I have ran into similar situations and it shouldn't be hypocritical for pro to argue for points but in my experience voters have a difficult time understanding arguments like THAT. for example if I accept a debate as pro on Pro should lose this debate and I argue for why I should be judged as winner, judges struggle to figure out that if I argue better for why I should lose than I should win because they are supposed to evaluate strength of arguments and not my opinion as to whether I win or not.
To take a look at how I use the snowflake method to build arguments than look at the following thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10632-live-draft-of-an-argument-for-a-debate
I think I am going to screen record my judging process. Some people I feel like are giving very good votes and yet using less effort than me. I usually take e hours to judge a debate.
I do one read through and then use 2 pieces of paper. One to track pros arguments. One to track cons arguments and then I track rebuttals and responses.
At the end I see what is standing and then do an impact analysis.
Then if I feel like the debate was close, I beat myself up for 3 days second guessing if any biases slipped into the vote that gave one side the edge.
Here is another thing that I noticed that is odd. My bias is harder to fight when a topic is above my head. I have clicked on debates and I was not understanding the jargon because it was 2 philosophy needs debating an obscure philosophy. Now I have to read their citations and look for outside sources for definitions to understand them and then after 10 hours of work I realize that despite it being a topic I have no opinion on; I still somehow have more bias than a topic I have a strong opinion on.
"I just turned tail and dodged his impacts using a strategy that might have worked for less experienced judges, but certainly not ones on the caliber of whiteflame or oromagi."
Oromagi seems to have a hard time separating his bias from his judgements and I think the fact he even awarded source points in this debate does not reflect well on his ability to use reasoned judgement.
Pro you should have looked at the effective altruism movement. I just started reading the debate but a lot of his objections seem to already have been addressed by the effective altruism movement. We also have examples of people in the movement who no bullshit live in poverty off of 25% of their income and donate 75% to help the needy, and these are people happier as a result of doing so.
Pro has the entire BOP here. You insist you have suicidal ideation. So BOP is on you to prove that you have enough things you feel good about yourself that con cannot use this suicidal ideation against you.
I have been depressed myself. Good luck proving you have enough things to live for that the voters agree with couldn't be overcome by a convincing, and genius narcissist who gets off on the emotional trauma he causes others.
"if the cock of life ever reaches your unsuspecting ass hole unless you are privileged to have the cock moving towards you slowly or to have fast enough legs to escape it with ease but that is not the case for most beings."
I think Murray rothbard takes it to its logical conclusion if I am not mistaken and actually believed in legalizing child neglect. Some libertarians view the point of birth as a creation of a type of contract but the latter is more cope to deal with the uncomfortable reality of the logical conclusion that libertarian philosophy leads to.
I dont know if you actually believe the following statement but it would make a more interesting debate than whatever this is. I also dont think me and you have ever debated. I also don't know how far you are willing to take this premise. If you take it to its logical conclusion than it would be easier to defend but then you would be doing it from an extreme libertarian position.
". The constitution's 13th amendment forbade slavery and involuntary servitude [1]. Needless to say, forcing women to be pregnant against their wishes is using them as a slave caste."
This is why you have to refrained the debate. Flat earthers start with a philosophy of you can only trust personal experiments on the matter and that the collected knowledge and wisdom of scientists are useless because younneed to be able to personally verify the work. You then have the judges actually conduct simple experiments they can do at home to prove flat earth. Pro will then try to explain what is seen through a round earth model but judges have an ethical obligation to dismiss his arguments if they dont involve the ability for you to personally test if they are true, given the framework imposed by the flat earther.
Why do you have that interpretation. Honest question my interpretation is a split BOP where pro has to prove a spherical earth is more likely than not and con has the BOP to determine a flat earth more likely than not.
It's not all set for pro. Pineapple is not available in some parts of the world and some people may be allergic to it. If con is one of the people allergic in a region that doesn't have any than it should be an easy win
I still can't vote yet. I will say I don't think pedophiles are as small in number as we would like to believe. At least not judging by my run ins with people who tried to molest me as a kid.
I would say the failure to get treatment is more than likely due to a fear of being outed to the police even if thy are a non offending pedophile a therapist may feel a legal obligation to report them if they have any contact with children. So a family man with w daughters who fights the urge to molest seeks help so he doesn't molest than a therapist would be required by law to report that his daughters are in danger and his kids will be taken away, even if he never touched them and in fact was in therapy to ensure he never will touch them.
The laws requiring reporting are probably to blame for a lot of incidents of molestation. I guess you would have to balance whether the report laws save more children or harm more children to know if thy re worth it, but I am skeptical of forced reporting.
