I apologize for my previous vote. I expanded the font size of my vote, and realized the several mistakes made in it because I am reaching a point that my eyesight is failing because I simply cannot see the small font used as the standard on this site. Yes, I need glasses, finally. I knew this day was coming, but I have resisted that it's here. Off to the eye doc. I copied and pasted into my own word processor and realized what a bolluxed job I made of it, so I edited and re-wrote it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Gave me an opportunity to clarify.
Since AI wasn't considered a subject worth addressing since last the rules were updated, I'd say that update is needed now, but, lacking it, how does use of AI amount to cheating anymore than citing sources because that also might be construed as plagiarism since another's exact words may be used? Con said in R2 that AI did not write his words, and I'll take the statement on full trust, so I don't see it as automatic cheat. One could accuse that about anyone's debate argument, and how is it proven? By force of accusation? At worst, I see it as a conduct issue, but Pro's conduct of forfeit of 80% of the debate is worse conduct. But, I'll change the matter in the vote if you insist, but I would still vote for Con since it's winner selection and not multiple factors.. You're the Mod.
Jonrohith’s vote acknowledge’s Pro’s lack of sufficient argument in this winner selection debate (Pro forfeits 4 of 5 rounds), but votes for Pro anyway due to accusation that Con used A.I. in argument. I do not see a prohibition of A.I. use in debate rules. Con denies that A.I. “wrote” his arguments but did use it in research. I have seen worse sources used, including not using them at all, though not specifically required in winner selection, but always a good idea to use them, and Con did use other sources. I see no issue of cause here. I ask that you review and consider deleting the vote if you agree with an invented cause of vote. Fairness in voting.
I, too, second Tickbeat’s comment #7. Voters are to compare all debate arguments according to DA debate rules, and any special instructions in the Description, not according to any participant’s after-the-fact complaints. One can note that you left the Description field blank. Might want to consider using that field for purposes as given in debate rules next time, but not for opponent restrictions if you don’t limit yourself by the same restrictions. That’s part of voter assessment of player conduct.
In my vote, I said, " As it is, it's open-season, and Con cited from "open-season" sources, then accused, in R2, that Con violated the rules. What rules?" Please read as " As it is, it's open-season, and Con cited from "open-season" sources, then Pro accused, in R2, that Con violated the rules. What rules? "
Define "like" because I do not know of a friendship that does not have that quality; it's not conditional. Without definition, the debate isn't, either. Don't assume we all think in the same box, so, define your terms, next time. A dictionary is an acceptable source your can cite.
In your debate last month, #6079, on this subject, and on which I did not vote, in Comments I suggested "Pro should have done a more complete job of defining "wet" because it is more, and less than he thinks." You did not do it again in this debate. Why don't you spend a little more effort n your Description to define "wet" or "wetness" because without definition, you just talk around the subject. It is, after all, the keyword of your Resolution. Why not define and stop assuming everyone is on your same page? Liquid does not necessarily mean wet, and I've already given you examples of that: liquid metals: gold for example .
I have a freeze dryer and have freeze dried pineapple chuncks, with the freeze dry process, water is removed, intensifying flavor, and pineapple is one of my favorites. We usually make pizza from scratch. My bride of 54 years makes great dough, and I make the sauce. We tried freeze dried pineapple and it was fabulous!
This, for voters, is a useless debate. The instigator, Pro, was a full forfeit, and Con offered an argument in R1, only, and that argument consisted of 5 sentences, the last of which abdicated because he “…[didnt] really have anything to work off of…” [sic] since Pro’s R1 was a forfeit, as if Con did not have a personal BoP to develop. The previous 4 sentences were mere claims without substance, assuming all naturally agree. Nope, all Con claims are easily demonstrated as false. In a Pew Research poll of 2023, 83% of Americans of a wide variety of religions and national origins believe a God exists. Even Darwin’s first edition of Origin of Species concluded with assurance that there was a Creator, and he did not mean a random selection of impersonal evolution.
Sorry, I did not see whiteflame's post just before mine. I was probably composing as he posted. But is that really correct? If neither participant enters a stoical argument, can that party still win the debate??
I do not understand these votes. Neither participant made an argument, unless there's consideration for "Let’s start my friend" as a topical argument. If ever a debate did not deserve a vote, this is it. A two-sided full forfeit, because if the argument entry is just fluff, might as well have been a forfeit. Should this one really be considered a debate worthy of a vote?
Please delete my vote. In my vote, I did not have the four vote criteria, only the comment section of the vote. Very strange. Still another factor of debate that has failed me. Please cancel and I’ll try again. I intended that pPro win the debate and by more than Con f.f. Thanks
Is there something about substantiating your opposing claims that denies you the right to offer scholastic sourcing for your claims? Your claims amount to declaring flat-earth theory without offering any credible source for your opinions. I point to flat-earth because it isn't in spite of claims. I know in an open voting system, sourcing is not required, but it still makes for convincing arguments when you have a credible citation behind you. I will not vote on this one.
Nope, it's kind of does not need to be common sense, because the debate voting rules stipulate that a forfeiture is a loss of conduct point, even up to 40% of the rounds, Re-read, pls. Again, show me the pro argument that wins the debate. Not trying to be a mod here, and I have no interest in the job,
How did pro win this debate? He offered no argument at all. his opponent forfeited all rounds. That's a win? Please tell me how. Effectively,
pro set of a 1st round Blitzkrieg. Not really, but it is not kosher in my book. Not voting at all is the proper response to this non-debate
Not sure about your conclusion in your #5, but it is true that a good debate is good for health, but this one isn't that. I upchucked just reading the Resolution. Stop this nonsense of semantic argument. You take care of semantics by defining your Resolution terms up front, not by making them a matter of forfeit. So, now that bias has taken me out of an unbiased voter on this one, maybe next time. But, honestly, give up your semantic "argument," which isn't.
I meant to address my #22 to you, but erred in not addressing it to you. please read, and then cancel my vote; I'll re-do it, but, pls, answer the question in it. When the name changed from spelling & grammar to legibility, did the description also change with it? If not, why not? "...The goal isn’t to nitpick, the problem(s) should usually be obvious at a glance." Pro's change of argument was "obvious..." and confusing for the reasons I've already discussed.
I will vote on this before the clock expires, trying to ignore the ongoing spat between the participants, which is too raw on both sides to offer an immediate vote which would render a loss to both for conduct, at least, not having read a word of the arguments of any round. Your debate is over, guys, Stop trying to influence voters by this useless banter, now.
If that did not make sense, try this:
Shut the @##%$% up!
That did not answer my question, which was an honest question. I'm not trying to be difficult, just want to understand, because I am suspcious that when the name changed [before I was here five years ago, the name changed, but I have no idea if the body of the description of legibility changed with it. If it didn't, why not, because I have always voted with this interpretation, and this is the first time it has raised feathers. Just cancel my vote, I'll re-do.
I have to wonder why, then, the name of the section changed from spelling & grammar if the intent was not to widen the scope from mere spelling and grammar, because that is what I'm doing, and y'all think I'm crazy. Isn't the whole idea of reading to be able to understand the writer? In written debate, I expect consistent argument from one side, not being all over the map. In linguistics, we reduce reading to a concept of the ability to decode symbols: the basic units of a language, and when a writer converts thought to written symbols [letters in our case] that collectively say the same thing when repeated, which debate argument is expected to do from round to round.. Pro did not repeat. Sorry, but that implies poor legibility to me, Legibility is not exclusively the job of the de-coder, but the coder, as well.
My complaint is the complete reversal of stand from absolute assurance that Georgism is the greatest thing since butter to not being certain there is butter. Sorry if that is not confusing to you; it is to me.i.e., it iscapitulation to Con's argument.
