong. My style gives more Rounds which means more space to give arguments. If you say that is a bad thing go right ahead but you are wrong.
>>No you didn't vote fairly. You ALWAYS voted against me no matter of you were wrong.
Saying I voted unfairly because I didn't vote for you is an unfair stance to have. Was I supposed to agree with you even though my votes specifically address what you did wrong? No because I was being fair not biased like what you want me to do.
>>You brought up that i lost debates on DDO. Im saying that I lost them unfairly.
If you mean I should have voted for you to be fair then I was unfair but that standard is so ridiculous because to be fair is to judge the arguments not based on who is debating.
>>Doesn't matter if you asked first, because I don't consent and don't like your idea of changing the rules on my debate. You have full control of the rules if you create a debate. Creating a debate is easy, it takes 2 minutes. So basically if you don't make a debate there won't be a debate.
It is really difficult for you to change something that you are wrong about? Guess you must dislike being wrong with someone who you disagree with on majority of issues.
>>I have given you two options. If you are so concerned, than make the debate yourself with your rules I have to accept. Problem solved. If not, we are not going to have a debate.
I asked first then you decided to push the burden on me. Don't tell me you forgot that I was the first to ask for a change of rules?
>>My record was smeared on DDO by trash voters like you
Your not good enough to be shat on. I voted fairly and I can't believe I did. My reasoning must be that I had to make sure your opponent knew what you are saying was wrong so that they can understand yes there are people like him but at least there was someone on that site understanding what was wrong with his arguments.
>>One time i lost because the ONE vote said "Europeans suck". Is that fair voting.
Was that me? No it wasn't so don't come crying to me.
>>Also why are you bringing up the Instigator's record. Why does it have any value to our conversation?
I am saying at least he was good at winning debates. You can't even do that.
How about come back to me when you change your debate to suit the needs of me? This debate has shown people like Ragnar would blame me for what the instigator's fault was. I am not accepting until I accept your rules.
>>My opinion doesn't need to add anything helpful to to debate.
So a vote on the debate at hand is not helpful?
>>Why do I need to tell you guys what you can improve on or whatever?
You have a problem and expect me and him to understand what we need to improve on. Sad to see you haven't actually improved given your argument in the debate Virtuoso created.
>>Don't worry. I have dealt with him before. Just respond no matter how bad the response is and he gets burned out.
You don't win the altercations with me because your position when you actually talk about is based on false data and if it isn't then you are misrepresenting what the data actually says. Do make a debate so I can show you for the incompetent debater you are. At least the instigator had an impressive record on DDO you don't even have that. I wish I was there to deflate the ego of the instigator when he was relevant on DDO. Too bad he is shown for the fraud he is on this site with his abysmal 20% win percentage. Just checked it is 16.67%.
>>Im not inflating my ego. Im just stating my opinion on the debate. Is there something wrong with that?
Your opinion added nothing helpful to this debate. You said we did bad and had no improve. At least Ragnar and Wrick-It-Ralph stated what they voted on you and RationalMadman can't even tell me or the instigator what to improve on.
>>Just warning you, comment wars with Omar can get vicious. Cautioning you to engage.
Doubtful since I only get "vicious" with people who are unable to have a conversation. I doubt it would go the same way since I am not speaking to you but I am speaking to a Catholic if he does reply.
>>lol i'm not making an argument, I'm merely saying this is how I've been doing debates. I forfeit round 1, you forfeit round 5. Same amount of forfeits, so in effect, it is a 4 round debate. 3 is too short and 5 may be too long with these types of long, multi-faceted debates, so I prefer 4. If you don't want to accept, then you make the debate and I will accept, just keep it within the gun topics at hand. You can make the rules no forfeiting then.
I offer you a better solution and you throw it back at my face and say you do it. You can't see how my way is better so you don't even attempt to understand or even counter to say how it is wrong.
>>Con giving an outdated source sucks, but even his old political beliefs were not conclusively shown to be purely religious (or pro really should have shown the quote in the bible the border wall is based on).
So basically my arguments are bad because the sources are bad even though that is all he gave me to work with?
>>Plus, here's the big thing: if you have reason to challenge him to a debate, there should be something he's said somewhere to make you think the resolution is true
I voted based on post 1 first option in this debate. See his reply to my post 1 in post 2. I only gave the second option if he ran out of time if he left it at the last second.
>>not merely his old profile from a dead website
He gave me that as a source to use. I wanted him to list out his political but his response to that and I quote "To hard to copy and paste all of those.". Copy and pasting is too hard?
>>or a religious conspiracy theory to which he happens to be listed as a member of said religion.
