I am collecting arguments to recycle later. This is a form of having an artificial intelligence learn debating. Information in the debate and in the voting will be used to make the AI more effective at winning arguments. I am creating a site to expose the brains of the AI soon for anybody interested.
The latter should be weighed against the bad one in an impact analysis and the bigger weight get favorite treatment. So if the impact of the bad argument is total destruction of earth and the impact of the good argument is saving whales from extinction than no the latter should lose if those are the o ly two arguments weighed. Also I agree I have seen terrible judging paradigms, but there is only one objectively correct and perfect way to judge and that is the way that should be done. I encourage you to follow what good judges do and not the incorrect paradigms you have seen. I'll judge a debate tonight and tag you and break down my thought process so ypu can learn the objectively correct way to judge
No you would only have to back up the argument if your opponent failed to call it out as a bare assertion. Otherwise the argument is uncontested and should be taken as fact. This is why arguments in the final round are nkt allowed.
It is not up to you to use your own subjective judgement to label an argument good or bad. If I say aliens are real and behind 9/11 it shpuld be accepted as good until the argument is addressed. You are not to weigh the goodness of an argument.
Please stop judging sources that way also. It is a point that should be awarded in less than 1% of debates and o ly when an opponent argues good reasons why they shpuld win the point
Your judging standards are laughably incorrect. For example this tid bit "This means if an argument is bad but unaddressed, I will still treat it as bad. " . stop being a piece of shit and please adopt a tabula Rasa judging style.
Then argue that in the confines of the debate. I remember YYW had a good guide on BOP one tine that I conpletely agree with. As far as normative positions such as whether abortion is unethical or should be illegal or not, BOP should be split evenly. On assertions such as God is Real or God is non existent, BOP is on who makes the positive Ssertion, but regardless of whether my views are correct or not, you should not handcuff the judges in that way. Also, if you have strong opi ions on who holds the bOP it should be fleshed out with in the debate. As far as always wanting the last word is concerned, I can emphatize with it, but the instigator should not get last word.
Bsh1 being a good debater has nothing to do with the fact he has weaknesses and cowardice. The rules are a form of cowardice that means he never has to address his weaknesses.
The rules I read in the following debate are stupid. https://www.debateart.com/debates/478
The BOP is something that is up to the judges unless debaters bring it up and debate it. The forfeit rule is stupid because best arguments should win even if I only debate the first round and you debate all 5. Plus there is no reason you should not go first. Thinking skipping the first argument is an advantage is dumb, it is also a rule with the potential to be unfair.
I think the focus on the word evidence is silly, though obviously this was meant to be somewhat of a semantic debate. If she said "proof" the debate really would give the con side no room to argue.
It almost feels like you guys are posting your arguments at the same exact time to maximize how hard this is for me. Thank God I had a manic episode and destroyed my life, so I have time for this
No when he fought Tommy Gun he was a street fighter. Have you even seen the movies? He was street tough who just happened to be able to hold his own in the ring.
Then prove it is indicative to a omniscient omnipotent creator God, as opposed to perhaps a creator God who is not omniscient, but very nearly omniscient.
Con's position is not winnable in that way. You have to make positive arguments that a fine tuned universe means that the fine tuner is omniscient and omnipotent. Really con's position is impossible to arguewithout being creative against a competent opponent.
That's because you don't understand he is full of shit about his reasoning, nor do you understand how to properly judge a debate. Also you of all people. You beautiful unique flower, should know that merely following along with the crowd is not a good reason to do something.
As a judge you are required to actually suspend most of your thinking and substitute it for what both debaters have presented. I don't know what you are thinking. I do know that if your thoughts matter that much and you have already decided a winner than you will not vote fairly. I don't expect you to vote fairly though. You are after all a bully.
That is incorrect for reasons I will lay out in the debate. For one that is not a kritik. For another thing the rules are not important nor should one side have a right to impose rules on the other side.
fuck, I have to throw away my entire argument now. I fucked up and read everything wrong. I just spent 2 hours on this and hours upon hours of deep thought. So pissed.
Quick question, for the purposes of the debate aren't we assuming that we are in a finely tuned universe? this is about whether that means god is omniscient and omnipotent or not.
I feal like I might break my losing streak here. I don't want to, because the debate will be less fun if I taKe the easiest route to victory here but I think it is necessary. I need to change the debate culture on this site and u fortunately you fell prey to adopting an unacceptable paRt of it
Yeah, clearly it is a debate over what constitutes evidence. I think you are asking pro to define evidence in a way that would basically leave no room for debate.
I am creating an artificial intelligence which is self learning to master various popular debate topics, starting with abortion.
Thank you
This is an experiment and my position does not matter, o ly my ability to grow tge AI's brain
Citation please
I intend to be con
I am collecting arguments to recycle later. This is a form of having an artificial intelligence learn debating. Information in the debate and in the voting will be used to make the AI more effective at winning arguments. I am creating a site to expose the brains of the AI soon for anybody interested.
Plenty of unborn children have survived their mother's death.
My argument will brobably use about 100 characters of that limit
Why is that an exception?
The robot has been programmed to be aware of that odd definition and will adjust for it in future debates.
Getting semantics out of the way prior to a debate is fine.
