By all means, you can disagree with my vote, and, by all means, vote, yourself, but not merely because you oppose mine. You have to justify how you vote, as I did.
It makes sense when Pro claims Con conceded before Con forfeited. In debate, when Pro is the initiator, Pro is, comparative to baseball, the away team, which plays in the top frame of each inning. Con is the home team, playing in the bottom frame of innings. Four innings in this game. Pro cited Con's concession in the top frame of the last, fourth inning. Con did not forfeit until the bottom frame, apparently assuming he had argued sufficient in 3 innings to win the game. But, how did Pro know Con would forfeit in the bottom frame? In my vote, I disagreed, the difference being the premature call of concession. Con simply did not concede; he assumed his 3-inning arguments sufficed. It was a simple misplay of chronology.
After all, forfeiting a single round in a four-round debate is not an automatic loss, and does not deserve loss of the conduct point. No, but Pro's premature claim of concession does lose it. Ragnar agreed.
true enough. I really don't see grist there for the debate. I have my questions about Giuliani sometimes, but, on the whole, I like the guy, but he may have some over-confidence issues in his position. I'm curious how it drove your thinking to launch the debate. If that is part of your argument, I'll wait for that. I will tell you the subject has raised some interesting considerations for me, and I do look forward to a robust debate. Good luck.
"A mountain over a moll hill," yes, but in which respect? Giuliani's joke, or Wie West's reaction? Her commentary that she "was trying out a new putting style," is a weak argument because there is evidence of her "trying"" that style wearing at least a dozen different outfits, including short skirts, indicating 18-holes' worth of "trials" on at least a dozen different days. 216 "trials?" Well, practice makes perfect, and perhaps one ought to be more aware of the clamoring press and less on one's casual comment of attire. I am personally amazed by the increase dollar value in attire when there is less and less of it. What, exactly, is being "valued?"
No problem. You have set the timing, and complied with it. Some good arguments, my friend. I'm enjoying going through them and will have rebuttals, never fear. But, you have done some good research. Carry on.
That video games come at a cost, and that multiple copies of same may be prohibitively costly to a public-supported institution is common knowledge. By policy, sources not needed for common knowledge.
I gave the nod to Con because Con dismantled your primary justification chosen to highlight your debate, given in the description that video games be imposed as a matter of law, rather than a choice by school boards. You went the all or nothing argument, and could not support it.
I'm inclined to engage the debate, but I question whether your resolution affects the Titanic only as a debate parameter, or are you speaking generally about the notion of "women and children first" on virtually any vessel? You offer general statistics for the Titanic, which are verifiable, and citable, but not for lifeboat capacity on ships in general with passengers + crew. It seems too open-ended for a verifiable debate argument.
Full disclosure: For roughly ten years, due to personally acquired skill, and by formal education in illustration and product design, in addition to my 30+ year corporate career in manufacturing process management, I was a structural product packaging and applied graphics engineer, so my knowledge on the subject is not at a layman's level. Though in an engineering discipline by organizational structure, I worked hand-in-hand with Marketing professionals. I have guilty knowledge of the subject.
Having accepted the debate, as is, I officially file the following disclaimer here, to avoid excess non-argument text:
Disclaimer: Pro’s Description is limited to a single statement to which I see no imposition requiring my compliance, to wit: “I will waive the first round.” I expect Pro expects my reciprocal waiver of the last round, but Pro makes no such demand. I therefore expect that Pro will either enter a first round text to the effect that he waives argument in that round, or will forfeit the round. I know it is a relatively popular tactic to waive rounds, i.e., the instigator waives first round, the challenger waives last round. However, I will hold to the current debate protocol of DArt that, “The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate.” In other words, there should be argument [including rebuttal, defense, etc] in all rounds. [https://info.debateart.com/help/debates] I will comply with this policy with arguments/rebuttals in all rounds, having no compulsion to waive any round, regardless of Pro's actions.
Oh! I almost took this myself, and at the last minute saw your comment. I'll gladly bow out, but I agree, the word count is a little restrictive and I agree. If Pro wants to limit to 1550 for their own arguments, so be it, but limiting serves no purpose other than taking interest out of the debate, which makes for boredom and consequently, perhaps fewer, if any voters.