My arguments was based on reason not on some secret plan.
Is lying about what occurred or intentionally not reading relevant information in order to make a narrative not representative what occurred sufficient?
You missed our the instigator gave me his profile as the source of his political positions and in the very first comments asked him to list out his political positions but he chose to use DDO. He chose the second option that I gave for him to use as his Round 1 even thought he had 3 days to formulate a list of his political positions.
>>Well me and Ralph were just talking about the classification of religions, whether they’re true or not
And if that classification is arbitrary. Wrick-It-Ralph would be correct on that basis.
>>I’ll have to send one when I get home, I can’t access that right now
Okay.
>>If you believe that God isn’t real you would know how to tell other people that, if you can’t, you don’t know and it isn’t based on belief then
To prove a negative requires a positive. Something like Christianity, Judaism and Islam would need to make the first claim and all I need to do is debunk it. Since it is not a new thing and plenty of material is online I can share the burden of proof and simply make rebuttals on the Religion rather then waiting for my opponent to make an argument so I can share the burden of proof instead of putting it all on my opponent. It is not difficult to state God does not exist because there is also many material online which does make it easier for me to simply rephrase what they say in my own words. I already know how to debunk most arguments so I don't think I need too much outside help.
>>Emotion is involved because it’s religion, whether or not you believe
How much so and is reason more prevalent? If it isn't then Wrick-It-Ralph is correct to say it is arbitrary.
>>Because they found that the Bible is one of the most, if not THE most reliable document ever
Source? I think I have gone through with this and I hope you have improved the way you find sources. A source that does not have proper citations or is not a credible source is not good evidence.
>> But if you know that the laws work then you don’t need to know their history,
If you know God is real you would know how to tell other people it is real. If you can't then you don't know that God exists it is based on belief then.
>>like you don’t need to know the 10,000 different ways Edison tried to make light before he finally did make it, you can just know that lights work.
You can still learn from mistakes and yes I do agree specifically targeting just the answer only the best answer is the most relevant.
>>I need to first specify that con began each contention with what looks like a quote, prostitution = "immoral" for example. The problem is these quotes are not contained within the links given,
Have you used DDO before? Hover over where it says legalised prostitution and a box will open up. It will say "immoral". That is what I was commenting on.
Argument of authority.
Your feeling used by you saying you "prefer 4 round debates" is not a good argument. I made my position clear which did not have feeling in it where I said we remove the forfeits and replace it with opening arguments and no rebuttals in them. No forfeits and we get both get one more Round to voice our own arguments. Alec was not a good authority figure to look at. Being #1 like you have clearly shown and Alec doesn't mean you are the best. It only means you have won the most debates on this site. blamonkey, Ramshutu, RationalMadman (if he actually gives a damn) to name a few are better than him. He dodges my request for a debate even though he is online so I don't see how he is a good model for what is good.
I am not accepting to forfeit my Round 5 because of a bad rule you made. My position is fair because I am not going to be rebutting in Round 1 and we both get the equal amount of Rounds while my way of doing things means we get 1 more Round to present arguments.
Is this based on reason? Can you make a point based on reason with this?
>>And I don’t know who the people who dug up the manuscripts are lol
So if you don't know if Christianity is true why do you believe it? It is best to understand what you are getting into rather then choosing to accepting it based on supposed benefits which may or may not be true. Isn't this a failure of what you believe in that you have not justified it in reasonable sense in order to detach it from being based upon emotion?
>>Well, since salvation is the whole point of religion then I don’t think it should arbitrary at all
What do you mean by salvation and how it is based on reason?
>>And by looking at the methods historians use to determine the reliability of documents
Name me a credible historian which found something that the Bible states. I don't think it would help your case too much because I hardly see dates in the Bible but I might be wrong that they X date for X item.
>>I don’t have to conform to Ralph’s definition of arbitrary, his isn’t better than mine just because he said
The definition would be the same I am sure but it would depend on what would be considered arbitrary. I don't think you have a point to the definition because there is a really clear general definition of arbitrary.
>>And you have to find which one lines up with scripture and historical findings the best
But that doesn't mean the scripture and the historical findings are accurate.
How do you decide if they are accurate or not?
Edit: Show me a case that Archaeologists found something that is important and the Bible have it somewhere in their book with a date or something.
>>Also my bad dude lol I @‘ed him first and then I deleted the comment and redid it and I thought that I tagged you but I messed up again xD
Okay. Just don't make the same mistake twice and I won't complain.
>>Logically, there's nothing wrong with that. But you have to be consistent.
If you start picking and choosing which ones are exempt from the logic, then you're committing special pleading.
