Omar thinks I have political beliefs based on religion: NAME ONE
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
BoP is on pro (or Omar hopefully if he doesn't wussy out) to prove I have just ONE political belief based on religion. I will waive the first round, and pro will start out the arguments. Pro will then waive the last round. Only rebuttals in last round.
My opponent has decided to make a half-hearted argument (IMO) about where morality stems from and basically made a chain of it. I'd rather stick to the actual belief, but oh well.
I do not argue morality from a religious standpoint, for example, I wouldn't punish those who swear just because it is moral in Christianity to "not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouth." Politically, my morality comes from societal norms and basic laws which are currently in place(ex. do not murder).
I would like to clarify my position on this topic. I do not believe illegals should be able to come into the U.S. This is because there are violent criminals and drug smugglers which we do not have track of because they cross illegally. I also think illegals should not be able to cut in front of other LEGAL immigrants who are waiting for a very long time in line to come to the U.S. There is nothing religious about this, it is simply fair.
I prefer to use my more in depth stance on "gay marriage".
Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.
Prostitution is illegal, which is why I am against it.
It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.
This is common decency which is established among societal standards.
Nothing religious about this.
Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.
My opponent is making an argument and using where morality and politics stems from. This is not a valid example since my particular views themselves are not based on this.
This is much like if an atheist believed that guns should be banned in the idea that people should not be murdered.
Not murdering is a societal norm, and if this person is atheist how does this "morality" come from Christianity?
If he did he would have put it in the BIG Issues.
He values Christianity therefore the laws that he wants are based on that value for Christianity.
First off, my DDO stances are outdated for the most part, as I wrote those a year ago.
It is important to note that Omar said I have political beliefs based on my religion before I gave him my DDO profile. https://www.debateart.com/debates/758?open_tab=comments&comments_page=8 This has all the comments a few days ago of omar accusing me that all my political beliefs are religion.
Per the rules, I waive this round. Omar has requested a list to my beliefs, so here is the link on the "BIG issues."---https://www.debate.org/Our_Boat_is_Right/Good luck.
After Omar asked me to give a list to my beliefs in the comment section of this debate, I gave him my DDO page and said
I would like you to list out your positions.If you don't want to simply copy your DDO profile as Round 1.
To hard to copy and paste all of those. I will put the link to all of them, and you can simply quote me on it. I will clarify if needed on my position.
"I will clarify if needed on my position," to which he obviously saw because he commented after I said that.
There is 30k characters and you have 3 days. Don't lie to me about not being able to type out your political beliefs.
Omar accused me of this before I gave him my DDO profile, so it is disingenuous for him to just go off the SHORT DESCRIPTIONS of DDO.
I clarified my position on this, but my opponent insists he use my exact words.
Morality does not necessarily come from religion.
Like I said, I get my morality off of what society thinks.
Morality or moral sense is also built into our DNA and shaped by future experiences. My opponent is just assuming I get my morality in politics off Christianity.
Gay marriage is the exact same thing as civil unions
so I explained my legal stance on the matter more in depth on the "Gay Marriage" tab. It has the exact same words as civil unions, I just elaborate on what it means. Cherry-picking this is unfortunate.
Which is exactly what I did in the "gay marriage" issue.I say "religiously, I am against it." This is specifically saying my religious belief, and not my political belief. I explained why government should not get in it.
So when I looked this up a bunch of months ago I saw it in the slavery context. I was saying prostitution in slavery is immoral. That would be the most plausible explanation, I could have also been referring to normal prostitution religiously(not politically).
I have also clarified this in the comment section.
When it comes to this issue, I also don't think government should get into this. I am not very educated on this, but I think it should be allowed a free market or privatized rules should decide it. However, I also don't know the downsides of it, it could be harmful to the people doing it, it could be inappropriate in public, but I feel there could be multiple problems to it. I am undecided on this, therefore religion can not determine a political issue that I don't know. I've also heard this talked about very little, only in the slavery context, so if it political, it is a very small/not talked about issue
This is an opinion and assumption that he doesn't know to clearly be true.
Just would like to make another reminder he has not given me the courtesy of addressing my points. Instead he is carrying on what he did in the last Round which is disregard what I said in Round 1 since it was based on outdated information but still for some reason give arguments against my position.
I am left with the assumption he uses the Bible as a basis for his morality.
Omar should be able to tell me a political belief I have directly based on religion because he claimed I did before I showed him my DDO profile. I challenge him to do so.
