I commented on some earlier debate that I was at work less than a mile from Columbine when it happened. I drove past the school earlier than day. So, of course, Columbine has always been a story of significant local interest here. I also really enjoy debunking various conspiracy theories so I had hopes for an interesting debate here, alas.
You should join Bsh1's DART race- we need more good debaters like yourself.
Nice to see I'm not the exclusive reader of this debate.
You should read the 2015 Westword Article I used as evidence.
Although some copies were made to support lawsuits vs. the killer's parents and some pharmaceutical companies, viewing privileges were highly controlled and the courts ordered the destruction of those copies in 2006. The last court order regarding these tapes was also 2006 which left the disposition of the tapes to the JeffCo Sheriff's Dept. If Mink and Kelly are lying for reason about the destruction of high profile evidence, than they are high-ranking state officials with maximal criminal exposure. Why would law enforcement officers risk their lives & careers for what benefit?
It does not seem unlikely to me that the FBI had (or even has) copies but good luck proving or disproving that.
The strongest evidence that there are no bootlegs out there is that no video has ever been released is spite of high demand.
I, for one, find such demand hard to fathom given that the evidence reports seem fairly comprehensive and fairly uninteresting to the non-sociopath.
“According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[5] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference”
don't be sorry it was only a guess. Just wiki'd Maldives and Male- I have never seen a city quite like that before. What a cool and interesting place it looks.
Boat claims: "The earth is flat. King is against the truism that the earth is flat. Should be an easy win."
but Boat does not accept the debate, which argues against his characterization of flat-earth as provable. We established yesterday that Boat is willing and available to defend truism debates so what's holding Boat back here?
=>A thousand years ago, the flat earth was a "truism."
That's false. Pythagoras offered irrefutable evidence of a spherical earth some 2400 years ago. By 1119, a spheroid earth was a fundamental assumption of the great Islamic astronomers.
=>Some flat-earthers legitimately believe, so it's a debatable topic.
Although every flat-earther I've ever met has protested their sincerity, I have never met a sincere flat-earther.
Defending a truism is likely to be treated as a troll debate in spite of your preamble. I think the secret to surviving the age of Trump is understanding that there is no such thing as a serious flat earther; only trolls gnawing at the foundations of what is known. I'd be willing to argue that the Earth is sometimes flat, which refutes your claim well enough.
Welcome, Marc. I think your proposition is wide open to attack- didn't Dr. Spock teach us that emotions are part of truth? A much more interesting debate would be to take one of those statements that most people find offensive and defend it as objectively rational.
So file that away for future reference: at least one mod and one top notch debater might vote for a persuasive kritic or semantic arg because they consider a truism debate essentially fair game. Franklin might have won this debate by jumping on "American Math" or even just by calling foul on the premise.
The topic 2+2=4 is so tautological that the it is often used as an example of tautology, of base reality. You have to change the nature of the universe to make the statement untrue. Essentially, the point is proved before the debate is instigated- so the value of the debate is in Con's degree of difficulty and the poetics used to question reality's fabric.
Con's first effort is lame:2 people plus another 2 people equals 2 kids. That changes the equation. 2x + 2x still always equals 4x.
Pro asks Con to stick to math.
Con responds with a fairly egregious act of plagiarism:
https://www.quora.com/Is-2-plus-2-always-4
Con uses Software Engineer Pavel Bukhmatov's fairly excellent 2018 Quora post almost word for word. Con adds one sentence front & back and suggests no other authorship. This argument will not, therefore, be credited to Con.
Pro appeals to the no semantics rule.
Con waives but points to evidence in comments. These too, must be disregarded.
One famous truism vs. one lame and false retort. Pretty clear who won this.
Sources to Pro:
Con was the only one who used sources but failed to credit authorship eliminating his only potentially worthwhile effort at addressing Pro's contention.
