Yeah, I guess I should clarify. It's not bad conduct really for you to do it, but I wouldn't want any voter to be influenced by a comment you made rather than your arguments.
My theory is that no one wants to out themselves as a witch, and for good reason; if I knew there were witches among me I would burn them at the stake and toss em into the river.
I also write R1s before I start debates. Working under a timeframe is stressful so I like to take advantage of when I don't have that.
Making mistakes is the best way to learn, and any debate where you learn from mistakes is a win regardless of voter outcome. It's not like I did perfectly either - I'll have some things to carry over with me into future debates, too.
I thought it was a very good debate, and I learned a lot of very interesting things about Christianity from you as a result of it. I was raised culturally Jewish and have been drifting in and out of the religion for some time, but I've also always been fascinated by the story of Jesus and his teachings. The quote "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” was a quote that you shared that I really liked in particular. I'm still excited to see what the voters say whether they vote in your favor or in mine.
Very cool book. I'm busy now but this would be something interesting to look at when I have time.
Maybe a resolution that more people would contend would be to say that a certain field of science is/is not scientific. For example, some people will tell you that Sociology is unscientific. I strongly disagree with that one but that's just an example.
I'm not sure that anyone will accept this. Not a lot of witchcraft supporters here. Might be fun to play Devil's Advocate but even then it'd be extremely tough.
I guarantee however that if witchcraft got into the American political spotlight any time soon you'd find a lot of newfound support for the concept from one side or the other.
I agree that this is likely a confusing debate to read, but unfortunately no one is going to be able to tell you how to vote - you'll have to come to those conclusions yourself.
Ideally, I'd like to explain to you the relevance of some of the points that me and my opponent made but as a participant in this debate, I think that that's outside of my realm of abilities at the moment.
If you want, I can DM you to clarify after the voting period has ended, or maybe just in the comments here.
I understand your point here. My perspective that if a claim is ever levied against me I feel obligated to respond to it.
Fauxlaw, I'm fine if you want to lobby to change the rule. You should do it because you think it's right, not to punish me, because my case will not be affected. Just know that it's been a part of debating for a long time and you can find examples of it so far back as the foundation of DDO.
You've completely dropped the "Voting Suggestions are cheating " point and Ragnar, a moderator has said himself that they are allowed. The comment(s) in question are things that are seemingly agreed upon by all parties by now. So even under the absolutely absurd circumstance that I did cheat, it would hold literally no weight.
Do I have to remind you AGAIN that you made arguments that were completely irrelevant to my Conduct in this debate in your post #24, paragraph three? You've done the exact same thing I did on multiple occasions now.
If you accuse me of cheating via Voting Suggestions, you are by default influencing voters.
I'm not offering sources FOR that argument, and I'm not saying it's correct. I'm was defending against an accusation that YOU made, and simply stating that including is not CHEATING. Funny how you attribute MY motivations to the influence of voters but not yours.
Once again, you can ask for Voters to disregard my comments (even though defending against the argument that I was cheating IN THE DEBATE is hardly "outside of the CONTEXT of the debate") but you can't pretend as if I can't make them.
Just take a step back to realize how silly this all is. You accused me of cheating. I defended against that accusation. Now I am the cheater.
Lol. Once again you're using the Voting Policy made for VOTERS to prohibit the actions of a DEBATER.
EVEN IF this policy applied to debaters, it would fit YOUR actions as well. Your accusation that my voting suggestions were unfair was an ARGUMENT made during the VOTING PERIOD.
If you really want, we can disregard the posts that I sourced. But by that same token, you'd have to retract your accusations, too.
Time has no relevance here, and even if it did you should note that your objection to my Voting Suggestions came AFTER R4. So you're guilty of the same thing you're accusing me of.
In fact, you included arguments that were completely irrelevant to my conduct in Post #24. How is that not worse than what you claim I did?
It seems like you made up this "no sources after the debate" thing. It has no precedent in any rules and you've failed to name one rule that I've violated.
Nowhere in these comments have I stated that my Voting Suggestions are RIGHT. I have simply supported the claim that they are ALLOWED. My defense against your claim that I cheated with Voting Suggestions is about as "part of my argument" as your claim that I cheated with Voting Suggestions is "part of your argument". The fact that I was the one who backed my claim up means nothing.
"For a debate categorized as religion with Jesus in the title, it usually goes without saying that the Bible will be acceptable evidence. Someone could try to run a Kritik that the bible is false, but it would be extremely bastardly to the point where I as a voter would probably dismiss it from any serious consideration."
First, I agree that any theological debate must have to validate the source of the theology (in this case the Bible). I'd say that's different than it being assumed to be real-world truth though.
"Any vote mentioning that google doc or the Lincoln-Douglas Debate format to justify sources, will of course be removed. This is as per the voting policies, the comment section not being the debate."
