CON argued that the Black community via BLM was insular, only interested in black problems. I note that BLM was founded by a lesbian, an immigrant, and a jew- two are married to trans spouses. I'd argue that BLM's core membership is much further outside of the Christian core of the Black community than say, a straight white Christian. The old NAACP and SPLC set was less pleased with BLM's influence than your average police officer until George Floyd changed BLM from a group to a slogan with national resonance this summer.
PRO's breast cancer awareness argument is interesting in light of revelations ten years ago about Susan G Komen's leverage of Bush Admin influence to eclipse AIDS fundraising and channel large sums to GOP and anti-abortion causes. The argument is true generally but false in the largest and most specific real world example of breast cancer fundraising.
The astonishing thing is that you could have this debate with the condition "PRO can only use examples of Trump's racism documented in the last 24 hours" and still have more evidence than would fit in a 10,000 character debate
"to be fair, GTA doesn't paint murder in an incredible powerful idea that evokes back to feelings of love, of regret."
I guess you haven't played Grand Theft Auto, then
"have you played To the Moon? I wouldn't expect anyone who enjoyed the game to disagree with the idea"
Have you played Grand Theft Auto? I wouldn't expect anyone who enjoyed the game to object to murder
CON: Don't speak for the Chinese people- can you produce a single Chinese person who was actually offended by Trump's remarks?
PRO: Me. I am one offended Chinese person.
CON:https://youtu.be/Vrm8TV7K4zo
Donald Trump is the most prolific liar in history. The Washington Post has verified over 20,000 lies told an ever-increasing rate or repetition on social media. I generally won't accept Donald Trump as legitimate source of information of any kind, particularly on matters touching Trump's image and public perception.
"Glenn Kessler said in 2017 that in his job as a fact-checker for The Washington Post there was no comparison between Trump and other politicians. Kessler gave his worst rating to other politicians 15 percent to 20 percent of the time, but gave it to Trump 63 percent to 65 percent of the time. Kessler wrote that Trump was the most fact-challenged politician that he had ever encountered and lamented that "the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up".
The Washington Post fact-checker created a new category of falsehoods in December 2018, the "Bottomless Pinocchio," for falsehoods repeated at least twenty times (so often "that there can be no question the politician is aware his or her facts are wrong"). Trump was the only politician who met the standard of the category, with 14 statements that immediately qualified. According to the Washington Post, Trump has repeated some falsehoods so many times he has effectively engaged in disinformation.
To be clear, Athias challenged me to a debate and suggested Catholics are not Christians based on old debate I had with GeneralGrant. I honestly did not expect Athias to accept the first draft unconditionally since I made the terms as tilted in my favor as possible - so long as VOTERS agree that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH relates to Christianity or Christians (and this is undeniable) then by the terms of this debate PRO wins. I expected some counter-offer from Athias that might give me some sense of his reasoning but instead he just accepted.
It seem to me that all Athias' best arguments (and now there have been a lot of them) come after my R5 and any chance to respond. I deliberately set 5000 characters so that the need for response overtaxed Athias' usual eloquence and it seems to me unfair that he gets to dump so much into the mix in the voting period.
I once took a journalism class where if you made a mistake with a single person's name in any article the result was an automatic fail in the course. The professor justified this draconian measure by advising writers that few mistakes hurt a paper's reputation as hard as getting a subscriber's name wrong. Some people wait all their life to get quoted in the newspapers and if their name was wrong, the moment was ruined. I am probably alone in thinking major faults in the thesis (including misspelling the subject's personal name) should auto-forfeit the debate. How can we expect to enjoy an efficient discussion of terms if we have to waste a round correcting and confirming major elements of the thesis? If I see major grammar or spelling mistakes in a thesis, my instinct is to drive that mistake into the heart of the instigation.
sorry to be so ignorant but I've never tried Reddit based on that app's trollish reputation, so I'm uncertain to what you refer. Are you saying that in response to my score idea or in response to this debate or general political atmosphere or something else?