>>This is the problem. You want to apply one type of logic to Judaism, but another type of logic to Catholicism. You need to be consistent.
>>That's a no true Scotsman fallacy. You're arbitrarily defining what you subjectively think a Christian should be. But you don't get to decide what a Christian is.
>>The reason I'm hostile is because I'm 30. I'm old enough to know that being polite is not always the answer. Some people are given too many allowances for their nonsense and need a dose of reality.
>>It's like saying A because B and Not A because B but C. But A because B and C but D. etc. etc. It makes the logic arbitrary.
Last comment add it in the context of what is being discussed.
What does that have to do with what is going on here?
I got a better line before this
>>Your not good enough to be shat on.
Remember evidence requires it to be reliable to be good. This can be with the site itself being reliable or the sources it proves to be reliable to draw their conclusions.
Example?
Lol. I knew you were a joke but didn't think you were d*mb enough to not realise there are actual moderators on this website.
>>the fact you still do DDO and are online on DDO RN is sad.
Have you seen your percentage on this site? That is more to be sad about.
>>I don't care what they are called
You don't know what logical fallacies I committed but still said I committed them?
What logical fallacy did I commit?
Name one logical fallacy I committed.
Did you have a look at my #64?
>>That doesn’t make historical findings any less accurate
I don't know what you mean but I will still respond.
If the historical finding is meeting a standard which is deemed accurate then it is.
Why isn't RationalMadman's vote taken down?
What about my claim that Ragnar is intentionally missing information in order to make my side look worse than it actually is?
Post #64
>>That’s like saying you can throw quantum theory out the window because it’s too complicated to understand
Quantum theory is studied in science which tries to make sense of it. That is their aim and what is going on. I am guessing scholars are not using the same standards as scientists which is why it is not considered a science. It best based on written work with no observable evidence apart from that written work.
No way.
I think that was to me.
>>My point was that saying you don’t understand my argument doesn’t make my argument any less credible
Yes it does. The burden is on you to provide your case in the current system that deems your stance to be reliable and credible. If it isn't then everything is neither right or wrong. If we can't understand your position it can be thrown to the side until you can provide an explanation.
>>I'm not "wrong." I simply have a different preferred debate structure. Like I said, it would be only logical for you to have full control over the rules and create a debate.
Yes you are wrong. My style gives more Rounds which means more space to give arguments. If you say that is a bad thing go right ahead but you are wrong.
>>No you didn't vote fairly. You ALWAYS voted against me no matter of you were wrong.
Saying I voted unfairly because I didn't vote for you is an unfair stance to have. Was I supposed to agree with you even though my votes specifically address what you did wrong? No because I was being fair not biased like what you want me to do.
>>You brought up that i lost debates on DDO. Im saying that I lost them unfairly.
If you mean I should have voted for you to be fair then I was unfair but that standard is so ridiculous because to be fair is to judge the arguments not based on who is debating.
>>Doesn't matter if you asked first, because I don't consent and don't like your idea of changing the rules on my debate. You have full control of the rules if you create a debate. Creating a debate is easy, it takes 2 minutes. So basically if you don't make a debate there won't be a debate.
It is really difficult for you to change something that you are wrong about? Guess you must dislike being wrong with someone who you disagree with on majority of issues.
>>I have given you two options. If you are so concerned, than make the debate yourself with your rules I have to accept. Problem solved. If not, we are not going to have a debate.
I asked first then you decided to push the burden on me. Don't tell me you forgot that I was the first to ask for a change of rules?
>>Again you dont have to listen to my opinion. ITS MINE.
Your opinion is voting on the debate I am on.
>>My record was smeared on DDO by trash voters like you
Your not good enough to be shat on. I voted fairly and I can't believe I did. My reasoning must be that I had to make sure your opponent knew what you are saying was wrong so that they can understand yes there are people like him but at least there was someone on that site understanding what was wrong with his arguments.
>>One time i lost because the ONE vote said "Europeans suck". Is that fair voting.
Was that me? No it wasn't so don't come crying to me.
>>Also why are you bringing up the Instigator's record. Why does it have any value to our conversation?
I am saying at least he was good at winning debates. You can't even do that.
>>You making a debate I take it?
How about come back to me when you change your debate to suit the needs of me? This debate has shown people like Ragnar would blame me for what the instigator's fault was. I am not accepting until I accept your rules.
>>My opinion doesn't need to add anything helpful to to debate.
So a vote on the debate at hand is not helpful?
>>Why do I need to tell you guys what you can improve on or whatever?
You have a problem and expect me and him to understand what we need to improve on. Sad to see you haven't actually improved given your argument in the debate Virtuoso created.
