Now that the debate s finished, I will admit that had I voted, Con's arguments carried the day. Pro's argument that the Bible created Western civilization is simply lending too much credit to the Bible, period. It is a great book. It is filled with valid personal life choices to make and have a prosperous life by whatever measure you wish to make. But cause of Western civilization is just a reach too far.
Part of the vagueness is the fact that I don't have a clue what this debate is about. If I knew what a secret topic debate is, I might have been able to offer a better vote, but I don't, so perhaps eliminating my vote was a better course.
I think the instigator of a debate should take the lead in the debate. It looks like a coward, otherwise. It's YOUR debate. Stand for it. Either you trust yourself with a valid argument, or you don't. You want to see your opponent's cards, wait for his play. He waits for yours, yeah?
Be advised that I have just received PM from BiblicalChristian101 that the debate can no longer be enjoined, but has not mentioned such here. I anticipate the upcoming expected argument to be forfeit, and, apparently, the rest as well. We'll see. Sorry to hear it.
These are given different descriptive names, but they all can serve the same purpose of consequence, which is my voting decision support. But this is all nonsense because your sources include both stay-at-home AND social distancing as effective countermeasures, yet you do not allow for social distancing in your debate proposal. Why you entertain quarantine in your complaint about my vote is a smoke screen. My vote exposed your sources' allowance of social distancing while your argument separated from it.
Can a debater countermand the rules of the site? Seems countermanding policy is itself a reason for discipline. Policy says "A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited." But Con had 2 argument rounds and 2 forfeit rounds. That meets the policy. You want to play rules, know them. Also, Pro only imposed waiving a round in round 1; not the time to do that.
Because a law firm says they are not the same, you're going to buy that? Quarantine [defined by your source]: "...isolates an individual inside their own home or in a hospital." Stay-at-home is self-explanatory. Isn't the effect the same? It's a distinction without a difference. Lawyers. They'll argue anything, even against itself.
Before I vote on this one, just want to point out [again] the uselessness of waiving rounds. If the debate is to be a 4-round debate, call it that, and stop this nonsense of waiving. It accomplishes northing, and no one to date has demonstrated successfully that it does. As it is, it is called a 5-round, and Pro has tossed one of them, and Con has tossed one of them, plus forfeited two more. However, since waiving is not really counted as a forfeit, I suppose the debate is live for both participants because more than half the five rounds have not been forfeited by either one, in spite of Pro declaring that less than half the rounds forfeit means a loss, which is not what the debate policy says. I'd consider both having lost conduct, but the format does not speak to deducting points; only giving them.
I'm not going to report your vote, but I'd appreciate an explanation why sourcing is a tie when Con offered zero sources. Not that quantity of sources is a measure, but, clearly, there is a distinct difference in the lack of quality sourcing when no source is offered while I have all hard data sourced.
Thanks for the compliment. It actually belongs to Blamonkey, who suggested I develop a format for easier following of my arguments, because I can go down rabbit holes in my arguments. I developed this format on the suggestion. You will find that as you proceed through rounds, it's easer to refer to "round 1, argument II.a" rather than quoting that paragraph, taking character space you may otherwise need.
Further, relative to my vote on sourcing, pro's round 1 quote from “China's top political commission in charge of law and order" that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of [virus] cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity" sounds convincing as if China is running upon its sword, but a little research into Pro's source for the quote finds that, 1. the source is South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong journal with which I am familar, having logged much time in Hong Kong, 2. that the source is an opinion piece quoting a statement made by China's Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission [the commission to which Pro refers], 3 that the quote is actually out of Chang An Jian, China's official political propaganda vehicle, and 4. that the referenced "pillar of shame" is a protest sculpture on Hong Kong University's grounds, raised against Chinese aggression, and used cleverly by Chang An Jian by reverse psychology. That's credible sourcing??? Nope.
If my vote is removed I will simply add these comments from posts #6, #7, that's fine. I will re-create the vote as is, and these items to it and re-post it.
I contend my vote not only did not violate policy, but was a reasoned development based on the logic of "should" as opposed to "can" or "will." "Should" is limited by "can" simply because "can" defines the parameters, not "should." I should be able to exact an eye for an eye against my neighbor for killing my dog which left a package in my neighbor's front yard, but the law dictates both the nature and the timing of my ability to exact revenge. It is legally not up to me. Just so, as Con argued, international law lacks the means to allow "should" to occur. It is a skillful rebuttal by Con both by argument and sourcing.
