Yeah, if anyone bothers to vote. Since I lead the pack, at least in the top ten, in no-vote ties [4 of my 10 - and I wish like hell the last update to voting policy took care of that], I'm not just a little concerned.
Had I not already completed a debate with Undefeatable on this very subject, I would take it up, but everything I have to say on the subject was said then. Besides, there have been other debates on this issue by other members, and they have seldom drawn much interest by voters. I conclude it is not now a hot button, if it ever really was. Personally, I suggest we give the Left a break and ignore this red herring excuse for social unrest. It is a sufficiently whipped talking point and I wish BLM would just SYF, and the 1619 project would join 2021.
Your vote was a great analysis. I was planning to vote on this one, but became frustrated by arguments from both sides that seemed to wander on me. I appreciate you thoughtful and concise piercing of that frustration. Well done.
It is argued that Matt 24: 34 is a difficult verse to interpret. Yes, it is when one attempts to do so by cherry-picking the verse on its own. But the set up begins verses earlier, specifically at verse 3, when the entire discussion begins at the Mount of Olives, and many signs are given of the [second] coming of the Lord. We still await some of those signs, such as the sun darkening in concert with the moon turning red. Typically, a red moon is caused by a lunar eclipse, the result of being in Earth's shadow, but that is not the only cause of a red moon. It can also turn red when Earth's atmosphere's air molecules scatter blue light more than usual. If that occurs in conjunction with a darkening sun [it can], then we have the sign foretold. Hasn't happened, yet. Other signs are given, that haven't happened, yet, either. It is THIS [that is, that still future generation] the "difficult" verse speaks of, not the generation of the first century C.E.
All the effort of defining the Greek term γενεά (genea), was a red herring argument. As usual, cherry picking solves very little and is the primary reason that some say verse 34 is difficult to interpret. Words mean things, yes, but context, such as including the previous 31 verses to capture the whole story, is just as important, if not more so.
For future reference, as a voter, I am to consider content only with the text of the debate rounds, along with cited sources, but Comments are outside of consideration; therefore, I ignored your definitions, even though Con agreed to their location. His say so does not agree with Voting Policy, which disallows voting on the basis of outside comment. Neither opponents definitions were convincing, in any event.
My vote: cont'd from #13
Sources: Sourcing by both opponents fail to convince any more than their arguments. Tie.
Legibility: My vote in this regard goes to both the Resolution/Description by Con [initiator] and in argument round by Pro. Con uses an acronym without defining it, assuming it is a commonly known term: YEC. What is that, an expression of disgust? I am a life-long Christian, but have never encountered the acronym. A simple definition of the acronym, to dissuade assumptions, would have been simple and prevent time taken away to find out for myself. Any debater ought to preclude this dissatisfaction simply by assuming the audience wants definition. Provide it. Pro makes the same mistake in R1 by the use of BB. Again, not familiar with the acronym. BB king? BB, the stock market acronym for BlackBerry? The projectile fired from a small gun? Any debater ought to… and finish as above. DEFINE YOUR TERMS. Acronyms, in particular. I have to consult Google to find the acronym, but Google failed to provide a definition in context with the debate. Actually, by a re-read, I find the it was Con who first provided the answer: big bang, but Con spelled it out, did not use an acronym. Google, itself, never gave me big bang. Tie, but holding my nose.
Conduct: Both opponents treat one another with sufficient respect. Tie.
Notes: I would have really liked to offer a winner, but both failed to convince with sufficient dedication to the Resolution, allowing themselves to be sidetracked by an absurd flat-earth extended discussion. As I said, shape of Earth is of no consequence to the Resolution. Would that it had led the way and the day. In this debate, I declare the Resolution as ignored, and the clear loser. Definitions were another loser, as noted on arguments. Both opponents should give them better deference. Pity.
