In future please use contention headings throughout the debate (in essence, that R1 bolded text should stay bolded and recycled into each round). https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Gist:
This should not have been so hard to read...
1. Easier Communication (pro)
Faster than smoke signals and the like.
Challenged with the existence of various other means of communication (including cell phones and messenger apps... ugh). Talking also ranks 11th in how people use smartphones.
Some of the other communication means are contested on grounds of access restrictions, and in general not being computers.
2. Utility (pro)
List good things about smartphones in that they save space, and potentially money (Toys R Us example).
The money example is disputed, as the source cited non-smartphone games.
Pro continues by explaining that smartphones are small computers which can be carried in a pocket.
It goes on to what pro reduces to luddite complaints.
3. Saves Lives
When kidnapping people, you can get them to give you directions on their GPS (brilliant!).
Mitigated as the maps fall under the utility argument, not a special unique argument onto itself (plus the kidnapper was stupid, which the smartphone did not induce). ... Somehow con later tries to make this into a negative for exploiting stupidity.
4. Hurts Test Scores (con)
Korean student grades are inversely correlated to smart phone access. This was asserted to be unrelated to smartphones, but the greater time spent not using them...
5. Addiction (con)
Anyway both agree that addiction is a thing, that people can be better doesn’t change it, nor does fault matter. Con tries to relate it to the dangers of tobacco, pro explains the lack of lung cancer. Pro also shifts some of the problem to social media, which people will be addicted to with or without smartphones (it mitigates the problem, but smartphones still play a role in access).
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I’m leaning in pro’s favor on this, but I have stuff to go do, and am willing to admit my bias as a smartphone user; so will not award this without greater consideration to the cost/benefit. Thus, leaving it tied.
Sources:
These could have been integrated much better.
S&G:
Pro could have taken this had he not switched to a weird style in R2. Otherwise I would have penalized con for poor formatting that initially caused me to think he conceded (I don’t always read things in the normal order, so checking his responses to C1 before moving on to C2, the lack of anything to mark what was a quotation from pro made it look like con was listing how great smartphones are).
Conduct:
Trying to trick voters is inexcusable: “Yes it's stopping face-to-face interaction, thank you for conceding. The only things that use smartphones are humans, and if it does bad things to humans, it's bad. VOTERS: CONCESSION!” I think we’ve all been there, explaining as pro does: “Me defending smartphones, refuting your arguments, and backing it up with various sources is by no means a ‘concession’.” That he gave some ground, doesn’t mean he conceded the whole debate, as con repeatedly proclaims.
I should note here that pro had zero obligation to waive the last round.
If you're not illiterate, please restate the conclusion of that article? I'll give you a hint; following where your quote left off:
"...If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.
"Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.
"For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10^40, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10^390 claim creationists often cite.
"Though, to be fair, 10^40 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth..."
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
In the comment section pro clarified “condemn everyone of the perpetrator's race.”
Gist:
More an attempt at hiding behind ambiguity and moving the goalpost than a real debate.
1. “The White Male”
Major ambiguity problem; is it the one guy in particular, to which “Another white male” is unrelated? Or is it the group as the resolution seemed to indicate? Pro reminds us that this is broadly “32% of the population.” And very good use of MLK saying people should “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” And backed it up with the idea that race doesn’t exist as defined by con.
2. Muslims
Pro uses data mining to conclude that if any group were to receive such a label, radical Islam has a higher kill count even while being a lower population in the US; this was done within I believe it was ten year window, removing things like 9/11 that would skew the results. Con insists we should widen the window and not look at averages to cherry pick the evidence (aka, BS).
3. Blacks
They apparently have a higher rate of gun violence than whites per capita. Con insists they should not be because it would lower their value as people (while calling black people “thugs”); which was pro’s point against doing it... Con decides to outright drop this, and whine about outliers.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
4. Mental Illness
Con asserts that we should look at skin color instead of such factors as mental illness, pro disagrees. Con also concedes that we should use mental hospitals, which pro is right to call a contradiction.
6. Various off topic crap
Stick to the topic, and start another debate on those interesting tidbits.