I bring to the table a PhD in English Lit, and am a published author as a retirement profession, so I am a critic for good grammar and consistency of plot. The "plot" of Pro's R1 vs. R4 tells an opposing story, thus the "word salad.". I do not check my experience at the door when voting. If I must, then I might as well not be a member anymore, because I do not lower my standards for a website's feelings. I recall losing a debate four years ago because a voter cited off=debate sources [i.e., the sources were not cited by my opponent in rebuttal, but by the voter] in order to vote against my argument. If that can fly unchallenged, then so should this word salad negative vote.
Yeah, re: conduct, I forgot about the rules commentary "Any unexcused forfeited round…” was an automatic loss of conduct. Sorry. Can you change that item, or do I need to re-enter a vote?
However, re: the Legibility vote, I gave Con the point because of Pro's word salad between R1 and R4, as mentioned in my voting explanation. I call that sufficient illegibility: “…at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.” plus the [sic] item of omitting cap on America, rendered "america" to begin R1 Just sloppy. I stand by that vote.
Btw, to clarify a claim made by Clausewitzian in this string of comments, and who knows nothing about me, but has made sufficient claims to and about me that I have silenced him from contact with me on this site, has incorrectly claimed that I self-publish. I do not pay a penny to publish; my readers buy my books out of their pockets entirely, from which I earn an undisclosed sum annually [and which justifies a mention in my profile], but I will say nothing further because I will not violate the rule of personal promotion for any reason, Santa's wit on war, or anything else, notwithstanding.
Now that I've voted, I'll vent:
1. It is fact that public schools do not entirely depend on the local, municipal economy for funding, as claimed by Pro. Local schools receive federal funding as well.
2. Social Security, maligned by many as funded by taxpayers, and, therefore, essentially a socialist system, is not funded by one dollar of public money. Its entire funding is by private money: contributed by FICA taxes withdrawn from the paychecks of workers, and an equal sum, each paycheck, by their employers, which is also private money. Those contributions go 100% into the Social Security Trust Fund. Some claim the trust fund is robbed by government to go to other programs the government funds, but this claim is theoretically false. The government does not rob from the S.S Trust Fund, but it does borrow from it. The idea, the LAW, is that the government reimburses the SS Trust Fund for all monies borrowed, but, to date, according to their own calculation, the US government owes the trust fund, as of close of fiscal year 2024 [9/30/24] $2.5 trillion. That's the problem with social security: the government fails to pay it back for borrowed money for other purposes. PRIVATE money, NOT public. Get it?
Re: your #5, blitzkrieg really only applies in a last round if your opponent is on the "bottom inning" of the last round, but that was not the case in this debate; you, as Con, had the last word, and, therefore, the opportunity to respond, which you did.
Yes, other sites do have that specific result of forfeited debate rounds, but DART has a different perspective that few bother to read or analyze. Often, if a participant forfeits all rounds, it may be an automatic loss, but not if the other participant makes a poor effort, themselves. I've encountered a few of those, and, rather than try to determine a winner, I choose not to vote. Simple, doesn't reward anyone for a poor effort. DART rules speak to a 66% min level of forfeiture of rounds to "earn" a discounted point, but the consequence is NOT automatic loss, but only loss of a conduct point, and that only in multiple-dimensional voting segments: argument / sourcing / legibility / conduct, with multiple points potentially offered to both participants. This debate is not that type of designated voting system. It is just win/lose; one point for the winner; 0 point for the loser by each vote. You might want to request to re-vote - must ask a mod. Up to you.
Thanks for voting, but it's apparent you did not read Pro's arguments, particularly in R2 and R3, because he is responding by citation of my arguments. I argued all three rounds, but for some reason, I am prevented from any entry in the argument fields, but everywhere else on the cite, I can make entries. Moderators are aware of the problem, but, to date, have not been able to solve it. My arguments are posted in the Comments section of the debate. Please request to re-vote [you cannot do it on your own, you must ask a mod] and read the arguments. pls. read my Comments, posts 13 & 16 for explanation, and my arguments are posted as follows:
R1: posts 20, 19 [ they are posted in reverse order for easier continuity when reading]
R2: posts 23, 22
R3: posts 27, 26, 25
Yes, actually, for all intents, water, at least as a liquid, is always wet, in spite of my anally-retentive citation that it takes 6 molecules for water to begin to be wet. The other side of that coin is that there are, in the "average" drop of water, 1.2 +E 21 [1.2 sextillion] molecules.
All you say is true, except when there are only 5 or fewer molecules of water - an impractical condition, I admit, but it is a factual limitation to wetness.
X.a Pro’s Resolution and Description, and BoP [burden of proof] are understood, because it is spelled out in both sections; loosely in the Resolution as the economy being negatively affected just by Trump tariffs, and in more detail as negatively affected just by Trump tariffs in the Description. No, I don’t see detail in either, either. What I see is what I’ve already argued in R1 and R2: Pro’s Resolution and Description are short on detail. In fact, Pro’s only detailed offer is [Description]: “Use any economic indicator you want. I won’t provide a metric for “negative economic effect” because I leave that up to the debater.”
X.a.1 Pro will not offer a metric to prove his BoP? That was the claim… No need? Curious perspective. Most who debate intend to have burdens of proof to argue.
X.a.2 I presume “the debater” means me, Con. And I also read that as giving me both BoPs as a burden to argue his negatives and my alleged positives. Thanks. Oh, but that darn Resolution does not imply that I must argue positives. Its implication is only that I defeat the proposal that the economy “tanked,” and only due to Trump tariffs of the second term. I argued by his suggestion, anyway. See below. And as my choice of “metric,” I suggested several in R1 [gold, silver, Apple [NASDAQ], and Amazon [NYSE]]. In R2, I narrowed that to gold [although right now, all are doing very well as my primary argument [thanks]. I realized I needed but one example to defeat the Resolution.[20]
X.b So, gold, per ounce, on close of 4/2 3,120 [rounded - USD]
[day of Trump tariff notice]
4/3 3,118 [loss, $2 per share]
4/4 2,054 [loss, $66; total loss $68]
4/7 2,014 [loss, $50; total loss $118]
4/12 3,204 [gain, $190; all loss recovered]
[day I accepted debate]
4/15 3,219 [ day after Pontiff hospitalized]
4/22 3,433 [day after Pontiff dies, record day]
5/2 3,249 [close of week trading]
[gain total: $129 per share from 4/2]
X.b.1 I chose a metric that defeats Pro’s Resolution. While there was a 5-day loss of $118 [all of 3.8% - a “massive sell off”accordions to Pro], gold regained all loss to $3,204 by the 10th day [4/12], and, as of close of last week, 5/2, a further gain to $3,249, $129 above 4/2. My math may be checked, but I cannot call +$84 after 10 days, or +$129 after
XI.a Over a more sensible market view than ten days, we see a mores realistic result, and recall that I suggested another view in my R2, VII,a.2 re: my gold investment: “…it was 1 data field of 50 years of investing in gold; or >18,000 daily data points [1 per day x 50 years]. As I concluded in R1, precious metals are a long haul investment, not a daily. I’ll agree that precious metals’ dailies do go up and down.” However, that longer view of the stock market is also revealing. Over that same 50 years, this insignificant bump of Pro’s “massive sell off” is invisbje. No, Pro did not claim Donald Trump has had effect on the market for 50 years, he did not need to say so in his R3, but, on the other hand, perhaps Pro ought to have at least taken the view. “Massive sell off” would be worded by softer terms.
XI.b Pro’s R3 claim: “You have a BOP to prove that Trump’s tariffs had a positive effect…” is as good a place to conclude as any. Well, on the day I accepted this debate, 4/12… I’ll just refer you to my argument, above, R3, X.b - X.d, the gold price dailies from 4/2 to 5/2. Some days were excluded as not relevant. I promise there are no gains or losses above or below these days represented. And, as Pro has agreed, day-trading is like gambling; and I’ll add that the odds are likely against us. So, why is Pro’s scope of this debate about half of even 30 days, let alone since 1/20/2025; Trump’s 2nd term inauguration?
