You're missing the point. If identity implies existence, then literally anything can be true by definition. That's why I said you're not using true semantics. There needs to be logical entailment. A bunch of people saying that they descend from a jewish race because their blood line contains a bunch of theists who subscribe to Judaism does not make them a race. Even the wildly accepted definition for a race doesn't fit and there is no objective way to judge somebody a race. It's an arbitrary made up definition.
Well, let's just put the vote aside. I don't care about that. You voted for who you believed to be right and I wouldn't tell you to do otherwise. That doesn't mean I agree with your RFD.
Okay, I'll humor you. what could I have done differently to make my argument more convincing? I don't see how a dictionary link makes his argument any better than mine. My argument covered way more relevant details and had a clear methodology clearly distinguishing the difference between ontology and definitions. I don't see how my argument was unintuitive nor was the language confusing in such a way where I needed a bunch of dictionary links myself. Furthermore, if it was his flimsy link that won him the debate, then why not a source point instead of an argument point? That last one was arbitrary, but it just crossed my mind. lol
You're just proving how fallible your standard is. If some random person can just post a single dictionary definition in the face of logical arguments and get away with it, then your standard is arbitrary. You're worshipping dictionaries at this point. You might as well slap a Bible sticker on it so people know what it really is to you.
It's not a rule in every debate you've ever seen. I can disprove that due to the fact that you've seen my debates and I don't abide that standard. As far as I know, it's not an official rule of Dbart (correct me if I'm wrong) and the only time I've ever seen it come up is as a caveat that one side makes.
I think caveats are fine within the confines of a debate. But making a caveat on how the debaters make their arguments is not in the spirit in debate and I've never even heard of this outside of Dbart.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't have your own standard. I'm just saying your standard is vacuous. I'm for subjective voting, so if it helps you vote better and you're hell bent on it, then that's your prerogative. On a logical level, however, I find that your method is not as objective as you might think it is. I guess that's the best way to put that. The core thing that bugs me is that you think that garbage of an argument he touted actually passes for a good semantic argument.
Deep races.
Deer paces.
Deers Pace.
Deer Space.
Reed Space
Reeds Pace
Seed Pacer
I could probably come up with more. But damn man your name is anagrammatical as hell!
Implicitly implies? Do you really believe that? You're now saying that you can read minds. If the debater has a good argument, they should use it, It doesn't matter when they use it. The instigator had X amount rounds to cover all relevant points, if they let one slip by, it's their fault. If the point is irrelevant, then the voter will not be able to find logical entailment and the argument will fail on it's own. The caveat is both unnecessary and flies in the face of honest debating.
If you want to separate yourself from the voter than fine. I'll ask you this.
Do you think the debaters should argue non tabula rasa? Because if you're saying that you're allowed to develop preconceived notions about how your opponent is allowed to make their arguments, then you're advocating for non tabula rasa.
Thanks for setting the pins up for me. Now let me show you why your point is arbitrary.
Bsh1: I make this claim.
Me: Your claim is wrong because bsh1 eats babies.
that was just a development and a point instead of an argument by your standards. Your standards are arbitrary and I can say whatever I want in a specific way in order to make it a point. So the distinction is arbitrary because it did not change the context or subject matter, but rather forced me to add an arbitrary descriptor on the end stating that it "developed" from the previous argument. You could come back and say that it has to "logically follow" but that would be dubious saying that a particular argument doesn't logically follow flies in the face of tabula rasa.
I don't understand. How would voting on an argument made in the last round require a preconceived notion? That's not what I said at all. You're implying that I want the voter to invent a rebuttal in their head to the new argument. I made this clear that this was not the case. What I said is that if the instigator had covered all relevant points, then there would be no relevant point that the contender could make that wouldn't have already been addressed by the instigator. Therefore, the voter can vote in a tabula rasa system because they can use the prior rebuttal that the instigator already made in their RFD to show that it was not there logic that refuted it.
Also, wouldn't your argument be non tabula rasa because you're the one starting off with preconceived notion about how one should argue with your arbitrary limitation.
Okay then, here's my question, what is the point of rebutting an argument if you can't use a new argument? rebutting with an old argument MAY be an option, but at some point no matter who stops using new information, there will always be a round with possible new arguments, followed by an argument that rebuts that argument without being able to use new arguments. This is not balanced because a rebuttal to a new argument is quite often a new argument. This is why I say it's an infinite regress.
I tried to take that seriously, but you lost me at "If your opponent had said Jews are potatoes - he’d have to warrant his claim too, and he’s have to provide a justification for it including a source too."
