Instigator / Con
35
1500
rating
16
debates
40.63%
won
Topic
#780
Omar thinks I have political beliefs based on religion: NAME ONE
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
9
Better sources
12
12
Better legibility
6
6
Better conduct
5
6
After 6 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Our_Boat_is_Right
Tags
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Pro
33
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description
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.
Round 1
Con
#1
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.
Pro
#2
I will be using the link he gave me. I will be quoting what his position is then below I will tell him this is based on Religion.
Border Fence
Right: A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.
By definition he is using his morals which is from his Christianity and I am sure a practising one that does take it seriously which means if I go by this I have already proven the instigator bases his political beliefs on Religion.
My claim is A believes in B which is based on his position of C.
A= Our_Boat_Is_Right
B= Christianity
C= Every country has a right to protect their borders and keep illegal immigrants out
This logically follows because right by definition is based on morality. A Christian gets his morals from God. Therefore his political belief that "Every country has a right to protect their borders and keep illegal immigrants out" is based on his morals which comes from his Christian values.
Civil Unions
Belief: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
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.
Our_Boat_Is_Right also said "I do not believe government should get into this topic" is clearly not a good point for not having civil unions. From what I can gather his true statement without proof states that he has no good political argument against civil unions. If he did he would have put it in the BIG Issues.
So basically A is a B and used that as a reason to be against C. D was used but since he did not delve into in large detail it can be passed off as E.
A= Our_Boat_Is_Right
B= Christian
C= Civil Unions
D= I do not believe government should get into this topic
E= A belief that was based on Christianity.
Legalized prostitution
I will be using the moral definition instead of the immoral one.
Morals: Standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong.
Either Our_Boat_Is_Right is going to claim that he isn't a practising Christian or admit that he uses his morals which are supposedly from what I know from him believing Christianity. Everything else is a non-sequitur.
So basically A believes in B which he used to decide C is D.
A= Our_Boat_Is_Right
B= Christianity
C= Legalized prostitution
D= Immoral
That was everything that I don't think he can defend and the rest can be used but I think I have a clear win since I only required to name one. Which I have but I will carry with my other point that is excluding his profile.
Politics
Politics: the activities of the government, members of law-making organizations, or people who try to influence the way a country is governed:
From this I can say in order for a government to influence a country it would require laws. It is also not a stretch to say these laws are created in what the government in charge values. Since I am going off the assumption Our_Boat_Is_Right is a Christian like it says in his profile. He values Christianity therefore the laws that he wants are based on that value for Christianity.
This entire debate is what I would call a testament to what Our_Boat_Is_Right doesn't know. If my assumption is true that he is a practising Christian that holds Christianity above all else then this debate cannot be won by him. A Christian holds nothing more valuable than his Religion which means that is the basis that he does anything. Including politics.
A is a B. B is his main value which means A would do whatever it takes to achieve A's value which does means his C will also based on B.
A= Our_Boat_Is_Right/his
B= Christian/Christianity
C= Politics
Round 2
Con
#3
Border Fence
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.
Gay Marriage
I prefer to use my more in depth stance on "gay marriage". My description says "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. Government should not regulate which genders marry each other. As a Christian, however, I am against it.
NOTE: I am not homophobic."
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.
Prostitution
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.
Final Thoughts
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? It doesn't, and from this view/ mindset is what my political beliefs come from.
Pro
#4
Border Fence
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.
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. Since this is just his opinion without an explanation. I await for him to explain himself or provide evidence. Until then it can be dismissed because I can say I made a full-hearted argument (IMO) and we won't go anywhere. That is why a claim requires an explanation and/or evidence in order for their to be some kind of argument to take place.
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).
My claim wasn't that he punishes people my claim was that he uses Christianity as a basis for his political views. He also does not understand Christianity can dictate societal norms so saying I get my political beliefs doesn't mean he does not get his political beliefs from Christianity. Basic laws doesn't mean anything if he doesn't decide to explain it. He pretty much states do not murder as a basic law. Either I am to assume murder is a basic law or violence as a whole is to be considered basic laws or something else entirely. This was not elaborated on and not in anyway arguing against what I said.
