its funny because he's not even reading the replies, he just assumes that any opposition to him must be a Trump defense. its funny because few characteristics define Trump so well as' failing to read for content' and then also 'assuming all criticism is political.' Trump and ramdatt clearly hold significant traits in common. Peas in a pod: one red and one blue.
Since I hope to profit by your profligacy, I won’t find fault. Don’t be surprised or offended if the mods work to slow your roll, since we are trying to build a standard of reasoned engagement above mere assertion or self-expression here.
A back-handed compliment may be inferred from the fact that although you are also a prolific debate maker, we aren't snatching so many of yours- understanding that your debates are no easy win.
I'm convinced that ramdatt has no plan to engage. We have seen debaters before who crank out a lot of titles for visibility but give little or no engagement (see type1/sparrow's and billbatard's debates for examples). You'll notice that RatMan and I are snatching up a bunch of these in the anticipation of cheap victories.
...and what ain't reality tv when Trump preempts the news every night with a string of self-serving mumbles punctuated by frequent frantic fact checks?
In earlier comments I recommend to DrSpy that he look at Trent0405's debates for examples of concise arguments, then trent comes around and writes a 3 part RFD longer than any debate he's ever made. WTF?
DTaP VACCINES for CHILDREN UNDER 6 MONTHS of AGE MAY CAUSE AUTISM
PRO's set up is an "absence of evidence" trap. It was MMR and not DTaP that was fraudulently linked to autism by Wakefield in '98. When Wakefield was discredited, true believers and profiteers went looking for other big pharmas to sue. There's not much literature disproving DTaP as a cause for autism because there are no credible concerns that DTaP has any relationship to autism. I could set up a debate saying masturbation may cause blindness and challenge my opponent to find one credible study refuting my claim because there aren't any studies because no credible scientist would waste time and money studying the manifestly untrue.
Anti-vaxxers used to claim thimersol was linked to autism but after thimersol was removed from most vaccines at CDC request 20 years ago without improving the autism rate, thimersol was mostly set aside as a villain. The big 2018 Tdap study in pregnant women effectively disproves PRO- but PRO asked for DTaP, not Tdap.
Furthermore, this VOTER notes that PRO did not offer a single affirmative argument supporting a link between DTaP and autism suggesting even PRO is not convinced the thesis is true.
NEVERTHELESS, PRO wins this. PRO's thesis is a trap but traps are not disallowed by DART and often win debates when well sprung. I think PRO has done the research, knows no one study fulfills PRO's specific request so PRO only has to explain how each offered study does not quite meet PRO's specification. CON didn't have a lot of ground to go to but squandered sympathy earned in early rounds with lower effort arguments in later rounds:
" I don't even know why he invited me to this and show such a piss poor attempt at reading, and trying to manipulate with screwed up definitions"
CON should have gone for conduct and source points and fought like hell for spelling and grammar.
If you were in RatMan's shoes, I think that could be a successful K: define "impossible" in its most absolute sense
"Not possible; not able to be done or happen.quotations"
but, impossible was not defined for this debate and impossible has several valid definitions including the more colloquial:
"Very difficult to deal with."
tho you might get stuck having to argue that animal cruelty supersedes human progress. I'm not sure that holding DrSpy to his impossible claim would convince most voters but such a tactic would have to come in round 1. After a forfeit it seems more like a hail mary.
I disagree that the title can't be read as a variation of the thesis.
It is impossible to ban experimenting on animals because animal experimentation is essential to progress.
Seems pretty valid. I agree that titles should either be the thesis or closely summarize a longer thesis but that is a stylistic choice and I would not want to see that level of conformity imposed.
I love a good conspiracy theory but there's not much room for the challenger if the instigator plans to argue both sides of the issue. What sort of counter argument are you envisioning?
I am not a mod. I failed the background check. Ragnar is a mod. You can tell by his Trump colored crown. I don't mind answering questions tho.
My favorite David is Death of Marat, Napolean Crossing the Alps is second. Last year, I suggested we use Tennis Court Oath for our front page- a notion that received exactly zero endorsement.
I chose the initials CP in preference to DP because I didn't want to write any hysterical double entendres but now I note that I didn't double check that I changed all the DPs to CPs. Now I'm cracking up at:
"Shall DP be the only allowable USFG punishment for convicted murderers?"
(and shall we put in on pornhub?)
"CON's intent is more up/down on DP as punishment"
"DP enjoys majority support in US."
two-to-one, at least
The time for arguments for this debate is 3 days- Eclipse has 30 more hours to offer an opening argument.