That's hogwash. You're saying I didn't have data when really you just rejected my data. If you rejected it, that's fine. But don't sit here and lie and say I didn't have data.
I made it very clear that identity doesn't imply ontology. Your definition of semantics is dubious. Semantics isn't simply a defined argument. It's an argument where the definitions logically follow each other. also known as a rigorous logical proof. Nothing about his argument was rigorous nor did it prove anything.
By your definition, he could have said a Jew was a potato and you'd believe him just because it's an identity and then he could call the blood line of potatoes a "race" and you'd believe that nonsense too as he told you that the potatoes were religious within a small fraction of their blood line so that religion becomes the potato race. Is this really what you consider good logic? Get out of here with that bunk.
It's funny that you make the race car reference, because that's exactly what your caveat does. The instigator gets to bring up new arguments all throughout the debate but the contender has do bring up new arguments for one less round. So who's standard is really the cheap one?
You didn't seem to address my critique. Is it not true that if your argument was sound that the opponent would not be able to bring up a new argument that is actually relevant?
If there's no new arguments in the last round, then the last round is pointless and the round before it becomes the last round too.
Since that new round is the last round, that means they can't bring up new points in that either, because the person in the final round can't rebut them without bringing up new points. So that one is useless too.
So then the round before becomes last, can't bring up anything new there either since the following two rounds can't bring up new arguments.
Infinite regress. It's the same as telling somebody they can't button mash in mortal combat. I would urge you to rethink your position on this if you care about honest debating.
Nothing can actually be a race. Races are social constructs and only exist in identity . That's why definitional arguments are silly. If I can just call anything and Jew and then also call it a Race, then why would anybody debate anything? We would just define everything to existence and nobody would care about truth.
Thanks for the vote, but what evidence is there of a Jewish race? There's evidence of Israelites (not jews) and Hebrews (also not jews). I find it strange that people think definitional arguments are strong. I find it even stranger that you think a definitional argument is the same as a semantic argument. It's not. It's the opposite actually. A semantic argument would require ontology to justify the definition. I'm mainly pointing this out because it's a theme I see in your voting process.
You might be confused that I accepted this after previous comments. After reading your description. I have concluded that I disagree with your argument on a semantic level. I await your opening.
I find it strange that when somebody wants a vetting process, that you automatically equate it with wanting open borders. I don't know too many people who want open borders. This is a strawman.
I noticed you wrote "no new arguments in final round" as one of your rules. What I'm about to say is subjective. But I never interpreted it that way. I remember when I started jumping on debate sites, I had an opponent bring up an argument that I hadn't addressed in the last round and it made me look bad because I couldn't rebuttal it.
My first reaction was not "wow that was a cheap trick" but rather "crap, I can't believe I left that point unattended"
After the match, I gave him kudos for good tactics by taking advantage of my argument not being complete in it's induction.
What I'm about to say is subjective DISCLAIMER!! It would have been dope to call this the remix battle or something like that because we're basically going to do remixes of our old stuff. How would you feel about me referencing the old battle in a highly detailed manner rather than directly quoting it? I would probably play around with both.
Damn Speed, I was about to stop rapping for a couple of weeks to catch up on real debates and you got me excited for rapping again.
To the best of my knowledge, counter bombing is allowed in troll debates. The bottom line is that it's unmoderated. The only hard exception I've seen was if there was a full forfeit and someone votes for the forfeiter.
You're missing the point. If identity implies existence, then literally anything can be true by definition. That's why I said you're not using true semantics. There needs to be logical entailment. A bunch of people saying that they descend from a jewish race because their blood line contains a bunch of theists who subscribe to Judaism does not make them a race. Even the wildly accepted definition for a race doesn't fit and there is no objective way to judge somebody a race. It's an arbitrary made up definition.
only about your mental status. lol
Oh dear.
romagio
room gai
groom AI
gram oio
Nice anagram. I like it.
Well, let's just put the vote aside. I don't care about that. You voted for who you believed to be right and I wouldn't tell you to do otherwise. That doesn't mean I agree with your RFD.