DebateArt.com:
"The like button will be back, don't worry"
what if instead of like we had a score? Any user could apply a one time score to any comment, +2, 1, 0, -1, -2. Negative scores would bring positive rankings and positive scores would improve negative scores. The current overall score would be visible in the upper right hand corner of each comment.
The resolution is never clearly presented but seems to argues that atheists can't rationally critique God's work because atheists don't believe the work is God's to begin with.
"logically, Any person that judges or determines anything must do so from a criteria. That criteria must be proven. . . . . . . . Justified. . . . . . . . . Beyond the shadow of a doubt. . . . Sufficient and correct. The standard upon that which is used to decide things with, Conclude, Measure and declare things with must be definitive in reason. Moreover being that this criteria is quite truthfully and logically insubstantial, It could never be up to par to make the topic statement false."
PRO has not bothered to define any of these terms.
Almost all of CON's argument addresses the illogic of theists which is entirely non-sequitur- the subject of the debate is "non-theists" The brief argument CON offers regarding atheists agrees with PRO
"To the atheist, God is neither real nor so supreme in status and complexity that the atheist things it can't be regarded as something that the atheist has the right to judge."
"atheists don't see God as beyond logic whatsoever. They logically conclude God isn't real....such that they can't question or use critical thinking to explore the ideas of what God/s is/are and how she/it/they work."
There's a lot of verbiage, but when we strip CON's argument to the relevant subject, CON seems to accept PRO argument as correct. CON absurdly concludes:
"God is logically judged by the non-Theist as God doesn't surpass judgement in the eyes of a truly rational being."
If one is evaluating God's worth, one is presuming God's existence or else acknowledging the unreasonable premise of the judgement. CON self-refutes.
PRO seems unaware of CON's concurrence and mostly sticks to arguing CON's non-sequiturs. CON harms his case substantially with statements like
"It's not about God being real. "
"So does this mean that a person is able to have a higher standard to judge the works of the being that established ALL standards?"
PRO demonstrates a profound lack of understanding for his subject
"when atheists realize an ALMIGHTY being has an ALMIGHTY knowledge and standard for everything, what possible standard could they use to measure up?'
No atheist could make such a realization as an atheist.
PRO wisely asks CON to state a premise and offers some proof. Neither side has established any groundwork but the first to point that fact out takes the high ground. CON's lazy reply wrongly suggests that judging GOD's existence is the same as judging GOD's works and deed and so even athiests are judging God.
By R3, PRO has taken the CON position against his own thesis:
"Now being that we have a general truth regarding the law of causality, nature, physics, etc, it would not be logical and consistent to apply those laws to where they don't or didn't exist "
"The premise of a real ALMIGHTY God that established everything including standards and judgment, going by that logic, we're just going by it, how am I, a non- Almighty being able to supercede in the knowledge of judging things with a "less than" knowledge?"
CON concisely agrees with PRO's thesis.
"The god is not almighty and real to the non-theist"
PRO agrees with CON at full volume:
"I UNDERSTAND THAT A NON-THEIST BELIEVES WHAT THEY DO SO ALL THIS WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE " They would have to say , "ok for the sake of discussion, if this God is real for me to judge it substantially, I'm more mightier than it as I can supercede its knowledge in the judgment of things." That wouldn't logically follow up but at least they're rolling with the assumption.
PRO and CON agree that it wouldn't be logical for the non-theists to critique God's work without assuming arguendo.
PRO's summary applies to both sides equally:
"You're really having a tough time, I mean super rough time in separating when a topic is about God being real versus for the sake of God being real, this would be or wouldn't be the case."
PRO agrees some more in R5
"On top of that, non-theists do not think God is almighty to the degree that it's beyond judgement, most don't even think God is real since a huge portion of 'non-theists' are atheistic as opposed to deistic variants. God is a fictional character that they judge in the context of the story told. Furthermore there's no point to judge anything you believe is not there . So what else can be done but to suppose something is there?"
