What are these absolutely dishonest characterisations?
Obama ordered a drone strike that killed an American citizen.
But he did not order the drone stick to specifically kill an American citizen, nor was it known that it would've. It was a tragic accident, but clearly not an assassination on an American citizen, and hardly is indicative of a will to conduct drone strikes of US citizens in general.
Trump wasn't just questioning the results of an election. He took specific action through multiple lawsuits in an attempt to baselessly shift the results of the election. Concession aside, has he still to this day even acknowledged that he lost that election?
The topic is actually somewhat flawed imo because science doesn't have position on when personhood starts so the key point of this debating is equating the two concepts
Personhood and life are generally not regarded as the same thing. By using the wikipedia definition of personhood, I think you've shot yourself in the foot
My thoughts exactly. There are plenty of renewable human parts or byproducts and it's not as if we need to limit this legislation to just organs. For example, hair, bone marrow, breast milk and semen also have applicable uses that can be readily harvested and replenished from humans. And ultimately the cost for doing so is less than what the punishment should be for the murder of other human beings. It's a win-win
It doesn't have to be just blood. We can extend the feasibility long-term by mandating the donation of various organs such as kidneys, the liver, corneas and what have you. We would massively improve the health outcomes of those waiting for organs, while discouraging abortions at the same time
The country she is from and the country she calls her homeland is the US which is why she answered New York and Manhattan first and foremost. The fact that you haven't recognised this in your own analysis of Trump's behaviour and the fact that you are insinuating that descendants of immigrants must necessarily recognise their ancestral countries as the country where they are from or their homeland is in itself prejudiced behaviour.
"Trump wanted to know where the lady was. No issue here. He didn't care about New York or Manhatten because he doesn't want to know that, not racist. he wanted to know the country she is from, the country she proudly calls her homeland. What's the issue?"
I didn't mean that all mass shooters do so for fame. Just that research has indicated that some do. I guess the only explanation can be that while you're analysing their actions from a rational point of view, mass shooters are inherently irrational.
1) You seem to be fundamentally missing the point that these inherited traits are typically mutations that have persisted and been selected for in the population over time.
2) Sure. But the loss of a particular hair gene is not a sufficient change for speciation as this change is still reflected in the overall dog gene pool. In that particular local population you've mentioned there would have to be a succession of mutations that have been selected for which are not reflected in the overall dog gene pool. And this would lead to speciation.
3) If you simply mean that the offspring did not receive the gene for longhair in that particular group, you are certainly correct. However this does not change the gene pool, as these animals are still dogs and both the genes for long hair and short hair remain in the gene pool for dogs.
4) Boxers aren't a species. When boxers are bred with a long-haired dog variety, long-haired puppies will result
A species can be defined as a group of individuals that can interbreed. Hence speciation occurs when two groups of individuals have a sufficient number of genetic variation such that they can no longer interbreed and become distinct species in their own rights. This genetic variation is caused by successive generations of populations in which a selection of mutations have persisted, typically by natural selection.
The example you gave cannot be sufficiently be described as speciation. This is for several reasons. One, because speciation is predicated on evolution which occurs over time. Two, because speciation occurs over a group of individuals and not just a single pair of dogs. Three, because the gene pool for the dog species has not changed. Four, because genes related to hair are typically passed on recessively regardless of whether they are actually expressed in the phenotype.
Mutations are small changes in the genetic code. Evolution occurs when many mutations are accumulated within a population over time. Speciation is just the formation of new species which is driven by evolution. Hence mutations cause speciation via evolution
There are several positives to actual debating rather than forum arguments though. You get tangible feedback which can help you improve. There's a definite end to a debate whereas forum posts can sprawl on for ages. Finally, you can get creative by abusing exact wordings and phrases
A single incident probably doesn't provide much insight, however a series of incidents spread over time can show a pattern of behaviour that can be used to form an inductive argument. Having an arbitrary cut-off point removes this avenue of argument. This is especially true for Trump, given that he has had a pervasive history of racist accusations levied against him that extends past the 10 year limit.
Greater is the comparative form of great, "The UK is greater than France". Great in it's regular form doesn't directly make a comparison, "The UK is great". However I would think that any definition of great would cascade down to it's modified forms
Do you possess hard evidence that those generalities are partially dictated by a genetic component which cannot be solely explained by a social component?