Ofc I don't want the voters to vote for me because I put sources in the comments. I just want to be allowed to put sources in the comments in general, especially when I'm accused of cheating.
"Also I don't see what their relevance toward this theology debate would be, so were they used in the debate (pretty sure they were not?), they would be some pretty weak sourcing."
The relevance of those sources was that I was accused of cheating for including Vote Suggestions. I was trying to explain why Vote Suggestions are allowed.
"OED is a valid source, as is just about anything else if cited as a source. Granted, I strongly advise putting definitions within the description or first round. ... I really hope this debate did not degrade into a fight over semantics."
I don't think these type of comments are relevant anyway because in that case my arguments are being challenged rather than my conduct, which is something that generally doesn't deserve to be addressed because it is in the comments.
- You didn't prove that anything not in the Terms of Service is automatically a violation and stopped arguing when I gave evidence to the contrary.
- You claimed that I, a DEBATER in this debate, have to follow a VOTING POLICY that applies to VOTERS. I proved that you violated the same rules that you claim I did.
- You are now saying that you're "done" after just two of your 4+ accusations and ask ME to message the mods. The moderators have not issued any condemnations of my actions.
- You made arguments in Post #24 (final paragraph) that were NOT relevant to my Conduct in the debate. Obviously that is in itself worse than anything I did.
- You clearly take your own claims less seriously than I do.
To be clear, you do have to explain these things, since you're making the accusations. The mods haven't told me off insofar and I don't expect them to.
Right, my bad on the the CofC thing, and I found the quote.
Regardless, you're the one making the accusation, and you've failed to get any moderator support/prove ANYTHING with regards to whether I did something wrong. You dropped the Voting Suggestions point and now you're dropping out of this point too.
And I believe the Voting Policy is part of the CoC so I don't know what you're talking about there.
Here's the quote you might be referring to:
"Voters considering outside content - The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable."
1. This denotes the voters, not me, the debater in this case.
2. You realize that even if it did denote me, it'd be referring to you as well. You made your accusations after I posted my R4, in the comments. Therefore, you made arguments and gave information outside of the debate rounds.
3. I just checked the voting policy and this quote seemingly does not exist.
4. The quote said "outside of the debate rounds" I don't understand why it's such a big deal that I made my responses to your accusation after the debate; time is not spoken about here, "outside of the debate rounds" means not in the arguments. And for the record, you made your accusations after R4 was finished too.
You make the arbitrary distinction that arguing in the comments is fine but backing up your arguments is somehow prohibited, and yeah I'd like to know if there's a source for that.
To be clear, the sources I used were simply to rebut Fauxlaw's claim that Voting Suggestions are not allowed. My intention was not to add to my arguments in any way when I used sources.
That you think the insertion of a giraffe image in a debate is disallowed is absurd.
The accepted measures of many laws that exist today, including international law and British law, for example, state that if something is not explicitly codified as a crime, it is allowed. Look up the Lotus principle; I'd give you a source but I think you dispute that I can include sources in my comments and I'd prefer not to get into that yet.
What laws out there state that "if something is not legally recognized as illegal or legal it is thereby illegal"? Very few, if not none.
Plus, you're the one levying the accusation and therefore you're the one who has to prove what assumptions should be made. You've failed to explain why we need to assume that something that is not discussed by a rulebook is not allowed.
Remember the giraffe counterexample? Nowhere are pictures of giraffes mentioned within any DART documents. No moderator will attack me for posting a picture of a giraffe in a debate, though.
If a detail is missing, it's not assumed to be outlawed... Especially when it's such a common part of this site that nearly every major debater has used at some point.
I won't just assume that it's completely fine because you'd still disagree - hence the fact that I asked the mods. Waiting on them.
Yeah, I guess I should clarify. It's not bad conduct really for you to do it, but I wouldn't want any voter to be influenced by a comment you made rather than your arguments.
Arguing your case in the comments is bad conduct.
Might be an interesting debate to vote on for you
tagging more people, see below comment
Anyone who's considering voting should know that there's less than three days left in the voting period
Awesome, thank you
I'll give it a shot
Welcome to the site!
(and if what I said violated the TOS I'd like to clarify that I would be doing this in roblox)
My theory is that no one wants to out themselves as a witch, and for good reason; if I knew there were witches among me I would burn them at the stake and toss em into the river.
Very interesting... thank you for these book recommendations!
Is there historical evidence of these Native American Jews (I'm not really sure if that's the correct term) outside of the Book of Mormon?
I also write R1s before I start debates. Working under a timeframe is stressful so I like to take advantage of when I don't have that.
Making mistakes is the best way to learn, and any debate where you learn from mistakes is a win regardless of voter outcome. It's not like I did perfectly either - I'll have some things to carry over with me into future debates, too.