With that said, that it isn't suicide. I am not confident enough in my own reasoning on something of this magnitude that I would upload myself to extend my life.
And before I catch shit. That was said in a generic enough way to not help the instigator. If you copied and pasted that in th debate it wouldn't count as an argument you would still need to research the things I brought up further.
I think it's easier to argue its not suicide when you get into a discussion of what consciousness it. Its a continuation of your thoughts. So if you could replicate human though than it would still be you.
It gets interesting though. If you split yourself into a copy you would have 2 yous.
Let's call the presplit you Barney alpha and then you have barney 2 and barney 3.
Well if this continuation theory is correct alpha barney is barney 2 and barney 3. However barney 2 is not barney 3 and barney 3 is not barney 2.
I would think that if barney alpha murdered somebody both barney 2 and 3 should be in prison but if barney 2 murdered somebody than Barney 3 should be in the free in clear.
I think startrek TNG covers a lot of these philosophical conundrums and it's interesting to think of them when you watch th show. It was BSH1s startrek debates to start me down the road of looking at consciousness this way.
I am not eligible to vote yet and to be honest there are certain debates I actually avoid voting on because I assume I will do a terrible job at voting. This is one where I think I am confused enough by the e tire premise around it that my vote would be terrible.
I feel triggered bow because that does happen a lot in my debates here. I think it's because I am not a fan of semantics games I would rather everyone just acknowledge we knew what we meant and keep the debate on track. I wouldn't say thy run circles Around me but it does get tedious andboring
The definition of boiling is going to be assumed to be descriptive and not prescriptive here. Everyone already k own that boil is when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat after a while.
I guess your new strategy is to see yourself as terrible or something and to drop the arrogance. I think dropping the arrogance should suffice without the negative views of yourself but if that view made you want to provide a definition for water boiling. More power to you.
I think I would maybe be willing to do this debate if I am allowed to just plagiarize David's first round and you copy and paste your rounds. The one thing I would also ask is that I am allowed to use video format.
I am going to see if u can actually work some editing software though and if I can't than I might not want to do it, but I if my video editing goes off without a hitch than I am down
"I'll admit I was somewhat pro-Israel until recently"
I was anti Israel until recently. I think they have every right to not o ly defend themselves from this savagery but to take measures to make sure it never occurs again.
There are literally missiles even prior to this that every day were aimed at Israel only to be stopped by the Iron dome. I can tell you that if America's anti missile defense system knocked down even a single incoming missile, there would be all out war not just a bunch of politicians sitting around trying to make us incrementally safer but an effort to immediately end missile strikes.
There are a lot of leftists who legitimately believe that Hamas has the moral high ground and are representative of Palestinians. You have an ethical obligation to put your opponent in his place even if it means sacrificing a debate victory and veering off topic to do so. I urge you to post the next round.
You can criticize the right for not wanting to help Israel, but atleast the right recognizes who has the moral high ground here.
Did you know that Republicans are for implementing the fair tax which comes with a monthly check for every American citizen for a out $1000 and democrats oppose it not because they think the tax system is bad but only because repu licans think it is good. The fair tax would literally be the seed stages of a basic mi imum income and studies have shown it to be a tax that would bring jobs back home and it would simultaneously reduce the tax burden of almost every American while simultaneously increasing tax revenue.
"each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."
So apparently you don't actually want to debate this. You don't even want to debate communist policies only the goals of communists which is something even anti communists would agree with. You could atheist debate the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
If you don't feel like reading round 2, he says it is retarded because he disagrees with the conclusion.
I have ran into similar situations and it shouldn't be hypocritical for pro to argue for points but in my experience voters have a difficult time understanding arguments like THAT. for example if I accept a debate as pro on Pro should lose this debate and I argue for why I should be judged as winner, judges struggle to figure out that if I argue better for why I should lose than I should win because they are supposed to evaluate strength of arguments and not my opinion as to whether I win or not.
I agree given the spirit of his reminder of 3 hours being left
I would not worry about the forfeited round. People will have a hard time justifying giving pro conduct points here.
To take a look at how I use the snowflake method to build arguments than look at the following thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10632-live-draft-of-an-argument-for-a-debate
I think I am going to screen record my judging process. Some people I feel like are giving very good votes and yet using less effort than me. I usually take e hours to judge a debate.
I do one read through and then use 2 pieces of paper. One to track pros arguments. One to track cons arguments and then I track rebuttals and responses.
