According to DART rules ..."Ensure your definitions are outlined. If disagreeing with any established one(s), make a brief case for the superior authority of your alternative(s)."
from https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#first-round
Ergo the premise and the description are debatable.
Much of my argument rests on the use of the term"communism".
I asked BK for an authoritative source in support of BK's usage.
According to DART rules ..."Ensure your definitions are outlined. If disagreeing with any established one(s), make a brief case for the superior authority of your alternative(s)."
from https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#first-round
Ergo the premise and the description are debatable.
@davidaz ......Since you have asked " Is the question "Can you find a contradiction" or "Can you prove a contradiction"?" , I would direct you to the title of the debate ( which Mall had iterated). That title being "You can find a bonafide biblical contradiction."
Please define "Bible" ( i.e. Old and New testaments together, or one without the other" . Please define what constitutes a " bonafide biblical contradiction".
Perhaps go after the definition of "fetus", "innocence" and "intention"?
Yes!
According to DART rules ..."Ensure your definitions are outlined. If disagreeing with any established one(s), make a brief case for the superior authority of your alternative(s)."
from https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#first-round
Ergo the premise and the description are debatable.
Definitions must be validated by an authoritative source....always, always, always.
Much of my argument rests on the use of the term"communism".
I asked BK for an authoritative source in support of BK's usage.
According to DART rules ..."Ensure your definitions are outlined. If disagreeing with any established one(s), make a brief case for the superior authority of your alternative(s)."
from https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#first-round
Ergo the premise and the description are debatable.
What "sources" did BK use? ( zero )
According to rules definitions CAN BE DEBATED.
Exactly what "argument" did BK put forth? ( zero)
The vote bears NO resemblance to the reality of the debate.
Let me know how you decide after a "second review"
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
With 6 hours to go, score is 0 to 14.
No bombers yet seen.....
Thanx for the feedback. I did not intend to break policy. It was my error.
I have corrected and voted again in adherence to the policy.
That may not please everyone, but I along with 2 others have voted for Con, so it appears to be accurate.
With 3 days to go, score is 0 to 14.
No bombers yet seen.....
I was attempting to be sensitive to the beliefs of others.
It was not to be a vote on religious grounds.
Con did a better job on two points which Pro did not counter ( Child marriage traumatizes children. and
Aisha was enslaved)
I included the UN as a neutral third party support for my vote.i
If this was wrong, well .....In the words of Steve Martin......"EXCUSSSSSSE Me!"
To what debate are you making such a groundless accusation?
Will this be "just post what you ate today"?
With six days to go, the score is 0 and 14.
I do not support "troll debates"
Debates should be about FACTS not FEELINGS.
How do you define "complex"?
The debate title was more of a question than a proposition.
It was a good debate.
Con's slight edge to me was the view that dueling had been legal , and is now illegal in 48 states.
What is the debate about?
What topic did you choose?
You have already debated this topic a dozen times.
You have already debated this topic a dozen times.
DebateArt should end "troll debates"
DebateArt should end "troll debates"
The topic is you are pro that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth.
" Con takes the position of atheism."
But what if con doesn't believe in atheism?
Would that make con a bad atheist, or a skeptical atheist?
Is a skeptical atheist someone who seeks proof of the non existence of a deity,and then doesn't accept the proof?
Is pro capable of defending a position?
When you say "A.i. should not be used in work place now." , what do you mean by "now"?
Debate has been edited based on comments.
Then let us come to an agreeable debate title, and have at it.
Would you like to suggest a better title? Perhaps "The divorce rate in the USA is actually less than 5%"?
What do YOU think the actual rate is?
Your supposition is incorrect.
@davidaz ......Since you have asked " Is the question "Can you find a contradiction" or "Can you prove a contradiction"?" , I would direct you to the title of the debate ( which Mall had iterated). That title being "You can find a bonafide biblical contradiction."
Please define "Bible" ( i.e. Old and New testaments together, or one without the other" . Please define what constitutes a " bonafide biblical contradiction".
What stand is BeardedToothFairy Taking. Is the position " con idealism" while pro is to take "anti idealism" ? Aren't both positions the same?