I just got an E-mail and was curious as to what this was about. Does this mean we won the contest? I've always wanted an award, I'll have to go tell my mom she'd be so proud of you!
"Supported with outdated data and points that didn't directly support what he was arguing for. Did you miss that?"
It's better than using sources which don't even specify what we're arguing about, as I pointed out in the debate - literally none of his sources are on homosexual sex specifically. It is certainly convenient you chose to ignore the last round entirely in your vote, because all of this was spelled out quite clearly.
All of my STD sources were quite up-to-date from the CDC, presented in round 1 as a foundation for using my other sources. I also acknowledged myself in the debate that general life expectency was climbing, I said the discrepancy remains the same. It's almost like you're willingly discluding things which contradict your points.
I interpreted his "evil" as being more harmful to society than the alternative or disproportionately harmful. This method of attack seemed to be the only way to address the topic that made sense to me, as anything can be considered harmful to society in one way (which is what freud pointed out).
Not that everything else meeting his definition would change homosexuality being evil, it would just make most things evil under his definition - because most things can be highly harmful in one way or another. I spelled this out clearly in the final round, I just didn't express the first paragraph because I thought it would be clear to anyone viewing.
Edit: If we are to assume just the resolution itself, and not my charitable revision, then I met my BoP on round 1. His primary argument seemed to be centered around "logical consistency," that is he compared certain unrelated things that are harmful in some way and thus technically would meet his definition of evil and defeated his own side, not my argument.
I do hope that I'm wrong about this accusation. The only reason I kept poking at you all in the comments was to either disprove or prove my hypothesis.
So much evidence has stacked up that it's impossible to be mere coincidence you vote for him every time. That was just the tip of the iceberg, not really my primary points of evidence - just a minor observation.
Good luck, I'm only typing this response because you and Freud seem to both be fond of calling your opponents idiots and absurd.
You're welcome to talk to the moderators, as for me I'm willing to let the evidence speak for itself. In-fact, I implore you to private message them, as you're clearly quite adept at that.
Omar's votes account for nearly half of your debates, in many cases they prevent you from losing when other people voted against you. Such as:
I also never claimed his vote was removed for that reason, it was removed specifically due to him not surveying the arguments sufficiently. I said you should read the vote before I go about justifying bias to you. Moderators post the content of every vote they've removed in the comments, but just in-case they forgot I also screenshotted it.
It is for all the reasons I have outlined in my comments, in addition to Omar's votes, that I formally accuse all three of them of Vote Rigging. Admittedly, most of this is circumstantial evidence except for the direct admission by Debaticus on a prior debate of his (which I linked in my previous comment).
This is the absolute best case I can imagine being provided short of PM doxxing.
I do not take this accusation lightly, and to avoid a kangaroo court I will leave this up to the mods to decide.
------
II. Vote Bombs
C. Vote Rigging
Vote rigging is when someone solicits deliberately biased votes in order to rig the outcome of a vote. Votes stemming from vote rigging will be removed. It is not vote rigging to ask for someone to cast a fair vote. Vote trading may or may not be vote rigging, depending on whether the outcome of the traded votes is fixed or agreed upon before the debates are evaluated by the voters.
I think you should inspect Omar's prior vote (and my objections to it) which was removed by moderators before we ask how I'm justifying bias. Once you've done that, there are 4 options that I can think of which we arrive to.
1.) He did not read the debate, and just assumed you won on the basis of only your arguments.
2.) He willfully ignored counter-evidence and voted for you without including it.
3.) He was "testing" the moderators for 'funsies.'
4.) He's an idiot.
As tempting as option 4 is - he clearly isn't an idiot, as evidenced by his prior debates. On his debate.org profile he has voted for you at least 10 times - and against you only once, where you directly conceded. When you combine this with the fact you just openly admitted to contacting him through private messaging prior to this vote, it becomes very evident that option 1 or 2 is incredibly more likely than option 3.
We may now add in a fifth number in there, as the cat's out of the bag: 5) Vote Rigging
Sometimes bias just isn't enough, and we must go that extra mile for someone to vote for us every time regardless of the opponents arguments. If you concede, he bases his vote exclusively on your concession, and not the opponents argument. I think I have built as solid a case as any, considering everything else, in tandem with the direct admission by debaticus in his debate.org vote, and your admission of PMing Omar himself directly.
Considering in Omar's vote he agrees with you when you stated "OPPONENT IGNORING MY ARGUMENTS" it is not a strawman. I was not talking about the debate here, I was talking about the votes. In his reasoning, linked in his vote he states: "Clearly true by looking at the contender’s Round1 arguments." and goes on to justify giving you a conduct point on a similar basis - though he doesn't, because he would like to hold it against me for future purpose, another example of dishonest (and probably illegal) voting.