Conduct to Pro:
Plagiarism in the writer's arena is worse than shit conduct, it is theft. In future, make certain to credit every source used on DART.
ugh, you bitches got no rhyme
no metaphors no sense of time
pull Thanos up? stick to that line
don't shift to Greek! don't re-align.
that wee dick shit does disincline
my high regard most everytime.
that caterpillar metonym
s'more butterface than butterflyin'
But ocelot's a fine feline
there Supa's line sure shined benign.
while Sparrow's squawk was asinine.
Ultimately, I must incline
to choose the loser, slime the swine
based on Con's last round grimy whine
I'm fine with Pro- Con I decline.
"You should be prohibited from ever voting on an EDM debate again!"
agreed.
"Party rock is an amazing tune!"
1. Worst theme song for the most dangerous car is America: Live like a hamster, make Kia Soul your cage!
2. Won the 2012 Kid's Choice award and no other award after dominating the pop charts for months.
3. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/jul/14/lmfao-sorry-for-party-rocking-review
4. ACTUAL LYRICS: "Where the drank? I gots to know Tight jeans, tattoo, 'cause I'm rock and roll"
5. So derivative that LMFAO actually had to settle lawsuits with Rick Ross and Jermaine Jackson, in a genre that's like 96% derivation.
6. Multiple Rosh Hashanah parody covers.
7. Internet initialism is the basest form of human communication and by extension, band name.
8. The title of the album is an apology for the song, written on the album cover across the bared midriff of a young, faceless woman (yuck)
9. ACTUAL LYRICS: "Gainin' money, Oprah, dough Yo!! I’m running through these hoes like Drano"
10. "...seriously stupid rapping about spanking girls and bathing in champagne over a cheesy pastiche of Eighties synths and pounding beats" -Rolling Stone
ASOIAF indicates the books which are incomplete & so not really available for comparison & also not in league with LOTR books tv series vs movies are st least in the same league
Pro defines terms, establishes clearly which episode 6 he is discussing and continues to complete four solid reasons Bran is not King of anything in Episode 6 (Season 1, ep 6).
Pro calls Season 8, ep 6 in R2 but Pro has the superior responsibility to define terms up front and is given the advantage of the description section to set terms. Pro dropped 3 opportunities (title, description, R1) to clearly define which episode was under discussion. Pro fails to set up the goalposts for the game, even though its Pro's stadium. Con kindly sets up the goalposts so that Pro and Con can play. Pro doesn't get to complain about the goalpost's placement after the game has begun.
Con's deft maneuver leaves Pro beyond the wall in winter, out in the cold.
Sources to CON: Con over-sources stylistically in this debate, improving his authority to lay claim to which ep 6 was discussed. Very nicely done. Pro used no sources to back any claims.
Grammar tied: I'd give grammar to CON for using non sequitur as an adjective alone if I thought the mods would uphold.
Conduct tied: I agree with Pro that Pro's conduct in other debates makes an irrelevant argument but an irrelevant argument is not poor conduct. I considered whether failure to alert readers to spoilers is poor conduct. My rule of thumb is that spoiler alerts are appropriate for one week after tv premiere, two weeks after cinema. Since the argument was essentially a magic trick: a prediction that surprisingly comes true- I think a spoiler alert would have suggested that Pro had real insider info and so ruin the magical effect. I can't really fault Pro for withholding a spoiler alert in this case.
Thanks to Sparrow for another GOT debate & nice job to both debaters for rapid-fire arguments.
Arguments to CON: Loki v. Hulk
By good intuition or good information, Pro accurately predicts that Brandon Stark gets unexpectedly elevated as the new King of six kingdoms. Pro's phrasing of thesis allowed for at least two lines of attack:
not king of all Westeros
poorly specified episode info
Pro anticipated the former and with a little effort might have made a case that while the six kingdoms make less than half of the continent of Westeros, in most contexts Westeros and the seven kingdoms are used somewhat interchangeably. I've seen some maps that would support this argument. Few seem to think of Westeros as beyond the wall and the extent of the continent beyond the wall is unknown.