I literally said the exact same thing but just elaborated on it on the DDO tab. I already explained what I meant. Religiously, I am against it. Politically, I don't think the government should be in the business of private stuff. That is my belief about almost everything on government. I am fine if you are gay, but I don't think government should tell you who to marry and who not to. This is rebutting your claim. I specifically ave already stated multiple times my political and religious beliefs on this topic are different. I am waiting for you to rebut my claims.
Almost all things that are moral in Christianity are considered moral among society and governing laws. Like I have already said, any additional religious beliefs of mine contrary to what the majority of society thinks are not in my political beliefs. For example, gay marriage. I am against it as a Christian but not politically. I think gay marriage is your choice and I have no problem with your beliefs.
Omar is playing the victim here claiming it is unfair to him because it was on my DDO page.
Like I said, he claimed I had beliefs off Religion before I gave him my DDO link. So this is invalid.
I am undecided on this topic.
This is true. I do. Not politically though, as society is in line with the Bible on a majority of the topics.
What the instigator does not realise is that the debate started when you posted your link in Round 1. It didn't start before that. If you thought a DDO profile was not enough information or wrong information you would have provided a better source for me to say how your political beliefs are based on Religion. Bearing in mind you had 3 days to find a source you agree with.
The only point of substance he can bring to not wanting gay marriage is "I don't think the government should be in the business of private stuff". This is less substantial than his Religious point of "I am against it". I already know he is a Christian so it is easy to understand why he is against homosexuality but his I don't like the government doing this is not a substantial point. For the instigator to not understand that really is a testament of his lack of ability as a debater.
I still await you to rebut my very first argument. I specifically targeted Civil Unions but you didn't like it so you changed my argument so it was easier for you to rebut. Debating doesn't work like that. You are supposed to rebut my argument not a straw-man that you made up of my argument.
This is false. Abortion is legal but Christianity opposes it therefore Christianity is against what society deemed to be the right way of governing laws. The instigator is saying here I don't value my Religion enough to have it as a basis for anything I do. A Religion is supposed to be the most important thing of any Religious person and for the instigator to say this thing is not based on what I believe Religiously is false if he was a practising Christian.
Instead of debunking my claim he basically takes the middle ground. He is not taking the opposite site to my argument here instead says I don't know and expects me to have said something about it.I still await you to actually rebut my arguments in Round 1.
He pretty much admits that his morality comes from Christianity. Since laws are based on morals. He has pretty much admitted to basing his political positions on his morality which is Christianity.
Omar makes 3 claims on Boat
1.Border Fence
2.Gay Marriage and Civil Unions
3.Prostitution
For The Border Wall, Omar claims Boat is using moral arguments that stem from religion.Boat responds that he gets his morals from accepted social norms saying:”I also think illegals should not be able to cut in front of other LEGAL immigrants who are waiting for a very long time in line to come to the U.S. There is nothing religious about this, it is simply fair.” as well as:”Morality or moral sense is also built into our DNA and shaped by future experiences.”These are very clear social norms so point CON
For Gay Marriage, Pro claims Con gets his arguments from Christianity which is against Homosexuality.Con is able to distinct his religious beliefs and his political beliefs. This is definite proof of separating religion from politics. He very clearly stated:”Religiously, I am against it. Politically, I don't think the government should be in the business of private stuff.” Point CON
Finally for Prostitution, Pro also claims that Con gets also states that since Prostitution is already illegal and a accepted social norm. So like the Border Wall, point Con
Arguments-Con
The Rest-Tied
In terms of arguments, based on all I have read, I believe PRO has provided ample evidence that CON has political views based on religion. It seems very strange that CON rejects this since CON themselves say they are religious. PRO simply had to point out that CON had religious beliefs that they were serious about and PRO did it. CON rebutted by pointing out how their religious belief and their political were different
> "The government should not get into marriage. Stay out of it. If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine with me.
>As a Christian, however, I am against it.
Then CON goes on to say
>NOTE: I am not homophobic."