"you didn't explain how he was only voting for me other than a summoned PM."
I was simply not referring to the vote on this debate, I linked it in the comment if you'd care to take a gander at the votes. I didn't even write that as a refutation of his vote, I only put it there to show admitted vote rigging on another site. I think I have built a substantial case for this accusation by now.
Moreover, I did not need to address your rebuttals in the first round - they were aimed at a position I do not hold. This, coupled with the fact you stated BoP was on me not you, implying I had to prove something not disprove something.
Tell me where I accused you of anything in my previous comment. I did not mention your name once in that entire comment (aside from identifying the debate), or any of my comments against Omar in an accusation. I accused him of biased voting because that much atleast was apparent.
I only stated Debaticus, on that debate, voted for you for no reason other than "Summoned via PM." He gave all the points to you without thoroughly analyzing any of the arguments, or presenting a proper case for awarding a single point - despite awarding all 7. Which of you specifically contacted him in this debate or the other is completely irrelevant to me.
If nothing else, I thank you for admitting to PMing Omar, and thus making his reason for a biased conclusion and analysis apparent.
Out of curiosity: which arguments did I ignore? He stated the burden of proof was 90% on me in the description, so it only stands to reason I would first lay out a case in the first round that is not contradicted by his prior statements. It was on me to prove that homosexuality is harmful, not to disprove arguments he made that beared no relevance to my argument.
I'm also curious as to why you awarded 1 point to me for sources then gave con the source point.
I may also note that I was not suspicious of foul play before, but upon viewing https://www.debate.org/debates/Have-the-conservatives-in-America-lost-the-battle-with-the-leftists/1/ I have a strong suspicion.
In this debate you voted for Freud/Squeakly under no basis other than "summoned from a PM." Your last vote on this website specifically was 22 days ago. Now, given the above and given Omar is on your friendslist, we can reasonably assume he PMed you to request a vote due to his being called into question.
(1/3)I'm going to keep this brief, because I do not have much time.
You have blatantly ignored my justification/arguments and based your statements upon prior bias. This, including the fact you earlier stated "That vote was me wanting to see if I can get away with what I deemed to be a sufficient vote but guess it wasn't sufficient. My prior vote history is to vote for things I am interested in. "
So, you are not only being dishonest, but you are doing it tactically to see how much the mods will tolerate. I will provide several examples of your blatant dishonesty in the next comments. I would request the moderators disallow you from voting because of how clearly improper you're being, but that is likely against the rules.
(2/3) Example 1: “Not explained what is the main cause or howhomsexuals can get it. The point about “general filth” is bad if we do not knowthe context behind what is general. “
I was referring to the statistic which showed homosexuals practice fecal sex disproportionately (intentional or not). When a homosexual performs oral on the other partners rectum he will frequently ingest a medically significant amount of feces. I should not have to explain why eating shit is generally filthy. If you had actually read the conextual pieces you would know this and have not made the objection.
Example 2: "Was not supported by evidence."
In response to: “Sex is dangerous, and deviancy is harmful.”
I went on to support this in the following rounds, the prior round was also dedicated to supporting this partially through CDC STD statistics. Unless STDs don’t exist, or as I put it using Freud’s example - unwanted pregnancies.
Example 3: “Hasn’t explained how it was a false equivalenceonly said it. Before this he was explaining why whites are not harmful andblacks are harmful. Bears no relevance to the topic at hand.”
I have explained it several times throughout the debate – my objection to his “analogy” or “equivalence.” I stated it most succinctly in the final round “white people do not commit crime because they are white, black people do not commit crime because they are black. This is not analogous to my argument or my justification. They share only one thing in common and that is that they are harmful to society in some way - this does not mean my argument is applicable to them. “
Thus, I directly stated my justification behind it being a red herring or equvalence fallacy, but ignored by him and discluded from his vote conveniently, likely due to as he stated in the comments: "The last Rounds were nothing important to the specific topic at hand."
(3/3)These are selective examples as there were too many similar examples to directly insert into my comment, these are indicative of the majority of your vote. The arguments in the debate were very simplistic, if you were confident his case were stronger you would have summarized them rather then selectively addressing points devoid of larger context and surrounding justification.
I must also include this as a finality: "I can vote on conduct and sources but I doubt it is necessary because I don’t think anyone would vote for the contender so I'll just have my vote to be just about the most convincing argument. "
In other words, you are excluding a point you believe is proper in order to effectively hold it over my head - or my voters', in the case I get any.