XI.c Looks like a positive effect to me, but I do not claim that it was Trump effect for any reason, just as my R2, and R3, have noted, and as I quoted, “the Market is fickle.”
XI.d I conclude that I wish the price of gold is as claimed by Pro, having started investing years ago at $400 per ounce! WOW! I’m not just rich; I’m a 1-percenter!!! Nope, no such luck.
I also conclude the Resolution fails, anyway. Thank you to Moozer for the debate, and to readers, especially those who vote.
"omnipotence" needs no qualification of "maximally" or any other descriptive. The word, itself, by its Latin root, implies all [omni] power [potence]. You're merely creating verbosity.
And, saying that god [any] is "omnipotent" does not necessarily mean he/she acts omnipotently all the time. I suspect god acts with only the prudent power required to accomplish a given task. I suggest, for example, that it does not take omnipotence to plant seeds, whereas, organizing energy and matter from chaos to order just might. You, yourself, possess a certain power. Do you use all of it all the time? No? Then, why should god?
Since both parties forfeited, this debate is likely to end with zero votes, as it should. This was a good topic of debate, but is poorly lacking in definitions, and in prep time for arguments.
And, biologically, though I agree with Pro that only two sexes/genders exist, that the genitals are definitive sex identifiers is not correct; they're merely convenient since the stats are, according to the Library of Medicine [in the U.S.], that 99.99999993 percent of the world's human population are either XX or XY, and that it is actually the set of gonads, either ovaries or testes, that actually determine sex/gender, and not the genitals [and certainly not the choosing brain], of which a very small percentage of us have both, but only one set of gonads to a customer - 100% of us.
Barney, may I request that my vote either be deleted to re-enter my intent, or... It is my choice that Pro win the debate, but the last two mentions of Con in my vote should have been for Pro, not Con. If you can just change those last two references that Pro wins the debate, I would appreciate it it. I've indicated in the actual vote that Con wins, but that's wrong, too. Damn, don't know what I'm thinking!
X Rebuttal: A limited debate
X.a I had a different R3 planned, but I am shocked by Pro’s R2, line 2: “Contenders need not be the creators to change the rules of the debate, if the rules be unfair.” That is a fair statement, but, only applicable prior to accepting the debate. Pro did not close with any mention of the debate being unfair. Pro accepted this debate as is. I cite from DebateArt Information Center, Debates: “Once any user in good standing accepts the challenge, most of the debate settings lock, and it advances into the next stage.”[26] Two of the locked features are the Resolution and Description. The time to request alteration of them is during the Challenge phase via Comments, but not after the debate has begun; in this case, on 4/21; 8 days prior to Pro’s rule-change demand. That is “not fair.” Refer to my R2, V [all sub-¶s, V.a - V.c]. I did not define God, nor assign attributes, including to what religion he bears allegiance, if any.
X.b Pro’s R2, line 3; “Con is not arguing in good faith if he insists on the original rules of his debate, as it is a truism.” Debate rules are truisms? My, but how that definition inflates. My R2, Section V rebutted Pro’s charge of “truism.” I stand on that rebuttal. I also rebutted in R2, Section VIII, and did not begin or end my arguments in R1 with my single reference to Article VII. Let my R2, Section VIII have its full weight of added argumentation, to which I note, with the exception of my VIII.b.2, Pro did not rebut.
X.b.1 Pro said, re: my VIII.b.2, “Con is not arguing how the context implies religious significance or god of any sort, he has essentially given up on proving his BOP and conceded the resolution. “ I remind of the Resolution and Description: referring readers to these as given on the top page of this Debate #6075 .
X.b.1.A I’ll remind of a statement in the Description, and now underlined for emphasis: “…no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration… This is a generic debate which does not exclude atheists or agnostics from accepting the debate because belief in, or acknowledgement of the subject is not required…
X.b.1.B This in no way implies that religious argument cannot be made, and I did so in R2, citing the Holy Bible, the Qu’ran, Doctrine & Covenants, and The Egyptian Book of the Dead.
X.b.2 It is Pro who suggests, after acceptance, to limit this debate: “Con has to prove that the US Constitution is referring to a powerful, wise, and good being that is either jewish, christian, muslim, or hindu and that it created and rules the universe. And that the Constitution refers to a ruler that was granted authority as a birth-right.” Compare this quote to the Resolution and Description/definition.
Do they match? No.
Did the Resolution even suggest that God created and rules the universe? No.
Does the Description define God by any traits or birthrights? No.
Is Pro the initiator? No.
Has the true initiator conceded? Hell, no.
Is the Pro suggestion that the initiator, Con, concede a fair debate argument? No.
Has Con suggested Pro concede after the latter’s demand that Con concede? No.
XI.a Pro’s R1 2nd ¶ accused my “…technique of this debate relies on securing a victory through a technicality.” Pro points to my reference to the US Constitution’s Article VII “the year of our Lord…” as my only possible argument. Recall my R2 rebuttals, V, VI, VII, and VIII, which added references from nearly the full balance of constitutional Articles, and “at least” six added Amendments which carry cursory, godly advice, about eleven separate arguments with references. There were added supporting references from various holy writ as specified above, X.b.1.B. I might accept the single reference of Article VII is a “technicality,” on the basis of which Pro charged that I expect to win the debate. I never said that. I am using all three rounds; two for argument; two for rebuttal. These should not be considered a “technicality.”
XI.b Pro’s R2, 4th line claimed: “Truism - a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.” New or interesting? Can Pro, or readers, truly say they are not moved by revealing, as I did in my R2, VIII.f, that such a grand concept as due process, enshrined in the US Constitution, finds relevance in an antiquated source of gods interacting with man with such a gift as old as the 3rd millennium B.C.E, in E.A. Wallis Budge’s translation/transliteration of Ani’s The Egyptian Book of the Dead [R2, [25]]; rites that age still older by two to three millennia before being documented by Ani, the scribe.[27] Who among you is so intimately familiar with these antiquities? Truism? No, but absolutely true. Due process brought to and for man by gods named Osiris, Thoth, and Horus, Ra, and even Isis, etc… By the time our boy, Jimmy Madison came along, it was already an ancient gift of gods. It was ancient even to Genesis.
XII Rebuttal: A limited-Description
XII.a From my debate Description: “This debate is not construed to represent a Christian-only limited condition, considering the title-not-name of ‘Lord,’ or ‘God,’ so there will be no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration.” I did this to avoid what Pro argued, anyway, in his R1, ¶9, that my BoP was to prove a god of specific religion; but only from a choice among four. This is an attempt to impose limitation on me to one of the four types, violating the open-season, unlimited Resolution and Description.
XII Rebuttal: A limited-Description
XIII Rebuttal: A limited alleged kritik
XIII.a Pro made reference to “kritik,”[R1, ¶3] citing the DebateArt.com “Kritik Guide.”[28] Its four categories are [from which I first quote directly in each ¶ below]:
XIII.a.1 “Analysis: The main complaint:” Pro attempts to limit Con’s argument to a single argument that could not be expanded, making Pro’s own case a failed kritik. Refer to my R2, or its summary above, XI.a, relative to added arguments beyond Pro’s alleged “technicality” of my R1 alleged “truism.”
XIII.a.2 “Link: Specific element of the opponent’s case:” Pro said, “Con has to prove that the US Constitution is referring to a powerful, wise, and good being that is either jewish, christian, muslim, or hindu [sic] and that it created and rules the universe. And that the Constitution refers to a ruler that was granted authority as a birth-right.”[29] However, Pro can make no reference to any citation of mine claiming any demonstrative attributes or allegiances of/to God relative to creation nor rule; only that he exists, and, I suggested in argument [R2, VI.a.2.A] that he assures our existence after death as an ontological proof of his existence.
