So under the tenants you mentioned, it would still be too inclusive. You need to divide it further into how confident they are in their believes and you have to do this for each individual sect because they will not have parallel results.
Strawmanning me in the comment section, how arbitrary of you.
Whether or not I get medals for comments is irrelevant. My intention by making the comment is not to get a medal and that's all that matters. Stop being contrarian when it isn't warranted to do so and acknowledge true things when I say them please.
That's your opinion. Not everybody agrees with. Including me. There is no one "worldview" for Christians. There's thousand of sects and even if they use the same book, they interpret it differently. One person might read the bible and become delusional. Another person might believe enough of the bible to think it's real, but might not necessarily believe other parts.
You're really only referring to fundamental Christians so you should stop trying to lump them and attack the group that you're really trying to attack here.
While I think there is truth in what you're saying. I believe you're being a bit hyperbolic. We might get less dedicated debaters. But certainly the majority of debaters don't just come here for medals. This isn't candy crush. People come here because they have strong opinions that they want to express. Case and point, I'm not getting any medals for making this very point right now. Twilight Zone.
Furthermore, one could also make the argument that medals will also attract people who don't care about debating, but instead winning medals. This could lead to somebody vote rigging to try for the number 1 spot on the leaderboard.
I would say that in the end. The medals being on the website don't have a huge impact either way and it largely comes down to preference and what kind of people the website wants to attract.
I'm in favor of almost every form of government transparency with the extremely rare exception of current events that are tactically sensitive to a justified war effort.
Okay, well, if you want to go that route, you don't just get to pick whatever definition you want, you have to go with the ad populum usage. I don't care what the dictionaries say. A Christian is generally understood as being someone who believes in the resurrection of Christ. You're splitting hairs here.
I won't be able to post for this right away because I'm jumping off at least a few hours. I will make sure this debate is my first priority when I get back though. Thanks for the acceptance!!
if you said 99%, I would have been at least 10 times more likely to believe it, which still wouldn't get me there because I'm simply that far from believing it. I'd say it's more like 30%
Oh, bro. You just shot yourself in the foot. Even a hard antitheist like me doesn't believe that claim for a second. You couldn't get me to swallow that if it was butter flavored and wrapped in bacon.
You're talking about something different than me. I want a cop that pulls a cop over when that cop is speeding. I want a local force with a street beat.
I would simply say that you can't say drug dealing is immoral unless you say people buying and smoking drugs is also illegal. I'm not in favor of minors doing drugs so drug dealers who sell to minors would still go to jail.
No, you can argue with me. My votes have nothing to do with my views. I voted for a theist today, lol.
Those things exist but are essentially homogenous with the police force due to social circles and congruent professional interest. We need a separate entity that isn't out drinking with the cops on Saturday and going to their kid's soccer games, etc.
Oh, now we disagree. I think drugs are a medical issue and should not be criminalized at all. I'm against abortion because it kills babies. Drugs is slow self harm which I have no problem with as long as we have medical treatment. It's a victimless act and by my standard that makes it amoral.
Would you agree that if making it illegal will not stop it, then approaching it from other avenues while holding a legal "front line" would be a good strategy?
I should also point out that I'm okay with abortions where the baby or mother would automatically be DOA anyway. Also possibly in cases where the mother is risking a lot of person safety or suffering for her child, we might be able to allow them but on a case by case basis until we establish a sound precedent. I'm not sure which way I would lean on rapes. Probably more towards the no abortion side here.
My current assessment is that history has shown that abortions will happen even if they're illegal, so at the very least, we have to say that keeping it legal is necessary at the moment, and we have to change our focus from a legal issue to an education/culture issue. I think improvements in sex ed and other changes can create a situation where we could "de-necessitate" abortions. the beauty of this strategy is it could work without ever having to make abortion illegal. It will become obsolete. Like DVD players (dropping that reality on everybody.)
Agreed. I spent a good portion of my life being pro choice for purely axiomatic reasons until one day a good argument shook me the opposite way and then I kind of moved back and forth a lot on it.
To be frank Mr. Sausage. I did not know there was a voting section outlined. I am not accustomed to seeing that in the outlines so I guess I intuitively overlooked it. My missteak.