That's because that's who he is. Notice the period he types before any of the words to format his comments, coupled with the exact same structure and capitalization/exaggeration for emphasis. When you consider all these things together it is virtually impossible that it isn't him, or at least someone seriously committed to impersonating him.
All of this said, I'm not sure whether exposing peoples non-personal other site identities is against the rules for doxxing.
I said I would like to do so in his forum post, I don't like talking in the comments because it's impossible to format. That, and I believe there is a character limit and his vote is very long.
His prior vote was incredibly blatant in his disregard for anything which contradicted him.
I'm sorry, I had a couple of hours set aside. I'm generally quite busy with coursework and whatnot so I don't have an incredible amount of time to write long arguments. I went out to buy a pizza and broke my foot and couldn't write a satisfactory opening round in time.
Those two things only become contradictory if you isolate them from the part where I stated "I said I could show how this vote specifically was a misrepresentation in the forum post you made as it's easier to format there."
In short, I feel something is wrong with your vote but I don't want to impose on your forum post. I simply don't know if you're okay with me voicing my objections there.
"Unfair to say. That vote was me wanting to see if I can get away with what I deemed to be a sufficient vote but guess it wasn't sufficient. "
It is quite fair to say, even moreso since you were voting on the basis of testing the waters and not the actual arguments. I had no proof of vote rigging or even genuine tactical motive, but now assuming what you've said is true, one could only deduce you are doing the same thing you just admitted to with this current vote.
I wasn't attempting to prove it here, or even necessarily argue about it here. I said I could show how this vote specifically was a misrepresentation in the forum post you made as it's easier to format there. Overall it's your choice, I am not going to overstep my boundaries, but I just felt like I would make the offer to point it out directly in-case you were actually just unaware.
Furthermore, your prior vote was a clear example of a dishonest vote in all regards. I am not going to directly accuse you of vote rigging, but I just find your conduct there highly suspicious when coupled with your vote history.
The moderators (assuming what ramshutu said was accurate), cannot address votes on the basis of honesty or accuracy therefore I must address anything I feel is a strawman directly.
I take issue with the majority of your vote not because you side with him, but because you've misrepresented the debate and are being dishonest on the basis of prior bias. If you would like, I can go to that forum post and point out many examples of this directly.
I honestly expected to lose this debate considering I'm arguing for an unpopular position but this level of dishonesty is annoying.
That's their choice, hopefully they actually analyze the debates "arguments." You say I did not substantiate my points but I did on many occasions.
The arguments can largely be summarized in 2 paragraphs or less, you are selectively taking quotes and ignoring the surrounding context and justification. In-fact, you've chosen to simply ignore my assertion about the false-equivalence because "Even if the contender is right or wrong doesn’t mean that he has given an argument for homosexuality."
One of arguments is that homosexuality is responsible for the AIDs epidemic, along with 3 others, 2 of which you have both ironically ignored.
Fairly simplistic, I have justified the STD argument through empirical data with recent STD statistics from the CDC coupled with older data on behavior and the general impact on longevity.
You have omitted (presumably, willfully), many things from your analysis including statements I make which directly address your opinionated objections.
I didn't expect your vote to change considering who you are, but at least you read the debate this time.
I'm quite sorry I had wrote up a conclusory paragraph, but I broke my foot yesterday when I went out to get pizza and didn't have time to submit it. It shouldn't matter though, all our arguments are up in the debate already.
Many studies and interviews actually show cops are more hesitant to shoot black people than white people due to fear of being accused of racial bias. One might expect since blacks also disproportionately commit violent crime (more than white people, despite the massive population disparity), they would proportionally be shot more by police, but that isn't the case. Even though blacks commit more violent crime than whites in-total they aren't shot as much overall.
The reality is, the only institutional bias immediately discernible is levied against white people and for blacks. Just my two-cents on the matter, but I also felt like I would throw in some statistics.
Have you had enough of actually trying to debate Christians on reasonable grounds Iconoclast? This is quite pathetic, though I wouldn't expect anything better coming from you.
Under the Voting Policy section I, part A., "Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate."
He did not do this, as evidenced by this quote: "He also decided to change what the instigator made this debate to be about with this "Is homosexuality harmful to society?"
I did not change the instigator's resolution given his definition of evil. This is clear evidence of him not "surveying" the counterarguments sufficiently. If you disagree, I would kindly request you forward this to Virtuoso or Bsh.