XIII.a.3 “Implication: The damage done if the kritik is ignored:” We often fail by arguing our own limitations when thinking we identify those of others, but we are boxed by them. Consider: “Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?”[30] An alleged Oscar Wilde quote is relevant when occupying someone else’s head: “Be yourself, everyone else is already taken.”[31] “Physician, heal thyself”[32] is useful warning when we dare suggest another begin their debate by “…fire all of your guns at once and explode into space…” [not quoted because Pro argued this lyric, but because it’s a Steppenwolf lyric, deserving citation[33]. I repeat: I did not end my argument against the Resolution in R1, nor only by Article VII of the US Constitution. No, my arguments, and attending source references average in number much more than the number of rounds. So, even if voters agree my R1 argument of Article VII fails to impress, the volume of other arguments that avoided successful rebuttal by Pro are to be considered for merit by voters to defeat the Resolution.
XIII.a.4 “What better solution the kritik suggests:” Do not suggest a debate opponent is limited to a single argument only because it is overly obvious. That limitation, itself, is a boxed truism shown to be a flag’s wind flagging, particularly when the claim is accused of the first round of a multi-round debate; by Pro declaring personal victory, and the opponent’s defeat. It may ultimately bite back. Does attempt to change the parameters of a debate after accepting it potentially become its own truism?
XIV Conclusion: A burden lifted
XIV.a By calling my first argument a truism, then alleging I had no other, then suggesting the debate protocol be changed [alleging I have no more to say] then floating a modern-day revolution as expertise of constitutional intent when its words simply mean what they say, I suggest my 2 rounds of argument, and 2 rounds of rebuttal, have successfully taken flight.
XIX.b No, my rounds of argument and rebuttal did not allege that “Lord,” or “God” is not specifically referenced in the Constitution other than in Article VII, but denial of specific reference was not Con’s BoP of the Resolution nor Description. The Being[s] “mentioned” by reference to principles he/they suggest, such as “due process,” and they are not the the godly Beings of any specific religion, but of all, is demonstrated in my arguments/rebutals, multiple times.
Adieu.
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot, for the debate, and readers for reading it. I encourage our readers to render thoughtful voting based on sourced evidence within the accepted debate, when accepted, and without attempted alteration after acceptance.
Sources:
[26] https://info.debateart.com/help/debates
[27] https://ischool.uw.edu/podcasts/dtctw/egyptian-book-dead#:~:text=A document that changed the,equipment, by about 1600 BCE.
[28] https://info.debateart.com/kritik-guide
[29] Debate #6075, Pro R1, ¶9
[30] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 7: 4
[31] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/20/be-yourself/
[32] Holy Bible [KJV] Luke 4: 23
[33] Steppenwolf, “Born to be Wild,” Mars Bonfire, Dunhill/RCA, 1968
VI.a Stock Market: Tracking dailies of NYSE is not productive since its intent is a long-term investment strategy.[12] Pro’s R1 argument, continued in R2, maintains that dailies are still valid to prove the effect of Trump tariffs imposed not just in his 2nd term, but just since April, but offers no back-up support by credible sourcing to prove the BoP. This is only by Pro’s personal opinion. Since the stock market is Pro’s number one factor Resolution’s primary subject, economy, one should presume it have substantiation of just Trump cause by more than opinion, but by a credible evidence, which must be more than a daily media source; ex: NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc.
VI.b Consumer Burden: Perennial year-over-year trade imbalance [more imports to US from trade partners than US exports to trade partners] with most of our top 10 trading partners having the U.S. in a trade deficit. That loss is, itself, a drain on the consumer.
The alleged Trump effect of tariffs from just three weeks ago as an exclusively 2nd-term issue is virtually impossible to separately quantify. See source reference [15] when addressed in section IX]. This was not addressed in Pro’s R2.
VI.c Macroeconomic Consequence: “The balance of trade is one of the key components of a country’s gross domestic product [GDP].”[13] A perennial trade deficit, which has been our US experience since WWII [14], lowers the US real GDP. The issue has existed far longer [since post WWII] than Trump’s 2nd term tariff proposals. Pro cannot quantify separate effect from WWII and a comparatively brief effect of Trump’s tariff activity since 4/2, let alone his brief second term. GDP is not a feature whose data is reactive to just a few days of tracking, as is the necessary model for Pro’s Resolution.
VI.d Retaliation: Pro claimed, “Trump can call his Tariffs "Retaliatory" all he wants, but it's not going to be true,” but did not bother to back-up the claim with credible sourcing. Another unsubstantiated opinion. It is obvious hearsay due to the trade imbalance we have with top-ten trading partners, and not exclusively due [if at all] to second-term Trump-proposed tariffs. [See source citation in R1 rebuttal II.a [6]] This was not rebutted in Pro’s R2 but for the above quoted Pro claim.
VII Rebuttal: Pro R2
VII.a Reaction of the Market: Is it due to Trump tariffs, or by nervous marketeers reacting to other NYSE influences [see R2, VIII.a.3]? Pro continues to insist that the NYSE, et al, reaction by lost points since first week of April is all due to Trump tariffs, but has yet to back up his claim by any credible source. I call that a failed argument.
VII.a.1 Pro’s R2, ¶3 rebuts my personal-experience argument re: precious metal investments and wants evidence Trump is responsible for its effect on the economy. I am not arguing Trump is responsible for my precious metals gains over the last 50 years; his second term began only 100 days ago; or, only four weeks to use Pro’s updated calendar since 4/2. I am claiming only that precious metals are a more stable investment than the NYSE whether Trump has influence, or not. Refer to VI.a.1, above.
VII.a.2 Pro’s R2, ¶4 rebuts my personal experience “of 1 data point.” No, it was 1 data field of 50 years of investing in gold; or >18,000 daily data points [1 per day x 50 years]. As I concluded in R1, metals are a long haul investment, not a daily. I’ll agree that precious metals’ dailies do go up and down, but, again, Pro has not yet provided any credible source that assures Trump is responsible for 50 years of up/down pricing. I argue it is nervous investors selling, that causes market downs for which I have demonstrated credible sourcing [R1, [6]].
VII.a.3 Pro R2, ¶5 claims “…gold prices actually did go down during the tariff announcement on the fourth. They came back, but it still goes to show that the Tariffs had a negative effect.” But Pro claims the neg effect is by unique Trump effect, but offers no credible back-up for the claim. Again, I maintain it is nervous reaction by investors, just as they also did last Monday, 4/21. Was this also due to Trump tariffs? No, it was nervous reaction to the death of Pope Francis. Next week, it may react negatively to black smoke from St. Peter’s Square. The week after that, perhaps to white smoke from St. Peter’s Square, and then the Elon Musk departure from direct management of DOGE… then there’s the Putin-Zelensky dance… and Supreme Court decisions… and then some claim by Occasional Cortex [my moniker for AOC] that barstools qualify for consumer tax rebates. A commentary by one financial advisement group settles the controversy: “Stock markets are fickle.”[15]
...and thank you for your vote.
I apologize for my previous vote. I expanded the font size of my vote, and realized the several mistakes made in it because I am reaching a point that my eyesight is failing because I simply cannot see the small font used as the standard on this site. Yes, I need glasses, finally. I knew this day was coming, but I have resisted that it's here. Off to the eye doc. I copied and pasted into my own word processor and realized what a bolluxed job I made of it, so I edited and re-wrote it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Gave me an opportunity to clarify.
