No comment to any of you. Don't you guys get it, yet? My position: if you're going to take out your gun, you better be shooting it; i.e., stop commentary here because this is not the debate venue. Have some cojones and accept the debate, but leave me out of your empty, flatulent comment pens. Thank you, Death23; you're the only one with a generic comment and not directed to me.
Yes, but commentary is outside of debate rounds, and I've completed my rounds. The vote is already cast, and I did not ask that it be re-cast, did I? Do not read anything into what I write but what I write. I am a demon for detail. Believe it.
Did you miss my rebuttal to atheism in r2 that atheism is an expression of jealousy, a sub-set of possession, for denial of time commanded to be devoted to worship of God?
I really thought you argued some good points, and in my view, forgiving oromagi his r3 error was a valiant gesture I'm not sure I would have granted, and, it actually played into my decision of the approach taken by Pro [yes, I mean Pro] that patriotism [from a pride perspective] can forgive our errors sufficient to let forgiveness have a role in our national pride. It was truly a hard debate to vote on, and I wish you have made the voting on the 4-point system. I could have decided it was a tie, as Ragnar did, because I thought, until Con's unforced error, that you might carry the day; it was that close to me. I hate ties. Never the less, your debating is typically very well done, so, keep it up.
Zut, alors! I really messed up descriptions in my vote, confusing Pro and Con. I just hate it when an instigator plays games taking a Con position, even when I've done it. I've decided never again. See, I screw it up, myself. I've committed to always taking the Pro position as an instigator, and to word my resolutions from that perspective. So, lest anyone complain about my vote, ignore the descriptives relative to Pro and Con. I properly designated my vote as oromagi being the winner of this debate.
Who says I'm the one who is confused? You're the one who confused your own calendar. And I have no confusion about "influential." You defined it, and I have no objection to your definition. So, we carry on...
Yes, indeed I did misrepresent Pro and Con. It's just that over 90% of debates, Pro is the instigator, and I do, at times, succumb to convention. Just more games by the true Con; games that are no favors to the reversal of roles to the instigator. To oromagi, my apologies. To R-adman, my tyhanks, although thehungry dog reference is, in fact a correct analogy.
De rien, mon vieux. But I think you have our roles reversed. "relentless" is my alternate moniker for you, and it is well deserved, and more masterful than my poor efforts, but, I am learning from the master. thanks.
An r1 total failure by Pro, a duplicate mistake of another debate vote I've just offered. Caution to Pro to cease this nonsense. It does not help your cause. And your total lack of sourcing does not help you, either. Do some research and prove your points by scholarship greater than your own. Neither does the description's first paragraph; a load of obvious drivel unnecessary to explain. By contrast, a relentless r1 success by Con. I look forward to the remaining rounds like a hungry dog in the face of a next meal.
An error in my voting, to wit: In the Conduct section, I indicated "Pro lost the S&G point." I meant to indicate "Pro lost the Conduct point." Sorry for the error. No change in the voting point results.
Now that I have accepted the debate, while the rest of you [except oromagi] strain at gnats...
It is, gentlemen, like this: If you're going to take out your gun, shoot the damn thing and stop talking about it.
I will note, for the record, that a claim of logic is not a scholastically-supported argument. Opinion is not necessarily logical. Opinion is a can of beans without an opener. Or, more to the point, a thought without a brain which is, fortunately, not generally contagious.
and the debate is not enjoined in these comments, but in arguments, and you're not in it, so, ma gavte la nata [or, in the vernacular you understand: put a cork in it.]
"Gods are the obvious and unavoidable consequence of this proposal..." Nope. The scientific, or empirical method, to the uninitiated in the trial of faith, cannot, by the means of empiricism alone, demonstrate God. And witchcraft, the dominant subject of the debate, does not go there, either, even though witchcraft is a pseudoscience that attempts to attract the behavior of super-natural beings in the effort to have them be agents of change to the natural world. However, to God, as recognized by adherents to the Torah, the Holy Bible, and the Qu'ran, witchcraft is an abomination. [Deuteronomy 18: 10-12, and the Qu'ran, 7:102-124] The gods of witchcraft are fleeting, and will accept any attempt to flatter any one of them by spells, even to the extent of swapping one god for another in any given spell [Nightshade, Brittany, The Book of Shadows, Preface, pg. 10]. Therefore, your claim of inevitability of gods being an unavoidable consequence to this debate is an empty cauldron, as useless to empiricism, and faith, as it is to newt's eyes. Just as stated to you in post #41. Do you have any scholarly references for your claim? I don't buy your opinion. Go find a druid in some henge to tell your troubles.