My vote:
Argument: Con began R1 with a series of definitions; a long series. Once the argument began in earnest, I was still in a quandary when I was going to encounter the crux of the debate: is YEC a reasonable position? I wade through 1,400 words of definition and a scattered expose on scientific/philosophical jargon before encountering something that appears to have relevance to the Resolution, when, finally, the acronym YEC makes sense. I realize it is Young Earth Creation. And I find I must put away my bias because my own thinking on the matter definitively sides with Con. I can do that. I want to be convinced by either opponent based on their arguments, alone. But “Creation” is the 1,411th word in the Con R1 argument; it’s first mention when it is of ultimate necessity to the Resolution. Honestly, I am wondering why I have waited so long to encounter this critical word.
Conversely, Pro begins the R1 rebuttal that this debate is not about science, which Con goes to great lengths, at a frank disadvantage to himself, to effectively come to the same conclusion, but there is so much science offered by Con that Pro is inclined to feel it necessary to oppose. Con offer3es a simple rebuttal to science, that Christians should believe "…exactly as described IN the Bible." A good rebuttal to all the science discussed by Con. However, Con’s BoP is that science is the best explanation for Creation as not being YEC. But a period of activity over eons of time. Pro offers three propositions, all of which are supported by scripture, but none of the propositions convince that Pro has proven YEC. They do demonstrate God as the creator, but that is not relevant to the Resolution. Pro’s R1 could have had a convincing argument for YEC with his summary of a book by R. Raymond, with a discussion of “day,” [“yom” in Hebrew] and that this Hebrew word can signify a single day, or multiple days, and even points out the number of times “yom” appears biblically, and separates the usage as singular or plural, but then throws the argument a curve by saying that even in the 27% of the references of plural meaning, they also signify a single day. Yet, Pro never quotes Raymond directly, so we are left wondering just what is the point the author is making because Pro will not let us see his point. The argument fails on that missing quotation.
Con’s R2 begins by allowing that Pro has accepted all definitions. So, why must I have a regurgitation of them? In fact, having provided sufficient explanation of science in his R1, Con complains that Pro barely mentions “science,” [it is not Pro’s BoP to do so, by the way], but then cites several rebuttals from Pro’s R1, disputing that Pro does not mention it. Con declares that “Pro undermines our knowledge of the past,” while Pro has alleged that our past is described at length biblically. Con’s R2 argues the Pro has failed to provide an account of evolution, or that new stars are observed being “born,” ignoring that mention of these should be made to prove Pro’s BoP. Again, these are factors for Con to prove.
Pro’s R2 begins with questions for Pro, which neither offer argument for Pro, nor supports those arguments by sourcing. Questions are, indeed, challenges, but to what purpose? Pro also challenged a question in R1 with the same opinion on my part that questions are not arguments. Pro should just make argument, and support it to my convincing. I am not convinced of an argument by challenging questions. Pro then complains that Con assumed Pro’s acceptance of Con’s definitions, ands since Pro said naught about not accepting them in R1, and offering rebuttal to them, specifically, I am not now convinced of Pro’s sincerity by his denial only in R2, by which Pro concludes R2: denial of definitions.
R3 entertains a discussion entirely off-track hat actually began in Con’s R2, and spills into R3 as a knock-down/drag-out: flat earth. Neither opponent does their BoP credit by this off-debate subject, and I fear both have lost track of the Resolution, because, sphere or flat, Earth’s creation by YEC, or not, has completely fled the field.
R4, R5, ditto, and I’m done. Result: Neither side has convinced me of their argument. Tie.
In my R2, I erroneously referred to Jack Pierce as David Pierce. An error. My apologies. There are three David Pierces with whom I am more familiar than Jack, an actor, a songwriter, and a former CEO of Atari, Inc.
I do look forward to a lively, but friendly debate. Good luck to you, too. Though you do not imply, other than by the Resolution, that our scriptural sources are to be biblical, even though there are other religion's holy writ, I commit to avoiding other scriptural references.