Pro failed to anticipate the latter even though Con pre-argued in the comments section. Con totally exploited Pro's failure to define terms and Pro's failure to anchor the assertion in proof (even a link to the a scene on youtube here might have given Pro some evidence to defend the intention of "final episode" or "Season 8, episode 6").
I'm not really really a well versed judge of EDM.
This is a 1-10 scale with Donna Summer's "I Feel Love" as a 10
and LMFAO's "Party Rock Anthem" as a 1
PR1: Ocean
4
CR1: Ocean
3
PR2: Free
4
CR2: Nevada
5
PR3: Years from Now
5
CR3: Running Away
6
PR4: The Little Things
7
CR4
5
PR5: Put Me Back Together
7
CR5: Ride or Die
7
there's a lot of bad press today, which makes me think I liked it more than most. I think the whole season would have worked much better in the usual season format. Mostly I think this season wanted for the sex and humor of previous seasons. I think King's Landing in winter was about as beautiful a setting as I've ever seen seen in fantasy.
Game of Thrones vs. Lord of the Rings. We should note that sparrow is looking for a debate about his opinion, not about the relative merits of fantasy franchises.
#The debate topic itself is a no true scottsman fallacy.
agree
#GG basically made his topic unwinnable by virtue of how he worded it.
agree
#In the future, the best way to avoid this would be not to focus on the labels so much, but instead a specific concept. Like "catholics don't worship properly" or something to that effect that doesn't rely on counterintuitively denying the fact that catholics are Christian by definition.
agree
#I'm pretty sure that we got a catholic in the room, they'd likely say the same thing about your brand of Christianity.
I am an Irish Roman Catholic by heritage if not real faith anymore- baptized, confirmed all that. I would not say that GeneralGrant is not Christian whatever his religious brand- even lapsed Catholics tend to overvalue forgiveness.
You'd be grumpy too if RatMan's debates had unexpectedly become a daily reading requirement. So- are we supposed to judge arguments, impersonation, both, or don't care?
You may be right- I think of tribalism, ethnocentrism, and nationalism as the same human impulse defined by different scales and outlines: nations by borders, ethnocentrism by racial id, tribes by family ancestry.
I think in relationship to Palestine that is hard to deny but I also think ethno-nationalism runs pretty deep in the human psyche. I mean, Donald Trump is fairly ethnic-nationalistic in rhetoric, right? I guess I’m just challenging the notion that Israel is special in terms of nationalism- I see a lot of it around these days.
Would u call Israel more diverse or less diverse than Japan, Tibet, Idaho? There’s a lot of ethnonationslism in the world- is Israel’s really even close to “ last bastion?”
That’s the advantage of temp bans plenty of time to cool off and decide whether you’ll play by the rules. It also gives the community time to develop consensus - you can see that even type1 has his advocates. We can talk about whether the policies are fair and impartially enforced. There is a definite line but it takes deliberation on all our parts to cross that line
I commented on some earlier debate that I was at work less than a mile from Columbine when it happened. I drove past the school earlier than day. So, of course, Columbine has always been a story of significant local interest here. I also really enjoy debunking various conspiracy theories so I had hopes for an interesting debate here, alas.
You should join Bsh1's DART race- we need more good debaters like yourself.
Nice to see I'm not the exclusive reader of this debate.
You should read the 2015 Westword Article I used as evidence.
Although some copies were made to support lawsuits vs. the killer's parents and some pharmaceutical companies, viewing privileges were highly controlled and the courts ordered the destruction of those copies in 2006. The last court order regarding these tapes was also 2006 which left the disposition of the tapes to the JeffCo Sheriff's Dept. If Mink and Kelly are lying for reason about the destruction of high profile evidence, than they are high-ranking state officials with maximal criminal exposure. Why would law enforcement officers risk their lives & careers for what benefit?
It does not seem unlikely to me that the FBI had (or even has) copies but good luck proving or disproving that.
The strongest evidence that there are no bootlegs out there is that no video has ever been released is spite of high demand.