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.
He is not arguing against me instead adds more information. Note that my point was about him stating "Every country has a right to protect their borders and keep illegal immigrants out" not "I do not believe illegals should be able to come into the U.S.". He could have simply started with his political views but he gave me his DDO profile page as a source and then says no I am not going to rebut my new arguments that weren't in my DDO profile. I am not going to rebut new claims because my burden of proof is fulfilled and it is up to my opponent to actually rebut my arguments before he brings in new arguments.
I want to remind readers that my opponent here is not specifically talking about my claims that I brought about in Round 1 instead he simply talks more generally. The problem is that I expected my opponent to rebut my arguments not do what he is doing now which is not even mentioning it but does have this in the "border fence" title but doesn't mention the critiques I had for him.
Gay Marriage
I prefer to use my more in depth stance on "gay marriage".
This is unfair. 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.
Prostitution
Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.
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.
Prostitution is illegal, which is why I am against it.
Laws are based on morals. Societal standards are based on morals. This is no way tell me how his political beliefs are not based on Religion.
It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being.
Problem here is that prostitution is: The practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.
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.
Slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
This is common decency which is established among societal standards.
In order for it to be common decency my opponent must tell the readers what is "common decency" before stating it is and saying it is based on societal standards does not help his point. The problem here is that if I remove prostitution and add slavery while also moving time to the past where slavery was not immoral. He would not be opposed to it because at the time it would be "common decency" because everyone had slaves "which was established by societal standards".
Nothing religious about this.
The problem with his argument is that he spent very little characters on telling me how it is not based on Religion which can be found in here
Principles of right and wrong are among societal standards and existing laws.
He did not explain his point or tell me what he meant with societal standards. Instead he provides a claim with no explanation. Another problem I find and is repeated in earlier comments he made is that he is not addressing my points. He is instead building up his own story from him to comment on. At least this time he gave a claim against my position which can be seen with the latest thing I quoted but it still requires an explanation. Without an explanation on this and defining his words I wouldn't understand what he is talking about.
Final Thoughts
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.
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.
This is much like if an atheist believed that guns should be banned in the idea that people should not be murdered.
An atheist if does not subscribe to any Religion would mean he/she is basing his morals outside of Religion. He/She still has morals but does not get it from Religion. This is no way says I am wrong instead points out a claim supported with no explanation.
Not murdering is a societal norm, and if this person is atheist how does this "morality" come from Christianity?
An atheist Christian can exist and my example would be Slavoj Zizek. Since I have shown this even if he this point was against what the debate was about, which it isn't, he would still be wrong because an atheist Christian can exist. Since this is a non-sequitur because all this is a question about if an atheist can get morals from Christianity when it is supposed to be about if the instigator has his political beliefs based on Religion which means it does not help his side.
To Sum Up
The instigator did not in anyway try to take good faith approach to critique my position. This can be seen with every single argument I brought up. As it stands I still await for the instigator to actually rebut my claims before I can respond to what the debate is about instead of saying in multiples ways this is not what the debate is about and when he tried with societal standards. He failed to even explain it and gave me little to rebut. I await a good faith attempt to debate me on this.
Round 3
Con
#5
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.
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 will clarify if needed on my position," to which he obviously saw because he commented after I said that. My opponent is using my somewhat outdated short description beliefs on DDO and using semantics and technicalities on them. 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.
Border Fence
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
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.
If he did he would have put it in the BIG Issues.
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.
Prostitution
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.
He values Christianity therefore the laws that he wants are based on that value for Christianity.
This is an opinion and assumption that he doesn't know to clearly be true.
Conclusion
I have proved that my political beliefs are not directly based on Christianity, on top of the chain of morality that my opponent has said.
Pro
#6
First off, my DDO stances are outdated for the most part, as I wrote those a year ago.
Then why did you tell me to use it? This is absurd from the instigator. He wants me to use a source then moves the goalpost to my DDO profile is outdated. If it was outdated he should have listed his political beliefs but he didn't.