Good argument in your round 2 regarding the potential of parents to corrupt their children, and their being spared of that consequence, even by their death at God’s hand due to the wickedness of the adults. Since death is not a permanent condition, it is merely the last enemy that will be defeated.
As I replied to your pm two days ago (4/25), no. Your choices, as instigator, are continue, concede, or forfeit. The time to make concessions is. Before the debate is accepted. I do not agree to do-overs. That is child’s play
This debate has a useless voting potential since both participants fully forfeited, and should, in my opinion, conclude as a no-vote tie. Never thought I'd see one as I am personally opposed to that debate result, but, here is the unique exception. Instigator should not have the advantage merely by offering the debate with a description. In fact, perhaps by making the challenge, and then not meeting it, it is a potential instigator loss, but I cannot award a win to a full forfeit by either side. This could have been an easy win for one side, but...
Just to advise of personal preference, since this is not a vote, and cannot by critiqued as one, parents should let their children choose their own path in life, whether or not a career is part of that choice. Guide them, certainly, but let them live their own lives. The parents, presumably, have already lived theirs. That should suffice. If they have not, their children should not be the victims of poor parental choices.
I'll note, coincidentally, that as we begin this debate, you and I are virtually tied in debate rating. I'll admit it was one reason I chose to engage it. Just to add some friendly competition. Good luck, my friend. It is truly a great subject. As you say, deviation.
Having just committed to reading the arguments and voting, I then read the Description, but no arguments, yet. Just by the description, I'm already concerned that a serious issue is enjoined with just two options and both concern doing some killing, allegedly to solve a problem; a problem that is not even defined, to wit, why do either the tribes' people or the tribal leaders need to be killed? I'm hoping that will come out in arguments.
This wasn't my debate as initiator, although, I did challenge something like it a few months ago. It died without acceptance. But, being a constitutional matter, I was easily hooked. I disagree about the weird. And I may just try proposing it, after giving this one a rest. And, who knows, maybe my opponent will rise to the occasion for the last round...
>>RM, you're right, of course. I am too used to Con not being the initiator, and was doubly thrown by your personal reference in a third -person syntax. I'll ask Ragnar if I can revise the vote. It may not be necessary, but I'll watch for about a week. Ragnar, please take note. Being an unrated debate, does that ever figure in to making voting correction?
I refuse to continue this discussion. To probe further than what I've said is to go beyond my RFD, and that is not to be had. You may take or leave my other advice, which has naught to do with this debate, but your debate style in general, which is appropriate comment territory, and which is available for all to see in your many challenges. What is the probability of your taking my advice? Why don't you make a debate challenge about it? I'll not engage it.
My rationale was clearly indicated in the text of my RFD: the story of St. Columbia and the slave girl, like most of your exemplary characters you use as evidentiary argument, miss justification of the Resolution. What, exactly, have they to do with the Loch Ness Monster other than explaining that there were people inhabiting both Ireland and Scotland [though not yet known by those names] when the Loch Ness monster first has mention in either historic or mythic text. You lose on relevance to the Resolution.
Further, I note that many of your challenges contain the verbiage "probably" or "likely," or other indefinite terms which are poor constructs of debate protocol, at least on this site. Either take a positive or negative stand, or don't bother. I also note that many of your challenges go wanting for opposition. I wonder why? You have a backbone, I presume. Use it. Take a stand and live with the results. "Probably" is a spineless worm, and Nessie never had that accusation.
>> RationalMadman [you have me blocked; unfairly in my book]
Yes, as soon as I posted, I realized I had not noted the Legibility correctly. It has been corrected. By the way, I disagree with Ragnar's assessment of the whole pedophile issue. I saw no purpose in Pro's mention of the issue - totally irrelevant to the debate, therefore, one must question Pro's motivation. I disagree with Ragnar's dismissal.