6. Conclusions
Con insists any argument based on emotions must be thrown out; all while dismissing the use of statistics preferring emotional punchlines... Pro on the other hand used those very things to reaffirm his victory.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro pulled a smart reversal attacking the idea of race, insisting white people and black people are just people, making the resolution effectively a declaration that all people should be labeled as domestic terrorists, which would make zero sense.
Sources:
No doubt earned, but I have a thing against going through links to find lists of sources (they’re worth 2/3rds of arguments, that they take a little space is to be expected).
Conduct:
“Pro is on the ropes right about now & his knees are buckling.” Con making disparaging claims about what pro is doing outside the argument, merits the loss of the point. I was actually going to leave this in the tied range anyway, before noticing that con specifically accused pro of murdering hundreds of thousands of Native Americas.
In contrast pro seemed composed, and did not accuse anyone of large scale war crimes.
Technically as this is written under Boolean logic if either is agreed to be hotter than the other pro wins. I doubt he is using that tactic, but it's worth noting on an obvious comedic debate.
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
WTF?
Gist:
Pretty hard to follow, but I could make sense of four contentions to which I am confident con won, plus one that I am undecided on.
1. Bias
Con argues that debating generally does not help people overcome their biases, using voting outcomes as an example. Pro says con’s example is off topic to the resolution, which is a pretty cheap semantic Kritik given that there isn’t one.
2. Good for brain (con)
Builds fast responses and critical thinkinking.
Con counters with a Normalive Kritik, to include other subjectively better ways to train for faster responses.
There was some more, the Jeopardy one was noteworthy (started by pro, flipped to favor con).
3. Helps in class (con)
Pro suggests it does, but con counters with Crossed as evidence, to include that a religious education may take his words for truisms (thus no more worth studying than if the sky is above us).
4. Adulthood (con)
Pro throws a URL at us. Debating is not throwing a random URL at people, and if that is the result of it, then it is indeed a bad thing... Con proceeds to offer a discourse Kritik on the ambiguity of the heading.
5. Waste of Time (con)
Haven’t seen this one in awhile (there was an epic debate on this)... Con lists better applications of our time. Pro basically drops this with some special pleading, which con wisely does not buy. Pro continues it because con has not proven that money is a good thing (a Normative K closely resembling an Epistemological K... I’m not going to pretend that this isn’t BS).
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. This debate felt weird at the start, then they got organized, then the goalpost started moving seemingly at random (not that there was ever a clearly defined goal to begin with)... Giving this to con for superior arguments. Given pro’s ambiguity problem leading to BoP issues, it would have been difficult (but not infeasible) for him to get more than a tie.
Sources: con
Pro, you can literally give links to specific votes; I should not have to look for them, and when I do, I expect to find them somewhere within each link under the prompt for them...
Pro also had an issue of link spamming, instead of integrating them in.
Con’s use of Crossed as evidence put a smile on my face, and it made great strides toward dismissing the idea of debating as useful to schoolwork.
Additionally, please keep things organized by headings (main contentions at least bolded to follow each track through the rounds).
Not assigning this point, but please structure things better in future. I honestly wonder if less patient voters might side against con just for having gone first in this mess.
Conduct:
Leaving tied, but please don’t include lines like “as soon as you understand that fact, we can actually debate.”
Almost 3K into a RFD, and I am undecided. When I've had more sleep I might look over it again. If I score points or not, I'll be sure to leave feedback.
So you admit to using the short article as evidence, and agreeing with it. Given the very next line of it explains why those assumptions of the "creationist argument" are wrong (and you're not illiterate), you've conceded that the creationist argument is wrong. That or you disagree with that article, in which case you would have have shared it as evidence against creationism.
Given that someone previously tried to votebomb in favor of RM (who did not participate in this debate...), would a person or two mind casting a safety vote?
This was a pretty close one. I believe the debate largely moved in goalpost to definition of God, and under that I found con's chosen definitions more reasonable, especially since he had BoP and it was a two round debate to which he would not have the last word (I think I explained in my RFD that forcing him to restart with another would reduce it to a single round debate, which would be extremely unfair). That some definitions are more commonly used, doesn't mean they are better; and con did include a whole contention linking his definition to being an agent of volition rather than just chance (which was challenged under pro's definition, not cons).