As usual, people will enter the debate through this comment section, but that's not how it's done. You are using abstention as an attempt to prove it does not work. Sorry, but only by proper engagement of the debate does a matter resolve one way or the other. Well, I accept the challenge. Carry on, Edge.
Although it has naught to do with this debate, it is curious that "authoritarian" is a discussed concept, and that Trump is exemplified by Pro as "authoritarian." One gage of that categorical designation is number of issued EOs. Over his tenure, according to my favorite site [Wiki], Trump issued 55.0 EOs per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
That's a lot, until one considers others in modern time:
Carter: 80.0 pert year
Ford: 69.1
Nixon: 63.2
Johnson 62.9
Kennedy: 75.4
Eisenhower: 60.5
Truman: 116.7
Roosevelt: 307.8
But, who is the record-holder for per-year number? Extrapolated, because he has actually only been in office for 27 days: Joe Biden at 392.3 EOs per year.
It is “burdensome to decipher” conflicting arguments. Don’t cry to me. Appeal to a mod.
However, I will note that machines do not think like humans. For example, facial recognition uses entirely different methods. You could take a clear photo of a person, then rearrange the facial elements such as separating eyes and putting them at the forehead and chin, and AI would still interpret the face as the same as the untouched photo, of the person's real face. We do not think that way at all, exhibiting the fact that machines do not process like us. This point was never argued one way or another. but Con did make the claim of difference in processing, and you did not demonstrate a counter argument that is superior.
You have a number of conflicting arguments, and used very little sourcing to support your arguments. You claimed they were not necessary, but when you even arfgue against a source you cited, that is sloppy. My suggestion: use sources and be true to them.
Nope, I cited, by quote, arguments you never previously argued. I read every word of your arguments, every round. You never made those specific arguments before. Even if you had just repeated, that is not a waiver. Sorry. A waiver is a waiver, and it means exactly what I said it means. You did not waive; therefore, neither did I, for I made no new argument in my R4, as I committed. Not that you forbade that particular protocol.
Now that I've finished the debate [per Pro's request, we have waived round 4] I'll enter your discussion of free speech and such.
1. Edge - your #6 and #8 posts do not acknowledge an unwritten, but very evident factor in the 1A: You have the right to be offended by someone else's speech, but their speech may not necessarily be illegal, and your attempt to censor that speech by some legal backing [I know you did not argue this point, I'm just sayin'] is not necessarily valid. The issue of highest incident in the Supreme Court, looking at all cases they's rendered decisions since 1790 when the Court was established, are 1A issues. Though the Court has been all over the map on the 1A, over the last 50 years, they've become mostly lenient on 1A claims against a plaintiff. They have been more accepting of broad strokes people think are 1A violations. So, there's that. But your #8 claims: "News flash: The constitution already does that, hence why you can't make terroristic threats in an airport." No, you're not citing teh Constitution; you're citing SCOTUS precedent and modern [post 9/11] congressional legislation.
2. Your #8 & #18 claim that corporations are the responsible party in Fruit's #14, show me the corporate policy that actually stipulates in writing that their employees may engage in racist attitudes and actions. That people in corporations, and in every other societal system [education, healthcare, etc] is clearly evident, but they are not given authority to do so by corporate [or other system] authority, because such is illegal. People commit individual racism, even as in groups, by violation of their system's policies and statutes because legislation/policies do not automatically enforce behavior. people do what they want, and that's on. them, nor their corporation, or whatever..
Fruit: Your #14 asked, "Who used their authority to enact and enforce Jim Crow laws?" Answer: "Most modern misguided interpretations of Jim Crow laws had the basis in the Supreme Court precedent, Plessy v Furguson [1898], which established the "separate but equal" doctrine that held until Brown v. Board of Education [1954] abolished Jim Crow, enforcing removal of Jim Crow laws, be they local, state, or federal. over time, since '54, these laws have been removed by appropriate legislatures to the degree that if one has survived, let alone more, I've not found it, and I doubt Pro eve tried.
Read thrice. If you don't like the vote, appeal to a mod, but your sources, as voted, did not support your imperative that the law impose video games. Your argument; your choice to not choose supportable sourcing. That argument did not have to be made, but you made it and must live with it.