I, for one, find such demand hard to fathom given that the evidence reports seem fairly comprehensive and fairly uninteresting to the non-sociopath.
Quite wrong.
“According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[5] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth?wprov=sfti1
don't be sorry it was only a guess. Just wiki'd Maldives and Male- I have never seen a city quite like that before. What a cool and interesting place it looks.
I guess Karachi
I started yesterday but got pulled away. I’ll try to get back to it this weekend
ew, smells like alt in here. Did somebody just alt?
Exhibit #1:
Boat claims: "The earth is flat. King is against the truism that the earth is flat. Should be an easy win."
but Boat does not accept the debate, which argues against his characterization of flat-earth as provable. We established yesterday that Boat is willing and available to defend truism debates so what's holding Boat back here?
=>A thousand years ago, the flat earth was a "truism."
That's false. Pythagoras offered irrefutable evidence of a spherical earth some 2400 years ago. By 1119, a spheroid earth was a fundamental assumption of the great Islamic astronomers.
=>Some flat-earthers legitimately believe, so it's a debatable topic.
Although every flat-earther I've ever met has protested their sincerity, I have never met a sincere flat-earther.
Defending a truism is likely to be treated as a troll debate in spite of your preamble. I think the secret to surviving the age of Trump is understanding that there is no such thing as a serious flat earther; only trolls gnawing at the foundations of what is known. I'd be willing to argue that the Earth is sometimes flat, which refutes your claim well enough.
Welcome, Marc. I think your proposition is wide open to attack- didn't Dr. Spock teach us that emotions are part of truth? A much more interesting debate would be to take one of those statements that most people find offensive and defend it as objectively rational.
I hope the instigator will document the stigmatization of fan-fic because my experience is opposite.
I’m sorry I missed the chance to argue this.
good question, Alec. Welcome, WolframMagic.
So file that away for future reference: at least one mod and one top notch debater might vote for a persuasive kritic or semantic arg because they consider a truism debate essentially fair game. Franklin might have won this debate by jumping on "American Math" or even just by calling foul on the premise.
Thanks for catching that, Boat. For some reason, I get very dyslexic in the vote box and I'm sure the mods are tired of deleting.
Arguments to Pro:
The topic 2+2=4 is so tautological that the it is often used as an example of tautology, of base reality. You have to change the nature of the universe to make the statement untrue. Essentially, the point is proved before the debate is instigated- so the value of the debate is in Con's degree of difficulty and the poetics used to question reality's fabric.
Con's first effort is lame:2 people plus another 2 people equals 2 kids. That changes the equation. 2x + 2x still always equals 4x.
Pro asks Con to stick to math.
Con responds with a fairly egregious act of plagiarism:
https://www.quora.com/Is-2-plus-2-always-4
Con uses Software Engineer Pavel Bukhmatov's fairly excellent 2018 Quora post almost word for word. Con adds one sentence front & back and suggests no other authorship. This argument will not, therefore, be credited to Con.
Pro appeals to the no semantics rule.
Con waives but points to evidence in comments. These too, must be disregarded.
One famous truism vs. one lame and false retort. Pretty clear who won this.
Sources to Pro:
Con was the only one who used sources but failed to credit authorship eliminating his only potentially worthwhile effort at addressing Pro's contention.
Conduct to Pro:
Plagiarism in the writer's arena is worse than shit conduct, it is theft. In future, make certain to credit every source used on DART.
ugh, you bitches got no rhyme
no metaphors no sense of time
pull Thanos up? stick to that line
don't shift to Greek! don't re-align.
that wee dick shit does disincline
my high regard most everytime.
that caterpillar metonym
s'more butterface than butterflyin'
But ocelot's a fine feline
there Supa's line sure shined benign.
while Sparrow's squawk was asinine.
Ultimately, I must incline
to choose the loser, slime the swine
based on Con's last round grimy whine
I'm fine with Pro- Con I decline.