PRO's final remarks is a masterpiece of nonsense talk and failure to attach subjects to predicates.
PRO and CON talk a lot about logic but the building block of any well-reasoned argument is a complete sentence with a subject and predicate. This VOTER's assessment is that both debaters argued with such imprecion that neither side realized they were in general agreement on the topic. Arguments to PRO since both sides agreed with PRO's statement.
hooray for Isaac Asimov! One of the greatest and most prolific writers of all time.
A few side notes not relevant to judging.
CON argued that the Black community via BLM was insular, only interested in black problems. I note that BLM was founded by a lesbian, an immigrant, and a jew- two are married to trans spouses. I'd argue that BLM's core membership is much further outside of the Christian core of the Black community than say, a straight white Christian. The old NAACP and SPLC set was less pleased with BLM's influence than your average police officer until George Floyd changed BLM from a group to a slogan with national resonance this summer.
PRO's breast cancer awareness argument is interesting in light of revelations ten years ago about Susan G Komen's leverage of Bush Admin influence to eclipse AIDS fundraising and channel large sums to GOP and anti-abortion causes. The argument is true generally but false in the largest and most specific real world example of breast cancer fundraising.
>cry<
Isn't that the Republican Party's campaign slogan?
1 week left to vote. bumpin
https://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-should-tell-Russia-that-Edward-Snowden-is-Gay-so-that-Russia-will-arrest-deport-him/
seldiora- meet thy doom
finally
The astonishing thing is that you could have this debate with the condition "PRO can only use examples of Trump's racism documented in the last 24 hours" and still have more evidence than would fit in a 10,000 character debate
are you sure you want to concede? do you want a counter-argument or should I just hand it back to you?
Long time no see, Boat! Hope you can stay a while.
public policy but no state actor(s) identified?
You've got two different conditions -
"abortions are ok" moral question
and
"not yet human is valid defense" legal question
which are looking to discuss?
A valid legal defense is not moral sanction so I wonder which way you're looking to go. I'd also recommend defining all these terms.
R3 SOURCES
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm#:~:text=There%20are%20several%20reasons%20why,the%20truth%20and%20minimize%20error.
https://www.statnews.com/2019/04/02/overprescribed-americas-other-drug-problem/#:~:text=More%20than%20one%2Dquarter%20of,and%20nearly%20150%2C000%20premature%20deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism#Impact_of_colonialism_and_colonisation
https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/those-who-cannot-remember-past-are-condemned-repeat-it-george-santayana-life-reason-1905
R2 SOURCES:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/free
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/should
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631672/
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faithful
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
"to be fair, GTA doesn't paint murder in an incredible powerful idea that evokes back to feelings of love, of regret."
I guess you haven't played Grand Theft Auto, then
"have you played To the Moon? I wouldn't expect anyone who enjoyed the game to disagree with the idea"
Have you played Grand Theft Auto? I wouldn't expect anyone who enjoyed the game to object to murder
R1 SOURCES:
https://www.lexico.com/definition/scientist
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/artificial
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/for_free
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/should
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Moon
so you will present proof that Trump's a racist and if you don't CON wins?
CON: Don't speak for the Chinese people- can you produce a single Chinese person who was actually offended by Trump's remarks?
PRO: Me. I am one offended Chinese person.
CON:https://youtu.be/Vrm8TV7K4zo
I don't think most women much care about what guys who debate online think women should be doing.
Donald Trump is the most prolific liar in history. The Washington Post has verified over 20,000 lies told an ever-increasing rate or repetition on social media. I generally won't accept Donald Trump as legitimate source of information of any kind, particularly on matters touching Trump's image and public perception.
"Glenn Kessler said in 2017 that in his job as a fact-checker for The Washington Post there was no comparison between Trump and other politicians. Kessler gave his worst rating to other politicians 15 percent to 20 percent of the time, but gave it to Trump 63 percent to 65 percent of the time. Kessler wrote that Trump was the most fact-challenged politician that he had ever encountered and lamented that "the pace and volume of the president's misstatements means that we cannot possibly keep up".