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.
What has this got to do with the debate? Oh wait nothing because this debate started with you giving me a link to your DDO profile then you move the goalposts to well my DDO profile BIG issues is outdated. The problem is that my arguments relies on your DDO profile and to expect me to somehow understand what you don't want when you didn't even tell me is absurd. Here is what the instigator said in Round 1:
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.
If his DDO profile was outdated he would never have used this as his opening statement instead I suggest he realises he can't defend his position then decided to say well my DDO profile was outdated. If he believed that to be the case then during his Round 1 he would never had posted what he posted in Round 1. If he knew this was outdated but still posted it anyway then this can be considered arguing in bad faith. So just from this alone the instigator at the very least moved the goalpost or at worst would be arguing in bad faith.
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 said this:
I would like you to list out your positions.If you don't want to simply copy your DDO profile as Round 1.
Note that I gave him two options to give his positions in Round 1. He chooses to pick the second one from his bad excuse of not picking the first option:
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.
His inability of simply putting less of "all of those" ideas in his Round 1 has led this debate to the direction it had went. If he didn't want to use his DDO profile as the basis of my arguments he would never have used it and not came up with such a lacklustre excuse like this. I don't think it is difficult to simply lay out less positions but for some reason I was asking too much from the instigator.
"I will clarify if needed on my position," to which he obviously saw because he commented after I said that.
Here is what I said as a response:
There is 30k characters and you have 3 days. Don't lie to me about not being able to type out your political beliefs.
This is a fair criticism. The instigator had 3 days to post his argument and to say he is not able to post his political beliefs with a 30k characters is unbelievable. I specifically stated "list" not explain and give me evidence but guess he did not see that.
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.
Evidence? Oh wait if he had any he would have provided some in his arguments. Since there is 30k characters and I don't think I am crazy in saying he did not even reach the 30k character limit with his response here.
Border Fence
I clarified my position on this, but my opponent insists he use my exact words.
The problem here is that I laid out arguments and expected for the instigator to respond to them. He did not and from what I have read he is still not doing so.
Morality does not necessarily come from religion.
In this comment either the instigator is denying he is a Christian so basically his profile page is a lie or does not think highly of the Religion he subscribes to. The problem here is that I was unaware of this and was lead to believe he was a practising Christian who valued Christianity above all else. If he actually values Christianity about all else but makes this statement then he is wrong. A book that tells you what to do because it claims to be an authority is telling you how to live your life. This includes morality and if the instigator does not understand this then it is not my fault he does not understand the very Religion he subscribes to.
Like I said, I get my morality off of what society thinks.
So basically either the instigator is a Christian who does not follow his Religion and would take the position if society thinks slavery is okay he would be fine with it or is arguing in bad faith. For the sake of argument I will be assuming he is the first since it won't be an interesting debate to read it I simply called him that and didn't decide to say nothing else. So basically the instigator has deemed his basis of morality to what society deems which means he is a product of his environment. This can mean if he is a practising Christian that environment he has been brought up in would mean he has gained some form of morality from the Religion. I can't exactly know how much because he refuses to say what kind of Christian he is. I have made similar claims in the last Round but he refuses to respond to them and give me something to work with.
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.
His entire argument is basically I am assuming his morality is from Christianity therefore the contender is wrong. This is in no way is substantiated by the contender instead basically makes a claim without evidence or explanation. I have clearly laid out are the basis to do anything with your life as a Christian and for him to say I am assuming what he thinks therefore I am wrong is a weak rebuttal.
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. That is really odd.
Gay Marriage
Gay marriage is the exact same thing as civil unions
Civil unions is more based on law whereas gay marriage is based on the idea.
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.
If what he meant was the same for gay marriage he would have simply copied what he said in gay marriage into civil unions. Both have the same character count so there was no need for the instigator to not include the exact same phrasing for both. The instigator also provides a false accusation while knowing I copied his entire response out for everyone to see. If this is what instigator's considers to be cherry-picking then he has basically changed the definition of cherry-picking to suit his agenda.