At the top of my second half of RFD, I wrote Pro when I meant Con. Particularly confusing at the top of the argument like that. Sorry.
"You should be prohibited from ever voting on an EDM debate again!"
agreed.
"Party rock is an amazing tune!"
1. Worst theme song for the most dangerous car is America: Live like a hamster, make Kia Soul your cage!
2. Won the 2012 Kid's Choice award and no other award after dominating the pop charts for months.
3. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/jul/14/lmfao-sorry-for-party-rocking-review
4. ACTUAL LYRICS: "Where the drank? I gots to know Tight jeans, tattoo, 'cause I'm rock and roll"
5. So derivative that LMFAO actually had to settle lawsuits with Rick Ross and Jermaine Jackson, in a genre that's like 96% derivation.
6. Multiple Rosh Hashanah parody covers.
7. Internet initialism is the basest form of human communication and by extension, band name.
8. The title of the album is an apology for the song, written on the album cover across the bared midriff of a young, faceless woman (yuck)
9. ACTUAL LYRICS: "Gainin' money, Oprah, dough Yo!! I’m running through these hoes like Drano"
10. "...seriously stupid rapping about spanking girls and bathing in champagne over a cheesy pastiche of Eighties synths and pounding beats" -Rolling Stone
ASOIAF indicates the books which are incomplete & so not really available for comparison & also not in league with LOTR books tv series vs movies are st least in the same league
NOTE: GOT SPOILERS HERE
Pro defines terms, establishes clearly which episode 6 he is discussing and continues to complete four solid reasons Bran is not King of anything in Episode 6 (Season 1, ep 6).
Pro calls Season 8, ep 6 in R2 but Pro has the superior responsibility to define terms up front and is given the advantage of the description section to set terms. Pro dropped 3 opportunities (title, description, R1) to clearly define which episode was under discussion. Pro fails to set up the goalposts for the game, even though its Pro's stadium. Con kindly sets up the goalposts so that Pro and Con can play. Pro doesn't get to complain about the goalpost's placement after the game has begun.
Con's deft maneuver leaves Pro beyond the wall in winter, out in the cold.
Sources to CON: Con over-sources stylistically in this debate, improving his authority to lay claim to which ep 6 was discussed. Very nicely done. Pro used no sources to back any claims.
Grammar tied: I'd give grammar to CON for using non sequitur as an adjective alone if I thought the mods would uphold.
Conduct tied: I agree with Pro that Pro's conduct in other debates makes an irrelevant argument but an irrelevant argument is not poor conduct. I considered whether failure to alert readers to spoilers is poor conduct. My rule of thumb is that spoiler alerts are appropriate for one week after tv premiere, two weeks after cinema. Since the argument was essentially a magic trick: a prediction that surprisingly comes true- I think a spoiler alert would have suggested that Pro had real insider info and so ruin the magical effect. I can't really fault Pro for withholding a spoiler alert in this case.
NOTE: GOT SPOILERS HERE
Thanks to Sparrow for another GOT debate & nice job to both debaters for rapid-fire arguments.
Arguments to CON: Loki v. Hulk
By good intuition or good information, Pro accurately predicts that Brandon Stark gets unexpectedly elevated as the new King of six kingdoms. Pro's phrasing of thesis allowed for at least two lines of attack:
not king of all Westeros
poorly specified episode info
Pro anticipated the former and with a little effort might have made a case that while the six kingdoms make less than half of the continent of Westeros, in most contexts Westeros and the seven kingdoms are used somewhat interchangeably. I've seen some maps that would support this argument. Few seem to think of Westeros as beyond the wall and the extent of the continent beyond the wall is unknown.
Pro failed to anticipate the latter even though Con pre-argued in the comments section. Con totally exploited Pro's failure to define terms and Pro's failure to anchor the assertion in proof (even a link to the a scene on youtube here might have given Pro some evidence to defend the intention of "final episode" or "Season 8, episode 6").
I'm not really really a well versed judge of EDM.