Thanks for your effort
vote bump only 2 days left
Since AI wasn't considered a subject worth addressing since last the rules were updated, I'd say that update is needed now, but, lacking it, how does use of AI amount to cheating anymore than citing sources because that also might be construed as plagiarism since another's exact words may be used? Con said in R2 that AI did not write his words, and I'll take the statement on full trust, so I don't see it as automatic cheat. One could accuse that about anyone's debate argument, and how is it proven? By force of accusation? At worst, I see it as a conduct issue, but Pro's conduct of forfeit of 80% of the debate is worse conduct. But, I'll change the matter in the vote if you insist, but I would still vote for Con since it's winner selection and not multiple factors.. You're the Mod.
Jonrohith’s vote acknowledge’s Pro’s lack of sufficient argument in this winner selection debate (Pro forfeits 4 of 5 rounds), but votes for Pro anyway due to accusation that Con used A.I. in argument. I do not see a prohibition of A.I. use in debate rules. Con denies that A.I. “wrote” his arguments but did use it in research. I have seen worse sources used, including not using them at all, though not specifically required in winner selection, but always a good idea to use them, and Con did use other sources. I see no issue of cause here. I ask that you review and consider deleting the vote if you agree with an invented cause of vote. Fairness in voting.
I, too, second Tickbeat’s comment #7. Voters are to compare all debate arguments according to DA debate rules, and any special instructions in the Description, not according to any participant’s after-the-fact complaints. One can note that you left the Description field blank. Might want to consider using that field for purposes as given in debate rules next time, but not for opponent restrictions if you don’t limit yourself by the same restrictions. That’s part of voter assessment of player conduct.
In my vote, I said, " As it is, it's open-season, and Con cited from "open-season" sources, then accused, in R2, that Con violated the rules. What rules?" Please read as " As it is, it's open-season, and Con cited from "open-season" sources, then Pro accused, in R2, that Con violated the rules. What rules? "
Define "like" because I do not know of a friendship that does not have that quality; it's not conditional. Without definition, the debate isn't, either. Don't assume we all think in the same box, so, define your terms, next time. A dictionary is an acceptable source your can cite.
In your debate last month, #6079, on this subject, and on which I did not vote, in Comments I suggested "Pro should have done a more complete job of defining "wet" because it is more, and less than he thinks." You did not do it again in this debate. Why don't you spend a little more effort n your Description to define "wet" or "wetness" because without definition, you just talk around the subject. It is, after all, the keyword of your Resolution. Why not define and stop assuming everyone is on your same page? Liquid does not necessarily mean wet, and I've already given you examples of that: liquid metals: gold for example .
I have a freeze dryer and have freeze dried pineapple chuncks, with the freeze dry process, water is removed, intensifying flavor, and pineapple is one of my favorites. We usually make pizza from scratch. My bride of 54 years makes great dough, and I make the sauce. We tried freeze dried pineapple and it was fabulous!
This, for voters, is a useless debate. The instigator, Pro, was a full forfeit, and Con offered an argument in R1, only, and that argument consisted of 5 sentences, the last of which abdicated because he “…[didnt] really have anything to work off of…” [sic] since Pro’s R1 was a forfeit, as if Con did not have a personal BoP to develop. The previous 4 sentences were mere claims without substance, assuming all naturally agree. Nope, all Con claims are easily demonstrated as false. In a Pew Research poll of 2023, 83% of Americans of a wide variety of religions and national origins believe a God exists. Even Darwin’s first edition of Origin of Species concluded with assurance that there was a Creator, and he did not mean a random selection of impersonal evolution.
Sorry, I did not see whiteflame's post just before mine. I was probably composing as he posted. But is that really correct? If neither participant enters a stoical argument, can that party still win the debate??
I do not understand these votes. Neither participant made an argument, unless there's consideration for "Let’s start my friend" as a topical argument. If ever a debate did not deserve a vote, this is it. A two-sided full forfeit, because if the argument entry is just fluff, might as well have been a forfeit. Should this one really be considered a debate worthy of a vote?
Thank you. Voting section was complete this time.
Please delete my vote. In my vote, I did not have the four vote criteria, only the comment section of the vote. Very strange. Still another factor of debate that has failed me. Please cancel and I’ll try again. I intended that pPro win the debate and by more than Con f.f. Thanks
Is there something about substantiating your opposing claims that denies you the right to offer scholastic sourcing for your claims? Your claims amount to declaring flat-earth theory without offering any credible source for your opinions. I point to flat-earth because it isn't in spite of claims. I know in an open voting system, sourcing is not required, but it still makes for convincing arguments when you have a credible citation behind you. I will not vote on this one.
No, thank you
Nope, it's kind of does not need to be common sense, because the debate voting rules stipulate that a forfeiture is a loss of conduct point, even up to 40% of the rounds, Re-read, pls. Again, show me the pro argument that wins the debate. Not trying to be a mod here, and I have no interest in the job,
How did pro win this debate? He offered no argument at all. his opponent forfeited all rounds. That's a win? Please tell me how. Effectively,
pro set of a 1st round Blitzkrieg. Not really, but it is not kosher in my book. Not voting at all is the proper response to this non-debate
Not sure about your conclusion in your #5, but it is true that a good debate is good for health, but this one isn't that. I upchucked just reading the Resolution. Stop this nonsense of semantic argument. You take care of semantics by defining your Resolution terms up front, not by making them a matter of forfeit. So, now that bias has taken me out of an unbiased voter on this one, maybe next time. But, honestly, give up your semantic "argument," which isn't.
I meant to address my #22 to you, but erred in not addressing it to you. please read, and then cancel my vote; I'll re-do it, but, pls, answer the question in it. When the name changed from spelling & grammar to legibility, did the description also change with it? If not, why not? "...The goal isn’t to nitpick, the problem(s) should usually be obvious at a glance." Pro's change of argument was "obvious..." and confusing for the reasons I've already discussed.
I will vote on this before the clock expires, trying to ignore the ongoing spat between the participants, which is too raw on both sides to offer an immediate vote which would render a loss to both for conduct, at least, not having read a word of the arguments of any round. Your debate is over, guys, Stop trying to influence voters by this useless banter, now.
If that did not make sense, try this:
Shut the @##%$% up!
That did not answer my question, which was an honest question. I'm not trying to be difficult, just want to understand, because I am suspcious that when the name changed [before I was here five years ago, the name changed, but I have no idea if the body of the description of legibility changed with it. If it didn't, why not, because I have always voted with this interpretation, and this is the first time it has raised feathers. Just cancel my vote, I'll re-do.
I have to wonder why, then, the name of the section changed from spelling & grammar if the intent was not to widen the scope from mere spelling and grammar, because that is what I'm doing, and y'all think I'm crazy. Isn't the whole idea of reading to be able to understand the writer? In written debate, I expect consistent argument from one side, not being all over the map. In linguistics, we reduce reading to a concept of the ability to decode symbols: the basic units of a language, and when a writer converts thought to written symbols [letters in our case] that collectively say the same thing when repeated, which debate argument is expected to do from round to round.. Pro did not repeat. Sorry, but that implies poor legibility to me, Legibility is not exclusively the job of the de-coder, but the coder, as well.
My complaint is the complete reversal of stand from absolute assurance that Georgism is the greatest thing since butter to not being certain there is butter. Sorry if that is not confusing to you; it is to me.i.e., it iscapitulation to Con's argument.
I bring to the table a PhD in English Lit, and am a published author as a retirement profession, so I am a critic for good grammar and consistency of plot. The "plot" of Pro's R1 vs. R4 tells an opposing story, thus the "word salad.". I do not check my experience at the door when voting. If I must, then I might as well not be a member anymore, because I do not lower my standards for a website's feelings. I recall losing a debate four years ago because a voter cited off=debate sources [i.e., the sources were not cited by my opponent in rebuttal, but by the voter] in order to vote against my argument. If that can fly unchallenged, then so should this word salad negative vote.