The Washington Post fact-checker created a new category of falsehoods in December 2018, the "Bottomless Pinocchio," for falsehoods repeated at least twenty times (so often "that there can be no question the politician is aware his or her facts are wrong"). Trump was the only politician who met the standard of the category, with 14 statements that immediately qualified. According to the Washington Post, Trump has repeated some falsehoods so many times he has effectively engaged in disinformation.
70 comments!
thx for voting, Ragnar
To be clear, Athias challenged me to a debate and suggested Catholics are not Christians based on old debate I had with GeneralGrant. I honestly did not expect Athias to accept the first draft unconditionally since I made the terms as tilted in my favor as possible - so long as VOTERS agree that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH relates to Christianity or Christians (and this is undeniable) then by the terms of this debate PRO wins. I expected some counter-offer from Athias that might give me some sense of his reasoning but instead he just accepted.
It seem to me that all Athias' best arguments (and now there have been a lot of them) come after my R5 and any chance to respond. I deliberately set 5000 characters so that the need for response overtaxed Athias' usual eloquence and it seems to me unfair that he gets to dump so much into the mix in the voting period.
you dont
...but first he must wallow in 30,000 characters worth of turmeric ads.
much better
twist what definition? You haven't provided any.
Do you mean at least one vaccination has proven harmful or do you mean on balance, vaccines to more harm than good?
is your mom mad at you now?
I once took a journalism class where if you made a mistake with a single person's name in any article the result was an automatic fail in the course. The professor justified this draconian measure by advising writers that few mistakes hurt a paper's reputation as hard as getting a subscriber's name wrong. Some people wait all their life to get quoted in the newspapers and if their name was wrong, the moment was ruined. I am probably alone in thinking major faults in the thesis (including misspelling the subject's personal name) should auto-forfeit the debate. How can we expect to enjoy an efficient discussion of terms if we have to waste a round correcting and confirming major elements of the thesis? If I see major grammar or spelling mistakes in a thesis, my instinct is to drive that mistake into the heart of the instigation.
Thx 4 voting, Seldiora!
Thanks, Athias. Good debate.
R5 SOURCES:
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/or
http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Osteen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Amish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Middle_Ages
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=KJV
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting!
thx for voting!
That seems like a well informed critique to me
I see. Do you feel like the up/down option contributes to that app's poor reputation?
sorry to be so ignorant but I've never tried Reddit based on that app's trollish reputation, so I'm uncertain to what you refer. Are you saying that in response to my score idea or in response to this debate or general political atmosphere or something else?
watchoowut?
DebateArt.com:
"The like button will be back, don't worry"
what if instead of like we had a score? Any user could apply a one time score to any comment, +2, 1, 0, -1, -2. Negative scores would bring positive rankings and positive scores would improve negative scores. The current overall score would be visible in the upper right hand corner of each comment.
Just don't make any 100 char debates and don't accept any 100 char debates and you are covered
R3 SOURCES:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2243-outside-of-video-based-debates-100-character-max-each-round-is-too-few-for-arguments?argument_number=1
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2243-outside-of-video-based-debates-100-character-max-each-round-is-too-few-for-arguments?argument_number=2
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQDPzct2xbkA9lT6IB9yRUHzKYsY01dSDev0Q&usqp=CAU
R2 SOURCES:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/concede
https://www.wikihow.com/Win-Informal-Arguments-and-Debates
I'd like your comment but I just noticed that thumbs up is gone in new format.
"like"
R1 SOURCES:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Syllogism
https://dwheeler.com/essays/all-men-are-mortal.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/David_-_The_Death_of_Socrates.jpg
https://classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/the-last-words-of-socrates-at-the-place-where-he-died/
The resolution is never clearly presented but seems to argues that atheists can't rationally critique God's work because atheists don't believe the work is God's to begin with.