The description says all you need to argue about. Adam and Even originated the human genome, along with the potential for mutation [a possible outside influence] of that genome over generations, beginning with Gen 1. Isn't that all in the description?
Don't bother to read the description, which negates your attempts at BoP for #s 1, 2, 3, 4 is a given, and 5 is superfluous. You must accept some assumptions in this debate. I am not arguing any other matter relative to who or what started Homo sapiens. For argument's sake only, we're calling them Adam and Eve. Are you more comfortable with Jack and Jill? IT DOES NOT MATTER. Get over your details and read the description. THAT is the total scope of the debate, regardless of what biology theorizes. I have defined what is needed to be supported by argument, whether biologically accurate, or not. Who can sell the best theory?
Given your comment #16, how do I proceed in this debate, given EricT's concession? I extended argument of 3, considering the concession much like a forfeit, adding that I would enter a fourth round. It seems by your post #16 that my plan is still appropriate, or does the ban [more than a restriction] cut off all access to the site? pls advise.
Not by my observation in my debate with EricT in https://www.debateart.com/debates/2075/resolved-law-enforcement-caused-death-and-injury-to-u-s-citizens-are-not-by-epidemic-proportion
Ibid is short for Latin "ibidem"meaning "In the same place." it is used to refer to a reference immediately above the ibid reference without having to repeat the entire reference again. If there is a string of references calling out the same source, ibid is used for as many consecutive references are in the string. If other references intervene, and a same source is cited again, the entire reference must then be listed again.
RM, welcome to the debate. Thanks for accepting. I did not mention it in description, but I'm not imposing a round waiver. I've specified 3 rounds and we will debate 3 rounds. I find the other an absurd game. I'm not even a sure I would oppose new argument in round 3. I did not mention that either, but in this instance, I'm actually debating with the hope in mind of changing policy relative to the no-vote condition. Any particular thoughts you have on protocol for the debate, I'll entertain them. Best wished for a lively debate
AS RM has accepted the debate, and you did not, we'll let RM determine what may be easiest and by what justifications. This debate was not initiated as a whimsical exercise, but as a serious [to me] issue of the general lack of sufficient voting. I did not mention in description that debates with just one vote are at least 4:1 the number of no votes. That makes the issue a 15% matter. Not sure if I'll entertain the one-vote dilemma. However, to your point, until A.I. can demonstrate a facility with paronomasia, or other literary devices, let alone pure nuance of language, and not just capability of syntax and grammar, I'll opt for a human judge, thanks.
I'm with Oromagi on this one. Example: A restaurant offers an all-you-can-eat menu. How do they stay in business? It's a simple construct: the great majority of people will not eat everything on the menu for the simple reason that they have a finite volume they can consume in one sitting, and the menu is often in excess of most people's allotted volume. They may be able to eat two complete entrees with a typical two sides, plus a bottomless drink, and that suffices. The one or two in a day who can do not bury the restaurant in debt becaise there may actually be more people who frequent such a restaurant than otherwise would, just because of the offer, and their numbers more than compensate for the one or two who actually can consume more than the typical customer.
So, if one is allowed to use more characters/spaces than another, so what? As Oromagi argues, just because it is allowed [30K characters/spaces, for example] does not mean one is compelled to use that quantity. The world has enough limiters and limitations for no purpose other than to impose control. Argue dfor your wn limitations; they're yours.
What good does "bumping do? I'd really like to know. I am lobbying for an end to debates that end with no votes. Why bother doing the research in a debate if no one is willing to review it?
- call me disillusioned.
I respectfully disagree. Crocodile is attempting to parse the subject of the debate, the Green New Deal, into the definitions of the three separate words, when those words, combined, end up equating to issues beyond the environment, let alone his separate definitions. My third round will address a piece of that action.
If a member of a police force dies in action, and that action was caused by another officer, and the action was unjustified, yes, it is an unjustified police action because police officers are also citizens.
I acknowledge all those other issues, but the debate needs to be focused, and I've defined mine. Not going to solve all society problems in one debate. I will not even try. Note that I am not even seeking how to resolve anything. Just arguing that for these two issues, death and injury caused by police, is not at epidemic proportion
About three months downstream from the conclusion of this debate, I reviewed it and noted an interesting commentary that concluded my opponent's 4th and last round:
"So please everyone. remember, this debate was not about whether or not "a God" (intelligent designer) is compatible with the evolution theory. I would actually argue that evolution theory neither proves intelligent design, nor disproves it.