I wouldn't necessarily be against that. But I think at some point it becomes impractical to go too far with it. You don't need a third police force per se because the 2nd police force doesn't have nearly as much power as the police do. It's like a check and balance thing. Or you could think about it being like the game stratego where the Spy is the weakest piece in the game, but there's a special exception where the spy can capture the highest ranked piece only. So think of it more like coherentism circle. That's actually what formal checks and balances look like. A circle. so we even have a previous standard to look upon to make sure it's done right.
To say it's universal is to say that every woman on earth has that attraction, so I wouldn't agree.
I would go as far as to say it could be a societal or evolutionary trend. there's too many different flavors to have a universal. Every flavor has a congruent flavor that can proxy for it with other people.
My real problem with the topic argument is that it makes a broad statement without considering situational factors.
I actually admitted in the debate that some of his statements were true, I'm not a monster, lol.
The comment about him being a debating coach might seem like conduct. But I was making a true statement in my opinion and it was relevant.
He was claiming a system was needed, and I rightfully pointed out that a dating coach would have a natural disposition to thinking that a strategy is necessary because they want to be prepared for their job. I also said that his plan COULD work, but not long term and I showed an example of what would happen if someone tried to become a player as their goal and how it would backfire. See. I don't just use rhetoric. I use analogies and examples. I'm just saying all of this because you asked my opinion on the subject and I'm verbose.
I just found it odd that you reject rhetorical devices as good evidence.
Rhetorical devices not just a tool to lead people down a path. It's also a tool to cover a bunch of possibilities at once without having to waste a whole round interrogating my opponent. I'm doing my opponent a favor with that rhetoric. Because odds are I covered the point that he/she wanted to cover and now they have something to respond to.. That's why I think it's a good tool in any debate setting. Honestly, I'm not sure how adding the "academic" descriptor really does anything. Seems like an arbitrary, vacuous and counterproductive measure. There is no unified standard for logic or debate style. We use the method that works for us.
You might be right that I might not get as many people if I don't stick to the norm. But I'm here for truth first and votes second. I don't care if my arguments are convincing. I care if they're true. That way when somebody does get their mind changed by me, I can rest easy knowing that I changed their mind with the truth and didn't lead them down a path to false enlightenment.
I can't speak to what the voters decided. But I personally tend not to cite sources unless I need hard mathematical data.
In my worldview, I find sources containing rhetoric to be appeals to authority.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against rhetoric.
But if I'm going to hear somebody's opinion, I'd rather hear the opinion of my opponent rather than my opponent giving me somebody else's opinion. I don't care if my opponent's use sources but I generally don't.
I gladly accept the source point deduction if it means I get to argue in the way that I find most truthful.
I'm here to change minds and votes are just a bonus because that means that I did a good job at changing minds.
we're just talking past each other.
It's cool man
do your thing.
I wasn't denying you. I was just bummed out. I'll Rap you.
Seriously? You didn't finish the other one.
Whatever I guess.
If all intelligence came from intelligence, then who made that intelligence?
Who made the intelligence of the intelligence?
Who made the intelligence of the intelligence of the intelligence?
Who made the intelligence of the intelligence of the intelligence of the intelligence?
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Consider this. For every 1 fundamental in the family, there are at least 2 who only believe because of their family.
In fact, most people are Christians because of their families.
I don't think you're thinking this through. You're letting your opinion about Christians could your judgement .
So under the tenants you mentioned, it would still be too inclusive. You need to divide it further into how confident they are in their believes and you have to do this for each individual sect because they will not have parallel results.
Thank you for the acceptance.
Of the debate... Not my ideas.
Strawmanning me in the comment section, how arbitrary of you.
Whether or not I get medals for comments is irrelevant. My intention by making the comment is not to get a medal and that's all that matters. Stop being contrarian when it isn't warranted to do so and acknowledge true things when I say them please.
Fun battle so far, I like the political quips we made.
That's your opinion. Not everybody agrees with. Including me. There is no one "worldview" for Christians. There's thousand of sects and even if they use the same book, they interpret it differently. One person might read the bible and become delusional. Another person might believe enough of the bible to think it's real, but might not necessarily believe other parts.