>>Don't worry. I have dealt with him before. Just respond no matter how bad the response is and he gets burned out.
You don't win the altercations with me because your position when you actually talk about is based on false data and if it isn't then you are misrepresenting what the data actually says. Do make a debate so I can show you for the incompetent debater you are. At least the instigator had an impressive record on DDO you don't even have that. I wish I was there to deflate the ego of the instigator when he was relevant on DDO. Too bad he is shown for the fraud he is on this site with his abysmal 20% win percentage. Just checked it is 16.67%.
>>Im not inflating my ego. Im just stating my opinion on the debate. Is there something wrong with that?
Your opinion added nothing helpful to this debate. You said we did bad and had no improve. At least Ragnar and Wrick-It-Ralph stated what they voted on you and RationalMadman can't even tell me or the instigator what to improve on.
This is why I am opposed to tie votes because you got tr@sh like RationalMadman and Dr.Franklin who tie the debate just to conflate their ego.
>>All my method does is shrink it by one round. If you are unhappy, then make a debate with your rules and I will accept. Either way will work.
One more Round means one more Round of arguments.
>>Just warning you, comment wars with Omar can get vicious. Cautioning you to engage.
Doubtful since I only get "vicious" with people who are unable to have a conversation. I doubt it would go the same way since I am not speaking to you but I am speaking to a Catholic if he does reply.
>>lol i'm not making an argument, I'm merely saying this is how I've been doing debates. I forfeit round 1, you forfeit round 5. Same amount of forfeits, so in effect, it is a 4 round debate. 3 is too short and 5 may be too long with these types of long, multi-faceted debates, so I prefer 4. If you don't want to accept, then you make the debate and I will accept, just keep it within the gun topics at hand. You can make the rules no forfeiting then.
I offer you a better solution and you throw it back at my face and say you do it. You can't see how my way is better so you don't even attempt to understand or even counter to say how it is wrong.
>>Con giving an outdated source sucks, but even his old political beliefs were not conclusively shown to be purely religious (or pro really should have shown the quote in the bible the border wall is based on).
So basically my arguments are bad because the sources are bad even though that is all he gave me to work with?
>>Plus, here's the big thing: if you have reason to challenge him to a debate, there should be something he's said somewhere to make you think the resolution is true
I voted based on post 1 first option in this debate. See his reply to my post 1 in post 2. I only gave the second option if he ran out of time if he left it at the last second.
>>not merely his old profile from a dead website
He gave me that as a source to use. I wanted him to list out his political but his response to that and I quote "To hard to copy and paste all of those.". Copy and pasting is too hard?
>>or a religious conspiracy theory to which he happens to be listed as a member of said religion.
My arguments was based on reason not on some secret plan.
It would have to be intentional because if he didn't read with what was going on as a basis on what to vote on. It is unfair.
Is lying about what occurred or intentionally not reading relevant information in order to make a narrative not representative what occurred sufficient?
Tell where you addressed what I said. I did read your vote.
You missed our the instigator gave me his profile as the source of his political positions and in the very first comments asked him to list out his political positions but he chose to use DDO. He chose the second option that I gave for him to use as his Round 1 even thought he had 3 days to formulate a list of his political positions.
>>Well me and Ralph were just talking about the classification of religions, whether they’re true or not
And if that classification is arbitrary. Wrick-It-Ralph would be correct on that basis.
>>I’ll have to send one when I get home, I can’t access that right now
Okay.
>>If you believe that God isn’t real you would know how to tell other people that, if you can’t, you don’t know and it isn’t based on belief then
To prove a negative requires a positive. Something like Christianity, Judaism and Islam would need to make the first claim and all I need to do is debunk it. Since it is not a new thing and plenty of material is online I can share the burden of proof and simply make rebuttals on the Religion rather then waiting for my opponent to make an argument so I can share the burden of proof instead of putting it all on my opponent. It is not difficult to state God does not exist because there is also many material online which does make it easier for me to simply rephrase what they say in my own words. I already know how to debunk most arguments so I don't think I need too much outside help.
>>And gotcha
Okay.
>>Emotion is involved because it’s religion, whether or not you believe
How much so and is reason more prevalent? If it isn't then Wrick-It-Ralph is correct to say it is arbitrary.
>>Because they found that the Bible is one of the most, if not THE most reliable document ever
Source? I think I have gone through with this and I hope you have improved the way you find sources. A source that does not have proper citations or is not a credible source is not good evidence.
>> But if you know that the laws work then you don’t need to know their history,
If you know God is real you would know how to tell other people it is real. If you can't then you don't know that God exists it is based on belief then.