Yeah, re: conduct, I forgot about the rules commentary "Any unexcused forfeited round…” was an automatic loss of conduct. Sorry. Can you change that item, or do I need to re-enter a vote?
However, re: the Legibility vote, I gave Con the point because of Pro's word salad between R1 and R4, as mentioned in my voting explanation. I call that sufficient illegibility: “…at least comparatively burdensome to decipher.” plus the [sic] item of omitting cap on America, rendered "america" to begin R1 Just sloppy. I stand by that vote.
Best discussed further in private message, and then offsite completely
Btw, to clarify a claim made by Clausewitzian in this string of comments, and who knows nothing about me, but has made sufficient claims to and about me that I have silenced him from contact with me on this site, has incorrectly claimed that I self-publish. I do not pay a penny to publish; my readers buy my books out of their pockets entirely, from which I earn an undisclosed sum annually [and which justifies a mention in my profile], but I will say nothing further because I will not violate the rule of personal promotion for any reason, Santa's wit on war, or anything else, notwithstanding.
Now that I've voted, I'll vent:
1. It is fact that public schools do not entirely depend on the local, municipal economy for funding, as claimed by Pro. Local schools receive federal funding as well.
2. Social Security, maligned by many as funded by taxpayers, and, therefore, essentially a socialist system, is not funded by one dollar of public money. Its entire funding is by private money: contributed by FICA taxes withdrawn from the paychecks of workers, and an equal sum, each paycheck, by their employers, which is also private money. Those contributions go 100% into the Social Security Trust Fund. Some claim the trust fund is robbed by government to go to other programs the government funds, but this claim is theoretically false. The government does not rob from the S.S Trust Fund, but it does borrow from it. The idea, the LAW, is that the government reimburses the SS Trust Fund for all monies borrowed, but, to date, according to their own calculation, the US government owes the trust fund, as of close of fiscal year 2024 [9/30/24] $2.5 trillion. That's the problem with social security: the government fails to pay it back for borrowed money for other purposes. PRIVATE money, NOT public. Get it?
Re: your #5, blitzkrieg really only applies in a last round if your opponent is on the "bottom inning" of the last round, but that was not the case in this debate; you, as Con, had the last word, and, therefore, the opportunity to respond, which you did.
Yes, other sites do have that specific result of forfeited debate rounds, but DART has a different perspective that few bother to read or analyze. Often, if a participant forfeits all rounds, it may be an automatic loss, but not if the other participant makes a poor effort, themselves. I've encountered a few of those, and, rather than try to determine a winner, I choose not to vote. Simple, doesn't reward anyone for a poor effort. DART rules speak to a 66% min level of forfeiture of rounds to "earn" a discounted point, but the consequence is NOT automatic loss, but only loss of a conduct point, and that only in multiple-dimensional voting segments: argument / sourcing / legibility / conduct, with multiple points potentially offered to both participants. This debate is not that type of designated voting system. It is just win/lose; one point for the winner; 0 point for the loser by each vote. You might want to request to re-vote - must ask a mod. Up to you.
Thanks for voting, but it's apparent you did not read Pro's arguments, particularly in R2 and R3, because he is responding by citation of my arguments. I argued all three rounds, but for some reason, I am prevented from any entry in the argument fields, but everywhere else on the cite, I can make entries. Moderators are aware of the problem, but, to date, have not been able to solve it. My arguments are posted in the Comments section of the debate. Please request to re-vote [you cannot do it on your own, you must ask a mod] and read the arguments. pls. read my Comments, posts 13 & 16 for explanation, and my arguments are posted as follows:
R1: posts 20, 19 [ they are posted in reverse order for easier continuity when reading]
R2: posts 23, 22
R3: posts 27, 26, 25
thanks
Yes, actually, for all intents, water, at least as a liquid, is always wet, in spite of my anally-retentive citation that it takes 6 molecules for water to begin to be wet. The other side of that coin is that there are, in the "average" drop of water, 1.2 +E 21 [1.2 sextillion] molecules.
All you say is true, except when there are only 5 or fewer molecules of water - an impractical condition, I admit, but it is a factual limitation to wetness.
Clausewitzian appears to be stuck in the mud of only my first round, but I'm not the one with a tossed bucket of water.
notice to all:
I heve posted my R3 below, in reverse order, in posts 27, 26, 25. pls read in that order
Round 3 05/5/2025
X Rebuttal: Pro Claims from R3
X.a Pro’s Resolution and Description, and BoP [burden of proof] are understood, because it is spelled out in both sections; loosely in the Resolution as the economy being negatively affected just by Trump tariffs, and in more detail as negatively affected just by Trump tariffs in the Description. No, I don’t see detail in either, either. What I see is what I’ve already argued in R1 and R2: Pro’s Resolution and Description are short on detail. In fact, Pro’s only detailed offer is [Description]: “Use any economic indicator you want. I won’t provide a metric for “negative economic effect” because I leave that up to the debater.”
X.a.1 Pro will not offer a metric to prove his BoP? That was the claim… No need? Curious perspective. Most who debate intend to have burdens of proof to argue.
X.a.2 I presume “the debater” means me, Con. And I also read that as giving me both BoPs as a burden to argue his negatives and my alleged positives. Thanks. Oh, but that darn Resolution does not imply that I must argue positives. Its implication is only that I defeat the proposal that the economy “tanked,” and only due to Trump tariffs of the second term. I argued by his suggestion, anyway. See below. And as my choice of “metric,” I suggested several in R1 [gold, silver, Apple [NASDAQ], and Amazon [NYSE]]. In R2, I narrowed that to gold [although right now, all are doing very well as my primary argument [thanks]. I realized I needed but one example to defeat the Resolution.[20]
X.b So, gold, per ounce, on close of 4/2 3,120 [rounded - USD]
[day of Trump tariff notice]
4/3 3,118 [loss, $2 per share]
4/4 2,054 [loss, $66; total loss $68]
4/7 2,014 [loss, $50; total loss $118]
4/12 3,204 [gain, $190; all loss recovered]
[day I accepted debate]
4/15 3,219 [ day after Pontiff hospitalized]
4/22 3,433 [day after Pontiff dies, record day]
5/2 3,249 [close of week trading]
[gain total: $129 per share from 4/2]
X.b.1 I chose a metric that defeats Pro’s Resolution. While there was a 5-day loss of $118 [all of 3.8% - a “massive sell off”accordions to Pro], gold regained all loss to $3,204 by the 10th day [4/12], and, as of close of last week, 5/2, a further gain to $3,249, $129 above 4/2. My math may be checked, but I cannot call +$84 after 10 days, or +$129 after
XI Conclusion
XI.a Over a more sensible market view than ten days, we see a mores realistic result, and recall that I suggested another view in my R2, VII,a.2 re: my gold investment: “…it was 1 data field of 50 years of investing in gold; or >18,000 daily data points [1 per day x 50 years]. As I concluded in R1, precious metals are a long haul investment, not a daily. I’ll agree that precious metals’ dailies do go up and down.” However, that longer view of the stock market is also revealing. Over that same 50 years, this insignificant bump of Pro’s “massive sell off” is invisbje. No, Pro did not claim Donald Trump has had effect on the market for 50 years, he did not need to say so in his R3, but, on the other hand, perhaps Pro ought to have at least taken the view. “Massive sell off” would be worded by softer terms.
XI.b Pro’s R3 claim: “You have a BOP to prove that Trump’s tariffs had a positive effect…” is as good a place to conclude as any. Well, on the day I accepted this debate, 4/12… I’ll just refer you to my argument, above, R3, X.b - X.d, the gold price dailies from 4/2 to 5/2. Some days were excluded as not relevant. I promise there are no gains or losses above or below these days represented. And, as Pro has agreed, day-trading is like gambling; and I’ll add that the odds are likely against us. So, why is Pro’s scope of this debate about half of even 30 days, let alone since 1/20/2025; Trump’s 2nd term inauguration?