What does God have to do with this debate proposal? Entirely off-topic, but nice try. The comparison is witchcraft to science, and naught to do with any alleged divine being of any stripe. Can't rob Peter to pay Paul. By the wauy, just becaue the definition of witchcraft references the devil, the debate does not turn on worship of any being, even Joe Biden.
Damn! I just watched my DVD of M.Python on Sunday night and... voila, the influence of the subconscious to introduce my debate proposal yesterday. I was going to use that scene in my argument, but you blew it for me!!!
just kidding, but I did watch the movie on Sunday, and who knows if it generated my debate? More mysticism than empricism, I'm afraid.
However, my proposal is not an either/or proposition. I am clearly arguing that witchcraft is both pseudoscience AND superstition, so my BoP is that both apply. ButI I will not argue the case here.
I know I've seen DNA evidence previously, but I'll have to find it again. I don't think any volume I have in my library discusses it. As I remember, it was very curious to me. It was South American in origin, and the link was mitochondrial, but not through Leah [mother of Judah, therefore, of Jewish derivation, and from Judea, but further north; Galilean, and potentially from Rachel, mother of Joseph, and grandmother of Ephraim and Manasseh.
The cross figure, while not having Jewish origins, does have Viking linkage [different shape, with all legs basically equal], and we now know early Scandies, even pre-Christianity, did cross the ocean in antiquity, so that may be the link
I hold Judaism in high esteem. You would find it is also honored highly within the pages of the Book of Mormon, which, if you've never read it, reads biblically [or by the Torah, as well] in terms of structure [book, chapter, verse], and actually records the history of a group of people in the timeframe of the Babylonian invasion, occupation, and displacement of Judea and Galilee, circa 600 BCE, and continues, mostly chronologically, for the next 1,000 years, to ~400 CE. These people escaped Jerusalem [they were descendants of Manasseh, son of Joseph, son of Jacob], and sailed to the Americas. Where they landed is not described. They followed the Law of Moses, but looked forward to the advent of Christ, the Messiah, whose visit among them following his resurrection is recorded. It is believed that some of the Native Americans were descendant from this people. I encourage a read, not as an effort of convincing, but as a superb history.
Just the kind of challenge I relish trying. First personal rule: I am not afraid of failure. But then, I actually have several first personal rules. One of them is: I fear failure. When I figurer out that conundrum, I think my mission in life is complete.
To your question, I never launch a debate without having at least a first round composed. It may alter a bit before publication, particularly if there are negotiated factors created pre-argument phase based on my description - something I recognize I did poorly in our debate Regardless, other than our kerfuffle, I thought it was a good debate with good arguments both sides.
That kind of proposal would be interesting, and I will consider a future debate on that subject. However, I'm going to hold with this one to see if it triggers any interest. If so, the other will certainly be of interest.
By the way, I'm glad we are back to normal. I apologize for the disruption in our recently finished debate. I'd like us to remain friends. Hatchet buried?
I share your skepticism. However, I thought it would be a fun exercise. I just happened to pick up my copy of a book by Carl Sagan [1995] on the subject and thought it would be an interesting debate. Look it up. It's titled "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark"
Re: your #3: take up the debate, and if you wish to offer that argument, be my guest. I will demonstrate the incompatibility of the suggestion. You make a bold, all-encompassing statement. Be prepared to back it up by encompassing evidence.
Oh, come on! Show me where I mentioned 'religion?' I did not, and specifically avoided the reference. Note: this is in the science category, not religion. Be a little more critical of your own assumptions. That is one of the points of this debate suggestion. I certainly do not suggest that witchcraft is exclusively a practice of religious rites, and will not do so.
It is actually a mistake to consider this an exclusively Christian proposal. Every religion, and, in fact, society establishes baseline morality below which they do not tolerate certain actions. This debate is not even really about a god figure. An atheist could deal with the subject matter of this proposal. I merely used characters with whom most are familiar in order to establish common ground for concepts that really are universal: good and bad behavior. Call those bad actions sins. Call them disruptive behavior. Call them anything that one can distinguish from good behavior; behavior that does not offend or injure any deity or moral standard, and no one else physically, spiritually, or mentally. However, everyone will do these things in their lives, and restitution is demanded to meet universal laws of justice. But, that's another debate.