Furthermore, he sates, "After not really that much added onto the instigator's Round 2 in the contender's Round 2 pretty much stated white people are not harmful to society but before that states he doens't know black people are harmful for society. I think this is a sign of cowardice by him for not stating his actual positions because more often than not white crime rates are of course compared to black crimes as well. With this in mind I believe he is actually lying about his position. This would me be enough to give the instigator a conduct point as well. The contender did not try to make a good faith approach to debunk the instigator's arguments tried to change what the debate was about and on top of that was what I consider lying about his position."
I debunked pros argument in atleast 3 ways. I directly addressed both of the cases to show why they aren't analogous in round 2 (in a show of good faith), I called it a red herring/false-equivalence aptly when he accused me of a red herring for directly addressing his analogy, and finally in the last round I stated "Okay? Even if all of these things are true, they don’t somehow become relevant to homosexuality being harmful or not."
I take issue with this. In the vote he states, " The contender made points about homosexuality being evil by saying something done by homosexuals is harmful rather then how homosexuality is evil. He also decided to change what the instigator made this debate to be about with this "Is homosexuality harmful to society?". If the contender did not like the debate don't accept it or ask the instigator to change the debate in order to fit what he wanted. "
In the description of the debate it clearly defines "evil" as harmful to society. This implies he did not read anything other then the instigators' arguments. I did not need to prove why homosexuality is immoral, or meeting the colloquial definition of "evil," only that it is harmful to society as that was how the instigator himself defined evil.
Look at the debate description. He defines evil as "harmful to society" before the debate even began. I clarified this exclusively so it wouldn't cause this exact type of confusion.
I don't normally report votes, but it just seems you haven't read my case, or past the description. Not only that, but in the debate I went on to elaborate directly afterwards why I don't know if black people are harmful to society. These are by definition red herrings, and the way he used them constitute them being an equivalence fallacy.
You are blatantly lying in multiple cases to justify your vote. I will not make any accusations here, but this vote is incredibly suspicious.
I changed nothing. Read the match description, where he defined evil. I don't personally think homosexuality is immoral, but that wasn't the proposition of the debate.
Another thing to note, I did address his examples - I called them irrelevant and a red herring, because they are.
You are not arguing for or against Socialism, which is a specific economic plan. A government may redistribute wealth from one private sector to another private sector - it isn't particular to socialism, or any economic system for that matter. Though, another thing to note - the description specified you must prove to him Socialism is not evil. So, in this specific debate it is up to you to prove that it is moral.
I'm probably not going to vote, but in the case I do I will give a conduct point to you for his R1 forfeiture.
Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, redistribution is not even a part of the definition. This is clearly dishonest and underhanded.
So, in other words you are not arguing for socialism you are reframing redistribution as socialism and then arguing for that.
I am glad someone serious accepted this debate. I realize human sacrifice slightly exceeds the boundaries of the overton window, but the merits are important to discuss.
If we do not please the Chaos God, his minion - the lord of fire, will incinerate us all.
I'm sure you won't use it but I felt this was an interesting video on this topic specifically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6grXCooL3-M
I'm not generally a fan of Tim Pool due to his repetitive videos and titles but the graphs displayed in this one are quite interesting. The republicans have shifted slightly while the democrats have swung WAY further to the left.
Assuming we were able to reduce promiscuity in the Gay community through means of culture or otherwise (which is highly unlikely, at this rate). Then AIDs infection rates would fall by approximately 60% if you disclude the women who are infected by bisexual men. Furthermore, this is assuming promiscuity is the primary issue with contraction which I'm not convinced of.
Data on STDs will be taken from the CDC. I will post my first round later.
I did provide the reason, directly prior to the link. "These fetuses currently have no value. ..." Admittedly, I meant moral value specifically because I didn't want to debate the morality of abortion.
Perhaps if you find it so easy to confuse his arguments with this supremacism the connection isn't entirely arbitrary. I never once mentioned it during the debate aside from using it to assist in framing, this is a conclusion you've drawn entirely on your own with no indication from myself.
If I was straw-manning an opposing viewpoint it may have been more logical for me to have not chosen such a title. Something innocuous, if that was my goal, would have been a better choice.
I just got an E-mail and was curious as to what this was about. Does this mean we won the contest? I've always wanted an award, I'll have to go tell my mom she'd be so proud of you!
I won't have access to a computer in time, so I'm not going to be able to forfeit the final round manually unfortunately. Thanks for understanding.
"Supported with outdated data and points that didn't directly support what he was arguing for. Did you miss that?"
It's better than using sources which don't even specify what we're arguing about, as I pointed out in the debate - literally none of his sources are on homosexual sex specifically. It is certainly convenient you chose to ignore the last round entirely in your vote, because all of this was spelled out quite clearly.