I would think that setting a swarm of piranha on someone definitely counts as both unusual and cruel. Honestly if you're going down a route that inhumain you may as well go with one of the alleged medieval methods of execution which, while no less cruel and unusual are infinitely more interesting. Bronze bull or rat cage anyone? Also you wouldn't need to import the piranha which I suppose is a bonus
Just to be clear here, if your entire argument consists of copy and pasted paragraphs from someone else as in this case, it's still plagiarism no matter how how you quote and cite those paragraphs.
If you think your vote is sufficient, then just post it. There's little harm in trying and rejection is the first step to success. If you stick to the CoC however, you'll be fine
Going by the CoC, for conduct, you haven't explained why Speedrace's conduct was excessive. For sources, you haven't explained how the sources have impacted the debate.
What would the white nationalists in Charlottesville be protesting about if America were a white anglo ethnostate? The single reason why white nationalist ideology exists in the first place is due to the presence of the aforementioned races. Hence, the events at Charlottesville can be entirely be blamed upon those races.
Weren't we just assigning blame? Well the blame clearly lies at the feet of muslims, jews, mexicans, asians and native americans in america. I don't know what you're so confused about
Don't be ridiculous. The violence at charlottesville was clearly caused by the presence of muslims, jews, mexicans, asians and native americans in America. To suggest otherwise is frankly naive and unpatriotic.
You could certainly go down the road of ultimate blame.
The perpetrator wouldn't of done the deed if Antifa hadn't been there
Antifa wouldn't've been there if the white supremacists hadn't been there
The white supremacists wouldn't've been there if America were a pure white-anglo ethnostate.
America would be a pure white-anglo ethnostate if it weren't for those pesky muslims/jews/mexicans/asians/native americans.
Therefore muslims, jews, mexicans, asians, native americans in America are ultimately the blame for that single persons actions.
What "crazy left-wingers"? Footage of the incident clearly shows the dude just randomly driving into the crowd. It sounds like you're victim blaming here. There is absolutely no justification for intentionally slamming a car into a crowd of people.
The point of that particular article is to highlight a particularly common usage of the underlying fallacy. However the underlying fallacy stays the same and is applicable in this case.
"The underlying fallacy is that one single point of data, this one "friend," completely overrides any other bits of evidence we have to assess someone's views. This is simply not valid reasoning."
I think a rematch on the same topic would've been interesting to see actually. In the sense of how you are both able to improve, develop and refine your arguments after receiving the feedback from Ramshutu and Pinkfreud from the previous debate
But he didn't think that it was a concession and argued against it.
So the full RFD that would've been accepted is some sort of explanation as to why you awarded points despite his argument, using his argument is a reference
It's not about you not surveying other arguments. That's fine.
It's because you only examined the specific point from the Pro side and you ignored what Con attempted to defend himself with. Specifically,
"From a religious belief, I am against gay marriage. I explained my political belief before that last sentence. It is not based on religion. I even say "If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine." I simply BELIEVE(a belief is my opinion, so don't use a technical definition "often one with no proof") government shouldn't regulate which genders marry each other. Marriage is a cultural and religious matter do be decided privately by the parties, and gov. controlling it goes directly against separation of church and state. Nothing about this opinion of mine is religious either. Next."
My understanding is that you could've described this, said that it was a load of rubbish and you would've be fine
What are these absolutely dishonest characterisations?
Obama ordered a drone strike that killed an American citizen.
But he did not order the drone stick to specifically kill an American citizen, nor was it known that it would've. It was a tragic accident, but clearly not an assassination on an American citizen, and hardly is indicative of a will to conduct drone strikes of US citizens in general.
Trump wasn't just questioning the results of an election. He took specific action through multiple lawsuits in an attempt to baselessly shift the results of the election. Concession aside, has he still to this day even acknowledged that he lost that election?
Honestly, you should've just let the voters decide. As an aside, have you realised that the prepositions that you've used are not valid?
What are the propositions P and Q in "I lack a belief in the existence of God"?
Ok.