The last two statements are obvious contradictions. More importantly, CON's political views align with their religious ones. CON is still against same sex marriage politically however they hate the government more than two gay people getting married(This can be deduced directly from what they say in the three above statements above)
PRO refuted that argument by saying > I specifically targeted Civil Unions because that was part of my argument. You instead remove that as something you need to rebut and add your own argument. Basically making a straw-man of me so that it suits you. This is not how you debate. I was given the burden to show how Religion is the basis of your beliefs and used civil unions. Not gay marriage. For you to simply add your own argument as if that is allowed makes it seem like that you are unable to rebut my argument and will do anything to change the argument I made in order to suit yourself. For this reason I will not be rebutting his straw-man of my position instead await him to rebut my civil union claims. This debate was about me showing something. Not you changing what I was showing so it is easier for you to comment on. It is not about what you prefer. It is about you rebutting my claims. Since you did not do that with my first argument.
This shows you have now done it twice but this time added a straw-man.
Though the rebuttal was not perfect since PRO refuted more than was necessary, they still refuted the argument CON made on gay marriage.
CON repeated what they said initially and brought nothing new to the table, making their response irrelevant.
That right there is enough to show that PRO had the upperhand arguments wise since the title of the debate is: Omar thinks I have political beliefs based on religion: NAME ONE
Pro raises several items which he believes are down to cons religious convictions.
His raised issues from politics, legalized prostitution, and the border fence are so tenuously and indirectly linked to cons religious beliefs, if at all, that I can’t accept them.
To me, the resolution means that con has to be projecting a religious belief into the political arena, rather than a nebulous attack of a generalized worldview. Pro has to cite some area or avenue where com has cited that his political beliefs are guided by religion directly. While I’m prepared to accept that all cons position are guided by religious beliefs and worldview - I don’t think simply stating he is religious and has political beliefs is enough, which is a broad outline summary of pros position here. Pro has to do more to link directly and causally cons religious beliefs and political beliefs for me to award him the win.
So these don’t cut it.
Likewise, for gay marriage: con appears to clearly have an opinion on gay marriage from a religious point of view, but clearly argues a separate political belief that the government should not be involved. I can’t accept this either as there simply is not enough clear cut examples of the political and religious belief being aligned (I suspect pro could have done more by challenging potential hypocrisy).
Pro could have absolutely hammered con here on abortion - con came very close to basically admitting this was a religious belief - but I simply can’t award the debate on this sole basis, of a throwaway line, used as an example.
As a result, I don’t feel any of the examples were enough to show a political belief driven solely from a religious belief. Though I think this was an ultimately attainable and winnable condition on abortion.
RFD in comments
I need to first specify that con began each contention with what looks like a quote, prostitution = "immoral" for example. The problem is these quotes are not contained within the links given, and neither debater responded to inquiries about this. Thus I am forced to dismiss the quotes without effect to conduct or arguments.
BOP:
Here's the thing, con gets benefit of doubt. In English inspired and based are not synonymous, so something can be inspired by something without being based on it. ... Written before reading past the description, because I know it will become important.
Victory Condition:
For this debate Pro need not prove AND, merely OR. If one contention holds up, he wins (this may seem unfair, but it's literally in the resolution). ... At the end of the debate I've gone back to this, and pro failed to prove even one. The resolution is probably true, but pro failed to show it within five rounds.
Debate Gist:
Pro argues that anyone with religion wants pure theocracy in government, con says that's not true.
C1 (con): Border Fence
Pro argues con only believes this due to divine command theory. Con counters that he does not subscribe to such, as exemplified by his lack of support for laws against swearing (no stoning to death anyone who says the lord's name in vein, or wearing mixed fabrics, would have been a better example). Further con believes in it for reasons of national defense instead of religion. Pro counters that without Christianity no one would want to defend their borders (this doesn't hold up due to even a basic knowledge of world history, namely that the existence of nations long predates Christianity).
... When debating you sometimes hit a dud, in these cases it's better to drop it, rather than pretend it's a diamond.
C2 (con): Civil Unions and Marriage in General
That something shouldn't be legally regulated at all... *facepalm*
Pro tried to get a checkmate on the basis that con used the word believe in any context... *facepalm*
Con counters by reminding us that this debate is about political beliefs (like what he would cast a vote in support of), not separate religious beliefs (like going to church on Sunday, even if we won't be arrested for not). Pro complains that con refuting his argument was not fair (even doing this repeatedly through the remaining rounds, did not add any reason it would support the resolution).
... When debating you sometimes hit a dud, in these cases it's better to drop it, rather than pretend it's a diamond.