However, if you want to approach this debate from any particular religious perspective, go ahead.
As I argued early in this kerfuffle, "that's the way it has always been done" is a poor argument, DDO and DA, and ought to stop. I will lobby to clarify the policy. It's time past due.
To you, it may appear I have dropped the voter suggestion issue. No, I have not. To you, yes, but not to moderators. You always assumed we would play it out in comments. I was never in favor of that for fear of poisoning voting. I'm afraid that is now muddy, poisoned water, anyway.
Yes, because voting is to consider "within the context of the debate," which does not include comments made after the close of argumentation. I'm not trying to influence voters by my external comments. You are, by making voting suggestion within the context of the debate, but offering sources for that argument only after the close of argumentation. Get it? Your suggestion is nonsense, just like telling a jury to disregard testimony given in court that the judge tells the jury to disregard. Will the jury disregard? Maybe, maybe not. But, the transcript of the court record maintains it all, as do the memories of jurors. Milk spilt, my friend. Your spill.
No, timing is critical. From Help Center, Debate, Argumentation: "The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate." In argumentation, a participant offers arguments, rebuttals, defenses, and conclusions, all with sourcing substantiation. From Help Center, Voting, Argument points: "Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole." Arguments here, also refer to all elements of an argument: argument, rebuttals, defenses, and conclusions WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEBATE, i.e. during the argument phase ONLY. As Contender, your "context of the debate" is limited to the argument phase. As Instigator, my "argument phase" is the creation, challenge, and argument. Neither of us can extend the argument into the voting phase, which begins automatically with the post of the last argument, according to the number of arguments determined by hte instigator. This forbids making sourcing references AFTER the argument phase, which can only be accomplished in comments because the argument phase is closed to participants for adding material. It's what I've been saying since you ended your r4. You cannot make source references AFTER the argument phase, but you did.
You may put sources in comments DURING the argument phase all day long, but cannot reference sources in comments AFTER the argument phase has concluded. Your references of the tiny.cc and Lincoln-Douglas Debate format were placed in comments AFTER the argument phase concluded, while arguing what those sources said as part of your r4 argument. Voters may miss the timing of your citations placement and consider the placement valid sourcing for your r4 argument. Without properly placed sources for your argument in the timing allowed, your argument is not supported and should not be considered in voting, Why do you refuse to acknowledge your improper timing?
There is a CofC. There is a Voting Policy. There is a Debate policy. There is a Moderator Overview. There is a Donations section. They are different sections of the Help Center. God in heaven, you're a trial. Ask the moderators. It is not my job to explain these things to you. I'm done. Did I edit? really????? Done and done
Don't bother telling Ragnar the complete truth, the truth you refuse to admit, that your sourcing citation in comments occurred only AFTER the argument phase was finished, making it invalid and merely reference to outside content, which is invalid in that respect as well.
Remember the giraffe? You're kidding, yeah? Like I said, what are the boundaries of assumption? Does everyone share the same assumptions? Then why allow them, period? I would not presume to post am image of a giraffe or anything else in debate because images are not discussed anywhere in the information center with the exception of their potential use related somehow to Donations. Therefore, reason tells me images, or any other assumptions, are not accepted, moderators notwithstanding. It's your attitude about assumptions that gets muddy. Can't be helped. Rues are rules, as I said. We make them up as we go? Not in my book.
Gentlemen, re: Armorcat's #25, show me. And I'm a little tired of the excuse that the debate section of information center indicates it is **outdated.** Does that mean anything goes? I am, sorry to say, a demon on details. I spent an entire career investigating and resolving process issues. The devil is in details, and, lacking them, they need addressing. I do not not accept "ad hoc" as an explanation for missing details. You say what you do, and do what you say. Period. That's what I'm trying to do; as policy definitively says, and not by mere suggestion, or "well, that's the way it's always done." Bullshyte. If the detail is missing, I consider it an exclusion, not a pat on the head and cursory acceptance. If I'm wrong about that, I guess it's time to hang up my profile and adios into the sunset.
I have three issues [1.a, 1.b, 2, 3 as listed below]:
1. You included voter suggestions within the text of your r4. You then, after the argument phase concluded, cited references to two documents, Ragnar's tiny.cc document, and Lincoln-Douglas Debate format.