Cherry-pick: to pick only the best people or things from a group, so that only people or things that are less good remain:
I copied his entire response not parts of it.
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.
None of this address my critiques instead basically says no my Religious beliefs is that I don't like gays but my political belief is that I don't like gays being married. Is it just a coincidence that his Religious beliefs are the same as his political beliefs? If the instigator really wanted to show they are different he would be able to show an instance where his Religious beliefs are not the same but in a different context to his political beliefs.
Yet again the instigator has not shown me the courtesy of actually rebutting my claims. I await for him to do so.
Prostitution
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).
So making excuses for his failure of telling me what my burden was. In this it just adds more to what he should be blamed for. His DDO profile is out-dated but he still told me to use it anyway which includes his stance on prostitution.
I have also clarified this in the comment section.
The debate is not in the comment section. It is here.
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
Him not knowing just how out-dated his positions are even though he had 3 days to come up with them has led me to base my arguments off that. I can't be blamed for not knowing these are not the true positions of the instigator. I had sources and I worked with them. For the instigator in Round 3 of 5 to type that data is out-dated really makes everything before this pointless. This unfair to me when I brought in arguments and in Round 2 basically didn't even rebut my claims then in this Round move his position to his DDO profile is out-dated.
This is an opinion and assumption that he doesn't know to clearly be true.
If he is a practising Christian then he values nothing more than Christianity but since he hasn't even clarified what kind of Christian he is I was left with the assumption that he was an actual Christian. Not a one that does not even use the Bible as the basis of his morality.
To conclude
In this Round the instigators states his DDO profile is outdated even though he gave me that as a source for his information. The problem is that I only found out about this in Round 3 when my opening arguments was in Round 1. So basically he has spent 2 Rounds not correcting his error about an out-dated DDO profile and then what does he expect me to do? He hasn't said nor can I change my opening arguments so I am left with the fault solely lies on the instigator for not clearly laying what he wanted in this debate. He has not done me the courtesy of actually representing my arguments fairly and I await for him to do so.
Round 4
Con
#7
I have ran out of time but I will say this--
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.
Gay Marriage--
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.
Border Fence--
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 have rebutted you. Your whole argument was morality comes from the Bible.
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.
Prostitution--
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.
I am left with the assumption he uses the Bible as a basis for his morality.
This is true. I do. Not politically though, as society is in line with the Bible on a majority of the topics.
Pro
#8
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.
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.
Gay Marriage
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.
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.
Border Fence
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.
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.
Prostitution
Omar is playing the victim here claiming it is unfair to him because it was on my DDO page.
No I didn't. I used the source you gave in Round 1 then you started to complain about me using the very source you gave in Round 1.
Like I said, he claimed I had beliefs off Religion before I gave him my DDO link. So this is invalid.
When did this debate start? When you posted your Round 1 or before the debate actually started? The debate started when you posted your argument in Round 1 not before that.
I am undecided on this topic.
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.
This is true. I do. Not politically though, as society is in line with the Bible on a majority of the topics.
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.
To Sum up
Even after me asking him something that should be normal in debates which is rebut my arguments he still has not done it. I blame the instigator for the direction this debate went through. He gave me a link to his DDO profile as a source for my claims but then complains about me using the very source he had 3 days to give as the basis of my arguments.
Round 5
Con
#9
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.
While you are arguing for the purposes of this debate, it would be common decency to tell me one since you did claim it before.
Gay Marriage--
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.
Why isn't it a substantial point? That is my political opinion because I believe in limited government. As a conservative, it is quite normal to believe in limited government in many issues.
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.
Like I've already said, I wrote the same thing in civil unions as gay marriage, but just elaborated more in gay marriage. My position is the same for both. Of course I believe gay's should have the same rights as any other person, there is no federal law I'm aware of where gay's have less human rights than normal's. My religious belief is that I am against the choice of homosexuality, politically I am not. I have explained this many times already.
Border Fence--
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.