Okay, I'll humor you. what could I have done differently to make my argument more convincing? I don't see how a dictionary link makes his argument any better than mine. My argument covered way more relevant details and had a clear methodology clearly distinguishing the difference between ontology and definitions. I don't see how my argument was unintuitive nor was the language confusing in such a way where I needed a bunch of dictionary links myself. Furthermore, if it was his flimsy link that won him the debate, then why not a source point instead of an argument point? That last one was arbitrary, but it just crossed my mind. lol
I could write a whole debate argument in mentalese and you would accept it if I defined a couple of symbols. lol
You're just proving how fallible your standard is. If some random person can just post a single dictionary definition in the face of logical arguments and get away with it, then your standard is arbitrary. You're worshipping dictionaries at this point. You might as well slap a Bible sticker on it so people know what it really is to you.
It's not a rule in every debate you've ever seen. I can disprove that due to the fact that you've seen my debates and I don't abide that standard. As far as I know, it's not an official rule of Dbart (correct me if I'm wrong) and the only time I've ever seen it come up is as a caveat that one side makes.
I think caveats are fine within the confines of a debate. But making a caveat on how the debaters make their arguments is not in the spirit in debate and I've never even heard of this outside of Dbart.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't have your own standard. I'm just saying your standard is vacuous. I'm for subjective voting, so if it helps you vote better and you're hell bent on it, then that's your prerogative. On a logical level, however, I find that your method is not as objective as you might think it is. I guess that's the best way to put that. The core thing that bugs me is that you think that garbage of an argument he touted actually passes for a good semantic argument.
Nice.
Deep races.
Deer paces.
Deers Pace.
Deer Space.
Reed Space
Reeds Pace
Seed Pacer
I could probably come up with more. But damn man your name is anagrammatical as hell!
Implicitly implies? Do you really believe that? You're now saying that you can read minds. If the debater has a good argument, they should use it, It doesn't matter when they use it. The instigator had X amount rounds to cover all relevant points, if they let one slip by, it's their fault. If the point is irrelevant, then the voter will not be able to find logical entailment and the argument will fail on it's own. The caveat is both unnecessary and flies in the face of honest debating.
Have it your way.
Dust and Ashes
Dustan Dashes
Du Stand Ashes
Du Stand As He 's
Now an anagram.
Sand The Suds
Dash and sutes
Man those are hard.
If you want to separate yourself from the voter than fine. I'll ask you this.
Do you think the debaters should argue non tabula rasa? Because if you're saying that you're allowed to develop preconceived notions about how your opponent is allowed to make their arguments, then you're advocating for non tabula rasa.
Thanks for setting the pins up for me. Now let me show you why your point is arbitrary.
Bsh1: I make this claim.
Me: Your claim is wrong because bsh1 eats babies.
that was just a development and a point instead of an argument by your standards. Your standards are arbitrary and I can say whatever I want in a specific way in order to make it a point. So the distinction is arbitrary because it did not change the context or subject matter, but rather forced me to add an arbitrary descriptor on the end stating that it "developed" from the previous argument. You could come back and say that it has to "logically follow" but that would be dubious saying that a particular argument doesn't logically follow flies in the face of tabula rasa.
I don't understand. How would voting on an argument made in the last round require a preconceived notion? That's not what I said at all. You're implying that I want the voter to invent a rebuttal in their head to the new argument. I made this clear that this was not the case. What I said is that if the instigator had covered all relevant points, then there would be no relevant point that the contender could make that wouldn't have already been addressed by the instigator. Therefore, the voter can vote in a tabula rasa system because they can use the prior rebuttal that the instigator already made in their RFD to show that it was not there logic that refuted it.
What's the difference between a point and an argument? What is a development? You're just making arbitrary distinctions.
Lol, shhhhhhh
Well now you just strawmanned me. Although it was probably be accident.
I'm not saying that you're holding me to a different standard. I'm saying your standard is vacuous. Anybody could prove anything under your standard.
Also, wouldn't your argument be non tabula rasa because you're the one starting off with preconceived notion about how one should argue with your arbitrary limitation.
How does my argument imply non tabula rasa? I don't see how that follows.
Okay then, here's my question, what is the point of rebutting an argument if you can't use a new argument? rebutting with an old argument MAY be an option, but at some point no matter who stops using new information, there will always be a round with possible new arguments, followed by an argument that rebuts that argument without being able to use new arguments. This is not balanced because a rebuttal to a new argument is quite often a new argument. This is why I say it's an infinite regress.
I tried to take that seriously, but you lost me at "If your opponent had said Jews are potatoes - he’d have to warrant his claim too, and he’s have to provide a justification for it including a source too."
You could have warned be about the 1 day limit you know.
That's hogwash. You're saying I didn't have data when really you just rejected my data. If you rejected it, that's fine. But don't sit here and lie and say I didn't have data.