I did not realize until responding to your friend request that you are British. I recognize and revere the foundation of our Constitution on the great legal tradition of Great Britain. My own ancestry, though deeply American [my first ancestor to arrive in America was in 1625, to Boston, from Scotland] is rooted there, and then France before the 12th century.
Anyway, I look forward to our debate.
Failing to present? I am not debating you, obviously, so stop trying to illicit citable definitions. You earn no points in comments. Leave it for your arguments. Done.
We are just going round and round on OED [don't recognize OXD] and Lexicon. The two are NOT synonymous. And, all your date citations of post #3, 1945 - 2007, plus your P&S all designate gender as equivalent to female and male. You have no citation other than your own claim via APA [Description [B]] - which has a guilty bias for disagreeing with their definition from the 60s - before your time - to bring up your neuter gender. No one else you've cited in your #3 say so. Why not?
If the definition of "Gender," as a genetic and not a grammatical construct, includes a neutered sense [it does not by genetic definition in the OED, whereas the grammatical definition is consistent with the neutered addition - and all life is not grammatical, but genetic], why are human gametes only male and female, even in the instance of a resulting aneuploid rather than euploid condition?
It would be intriguing to vote on this debate, but as I am drawn into the debate based upon an earlier vote on a similar debate subject, which Pro believed was unfair, and regardless of who raised the official report on my vote, the Mod action was in favor of keeping the vote, so there it lies. This applies too much bias to present a vote in this debate. I was actually asked by Pro to be a participant, but I silently declined, and will decline to vote. Besides, it could be argued that Pro wins by default by forfeit. Let others decide...
Notice: As an effort to improve reader reference to my arguments in this and future rounds of this debate, and in subsequent debates, I am using a continuous running count of argument/rebuttal/defense sections by roman numerals from round to round, to wit: R1 contained arguments I, II. R2 commences with III, IV, and so on, through all succeeding rounds in order avoid repeating numbers in rounds. Formerly, I started each round with I, then II, etc. I'm hoping a continuous run of numbering will help keep consistency and flow of argument.
For 100% of people who practice abstinence 100% of the time, it works 100% of the time.
What other contraceptive has that record? None. Memes be damned.
Strictly speaking, yes, community service does not, in solid, though debatable terms, fit the legal description of indentured servitude, let alone slavery, but I wager Pro is unaware of the specific distinctions, though Pro may now look it it up in attempt to "chattal." No need; the debate is done and in the books. The time for that proof has passed without having made the effort when it counted.
"...if you knew anything about real history"
IF? I happen to have a PhD on the subject. Yes, some Native Americans were also slave owners. And?
And I know a good deal about constitutional law, such as that today, slavery, by strict definition, still exists as punishment for a specified duration for certain crimes. We've just changed the nomenclature: we call it "community service."
since when is religion a racial profile? Was slavery a racial profile? It was not, by the way, though BLM, nor 1619 Project will never admit that. They both ignorer that Native Americans were taken into slavery from the 17th century, as well. Can't paint history with your singular brush, no matter how wide it is.
Well, there is that. But, I lead the pack in no-vote ties compared to the number of debates I've engaged, and some of those were opponent forfeits. So, I'm grateful to avoid that stigma. I lobbied to correct that particular niche of debate results when the voting policy was renewed, i.e., no-vote ties of forfeits. but, it is not yet resolved.
Your description and arguments need to agree. I get the attempt to be cute. Doesn’t fly.
No thanks. As we fundamentally disagree on the root of the resolution, and that we've already been there before, I've said all I need on the matter.
"Willing to be respectful and professional at all times," but forfeits R1? In a 2-week argument schedule? Well, maybe Bigfoot ate the homework.
Yeah, if anyone bothers to vote. Since I lead the pack, at least in the top ten, in no-vote ties [4 of my 10 - and I wish like hell the last update to voting policy took care of that], I'm not just a little concerned.