1.a Note that you did not make the citations as referenced sources within the debate argument phase, but only in comments AFTER closure of the argument phase. That makes them invalid as source references in comments for debate voting consideration. Therefore, they violate sourcing policy and should not be considered as valid debate argument.
1.b Neither document is contained within the DebateArt.com website, and, therefore, cannot not be used as policy in debate. See my post #18, below.
2. You made reference to outside material in the debate argument phase in your r4 re: my accusation of vote rigging in another debate. That reference is not allowed per voting policy, "Voters considering outside content - The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable." - which also figures in issue 1, above. See my post #20, below.
3. You claimed in your r4 that I did not source material, referenced from the OED. Is it my fault not everyone has a copy of the OED? I own edition 2, the entire 20-volume set, plus an online subscription that is available to anyone willing to pay the price. If you don't, not my issue. I use it because it is the definitive English language dictionary containing virtually every word in the lexicon. So, you do not claim I did not source it; you admit you don't have access and move on. The OED definition is duplicated well enough by other, inferior dictionaries. Your caim is invalid and on you to resolve.
Ragnar, I've copied you as you are party to this dispute being author of tiny.cc.
No comment to any of you. Don't you guys get it, yet? My position: if you're going to take out your gun, you better be shooting it; i.e., stop commentary here because this is not the debate venue. Have some cojones and accept the debate, but leave me out of your empty, flatulent comment pens. Thank you, Death23; you're the only one with a generic comment and not directed to me.
I will not comment further until after voting has ended, lest any other voters be unduly influenced
Yes, but commentary is outside of debate rounds, and I've completed my rounds. The vote is already cast, and I did not ask that it be re-cast, did I? Do not read anything into what I write but what I write. I am a demon for detail. Believe it.
Did you miss my rebuttal to atheism in r2 that atheism is an expression of jealousy, a sub-set of possession, for denial of time commanded to be devoted to worship of God?
I really thought you argued some good points, and in my view, forgiving oromagi his r3 error was a valiant gesture I'm not sure I would have granted, and, it actually played into my decision of the approach taken by Pro [yes, I mean Pro] that patriotism [from a pride perspective] can forgive our errors sufficient to let forgiveness have a role in our national pride. It was truly a hard debate to vote on, and I wish you have made the voting on the 4-point system. I could have decided it was a tie, as Ragnar did, because I thought, until Con's unforced error, that you might carry the day; it was that close to me. I hate ties. Never the less, your debating is typically very well done, so, keep it up.
Zut, alors! I really messed up descriptions in my vote, confusing Pro and Con. I just hate it when an instigator plays games taking a Con position, even when I've done it. I've decided never again. See, I screw it up, myself. I've committed to always taking the Pro position as an instigator, and to word my resolutions from that perspective. So, lest anyone complain about my vote, ignore the descriptives relative to Pro and Con. I properly designated my vote as oromagi being the winner of this debate.
Who says I'm the one who is confused? You're the one who confused your own calendar. And I have no confusion about "influential." You defined it, and I have no objection to your definition. So, we carry on...
Yes, indeed I did misrepresent Pro and Con. It's just that over 90% of debates, Pro is the instigator, and I do, at times, succumb to convention. Just more games by the true Con; games that are no favors to the reversal of roles to the instigator. To oromagi, my apologies. To R-adman, my tyhanks, although thehungry dog reference is, in fact a correct analogy.
De rien, mon vieux. But I think you have our roles reversed. "relentless" is my alternate moniker for you, and it is well deserved, and more masterful than my poor efforts, but, I am learning from the master. thanks.
An r1 total failure by Pro, a duplicate mistake of another debate vote I've just offered. Caution to Pro to cease this nonsense. It does not help your cause. And your total lack of sourcing does not help you, either. Do some research and prove your points by scholarship greater than your own. Neither does the description's first paragraph; a load of obvious drivel unnecessary to explain. By contrast, a relentless r1 success by Con. I look forward to the remaining rounds like a hungry dog in the face of a next meal.
An error in my voting, to wit: In the Conduct section, I indicated "Pro lost the S&G point." I meant to indicate "Pro lost the Conduct point." Sorry for the error. No change in the voting point results.
Congratulations on a relentless argument. Well done,
Teddy Roosevelt had a comment of critics [spectators] and the field of play. But, if bleachers are where RM would like to sit...
Now that I have accepted the debate, while the rest of you [except oromagi] strain at gnats...
It is, gentlemen, like this: If you're going to take out your gun, shoot the damn thing and stop talking about it.