Notice in my last round I said "most" not "all." Abortion would be an exception. It's not just a Christian thing to be against abortion. Many people just generally think murder isn't moral.
Prostitution--
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.
I have already said I was talking in the context of slavery. I'm not going to rebut a position of mine that I don't agree with in the context of the situation. I'm not rebutting myself.
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.
I SPECIFICALLY said "Not politically though." So this is a non-sequitur, as Omar likes to say.
Conclusion--
I have proven my political beliefs are not based on my religion.
Omar waives last round, failure to do so is loss of conduct point and anything said should not be ignored when voting.
Vote Con!
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD in comments
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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).
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
He named one but it wasn't one.
My ruling addresses your question specifically.
I prefer 4 round debates. A lot of good debaters use that rule, including Alec who is #1. You don't have to rebut in the first round. Just make your arguments against guns.
Wrick says "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."
Everybody knew I was Christian. Omar knew that before the debate. The topic of the debate is to prove I have **political beliefs based on Christianity.** Not that I am Christian and have Christian values. I do not concede and do not consent to this supposed "concede," therefore the vote is insufficient.
I am not accepting to forfeit my Round 5 because of a bad rule you made. My position is fair because I am not going to be rebutting in Round 1 and we both get the equal amount of Rounds while my way of doing things means we get 1 more Round to present arguments.
Nope. That's how I've always done debates.
Are you going to challenge me to a debate or have you learnt your lesson?
Remove the waiving from the rules and add Round 1 will only be opening arguments then I will accept.
fair enough
You literally misinterpreted what Our said, and did so clearly. I can understand how what I said may come across harshly; it's not meant that way. Nothing I said attributed any bad intention to you. In the end, your analysis of the BOP was ruled borderline sufficient.
If your contention is that Our conceded the point, therefore relieving you of any need to examine counterarguments, I would reply that Our dispute his concession of the point in the debate, and that this needs to be analyzed. You don't need to analyze arguments outside of the BOP debate, but you do need to analyze both sides of the BOP debate.
Omar is gay anyway.
You said
"the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached"
first of all. I don't know how any moderator could establish what a reasonable person is. That seems arbitrary. Furthermore, I don't appreciate being told that I am lying or misstating anything. This is hog wash. I didn't even agree with pro's position and the only reason I voted the way I did was because Con admitted the topic. If I wanted to misrepresent the vote, I would have voted for Con or just a tie. I don't think this is fair moderating that I'm experiencing right now.
I don't see how I used a ridiculous conclusion. Not only did he admit to having Christian values, but I pointed out that pro supplied the logic that lead up to my decision. I don't see how I used any knowledge outside of the debate.
I don't understand. The voting policy says that I'm allowed to disregard arguments if I explained why. His other arguments we dismissed because he admitted the topic outright and nothing he said after changed that.
I could not find the quoted political belief explanations within the link, just one about how con identifies as culturally Asian.
Ralph's RFD:
I am fairly certain that, as per what I've been told by the mods in the past, that I am allowed to sum up the burden of proof and why I am allowed to disregard certain points, I will attempt this now and see if my vote holds.
So I believe that I only have to bring up one point to demonstrate that Pro won the argument point.
Con says
"I literally say "AS A CHRISTIAN, however, I am against it." I specifically say "as a christian" to denote a separate belief from politics."
I actually reread this several times because I thought for sure that I must have been reading it incorrectly. But I wasn't. Con outright admitted the debate topic here. Since at least one of his professed political views directly matches his professed Christian views, Con has effectively given the debate to Pro.
Just for completeness, I will also mention that Pro laid the groundwork for this admission in the first round by rightly pointing out specific instances of political views that tend to match Christian values. Most notably, the point about civil unions was damning. this by itself was not enough for the argument point, but combined with Con's admission, it's sufficient.