C3 (tie): Legalized Prostitution
This gets scary, as pro thinks morality cannot come from reason, and con thinks it is about obeying whatever the law of the land is. (this was how they argued, not to say what they believe outside of the debate)
The problem of an out of date profile is annoying, but even going by an opposition to prostitution, religion was never demonstrated to be the reason for that (nor even that religion is opposed... it probably is, but no source suggests such).
C4 (con): Politics
Not positive this was meant to be a serious contention, but was easily refuted with con's second paragraph in R2 (religious people do not exclusively follow religious laws).
Sources:
Con giving an outdated source sucks, but even his old political beliefs were not conclusively shown to be purely religious (or pro really should have shown the quote in the bible the border wall is based on). Plus, here's the big thing: if you have reason to challenge him to a debate, there should be something he's said somewhere to make you think the resolution is true, not merely his old profile from a dead website, or a religious conspiracy theory to which he happens to be listed as a member of said religion. So pro, next time quote him on something.
Better Contentions:
I like to point out how someone could have won, and abortion could have been a slam dunk had it been more than a tiny side point going into the final round of the debate. It's one that pro-life sources could have been used to highlight the direct religious connection to the political belief (something not done for any of the contentions... the term is warrant, as in there's evidence to suggest, not merely an assertion).
He named one but it wasn't one.
When people didn't want blacks to vote in history, they would add extra requirements to voting to stop them from voting.
Whether intended or not, this is what is happening here. Making people explain votes is one thing. But tuning around and telling them their reason is not good enough is censorship. No moderation can know what convinces me of an argument and nobody can determine what is the proper way to be convinced of an argument.
If there was a truly objective way to vote, then there wouldn't be need for votes in the first place. You would be able to just have a computer figure it out.
You're reading the wrong mod comment. My vote was sufficient the first time. Bsh1 is simply coming up with post hoc justifications for why my vote doesn't meet standards.
This is why voting moderation is impractical. The only thing that should matter is if the person is voting sincerely. Beyond that, making them jump through hoops is akin to censorship.
He said the RFD you made was fine for awarding points to arguments, but not the points awarded to conduct.
If you had recast the vote with only the argument points and the same RFD, the vote would stand.
If you want to award conduct points, you need to award them based on the three criteria for conduct points which you have apparently not met
Okay, I'm actually personally offended. This is the second time that you have said that I am being dishonest about my vote. Con literally states that as a Christian, he is against X views. Is this moderation or censorship? If you're going to be a dictator, then cool. But how dare you hide under the guise of objectivity when you go out of you way to delete votes that make an effort to explain their reasoning. Do you seriously think I'm voting dishonestly? You say that I'm reaching a conclusion that cannot possibly be reached from the argument? How could you possibly know that? Even if you could, how is my assessment unreachable from the argument? It's not my fault he admitted the position that he did.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: RFD in comments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote sufficiently justifies argument points. The voter seems to misunderstand why their previous vote was removed. The voter writes "due to my previous vote not elaborating onto why this is poor conduct" as a précis to their discussion of the conduct point. The issue isn't that they did not elaborate, the issue is that actions which take place in the comments are not legitimate grounds for awarding conduct except in extreme cases, which this isn't. That being said, the actions in the comments section are only one reason the voter awarded conduct points, the second reasoning being that the voter feels some strategies/points were "misleading." That is acceptable grounds for awarding conduct, but only if all three criteria to award conduct (as listed in the voting policy) are met. As the voter does not explain how "this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate," the awarding of conduct points was insufficiently warranted.
************************************************************************
Again if the mods remove my vote, I will personally examine the debate again and apologize however until then my vote will stand.
Oh yeah man you totally got me I'm a bias socialist SJW who wastes my life trying to vote against you.
Honestly, this made my day thanks.
You need to stop pinging us in the comments. Hit the report button, and we'll review the vote.
Pink misrepresents my position in so many ways. He did the same thing wrick did about conceding the debate when I explicitly denoted a seperate politcal belief in the arguments "My opponent is saying I admit to it being religious, however, I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics"
Pink also said I made rebuttals and arguments in the comment section, which is absurd, I never did. In conduct, pink fails to prove how "Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic." As well as "Compare each debater's conduct from the debate."
He misrepresents the gay marriage and prostitution points because he failed to address my rebuts and statements about them.
Overall this is an awful vote and bias votes should be removed among mod discretion.
when did I ever put rebuttals in the comment section??!! My gosh your votes are idiotic.
yay another bias pinkfreud socialist vote in the book
RFD Part 5:
So essentially Con does little to elaborate this point and never explained his claim.