XI.c Looks like a positive effect to me, but I do not claim that it was Trump effect for any reason, just as my R2, and R3, have noted, and as I quoted, “the Market is fickle.”
XI.d I conclude that I wish the price of gold is as claimed by Pro, having started investing years ago at $400 per ounce! WOW! I’m not just rich; I’m a 1-percenter!!! Nope, no such luck.
I also conclude the Resolution fails, anyway. Thank you to Moozer for the debate, and to readers, especially those who vote.
Sources:
[20] https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/gold-prices?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADt5-AJPo0SqgYeTOqR65PK6-9xm9&gclid=Cj0KCQjwoNzABhDbARIsALfY8VMVndA2GNHm5Rg1mT9eIkqhWelU-G7tEQLqes8aoqv9xXRfoSIV62saAt3SEALw_wcB
Thanks. I'll re-vote
"omnipotence" needs no qualification of "maximally" or any other descriptive. The word, itself, by its Latin root, implies all [omni] power [potence]. You're merely creating verbosity.
And, saying that god [any] is "omnipotent" does not necessarily mean he/she acts omnipotently all the time. I suspect god acts with only the prudent power required to accomplish a given task. I suggest, for example, that it does not take omnipotence to plant seeds, whereas, organizing energy and matter from chaos to order just might. You, yourself, possess a certain power. Do you use all of it all the time? No? Then, why should god?
Since both parties forfeited, this debate is likely to end with zero votes, as it should. This was a good topic of debate, but is poorly lacking in definitions, and in prep time for arguments.
And, biologically, though I agree with Pro that only two sexes/genders exist, that the genitals are definitive sex identifiers is not correct; they're merely convenient since the stats are, according to the Library of Medicine [in the U.S.], that 99.99999993 percent of the world's human population are either XX or XY, and that it is actually the set of gonads, either ovaries or testes, that actually determine sex/gender, and not the genitals [and certainly not the choosing brain], of which a very small percentage of us have both, but only one set of gonads to a customer - 100% of us.
Barney, may I request that my vote either be deleted to re-enter my intent, or... It is my choice that Pro win the debate, but the last two mentions of Con in my vote should have been for Pro, not Con. If you can just change those last two references that Pro wins the debate, I would appreciate it it. I've indicated in the actual vote that Con wins, but that's wrong, too. Damn, don't know what I'm thinking!
I have poised my R2 argument, but forgot to advise. The clock is still on me, so, no time lost on your side.
FYI, I have posted my R3
Welcome to Round 3 [05/01/2025]
X Rebuttal: A limited debate
X.a I had a different R3 planned, but I am shocked by Pro’s R2, line 2: “Contenders need not be the creators to change the rules of the debate, if the rules be unfair.” That is a fair statement, but, only applicable prior to accepting the debate. Pro did not close with any mention of the debate being unfair. Pro accepted this debate as is. I cite from DebateArt Information Center, Debates: “Once any user in good standing accepts the challenge, most of the debate settings lock, and it advances into the next stage.”[26] Two of the locked features are the Resolution and Description. The time to request alteration of them is during the Challenge phase via Comments, but not after the debate has begun; in this case, on 4/21; 8 days prior to Pro’s rule-change demand. That is “not fair.” Refer to my R2, V [all sub-¶s, V.a - V.c]. I did not define God, nor assign attributes, including to what religion he bears allegiance, if any.
X.b Pro’s R2, line 3; “Con is not arguing in good faith if he insists on the original rules of his debate, as it is a truism.” Debate rules are truisms? My, but how that definition inflates. My R2, Section V rebutted Pro’s charge of “truism.” I stand on that rebuttal. I also rebutted in R2, Section VIII, and did not begin or end my arguments in R1 with my single reference to Article VII. Let my R2, Section VIII have its full weight of added argumentation, to which I note, with the exception of my VIII.b.2, Pro did not rebut.
X.b.1 Pro said, re: my VIII.b.2, “Con is not arguing how the context implies religious significance or god of any sort, he has essentially given up on proving his BOP and conceded the resolution. “ I remind of the Resolution and Description: referring readers to these as given on the top page of this Debate #6075 .
X.b.1.A I’ll remind of a statement in the Description, and now underlined for emphasis: “…no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration… This is a generic debate which does not exclude atheists or agnostics from accepting the debate because belief in, or acknowledgement of the subject is not required…
X.b.1.B This in no way implies that religious argument cannot be made, and I did so in R2, citing the Holy Bible, the Qu’ran, Doctrine & Covenants, and The Egyptian Book of the Dead.
X.b.2 It is Pro who suggests, after acceptance, to limit this debate: “Con has to prove that the US Constitution is referring to a powerful, wise, and good being that is either jewish, christian, muslim, or hindu and that it created and rules the universe. And that the Constitution refers to a ruler that was granted authority as a birth-right.” Compare this quote to the Resolution and Description/definition.
Do they match? No.
Did the Resolution even suggest that God created and rules the universe? No.
Does the Description define God by any traits or birthrights? No.
Is Pro the initiator? No.
Has the true initiator conceded? Hell, no.
Is the Pro suggestion that the initiator, Con, concede a fair debate argument? No.
Has Con suggested Pro concede after the latter’s demand that Con concede? No.
XI Rebuttal: A limited-technicality
XI.a Pro’s R1 2nd ¶ accused my “…technique of this debate relies on securing a victory through a technicality.” Pro points to my reference to the US Constitution’s Article VII “the year of our Lord…” as my only possible argument. Recall my R2 rebuttals, V, VI, VII, and VIII, which added references from nearly the full balance of constitutional Articles, and “at least” six added Amendments which carry cursory, godly advice, about eleven separate arguments with references. There were added supporting references from various holy writ as specified above, X.b.1.B. I might accept the single reference of Article VII is a “technicality,” on the basis of which Pro charged that I expect to win the debate. I never said that. I am using all three rounds; two for argument; two for rebuttal. These should not be considered a “technicality.”
XI.b Pro’s R2, 4th line claimed: “Truism - a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting.” New or interesting? Can Pro, or readers, truly say they are not moved by revealing, as I did in my R2, VIII.f, that such a grand concept as due process, enshrined in the US Constitution, finds relevance in an antiquated source of gods interacting with man with such a gift as old as the 3rd millennium B.C.E, in E.A. Wallis Budge’s translation/transliteration of Ani’s The Egyptian Book of the Dead [R2, [25]]; rites that age still older by two to three millennia before being documented by Ani, the scribe.[27] Who among you is so intimately familiar with these antiquities? Truism? No, but absolutely true. Due process brought to and for man by gods named Osiris, Thoth, and Horus, Ra, and even Isis, etc… By the time our boy, Jimmy Madison came along, it was already an ancient gift of gods. It was ancient even to Genesis.
XII Rebuttal: A limited-Description
XII.a From my debate Description: “This debate is not construed to represent a Christian-only limited condition, considering the title-not-name of ‘Lord,’ or ‘God,’ so there will be no need to argue that any religion is included or excluded from consideration.” I did this to avoid what Pro argued, anyway, in his R1, ¶9, that my BoP was to prove a god of specific religion; but only from a choice among four. This is an attempt to impose limitation on me to one of the four types, violating the open-season, unlimited Resolution and Description.
XII Rebuttal: A limited-Description
XIII Rebuttal: A limited alleged kritik
XIII.a Pro made reference to “kritik,”[R1, ¶3] citing the DebateArt.com “Kritik Guide.”[28] Its four categories are [from which I first quote directly in each ¶ below]:
XIII.a.1 “Analysis: The main complaint:” Pro attempts to limit Con’s argument to a single argument that could not be expanded, making Pro’s own case a failed kritik. Refer to my R2, or its summary above, XI.a, relative to added arguments beyond Pro’s alleged “technicality” of my R1 alleged “truism.”