Jill asks me why I’m such a hairy guy,
I’m hairy night and day, enough for you to buy,
I’m hairy high and low; don’t ask; don’t know
Just stroke it smooth, t’will rise and show…
So, Darlin', give me head with hair,
Such long, beautiful hair,
Shining, gleaming, sniffing, flaxen, wax on,
Turn on, give me hair down to there
Hair that thrills when you stare,
Hair, baby, hair, momma, hair wherever,
Hair----
Show it, but don’t mow it, God, can I grow it!
Flies in the breeze, tangles in the trees,
Give a home to the fleas, a hive for the bees,
A nest for the birds, don’t they love my sniffing yours,
There ain’t no words for the wonders of coiffeurs,
Legs, hairy, pits, hairy, everywhere I’m hairy, Harry.
Hair…
When I propose debate, I typically define every key word in the resolution, just so there is no debate on the matter of definitions. The debate can concentrate on the whole of the resolution and not turn into a dictionary debate. That accomplishes nothing. Just a suggestion as it seems you have a lot of pushback on that score. It's your debate; define your terms. Also define "children."
re: your #12, racism was not relevant to the debate. And, in the future, you're better off giving definitions and strike the "no semantic arguments allowed." offering definitions dispels semantic argument. As instigator, definitions are your forte to use. In my vote, both concerns killed your effort.
Not to be considered part of the debate by voters, but with divergent reading of the Bible in several languages, the attached sound file [from Wiki] is an approximation of how I perceive the "harmony" of the Holy Bible. When the file is opened, scroll down to the section, "Interference and consonance," and push <play> https://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/beats.htm#introduction
That you do not see an apparent cause does not translate to "there is no cause," but only that it has not yet been observed. Come on, that logic should be clear.
Already aware of the Casimir Effect. Are you. This article, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-casimir-effec/
contains some interesting information, such as that "empty space," i.e. a 100% vacuum condition, isn't really a known factor; that all space has "stuff"" in it, such as energy, which can be converted to matter, and, therefore, as I've argued, both here and in other debates, "nothing comes from nothing." Ex nihilo does not exist. the casimir effect, in fact, supports this contention.
And you want to hang your idea of spontaneous happenings on the nail of such brief existence, it does not have a cause? Aberrations exist, but they do not endure for there to be a cause. You expect, as I advised Sum1, that God created perfection? No, he did not. Therefore, aberrations do occur, but it does not deny the existence of God, who, in my debate, I argued that just because he is omnipotent does not mean that he must act with 100% omnipotence to accomplish his tasks if omnipotence is not a necessary factor.
Your first video says exactly what I said to Death23; that your "matter being created spontaneously" is destroyed just as spontaneously. It is an anomaly of existence, not an enduring existence. Again, like a natural selection change that does not endure; an evolution failure. The net effect is a demonstration that God did not create perfection as a starting point. Proof: we are not perfect, were never intended by be perfect at our beginning, but are intended to become perfect by our own efforts, just as God became perfect in his time.
Your second link does not link to a single video, but to a string of videos. which?
Your post #4, while demonstrating an interesting phenomenon, also demonstrates that your virtual particles are not enduring phenomenon, and, in fact, self-destruct readily. It's an argument that is virtually identical, over a longer period of endurance, of an evolutionary mutation in a species that fails to sustain itself, and may, in fact, lead to the extinction of the species.
Added verses of James 1. The following is verses 2 - 6, with verse 5 included for continuity:
Holy Bible, James 1: 2 – 6
2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
I accept your debate. Your resolution is a question [that makes your position confusing] and you do not stipulate your position but by personal reference alleging theists fail in their attempt at BoP. Therefore, by your taking a Pro position by default [you can, by you own designation, make your position, which is your stated personal opinion Con], my Con position will argue that God does exist, and your Pro position is that God does not exist. Try to make that more clear in your next instigated debate.
Your #16 post borders on voting suggestions, or more to the point, "Vote rigging." See voting policy. You can request that a voter vote fairly. Beyond that, you're on thin ice, my friend.
seldiora!! OK. Now I can put a "face" to the name. Well, then, welcome aboard, gugigor; RIP, seldiora. This was inspired by discussion with Theweakeredge and 3RU7AL in Forum - I thought this would make a great debate. I look forward to your thoughts/arguments.