All of my STD sources were quite up-to-date from the CDC, presented in round 1 as a foundation for using my other sources. I also acknowledged myself in the debate that general life expectency was climbing, I said the discrepancy remains the same. It's almost like you're willingly discluding things which contradict your points.
I interpreted his "evil" as being more harmful to society than the alternative or disproportionately harmful. This method of attack seemed to be the only way to address the topic that made sense to me, as anything can be considered harmful to society in one way (which is what freud pointed out).
Not that everything else meeting his definition would change homosexuality being evil, it would just make most things evil under his definition - because most things can be highly harmful in one way or another. I spelled this out clearly in the final round, I just didn't express the first paragraph because I thought it would be clear to anyone viewing.
Edit: If we are to assume just the resolution itself, and not my charitable revision, then I met my BoP on round 1. His primary argument seemed to be centered around "logical consistency," that is he compared certain unrelated things that are harmful in some way and thus technically would meet his definition of evil and defeated his own side, not my argument.
I do hope that I'm wrong about this accusation. The only reason I kept poking at you all in the comments was to either disprove or prove my hypothesis.
So much evidence has stacked up that it's impossible to be mere coincidence you vote for him every time. That was just the tip of the iceberg, not really my primary points of evidence - just a minor observation.
Good luck, I'm only typing this response because you and Freud seem to both be fond of calling your opponents idiots and absurd.
Understood.
You're welcome to talk to the moderators, as for me I'm willing to let the evidence speak for itself. In-fact, I implore you to private message them, as you're clearly quite adept at that.
Omar's votes account for nearly half of your debates, in many cases they prevent you from losing when other people voted against you. Such as:
https://www.debate.org/debates/Girls-joining-the-Boy-Scouts-Of-America/2/
https://www.debate.org/debates/Socialism-is-evil/3/
I also never claimed his vote was removed for that reason, it was removed specifically due to him not surveying the arguments sufficiently. I said you should read the vote before I go about justifying bias to you. Moderators post the content of every vote they've removed in the comments, but just in-case they forgot I also screenshotted it.
I will tag you as well.
It is for all the reasons I have outlined in my comments, in addition to Omar's votes, that I formally accuse all three of them of Vote Rigging. Admittedly, most of this is circumstantial evidence except for the direct admission by Debaticus on a prior debate of his (which I linked in my previous comment).
This is the absolute best case I can imagine being provided short of PM doxxing.
I do not take this accusation lightly, and to avoid a kangaroo court I will leave this up to the mods to decide.
------
II. Vote Bombs
C. Vote Rigging
Vote rigging is when someone solicits deliberately biased votes in order to rig the outcome of a vote. Votes stemming from vote rigging will be removed. It is not vote rigging to ask for someone to cast a fair vote. Vote trading may or may not be vote rigging, depending on whether the outcome of the traded votes is fixed or agreed upon before the debates are evaluated by the voters.
I think you should inspect Omar's prior vote (and my objections to it) which was removed by moderators before we ask how I'm justifying bias. Once you've done that, there are 4 options that I can think of which we arrive to.
1.) He did not read the debate, and just assumed you won on the basis of only your arguments.
2.) He willfully ignored counter-evidence and voted for you without including it.
3.) He was "testing" the moderators for 'funsies.'
4.) He's an idiot.
As tempting as option 4 is - he clearly isn't an idiot, as evidenced by his prior debates. On his debate.org profile he has voted for you at least 10 times - and against you only once, where you directly conceded. When you combine this with the fact you just openly admitted to contacting him through private messaging prior to this vote, it becomes very evident that option 1 or 2 is incredibly more likely than option 3.
We may now add in a fifth number in there, as the cat's out of the bag: 5) Vote Rigging
Sometimes bias just isn't enough, and we must go that extra mile for someone to vote for us every time regardless of the opponents arguments. If you concede, he bases his vote exclusively on your concession, and not the opponents argument. I think I have built as solid a case as any, considering everything else, in tandem with the direct admission by debaticus in his debate.org vote, and your admission of PMing Omar himself directly.
Considering in Omar's vote he agrees with you when you stated "OPPONENT IGNORING MY ARGUMENTS" it is not a strawman. I was not talking about the debate here, I was talking about the votes. In his reasoning, linked in his vote he states: "Clearly true by looking at the contender’s Round1 arguments." and goes on to justify giving you a conduct point on a similar basis - though he doesn't, because he would like to hold it against me for future purpose, another example of dishonest (and probably illegal) voting.
"you didn't explain how he was only voting for me other than a summoned PM."