Had I not already completed a debate with Undefeatable on this very subject, I would take it up, but everything I have to say on the subject was said then. Besides, there have been other debates on this issue by other members, and they have seldom drawn much interest by voters. I conclude it is not now a hot button, if it ever really was. Personally, I suggest we give the Left a break and ignore this red herring excuse for social unrest. It is a sufficiently whipped talking point and I wish BLM would just SYF, and the 1619 project would join 2021.
Your vote was a great analysis. I was planning to vote on this one, but became frustrated by arguments from both sides that seemed to wander on me. I appreciate you thoughtful and concise piercing of that frustration. Well done.
It is argued that Matt 24: 34 is a difficult verse to interpret. Yes, it is when one attempts to do so by cherry-picking the verse on its own. But the set up begins verses earlier, specifically at verse 3, when the entire discussion begins at the Mount of Olives, and many signs are given of the [second] coming of the Lord. We still await some of those signs, such as the sun darkening in concert with the moon turning red. Typically, a red moon is caused by a lunar eclipse, the result of being in Earth's shadow, but that is not the only cause of a red moon. It can also turn red when Earth's atmosphere's air molecules scatter blue light more than usual. If that occurs in conjunction with a darkening sun [it can], then we have the sign foretold. Hasn't happened, yet. Other signs are given, that haven't happened, yet, either. It is THIS [that is, that still future generation] the "difficult" verse speaks of, not the generation of the first century C.E.
All the effort of defining the Greek term γενεά (genea), was a red herring argument. As usual, cherry picking solves very little and is the primary reason that some say verse 34 is difficult to interpret. Words mean things, yes, but context, such as including the previous 31 verses to capture the whole story, is just as important, if not more so.
For future reference, as a voter, I am to consider content only with the text of the debate rounds, along with cited sources, but Comments are outside of consideration; therefore, I ignored your definitions, even though Con agreed to their location. His say so does not agree with Voting Policy, which disallows voting on the basis of outside comment. Neither opponents definitions were convincing, in any event.
I sympathize.
My vote: cont'd from #13
Sources: Sourcing by both opponents fail to convince any more than their arguments. Tie.
Legibility: My vote in this regard goes to both the Resolution/Description by Con [initiator] and in argument round by Pro. Con uses an acronym without defining it, assuming it is a commonly known term: YEC. What is that, an expression of disgust? I am a life-long Christian, but have never encountered the acronym. A simple definition of the acronym, to dissuade assumptions, would have been simple and prevent time taken away to find out for myself. Any debater ought to preclude this dissatisfaction simply by assuming the audience wants definition. Provide it. Pro makes the same mistake in R1 by the use of BB. Again, not familiar with the acronym. BB king? BB, the stock market acronym for BlackBerry? The projectile fired from a small gun? Any debater ought to… and finish as above. DEFINE YOUR TERMS. Acronyms, in particular. I have to consult Google to find the acronym, but Google failed to provide a definition in context with the debate. Actually, by a re-read, I find the it was Con who first provided the answer: big bang, but Con spelled it out, did not use an acronym. Google, itself, never gave me big bang. Tie, but holding my nose.
Conduct: Both opponents treat one another with sufficient respect. Tie.
Notes: I would have really liked to offer a winner, but both failed to convince with sufficient dedication to the Resolution, allowing themselves to be sidetracked by an absurd flat-earth extended discussion. As I said, shape of Earth is of no consequence to the Resolution. Would that it had led the way and the day. In this debate, I declare the Resolution as ignored, and the clear loser. Definitions were another loser, as noted on arguments. Both opponents should give them better deference. Pity.
My vote:
Argument: Con began R1 with a series of definitions; a long series. Once the argument began in earnest, I was still in a quandary when I was going to encounter the crux of the debate: is YEC a reasonable position? I wade through 1,400 words of definition and a scattered expose on scientific/philosophical jargon before encountering something that appears to have relevance to the Resolution, when, finally, the acronym YEC makes sense. I realize it is Young Earth Creation. And I find I must put away my bias because my own thinking on the matter definitively sides with Con. I can do that. I want to be convinced by either opponent based on their arguments, alone. But “Creation” is the 1,411th word in the Con R1 argument; it’s first mention when it is of ultimate necessity to the Resolution. Honestly, I am wondering why I have waited so long to encounter this critical word.
