if only on this site, votes judged the actual content of an argument, and not simply the format it was presented in. If I knew from the outset that this argument would be primarily about who's looks better, I wouldn't have bothered going into such detail about how much bad faith PRO engaged in lol
Is it important to source your arguments from somewhere else? Is that not a glorified appeal to authority in a field where authority doesn't have a lot of value? What does their sources or format have to do with the simple fact that they failed to substantiate their premises?
This is a devil's advocate argument by PRO. Essentially they challenged me that I would not be able to point out issues in their arguments. The exact phrasing that was used just before the debate was
CON: "I'm convicted that there exists no valid argument for the existence of god using sound, measurable premises"
PRO: "easy
we will debate that then"
I was asked to debate, not play dress up.
if only on this site, votes judged the actual content of an argument, and not simply the format it was presented in. If I knew from the outset that this argument would be primarily about who's looks better, I wouldn't have bothered going into such detail about how much bad faith PRO engaged in lol
Is it important to source your arguments from somewhere else? Is that not a glorified appeal to authority in a field where authority doesn't have a lot of value? What does their sources or format have to do with the simple fact that they failed to substantiate their premises?
This is a devil's advocate argument by PRO. Essentially they challenged me that I would not be able to point out issues in their arguments. The exact phrasing that was used just before the debate was
CON: "I'm convicted that there exists no valid argument for the existence of god using sound, measurable premises"
PRO: "easy
we will debate that then"