I was simply not referring to the vote on this debate, I linked it in the comment if you'd care to take a gander at the votes. I didn't even write that as a refutation of his vote, I only put it there to show admitted vote rigging on another site. I think I have built a substantial case for this accusation by now.
Moreover, I did not need to address your rebuttals in the first round - they were aimed at a position I do not hold. This, coupled with the fact you stated BoP was on me not you, implying I had to prove something not disprove something.
Tell me where I accused you of anything in my previous comment. I did not mention your name once in that entire comment (aside from identifying the debate), or any of my comments against Omar in an accusation. I accused him of biased voting because that much atleast was apparent.
I only stated Debaticus, on that debate, voted for you for no reason other than "Summoned via PM." He gave all the points to you without thoroughly analyzing any of the arguments, or presenting a proper case for awarding a single point - despite awarding all 7. Which of you specifically contacted him in this debate or the other is completely irrelevant to me.
If nothing else, I thank you for admitting to PMing Omar, and thus making his reason for a biased conclusion and analysis apparent.
Out of curiosity: which arguments did I ignore? He stated the burden of proof was 90% on me in the description, so it only stands to reason I would first lay out a case in the first round that is not contradicted by his prior statements. It was on me to prove that homosexuality is harmful, not to disprove arguments he made that beared no relevance to my argument.
I'm also curious as to why you awarded 1 point to me for sources then gave con the source point.
I may also note that I was not suspicious of foul play before, but upon viewing https://www.debate.org/debates/Have-the-conservatives-in-America-lost-the-battle-with-the-leftists/1/ I have a strong suspicion.
In this debate you voted for Freud/Squeakly under no basis other than "summoned from a PM." Your last vote on this website specifically was 22 days ago. Now, given the above and given Omar is on your friendslist, we can reasonably assume he PMed you to request a vote due to his being called into question.
(1/3)I'm going to keep this brief, because I do not have much time.
You have blatantly ignored my justification/arguments and based your statements upon prior bias. This, including the fact you earlier stated "That vote was me wanting to see if I can get away with what I deemed to be a sufficient vote but guess it wasn't sufficient. My prior vote history is to vote for things I am interested in. "
So, you are not only being dishonest, but you are doing it tactically to see how much the mods will tolerate. I will provide several examples of your blatant dishonesty in the next comments. I would request the moderators disallow you from voting because of how clearly improper you're being, but that is likely against the rules.
(2/3) Example 1: “Not explained what is the main cause or howhomsexuals can get it. The point about “general filth” is bad if we do not knowthe context behind what is general. “
I was referring to the statistic which showed homosexuals practice fecal sex disproportionately (intentional or not). When a homosexual performs oral on the other partners rectum he will frequently ingest a medically significant amount of feces. I should not have to explain why eating shit is generally filthy. If you had actually read the conextual pieces you would know this and have not made the objection.
Example 2: "Was not supported by evidence."
In response to: “Sex is dangerous, and deviancy is harmful.”
I went on to support this in the following rounds, the prior round was also dedicated to supporting this partially through CDC STD statistics. Unless STDs don’t exist, or as I put it using Freud’s example - unwanted pregnancies.
Example 3: “Hasn’t explained how it was a false equivalenceonly said it. Before this he was explaining why whites are not harmful andblacks are harmful. Bears no relevance to the topic at hand.”
I have explained it several times throughout the debate – my objection to his “analogy” or “equivalence.” I stated it most succinctly in the final round “white people do not commit crime because they are white, black people do not commit crime because they are black. This is not analogous to my argument or my justification. They share only one thing in common and that is that they are harmful to society in some way - this does not mean my argument is applicable to them. “
Thus, I directly stated my justification behind it being a red herring or equvalence fallacy, but ignored by him and discluded from his vote conveniently, likely due to as he stated in the comments: "The last Rounds were nothing important to the specific topic at hand."
(3/3)These are selective examples as there were too many similar examples to directly insert into my comment, these are indicative of the majority of your vote. The arguments in the debate were very simplistic, if you were confident his case were stronger you would have summarized them rather then selectively addressing points devoid of larger context and surrounding justification.
I must also include this as a finality: "I can vote on conduct and sources but I doubt it is necessary because I don’t think anyone would vote for the contender so I'll just have my vote to be just about the most convincing argument. "
In other words, you are excluding a point you believe is proper in order to effectively hold it over my head - or my voters', in the case I get any.
Yes, and that was the moral framing I used to organize this debate.
That's because that's who he is. Notice the period he types before any of the words to format his comments, coupled with the exact same structure and capitalization/exaggeration for emphasis. When you consider all these things together it is virtually impossible that it isn't him, or at least someone seriously committed to impersonating him.