I thought it was a very good debate, and I learned a lot of very interesting things about Christianity from you as a result of it. I was raised culturally Jewish and have been drifting in and out of the religion for some time, but I've also always been fascinated by the story of Jesus and his teachings. The quote "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” was a quote that you shared that I really liked in particular. I'm still excited to see what the voters say whether they vote in your favor or in mine.
That's fine, especially if you already have an argument written out.
Me too; I was looking back at our dispute and seeing how negatively it turned out kind of made me sad. Hatchet buried.
Very cool book. I'm busy now but this would be something interesting to look at when I have time.
Maybe a resolution that more people would contend would be to say that a certain field of science is/is not scientific. For example, some people will tell you that Sociology is unscientific. I strongly disagree with that one but that's just an example.
I'm not sure that anyone will accept this. Not a lot of witchcraft supporters here. Might be fun to play Devil's Advocate but even then it'd be extremely tough.
I guarantee however that if witchcraft got into the American political spotlight any time soon you'd find a lot of newfound support for the concept from one side or the other.
It's like that Political Compass question!
Especially if its an FF
and that's it
The one thing I'd recommend against is voting while having no idea what's going on. Maybe re-reading would improve clarity?
I agree that this is likely a confusing debate to read, but unfortunately no one is going to be able to tell you how to vote - you'll have to come to those conclusions yourself.
Ideally, I'd like to explain to you the relevance of some of the points that me and my opponent made but as a participant in this debate, I think that that's outside of my realm of abilities at the moment.
If you want, I can DM you to clarify after the voting period has ended, or maybe just in the comments here.
I didn't intend it as an argument, just know the odds your against.
I understand your point here. My perspective that if a claim is ever levied against me I feel obligated to respond to it.
Fauxlaw, I'm fine if you want to lobby to change the rule. You should do it because you think it's right, not to punish me, because my case will not be affected. Just know that it's been a part of debating for a long time and you can find examples of it so far back as the foundation of DDO.
WORKERS
OF
THE
WORLD
UNITE
Trent0405 is vaush confirmed
(note that I meant including Vote Suggestions is not cheating, not "including is not cheating")
You've completely dropped the "Voting Suggestions are cheating " point and Ragnar, a moderator has said himself that they are allowed. The comment(s) in question are things that are seemingly agreed upon by all parties by now. So even under the absolutely absurd circumstance that I did cheat, it would hold literally no weight.
Do I have to remind you AGAIN that you made arguments that were completely irrelevant to my Conduct in this debate in your post #24, paragraph three? You've done the exact same thing I did on multiple occasions now.
If you accuse me of cheating via Voting Suggestions, you are by default influencing voters.
I'm not offering sources FOR that argument, and I'm not saying it's correct. I'm was defending against an accusation that YOU made, and simply stating that including is not CHEATING. Funny how you attribute MY motivations to the influence of voters but not yours.
Once again, you can ask for Voters to disregard my comments (even though defending against the argument that I was cheating IN THE DEBATE is hardly "outside of the CONTEXT of the debate") but you can't pretend as if I can't make them.
Just take a step back to realize how silly this all is. You accused me of cheating. I defended against that accusation. Now I am the cheater.
Lol. Once again you're using the Voting Policy made for VOTERS to prohibit the actions of a DEBATER.
EVEN IF this policy applied to debaters, it would fit YOUR actions as well. Your accusation that my voting suggestions were unfair was an ARGUMENT made during the VOTING PERIOD.
If you really want, we can disregard the posts that I sourced. But by that same token, you'd have to retract your accusations, too.
Time has no relevance here, and even if it did you should note that your objection to my Voting Suggestions came AFTER R4. So you're guilty of the same thing you're accusing me of.
In fact, you included arguments that were completely irrelevant to my conduct in Post #24. How is that not worse than what you claim I did?
It seems like you made up this "no sources after the debate" thing. It has no precedent in any rules and you've failed to name one rule that I've violated.
Nowhere in these comments have I stated that my Voting Suggestions are RIGHT. I have simply supported the claim that they are ALLOWED. My defense against your claim that I cheated with Voting Suggestions is about as "part of my argument" as your claim that I cheated with Voting Suggestions is "part of your argument". The fact that I was the one who backed my claim up means nothing.
Why's that?
It's cool watching Intelligence_06 improve. He's very ambitious and debates a lot which is the best way to get better.
I'll do my best.
"For a debate categorized as religion with Jesus in the title, it usually goes without saying that the Bible will be acceptable evidence. Someone could try to run a Kritik that the bible is false, but it would be extremely bastardly to the point where I as a voter would probably dismiss it from any serious consideration."
First, I agree that any theological debate must have to validate the source of the theology (in this case the Bible). I'd say that's different than it being assumed to be real-world truth though.