Conversely, Pro begins the R1 rebuttal that this debate is not about science, which Con goes to great lengths, at a frank disadvantage to himself, to effectively come to the same conclusion, but there is so much science offered by Con that Pro is inclined to feel it necessary to oppose. Con offer3es a simple rebuttal to science, that Christians should believe "…exactly as described IN the Bible." A good rebuttal to all the science discussed by Con. However, Con’s BoP is that science is the best explanation for Creation as not being YEC. But a period of activity over eons of time. Pro offers three propositions, all of which are supported by scripture, but none of the propositions convince that Pro has proven YEC. They do demonstrate God as the creator, but that is not relevant to the Resolution. Pro’s R1 could have had a convincing argument for YEC with his summary of a book by R. Raymond, with a discussion of “day,” [“yom” in Hebrew] and that this Hebrew word can signify a single day, or multiple days, and even points out the number of times “yom” appears biblically, and separates the usage as singular or plural, but then throws the argument a curve by saying that even in the 27% of the references of plural meaning, they also signify a single day. Yet, Pro never quotes Raymond directly, so we are left wondering just what is the point the author is making because Pro will not let us see his point. The argument fails on that missing quotation.
Con’s R2 begins by allowing that Pro has accepted all definitions. So, why must I have a regurgitation of them? In fact, having provided sufficient explanation of science in his R1, Con complains that Pro barely mentions “science,” [it is not Pro’s BoP to do so, by the way], but then cites several rebuttals from Pro’s R1, disputing that Pro does not mention it. Con declares that “Pro undermines our knowledge of the past,” while Pro has alleged that our past is described at length biblically. Con’s R2 argues the Pro has failed to provide an account of evolution, or that new stars are observed being “born,” ignoring that mention of these should be made to prove Pro’s BoP. Again, these are factors for Con to prove.
Pro’s R2 begins with questions for Pro, which neither offer argument for Pro, nor supports those arguments by sourcing. Questions are, indeed, challenges, but to what purpose? Pro also challenged a question in R1 with the same opinion on my part that questions are not arguments. Pro should just make argument, and support it to my convincing. I am not convinced of an argument by challenging questions. Pro then complains that Con assumed Pro’s acceptance of Con’s definitions, ands since Pro said naught about not accepting them in R1, and offering rebuttal to them, specifically, I am not now convinced of Pro’s sincerity by his denial only in R2, by which Pro concludes R2: denial of definitions.
R3 entertains a discussion entirely off-track hat actually began in Con’s R2, and spills into R3 as a knock-down/drag-out: flat earth. Neither opponent does their BoP credit by this off-debate subject, and I fear both have lost track of the Resolution, because, sphere or flat, Earth’s creation by YEC, or not, has completely fled the field.
R4, R5, ditto, and I’m done. Result: Neither side has convinced me of their argument. Tie.
cont'd in post #14
Thanks for voting
Thank you
In my R2, I erroneously referred to Jack Pierce as David Pierce. An error. My apologies. There are three David Pierces with whom I am more familiar than Jack, an actor, a songwriter, and a former CEO of Atari, Inc.
I do look forward to a lively, but friendly debate. Good luck to you, too. Though you do not imply, other than by the Resolution, that our scriptural sources are to be biblical, even though there are other religion's holy writ, I commit to avoiding other scriptural references.
Good argument in your round 2 regarding the potential of parents to corrupt their children, and their being spared of that consequence, even by their death at God’s hand due to the wickedness of the adults. Since death is not a permanent condition, it is merely the last enemy that will be defeated.