However this debate was about whether or not the Genesis creation texts are compatible with any modern science book. And my opponent has completely failed to even remotely prove this."
I will remind all that the claim that I failed to prove compatibility of Genesis to "any modern science book" is not only a fallacy of interpretation, but a violation of understanding the debate proposal which was, "Genesis creation & Darwin’s evolution theory co-cooperate." My opponent declared that he did not need to argue Darwin, and threw to us, instead, "modern science books." But the debate WAS about "Darwin's evolution" and not modern science. As the proposal defines the parameters of the debate, and it cannot be changed by the whim of either participant, it remains the subject on which the debate is waged.
I will not vote on this debate as I cannot dismiss my utter disdain of exclusive use of wiki as a source. It's not the only game in town. There's a reason why encyclopedia salesman is a dead breed.
I knew that ELO was the ranking in our profiles, but I thought it was an acronym I didn't know the meaning of. No wonder I didn't know. I detest wiki. Reminds me of encyclopedia salesmen. Yes, there was once such a profession.
That's what you get for playing games. You want a 5-round debate, debate 5 rounds and stop this waiving nonsense. You've got an argument; make it!. You initiate, you begin your argument first. Is that so hard? Waive; wave bye-bye to the debate.
Is it? Ah, there's the rub. Being an old man is advantageous. Been around the block a few times, and familiar with both objectives.
Now that the debate s finished, I will admit that had I voted, Con's arguments carried the day. Pro's argument that the Bible created Western civilization is simply lending too much credit to the Bible, period. It is a great book. It is filled with valid personal life choices to make and have a prosperous life by whatever measure you wish to make. But cause of Western civilization is just a reach too far.
Off the top, that sounds idiotic. Were argument also pulled so others could not see the debate? So, what was the purpose of pulling titles?
Part of the vagueness is the fact that I don't have a clue what this debate is about. If I knew what a secret topic debate is, I might have been able to offer a better vote, but I don't, so perhaps eliminating my vote was a better course.
I think the instigator of a debate should take the lead in the debate. It looks like a coward, otherwise. It's YOUR debate. Stand for it. Either you trust yourself with a valid argument, or you don't. You want to see your opponent's cards, wait for his play. He waits for yours, yeah?
I can't vote like how? What is reportable?
If you only want a 4-round debate, specify a 4-round debate. Waiving is a joke.
Be advised that I have just received PM from BiblicalChristian101 that the debate can no longer be enjoined, but has not mentioned such here. I anticipate the upcoming expected argument to be forfeit, and, apparently, the rest as well. We'll see. Sorry to hear it.
Thanks for voting. I liked your summary, but will talk about it in PM
As I have accepted Part 2 of this debate, taking the Con position, I will refrain from voting in this part 1, or risk bias.
A house is an apartment is a tent is a cave.
These are given different descriptive names, but they all can serve the same purpose of consequence, which is my voting decision support. But this is all nonsense because your sources include both stay-at-home AND social distancing as effective countermeasures, yet you do not allow for social distancing in your debate proposal. Why you entertain quarantine in your complaint about my vote is a smoke screen. My vote exposed your sources' allowance of social distancing while your argument separated from it.
Can a debater countermand the rules of the site? Seems countermanding policy is itself a reason for discipline. Policy says "A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited." But Con had 2 argument rounds and 2 forfeit rounds. That meets the policy. You want to play rules, know them. Also, Pro only imposed waiving a round in round 1; not the time to do that.
Because a law firm says they are not the same, you're going to buy that? Quarantine [defined by your source]: "...isolates an individual inside their own home or in a hospital." Stay-at-home is self-explanatory. Isn't the effect the same? It's a distinction without a difference. Lawyers. They'll argue anything, even against itself.
Before I vote on this one, just want to point out [again] the uselessness of waiving rounds. If the debate is to be a 4-round debate, call it that, and stop this nonsense of waiving. It accomplishes northing, and no one to date has demonstrated successfully that it does. As it is, it is called a 5-round, and Pro has tossed one of them, and Con has tossed one of them, plus forfeited two more. However, since waiving is not really counted as a forfeit, I suppose the debate is live for both participants because more than half the five rounds have not been forfeited by either one, in spite of Pro declaring that less than half the rounds forfeit means a loss, which is not what the debate policy says. I'd consider both having lost conduct, but the format does not speak to deducting points; only giving them.