All of this said, I'm not sure whether exposing peoples non-personal other site identities is against the rules for doxxing.
So what you're saying is that inanimate or lifeless objects can carry implicit moral value regardless of sentience.
Not that it matters, considering this debate was isolated to the practicality of the proposal and not the moral one intentionally for this reason.
I said I would like to do so in his forum post, I don't like talking in the comments because it's impossible to format. That, and I believe there is a character limit and his vote is very long.
His prior vote was incredibly blatant in his disregard for anything which contradicted him.
I'm sorry, I had a couple of hours set aside. I'm generally quite busy with coursework and whatnot so I don't have an incredible amount of time to write long arguments. I went out to buy a pizza and broke my foot and couldn't write a satisfactory opening round in time.
Those two things only become contradictory if you isolate them from the part where I stated "I said I could show how this vote specifically was a misrepresentation in the forum post you made as it's easier to format there."
In short, I feel something is wrong with your vote but I don't want to impose on your forum post. I simply don't know if you're okay with me voicing my objections there.
"Unfair to say. That vote was me wanting to see if I can get away with what I deemed to be a sufficient vote but guess it wasn't sufficient. "
It is quite fair to say, even moreso since you were voting on the basis of testing the waters and not the actual arguments. I had no proof of vote rigging or even genuine tactical motive, but now assuming what you've said is true, one could only deduce you are doing the same thing you just admitted to with this current vote.
I wasn't attempting to prove it here, or even necessarily argue about it here. I said I could show how this vote specifically was a misrepresentation in the forum post you made as it's easier to format there. Overall it's your choice, I am not going to overstep my boundaries, but I just felt like I would make the offer to point it out directly in-case you were actually just unaware.
Furthermore, your prior vote was a clear example of a dishonest vote in all regards. I am not going to directly accuse you of vote rigging, but I just find your conduct there highly suspicious when coupled with your vote history.
The moderators (assuming what ramshutu said was accurate), cannot address votes on the basis of honesty or accuracy therefore I must address anything I feel is a strawman directly.
I take issue with the majority of your vote not because you side with him, but because you've misrepresented the debate and are being dishonest on the basis of prior bias. If you would like, I can go to that forum post and point out many examples of this directly.
I honestly expected to lose this debate considering I'm arguing for an unpopular position but this level of dishonesty is annoying.
That's their choice, hopefully they actually analyze the debates "arguments." You say I did not substantiate my points but I did on many occasions.
The arguments can largely be summarized in 2 paragraphs or less, you are selectively taking quotes and ignoring the surrounding context and justification. In-fact, you've chosen to simply ignore my assertion about the false-equivalence because "Even if the contender is right or wrong doesn’t mean that he has given an argument for homosexuality."
One of arguments is that homosexuality is responsible for the AIDs epidemic, along with 3 others, 2 of which you have both ironically ignored.
Fairly simplistic, I have justified the STD argument through empirical data with recent STD statistics from the CDC coupled with older data on behavior and the general impact on longevity.
You have omitted (presumably, willfully), many things from your analysis including statements I make which directly address your opinionated objections.
I didn't expect your vote to change considering who you are, but at least you read the debate this time.
I'm quite sorry I had wrote up a conclusory paragraph, but I broke my foot yesterday when I went out to get pizza and didn't have time to submit it. It shouldn't matter though, all our arguments are up in the debate already.
Many studies and interviews actually show cops are more hesitant to shoot black people than white people due to fear of being accused of racial bias. One might expect since blacks also disproportionately commit violent crime (more than white people, despite the massive population disparity), they would proportionally be shot more by police, but that isn't the case. Even though blacks commit more violent crime than whites in-total they aren't shot as much overall.
The reality is, the only institutional bias immediately discernible is levied against white people and for blacks. Just my two-cents on the matter, but I also felt like I would throw in some statistics.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-012-9163-y
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
Have you had enough of actually trying to debate Christians on reasonable grounds Iconoclast? This is quite pathetic, though I wouldn't expect anything better coming from you.
Thank you both for the fair, open, and respectful analysis of his vote.
I understand, and I've just read the CoC.
Under the Voting Policy section I, part A., "Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate."
He did not do this, as evidenced by this quote: "He also decided to change what the instigator made this debate to be about with this "Is homosexuality harmful to society?"
I did not change the instigator's resolution given his definition of evil. This is clear evidence of him not "surveying" the counterarguments sufficiently. If you disagree, I would kindly request you forward this to Virtuoso or Bsh.