The latter should be weighed against the bad one in an impact analysis and the bigger weight get favorite treatment. So if the impact of the bad argument is total destruction of earth and the impact of the good argument is saving whales from extinction than no the latter should lose if those are the o ly two arguments weighed. Also I agree I have seen terrible judging paradigms, but there is only one objectively correct and perfect way to judge and that is the way that should be done. I encourage you to follow what good judges do and not the incorrect paradigms you have seen. I'll judge a debate tonight and tag you and break down my thought process so ypu can learn the objectively correct way to judge
No you would only have to back up the argument if your opponent failed to call it out as a bare assertion. Otherwise the argument is uncontested and should be taken as fact. This is why arguments in the final round are nkt allowed.
No, you would not judge which argument is better, lol. If both arguments were accepted you would do an impact analysis. WTF is wrong with you?
It is not up to you to use your own subjective judgement to label an argument good or bad. If I say aliens are real and behind 9/11 it shpuld be accepted as good until the argument is addressed. You are not to weigh the goodness of an argument.
Please stop judging sources that way also. It is a point that should be awarded in less than 1% of debates and o ly when an opponent argues good reasons why they shpuld win the point
Your judging standards are laughably incorrect. For example this tid bit "This means if an argument is bad but unaddressed, I will still treat it as bad. " . stop being a piece of shit and please adopt a tabula Rasa judging style.
Then argue that in the confines of the debate. I remember YYW had a good guide on BOP one tine that I conpletely agree with. As far as normative positions such as whether abortion is unethical or should be illegal or not, BOP should be split evenly. On assertions such as God is Real or God is non existent, BOP is on who makes the positive Ssertion, but regardless of whether my views are correct or not, you should not handcuff the judges in that way. Also, if you have strong opi ions on who holds the bOP it should be fleshed out with in the debate. As far as always wanting the last word is concerned, I can emphatize with it, but the instigator should not get last word.
Yes I can wait until then. Accept please
Bsh1 being a good debater has nothing to do with the fact he has weaknesses and cowardice. The rules are a form of cowardice that means he never has to address his weaknesses.
The rules I read in the following debate are stupid. https://www.debateart.com/debates/478
The BOP is something that is up to the judges unless debaters bring it up and debate it. The forfeit rule is stupid because best arguments should win even if I only debate the first round and you debate all 5. Plus there is no reason you should not go first. Thinking skipping the first argument is an advantage is dumb, it is also a rule with the potential to be unfair.
I think the focus on the word evidence is silly, though obviously this was meant to be somewhat of a semantic debate. If she said "proof" the debate really would give the con side no room to argue.
It almost feels like you guys are posting your arguments at the same exact time to maximize how hard this is for me. Thank God I had a manic episode and destroyed my life, so I have time for this
No when he fought Tommy Gun he was a street fighter. Have you even seen the movies? He was street tough who just happened to be able to hold his own in the ring.
How can you say I dropped points when you said that r2 was for rebuttals not R1?
This is what debate is supposed to be like. Not a prize fight, but a street fight. I am Rocky Balboa and analgesic is acting like Tommy Gun
Then prove it is indicative to a omniscient omnipotent creator God, as opposed to perhaps a creator God who is not omniscient, but very nearly omniscient.
Con's position is not winnable in that way. You have to make positive arguments that a fine tuned universe means that the fine tuner is omniscient and omnipotent. Really con's position is impossible to arguewithout being creative against a competent opponent.
Much better.
I like this guy.
Is that the best you got? Is that how you deal with adversity? Give me your best.
thanks,
That's because you don't understand he is full of shit about his reasoning, nor do you understand how to properly judge a debate. Also you of all people. You beautiful unique flower, should know that merely following along with the crowd is not a good reason to do something.
As a judge you are required to actually suspend most of your thinking and substitute it for what both debaters have presented. I don't know what you are thinking. I do know that if your thoughts matter that much and you have already decided a winner than you will not vote fairly. I don't expect you to vote fairly though. You are after all a bully.
That doesn't even matter. You just showed a disregard for the tabula rasa mindset.
That is incorrect for reasons I will lay out in the debate. For one that is not a kritik. For another thing the rules are not important nor should one side have a right to impose rules on the other side.
I want your blessing for a counter vote if he votes. He has decided the winner after the first round already.
You were regardless despite me clearly being in the lead here
The judges may not respond well to the type of argument I am making here though.
She may not feel like it after crushing me
fuck, I have to throw away my entire argument now. I fucked up and read everything wrong. I just spent 2 hours on this and hours upon hours of deep thought. So pissed.
I need an answer I have to post my argument soon
Quick question, for the purposes of the debate aren't we assuming that we are in a finely tuned universe? this is about whether that means god is omniscient and omnipotent or not.
I am con on anal experimentation
I feal like I might break my losing streak here. I don't want to, because the debate will be less fun if I taKe the easiest route to victory here but I think it is necessary. I need to change the debate culture on this site and u fortunately you fell prey to adopting an unacceptable paRt of it
I won't use any arguments offered. I was just teasing you.
Yeah, clearly it is a debate over what constitutes evidence. I think you are asking pro to define evidence in a way that would basically leave no room for debate.
Bring it
The definition of evidence is not important. Many semantic issues here, but that is not one.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1132
I asked for help on the debate. I hope that is okay