I will note, for the record, that a claim of logic is not a scholastically-supported argument. Opinion is not necessarily logical. Opinion is a can of beans without an opener. Or, more to the point, a thought without a brain which is, fortunately, not generally contagious.
The cited references for my r3:
1 Carr, David (January 26, 2014). "Ezra Klein Is Joining Vox Media as Web Journalism Asserts Itself". The New York Times
2 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-kim-jong-un-meet-dmz-n1025041
3 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/30/world/asia/trump-north-korea-dmz.html
4 https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politics/is-trumps-bill-largest-tax-cut-in-history-no/index.html
5 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/donald-trump-tax-cuts-unpopular-1273469
6 https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=djia+today&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
7 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-stock-market-could-crash-if-donald-trump-is-elected-2016-10-31
8 https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/trump-takes-undue-credit-black-unemployment/
9 https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/obama-didnt-give-iran-150-billion-in-cash/
10 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/10/03/the-united-states-iran-and-1-7-billion-sorting-out-the-details/
11 https://deadline.com/2018/06/joe-biden-blasts-donald-trump-irresponsible-approach-north-korea-summit-kim-jong-un-1202408935/
12 https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/505465-poll-record-number-of-voter-disapprove-of-trumps-handling-of
13 https://www.checkmarket.com/sample-size-calculator/
14 https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/rating
and the debate is not enjoined in these comments, but in arguments, and you're not in it, so, ma gavte la nata [or, in the vernacular you understand: put a cork in it.]
Yes, I should have it in by this evening
"Gods are the obvious and unavoidable consequence of this proposal..." Nope. The scientific, or empirical method, to the uninitiated in the trial of faith, cannot, by the means of empiricism alone, demonstrate God. And witchcraft, the dominant subject of the debate, does not go there, either, even though witchcraft is a pseudoscience that attempts to attract the behavior of super-natural beings in the effort to have them be agents of change to the natural world. However, to God, as recognized by adherents to the Torah, the Holy Bible, and the Qu'ran, witchcraft is an abomination. [Deuteronomy 18: 10-12, and the Qu'ran, 7:102-124] The gods of witchcraft are fleeting, and will accept any attempt to flatter any one of them by spells, even to the extent of swapping one god for another in any given spell [Nightshade, Brittany, The Book of Shadows, Preface, pg. 10]. Therefore, your claim of inevitability of gods being an unavoidable consequence to this debate is an empty cauldron, as useless to empiricism, and faith, as it is to newt's eyes. Just as stated to you in post #41. Do you have any scholarly references for your claim? I don't buy your opinion. Go find a druid in some henge to tell your troubles.
What does God have to do with this debate proposal? Entirely off-topic, but nice try. The comparison is witchcraft to science, and naught to do with any alleged divine being of any stripe. Can't rob Peter to pay Paul. By the wauy, just becaue the definition of witchcraft references the devil, the debate does not turn on worship of any being, even Joe Biden.
I challenge anyone, even non-witches, to take up their cause. Of what are y'all afraid?
Damn! I just watched my DVD of M.Python on Sunday night and... voila, the influence of the subconscious to introduce my debate proposal yesterday. I was going to use that scene in my argument, but you blew it for me!!!
just kidding, but I did watch the movie on Sunday, and who knows if it generated my debate? More mysticism than empricism, I'm afraid.
Well it might. I certainly receive a lot of grief from the atheist community, as do others of my stripe. I believe in equal-opportunity tick-off.
However, my proposal is not an either/or proposition. I am clearly arguing that witchcraft is both pseudoscience AND superstition, so my BoP is that both apply. ButI I will not argue the case here.
Thank you for voting. You did that with great skill, and, though I disagree [of course], I cannot argue that your points are credible.
I know I've seen DNA evidence previously, but I'll have to find it again. I don't think any volume I have in my library discusses it. As I remember, it was very curious to me. It was South American in origin, and the link was mitochondrial, but not through Leah [mother of Judah, therefore, of Jewish derivation, and from Judea, but further north; Galilean, and potentially from Rachel, mother of Joseph, and grandmother of Ephraim and Manasseh.