Furthermore, he sates, "After not really that much added onto the instigator's Round 2 in the contender's Round 2 pretty much stated white people are not harmful to society but before that states he doens't know black people are harmful for society. I think this is a sign of cowardice by him for not stating his actual positions because more often than not white crime rates are of course compared to black crimes as well. With this in mind I believe he is actually lying about his position. This would me be enough to give the instigator a conduct point as well. The contender did not try to make a good faith approach to debunk the instigator's arguments tried to change what the debate was about and on top of that was what I consider lying about his position."
I debunked pros argument in atleast 3 ways. I directly addressed both of the cases to show why they aren't analogous in round 2 (in a show of good faith), I called it a red herring/false-equivalence aptly when he accused me of a red herring for directly addressing his analogy, and finally in the last round I stated "Okay? Even if all of these things are true, they don’t somehow become relevant to homosexuality being harmful or not."
I take issue with this. In the vote he states, " The contender made points about homosexuality being evil by saying something done by homosexuals is harmful rather then how homosexuality is evil. He also decided to change what the instigator made this debate to be about with this "Is homosexuality harmful to society?". If the contender did not like the debate don't accept it or ask the instigator to change the debate in order to fit what he wanted. "
In the description of the debate it clearly defines "evil" as harmful to society. This implies he did not read anything other then the instigators' arguments. I did not need to prove why homosexuality is immoral, or meeting the colloquial definition of "evil," only that it is harmful to society as that was how the instigator himself defined evil.
Look at the debate description. He defines evil as "harmful to society" before the debate even began. I clarified this exclusively so it wouldn't cause this exact type of confusion.
I don't normally report votes, but it just seems you haven't read my case, or past the description. Not only that, but in the debate I went on to elaborate directly afterwards why I don't know if black people are harmful to society. These are by definition red herrings, and the way he used them constitute them being an equivalence fallacy.
You are blatantly lying in multiple cases to justify your vote. I will not make any accusations here, but this vote is incredibly suspicious.
I changed nothing. Read the match description, where he defined evil. I don't personally think homosexuality is immoral, but that wasn't the proposition of the debate.
Another thing to note, I did address his examples - I called them irrelevant and a red herring, because they are.
He did not agree to your definition anywhere.
You are not arguing for or against Socialism, which is a specific economic plan. A government may redistribute wealth from one private sector to another private sector - it isn't particular to socialism, or any economic system for that matter. Though, another thing to note - the description specified you must prove to him Socialism is not evil. So, in this specific debate it is up to you to prove that it is moral.
I'm probably not going to vote, but in the case I do I will give a conduct point to you for his R1 forfeiture.
Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production, redistribution is not even a part of the definition. This is clearly dishonest and underhanded.
So, in other words you are not arguing for socialism you are reframing redistribution as socialism and then arguing for that.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/socialism
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism
I also firmly believe libertarians are criminals and should be put in jail. Why did you take down the Gadsden flag?
I never said I was pro-life. I'm quite pro abortion for anyone who isn't white.
I am glad someone serious accepted this debate. I realize human sacrifice slightly exceeds the boundaries of the overton window, but the merits are important to discuss.
If we do not please the Chaos God, his minion - the lord of fire, will incinerate us all.
I'm sure you won't use it but I felt this was an interesting video on this topic specifically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6grXCooL3-M
I'm not generally a fan of Tim Pool due to his repetitive videos and titles but the graphs displayed in this one are quite interesting. The republicans have shifted slightly while the democrats have swung WAY further to the left.
Assuming we were able to reduce promiscuity in the Gay community through means of culture or otherwise (which is highly unlikely, at this rate). Then AIDs infection rates would fall by approximately 60% if you disclude the women who are infected by bisexual men. Furthermore, this is assuming promiscuity is the primary issue with contraction which I'm not convinced of.
Data on STDs will be taken from the CDC. I will post my first round later.
The study.
Citation
It's a shame people isolate Pascal's Wager and all but ignore the entire rest of the Pensées.
I did provide the reason, directly prior to the link. "These fetuses currently have no value. ..." Admittedly, I meant moral value specifically because I didn't want to debate the morality of abortion.
Perhaps if you find it so easy to confuse his arguments with this supremacism the connection isn't entirely arbitrary. I never once mentioned it during the debate aside from using it to assist in framing, this is a conclusion you've drawn entirely on your own with no indication from myself.
Give him all the advice you would like. I would even be comfortable reorganizing the entire debate.
The only reason I asked you if you would like to rephrase it is because it says "does not" rather then "unable to."
If I was straw-manning an opposing viewpoint it may have been more logical for me to have not chosen such a title. Something innocuous, if that was my goal, would have been a better choice.