Why would the BOP be on con, that is retarded reasoning you provided. If BOP is solely on any side it is pro here because pro is actually arguing against the status quo.
I pointed out instances where I thought votes against me were sufficient. So it isn't that I can't handle criticism, it is just that you suck at voting, and no you did not award grammar points correctly in this debate or mine. The debate was readable it is just that what pro said was barely coherent rambling
he Just rambled on about not killing myself because I could be a better person, and ignored my negative impacts on the world such as environmental and ignored the fact that even if I improve people who are better than me can still fill my spot better than I could.
You award grammar points incorrectly, please stop intentionally doing so to have unfair influence on the end results of a debate. Why do you think non native english speakers should be punished for innocent mistakes? Why do you think uneducated english speakers should be punished for mistakes? How do you even know if something is a mistake give 100s of different possible interpretations of how English words should be used and the constantly evolving nature of language. Are you an English professor who spends 40 hours a week studying the English language so you can stay on top of the latest developments of it? What qualifies you exactly to judge it? Why should the people I listed be punished for using it the way they do? I know you do it to cheat, because when I had 7 points for me in a debate, you came and coincidentally gave 8 points to my opponent, also not understanding how source points should be awarded. I can't stand people like you. I know this is personal and in my other debates that have not started I will have to overcome an automatic 8 points against myself, because you can't eliminate bias from your judging
I took the debate off topic on purpose so he would continue to say the same shit and ignore my impact statements. No impact analysis was done by the boters so far though.
Almost everything you did was a mistake. There is no impact analysis here just awarding each side a mystery point for each argument. The conduct point was absurd, you literally should almost never award a point for anything but arguments. But there are some isolated examples of shitty logic such as : "The scenarios where suicide occurs are suboptimal as pro is measuring value based on past actions, not potential. That is a killer argument and wins this round."
You never did the math did you, killing myself would cause me to have no negative impact on the environment. If I lived I would definitely continue to harm the environment. I also said it could start off a chain of suicides that would also help the environment and my opponent never refuted the point so it should beaccepted. I also argued that I am not capable of eliminating my actions from causing any pain or suffering to anybody. He merely states I can reduce the pain I cause, he never argues that I can eliminate all negative conssequences of my actions occurring. He never even states it is okay to have some negative results if the good outwieghs it, no rebuttal. Please challenge me to a debate on whether that vote was shitty.
You scored grammar points against me in a debate because I used a singular version of a word you thought should be plural, and completely ignored my opponent's grammar. I have never seen you award grammar points to a side you thought lost the debate, and you certainly award them too often. I think it is done to manipulate the end results. You want more power to effect the end result than voters such as myself who award grammar points correctly (in less than 1% of cases is the point worthy of being awarded). We aren't here to punish non native english speakers, innocent mistakes and schitzophrenics.
Mikal is a piece of shit and literally begged people for votes, but others in the top ten deserved it such as thett, danielle bsh1 roy latham, whiteflame etc.
At least the debate with bsh1 will get voters who are competent. All the votes on the debates in the voting period I have are stupid, with the exception of the vote drafterman placed
Excess women is a problem? Do you have something against homosexual relationships? I find it odd you are forcing me to argue in favor of increasing the level of homosexuality in society.
wrote it in Libre office and the site added quotes, and my time is very limited at the moment so I just had to live with it. I do apologize for it making the debate less readable
"People like my opponent and I disagree on topics such as polygamy, the subject of this debate."
I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm about as libertarian as you can get. rightwing libertarian borderlining on paleo conservative. I like the subject material though which is more important to me than what my actual position is, when I take a debate.
What does the bible say about hell "sheol" ? What part describes it I. The way you describe. Google the translated word sheol to find out what he'll really is
I have to go to work shortly. I don't want my vote removed for not providing a thorough RFD. I plan to give a more thorough RFD when I clear up some time
"Why is it nonsense when the claim is that god is UNLIMITED?
That's the nonsense part."
Language is imperfect and impercise, it is also short hand for much broader concepts. If I tell my wife she can do whatever she wants after she divorces me, I'm not telling her she can grow wings and fly. I am saying she is unrestricted by me personally. Julius Caesar was often referred to as omnipotent, and somehow the definition of that has been twisted. When they called Caeser omnipotent they were aware he had human and natural limitations (despite being declared a God later). I think more time needs to be taken to hash out semantics before any religious orientated debate happens, so many terms have different interpretations by different participants. If you think omnipotent means that God can pie a triangle (a nonsense statement) and your opponent thinks he is all powerful in respect to how much power he has not in his ability to do anything, than it is not going to be a productive debate. Let's do 5 rounds where nothing is voted on and me and you just hash out some semantics on a God debate, so we have a common understanding of words we can agree on
Just read the debate, your definitions are descriptive not prescriptive and the definition of omnipotent is incomplete. Here is the definition "having power not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent; able to do anything."