To conclude I have to award arguments and conduct to pro since Con posted arguments in the comment section several times, claimed DDO was accurate to his views and then pivoted to stating they weren’t accurate, and he avoided arguments and gave poor rebuttals.
If anyone has an issue with my vote, I urge you to report it so that the mods examine it. Otherwise, it will still stand.
RFD Part 4:
To which Pro expertly replied that,
“ Problem here is that prostitution is: The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prostitution
The instigator has failed to state that prostitution is enslavement since the definition no way states enslavement.
Enslavement: The action of making someone a slave; subjugation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enslavement
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave”
This baseless statement goes to show how Con has little understanding of the definition of prostitution.
Another poor argument con made was,
“ My opponent is making an argument and using where morality and politics stem from. This is not a valid example since my particular views themselves are not based on this.”
To which Pro responded with,
“ My opponent basically said I am wrong because he said so. The problem here is that he never explained it instead said: "my particular views themselves are not based on this". The reason why this is bad is that this is no way rebuts my claims instead adds his opinion without supporting it with an explanation. If he explained why morals are not the basis to do anything then he might have a point but he doesn't even try.”
RFD Part 3:
Because of these two facts, I must award Conduct to Pro since Con mislead Pro and posted his rebuttals in the comment section which both broke the flow of the debate.
“ I prefer to use my more in-depth stance on "gay marriage".”
Pro pointed out this is strawman which is true since the argument was about civil unions, not gay marriage both of which are two completely separate issues.
Con gave a rebuttal regarding prostitution which was,
“ Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.”
Pro then pointed out that,
“ Christianity dictates societal standards so it neither rebuts or even attempts to rebut my claims. Laws are created based on morals and also does not rebut my claims. This comment is a non-sequitur.”
This is true since societal standards are mostly based around morals which Christianity dictates.
Meaning that by default Cons views on politics are based around his Christianity morals.
This is sort of irrelevant however Con made an absurd statement against prostitution,
“ It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.”
RFD Part 2:
Posting rebuttals in the comment section are very confusing and disorientating to the voter and their opponent since they constantly have to check both sections.
Secondly, due to this, it is rather hard for me to examine some of Con's arguments since they are buried in the comment section, so because of this, I will have to disregard their rebuttal and arguments since I am unable to view it.
The fact that Con put some of his rebuttals in the comment section made the debate rather tedious and annoying to read since I constantly had to check the comment section to read his arguments which is poor conduct on their part since they had more than enough room to post their arguments and instead opted out to post their argument in the comment section for no good reason.
Speaking of conduct, at the beginning of the debate Con provided a link to his stances on issues on DDO, and then later on criticized Pro for using these stances since they are " outdated"
- This is poor conduct since Con misled Pro which in turn broke the entire flow of the debate since it nearly made it impossible for Pro to understand Con's stances on issues.
RFD Part 1:
“ I" as a Christian, I am against them" is basically admitting his political beliefs is based on Religion. If this wasn't the case Our_Boat_Is_Right would be able to provide a non-theist reason for his political beliefs but he couldn't.”
Here Con literally concedes the entire debate since he is admitting that he is basing this political belief based on his religion.
“Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion. He was so adamant to call me out in the comments for what I did but here he refuses to accuse. I wonder why. Maybe because he is not able to defend that position instead he much rather relegate it to the comment section.”
Con giving a rebuttal in the comment section is a very coward move and isn’t very well debate conduct since voters most likely wouldn’t think to look in the comment section for arguments.
Due to my previous vote not elaborating onto why this is poor conduct, I'll do so here.
My apologies.
You are very lucky you're a mod, otherwise this comment would be extremely different. Thanks for still having my vote visible in the comments for omar to see. I really love that.
Thank you for your time. I won't "revenge vote" again.
- King_8
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: King_8 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: I like Con's more.
Because of omar's bias when I clearly won my debate in the rap battle: "Rapp Battle Omega" https://www.debate.org/debates/Rapp-Battle-Omega/1/ and he stated "I like Pro's more" his vote was inaccurate and was bias because 1. My bars were way better and 2. My opponent conceded in Round 5. How are you going to give the win to someone who conceded? Want to be bias and let your feelings and emotions get in the way just because you dislike someone instead voting fairly, then alright. Gave you a taste of your own medicine.