As I replied to your pm two days ago (4/25), no. Your choices, as instigator, are continue, concede, or forfeit. The time to make concessions is. Before the debate is accepted. I do not agree to do-overs. That is child’s play
You're welcome
This debate has a useless voting potential since both participants fully forfeited, and should, in my opinion, conclude as a no-vote tie. Never thought I'd see one as I am personally opposed to that debate result, but, here is the unique exception. Instigator should not have the advantage merely by offering the debate with a description. In fact, perhaps by making the challenge, and then not meeting it, it is a potential instigator loss, but I cannot award a win to a full forfeit by either side. This could have been an easy win for one side, but...
Just to advise of personal preference, since this is not a vote, and cannot by critiqued as one, parents should let their children choose their own path in life, whether or not a career is part of that choice. Guide them, certainly, but let them live their own lives. The parents, presumably, have already lived theirs. That should suffice. If they have not, their children should not be the victims of poor parental choices.
I'll note, coincidentally, that as we begin this debate, you and I are virtually tied in debate rating. I'll admit it was one reason I chose to engage it. Just to add some friendly competition. Good luck, my friend. It is truly a great subject. As you say, deviation.
You're on. Good luck. I look forward to a good debate.
I will vote, but cannot today - I don't think.
Having just committed to reading the arguments and voting, I then read the Description, but no arguments, yet. Just by the description, I'm already concerned that a serious issue is enjoined with just two options and both concern doing some killing, allegedly to solve a problem; a problem that is not even defined, to wit, why do either the tribes' people or the tribal leaders need to be killed? I'm hoping that will come out in arguments.
There's plenty of time left, thank goodness. I commit to reading and voting.
This wasn't my debate as initiator, although, I did challenge something like it a few months ago. It died without acceptance. But, being a constitutional matter, I was easily hooked. I disagree about the weird. And I may just try proposing it, after giving this one a rest. And, who knows, maybe my opponent will rise to the occasion for the last round...
I fear for my opponent's abolished interest in this debate... any interest in somehow usurping it?
Ragnar, thoughts?
Just kidding to both of you. Just getting a little lonely out here. I'll plod on. One round to go.
>>RM, you're right, of course. I am too used to Con not being the initiator, and was doubly thrown by your personal reference in a third -person syntax. I'll ask Ragnar if I can revise the vote. It may not be necessary, but I'll watch for about a week. Ragnar, please take note. Being an unrated debate, does that ever figure in to making voting correction?
I've sent you a PM, where such discussion is more appropriate, but I've said my piece and will likely have nothing further to say about it.
I refuse to continue this discussion. To probe further than what I've said is to go beyond my RFD, and that is not to be had. You may take or leave my other advice, which has naught to do with this debate, but your debate style in general, which is appropriate comment territory, and which is available for all to see in your many challenges. What is the probability of your taking my advice? Why don't you make a debate challenge about it? I'll not engage it.
My rationale was clearly indicated in the text of my RFD: the story of St. Columbia and the slave girl, like most of your exemplary characters you use as evidentiary argument, miss justification of the Resolution. What, exactly, have they to do with the Loch Ness Monster other than explaining that there were people inhabiting both Ireland and Scotland [though not yet known by those names] when the Loch Ness monster first has mention in either historic or mythic text. You lose on relevance to the Resolution.
Further, I note that many of your challenges contain the verbiage "probably" or "likely," or other indefinite terms which are poor constructs of debate protocol, at least on this site. Either take a positive or negative stand, or don't bother. I also note that many of your challenges go wanting for opposition. I wonder why? You have a backbone, I presume. Use it. Take a stand and live with the results. "Probably" is a spineless worm, and Nessie never had that accusation.
>> RationalMadman [you have me blocked; unfairly in my book]
Yes, as soon as I posted, I realized I had not noted the Legibility correctly. It has been corrected. By the way, I disagree with Ragnar's assessment of the whole pedophile issue. I saw no purpose in Pro's mention of the issue - totally irrelevant to the debate, therefore, one must question Pro's motivation. I disagree with Ragnar's dismissal.