Comparing the strength of the contentions for and against, and then the refutations for each, that God exists (at least within the stated definition) seems true. I was not left in question of the validity nor soundness of con's case (https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/), and his pre-refutations took the major sting out of the offense (things like mentioning the infinite regression problem).
Interpreting the resolution:
Dem. or Rep. better match Tor.
Gist:
Con intentionally or not used Argumentum ad tl;dr. Followed by what I hope was pure trolling, rather than trying to prove the republican party more closely adheres to religious values. At a certain point I could not continue to read the hate speech; but it seemed going forward from there con continued to drop everything to make attacks against various groups of people he dislikes, rather than ever try to meet his BoP of showing the republican party related to the Torah (if the democrats do not, or if people deserve bad things in life, does not actually say anything about the republican party as the resolution requires).
1. Health Care
“…we are commanded to care for the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and to guard our health and our brother’s blood” this is further supported with “A scholar is forbidden to live in any town that does not have these ten things: a court, a charity fund, a synagogue, a bathhouse, a latrine, a doctor, a bloodletter, a scribe, a kosher butcher and a teacher of children.” A good opening, followed by some hard facts about insulin prices and attempts to strip away health care access.
Con eventually responds, drops that less people are insured thanks to Trump (who I would have argued isn’t to blame, but con’s got the right to argue how he wishes), he then argues against science because of a profound distrust for math “45,000 people died due to the lack of health coverage. The problem is, that's just a statistic.” … continued into attacks against people he dislikes and talk of the Torah commanding greed… I’m just giving this to pro as con is at best just trolling.
2. Minimum Wage
Pro offers various bible and Torah lines, but in gist: “Increasing the minimum wage to a living wage fulfills the Torah’s obligation to care for our employees and improve their dignity via work. Democrats are fulfilling this obligation while Republicans are opposing this.”
And the start to con’s reply: “My only comment is that if you're dumb enough to still be on minimum wage by 36, in which case, you've disregarded other opportunities such as college or trade school, then you're IQ must be at room temperature and you deserve whatever hell comes your way because you've failed as a human being…”
3. Immigration
4. Democracy
5. Bandwagon fallacy
“One in six Jews are Republican. … But these are just a few examples of how Republican beliefs align with Torah.” This was the limited on topic highlight of con’s R1, the rest was a fine example of Argumentum ad tl;dr.
6. Ad Hominem
“I couldn't help but look at the profile of my opponent's page. To be short,…” I should never see this inside a debate, for a host of reasons… This primarily affects conduct, but it lowers the credibility of the person wasting my time (identifying when these happen would be fine, as I know what content will be there so can skim, at least if given a proper headline,).
Arguments:
See above review of key points (at least the ones I went through before realizing what this debate was corrupted into). If redoing this, understand that I am not going to read the Torah (with the exception of any vital cited passages) to read a debate, so much is taking what the debaters say about it at face value (about like fiat assumptions).
Sources:
I never thought I would see the say, but I’m awarding sources for religious texts. This was a debate about religious teachings, so failing to connect back to them (or even the gist of them) is failing to even try for BoP. Pro provided a ton to prove his case (plus lots of quality ones which given that this debate was trolled, I am not going to bother getting into). His other sources had a high tendency to be ON TOPIC. In contrast, a Gallup poll proving (while elsewhere complaining on pro using statistics, which are science thus must be distrusted…) a fallacious band wagon appeal which does not prove anything about ideologies of the political parties (this was the closest thing I could find to an on topic argument from con in R1). This is not even getting into the issue of source spamming.
S&G:
Not deducting the point, but con seriously, don’t hide your points in walls of text. Also less question marks.
Conduct:
“Have you put an ounce of thought into this? You seem like a smart guy, you surely must have, so what's your answer?” clearly designed to insult the intellect of the other debater, while ignoring the on topic arguments (a case could be made the Torah opposes abortion, and thus the democratic party falls short in this comparative metric, but such was not presented). And it continues. “I didn't expect a response at all. I thought he'd be too scared after I mentioned abortion.”