The cross figure, while not having Jewish origins, does have Viking linkage [different shape, with all legs basically equal], and we now know early Scandies, even pre-Christianity, did cross the ocean in antiquity, so that may be the link
I hold Judaism in high esteem. You would find it is also honored highly within the pages of the Book of Mormon, which, if you've never read it, reads biblically [or by the Torah, as well] in terms of structure [book, chapter, verse], and actually records the history of a group of people in the timeframe of the Babylonian invasion, occupation, and displacement of Judea and Galilee, circa 600 BCE, and continues, mostly chronologically, for the next 1,000 years, to ~400 CE. These people escaped Jerusalem [they were descendants of Manasseh, son of Joseph, son of Jacob], and sailed to the Americas. Where they landed is not described. They followed the Law of Moses, but looked forward to the advent of Christ, the Messiah, whose visit among them following his resurrection is recorded. It is believed that some of the Native Americans were descendant from this people. I encourage a read, not as an effort of convincing, but as a superb history.
As for mistakes, I agree. We're on the same page.
Just the kind of challenge I relish trying. First personal rule: I am not afraid of failure. But then, I actually have several first personal rules. One of them is: I fear failure. When I figurer out that conundrum, I think my mission in life is complete.
Thanks for that.
To your question, I never launch a debate without having at least a first round composed. It may alter a bit before publication, particularly if there are negotiated factors created pre-argument phase based on my description - something I recognize I did poorly in our debate Regardless, other than our kerfuffle, I thought it was a good debate with good arguments both sides.
Statistical hypothesis? Or, rather, statistical data in a hypothesis? There's corkscrew logic. But, even corkscrews have a logic, so...
That kind of proposal would be interesting, and I will consider a future debate on that subject. However, I'm going to hold with this one to see if it triggers any interest. If so, the other will certainly be of interest.
By the way, I'm glad we are back to normal. I apologize for the disruption in our recently finished debate. I'd like us to remain friends. Hatchet buried?
I share your skepticism. However, I thought it would be a fun exercise. I just happened to pick up my copy of a book by Carl Sagan [1995] on the subject and thought it would be an interesting debate. Look it up. It's titled "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark"
Re: your #3: take up the debate, and if you wish to offer that argument, be my guest. I will demonstrate the incompatibility of the suggestion. You make a bold, all-encompassing statement. Be prepared to back it up by encompassing evidence.
Not to mention that I would argue that 'religion' and 'disorganized' are not consistently compatible terms.
Oh, come on! Show me where I mentioned 'religion?' I did not, and specifically avoided the reference. Note: this is in the science category, not religion. Be a little more critical of your own assumptions. That is one of the points of this debate suggestion. I certainly do not suggest that witchcraft is exclusively a practice of religious rites, and will not do so.
It is actually a mistake to consider this an exclusively Christian proposal. Every religion, and, in fact, society establishes baseline morality below which they do not tolerate certain actions. This debate is not even really about a god figure. An atheist could deal with the subject matter of this proposal. I merely used characters with whom most are familiar in order to establish common ground for concepts that really are universal: good and bad behavior. Call those bad actions sins. Call them disruptive behavior. Call them anything that one can distinguish from good behavior; behavior that does not offend or injure any deity or moral standard, and no one else physically, spiritually, or mentally. However, everyone will do these things in their lives, and restitution is demanded to meet universal laws of justice. But, that's another debate.
However, if you want to approach this debate from any particular religious perspective, go ahead.
As I argued early in this kerfuffle, "that's the way it has always been done" is a poor argument, DDO and DA, and ought to stop. I will lobby to clarify the policy. It's time past due.
I will read and vote.
To you, it may appear I have dropped the voter suggestion issue. No, I have not. To you, yes, but not to moderators. You always assumed we would play it out in comments. I was never in favor of that for fear of poisoning voting. I'm afraid that is now muddy, poisoned water, anyway.
Yes, because voting is to consider "within the context of the debate," which does not include comments made after the close of argumentation. I'm not trying to influence voters by my external comments. You are, by making voting suggestion within the context of the debate, but offering sources for that argument only after the close of argumentation. Get it? Your suggestion is nonsense, just like telling a jury to disregard testimony given in court that the judge tells the jury to disregard. Will the jury disregard? Maybe, maybe not. But, the transcript of the court record maintains it all, as do the memories of jurors. Milk spilt, my friend. Your spill.