Definitions are kept short in dictionaries on purpose. Here is the definition of golf "a game in which clubs with wooden or metal heads are used to hit a small, white ball into a number of holes, usually 9 or 18, in succession, situated at various distances over a course having natural or artificial obstacles, the object being to get the ball into each hole in as few strokes as possible."
I could take a bat and start smacking baseballs into ten random holes I dug by tossing the ball into the air and batting it in those directions, but we all know that isn't golf. A more proper but yet still incomplete definition of omnipotent might say the following:
"having power in terms of authority and as well as the ability not limited or restricted, by any unnatural means in terms of number, quantity, or extent; able to do anything, that is not a logical absurdity like to triangle a circle."
"The definitions clearly read "able to do all things""
I haven't read the debate, but normally I don't give a shit if one side provides definitions, unless both sides agree to those definitions explicitly. I also ignore when people post rules such as BSH1 at the beginning of the debate. I'm not going to let one side unfairly impose rules on another side unless they explicitly argue that certain rules should be accepted. Debate is a chaotic battlefield where anything goes and I just won't allow for such a structured agreement unless both sides are vocal that I should respect the rules of the debate, within the debate.
'The phrase "God not being able to" should never be uttered, because god is supposed to "be able to do anything." There are no qualifiers like "be able to do anything "within reason" or "within his nature" because that's necessarily limiting an unlimited.'
Most rational theists, claim he is omnipotent which does not mean "he can do anything" . Omnipotent comes from a latin word that just means "most high". He can maybe do things we may perceive is illogical or impossible, but they are obviously logically consistent and possible.
"Is god UNABLE to violate logic and able to do anything?"
Nobody can violate logic, even god. He is still omnipotent, it is just nonsense to ask if he can do shit like "make a square octupus rectangle himself blu in the basketball" nonsense, no less sensible than trying to refute omnipotence by asking if he can make a rock even he can't move or hwatever lame scenario kids are talking about these days.
Bsh1, please argue immediately or wait the full 72 hours if convenient. Otherwise my ability to give you my best will be even more diminished than what it is
What do you mean "Acedemic abstraction"? I wouldn't call myself an academic. My highest level of education is the 9th grade, and by extension I certainly don't engage in anything dealing with acedemia.
I'm more logical when I'm depressed. When I feel good, sometimes I suspect that I'm Jesus or the antichrist. I hear things that aren't there and sometimes see things that don't exist. Even in more sane moments of not being depressed, I'm usually less accurate in my reasoning. Many studies have shown that pessimists make more accurate predictions than optimists.
You would think that after surviving the traumatic events and having none of that stuff to hold you back, you'd be okay, but it's not true. Some habits I formed then helped me to literally survive, but those same habits don't seem useful now.
"you said you're not sure if you can make it through this debate without blowing your head off. I'm concerned. Is that true?"
I feel like that some days, or months. Sometimes I can not even get out of bed. I usually need diet pills or some sort of amphetimine during my depressed periods to keep from losing my job and destroying my life by becoming catatonic, but even the stimulants just push back the inevitable and I just end up depressed for long periods. The last 9 months were bad. I almost gave up, but was scared to. I also was afraid of the emotional damage I would do to my fiance. She seems sensitive. Hopefully I can keep my shit together for a while now, and the depressed phases don't come back.
Why would the BOP be on con, that is retarded reasoning you provided. If BOP is solely on any side it is pro here because pro is actually arguing against the status quo.
I pointed out instances where I thought votes against me were sufficient. So it isn't that I can't handle criticism, it is just that you suck at voting, and no you did not award grammar points correctly in this debate or mine. The debate was readable it is just that what pro said was barely coherent rambling
Please show me the part of the debate where con said I can completely eliminate my carbon footprint.
he Just rambled on about not killing myself because I could be a better person, and ignored my negative impacts on the world such as environmental and ignored the fact that even if I improve people who are better than me can still fill my spot better than I could.