The topic is actually somewhat flawed imo because science doesn't have position on when personhood starts so the key point of this debating is equating the two concepts
Personhood and life are generally not regarded as the same thing. By using the wikipedia definition of personhood, I think you've shot yourself in the foot
My thoughts exactly. There are plenty of renewable human parts or byproducts and it's not as if we need to limit this legislation to just organs. For example, hair, bone marrow, breast milk and semen also have applicable uses that can be readily harvested and replenished from humans. And ultimately the cost for doing so is less than what the punishment should be for the murder of other human beings. It's a win-win
It doesn't have to be just blood. We can extend the feasibility long-term by mandating the donation of various organs such as kidneys, the liver, corneas and what have you. We would massively improve the health outcomes of those waiting for organs, while discouraging abortions at the same time
A homeland by dictionary definition is just where a person was born or where they call home.
I didn't say you or Trump were being insulting. But it very much seems like prejudiced behaviour.
The country she is from and the country she calls her homeland is the US which is why she answered New York and Manhattan first and foremost. The fact that you haven't recognised this in your own analysis of Trump's behaviour and the fact that you are insinuating that descendants of immigrants must necessarily recognise their ancestral countries as the country where they are from or their homeland is in itself prejudiced behaviour.
"Trump wanted to know where the lady was. No issue here. He didn't care about New York or Manhatten because he doesn't want to know that, not racist. he wanted to know the country she is from, the country she proudly calls her homeland. What's the issue?"
That's a yikes from me
I didn't mean that all mass shooters do so for fame. Just that research has indicated that some do. I guess the only explanation can be that while you're analysing their actions from a rational point of view, mass shooters are inherently irrational.
1) You seem to be fundamentally missing the point that these inherited traits are typically mutations that have persisted and been selected for in the population over time.
2) Sure. But the loss of a particular hair gene is not a sufficient change for speciation as this change is still reflected in the overall dog gene pool. In that particular local population you've mentioned there would have to be a succession of mutations that have been selected for which are not reflected in the overall dog gene pool. And this would lead to speciation.
3) If you simply mean that the offspring did not receive the gene for longhair in that particular group, you are certainly correct. However this does not change the gene pool, as these animals are still dogs and both the genes for long hair and short hair remain in the gene pool for dogs.
4) Boxers aren't a species. When boxers are bred with a long-haired dog variety, long-haired puppies will result
A species can be defined as a group of individuals that can interbreed. Hence speciation occurs when two groups of individuals have a sufficient number of genetic variation such that they can no longer interbreed and become distinct species in their own rights. This genetic variation is caused by successive generations of populations in which a selection of mutations have persisted, typically by natural selection.
The example you gave cannot be sufficiently be described as speciation. This is for several reasons. One, because speciation is predicated on evolution which occurs over time. Two, because speciation occurs over a group of individuals and not just a single pair of dogs. Three, because the gene pool for the dog species has not changed. Four, because genes related to hair are typically passed on recessively regardless of whether they are actually expressed in the phenotype.
Mutations are small changes in the genetic code. Evolution occurs when many mutations are accumulated within a population over time. Speciation is just the formation of new species which is driven by evolution. Hence mutations cause speciation via evolution
You should probably reevaluate your beliefs then. The Pro here made a case based on US law and you spouted that TDS nonsense at him anyway.
Spamming TDS is not a defense or argument against legitimate criticism.
There are several positives to actual debating rather than forum arguments though. You get tangible feedback which can help you improve. There's a definite end to a debate whereas forum posts can sprawl on for ages. Finally, you can get creative by abusing exact wordings and phrases
A single incident probably doesn't provide much insight, however a series of incidents spread over time can show a pattern of behaviour that can be used to form an inductive argument. Having an arbitrary cut-off point removes this avenue of argument. This is especially true for Trump, given that he has had a pervasive history of racist accusations levied against him that extends past the 10 year limit.
Greater is the comparative form of great, "The UK is greater than France". Great in it's regular form doesn't directly make a comparison, "The UK is great". However I would think that any definition of great would cascade down to it's modified forms
Do you possess hard evidence that those generalities are partially dictated by a genetic component which cannot be solely explained by a social component?