I'm not going to report your vote, but I'd appreciate an explanation why sourcing is a tie when Con offered zero sources. Not that quantity of sources is a measure, but, clearly, there is a distinct difference in the lack of quality sourcing when no source is offered while I have all hard data sourced.
Thanks for the compliment. It actually belongs to Blamonkey, who suggested I develop a format for easier following of my arguments, because I can go down rabbit holes in my arguments. I developed this format on the suggestion. You will find that as you proceed through rounds, it's easer to refer to "round 1, argument II.a" rather than quoting that paragraph, taking character space you may otherwise need.
Thank you for voting
Thank you very much for voting
Would you like to describe your research into these matters, since you have not voted?
Further, relative to my vote on sourcing, pro's round 1 quote from “China's top political commission in charge of law and order" that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of [virus] cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity" sounds convincing as if China is running upon its sword, but a little research into Pro's source for the quote finds that, 1. the source is South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong journal with which I am familar, having logged much time in Hong Kong, 2. that the source is an opinion piece quoting a statement made by China's Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission [the commission to which Pro refers], 3 that the quote is actually out of Chang An Jian, China's official political propaganda vehicle, and 4. that the referenced "pillar of shame" is a protest sculpture on Hong Kong University's grounds, raised against Chinese aggression, and used cleverly by Chang An Jian by reverse psychology. That's credible sourcing??? Nope.
If my vote is removed I will simply add these comments from posts #6, #7, that's fine. I will re-create the vote as is, and these items to it and re-post it.
I contend my vote not only did not violate policy, but was a reasoned development based on the logic of "should" as opposed to "can" or "will." "Should" is limited by "can" simply because "can" defines the parameters, not "should." I should be able to exact an eye for an eye against my neighbor for killing my dog which left a package in my neighbor's front yard, but the law dictates both the nature and the timing of my ability to exact revenge. It is legally not up to me. Just so, as Con argued, international law lacks the means to allow "should" to occur. It is a skillful rebuttal by Con both by argument and sourcing.
Guys, the argument by Con is to present a better theory than I propose of a single set of parents, their combined genome, and mutation.
The description says all you need to argue about. Adam and Even originated the human genome, along with the potential for mutation [a possible outside influence] of that genome over generations, beginning with Gen 1. Isn't that all in the description?
Don't bother to read the description, which negates your attempts at BoP for #s 1, 2, 3, 4 is a given, and 5 is superfluous. You must accept some assumptions in this debate. I am not arguing any other matter relative to who or what started Homo sapiens. For argument's sake only, we're calling them Adam and Eve. Are you more comfortable with Jack and Jill? IT DOES NOT MATTER. Get over your details and read the description. THAT is the total scope of the debate, regardless of what biology theorizes. I have defined what is needed to be supported by argument, whether biologically accurate, or not. Who can sell the best theory?
I've heard this one before. As I said in description: Within the scope of the debate, Adam & Eve are accepted as first parents. and God is irrelevant.
Yes, I will vote, but it may take a couple of days to get to it. I remise I will do it.
Then I suppose the clock on the debate counts down, the forfeit of round 4 occurs, and I can enter my conclusion, and done. That's okay by me.
Given your comment #16, how do I proceed in this debate, given EricT's concession? I extended argument of 3, considering the concession much like a forfeit, adding that I would enter a fourth round. It seems by your post #16 that my plan is still appropriate, or does the ban [more than a restriction] cut off all access to the site? pls advise.
Not by my observation in my debate with EricT in https://www.debateart.com/debates/2075/resolved-law-enforcement-caused-death-and-injury-to-u-s-citizens-are-not-by-epidemic-proportion
I may have to abstain voting on your debate.
Thank you so much for voting
Thank you very much for voting
Ibid is short for Latin "ibidem"meaning "In the same place." it is used to refer to a reference immediately above the ibid reference without having to repeat the entire reference again. If there is a string of references calling out the same source, ibid is used for as many consecutive references are in the string. If other references intervene, and a same source is cited again, the entire reference must then be listed again.