If Eclipse forfeits, the round will pass to you and I recommend that you make some argument in R1 before giving it back to Eclipse. Most folks simply say something about how they're choosing to wait to see if their opponent will make any effort. I usually make some low effort argument just to stay ahead of my opponent and demonstrate worthiness for full points: argument, sources, grammar, conduct, but in this specific case that might take more effort than will seem worthwhile. If Eclipse forfeits more than 50% of arguments (2 rounds in this case) this debate will be judged a full forfeit and likely any and all points will be awarded to you.
the rule for new voters is "read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits" I assume that only means no forfeits on your part, since you have not control over opponent's forfeits. Voting period is one month so even if Eclipse never shows this won't count towards voting for another five weeks or so.
"My first instigated debate on here and I get someone with a 57 - 0 record. What have I done??!!"
Sorry, that's not very welcoming of me but I love debunking conspiracy theories and I've been wanting to look into this very topic. Very interesting and timely subject, thanks for instigating.
"IF is the most useless word in any language,"
or
"IF only acknowledges that which is currently not true?"
I think I can find many words less useful than a conditional conjunction. Conjunctions are pretty important words.
I also think I can find exceptions to "only not true."
For example, "If you feel like drinking, there's some vodka in the freezer." The statement does not acknowledge that the guest doesn't feel like drinking, it only acknowledges (or at least pretends to acknowledge) that the host is unaware of the guest's preference. There's nothing that is necessarily untrue and given that the vodka is chilled, a fair possibility that the statement is true.
Things that go 'bump' in the night
Should not really give one a fright.
It's the hole in each ear
That lets in the fear,
That, and the absence of light!
its funny because he's not even reading the replies, he just assumes that any opposition to him must be a Trump defense. its funny because few characteristics define Trump so well as' failing to read for content' and then also 'assuming all criticism is political.' Trump and ramdatt clearly hold significant traits in common. Peas in a pod: one red and one blue.
We live in the age of Spruce Goose-ism. Everything to our right is right wing extremism, everything to our left is left wing extremism
prisoner+Minoan island+famous Rodin
thanks for voting!
Here is a video of Sunday worship service:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6OzRfPiFfQ
bumpin for Buaidh no Bàs!
Here is a similar debate seven years ago with familiar participants
http://www.debate.org/debates/RESOLVED-driverless-cars-will-be-the-norm-within-the-next-20-years/1/
Thx, ramdatt
Since I hope to profit by your profligacy, I won’t find fault. Don’t be surprised or offended if the mods work to slow your roll, since we are trying to build a standard of reasoned engagement above mere assertion or self-expression here.
A back-handed compliment may be inferred from the fact that although you are also a prolific debate maker, we aren't snatching so many of yours- understanding that your debates are no easy win.
I'm convinced that ramdatt has no plan to engage. We have seen debaters before who crank out a lot of titles for visibility but give little or no engagement (see type1/sparrow's and billbatard's debates for examples). You'll notice that RatMan and I are snatching up a bunch of these in the anticipation of cheap victories.
...and what ain't reality tv when Trump preempts the news every night with a string of self-serving mumbles punctuated by frequent frantic fact checks?
Mad Max does Macbeth
https://imgflip.com/i/3vy7wy
In earlier comments I recommend to DrSpy that he look at Trent0405's debates for examples of concise arguments, then trent comes around and writes a 3 part RFD longer than any debate he's ever made. WTF?
DTaP VACCINES for CHILDREN UNDER 6 MONTHS of AGE MAY CAUSE AUTISM
PRO's set up is an "absence of evidence" trap. It was MMR and not DTaP that was fraudulently linked to autism by Wakefield in '98. When Wakefield was discredited, true believers and profiteers went looking for other big pharmas to sue. There's not much literature disproving DTaP as a cause for autism because there are no credible concerns that DTaP has any relationship to autism. I could set up a debate saying masturbation may cause blindness and challenge my opponent to find one credible study refuting my claim because there aren't any studies because no credible scientist would waste time and money studying the manifestly untrue.
Anti-vaxxers used to claim thimersol was linked to autism but after thimersol was removed from most vaccines at CDC request 20 years ago without improving the autism rate, thimersol was mostly set aside as a villain. The big 2018 Tdap study in pregnant women effectively disproves PRO- but PRO asked for DTaP, not Tdap.
Furthermore, this VOTER notes that PRO did not offer a single affirmative argument supporting a link between DTaP and autism suggesting even PRO is not convinced the thesis is true.
NEVERTHELESS, PRO wins this. PRO's thesis is a trap but traps are not disallowed by DART and often win debates when well sprung. I think PRO has done the research, knows no one study fulfills PRO's specific request so PRO only has to explain how each offered study does not quite meet PRO's specification. CON didn't have a lot of ground to go to but squandered sympathy earned in early rounds with lower effort arguments in later rounds:
" I don't even know why he invited me to this and show such a piss poor attempt at reading, and trying to manipulate with screwed up definitions"
CON should have gone for conduct and source points and fought like hell for spelling and grammar.