So I suspect your RFD needs to be lengthened in order to have the debate you desire. What you're probably going to argue is that people should read the papers published by the scientist, as opposed to just cherry-picked snippets (just had a creationist basically concede a debate by pulling a source which was directly opposed to his beleifs, because he did not bother to read it: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1267/life-coming-into-existence-without-god-is-zero). Your current RFD basically translates 'reject expert opinion,' when what you want is 'don't blindly trust appeals to authority.'
If someone intentionally prevents you from reading their case, it's fair to vote on that. Besides, you got the gist of the debate quite well marked up in your vote.
Hard to have any true inaccuracies on one of these (when I accepted this debate I genuinely thought he'd attempt a new argument, rather than spam trolling the old tried and not true ones). I honestly suspect you read more of what pro wrote than I did.
Regarding spaghetti, it would be an intelligent creator (not just intelligent life, I assume this was a typo) and a bowl of pasta. The FSM is a useful bare minimum test for any absurd claim, if the claim makes more sense with the involvement of sentient omnipotent pasta (or the invisible pink unicorns... being invisible they lack color, but we have faith that they're pink anyway), it's probably just garbage.
Regarding BoP, I am pretty certain pro saw people saying the other person has it in debates, so tried to copy that without understanding what it means. Were he to have BoP (as the setup outright demands... but I'm willing to play), if he proved that life could not develop without God he would win no matter how much I ridicule him; by shifting it to me, if God not being involved has any chance greater than zero (even the absurdity of someone else like Jesus having done it, as pro conceded), I win no matter what the bible says about the appendix (I seriously did not read that argument from him in the debate, but I assume it's in there given pro's comment about it).
Thanks for voting, doubly so for such a long and detailed one with so much thought put into it. At 13,490 characters, it surpassed our 12K limit, and was in fact almost twice the length of my R3.
Someone forfeiting sets them at an inherent argument disadvantage, as they dropped all arguments for a whole round. I've seen less organic judges disallow people to pick things up again once they've been dropped.
Special rules are copy/pasted without understanding of what they mean. The citations rule is not even a special rule, it's something that goes without saying. The K rule, well you saw how that played out (honestly, I would fold that one and trolling into a single rule along the lines of "No Trolling, to include BS Kritiks").
All this said, there's almost a week of voting left. The two most active voters on the site are maybe 30% of the active voting power (Ram's castd like 25%, and I've done 5%?), but you're behind by only five points. Any vote in your favor can be expected to be 4 points, most against you will only be 2 (I assume most people will give you conduct).
Interestingly I support the idea of automating a loss for R1 forfeiture or any 2 otherwise. Yet where I support that, I do also point out that R1 is the place that is most recoverable (just if someone forfeits it, they are most likely going to forfeit the rest anyway, so save people time and effort).
I would accept, but I expect leg counts and opinions on medicine proving God to somehow work its' way in... I've already had enough of those.
Anyway, the description should clarify the terms such as ESP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasensory_perception). Also, please fix your formatting inside the debate rounds, here's a guide for how to do it right (if it helps, I'll claim God told me to tell you...): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
The strength of your interest in me (some random dude online) is unhealthy and quite frankly disturbing.
When someone explains to you why they don't want to be your friend, you complain they're wrong to not want to be your friend and that it's trying to "shut down the dialogue as a way of avoidance and it is a vicious attack." That is exactly what you just did to me. Then you followed this up by tagging me in random single word posts as a desperate plea for yet more attention. This is all just after admitting you tried to trick the system into thinking I had unblocked you so that you could tag me in page after page of unprompted drivel.
For these reasons, I am telling you to cease and desist, and am blocking you again.
I see you've now unblocked me, well over a month after I brought it to your attention that you prevented me from tagging you in replies, only for you to tag me in a bunch for attention... As for the friend request, I am not friends with misogynists (for evidence, see your debate arguments based on the assumption that women are not people).