Thank you for accepting the debate. Question, since your profile is virtually blank [I wish it wasn't - I like being acquainted with debate participants]. Might you be the same gugigor who does IMBd movie ratings? - in particular, Man on a Ledge? I watched about five minutes of it when it first released on Netflix [with some unlocking manipulation], and had a funny feeling there would not be a "shark reveal." Looks like you were spot on. Boring. Glad I wasted only 5 min.
Normally, I stop engaging comments once I engage a debate, so, don't expect a running dialog during the debate. Just my thing, not an absolute.
fact: I had no idea who wrote the statement of the debate entry page, but it was there as an instruction from site sponsorship. Shold I take that as a suggestion, or a requirement? See below;
fact: it says what it says, and there is no problem with interpretation: sourcing is a requirement.
fact: my resolution stated that sourcing is a requirement.
fact: my argument was supported in total by the statement on the page.
fact: the description set-up also says there is a character limit set by the Instigator. Is that statement supposed to a suggestion, or is it a requirement?
fact: the debate includes a countdown clock to register the deadline for loading a round argument. Is that statement of time a suggestion, or is it a requirement?
"If there was a change in the facts during the debate, I wold agree with you."
The facts during the debate were as follows from my R3:
III.b Above every round of argument to be posted, there is an instruction given above the argument form, titled “New debate argument.” It declares: “In order to win the debate, it is necessary to not only provide more convincing arguments, but also to specify the information sources, to demonstrate respectful attitude to the opponent and to write text with a minimum amount of grammatical mistakes.”[8] The careful observer will recognize the same four points in the Debate Instruction [W] as repeated in the Voting Policy [VP], and is reasonably alleged in the Code of Conduct [CC], so one might infer the following logic:
W
↙↗ ↖︎↘︎
CC ↔ VP
"III.b.1Here is Con’s celebrated “implied goal or objective.” It has been in front of him in this and every debate he has engaged in cold, hard black & white. Literally, and repeatedly. This argument is the hill I either conquer, or die upon. This is not an instruction to voters, nor to forum members, nor moderators, nor the site owner, nor anyone else, except... This is instruction for all site members who engage debate in a formal, organized setting; the DebateArt.com argument page of each and every round. How many notice the instruction? How many believe it is not a lie? "
There was the BoP of my resolution that sourcing is required as part of debate argument. Period.
Yet, you influenced DA to change his mind, but it does not alter the fact that during the debate, the foregoing quoter was his stated policy.
I used his statement on the debate argument entry page as a statement of policy and quoted it as I would and did quote any policy of DA if it supported my argument in debate. DA's statement, as I quoted, was in force at the time of quoting, and, therefore, should have stood as quoted. Your claim, by his reversal, was still after the fact, and should not have counted.
Yes, I remember; I'm trying to forget. That one is a sore subject. I thought you went over the line duping DebateArt into countermanding his own statement, without telling him he was weighing in on an active debate. At least, that is what he told me. Thus my argument that the debate turned into 2-on-1. It was, to me, an ethical disaster.
"...to "award source points" means to vote exclusively for Pro or Con on source points. It does not mean a tie vote, even though a tie vote does award source points."
You do realize you've just contradicted yourself in a full 180 in that single comment. Ragnar is going to tell me that's the way it is?
OK, Ragnar, weigh in, please.
Well, I could be wrong [not bloody likely] but it appears to me you have 2 source points as a tie from both voters. I also see neither voter's avatar is "nobody." I see that you have 40% of the votes in a concession. Does anybody understand how points are awarded, when it is appropriate, when not, and why?
Y'all might read the Full-forfeit (FF)/Conceded Debates section, through to the last sentence: "These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes." IOW, a debate participant who concedes should not receive voter points. Seems clear to me. I see no, and there is no mention of "abstention," or any version of that word family in the policy. Show me that I'm wrong.
Isn't the argument that Antarctica is the edge a simulated-earth argument, which Undefeatable has declared out of bounds?
Thanks for voting
Well, that was, as hoped, a really fun debate. I hope you enjoyed it, too. Thanks. And, again, best of luck. I hope we have voters.
Bump.
By all means, you can disagree with my vote, and, by all means, vote, yourself, but not merely because you oppose mine. You have to justify how you vote, as I did.
