In heart, I think you could've worded your challenge in a more direct and powerful way, especially, perhaps mentioning, Roman Catholic is Christian via dictionary definition is a poor way to prove something is something, especially since from olden times it wasn't guaranteed that Catholic fulfilled Christian traditions (Sabbath, commandments, believing in Christ, etc.). If you were more thorough in defeating pro's religious argument philosophy, you could've turned it around, since that means even if Catholics are Christian, they must identify as such, but pro gives no such proof that Catholics do indeed identify as Christian.
I don't think even Whiteflame could win this one. Mikal might've been able to eek out a Nihilism or "in the broad scope of humanity" or future implications of a dystopia, but even he would've been dancing circles around 5g itself.
excellently said, but aliens and humans together is very controversial, especially if the developer is able to hold control over the device's program. Consider if he decided to remove the AI you fell in love with. Is this murder? Is this kidnapping? I wonder...
Con's argument about how art is about how much story is behind it makes it interesting that saving the cat over the painting arguably is more valuable than the painting itself (as there are many copies of the painting). Even though they are not the original; the original's story lives on and the power of animal rights compared to human creativity is brought up, which could inspire a lot of people. It's a little bit of a fallacious argument, but not entirely impossible for con to edge out a win (especially since I'm not Oromagi or Ragnar)
Just a normal cat. It would only be notable if some person saved it, sacrificing the painting and giving the illusion that the cat was even more important.
I am surprised debating about nihilism, reading a false concession, nearly being insulted and having decode random letters did not make you concede but this felt more like a chore, lol
How can you? Greedy and selfish humans would not want to change their bad traits, you would have to assume the user is good and wise in order to properly use this limitless power
of course, I understand your argument was not as extreme as "must", but it might as well have been since Oromagi was sticking to his guns all the way to the end. He stubbornly stayed with his definition while batting away yours, but you kept up with counter examples and put a lot of doubt in whether Oromagi was justified to merely say that belief is all it takes. That's why I feel like conduct is leaning towards you.
to me, it feels like a cross-examination before or during the debate could have greatly helped, both pro and con brought up and dropped arguably equal amount of points with con barely managing to bring up the reasonable doubt in oromagi's seeming truism definition. I feel like Christianity should be able to interpreted many ways, since religion is a blurred line. You shouldn't be able to completely defile god while believing in god. That makes no sense. But for con to win, she had to PUSH for this definition with greater force. For Pro to win, he would had to shut off con in every which way, but the last round put in enough doubt for a tie overall.
Pro: Christianity is Christianity. People get to say their beliefs.
Con: Christians must truly serve Jesus and idolize him.
Pro: Even Bible some Christians rejected Jesus before being accepted, nobody adheres to Sunday law
Con: ""Christian," isn't informed by a temporal aspect. "
Pro: Betrayal was known beforehand and still prepared for, so sins don't stop them being Christian
Con: Catholics differ from Christian, the more strict definition is superior for "Christian", (I'm not personally convinced by the Sunday law exception with her experience)
Pro: religious liberty (where did it go? lol), says con dropped all cases
Con: " popular understanding does not necessarily inform truth." (why didn't you say this before?), the difference between sub-religions is important,
Pro: UnChristian people can call themselves Christian, Jesus's specific preaching too vague, other args dropped
Con: brings up "trans religion" similar to gender vs sex, prayer has precise meaning, and pro is too inconsistent
Overall I feel like this was a back and forth that was really painful to go through, it's very clear Oromagi was arguing over semantics. I'm not convinced either side won, but I'm pretty sure con got the conduct point since oromagi claimed he thought it was a truism
I am surprised you haven't voted, this seems an easy vote for con. I only provided pure logical arguments and supposition (treating this like I can I BB) while Whiteflame treated this as a formal debate through and through
RFD
You know, this debate is remarkably similar to Unnecessary Truisms, regardless, let's move on.
PRO: The offender is the cause of the problem and should stop; Golden Rule, control our reactions.