I'm willing to debate with you if Jesus rebuilt the temple. I am not willing to have a debate as a platform for you to preach antisemitism (which broadly calling all Jews irrational for not being Christians would be). But you can create an open challenge, and I'm sure someone will accept.
As for accusing you of word salad, bare in mind you just did five whole posts to reply to a concise three lines of text from me... The choice of calling you that was due to your four post explaining that you think buildings being rebuilt would not imply any physical structures but something akin to someone imagining it really hard.
Good luck on this debate. To predict some counterpoints, you may want to skim through one of my debates on this topic from a few months ago: https://www.debateart.com/debates/566/the-existence-of-god-is-impossible
And no, I do not want to debate this right now. I've been hounded by a couple false flag Christians lately, and don't want to imagine how they think.
I view this debate as an alpha test for group debates, so feel that the benefits and downsides have shown well. With that done, I am not particularly attached to the outcome of this debate.
Alec, do you know when you'll have computer access again? Pretty sure everyone on my team is willing to waive a round to give you more time. Our team nearly had to forfeit R3 over similar issues. We could also post what you've written for you.
Thanks for the fine example of word salad (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Word_salad).
As best I can understand, you want to prove the temple was rebuilt by unstated non-physical standards; if so open the debate with the description detailing what criteria for proof you'll use.
Thanks for changing up your debates. Since it's a new one from you, I'll debate you rather than waiting for the voting period. Hopefully I can correct your misunderstandings related to probability theory (or you correct mine), but either way we should be able to have a decent discussion.
And yes, I assume this debate is intended to be about probability theory, if I am mistaken please put the corrected debate resolution into the start of your R1.
Pro please format these better. Here’s a guide: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
---RFD---
Gist:
Technically the right poisons in low doses heal, which pro misses is the opposite of harm... Anyway, if pro ever met his BoP, he hid such inside the Gish Gallop.
1. “Evil Definitions”
Yes, words are derived from other words. So very evil indeed.
Con asserts that they are named after it for the similar field, instead of the intent to harm (missed the basic evolution of words, but pro never proved the intent was harm so assertion meet assertion).
2. “pharmaceutical industry is a drug cartel”
15 part Gish Gallop.
Con engages in a Gish reply.
Pro complains that he thinks irrelevant things are relevant.
3. Side Effects
Atenolol indeed has side effects, and if you believe sales fear factics employed by water filtration companies (or homeopathic practitioners... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvuzpeAIm24) diluting it into large bodies of water would magically make it stronger (implied and required for threat to be valid, but not directly stated.
Con points out that you need a prescription to avoid taking too much of it to then be poisoned.
Pro insists they prescribe intentionally dangerous amounts.
Con counters that such would make them less money (which would prevent them from being an effective drug cartel).
4. Doctors Are Secretly Greek Cultists and/or Sorcerers
They do have recognizable symbols, so there’s that. And they take evil oaths to do no harm...
Con compares these symbols to the branding on Jaguar cars, completely overlooking how many people those cars literally envelope every year!
5. CIA Surgical Conspiracies
Unsure what this has to do with the resolution...
---
Arguments: Con
See above review of key points. Sorry if anyone is confused by the dusting of comedy mixed in. Basically con wins or ties every relevant contention.
Sources: Tied
Gish Galloped sources do not win the point.
Thank you both for voting.
In future please use contention headings throughout the debate (in essence, that R1 bolded text should stay bolded and recycled into each round). https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Gist:
This should not have been so hard to read...
1. Easier Communication (pro)
Faster than smoke signals and the like.
Challenged with the existence of various other means of communication (including cell phones and messenger apps... ugh). Talking also ranks 11th in how people use smartphones.
Some of the other communication means are contested on grounds of access restrictions, and in general not being computers.
2. Utility (pro)
List good things about smartphones in that they save space, and potentially money (Toys R Us example).
The money example is disputed, as the source cited non-smartphone games.
Pro continues by explaining that smartphones are small computers which can be carried in a pocket.
It goes on to what pro reduces to luddite complaints.
3. Saves Lives
When kidnapping people, you can get them to give you directions on their GPS (brilliant!).