XIII.a.2 “Link: Specific element of the opponent’s case:” Pro said, “Con has to prove that the US Constitution is referring to a powerful, wise, and good being that is either jewish, christian, muslim, or hindu [sic] and that it created and rules the universe. And that the Constitution refers to a ruler that was granted authority as a birth-right.”[29] However, Pro can make no reference to any citation of mine claiming any demonstrative attributes or allegiances of/to God relative to creation nor rule; only that he exists, and, I suggested in argument [R2, VI.a.2.A] that he assures our existence after death as an ontological proof of his existence.
XIII.a.3 “Implication: The damage done if the kritik is ignored:” We often fail by arguing our own limitations when thinking we identify those of others, but we are boxed by them. Consider: “Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?”[30] An alleged Oscar Wilde quote is relevant when occupying someone else’s head: “Be yourself, everyone else is already taken.”[31] “Physician, heal thyself”[32] is useful warning when we dare suggest another begin their debate by “…fire all of your guns at once and explode into space…” [not quoted because Pro argued this lyric, but because it’s a Steppenwolf lyric, deserving citation[33]. I repeat: I did not end my argument against the Resolution in R1, nor only by Article VII of the US Constitution. No, my arguments, and attending source references average in number much more than the number of rounds. So, even if voters agree my R1 argument of Article VII fails to impress, the volume of other arguments that avoided successful rebuttal by Pro are to be considered for merit by voters to defeat the Resolution.
XIII.a.4 “What better solution the kritik suggests:” Do not suggest a debate opponent is limited to a single argument only because it is overly obvious. That limitation, itself, is a boxed truism shown to be a flag’s wind flagging, particularly when the claim is accused of the first round of a multi-round debate; by Pro declaring personal victory, and the opponent’s defeat. It may ultimately bite back. Does attempt to change the parameters of a debate after accepting it potentially become its own truism?
XIV Conclusion: A burden lifted
XIV.a By calling my first argument a truism, then alleging I had no other, then suggesting the debate protocol be changed [alleging I have no more to say] then floating a modern-day revolution as expertise of constitutional intent when its words simply mean what they say, I suggest my 2 rounds of argument, and 2 rounds of rebuttal, have successfully taken flight.
XIX.b No, my rounds of argument and rebuttal did not allege that “Lord,” or “God” is not specifically referenced in the Constitution other than in Article VII, but denial of specific reference was not Con’s BoP of the Resolution nor Description. The Being[s] “mentioned” by reference to principles he/they suggest, such as “due process,” and they are not the the godly Beings of any specific religion, but of all, is demonstrated in my arguments/rebutals, multiple times.
Adieu.
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot, for the debate, and readers for reading it. I encourage our readers to render thoughtful voting based on sourced evidence within the accepted debate, when accepted, and without attempted alteration after acceptance.
Sources:
[26] https://info.debateart.com/help/debates
[27] https://ischool.uw.edu/podcasts/dtctw/egyptian-book-dead#:~:text=A document that changed the,equipment, by about 1600 BCE.
[28] https://info.debateart.com/kritik-guide
[29] Debate #6075, Pro R1, ¶9
[30] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 7: 4
[31] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/20/be-yourself/
[32] Holy Bible [KJV] Luke 4: 23
[33] Steppenwolf, “Born to be Wild,” Mars Bonfire, Dunhill/RCA, 1968
Con Round 2 04/29/2025
VI Rebuttal: Various Pro Claims from R1
VI.a Stock Market: Tracking dailies of NYSE is not productive since its intent is a long-term investment strategy.[12] Pro’s R1 argument, continued in R2, maintains that dailies are still valid to prove the effect of Trump tariffs imposed not just in his 2nd term, but just since April, but offers no back-up support by credible sourcing to prove the BoP. This is only by Pro’s personal opinion. Since the stock market is Pro’s number one factor Resolution’s primary subject, economy, one should presume it have substantiation of just Trump cause by more than opinion, but by a credible evidence, which must be more than a daily media source; ex: NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc.
VI.b Consumer Burden: Perennial year-over-year trade imbalance [more imports to US from trade partners than US exports to trade partners] with most of our top 10 trading partners having the U.S. in a trade deficit. That loss is, itself, a drain on the consumer.
The alleged Trump effect of tariffs from just three weeks ago as an exclusively 2nd-term issue is virtually impossible to separately quantify. See source reference [15] when addressed in section IX]. This was not addressed in Pro’s R2.
VI.c Macroeconomic Consequence: “The balance of trade is one of the key components of a country’s gross domestic product [GDP].”[13] A perennial trade deficit, which has been our US experience since WWII [14], lowers the US real GDP. The issue has existed far longer [since post WWII] than Trump’s 2nd term tariff proposals. Pro cannot quantify separate effect from WWII and a comparatively brief effect of Trump’s tariff activity since 4/2, let alone his brief second term. GDP is not a feature whose data is reactive to just a few days of tracking, as is the necessary model for Pro’s Resolution.
VI.d Retaliation: Pro claimed, “Trump can call his Tariffs "Retaliatory" all he wants, but it's not going to be true,” but did not bother to back-up the claim with credible sourcing. Another unsubstantiated opinion. It is obvious hearsay due to the trade imbalance we have with top-ten trading partners, and not exclusively due [if at all] to second-term Trump-proposed tariffs. [See source citation in R1 rebuttal II.a [6]] This was not rebutted in Pro’s R2 but for the above quoted Pro claim.
VII Rebuttal: Pro R2
VII.a Reaction of the Market: Is it due to Trump tariffs, or by nervous marketeers reacting to other NYSE influences [see R2, VIII.a.3]? Pro continues to insist that the NYSE, et al, reaction by lost points since first week of April is all due to Trump tariffs, but has yet to back up his claim by any credible source. I call that a failed argument.
VII.a.1 Pro’s R2, ¶3 rebuts my personal-experience argument re: precious metal investments and wants evidence Trump is responsible for its effect on the economy. I am not arguing Trump is responsible for my precious metals gains over the last 50 years; his second term began only 100 days ago; or, only four weeks to use Pro’s updated calendar since 4/2. I am claiming only that precious metals are a more stable investment than the NYSE whether Trump has influence, or not. Refer to VI.a.1, above.
VII.a.2 Pro’s R2, ¶4 rebuts my personal experience “of 1 data point.” No, it was 1 data field of 50 years of investing in gold; or >18,000 daily data points [1 per day x 50 years]. As I concluded in R1, metals are a long haul investment, not a daily. I’ll agree that precious metals’ dailies do go up and down, but, again, Pro has not yet provided any credible source that assures Trump is responsible for 50 years of up/down pricing. I argue it is nervous investors selling, that causes market downs for which I have demonstrated credible sourcing [R1, [6]].
VII.a.3 Pro R2, ¶5 claims “…gold prices actually did go down during the tariff announcement on the fourth. They came back, but it still goes to show that the Tariffs had a negative effect.” But Pro claims the neg effect is by unique Trump effect, but offers no credible back-up for the claim. Again, I maintain it is nervous reaction by investors, just as they also did last Monday, 4/21. Was this also due to Trump tariffs? No, it was nervous reaction to the death of Pope Francis. Next week, it may react negatively to black smoke from St. Peter’s Square. The week after that, perhaps to white smoke from St. Peter’s Square, and then the Elon Musk departure from direct management of DOGE… then there’s the Putin-Zelensky dance… and Supreme Court decisions… and then some claim by Occasional Cortex [my moniker for AOC] that barstools qualify for consumer tax rebates. A commentary by one financial advisement group settles the controversy: “Stock markets are fickle.”[15]