RM, welcome to the debate. Thanks for accepting. I did not mention it in description, but I'm not imposing a round waiver. I've specified 3 rounds and we will debate 3 rounds. I find the other an absurd game. I'm not even a sure I would oppose new argument in round 3. I did not mention that either, but in this instance, I'm actually debating with the hope in mind of changing policy relative to the no-vote condition. Any particular thoughts you have on protocol for the debate, I'll entertain them. Best wished for a lively debate
AS RM has accepted the debate, and you did not, we'll let RM determine what may be easiest and by what justifications. This debate was not initiated as a whimsical exercise, but as a serious [to me] issue of the general lack of sufficient voting. I did not mention in description that debates with just one vote are at least 4:1 the number of no votes. That makes the issue a 15% matter. Not sure if I'll entertain the one-vote dilemma. However, to your point, until A.I. can demonstrate a facility with paronomasia, or other literary devices, let alone pure nuance of language, and not just capability of syntax and grammar, I'll opt for a human judge, thanks.
Where is DrSpy? Has not shown up for 2 months. I'm not that interested in shadow boxing, but it appears that is what we have.
I'm with Oromagi on this one. Example: A restaurant offers an all-you-can-eat menu. How do they stay in business? It's a simple construct: the great majority of people will not eat everything on the menu for the simple reason that they have a finite volume they can consume in one sitting, and the menu is often in excess of most people's allotted volume. They may be able to eat two complete entrees with a typical two sides, plus a bottomless drink, and that suffices. The one or two in a day who can do not bury the restaurant in debt becaise there may actually be more people who frequent such a restaurant than otherwise would, just because of the offer, and their numbers more than compensate for the one or two who actually can consume more than the typical customer.
So, if one is allowed to use more characters/spaces than another, so what? As Oromagi argues, just because it is allowed [30K characters/spaces, for example] does not mean one is compelled to use that quantity. The world has enough limiters and limitations for no purpose other than to impose control. Argue dfor your wn limitations; they're yours.
That's too bad. However, we are engaged in a good one, and there will be others.
What good does "bumping do? I'd really like to know. I am lobbying for an end to debates that end with no votes. Why bother doing the research in a debate if no one is willing to review it?
- call me disillusioned.
I respectfully disagree. Crocodile is attempting to parse the subject of the debate, the Green New Deal, into the definitions of the three separate words, when those words, combined, end up equating to issues beyond the environment, let alone his separate definitions. My third round will address a piece of that action.
If a member of a police force dies in action, and that action was caused by another officer, and the action was unjustified, yes, it is an unjustified police action because police officers are also citizens.
I have added to definitions in full description "law enforcement deaths"
I acknowledge all those other issues, but the debate needs to be focused, and I've defined mine. Not going to solve all society problems in one debate. I will not even try. Note that I am not even seeking how to resolve anything. Just arguing that for these two issues, death and injury caused by police, is not at epidemic proportion
Thanks for voting
Thanks for voting
About three months downstream from the conclusion of this debate, I reviewed it and noted an interesting commentary that concluded my opponent's 4th and last round:
"So please everyone. remember, this debate was not about whether or not "a God" (intelligent designer) is compatible with the evolution theory. I would actually argue that evolution theory neither proves intelligent design, nor disproves it.
However this debate was about whether or not the Genesis creation texts are compatible with any modern science book. And my opponent has completely failed to even remotely prove this."
I will remind all that the claim that I failed to prove compatibility of Genesis to "any modern science book" is not only a fallacy of interpretation, but a violation of understanding the debate proposal which was, "Genesis creation & Darwin’s evolution theory co-cooperate." My opponent declared that he did not need to argue Darwin, and threw to us, instead, "modern science books." But the debate WAS about "Darwin's evolution" and not modern science. As the proposal defines the parameters of the debate, and it cannot be changed by the whim of either participant, it remains the subject on which the debate is waged.
When I said "Con's argument that perception can be true, using a graphic source..." I meant to say that was Pro's argument, and it fails.
I will not vote on this debate as I cannot dismiss my utter disdain of exclusive use of wiki as a source. It's not the only game in town. There's a reason why encyclopedia salesman is a dead breed.
I knew that ELO was the ranking in our profiles, but I thought it was an acronym I didn't know the meaning of. No wonder I didn't know. I detest wiki. Reminds me of encyclopedia salesmen. Yes, there was once such a profession.
Sorry. What is ELO as related to ranking?
That's what you get for playing games. You want a 5-round debate, debate 5 rounds and stop this waiving nonsense. You've got an argument; make it!. You initiate, you begin your argument first. Is that so hard? Waive; wave bye-bye to the debate.