Mitigated as the maps fall under the utility argument, not a special unique argument onto itself (plus the kidnapper was stupid, which the smartphone did not induce). ... Somehow con later tries to make this into a negative for exploiting stupidity.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
4. Hurts Test Scores (con)
Korean student grades are inversely correlated to smart phone access. This was asserted to be unrelated to smartphones, but the greater time spent not using them...
5. Addiction (con)
Anyway both agree that addiction is a thing, that people can be better doesn’t change it, nor does fault matter. Con tries to relate it to the dangers of tobacco, pro explains the lack of lung cancer. Pro also shifts some of the problem to social media, which people will be addicted to with or without smartphones (it mitigates the problem, but smartphones still play a role in access).
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I’m leaning in pro’s favor on this, but I have stuff to go do, and am willing to admit my bias as a smartphone user; so will not award this without greater consideration to the cost/benefit. Thus, leaving it tied.
Sources:
These could have been integrated much better.
S&G:
Pro could have taken this had he not switched to a weird style in R2. Otherwise I would have penalized con for poor formatting that initially caused me to think he conceded (I don’t always read things in the normal order, so checking his responses to C1 before moving on to C2, the lack of anything to mark what was a quotation from pro made it look like con was listing how great smartphones are).
Conduct:
Trying to trick voters is inexcusable: “Yes it's stopping face-to-face interaction, thank you for conceding. The only things that use smartphones are humans, and if it does bad things to humans, it's bad. VOTERS: CONCESSION!” I think we’ve all been there, explaining as pro does: “Me defending smartphones, refuting your arguments, and backing it up with various sources is by no means a ‘concession’.” That he gave some ground, doesn’t mean he conceded the whole debate, as con repeatedly proclaims.
I should note here that pro had zero obligation to waive the last round.
https://www.debateart.com/rules
Something else you'll find useful: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
I'm citing this debate in the Kritik guide.
You previously complained of the lack of votes on this debate. There's three days left in the voting window if you wish to take positive action.
Credit to actually using a non-fallacies form of didit.
If you're not illiterate, please restate the conclusion of that article? I'll give you a hint; following where your quote left off:
"...If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.
"Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.
"For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10^40, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10^390 claim creationists often cite.
"Though, to be fair, 10^40 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth..."
Welcome to the site. Something you may find useful: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
In the comment section pro clarified “condemn everyone of the perpetrator's race.”
Gist:
More an attempt at hiding behind ambiguity and moving the goalpost than a real debate.
1. “The White Male”
Major ambiguity problem; is it the one guy in particular, to which “Another white male” is unrelated? Or is it the group as the resolution seemed to indicate? Pro reminds us that this is broadly “32% of the population.” And very good use of MLK saying people should “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” And backed it up with the idea that race doesn’t exist as defined by con.
2. Muslims
Pro uses data mining to conclude that if any group were to receive such a label, radical Islam has a higher kill count even while being a lower population in the US; this was done within I believe it was ten year window, removing things like 9/11 that would skew the results. Con insists we should widen the window and not look at averages to cherry pick the evidence (aka, BS).
3. Blacks
They apparently have a higher rate of gun violence than whites per capita. Con insists they should not be because it would lower their value as people (while calling black people “thugs”); which was pro’s point against doing it... Con decides to outright drop this, and whine about outliers.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
4. Mental Illness
Con asserts that we should look at skin color instead of such factors as mental illness, pro disagrees. Con also concedes that we should use mental hospitals, which pro is right to call a contradiction.
6. Various off topic crap
Stick to the topic, and start another debate on those interesting tidbits.
6. Conclusions
Con insists any argument based on emotions must be thrown out; all while dismissing the use of statistics preferring emotional punchlines... Pro on the other hand used those very things to reaffirm his victory.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro pulled a smart reversal attacking the idea of race, insisting white people and black people are just people, making the resolution effectively a declaration that all people should be labeled as domestic terrorists, which would make zero sense.
Sources:
No doubt earned, but I have a thing against going through links to find lists of sources (they’re worth 2/3rds of arguments, that they take a little space is to be expected).