"Any vote mentioning that google doc or the Lincoln-Douglas Debate format to justify sources, will of course be removed. This is as per the voting policies, the comment section not being the debate."
Ofc I don't want the voters to vote for me because I put sources in the comments. I just want to be allowed to put sources in the comments in general, especially when I'm accused of cheating.
"Also I don't see what their relevance toward this theology debate would be, so were they used in the debate (pretty sure they were not?), they would be some pretty weak sourcing."
The relevance of those sources was that I was accused of cheating for including Vote Suggestions. I was trying to explain why Vote Suggestions are allowed.
"OED is a valid source, as is just about anything else if cited as a source. Granted, I strongly advise putting definitions within the description or first round. ... I really hope this debate did not degrade into a fight over semantics."
I don't think these type of comments are relevant anyway because in that case my arguments are being challenged rather than my conduct, which is something that generally doesn't deserve to be addressed because it is in the comments.
Am I allowed to dispute any of the things you say here or would that count as making arguments in the comments?
Delete the debate, I mean
Could always have the mods delete it and then you guys just copy and paste the arguments.
(Edit your comment, I meant).
- You did edit your quote.
- You didn't prove that anything not in the Terms of Service is automatically a violation and stopped arguing when I gave evidence to the contrary.
- You claimed that I, a DEBATER in this debate, have to follow a VOTING POLICY that applies to VOTERS. I proved that you violated the same rules that you claim I did.
- You are now saying that you're "done" after just two of your 4+ accusations and ask ME to message the mods. The moderators have not issued any condemnations of my actions.
- You made arguments in Post #24 (final paragraph) that were NOT relevant to my Conduct in the debate. Obviously that is in itself worse than anything I did.
- You clearly take your own claims less seriously than I do.
To be clear, you do have to explain these things, since you're making the accusations. The mods haven't told me off insofar and I don't expect them to.
Right, my bad on the the CofC thing, and I found the quote.
Regardless, you're the one making the accusation, and you've failed to get any moderator support/prove ANYTHING with regards to whether I did something wrong. You dropped the Voting Suggestions point and now you're dropping out of this point too.
Did you just edit your comment?
And I believe the Voting Policy is part of the CoC so I don't know what you're talking about there.
Here's the quote you might be referring to:
"Voters considering outside content - The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable."
1. This denotes the voters, not me, the debater in this case.
2. You realize that even if it did denote me, it'd be referring to you as well. You made your accusations after I posted my R4, in the comments. Therefore, you made arguments and gave information outside of the debate rounds.
3. I just checked the voting policy and this quote seemingly does not exist.
4. The quote said "outside of the debate rounds" I don't understand why it's such a big deal that I made my responses to your accusation after the debate; time is not spoken about here, "outside of the debate rounds" means not in the arguments. And for the record, you made your accusations after R4 was finished too.
You make the arbitrary distinction that arguing in the comments is fine but backing up your arguments is somehow prohibited, and yeah I'd like to know if there's a source for that.
So you can accuse me of cheating without sources and that's all fine and good but when I defend myself with sources that's where the line is crossed?
Can you quote what part of the Code of Conduct I am disobeying?
To be clear, the sources I used were simply to rebut Fauxlaw's claim that Voting Suggestions are not allowed. My intention was not to add to my arguments in any way when I used sources.
Well, you did say something about me using sources in my comments and that not being allowed...
"You then, after the argument phase concluded, cited references to two documents, Ragnar's tiny.cc document, and Lincoln-Douglas Debate format."
Do we want to go over that accusation and or do you still think I violated rules with the Voting Suggestions?
Virt is the Chief Moderator, so I'll ask him, too: are Voting Suggestions prohibited in debates on Debatert.com?
That you think the insertion of a giraffe image in a debate is disallowed is absurd.
The accepted measures of many laws that exist today, including international law and British law, for example, state that if something is not explicitly codified as a crime, it is allowed. Look up the Lotus principle; I'd give you a source but I think you dispute that I can include sources in my comments and I'd prefer not to get into that yet.
What laws out there state that "if something is not legally recognized as illegal or legal it is thereby illegal"? Very few, if not none.
Plus, you're the one levying the accusation and therefore you're the one who has to prove what assumptions should be made. You've failed to explain why we need to assume that something that is not discussed by a rulebook is not allowed.
Remember the giraffe counterexample? Nowhere are pictures of giraffes mentioned within any DART documents. No moderator will attack me for posting a picture of a giraffe in a debate, though.
If a detail is missing, it's not assumed to be outlawed... Especially when it's such a common part of this site that nearly every major debater has used at some point.
I won't just assume that it's completely fine because you'd still disagree - hence the fact that I asked the mods. Waiting on them.