At the end I see what is standing and then do an impact analysis.
Then if I feel like the debate was close, I beat myself up for 3 days second guessing if any biases slipped into the vote that gave one side the edge.
Here is another thing that I noticed that is odd. My bias is harder to fight when a topic is above my head. I have clicked on debates and I was not understanding the jargon because it was 2 philosophy needs debating an obscure philosophy. Now I have to read their citations and look for outside sources for definitions to understand them and then after 10 hours of work I realize that despite it being a topic I have no opinion on; I still somehow have more bias than a topic I have a strong opinion on.
"I just turned tail and dodged his impacts using a strategy that might have worked for less experienced judges, but certainly not ones on the caliber of whiteflame or oromagi."
Oromagi seems to have a hard time separating his bias from his judgements and I think the fact he even awarded source points in this debate does not reflect well on his ability to use reasoned judgement.
Pro you should have looked at the effective altruism movement. I just started reading the debate but a lot of his objections seem to already have been addressed by the effective altruism movement. We also have examples of people in the movement who no bullshit live in poverty off of 25% of their income and donate 75% to help the needy, and these are people happier as a result of doing so.
If you want to be a dick just make sure you out logic your opponent. Conduct points only matters in close debates.
Spelling and grammar points should be extremely rare to award. Just to avoid unfair bias against non native English speakers.
Just going to ue this as an excuse to test out my new strategy that has yet to be implemented to see if the argumentbis even remotely interesting
I will never bitch about lack of votes. People have real lives. If the shit isn't engaging enough to get votes than so be it.
Pro has the entire BOP here. You insist you have suicidal ideation. So BOP is on you to prove that you have enough things you feel good about yourself that con cannot use this suicidal ideation against you.
I have been depressed myself. Good luck proving you have enough things to live for that the voters agree with couldn't be overcome by a convincing, and genius narcissist who gets off on the emotional trauma he causes others.
It is really hard to get through canning season in Alaska but if you survive it you would have a ton of money to start a new life with.
Here is a real quote from fish chaser.
"if the cock of life ever reaches your unsuspecting ass hole unless you are privileged to have the cock moving towards you slowly or to have fast enough legs to escape it with ease but that is not the case for most beings."
I am considering this. I think I have an angle
I think Murray rothbard takes it to its logical conclusion if I am not mistaken and actually believed in legalizing child neglect. Some libertarians view the point of birth as a creation of a type of contract but the latter is more cope to deal with the uncomfortable reality of the logical conclusion that libertarian philosophy leads to.
I dont know if you actually believe the following statement but it would make a more interesting debate than whatever this is. I also dont think me and you have ever debated. I also don't know how far you are willing to take this premise. If you take it to its logical conclusion than it would be easier to defend but then you would be doing it from an extreme libertarian position.
". The constitution's 13th amendment forbade slavery and involuntary servitude [1]. Needless to say, forcing women to be pregnant against their wishes is using them as a slave caste."
I dont know what the fuck that was but it made me pro life. Thanks pro.
Yes.
Thanks for an unbiased jidgement . Pro's latest thread may change your mind though
Fuck this was closer than I expected. Not sure how it will play out when judging is done.
I do not admit to saying that.
Good luck with your rebuttal.
I can tell you that defending always right or always wrong seems easier than being nuanced but it just feels wrong.
It's just a joke LOL. It also happens to be factually accurate that the debate is about the penises of children
bill gates is not famous for wearing a black polo shirt. I am pissed at myself for missing that type
The book zetetic astronomy lays out the argument I am talking about better and is free online
This is why you have to refrained the debate. Flat earthers start with a philosophy of you can only trust personal experiments on the matter and that the collected knowledge and wisdom of scientists are useless because younneed to be able to personally verify the work. You then have the judges actually conduct simple experiments they can do at home to prove flat earth. Pro will then try to explain what is seen through a round earth model but judges have an ethical obligation to dismiss his arguments if they dont involve the ability for you to personally test if they are true, given the framework imposed by the flat earther.
Why do you have that interpretation. Honest question my interpretation is a split BOP where pro has to prove a spherical earth is more likely than not and con has the BOP to determine a flat earth more likely than not.
It's not all set for pro. Pineapple is not available in some parts of the world and some people may be allergic to it. If con is one of the people allergic in a region that doesn't have any than it should be an easy win
Anyone who. Doesn't pick cat suit is an idiot.
I knew leftwing ideology was completely indefensible
I skimmed it and saw it. I read some rounds portions entirely and skimmed others. Just adding to what you said
I still can't vote yet. I will say I don't think pedophiles are as small in number as we would like to believe. At least not judging by my run ins with people who tried to molest me as a kid.