"logically, Any person that judges or determines anything must do so from a criteria. That criteria must be proven. . . . . . . . Justified. . . . . . . . . Beyond the shadow of a doubt. . . . Sufficient and correct. The standard upon that which is used to decide things with, Conclude, Measure and declare things with must be definitive in reason. Moreover being that this criteria is quite truthfully and logically insubstantial, It could never be up to par to make the topic statement false."
PRO has not bothered to define any of these terms.
Almost all of CON's argument addresses the illogic of theists which is entirely non-sequitur- the subject of the debate is "non-theists" The brief argument CON offers regarding atheists agrees with PRO
"To the atheist, God is neither real nor so supreme in status and complexity that the atheist things it can't be regarded as something that the atheist has the right to judge."
"atheists don't see God as beyond logic whatsoever. They logically conclude God isn't real....such that they can't question or use critical thinking to explore the ideas of what God/s is/are and how she/it/they work."
There's a lot of verbiage, but when we strip CON's argument to the relevant subject, CON seems to accept PRO argument as correct. CON absurdly concludes:
"God is logically judged by the non-Theist as God doesn't surpass judgement in the eyes of a truly rational being."
If one is evaluating God's worth, one is presuming God's existence or else acknowledging the unreasonable premise of the judgement. CON self-refutes.
PRO seems unaware of CON's concurrence and mostly sticks to arguing CON's non-sequiturs. CON harms his case substantially with statements like
"It's not about God being real. "
"So does this mean that a person is able to have a higher standard to judge the works of the being that established ALL standards?"
PRO demonstrates a profound lack of understanding for his subject
"when atheists realize an ALMIGHTY being has an ALMIGHTY knowledge and standard for everything, what possible standard could they use to measure up?'
No atheist could make such a realization as an atheist.
PRO wisely asks CON to state a premise and offers some proof. Neither side has established any groundwork but the first to point that fact out takes the high ground. CON's lazy reply wrongly suggests that judging GOD's existence is the same as judging GOD's works and deed and so even athiests are judging God.
By R3, PRO has taken the CON position against his own thesis:
"Now being that we have a general truth regarding the law of causality, nature, physics, etc, it would not be logical and consistent to apply those laws to where they don't or didn't exist "
"The premise of a real ALMIGHTY God that established everything including standards and judgment, going by that logic, we're just going by it, how am I, a non- Almighty being able to supercede in the knowledge of judging things with a "less than" knowledge?"
CON concisely agrees with PRO's thesis.
"The god is not almighty and real to the non-theist"
PRO agrees with CON at full volume:
"I UNDERSTAND THAT A NON-THEIST BELIEVES WHAT THEY DO SO ALL THIS WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE " They would have to say , "ok for the sake of discussion, if this God is real for me to judge it substantially, I'm more mightier than it as I can supercede its knowledge in the judgment of things." That wouldn't logically follow up but at least they're rolling with the assumption.
PRO and CON agree that it wouldn't be logical for the non-theists to critique God's work without assuming arguendo.
PRO's summary applies to both sides equally:
"You're really having a tough time, I mean super rough time in separating when a topic is about God being real versus for the sake of God being real, this would be or wouldn't be the case."
PRO agrees some more in R5
"On top of that, non-theists do not think God is almighty to the degree that it's beyond judgement, most don't even think God is real since a huge portion of 'non-theists' are atheistic as opposed to deistic variants. God is a fictional character that they judge in the context of the story told. Furthermore there's no point to judge anything you believe is not there . So what else can be done but to suppose something is there?"
PRO's final remarks is a masterpiece of nonsense talk and failure to attach subjects to predicates.
PRO and CON talk a lot about logic but the building block of any well-reasoned argument is a complete sentence with a subject and predicate. This VOTER's assessment is that both debaters argued with such imprecion that neither side realized they were in general agreement on the topic. Arguments to PRO since both sides agreed with PRO's statement.
Conduct to PRO for CON's forfeit.
What's the affirmative CON is expected to disprove? I cant tell.
thanks for voting!
thx 4 vote, intel!
bump