It makes sense when Pro claims Con conceded before Con forfeited. In debate, when Pro is the initiator, Pro is, comparative to baseball, the away team, which plays in the top frame of each inning. Con is the home team, playing in the bottom frame of innings. Four innings in this game. Pro cited Con's concession in the top frame of the last, fourth inning. Con did not forfeit until the bottom frame, apparently assuming he had argued sufficient in 3 innings to win the game. But, how did Pro know Con would forfeit in the bottom frame? In my vote, I disagreed, the difference being the premature call of concession. Con simply did not concede; he assumed his 3-inning arguments sufficed. It was a simple misplay of chronology.
After all, forfeiting a single round in a four-round debate is not an automatic loss, and does not deserve loss of the conduct point. No, but Pro's premature claim of concession does lose it. Ragnar agreed.
true enough. I really don't see grist there for the debate. I have my questions about Giuliani sometimes, but, on the whole, I like the guy, but he may have some over-confidence issues in his position. I'm curious how it drove your thinking to launch the debate. If that is part of your argument, I'll wait for that. I will tell you the subject has raised some interesting considerations for me, and I do look forward to a robust debate. Good luck.
"A mountain over a moll hill," yes, but in which respect? Giuliani's joke, or Wie West's reaction? Her commentary that she "was trying out a new putting style," is a weak argument because there is evidence of her "trying"" that style wearing at least a dozen different outfits, including short skirts, indicating 18-holes' worth of "trials" on at least a dozen different days. 216 "trials?" Well, practice makes perfect, and perhaps one ought to be more aware of the clamoring press and less on one's casual comment of attire. I am personally amazed by the increase dollar value in attire when there is less and less of it. What, exactly, is being "valued?"
No problem. You have set the timing, and complied with it. Some good arguments, my friend. I'm enjoying going through them and will have rebuttals, never fear. But, you have done some good research. Carry on.
That video games come at a cost, and that multiple copies of same may be prohibitively costly to a public-supported institution is common knowledge. By policy, sources not needed for common knowledge.
Well, my vote stands. Thank you, MisterChris.
I gave the nod to Con because Con dismantled your primary justification chosen to highlight your debate, given in the description that video games be imposed as a matter of law, rather than a choice by school boards. You went the all or nothing argument, and could not support it.
I'm inclined to engage the debate, but I question whether your resolution affects the Titanic only as a debate parameter, or are you speaking generally about the notion of "women and children first" on virtually any vessel? You offer general statistics for the Titanic, which are verifiable, and citable, but not for lifeboat capacity on ships in general with passengers + crew. It seems too open-ended for a verifiable debate argument.
Full disclosure: For roughly ten years, due to personally acquired skill, and by formal education in illustration and product design, in addition to my 30+ year corporate career in manufacturing process management, I was a structural product packaging and applied graphics engineer, so my knowledge on the subject is not at a layman's level. Though in an engineering discipline by organizational structure, I worked hand-in-hand with Marketing professionals. I have guilty knowledge of the subject.
Having accepted the debate, as is, I officially file the following disclaimer here, to avoid excess non-argument text:
Disclaimer: Pro’s Description is limited to a single statement to which I see no imposition requiring my compliance, to wit: “I will waive the first round.” I expect Pro expects my reciprocal waiver of the last round, but Pro makes no such demand. I therefore expect that Pro will either enter a first round text to the effect that he waives argument in that round, or will forfeit the round. I know it is a relatively popular tactic to waive rounds, i.e., the instigator waives first round, the challenger waives last round. However, I will hold to the current debate protocol of DArt that, “The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate.” In other words, there should be argument [including rebuttal, defense, etc] in all rounds. [https://info.debateart.com/help/debates] I will comply with this policy with arguments/rebuttals in all rounds, having no compulsion to waive any round, regardless of Pro's actions.
Oh! I almost took this myself, and at the last minute saw your comment. I'll gladly bow out, but I agree, the word count is a little restrictive and I agree. If Pro wants to limit to 1550 for their own arguments, so be it, but limiting serves no purpose other than taking interest out of the debate, which makes for boredom and consequently, perhaps fewer, if any voters.
Thank you. I, too, look forward to a goods, friendly debate. Best of luck.
As usual, people will enter the debate through this comment section, but that's not how it's done. You are using abstention as an attempt to prove it does not work. Sorry, but only by proper engagement of the debate does a matter resolve one way or the other. Well, I accept the challenge. Carry on, Edge.