>Reason for Mod Action: Revenge voting is not permitted. This is not only a violation of the site's voting policy, but it is a violation of the site's conduct policy. Because it is a violation of the site's voting policy, the vote will be deleted. Because it is a violation of the site's conduct policy, the voter will have their voting privileges revoked for three days as a slap on the wrist to demonstrate how seriously moderation views retaliatory voting.
************************************************************************
the fact you still do DDO and are online on DDO RN is sad.
Plus he always responds to our wars, and given he has been online and responded somewhat, I know my points to be true.
Accept he ignored some of those points and claimed i was wrong even though he is the one who ignored what I said, hence making him illogical.
Not responding to points is different to responding to points in a fallacious manner. If there hasn't been any reasoning at all, it can't be an error in reasoning
Def- "an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid."
I just gave you three of those. Your inability to respond when you normally do shows me you are struggling refuting my points and logic. You also have never responded to my original comment.
>>I don't care what they are called
You don't know what logical fallacies I committed but still said I committed them?
I just gave you three. I don't care what they are called, but they extremely valid points that you won't respond to because you are wrong.
What logical fallacy did I commit?
First, knowing you are wrong because you did not respond to my comment I re-posted twice, second, this point I made several times that you continued to ignore and then blamed me for being wrong "I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds."
3rd, another statement I made several times " If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs."
Name one logical fallacy I committed.
No. I am at work now. Will do so when I can
So I take it you are incapable of responding because you are wrong and have many logical fallacies.
Did you have a look at my #64?
Because RM's vote preceded the implementation of the new rules for tied debates, and rules are not applied retroactively (according to the general principle that ex post facto laws are unethical).
Virtuoso examined Ragnar's vote, and ruled it to be sufficient. I have not taken the time to examine Ragnar's vote as a result. If you would like to appeal Virt's decision, then I will examine it. Unless you are seeking such an appeal, the best person to talk to is Virt.
Why isn't RationalMadman's vote taken down?
What about my claim that Ragnar is intentionally missing information in order to make my side look worse than it actually is?
Post #64
To what are you "no way-ing"?
It is subjective. Like I have said, I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. That is plenty of debate time. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs.
No way.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Tied.
>Reason for Decision: Both sides just sucked and it wasnt really much of a debate. Both sides had poor conduct. Meh
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote does not clearly link itself to the content of the debate. It could have been C/P'd to any debate on DART. This does not meet the standard for casting no points votes, which requires that the voter " clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points." See here for more: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718
************************************************************************
Pink' RFD (2/2)
“ Problem here is that prostitution is: The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/prostitution
The instigator has failed to state that prostitution is enslavement since the definition no way states enslavement.
Enslavement: The action of making someone a slave; subjugation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enslavement
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave”
This baseless statement goes to show how Con has little understanding of the definition of prostitution.
Another poor argument con made was,
“ My opponent is making an argument and using where morality and politics stems from. This is not a valid example since my particular views themselves are not based on this.”
To which Pro responded with,
“ My opponent basically said I am wrong because he said so. The problem here is that he never explained it instead said "my particular views themselves are not based on this". The reason why this is bad is because this is no way rebuts my claims instead adds his opinion without supporting it with an explanation. If he explained why morals are not the basis to do anything then he might have a point but he doesn't even try.”
So essentially Con does little to elaborate this point and never explained his claim.
To conclude I have to award arguments and conduct to pro since Con posted arguments in the comment section several times, claimed DDO was accurate to his views and then pivoted to stating they weren’t accurate, and he avoided arguments and gave poor rebuttals.
If anyone has a problem with my vote, than I urge you to report it so it may be examined by the mods. My goal is to provide an accurate and unbiased depitiction of a debate through my vote. If it does get removed I will reexamine the debate and change my vote.
Pink's RFD (1/2)
“ I"as a Christian, I am against them" is basically admitting his political beliefs is based on Religion. If this wasn't the case Our_Boat_Is_Right would be able to provide a non-theist reason for his political beliefs but he couldn't.”
Here Con literally concedes the entire debate since he is admitting that he is basing this political belief based on religion.
“Note that he has provided no proof of this claim instead his opinion. He was so adamant to call me out in the comments for what I did but here he refuses to accuse. I wonder why. Maybe because he is not able to defend that position instead he much rather relegate it to the comment section.”
Con giving a rebuttal in the comment section is a very coward move and isn’t very well debate conduct since voters most likely wouldn’t think to look in the comment section for arguments.