>>like you don’t need to know the 10,000 different ways Edison tried to make light before he finally did make it, you can just know that lights work.
You can still learn from mistakes and yes I do agree specifically targeting just the answer only the best answer is the most relevant.
What are you on about?
Make a debate and I will decide to take it or not. Probably I will.
>>I need to first specify that con began each contention with what looks like a quote, prostitution = "immoral" for example. The problem is these quotes are not contained within the links given,
Have you used DDO before? Hover over where it says legalised prostitution and a box will open up. It will say "immoral". That is what I was commenting on.
>>Yeah...I’m not sure what you’re trying to say though
I take the position that a spider can create webs.
No emotion involved and it is correct.
>>I do know that Christianity is true...I don’t have to know who dug up the manuscripts to believe them
How do you know it is true then?
>>You don’t have to know Isaac Newton’s full name in order to use his laws of motion
You need to know what Newton did in order to understand how he got to the laws of motion. That is my stance.
Argument of authority.
Your feeling used by you saying you "prefer 4 round debates" is not a good argument. I made my position clear which did not have feeling in it where I said we remove the forfeits and replace it with opening arguments and no rebuttals in them. No forfeits and we get both get one more Round to voice our own arguments. Alec was not a good authority figure to look at. Being #1 like you have clearly shown and Alec doesn't mean you are the best. It only means you have won the most debates on this site. blamonkey, Ramshutu, RationalMadman (if he actually gives a damn) to name a few are better than him. He dodges my request for a debate even though he is online so I don't see how he is a good model for what is good.
I am not accepting to forfeit my Round 5 because of a bad rule you made. My position is fair because I am not going to be rebutting in Round 1 and we both get the equal amount of Rounds while my way of doing things means we get 1 more Round to present arguments.
>>Salvation as in the way to get to heaven
Is this based on reason? Can you make a point based on reason with this?
>>And I don’t know who the people who dug up the manuscripts are lol
So if you don't know if Christianity is true why do you believe it? It is best to understand what you are getting into rather then choosing to accepting it based on supposed benefits which may or may not be true. Isn't this a failure of what you believe in that you have not justified it in reasonable sense in order to detach it from being based upon emotion?
>>Well, since salvation is the whole point of religion then I don’t think it should arbitrary at all
What do you mean by salvation and how it is based on reason?
>>And by looking at the methods historians use to determine the reliability of documents
Name me a credible historian which found something that the Bible states. I don't think it would help your case too much because I hardly see dates in the Bible but I might be wrong that they X date for X item.
>>I don’t have to conform to Ralph’s definition of arbitrary, his isn’t better than mine just because he said
The definition would be the same I am sure but it would depend on what would be considered arbitrary. I don't think you have a point to the definition because there is a really clear general definition of arbitrary.
>>And you have to find which one lines up with scripture and historical findings the best
But that doesn't mean the scripture and the historical findings are accurate.
How do you decide if they are accurate or not?
Edit: Show me a case that Archaeologists found something that is important and the Bible have it somewhere in their book with a date or something.
>>Also my bad dude lol I @‘ed him first and then I deleted the comment and redid it and I thought that I tagged you but I messed up again xD
Okay. Just don't make the same mistake twice and I won't complain.
>>Me and Ralph were only arguing about the classification of religions and religious denominations though
If he calls it arbitrary it means you haven't justified the requirement you made well enough by whatever standard he uses.
>>By which one is true
How do you determine which is one true?
Can you put me in the receiver next time?
I just saw this right now so I was reading for about 5 minutes.
>>But anyway, salvation is the whole point of religion, so choosing it as the point from which one determines what a religion is is completely fair
How do you determine which salvation from a Religion is right or wrong?
What is your rebuttal to Wrick-It-Ralph saying your requirements whatever it maybe is arbitrary?
Highlights
>>Logically, there's nothing wrong with that. But you have to be consistent.
If you start picking and choosing which ones are exempt from the logic, then you're committing special pleading.
>>This is the problem. You want to apply one type of logic to Judaism, but another type of logic to Catholicism. You need to be consistent.
>>That's a no true Scotsman fallacy. You're arbitrarily defining what you subjectively think a Christian should be. But you don't get to decide what a Christian is.
>>The reason I'm hostile is because I'm 30. I'm old enough to know that being polite is not always the answer. Some people are given too many allowances for their nonsense and need a dose of reality.
>>It's like saying A because B and Not A because B but C. But A because B and C but D. etc. etc. It makes the logic arbitrary.
Last comment add it in the context of what is being discussed.
Are you going to challenge me to a debate or have you learnt your lesson?