I made it very clear that identity doesn't imply ontology. Your definition of semantics is dubious. Semantics isn't simply a defined argument. It's an argument where the definitions logically follow each other. also known as a rigorous logical proof. Nothing about his argument was rigorous nor did it prove anything.
By your definition, he could have said a Jew was a potato and you'd believe him just because it's an identity and then he could call the blood line of potatoes a "race" and you'd believe that nonsense too as he told you that the potatoes were religious within a small fraction of their blood line so that religion becomes the potato race. Is this really what you consider good logic? Get out of here with that bunk.
It's funny that you make the race car reference, because that's exactly what your caveat does. The instigator gets to bring up new arguments all throughout the debate but the contender has do bring up new arguments for one less round. So who's standard is really the cheap one?
You didn't seem to address my critique. Is it not true that if your argument was sound that the opponent would not be able to bring up a new argument that is actually relevant?
If there's no new arguments in the last round, then the last round is pointless and the round before it becomes the last round too.
Since that new round is the last round, that means they can't bring up new points in that either, because the person in the final round can't rebut them without bringing up new points. So that one is useless too.
So then the round before becomes last, can't bring up anything new there either since the following two rounds can't bring up new arguments.
Infinite regress. It's the same as telling somebody they can't button mash in mortal combat. I would urge you to rethink your position on this if you care about honest debating.
There is no such thing as a cheap trick. The real trick is telling somebody how they're allowed to argue.
The fact is that if one's argument is complete in it's analysis, then there is no point the opponent can bring up to shake their structure.
If the opponent brings up an argument that is a non sequitur, they will just be hanging themselves.
That's like a chess player telling me I can't use a fork tactic because it's a "cheap trick"
Nothing tops Ramshutu calling definitional arguments semantic arguments. That just hurts my soul. What has the world come to?!!
Nothing can actually be a race. Races are social constructs and only exist in identity . That's why definitional arguments are silly. If I can just call anything and Jew and then also call it a Race, then why would anybody debate anything? We would just define everything to existence and nobody would care about truth.
Thanks for the vote, but what evidence is there of a Jewish race? There's evidence of Israelites (not jews) and Hebrews (also not jews). I find it strange that people think definitional arguments are strong. I find it even stranger that you think a definitional argument is the same as a semantic argument. It's not. It's the opposite actually. A semantic argument would require ontology to justify the definition. I'm mainly pointing this out because it's a theme I see in your voting process.
Okay, so what if your link had someone that wants open borders? What does that have to do with us? Do we want open borders?
You might be confused that I accepted this after previous comments. After reading your description. I have concluded that I disagree with your argument on a semantic level. I await your opening.
I find it strange that when somebody wants a vetting process, that you automatically equate it with wanting open borders. I don't know too many people who want open borders. This is a strawman.
I noticed you wrote "no new arguments in final round" as one of your rules. What I'm about to say is subjective. But I never interpreted it that way. I remember when I started jumping on debate sites, I had an opponent bring up an argument that I hadn't addressed in the last round and it made me look bad because I couldn't rebuttal it.
My first reaction was not "wow that was a cheap trick" but rather "crap, I can't believe I left that point unattended"
After the match, I gave him kudos for good tactics by taking advantage of my argument not being complete in it's induction.
I'll hit you up in a couple days when I've wiped a couple of these debates out.
Bro, stop debating your alt accounts. It's just sad, lol.
I concur
Agreed, but I never contested that.
You'll adjust quickly. You don't have to go off my arguments, you can just imagine my possible arguments and go off those.
I have a caveat. We are allowed to fix spelling errors of the past. No determinism in this schism ;)
Okay, so it's word mash up game (loving it) and we can make changes if they're negligible to the subject matter.
I'll just let you lay the groundwork in your R1 and follow the meta from there.
What I'm about to say is subjective DISCLAIMER!! It would have been dope to call this the remix battle or something like that because we're basically going to do remixes of our old stuff. How would you feel about me referencing the old battle in a highly detailed manner rather than directly quoting it? I would probably play around with both.
Damn Speed, I was about to stop rapping for a couple of weeks to catch up on real debates and you got me excited for rapping again.
How dare you.
To the best of my knowledge, counter bombing is allowed in troll debates. The bottom line is that it's unmoderated. The only hard exception I've seen was if there was a full forfeit and someone votes for the forfeiter.
Holy Crap, Old Dusty is a Rap Titan
I know ;)
IP addresses are easily masked. All it takes is a dedicated web user who knows how to time things.