This is a 1-10 scale with Donna Summer's "I Feel Love" as a 10
and LMFAO's "Party Rock Anthem" as a 1
PR1: Ocean
4
CR1: Ocean
3
PR2: Free
4
CR2: Nevada
5
PR3: Years from Now
5
CR3: Running Away
6
PR4: The Little Things
7
CR4
5
PR5: Put Me Back Together
7
CR5: Ride or Die
7
Pro:27 > Con:26
there's a lot of bad press today, which makes me think I liked it more than most. I think the whole season would have worked much better in the usual season format. Mostly I think this season wanted for the sex and humor of previous seasons. I think King's Landing in winter was about as beautiful a setting as I've ever seen seen in fantasy.
oh no
Who else has watched it all now?
SPOILER ALERT: Bran the Broken is not the leader of all Westeros at the end of GOT
Game of Thrones vs. Lord of the Rings. We should note that sparrow is looking for a debate about his opinion, not about the relative merits of fantasy franchises.
#The debate topic itself is a no true scottsman fallacy.
agree
#GG basically made his topic unwinnable by virtue of how he worded it.
agree
#In the future, the best way to avoid this would be not to focus on the labels so much, but instead a specific concept. Like "catholics don't worship properly" or something to that effect that doesn't rely on counterintuitively denying the fact that catholics are Christian by definition.
agree
#I'm pretty sure that we got a catholic in the room, they'd likely say the same thing about your brand of Christianity.
I am an Irish Roman Catholic by heritage if not real faith anymore- baptized, confirmed all that. I would not say that GeneralGrant is not Christian whatever his religious brand- even lapsed Catholics tend to overvalue forgiveness.
sure, obg crys "scrybog"
Sure. Isn’t anybody who’s persuading with language and logic taking on the role of intellectual, at least in the moment?
Just in time for Pride: a gay dog debate.
Woof! Woof!
I am going to be so disappointed if this whole site is just RatMan catfish
I’m impressed by the Quality/speed ratio
Queue: Jaws theme song - buh-bump, buh-bump, buh-bump
Well reasoned as ever, Virt. Thx for the vote
“Conduct to Con as Pro blatantly plagiarized from Type1's debate”. Oh no! LOL is RatMan’s theory proving out? Sparrow! What’s going on here?
Hey, Boat-
Please re-read the DART Code of Conduct and desist with the mindfuck.
https://www.debateart.com/rules
Counter vote bomb.
Is it, tho? I consider Wikipedia a very acceptable go-to. What is your objection?
You'd be grumpy too if RatMan's debates had unexpectedly become a daily reading requirement. So- are we supposed to judge arguments, impersonation, both, or don't care?
Also, I don't think of Skept as a noob- he was good debater on DDO as I remember & has been on this site since inception.
You may be right- I think of tribalism, ethnocentrism, and nationalism as the same human impulse defined by different scales and outlines: nations by borders, ethnocentrism by racial id, tribes by family ancestry.
I think in relationship to Palestine that is hard to deny but I also think ethno-nationalism runs pretty deep in the human psyche. I mean, Donald Trump is fairly ethnic-nationalistic in rhetoric, right? I guess I’m just challenging the notion that Israel is special in terms of nationalism- I see a lot of it around these days.
UPDATE: actually, 301 passed with 50.5% of the vote.
Would u call Israel more diverse or less diverse than Japan, Tibet, Idaho? There’s a lot of ethnonationslism in the world- is Israel’s really even close to “ last bastion?”
That’s circumstantial- permabans have to be unanimous. But 3 or 4 seems reasonable
Then they’ll be banned. If type1 returns with the same behavior I expect he’ll be gone for good.
That’s the advantage of temp bans plenty of time to cool off and decide whether you’ll play by the rules. It also gives the community time to develop consensus - you can see that even type1 has his advocates. We can talk about whether the policies are fair and impartially enforced. There is a definite line but it takes deliberation on all our parts to cross that line