You're really only referring to fundamental Christians so you should stop trying to lump them and attack the group that you're really trying to attack here.
While I think there is truth in what you're saying. I believe you're being a bit hyperbolic. We might get less dedicated debaters. But certainly the majority of debaters don't just come here for medals. This isn't candy crush. People come here because they have strong opinions that they want to express. Case and point, I'm not getting any medals for making this very point right now. Twilight Zone.
Furthermore, one could also make the argument that medals will also attract people who don't care about debating, but instead winning medals. This could lead to somebody vote rigging to try for the number 1 spot on the leaderboard.
I would say that in the end. The medals being on the website don't have a huge impact either way and it largely comes down to preference and what kind of people the website wants to attract.
I'm in favor of almost every form of government transparency with the extremely rare exception of current events that are tactically sensitive to a justified war effort.
I didn't know you were on this website. Good to see you!!. Thanks for the vote!!
Hey, you didn't delete my vote. Does that mean I'm doing it right now?
cest la vie
Okay, well, if you want to go that route, you don't just get to pick whatever definition you want, you have to go with the ad populum usage. I don't care what the dictionaries say. A Christian is generally understood as being someone who believes in the resurrection of Christ. You're splitting hairs here.
Yeah, I can tell you put way more effort into R2. Good Job. I like it
I won't be able to post for this right away because I'm jumping off at least a few hours. I will make sure this debate is my first priority when I get back though. Thanks for the acceptance!!
that's a no true scottsman fallacy. You can't say what a Christian is. It's decided by societal norms. or arbitrarily.
You're doing the same things that theists do to us when they try to tell use what an atheist is.
Don't you think you should lead by example if you want the theists to be honest?
if you said 99%, I would have been at least 10 times more likely to believe it, which still wouldn't get me there because I'm simply that far from believing it. I'd say it's more like 30%
and yet..... All theists? Nope, that treat is filled with poison.
Oh, bro. You just shot yourself in the foot. Even a hard antitheist like me doesn't believe that claim for a second. You couldn't get me to swallow that if it was butter flavored and wrapped in bacon.
Internal affairs doesn't do street beats. They work in the aftermath of corruption usually.
Also, not the same. Anti corruption is more about the police force as a whole, I'm trying to address things at an individual level.
I.A. and AC isn't going to do either of these things.
You're talking about something different than me. I want a cop that pulls a cop over when that cop is speeding. I want a local force with a street beat.
That would be fun. I'll arrange it later today.
I would simply say that you can't say drug dealing is immoral unless you say people buying and smoking drugs is also illegal. I'm not in favor of minors doing drugs so drug dealers who sell to minors would still go to jail.
No, you can argue with me. My votes have nothing to do with my views. I voted for a theist today, lol.
Those things exist but are essentially homogenous with the police force due to social circles and congruent professional interest. We need a separate entity that isn't out drinking with the cops on Saturday and going to their kid's soccer games, etc.
Oh, now we disagree. I think drugs are a medical issue and should not be criminalized at all. I'm against abortion because it kills babies. Drugs is slow self harm which I have no problem with as long as we have medical treatment. It's a victimless act and by my standard that makes it amoral.
Oh, don't worry, I don't bite.
Would you agree that if making it illegal will not stop it, then approaching it from other avenues while holding a legal "front line" would be a good strategy?
*Golf Claps*
I should also point out that I'm okay with abortions where the baby or mother would automatically be DOA anyway. Also possibly in cases where the mother is risking a lot of person safety or suffering for her child, we might be able to allow them but on a case by case basis until we establish a sound precedent. I'm not sure which way I would lean on rapes. Probably more towards the no abortion side here.
My current assessment is that history has shown that abortions will happen even if they're illegal, so at the very least, we have to say that keeping it legal is necessary at the moment, and we have to change our focus from a legal issue to an education/culture issue. I think improvements in sex ed and other changes can create a situation where we could "de-necessitate" abortions. the beauty of this strategy is it could work without ever having to make abortion illegal. It will become obsolete. Like DVD players (dropping that reality on everybody.)
Agreed. I spent a good portion of my life being pro choice for purely axiomatic reasons until one day a good argument shook me the opposite way and then I kind of moved back and forth a lot on it.