Looks like DebateArt has taken the challenge out of the "debate."
I did not realize until responding to your friend request that you are British. I recognize and revere the foundation of our Constitution on the great legal tradition of Great Britain. My own ancestry, though deeply American [my first ancestor to arrive in America was in 1625, to Boston, from Scotland] is rooted there, and then France before the 12th century.
Anyway, I look forward to our debate.
Thank you for voting
Failing to present? I am not debating you, obviously, so stop trying to illicit citable definitions. You earn no points in comments. Leave it for your arguments. Done.
We are just going round and round on OED [don't recognize OXD] and Lexicon. The two are NOT synonymous. And, all your date citations of post #3, 1945 - 2007, plus your P&S all designate gender as equivalent to female and male. You have no citation other than your own claim via APA [Description [B]] - which has a guilty bias for disagreeing with their definition from the 60s - before your time - to bring up your neuter gender. No one else you've cited in your #3 say so. Why not?
So, who's cherry picking?
If the definition of "Gender," as a genetic and not a grammatical construct, includes a neutered sense [it does not by genetic definition in the OED, whereas the grammatical definition is consistent with the neutered addition - and all life is not grammatical, but genetic], why are human gametes only male and female, even in the instance of a resulting aneuploid rather than euploid condition?
Pls note that my R2, cited source [8] was deleted, along with its commentary due to word-count restriction, thus the gap between [7] and [9].
@ RationalMadman:
Thank you for voting
It would be intriguing to vote on this debate, but as I am drawn into the debate based upon an earlier vote on a similar debate subject, which Pro believed was unfair, and regardless of who raised the official report on my vote, the Mod action was in favor of keeping the vote, so there it lies. This applies too much bias to present a vote in this debate. I was actually asked by Pro to be a participant, but I silently declined, and will decline to vote. Besides, it could be argued that Pro wins by default by forfeit. Let others decide...
Thank you for voting
Notice: As an effort to improve reader reference to my arguments in this and future rounds of this debate, and in subsequent debates, I am using a continuous running count of argument/rebuttal/defense sections by roman numerals from round to round, to wit: R1 contained arguments I, II. R2 commences with III, IV, and so on, through all succeeding rounds in order avoid repeating numbers in rounds. Formerly, I started each round with I, then II, etc. I'm hoping a continuous run of numbering will help keep consistency and flow of argument.
Regardless of how you vote, I hope you get your vote posted in time. Thanks.
I am not confused.
For 100% of people who practice abstinence 100% of the time, it works 100% of the time.
What other contraceptive has that record? None. Memes be damned.
Strictly speaking, yes, community service does not, in solid, though debatable terms, fit the legal description of indentured servitude, let alone slavery, but I wager Pro is unaware of the specific distinctions, though Pro may now look it it up in attempt to "chattal." No need; the debate is done and in the books. The time for that proof has passed without having made the effort when it counted.
"...if you knew anything about real history"
IF? I happen to have a PhD on the subject. Yes, some Native Americans were also slave owners. And?
And I know a good deal about constitutional law, such as that today, slavery, by strict definition, still exists as punishment for a specified duration for certain crimes. We've just changed the nomenclature: we call it "community service."
since when is religion a racial profile? Was slavery a racial profile? It was not, by the way, though BLM, nor 1619 Project will never admit that. They both ignorer that Native Americans were taken into slavery from the 17th century, as well. Can't paint history with your singular brush, no matter how wide it is.
Well, there is that. But, I lead the pack in no-vote ties compared to the number of debates I've engaged, and some of those were opponent forfeits. So, I'm grateful to avoid that stigma. I lobbied to correct that particular niche of debate results when the voting policy was renewed, i.e., no-vote ties of forfeits. but, it is not yet resolved.
thank you for voting