You award grammar points incorrectly, please stop intentionally doing so to have unfair influence on the end results of a debate. Why do you think non native english speakers should be punished for innocent mistakes? Why do you think uneducated english speakers should be punished for mistakes? How do you even know if something is a mistake give 100s of different possible interpretations of how English words should be used and the constantly evolving nature of language. Are you an English professor who spends 40 hours a week studying the English language so you can stay on top of the latest developments of it? What qualifies you exactly to judge it? Why should the people I listed be punished for using it the way they do? I know you do it to cheat, because when I had 7 points for me in a debate, you came and coincidentally gave 8 points to my opponent, also not understanding how source points should be awarded. I can't stand people like you. I know this is personal and in my other debates that have not started I will have to overcome an automatic 8 points against myself, because you can't eliminate bias from your judging
I took the debate off topic on purpose so he would continue to say the same shit and ignore my impact statements. No impact analysis was done by the boters so far though.
Almost everything you did was a mistake. There is no impact analysis here just awarding each side a mystery point for each argument. The conduct point was absurd, you literally should almost never award a point for anything but arguments. But there are some isolated examples of shitty logic such as : "The scenarios where suicide occurs are suboptimal as pro is measuring value based on past actions, not potential. That is a killer argument and wins this round."
You never did the math did you, killing myself would cause me to have no negative impact on the environment. If I lived I would definitely continue to harm the environment. I also said it could start off a chain of suicides that would also help the environment and my opponent never refuted the point so it should beaccepted. I also argued that I am not capable of eliminating my actions from causing any pain or suffering to anybody. He merely states I can reduce the pain I cause, he never argues that I can eliminate all negative conssequences of my actions occurring. He never even states it is okay to have some negative results if the good outwieghs it, no rebuttal. Please challenge me to a debate on whether that vote was shitty.
You scored grammar points against me in a debate because I used a singular version of a word you thought should be plural, and completely ignored my opponent's grammar. I have never seen you award grammar points to a side you thought lost the debate, and you certainly award them too often. I think it is done to manipulate the end results. You want more power to effect the end result than voters such as myself who award grammar points correctly (in less than 1% of cases is the point worthy of being awarded). We aren't here to punish non native english speakers, innocent mistakes and schitzophrenics.
Stop with the grammar points, they are only supposed to be awarded to punish people who make their debate incomprehensible.
I literally mentioned a good vote against me. So it is more likely I am just being honest about why yours sucks.
I think with more time I could have made that more concise and advocated for more lesbianism, but my time is at a premium
No, I thought drafter's vote was decent. You're just biased and too low IQ to know how to adjust for that
The earlier voting was shitty, I'm not sure it was biased but that was before my time
Anyway don't deny ralter and sham are shitty voters
Mikal is a piece of shit and literally begged people for votes, but others in the top ten deserved it such as thett, danielle bsh1 roy latham, whiteflame etc.
At least the debate with bsh1 will get voters who are competent. All the votes on the debates in the voting period I have are stupid, with the exception of the vote drafterman placed
Every remaining top 20 elo member of DDO
Last time I don't do a judge debate. You are all morons
You can have fun topics without it being a troll debate. I Don't do troll debates
Excess women is a problem? Do you have something against homosexual relationships? I find it odd you are forcing me to argue in favor of increasing the level of homosexuality in society.
wrote it in Libre office and the site added quotes, and my time is very limited at the moment so I just had to live with it. I do apologize for it making the debate less readable
Ramshutu'so vote was clearly intended to manipulate the end result of this debate. I don'the mind drafter's but I clearly think it's incorrect
Thought I had more time. Sorry about that
I don't care what people say in the context of the debate. I'm glad you accepted
I wouldn't award source points to either side in this, but I understand the logic here.
the vote was perfect
"People like my opponent and I disagree on topics such as polygamy, the subject of this debate."
I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm about as libertarian as you can get. rightwing libertarian borderlining on paleo conservative. I like the subject material though which is more important to me than what my actual position is, when I take a debate.
Okay, I've worked myself up to it, ready to start reading your stuff and then writing and research.
yeah yeah, getting to it. Just have to overcome some anxiety issues. I'll star researching and writing this soon
God loves you. You are not going to burn in a fiery pit regardless of what any fire and brimstone preacher has told you
What does the bible say about hell "sheol" ? What part describes it I. The way you describe. Google the translated word sheol to find out what he'll really is
Batman's vote will likely get removed, so you should still have a comfortable lead even if I fail to follow through
I have to go to work shortly. I don't want my vote removed for not providing a thorough RFD. I plan to give a more thorough RFD when I clear up some time
"Why is it nonsense when the claim is that god is UNLIMITED?
That's the nonsense part."