To be frank Mr. Sausage. I did not know there was a voting section outlined. I am not accustomed to seeing that in the outlines so I guess I intuitively overlooked it. My missteak.
lol. Oh dear you really said I typed my argument on a phone.
I don't know whether to take this as an insult to my spelling, or a compliment for being the worlds fastest texter.
Thanks for the vote.
More voters = good.
Lol, tough crowd.
I wouldn't necessarily be against that. But I think at some point it becomes impractical to go too far with it. You don't need a third police force per se because the 2nd police force doesn't have nearly as much power as the police do. It's like a check and balance thing. Or you could think about it being like the game stratego where the Spy is the weakest piece in the game, but there's a special exception where the spy can capture the highest ranked piece only. So think of it more like coherentism circle. That's actually what formal checks and balances look like. A circle. so we even have a previous standard to look upon to make sure it's done right.
To say it's universal is to say that every woman on earth has that attraction, so I wouldn't agree.
I would go as far as to say it could be a societal or evolutionary trend. there's too many different flavors to have a universal. Every flavor has a congruent flavor that can proxy for it with other people.
My real problem with the topic argument is that it makes a broad statement without considering situational factors.
I actually admitted in the debate that some of his statements were true, I'm not a monster, lol.
The comment about him being a debating coach might seem like conduct. But I was making a true statement in my opinion and it was relevant.
He was claiming a system was needed, and I rightfully pointed out that a dating coach would have a natural disposition to thinking that a strategy is necessary because they want to be prepared for their job. I also said that his plan COULD work, but not long term and I showed an example of what would happen if someone tried to become a player as their goal and how it would backfire. See. I don't just use rhetoric. I use analogies and examples. I'm just saying all of this because you asked my opinion on the subject and I'm verbose.
I have no problems with your vote.
I just found it odd that you reject rhetorical devices as good evidence.
Rhetorical devices not just a tool to lead people down a path. It's also a tool to cover a bunch of possibilities at once without having to waste a whole round interrogating my opponent. I'm doing my opponent a favor with that rhetoric. Because odds are I covered the point that he/she wanted to cover and now they have something to respond to.. That's why I think it's a good tool in any debate setting. Honestly, I'm not sure how adding the "academic" descriptor really does anything. Seems like an arbitrary, vacuous and counterproductive measure. There is no unified standard for logic or debate style. We use the method that works for us.
You might be right that I might not get as many people if I don't stick to the norm. But I'm here for truth first and votes second. I don't care if my arguments are convincing. I care if they're true. That way when somebody does get their mind changed by me, I can rest easy knowing that I changed their mind with the truth and didn't lead them down a path to false enlightenment.
Fair compromise?
It wasn't personal. That's just the mood I use when I talk sometimes.
May I ask what you have against rhetorical devices?
Specifically, rhetorical questions?
They're good enough for philosophers, why not for you?
I'm asking in earnest.
I can't speak to what the voters decided. But I personally tend not to cite sources unless I need hard mathematical data.
In my worldview, I find sources containing rhetoric to be appeals to authority.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against rhetoric.
But if I'm going to hear somebody's opinion, I'd rather hear the opinion of my opponent rather than my opponent giving me somebody else's opinion. I don't care if my opponent's use sources but I generally don't.
I gladly accept the source point deduction if it means I get to argue in the way that I find most truthful.
I'm here to change minds and votes are just a bonus because that means that I did a good job at changing minds.
Once again, I appreciate the vote.
I believe the more voters, the better.
Thanks for the vote. Sorry my style doesn't appeal to your pallet. Can't win them all. I suppose I should apply a holistic strategy ;)
Typo. Meant to say "mics on the spot."
Typos make me sad.
I think my favorite line was "sinner daddy of humanity" IT was deliciously arrogant.
I did it in my head with the beat and it sounded like tech nine. I"m a speed rapper, so I tend to make things fast.
I liked your Rapp btw. Good job.
Thanks.
Also.
Desktops are life.
Nice beat btw.
Duly Noted.
Where is the loop button. I'm old. I need help, lol
I made sure to make my Rapp Rich in content. Enjoy!!
Sick Rhyme!!
Gotcha. I'll keep it on the downlow