PRO's R3 sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Wallace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk#The_Falkirk_Roll_of_Arms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_of_Guisborough
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defame#English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Menteith
http://www.thesocietyofwilliamwallace.com/menteithtraitor.htm
http://www.screenplay.com/downloads/scripts/Braveheart.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce#Burial
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/romanticized
PRO's R2 sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism_in_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I_of_Scotland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_I_of_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Balliol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Comyn_III_of_Badenoch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce#Earl_of_Carrick_%281292%E2%80%931306%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Berwick_%281296%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunbar_%281296%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stewart,_5th_High_Steward_of_Scotland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Fordun
https://books.google.com/books?id=O1oJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=if+you+had+the+Earl+of+Carrick,+the+Steward+of+Scotland+and+his+brother...you+would+think+your+business+done&source=bl&ots=rqB-ESS3Or&sig=ACfU3U2nN6AMRYzWIsZWngajrXNbo_8y3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3nMLE-9DoAhUaV80KHVzFBfYQ6AEwAHoECAsQKQ#v=onepage&q=if%20you%20had%20the%20Earl%20of%20Carrick%2C%20the%20Steward%20of%20Scotland%20and%20his%20brother...you%20would%20think%20your%20business%20done&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=qqYHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=was+born+12th+July+1274,+whether+at+Turnberry+Castle+or+Lochmaben+Castle+has+not+been+definitely+ascertained&source=bl&ots=5o5DuWmsx_&sig=ACfU3U1weKA7y47VxO6M_gXdFHc13FEOwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9-d-A_NDoAhUwB50JHaR3BuMQ6AEwAHoECAwQKQ#v=onepage&q=was%20born%2012th%20July%201274%2C%20whether%20at%20Turnberry%20Castle%20or%20Lochmaben%20Castle%20has%20not%20been%20definitely%20ascertained&f=false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce
http://www.braveheart.co.uk/macbrave/history/wallace/ewart.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wallace_%28poem%29
Thanks for voting
PRO's R1 sources:
https://www.google.com/search?q=least+historically+accurate+movies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Balliol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulation_of_Irvine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_I_of_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_invasion_of_Scotland_%281298%29#Invasion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace#Battle_of_Falkirk
http://www.screenplay.com/downloads/scripts/Braveheart.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborationism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Comyn_III_of_Badenoch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Lamberton
http://www.screenplay.com/downloads/scripts/Braveheart.pdf
https://www.ranker.com/list/life-of-robert-the-bruce/genevieve-carlton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce
If you were in RatMan's shoes, I think that could be a successful K: define "impossible" in its most absolute sense
"Not possible; not able to be done or happen.quotations"
but, impossible was not defined for this debate and impossible has several valid definitions including the more colloquial:
"Very difficult to deal with."
tho you might get stuck having to argue that animal cruelty supersedes human progress. I'm not sure that holding DrSpy to his impossible claim would convince most voters but such a tactic would have to come in round 1. After a forfeit it seems more like a hail mary.
I disagree that the title can't be read as a variation of the thesis.
It is impossible to ban experimenting on animals because animal experimentation is essential to progress.
Seems pretty valid. I agree that titles should either be the thesis or closely summarize a longer thesis but that is a stylistic choice and I would not want to see that level of conformity imposed.
I prefer a shorter argument- easier to read, assess for voting. Look at trent0405's debates for some good examples of concise argument
I love a good conspiracy theory but there's not much room for the challenger if the instigator plans to argue both sides of the issue. What sort of counter argument are you envisioning?
PRO's R3 sources
https://www.redcrossblood.org/faq.html#eligibility
https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/manage-my-donations/rapidpass/what-you-must-know-before-blood-donation.html
https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/
PRO's R2 sources:
https://www.redcrossblood.org/faq.html#eligibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_blood_scandal_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/donation
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingraham_v._Wright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_v._McMillian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I am not a mod. I failed the background check. Ragnar is a mod. You can tell by his Trump colored crown. I don't mind answering questions tho.
My favorite David is Death of Marat, Napolean Crossing the Alps is second. Last year, I suggested we use Tennis Court Oath for our front page- a notion that received exactly zero endorsement.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1557/post_links/65826
I neglected to link the line
"been used by nearly all societies since the beginning of civilizations"
to (of course) Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#History
(PRO regrets the error)
I chose the initials CP in preference to DP because I didn't want to write any hysterical double entendres but now I note that I didn't double check that I changed all the DPs to CPs. Now I'm cracking up at:
"Shall DP be the only allowable USFG punishment for convicted murderers?"