Language is imperfect and impercise, it is also short hand for much broader concepts. If I tell my wife she can do whatever she wants after she divorces me, I'm not telling her she can grow wings and fly. I am saying she is unrestricted by me personally. Julius Caesar was often referred to as omnipotent, and somehow the definition of that has been twisted. When they called Caeser omnipotent they were aware he had human and natural limitations (despite being declared a God later). I think more time needs to be taken to hash out semantics before any religious orientated debate happens, so many terms have different interpretations by different participants. If you think omnipotent means that God can pie a triangle (a nonsense statement) and your opponent thinks he is all powerful in respect to how much power he has not in his ability to do anything, than it is not going to be a productive debate. Let's do 5 rounds where nothing is voted on and me and you just hash out some semantics on a God debate, so we have a common understanding of words we can agree on
Just read the debate, your definitions are descriptive not prescriptive and the definition of omnipotent is incomplete. Here is the definition "having power not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent; able to do anything."
Definitions are kept short in dictionaries on purpose. Here is the definition of golf "a game in which clubs with wooden or metal heads are used to hit a small, white ball into a number of holes, usually 9 or 18, in succession, situated at various distances over a course having natural or artificial obstacles, the object being to get the ball into each hole in as few strokes as possible."
I could take a bat and start smacking baseballs into ten random holes I dug by tossing the ball into the air and batting it in those directions, but we all know that isn't golf. A more proper but yet still incomplete definition of omnipotent might say the following:
"having power in terms of authority and as well as the ability not limited or restricted, by any unnatural means in terms of number, quantity, or extent; able to do anything, that is not a logical absurdity like to triangle a circle."
"God is female and is not omnipotent"
So are you saying God can get her dick hard?
"The definitions clearly read "able to do all things""
I haven't read the debate, but normally I don't give a shit if one side provides definitions, unless both sides agree to those definitions explicitly. I also ignore when people post rules such as BSH1 at the beginning of the debate. I'm not going to let one side unfairly impose rules on another side unless they explicitly argue that certain rules should be accepted. Debate is a chaotic battlefield where anything goes and I just won't allow for such a structured agreement unless both sides are vocal that I should respect the rules of the debate, within the debate.
'The phrase "God not being able to" should never be uttered, because god is supposed to "be able to do anything." There are no qualifiers like "be able to do anything "within reason" or "within his nature" because that's necessarily limiting an unlimited.'
Most rational theists, claim he is omnipotent which does not mean "he can do anything" . Omnipotent comes from a latin word that just means "most high". He can maybe do things we may perceive is illogical or impossible, but they are obviously logically consistent and possible.
"Is god UNABLE to violate logic and able to do anything?"
Nobody can violate logic, even god. He is still omnipotent, it is just nonsense to ask if he can do shit like "make a square octupus rectangle himself blu in the basketball" nonsense, no less sensible than trying to refute omnipotence by asking if he can make a rock even he can't move or hwatever lame scenario kids are talking about these days.
Somebody is trying to shut the real tyrone up. He knows something.
The fact that fake tyrone had real tyrone banned so he could win a debate, does not mean that fake tyrone had better conduct
Why did you award con source points?
Nobody ever proves P1 in the KCA.
Bsh1, please argue immediately or wait the full 72 hours if convenient. Otherwise my ability to give you my best will be even more diminished than what it is
I'm pro on this also, I'll wait until the debate is over to comment further.
What do you mean "Acedemic abstraction"? I wouldn't call myself an academic. My highest level of education is the 9th grade, and by extension I certainly don't engage in anything dealing with acedemia.
I'm more logical when I'm depressed. When I feel good, sometimes I suspect that I'm Jesus or the antichrist. I hear things that aren't there and sometimes see things that don't exist. Even in more sane moments of not being depressed, I'm usually less accurate in my reasoning. Many studies have shown that pessimists make more accurate predictions than optimists.
You would think that after surviving the traumatic events and having none of that stuff to hold you back, you'd be okay, but it's not true. Some habits I formed then helped me to literally survive, but those same habits don't seem useful now.
I just realized I probably shouldn't have brought up the emotional damage I could do to her, RM may use it against me.
"you said you're not sure if you can make it through this debate without blowing your head off. I'm concerned. Is that true?"
I feel like that some days, or months. Sometimes I can not even get out of bed. I usually need diet pills or some sort of amphetimine during my depressed periods to keep from losing my job and destroying my life by becoming catatonic, but even the stimulants just push back the inevitable and I just end up depressed for long periods. The last 9 months were bad. I almost gave up, but was scared to. I also was afraid of the emotional damage I would do to my fiance. She seems sensitive. Hopefully I can keep my shit together for a while now, and the depressed phases don't come back.