Although it has naught to do with this debate, it is curious that "authoritarian" is a discussed concept, and that Trump is exemplified by Pro as "authoritarian." One gage of that categorical designation is number of issued EOs. Over his tenure, according to my favorite site [Wiki], Trump issued 55.0 EOs per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
That's a lot, until one considers others in modern time:
Carter: 80.0 pert year
Ford: 69.1
Nixon: 63.2
Johnson 62.9
Kennedy: 75.4
Eisenhower: 60.5
Truman: 116.7
Roosevelt: 307.8
But, who is the record-holder for per-year number? Extrapolated, because he has actually only been in office for 27 days: Joe Biden at 392.3 EOs per year.
So, Trump is merely ordinary
It is “burdensome to decipher” conflicting arguments. Don’t cry to me. Appeal to a mod.
However, I will note that machines do not think like humans. For example, facial recognition uses entirely different methods. You could take a clear photo of a person, then rearrange the facial elements such as separating eyes and putting them at the forehead and chin, and AI would still interpret the face as the same as the untouched photo, of the person's real face. We do not think that way at all, exhibiting the fact that machines do not process like us. This point was never argued one way or another. but Con did make the claim of difference in processing, and you did not demonstrate a counter argument that is superior.
You have a number of conflicting arguments, and used very little sourcing to support your arguments. You claimed they were not necessary, but when you even arfgue against a source you cited, that is sloppy. My suggestion: use sources and be true to them.
Thank you for voting!
Nope, I cited, by quote, arguments you never previously argued. I read every word of your arguments, every round. You never made those specific arguments before. Even if you had just repeated, that is not a waiver. Sorry. A waiver is a waiver, and it means exactly what I said it means. You did not waive; therefore, neither did I, for I made no new argument in my R4, as I committed. Not that you forbade that particular protocol.
Now that I've finished the debate [per Pro's request, we have waived round 4] I'll enter your discussion of free speech and such.
1. Edge - your #6 and #8 posts do not acknowledge an unwritten, but very evident factor in the 1A: You have the right to be offended by someone else's speech, but their speech may not necessarily be illegal, and your attempt to censor that speech by some legal backing [I know you did not argue this point, I'm just sayin'] is not necessarily valid. The issue of highest incident in the Supreme Court, looking at all cases they's rendered decisions since 1790 when the Court was established, are 1A issues. Though the Court has been all over the map on the 1A, over the last 50 years, they've become mostly lenient on 1A claims against a plaintiff. They have been more accepting of broad strokes people think are 1A violations. So, there's that. But your #8 claims: "News flash: The constitution already does that, hence why you can't make terroristic threats in an airport." No, you're not citing teh Constitution; you're citing SCOTUS precedent and modern [post 9/11] congressional legislation.
2. Your #8 & #18 claim that corporations are the responsible party in Fruit's #14, show me the corporate policy that actually stipulates in writing that their employees may engage in racist attitudes and actions. That people in corporations, and in every other societal system [education, healthcare, etc] is clearly evident, but they are not given authority to do so by corporate [or other system] authority, because such is illegal. People commit individual racism, even as in groups, by violation of their system's policies and statutes because legislation/policies do not automatically enforce behavior. people do what they want, and that's on. them, nor their corporation, or whatever..
Fruit: Your #14 asked, "Who used their authority to enact and enforce Jim Crow laws?" Answer: "Most modern misguided interpretations of Jim Crow laws had the basis in the Supreme Court precedent, Plessy v Furguson [1898], which established the "separate but equal" doctrine that held until Brown v. Board of Education [1954] abolished Jim Crow, enforcing removal of Jim Crow laws, be they local, state, or federal. over time, since '54, these laws have been removed by appropriate legislatures to the degree that if one has survived, let alone more, I've not found it, and I doubt Pro eve tried.
Yes, I will vote on this debate in a couple of days, I promise. As for suggestions, I'll keep that separate from this debate in comments. I'll PM.
I'm considering it. I have a debate challenge with 2 days left before it closes. I'll decide then
Read thrice. If you don't like the vote, appeal to a mod, but your sources, as voted, did not support your imperative that the law impose video games. Your argument; your choice to not choose supportable sourcing. That argument did not have to be made, but you made it and must live with it.
