Double_R's avatar

Double_R

A member since
3
2
5

There is no challenge to accept. I will wait for you to send it through again.

Took too long, good for you since I had to go back and copy paste the definitions anyway so I might as well have added the sources...

YOU: "I'm not going back and adding sources. If you are seriously going to harp on this you can list the sources in your round or I can leave them out entirely." I will footnote them in the Comments. Are you in agreement?

Fine

YOU: "We're not barrowing definitions, we're laying out the rules of the debate. What is wrong with you? Again, it's just a description." It is a word-for-word definition from another source other than you or I. The source needs to be identified.

The purpose of a source is to show that you are not just making something up. That matters within a debate so that your opponent cannot claim you are just making stuff up. This is not the debate, it's the rules we are both agreeing to prior to the start of the debate. The source is irrelevant. Not one person on earth is going to read the rules and wonder what the source was, and if they do they have no business judging it because they clearly don't know how debates work.

I'm not going back and adding sources. If you are seriously going to harp on this you can list the sources in your round or I can leave them out entirely.

Make up your mind on whether you want to do this debate.

No. The definition it contrasts with is the denial of (or a position against) the existence of God or gods.

It's a debate resolution genius. It's supposed to contrast with the position you accept, that's why you're the Con. Con means against, as in your are against the resolution (definition) provided. My god dude, do you know what a resolution is? Do you know what a debate is?

Resolution: Statement X
Pro agrees with statement X
Con disagrees with statement X
Debate ensues
Judges then determine whether they accept statement X as argued by Pro, or do not accept statement X in which case Con gets the win

That's called a debate.

Nope. Borrowing definitions from sources without identifying them is plagerism.

We're not barrowing definitions, we're laying out the rules of the debate. What is wrong with you? Again, it's just a description. It's not an argument. We're not trying to pass this off as our own work. And no one is even going to read this unless there is a dispute between us as to what one of these words mean. That's the only reason for putting them in there, and even then it's a waste of time. I accept all of your definitions so the only chance any of this will matter is if you try to claim one of your own definitions is wrong.

Accept or don't. At this point I don't care because it seems like your really don't want to do the debate and are just looking for a way to wiggle out of it. This is a stupid thing to get hung up over.

Can you also provide the sources of the definitions? [1], [2] and insert the web address by highlighting the number and linking it.

No. The links have no purpose. It’s the debate description, not an argument. By putting the definitions in the description we’re both agreeing to them so the source is irrelevant.

Can we just get on with this?

Nope. Do not agree in any way. You are creating the definition while prohibiting me from one on the grounds that this is what we are trying to determine. Please reword to exclude the term "definition."

What?

Of course you don’t agree, that’s why you’re the Con. That means you’re against the resolution. I am not creating the definition, we’re debating the definition. That’s how we debate it.

Atheism --> a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Why on earth… in a debate over the definition of atheism would we define atheism is the introduction? The whole point is that we disagree on the definition. Also, this definition already defines it as a lack of belief which is the debate title so just by putting in there is automatically win.

I think the definitions you provided are a bit overkill, but I’m not going to quiver over them so I’ll just include them. Just atheism has to be left out since that’s literally what we’re supposed to be establishing.

So, are you going to make the changes? Also, do you want to include any definitions? I do.

I will make the changes and resend as soon as you send over your suggested edits. Want to get us on the same page before trying again. Sending you another question, please reply there with your definitions or any other rules you want to add/change. I believe so far we’ve agreed on 10k character limit, 3 rounds and I’ll remove the no dictionary/historical rule.

What is a private challenge? Is that where you specify the opponent?

I believe so. I put your name in the contender box so that’s probably why it showed up like that.