I would think that setting a swarm of piranha on someone definitely counts as both unusual and cruel. Honestly if you're going down a route that inhumain you may as well go with one of the alleged medieval methods of execution which, while no less cruel and unusual are infinitely more interesting. Bronze bull or rat cage anyone? Also you wouldn't need to import the piranha which I suppose is a bonus
Also you put yourself as Pro flat earth
Your new debate has changed wording and is no longer what I wish to debate
If you like
Just to be clear here, if your entire argument consists of copy and pasted paragraphs from someone else as in this case, it's still plagiarism no matter how how you quote and cite those paragraphs.
Even if you credit your sources, copy and pasting someone else's entire arguments is still plagiarism
* Gasp *
Well what would you suggest?
You think "I don't like fascist ideology in this country" is morally comparable to "I don't like non-white people in this country"?
I disagree. The morality of the principles behind Antifa and the KKK are inherently different
Absolutely. However that is not what he said. And apart from this, personal attacks just do not belong in a debate regardless
If you think your vote is sufficient, then just post it. There's little harm in trying and rejection is the first step to success. If you stick to the CoC however, you'll be fine
Going by the CoC, for conduct, you haven't explained why Speedrace's conduct was excessive. For sources, you haven't explained how the sources have impacted the debate.
But there would be no violence or conflict from either side if America were a white anglo ethnostate. Checkmate
What would the white nationalists in Charlottesville be protesting about if America were a white anglo ethnostate? The single reason why white nationalist ideology exists in the first place is due to the presence of the aforementioned races. Hence, the events at Charlottesville can be entirely be blamed upon those races.
Weren't we just assigning blame? Well the blame clearly lies at the feet of muslims, jews, mexicans, asians and native americans in america. I don't know what you're so confused about
Don't be ridiculous. The violence at charlottesville was clearly caused by the presence of muslims, jews, mexicans, asians and native americans in America. To suggest otherwise is frankly naive and unpatriotic.
You could certainly go down the road of ultimate blame.
The perpetrator wouldn't of done the deed if Antifa hadn't been there
Antifa wouldn't've been there if the white supremacists hadn't been there
The white supremacists wouldn't've been there if America were a pure white-anglo ethnostate.
America would be a pure white-anglo ethnostate if it weren't for those pesky muslims/jews/mexicans/asians/native americans.
Therefore muslims, jews, mexicans, asians, native americans in America are ultimately the blame for that single persons actions.
You keep victim blaming. The only person who needs blame is the person who did it.
"He was running away from Antifa" *is* a justification. It implies that there was an element of self-defence.
What "crazy left-wingers"? Footage of the incident clearly shows the dude just randomly driving into the crowd. It sounds like you're victim blaming here. There is absolutely no justification for intentionally slamming a car into a crowd of people.
Well, why can't a black person work for a racist?
The point of that particular article is to highlight a particularly common usage of the underlying fallacy. However the underlying fallacy stays the same and is applicable in this case.
"The underlying fallacy is that one single point of data, this one "friend," completely overrides any other bits of evidence we have to assess someone's views. This is simply not valid reasoning."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument
I think a rematch on the same topic would've been interesting to see actually. In the sense of how you are both able to improve, develop and refine your arguments after receiving the feedback from Ramshutu and Pinkfreud from the previous debate
If you're bad at voting, don't vote or get better at voting. Plagiarism isn't a solution
But he didn't think that it was a concession and argued against it.
So the full RFD that would've been accepted is some sort of explanation as to why you awarded points despite his argument, using his argument is a reference
It's not about you not surveying other arguments. That's fine.
It's because you only examined the specific point from the Pro side and you ignored what Con attempted to defend himself with. Specifically,
"From a religious belief, I am against gay marriage. I explained my political belief before that last sentence. It is not based on religion. I even say "If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine." I simply BELIEVE(a belief is my opinion, so don't use a technical definition "often one with no proof") government shouldn't regulate which genders marry each other. Marriage is a cultural and religious matter do be decided privately by the parties, and gov. controlling it goes directly against separation of church and state. Nothing about this opinion of mine is religious either. Next."
My understanding is that you could've described this, said that it was a load of rubbish and you would've be fine
How was it sufficient if you didn't address the counter arguments to that particular point?
He said the RFD you made was fine for awarding points to arguments, but not the points awarded to conduct.
If you had recast the vote with only the argument points and the same RFD, the vote would stand.
If you want to award conduct points, you need to award them based on the three criteria for conduct points which you have apparently not met