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 is a tough decision to render. It is not moderation's job to judge the rightness or wrongness of the verdict reached. That means that interpretive differences (including what meanings can be deduced or inferred from the text) are not with the scope of reviewable content in a vote. There is one exception to this: the voter actually lying about or blatantly misstating (intentionally or not) what transpired in the debate such that no reasonable person, reading carefully, could reach the conclusion they reached. This could be one of those times. The voter reaches a meaning based on a particular sentence, the literal meaning of which in no way matches the voter's interpretation thereof. The difficulty for moderation, however, comes when the voter talks about alignment or matching of views, which may be supported by that sentence (among others). If the voter is 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. The BOP analysis is borderline enough that moderation must default to treating it as sufficient. That being said, the voter does not address any counterarguments made by Con, which the voter must do. Therefore, the vote as a whole is insufficient. The voter may re-vote sufficiently by addressing counterarguments made by Con.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: K_Michael // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Arguments to pro (3 points)
RFD: Either Con's morals/political beliefs are based on his own Christianity or societal standards, which in Western culture is almost entirely based on Christianity. Con never suggested a third source.
Reason for mod action:
The argument point is not sufficient. In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
Can you vote on this debate?
Whose fault is that?
What a deliciously paradoxical debate.
The thing is those are short descriptions briefly explaining your beliefs. I haven't changed those in forever. Some of my beliefs needed changing or clarifying.
Your political beliefs are shown on the DDO page...I don’t see the problem here
I wish you could've presented one thing without the DDO page. Really shows youare incapable of doing so. I'll you care about is winning the debate on technicalities, not a straw-man discussion.
Your question even if I answer yes or no is a non-sequitur to the argument at hand so I don't see the need to addressing. Don't give me more questions in the comment section and actually address my points in the debate.
Response?
I specifically commented 'I will clarify if needed on my position." what do you not get about that??
At the time I wrote that I was either doing it from a religious perspective, I didn't rly know what it was, or it was from a slavery perspective. I'm not sure what I think of it, I'm undecided. My initial thoughts on this is government shouldn't regulate it because we should be a free market society, but also I'm not sure about whether women could be harrassed or assaulted, i.e. the dangers of it. I'm not educated on this as of right now, only the slavery aspect of it. I will clarify next round.
Oh aright good.
My bad, I see what your saying. I was saying in the context of prostitution in slavery.
Your stance on prostitution doesn't make any sense. If I vote for this, I would like an admission, or an actual reason.
" It is wrong to enslave a human being and to treat them less than another human being. "
First of all, the prostitute would give consent this is an absurd argument.
Secondly, if you really want to have a discussion about treating people badly, then why are you pro-death penalty, against euthanasia, and Pro-Torture?
idk man i'll give u benefit of the doubt
I meant to say that in addition with the other things I wrote after it. Please don't use that against me.
" Prostitution is illegal, which is why I am against it."
Ok so if theoretically Abortion was legal and Guns were illegal you'd support that?
Also, this logic can be used to justify slavery, the Holocaust, and discrimination.
>>How disingenuous of you. The first debate I created I put in parentheses "where morality stems from does not count" and you wouldn't accept it.
False accusation. I read the title the first time and thought it was a waste of time. When you told me about it the next day then I decided either you going to carry on annoying me or I will accept the debate. I accepted the debate. I did not read it the first but I did the second time.
>>As soon as I deleted that one and made this a fresh one and forgot to put that, you immediately accepted.
You don't understand. I saw the message of you deleting the debate then I looked at the debate section and realised it was still there. That meant you were going to allow other people to accept the debate. I thought this has gone on long enough since you weren't going to delete the debate I might as well accept the debate so that you don't keep on making the same debate.
>>Now I know your real motives behind that. Shame you couldn't be decent enough to say something about it.
False accusation.
How disingenuous of you. The first debate I created I put in parentheses "where morality stems from does not count" and you wouldn't accept it. As soon as I deleted that one and made this a fresh one and forgot to put that, you immediately accepted. Now I know your real motives behind that. Shame you couldn't be decent enough to say something about it.
There is 30k characters and you have 3 days. Don't lie to me about not being able to type out your political beliefs.
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 would like you to list out your positions.
If you don't want to simply copy your DDO profile as Round 1.