CON: A respected Indian offended someone who committed a grave crime; religion vs offend is vague, "offend" is generally too vague
PRO: each person receives offense differently [I anticipate, con should stress that criminals deserve less rights, and should not care about being offended as they made the mistake, if he is smart]; transgender is still too vague as it depends on looks, the Rugby player didn't exactly quote the bible, and the offender may not be aware so the "victim" should take responsibility
CON: individual or group crime is still crime, so group offense is still very relevant vs single; China stops those who offend it, and so we should value our ability to do so in US; mere talk vs law action; the mere ideas and implication vs the insult;
PRO: each person is still charged individually, giving offense irrelevant (?!), can't legislate to unknown beliefs, label identity is too vague to succeed, we should take the individuals' offense with being careful and orderly rather than emotionally
Here, in order for CON to win, he should've pressed even further. He has some ideas pushed that are nearly there, and he just needs to assert them stronger. Perhaps, "the serial killer who killed so many people should not have the right to be offended, why, if he loves killing people, then shouldn't he be proud of it instead?" along with the idea that insults can be extremely vague, especially The Bible's interpretation treated as a homosexual insult, and gone on to try proving that implicit insults make the line too vague. Finally, in my opinion he should've tried stressing humans' emotions being at play; it is extremely difficult to react civilized to an ad hominem argument, this is the way that humans are. They lose sense of self and start wanting a piece of the action. But his arguments are overall too roundabout and not direct enough. Pro's extremely subtle argument likely confused con to mixing up offending someone and being offended.
Since I am convinced by pro's argument, I shall allow him to take offense at con's forfeit and award him the conduct point (see what I did there?)
7 rules? LOL
even considering con's debate record, I can't see pro winning this.
vote
bump
sorry, i dunno what i was thinking when i started this debate
I lose a few brain cells every time I read crossed arguments
Censoring it still counts as using it, and the original version will contain the letter E.
are you suuuure about that?
maybe the beautiful woman can't decide. both sides have their merit, after all.
vote plz
sorry if my round seems a bit sharp and critical, it's a little tricky but I'm sure you can point out the flaw somewhere in there.
let's see how con fares against Nihilism, if he is so set on human values being impossible to use as a crux for morals.
I'm not 100% convinced on the source point, especially since it seems common/obvious that Catholics visit St. Peter, and pro barely contested that.
In heart, I think you could've worded your challenge in a more direct and powerful way, especially, perhaps mentioning, Roman Catholic is Christian via dictionary definition is a poor way to prove something is something, especially since from olden times it wasn't guaranteed that Catholic fulfilled Christian traditions (Sabbath, commandments, believing in Christ, etc.). If you were more thorough in defeating pro's religious argument philosophy, you could've turned it around, since that means even if Catholics are Christian, they must identify as such, but pro gives no such proof that Catholics do indeed identify as Christian.
nice work collecting efforts from "Yale, Colombia, and professors globally" after my attack on your sources concerning Cyber Charter schools XD
how do you counter texting and driving? There's little health benefit other than being able to call the hospital willy nilly...
I don't think even Whiteflame could win this one. Mikal might've been able to eek out a Nihilism or "in the broad scope of humanity" or future implications of a dystopia, but even he would've been dancing circles around 5g itself.
excellently said, but aliens and humans together is very controversial, especially if the developer is able to hold control over the device's program. Consider if he decided to remove the AI you fell in love with. Is this murder? Is this kidnapping? I wonder...
Con's argument about how art is about how much story is behind it makes it interesting that saving the cat over the painting arguably is more valuable than the painting itself (as there are many copies of the painting). Even though they are not the original; the original's story lives on and the power of animal rights compared to human creativity is brought up, which could inspire a lot of people. It's a little bit of a fallacious argument, but not entirely impossible for con to edge out a win (especially since I'm not Oromagi or Ragnar)
Just a normal cat. It would only be notable if some person saved it, sacrificing the painting and giving the illusion that the cat was even more important.
they cannot produce dopamine, oxytocin, etc. The coding only allows specific functions and there is no coding variable for "emotion".
this is actually harder than the wording "customization", because at least in I can I BB you can choose and pick certain traits.
I am surprised debating about nihilism, reading a false concession, nearly being insulted and having decode random letters did not make you concede but this felt more like a chore, lol
How can you? Greedy and selfish humans would not want to change their bad traits, you would have to assume the user is good and wise in order to properly use this limitless power
I didn't watch this. Who won it in I can I BB?
what a turn of events! do you think your argument could've defeated Pro?
the difference is, it's only a simulation/dream to you. You have infinite power, but it doesn't negate others' suffering and their value in life
pro is trying to argue that "No evidence for god" is not enough to disprove god
you forced my hand.... by failing to tackle public health sector costs, you risk me pulling up the stronger core argument about people's wellbeing!
how the heck can you even win this. DDO is inactive, Edb8 is dead, and Kialo is... kinda weird honestly. No voting makes the issues vague.
you: uses Vox
me: I'm not convinced this is your field lol
bsh (https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Treaty-of-Versailles-Was-Unjust/1/) knows what happens
good luck countering the hearing damage argument.... *malicious laughter follows*
also I had too smol char limit lol, should've added 1,000 char
you do realize, effectively does not necessarily mean 100% better?