I would say the failure to get treatment is more than likely due to a fear of being outed to the police even if thy are a non offending pedophile a therapist may feel a legal obligation to report them if they have any contact with children. So a family man with w daughters who fights the urge to molest seeks help so he doesn't molest than a therapist would be required by law to report that his daughters are in danger and his kids will be taken away, even if he never touched them and in fact was in therapy to ensure he never will touch them.
The laws requiring reporting are probably to blame for a lot of incidents of molestation. I guess you would have to balance whether the report laws save more children or harm more children to know if thy re worth it, but I am skeptical of forced reporting.
With that said, that it isn't suicide. I am not confident enough in my own reasoning on something of this magnitude that I would upload myself to extend my life.
And before I catch shit. That was said in a generic enough way to not help the instigator. If you copied and pasted that in th debate it wouldn't count as an argument you would still need to research the things I brought up further.
I think it's easier to argue its not suicide when you get into a discussion of what consciousness it. Its a continuation of your thoughts. So if you could replicate human though than it would still be you.
It gets interesting though. If you split yourself into a copy you would have 2 yous.
Let's call the presplit you Barney alpha and then you have barney 2 and barney 3.
Well if this continuation theory is correct alpha barney is barney 2 and barney 3. However barney 2 is not barney 3 and barney 3 is not barney 2.
I would think that if barney alpha murdered somebody both barney 2 and 3 should be in prison but if barney 2 murdered somebody than Barney 3 should be in the free in clear.
I think startrek TNG covers a lot of these philosophical conundrums and it's interesting to think of them when you watch th show. It was BSH1s startrek debates to start me down the road of looking at consciousness this way.
I am not eligible to vote yet and to be honest there are certain debates I actually avoid voting on because I assume I will do a terrible job at voting. This is one where I think I am confused enough by the e tire premise around it that my vote would be terrible.
If leftwing is better than right-wing, why is Portugal a shithole?
I feel triggered bow because that does happen a lot in my debates here. I think it's because I am not a fan of semantics games I would rather everyone just acknowledge we knew what we meant and keep the debate on track. I wouldn't say thy run circles Around me but it does get tedious andboring
The definition of boiling is going to be assumed to be descriptive and not prescriptive here. Everyone already k own that boil is when the water starts rolling after being exposed to heat after a while.
I guess your new strategy is to see yourself as terrible or something and to drop the arrogance. I think dropping the arrogance should suffice without the negative views of yourself but if that view made you want to provide a definition for water boiling. More power to you.
Also what is with you and definitions. You don't need to define boiling LOL
There is zero chance I would give you a good debate here so it's better that Benjamin accepted
Thanks for defining the word chess and the word high. I was so confused prior to that definition.
I have accurately and effectively defended liberalism here but any input would be appreciated.
I think I would maybe be willing to do this debate if I am allowed to just plagiarize David's first round and you copy and paste your rounds. The one thing I would also ask is that I am allowed to use video format.
I am going to see if u can actually work some editing software though and if I can't than I might not want to do it, but I if my video editing goes off without a hitch than I am down
"I'll admit I was somewhat pro-Israel until recently"
I was anti Israel until recently. I think they have every right to not o ly defend themselves from this savagery but to take measures to make sure it never occurs again.
There are literally missiles even prior to this that every day were aimed at Israel only to be stopped by the Iron dome. I can tell you that if America's anti missile defense system knocked down even a single incoming missile, there would be all out war not just a bunch of politicians sitting around trying to make us incrementally safer but an effort to immediately end missile strikes.
There are a lot of leftists who legitimately believe that Hamas has the moral high ground and are representative of Palestinians. You have an ethical obligation to put your opponent in his place even if it means sacrificing a debate victory and veering off topic to do so. I urge you to post the next round.
You can criticize the right for not wanting to help Israel, but atleast the right recognizes who has the moral high ground here.
Did you know that Republicans are for implementing the fair tax which comes with a monthly check for every American citizen for a out $1000 and democrats oppose it not because they think the tax system is bad but only because repu licans think it is good. The fair tax would literally be the seed stages of a basic mi imum income and studies have shown it to be a tax that would bring jobs back home and it would simultaneously reduce the tax burden of almost every American while simultaneously increasing tax revenue.
Here I your definition
"each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."
So apparently you don't actually want to debate this. You don't even want to debate communist policies only the goals of communists which is something even anti communists would agree with. You could atheist debate the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"