Joe’s Hair
Jill asks me why I’m such a hairy guy,
I’m hairy night and day, enough for you to buy,
I’m hairy high and low; don’t ask; don’t know
Just stroke it smooth, t’will rise and show…
So, Darlin', give me head with hair,
Such long, beautiful hair,
Shining, gleaming, sniffing, flaxen, wax on,
Turn on, give me hair down to there
Hair that thrills when you stare,
Hair, baby, hair, momma, hair wherever,
Hair----
Show it, but don’t mow it, God, can I grow it!
Flies in the breeze, tangles in the trees,
Give a home to the fleas, a hive for the bees,
A nest for the birds, don’t they love my sniffing yours,
There ain’t no words for the wonders of coiffeurs,
Legs, hairy, pits, hairy, everywhere I’m hairy, Harry.
Hair…
©2019 by fauxlaw
[homage to the 60s Broadway hit, "Hair"]
When I propose debate, I typically define every key word in the resolution, just so there is no debate on the matter of definitions. The debate can concentrate on the whole of the resolution and not turn into a dictionary debate. That accomplishes nothing. Just a suggestion as it seems you have a lot of pushback on that score. It's your debate; define your terms. Also define "children."
re: your #12, racism was not relevant to the debate. And, in the future, you're better off giving definitions and strike the "no semantic arguments allowed." offering definitions dispels semantic argument. As instigator, definitions are your forte to use. In my vote, both concerns killed your effort.
Not to be considered part of the debate by voters, but with divergent reading of the Bible in several languages, the attached sound file [from Wiki] is an approximation of how I perceive the "harmony" of the Holy Bible. When the file is opened, scroll down to the section, "Interference and consonance," and push <play> https://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/beats.htm#introduction
Isn't that exactly what my #14 says?
That you do not see an apparent cause does not translate to "there is no cause," but only that it has not yet been observed. Come on, that logic should be clear.
Already aware of the Casimir Effect. Are you. This article, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-casimir-effec/
contains some interesting information, such as that "empty space," i.e. a 100% vacuum condition, isn't really a known factor; that all space has "stuff"" in it, such as energy, which can be converted to matter, and, therefore, as I've argued, both here and in other debates, "nothing comes from nothing." Ex nihilo does not exist. the casimir effect, in fact, supports this contention.
And you want to hang your idea of spontaneous happenings on the nail of such brief existence, it does not have a cause? Aberrations exist, but they do not endure for there to be a cause. You expect, as I advised Sum1, that God created perfection? No, he did not. Therefore, aberrations do occur, but it does not deny the existence of God, who, in my debate, I argued that just because he is omnipotent does not mean that he must act with 100% omnipotence to accomplish his tasks if omnipotence is not a necessary factor.
Your first video says exactly what I said to Death23; that your "matter being created spontaneously" is destroyed just as spontaneously. It is an anomaly of existence, not an enduring existence. Again, like a natural selection change that does not endure; an evolution failure. The net effect is a demonstration that God did not create perfection as a starting point. Proof: we are not perfect, were never intended by be perfect at our beginning, but are intended to become perfect by our own efforts, just as God became perfect in his time.
Your second link does not link to a single video, but to a string of videos. which?
Your post #4, while demonstrating an interesting phenomenon, also demonstrates that your virtual particles are not enduring phenomenon, and, in fact, self-destruct readily. It's an argument that is virtually identical, over a longer period of endurance, of an evolutionary mutation in a species that fails to sustain itself, and may, in fact, lead to the extinction of the species.
Added verses of James 1. The following is verses 2 - 6, with verse 5 included for continuity:
Holy Bible, James 1: 2 – 6
2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
I accept your debate. Your resolution is a question [that makes your position confusing] and you do not stipulate your position but by personal reference alleging theists fail in their attempt at BoP. Therefore, by your taking a Pro position by default [you can, by you own designation, make your position, which is your stated personal opinion Con], my Con position will argue that God does exist, and your Pro position is that God does not exist. Try to make that more clear in your next instigated debate.
thanks for voting
Your #16 post borders on voting suggestions, or more to the point, "Vote rigging." See voting policy. You can request that a voter vote fairly. Beyond that, you're on thin ice, my friend.
seldiora!! OK. Now I can put a "face" to the name. Well, then, welcome aboard, gugigor; RIP, seldiora. This was inspired by discussion with Theweakeredge and 3RU7AL in Forum - I thought this would make a great debate. I look forward to your thoughts/arguments.