of course, I understand your argument was not as extreme as "must", but it might as well have been since Oromagi was sticking to his guns all the way to the end. He stubbornly stayed with his definition while batting away yours, but you kept up with counter examples and put a lot of doubt in whether Oromagi was justified to merely say that belief is all it takes. That's why I feel like conduct is leaning towards you.
to me, it feels like a cross-examination before or during the debate could have greatly helped, both pro and con brought up and dropped arguably equal amount of points with con barely managing to bring up the reasonable doubt in oromagi's seeming truism definition. I feel like Christianity should be able to interpreted many ways, since religion is a blurred line. You shouldn't be able to completely defile god while believing in god. That makes no sense. But for con to win, she had to PUSH for this definition with greater force. For Pro to win, he would had to shut off con in every which way, but the last round put in enough doubt for a tie overall.
full RFD:
Pro: Christianity is Christianity. People get to say their beliefs.
Con: Christians must truly serve Jesus and idolize him.
Pro: Even Bible some Christians rejected Jesus before being accepted, nobody adheres to Sunday law
Con: ""Christian," isn't informed by a temporal aspect. "
Pro: Betrayal was known beforehand and still prepared for, so sins don't stop them being Christian
Con: Catholics differ from Christian, the more strict definition is superior for "Christian", (I'm not personally convinced by the Sunday law exception with her experience)
Pro: religious liberty (where did it go? lol), says con dropped all cases
Con: " popular understanding does not necessarily inform truth." (why didn't you say this before?), the difference between sub-religions is important,
Pro: UnChristian people can call themselves Christian, Jesus's specific preaching too vague, other args dropped
Con: brings up "trans religion" similar to gender vs sex, prayer has precise meaning, and pro is too inconsistent
Overall I feel like this was a back and forth that was really painful to go through, it's very clear Oromagi was arguing over semantics. I'm not convinced either side won, but I'm pretty sure con got the conduct point since oromagi claimed he thought it was a truism
so... what? Do we just not put Van Gogh's art in his gallery? We don't bother saying Leonardo drew Mona Lisa?
I'm bad at counting. There's only 1 song from 2010's in top 40, 2 in 40~80, and 1 in 80~120. Meaning 5 songs, out of 9 million*10
I will cry if you go for a silly argument like I have to prove the 80s. Worse than 70 and 90s worse than 80s cuz you know that’s not the topic lol
I've seen the game Socrates Jones: Pro philosopher easily dispel this idea. P2 has serious problems, "ask for back up" would completely destroy it.
vote plz?
there is no price. They are revived at a press of a button.
vote plz
Is it not a fallacy to assume that one persons failure results in another persons failure? But what fallacy is this?
I am surprised you haven't voted, this seems an easy vote for con. I only provided pure logical arguments and supposition (treating this like I can I BB) while Whiteflame treated this as a formal debate through and through
did you accidentally mistype "no constructive value" in this debate? All your arguments seem to support Necessary Truisms but not Unnecessary Truisms
policies, public approval, image as a president, so on and so forth
RFD
You know, this debate is remarkably similar to Unnecessary Truisms, regardless, let's move on.
PRO: The offender is the cause of the problem and should stop; Golden Rule, control our reactions.
CON: A respected Indian offended someone who committed a grave crime; religion vs offend is vague, "offend" is generally too vague
PRO: each person receives offense differently [I anticipate, con should stress that criminals deserve less rights, and should not care about being offended as they made the mistake, if he is smart]; transgender is still too vague as it depends on looks, the Rugby player didn't exactly quote the bible, and the offender may not be aware so the "victim" should take responsibility
CON: individual or group crime is still crime, so group offense is still very relevant vs single; China stops those who offend it, and so we should value our ability to do so in US; mere talk vs law action; the mere ideas and implication vs the insult;
PRO: each person is still charged individually, giving offense irrelevant (?!), can't legislate to unknown beliefs, label identity is too vague to succeed, we should take the individuals' offense with being careful and orderly rather than emotionally
Here, in order for CON to win, he should've pressed even further. He has some ideas pushed that are nearly there, and he just needs to assert them stronger. Perhaps, "the serial killer who killed so many people should not have the right to be offended, why, if he loves killing people, then shouldn't he be proud of it instead?" along with the idea that insults can be extremely vague, especially The Bible's interpretation treated as a homosexual insult, and gone on to try proving that implicit insults make the line too vague. Finally, in my opinion he should've tried stressing humans' emotions being at play; it is extremely difficult to react civilized to an ad hominem argument, this is the way that humans are. They lose sense of self and start wanting a piece of the action. But his arguments are overall too roundabout and not direct enough. Pro's extremely subtle argument likely confused con to mixing up offending someone and being offended.
Since I am convinced by pro's argument, I shall allow him to take offense at con's forfeit and award him the conduct point (see what I did there?)