No, timing is critical. From Help Center, Debate, Argumentation: "The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate." In argumentation, a participant offers arguments, rebuttals, defenses, and conclusions, all with sourcing substantiation. From Help Center, Voting, Argument points: "Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole." Arguments here, also refer to all elements of an argument: argument, rebuttals, defenses, and conclusions WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEBATE, i.e. during the argument phase ONLY. As Contender, your "context of the debate" is limited to the argument phase. As Instigator, my "argument phase" is the creation, challenge, and argument. Neither of us can extend the argument into the voting phase, which begins automatically with the post of the last argument, according to the number of arguments determined by hte instigator. This forbids making sourcing references AFTER the argument phase, which can only be accomplished in comments because the argument phase is closed to participants for adding material. It's what I've been saying since you ended your r4. You cannot make source references AFTER the argument phase, but you did.
You may put sources in comments DURING the argument phase all day long, but cannot reference sources in comments AFTER the argument phase has concluded. Your references of the tiny.cc and Lincoln-Douglas Debate format were placed in comments AFTER the argument phase concluded, while arguing what those sources said as part of your r4 argument. Voters may miss the timing of your citations placement and consider the placement valid sourcing for your r4 argument. Without properly placed sources for your argument in the timing allowed, your argument is not supported and should not be considered in voting, Why do you refuse to acknowledge your improper timing?
There is a CofC. There is a Voting Policy. There is a Debate policy. There is a Moderator Overview. There is a Donations section. They are different sections of the Help Center. God in heaven, you're a trial. Ask the moderators. It is not my job to explain these things to you. I'm done. Did I edit? really????? Done and done
Did I mention CofC? I've told you where it is my opinion you've violated policy and none if it is in CoC. Read me with comprehension, for once.
Don't bother telling Ragnar the complete truth, the truth you refuse to admit, that your sourcing citation in comments occurred only AFTER the argument phase was finished, making it invalid and merely reference to outside content, which is invalid in that respect as well.
I do not dispute adding sources in comments as long as they are added during the argument phase if they are intended to be part of the debate.
Remember the giraffe? You're kidding, yeah? Like I said, what are the boundaries of assumption? Does everyone share the same assumptions? Then why allow them, period? I would not presume to post am image of a giraffe or anything else in debate because images are not discussed anywhere in the information center with the exception of their potential use related somehow to Donations. Therefore, reason tells me images, or any other assumptions, are not accepted, moderators notwithstanding. It's your attitude about assumptions that gets muddy. Can't be helped. Rues are rules, as I said. We make them up as we go? Not in my book.
What is the boundary of assumptions? Don't go there with me. Assumptions are goosie=loosie
Gentlemen, re: Armorcat's #25, show me. And I'm a little tired of the excuse that the debate section of information center indicates it is **outdated.** Does that mean anything goes? I am, sorry to say, a demon on details. I spent an entire career investigating and resolving process issues. The devil is in details, and, lacking them, they need addressing. I do not not accept "ad hoc" as an explanation for missing details. You say what you do, and do what you say. Period. That's what I'm trying to do; as policy definitively says, and not by mere suggestion, or "well, that's the way it's always done." Bullshyte. If the detail is missing, I consider it an exclusion, not a pat on the head and cursory acceptance. If I'm wrong about that, I guess it's time to hang up my profile and adios into the sunset.
I have three issues [1.a, 1.b, 2, 3 as listed below]:
1. You included voter suggestions within the text of your r4. You then, after the argument phase concluded, cited references to two documents, Ragnar's tiny.cc document, and Lincoln-Douglas Debate format.
1.a Note that you did not make the citations as referenced sources within the debate argument phase, but only in comments AFTER closure of the argument phase. That makes them invalid as source references in comments for debate voting consideration. Therefore, they violate sourcing policy and should not be considered as valid debate argument.
1.b Neither document is contained within the DebateArt.com website, and, therefore, cannot not be used as policy in debate. See my post #18, below.
2. You made reference to outside material in the debate argument phase in your r4 re: my accusation of vote rigging in another debate. That reference is not allowed per voting policy, "Voters considering outside content - The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable." - which also figures in issue 1, above. See my post #20, below.
3. You claimed in your r4 that I did not source material, referenced from the OED. Is it my fault not everyone has a copy of the OED? I own edition 2, the entire 20-volume set, plus an online subscription that is available to anyone willing to pay the price. If you don't, not my issue. I use it because it is the definitive English language dictionary containing virtually every word in the lexicon. So, you do not claim I did not source it; you admit you don't have access and move on. The OED definition is duplicated well enough by other, inferior dictionaries. Your caim is invalid and on you to resolve.
Ragnar, I've copied you as you are party to this dispute being author of tiny.cc.