Thank you for accepting the debate. Question, since your profile is virtually blank [I wish it wasn't - I like being acquainted with debate participants]. Might you be the same gugigor who does IMBd movie ratings? - in particular, Man on a Ledge? I watched about five minutes of it when it first released on Netflix [with some unlocking manipulation], and had a funny feeling there would not be a "shark reveal." Looks like you were spot on. Boring. Glad I wasted only 5 min.
Normally, I stop engaging comments once I engage a debate, so, don't expect a running dialog during the debate. Just my thing, not an absolute.
That is the biggest load of shyte in the galaxy. Congratulations
fact: I had no idea who wrote the statement of the debate entry page, but it was there as an instruction from site sponsorship. Shold I take that as a suggestion, or a requirement? See below;
fact: it says what it says, and there is no problem with interpretation: sourcing is a requirement.
fact: my resolution stated that sourcing is a requirement.
fact: my argument was supported in total by the statement on the page.
fact: the description set-up also says there is a character limit set by the Instigator. Is that statement supposed to a suggestion, or is it a requirement?
fact: the debate includes a countdown clock to register the deadline for loading a round argument. Is that statement of time a suggestion, or is it a requirement?
"If there was a change in the facts during the debate, I wold agree with you."
The facts during the debate were as follows from my R3:
III.b Above every round of argument to be posted, there is an instruction given above the argument form, titled “New debate argument.” It declares: “In order to win the debate, it is necessary to not only provide more convincing arguments, but also to specify the information sources, to demonstrate respectful attitude to the opponent and to write text with a minimum amount of grammatical mistakes.”[8] The careful observer will recognize the same four points in the Debate Instruction [W] as repeated in the Voting Policy [VP], and is reasonably alleged in the Code of Conduct [CC], so one might infer the following logic:
W
↙↗ ↖︎↘︎
CC ↔ VP
"III.b.1Here is Con’s celebrated “implied goal or objective.” It has been in front of him in this and every debate he has engaged in cold, hard black & white. Literally, and repeatedly. This argument is the hill I either conquer, or die upon. This is not an instruction to voters, nor to forum members, nor moderators, nor the site owner, nor anyone else, except... This is instruction for all site members who engage debate in a formal, organized setting; the DebateArt.com argument page of each and every round. How many notice the instruction? How many believe it is not a lie? "
There was the BoP of my resolution that sourcing is required as part of debate argument. Period.
Yet, you influenced DA to change his mind, but it does not alter the fact that during the debate, the foregoing quoter was his stated policy.
I used his statement on the debate argument entry page as a statement of policy and quoted it as I would and did quote any policy of DA if it supported my argument in debate. DA's statement, as I quoted, was in force at the time of quoting, and, therefore, should have stood as quoted. Your claim, by his reversal, was still after the fact, and should not have counted.
Yes, I remember; I'm trying to forget. That one is a sore subject. I thought you went over the line duping DebateArt into countermanding his own statement, without telling him he was weighing in on an active debate. At least, that is what he told me. Thus my argument that the debate turned into 2-on-1. It was, to me, an ethical disaster.
"...to "award source points" means to vote exclusively for Pro or Con on source points. It does not mean a tie vote, even though a tie vote does award source points."
You do realize you've just contradicted yourself in a full 180 in that single comment. Ragnar is going to tell me that's the way it is?
OK, Ragnar, weigh in, please.
Well, I could be wrong [not bloody likely] but it appears to me you have 2 source points as a tie from both voters. I also see neither voter's avatar is "nobody." I see that you have 40% of the votes in a concession. Does anybody understand how points are awarded, when it is appropriate, when not, and why?
Thank you for voting, but the same comment to you as to seldiora. Show me how Con deserves source points for no sources given?
Y'all might read the Full-forfeit (FF)/Conceded Debates section, through to the last sentence: "These debates are considered conceded debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the side that concedes." IOW, a debate participant who concedes should not receive voter points. Seems clear to me. I see no, and there is no mention of "abstention," or any version of that word family in the policy. Show me that I'm wrong.