Giving rebuttals in the comment section in and of itself, is a poor way to format an argument.
“ I prefer to use my more in depth stance on "gay marriage".”
Pro pointed out this is strawman which is true since the argument was about civil unions, not gay marriage both of which are two completely separate issues.
Con gave a rebuttal regarding prostitution which was,
“ Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.”
Pro then pointed out that,
“ Christianity dictates societal standards so it neither rebuts or even attempts to rebut my claims. Laws are created based on morals and also does not rebut my claims. This comment is a non-sequitur.”
This is true since societal standards are mostly based around morals which christianity dictates.
Meaning that by default Cons views on politics are based around his christianity morals.
This is sort of irrelevant however Con made an absurd statement against prostitution,
“ It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.”
To which Pro expertly replied that,
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: See above.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is cluttered, hard to read, and poorly organized. Nevertheless, it sufficiently justifies argument points. It insufficiently justifies conduct points. Misconduct must be located within the debate unless it so severe that it is a COC issue. Points may not be awarded for squabbles in the comments section.
************************************************************************
Ralph's RFD:
Argument point.
As per voting policy. I am judging that I can disregard every argument made except for one by Con. Con said.
"My opponent is saying I admit to it being religious, however, I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics. From a religious belief, I am against gay marriage. I explained my political belief before that last sentence. It is not based on religion. I even say "If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine." I simply BELIEVE(a belief is my opinion, so don't use a technical definition "often one with no proof") government shouldn't regulate which genders marry each other. Marriage is a cultural and religious matter do be decided privately by the parties, and gov. controlling it goes directly against separation of church and state. Nothing about this opinion of mine is religious either. Next."
Con expressly admits to being a Christian and having Christian values. This concedes the debate topic. No further arguments changed this and therefore the argument point goes to con.
All other points tied.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See above.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is even less sufficient than the last. Not only does it not survey any counterarguments made, but the voter is literally and clearly misinterpreting the meaning of the quote he excerpts from the debate to justify his decision. In his previous RFD, there was the possibility that the voter was "concluding that the volume of matching views suggests the truth of the Pro position, that is an interpretive issue that is beyond moderation's purview." In this RFD, this line of reasoning vanishes, placing the vote squarely within the exception that allows moderation to delete the voter for literally and obviously misunderstanding/misstating what transpired in the debate.
************************************************************************
It is subjective. Like I have said, I prefer 4 rounds because with these types of debates arguments are long and multi-faceted. 3 is too short and 5 is too long. Therefore I like the middle option of 4 rounds. That is plenty of debate time. If your opinion is different, then make a debate under your rules. This is a logical conclusion you have yet to address. Simply make a debate with 5 rounds and your rules and I will accept. No need to argue because that is a simple solution that fits your needs.
>>I'm not "wrong." I simply have a different preferred debate structure. Like I said, it would be only logical for you to have full control over the rules and create a debate.
Yes you are wrong. My style gives more Rounds which means more space to give arguments. If you say that is a bad thing go right ahead but you are wrong.
>>No you didn't vote fairly. You ALWAYS voted against me no matter of you were wrong.
Saying I voted unfairly because I didn't vote for you is an unfair stance to have. Was I supposed to agree with you even though my votes specifically address what you did wrong? No because I was being fair not biased like what you want me to do.
>>You brought up that i lost debates on DDO. Im saying that I lost them unfairly.
If you mean I should have voted for you to be fair then I was unfair but that standard is so ridiculous because to be fair is to judge the arguments not based on who is debating.
I'm not "wrong." I simply have a different preferred debate structure. Like I said, it would be only logical for you to have full control over the rules and create a debate.
No you didn't vote fairly. You ALWAYS voted against me no matter of you were wrong. You brought up that i lost debates on DDO. Im saying that I lost them unfairly.
>>Doesn't matter if you asked first, because I don't consent and don't like your idea of changing the rules on my debate. You have full control of the rules if you create a debate. Creating a debate is easy, it takes 2 minutes. So basically if you don't make a debate there won't be a debate.
It is really difficult for you to change something that you are wrong about? Guess you must dislike being wrong with someone who you disagree with on majority of issues.
Doesn't matter if you asked first, because I don't consent and don't like your idea of changing the rules on my debate. You have full control of the rules if you create a debate. Creating a debate is easy, it takes 2 minutes. So basically if you don't make a debate there won't be a debate.