(and shall we put in on pornhub?)
"CON's intent is more up/down on DP as punishment"
"DP enjoys majority support in US."
two-to-one, at least
PRO's R1 sources:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/solely
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/retain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/murder
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/11/us-support-for-death-penalty-ticks-up-2018/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/268514/americans-support-life-prison-death-penalty.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_liberty,_or_give_me_death!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329028740_The_Deterrent_Effect_of_Executions_A_Meta-Analysis_Thirty_Years_after_Ehrlich
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09062/annual-determination-of-average-cost-of-incarceration
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fdpc2010.pdf
I look forward to future debates!
Thanks to all for voting.
Thanks for voting, fellows.
Alec-
If Virt doesn't take the D.A. position, I would be willing.
The time for arguments for this debate is 3 days- Eclipse has 30 more hours to offer an opening argument.
If Eclipse forfeits, the round will pass to you and I recommend that you make some argument in R1 before giving it back to Eclipse. Most folks simply say something about how they're choosing to wait to see if their opponent will make any effort. I usually make some low effort argument just to stay ahead of my opponent and demonstrate worthiness for full points: argument, sources, grammar, conduct, but in this specific case that might take more effort than will seem worthwhile. If Eclipse forfeits more than 50% of arguments (2 rounds in this case) this debate will be judged a full forfeit and likely any and all points will be awarded to you.
the rule for new voters is "read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits" I assume that only means no forfeits on your part, since you have not control over opponent's forfeits. Voting period is one month so even if Eclipse never shows this won't count towards voting for another five weeks or so.
Welcome, Nevets. I am glad this is going to get a debate.
Thanks for voting
R1 sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_disease_2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/man-made#English
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nature#Noun
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/origin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28philosophy%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#Epidemiology
http://english.whiov.cas.cn/
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v2
https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/03/retraction-faulty-coronavirus-paper-good-moment-for-science/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1738279
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/james-lyons-weiler-coronavirus-conspiracy-vaccine/
"My first instigated debate on here and I get someone with a 57 - 0 record. What have I done??!!"
Sorry, that's not very welcoming of me but I love debunking conspiracy theories and I've been wanting to look into this very topic. Very interesting and timely subject, thanks for instigating.
and welcome to the site!
thanks for voting.
"Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!"
R1 sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/employ
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prisoner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28philosophy%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_A_%282018%29
https://study.com/articles/Forest_Firefighter_Salary_Info_Job_Duties_and_Requirements.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ecology
https://psmag.com/environment/only-a-rethink-can-prevent-forest-fires
Are the Riders of Rohan tired of fighting orcs? The question of fatigue is irrelevant: we shall endure until the dark lord is no more.
R3:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if#Translations_2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood#Conditional
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood
Great subject. Welcome to the site!
R2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_%28grammar%29#Definite_article
https://www.ef.edu/english-resources/english-grammar/comparative-and-superlative/
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a_4fBH_7dk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/useless
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28philosophy%29
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antidisestablishmentarian
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/floccinaucinihilipilification
https://www.wordfrequency.info/free.asp?s=y
thanks. It was a very interesting topic about which I knew almost nothing when I started.
Is the thesis
"IF is the most useless word in any language,"
or
"IF only acknowledges that which is currently not true?"
I think I can find many words less useful than a conditional conjunction. Conjunctions are pretty important words.
I also think I can find exceptions to "only not true."
For example, "If you feel like drinking, there's some vodka in the freezer." The statement does not acknowledge that the guest doesn't feel like drinking, it only acknowledges (or at least pretends to acknowledge) that the host is unaware of the guest's preference. There's nothing that is necessarily untrue and given that the vodka is chilled, a fair possibility that the statement is true.
[1]https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/ulysses-s-grant-myth-unconditional-surrender-begins-fort-donelson
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Campaign[3]https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Battle_of_the_Wilderness
[3]https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Battle_of_the_Wilderness
[4]https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb
[5]https://www.wearethemighty.com/history/best-generals-ranked-by-statistics?rebelltitem=10#rebelltitem10
[6]https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb
[7]https://www.historynet.com/the-butchers-bill.htm
[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_and_the_American_Civil_War
[9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shiloh
Thanks Christen. Lilcookie was just saying not to underestimate the value of superior organization in debate
Things that go 'bump' in the night
Should not really give one a fright.
It's the hole in each ear
That lets in the fear,
That, and the absence of light!
"Bump"
-Spike Milligan
Your conditional (sane) is undefined in spite of your effort to define but morality don't enter into it.