Conduct:
“Pro is on the ropes right about now & his knees are buckling.” Con making disparaging claims about what pro is doing outside the argument, merits the loss of the point. I was actually going to leave this in the tied range anyway, before noticing that con specifically accused pro of murdering hundreds of thousands of Native Americas.
In contrast pro seemed composed, and did not accuse anyone of large scale war crimes.
Nih:
You're welcome.
Club:
I'm willing to discuss any aspects of the vote to which you disagreed. I do truly dislike the voter shortage inflating the value of my voice.
Both:
You could always do a rematch, with a clearly refined resolution, and making use of my formatting guide.
Technically as this is written under Boolean logic if either is agreed to be hotter than the other pro wins. I doubt he is using that tactic, but it's worth noting on an obvious comedic debate.
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
WTF?
Gist:
Pretty hard to follow, but I could make sense of four contentions to which I am confident con won, plus one that I am undecided on.
1. Bias
Con argues that debating generally does not help people overcome their biases, using voting outcomes as an example. Pro says con’s example is off topic to the resolution, which is a pretty cheap semantic Kritik given that there isn’t one.
2. Good for brain (con)
Builds fast responses and critical thinkinking.
Con counters with a Normalive Kritik, to include other subjectively better ways to train for faster responses.
There was some more, the Jeopardy one was noteworthy (started by pro, flipped to favor con).
3. Helps in class (con)
Pro suggests it does, but con counters with Crossed as evidence, to include that a religious education may take his words for truisms (thus no more worth studying than if the sky is above us).
4. Adulthood (con)
Pro throws a URL at us. Debating is not throwing a random URL at people, and if that is the result of it, then it is indeed a bad thing... Con proceeds to offer a discourse Kritik on the ambiguity of the heading.
5. Waste of Time (con)
Haven’t seen this one in awhile (there was an epic debate on this)... Con lists better applications of our time. Pro basically drops this with some special pleading, which con wisely does not buy. Pro continues it because con has not proven that money is a good thing (a Normative K closely resembling an Epistemological K... I’m not going to pretend that this isn’t BS).
---RFD (2 of 2)---
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. This debate felt weird at the start, then they got organized, then the goalpost started moving seemingly at random (not that there was ever a clearly defined goal to begin with)... Giving this to con for superior arguments. Given pro’s ambiguity problem leading to BoP issues, it would have been difficult (but not infeasible) for him to get more than a tie.
Sources: con
Pro, you can literally give links to specific votes; I should not have to look for them, and when I do, I expect to find them somewhere within each link under the prompt for them...
Pro also had an issue of link spamming, instead of integrating them in.
Con’s use of Crossed as evidence put a smile on my face, and it made great strides toward dismissing the idea of debating as useful to schoolwork.
S&G:
“0-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-
MOVING ON!”
Why was this in here?
Additionally, please keep things organized by headings (main contentions at least bolded to follow each track through the rounds).
Not assigning this point, but please structure things better in future. I honestly wonder if less patient voters might side against con just for having gone first in this mess.
Conduct:
Leaving tied, but please don’t include lines like “as soon as you understand that fact, we can actually debate.”
Almost 3K into a RFD, and I am undecided. When I've had more sleep I might look over it again. If I score points or not, I'll be sure to leave feedback.
So you admit to using the short article as evidence, and agreeing with it. Given the very next line of it explains why those assumptions of the "creationist argument" are wrong (and you're not illiterate), you've conceded that the creationist argument is wrong. That or you disagree with that article, in which case you would have have shared it as evidence against creationism.
Did you or did you not share http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life as evidence for how life really came to be?
Given that someone previously tried to votebomb in favor of RM (who did not participate in this debate...), would a person or two mind casting a safety vote?
On vacation, and unsure if I was notified for this at all previously.
This was a pretty close one. I believe the debate largely moved in goalpost to definition of God, and under that I found con's chosen definitions more reasonable, especially since he had BoP and it was a two round debate to which he would not have the last word (I think I explained in my RFD that forcing him to restart with another would reduce it to a single round debate, which would be extremely unfair). That some definitions are more commonly used, doesn't mean they are better; and con did include a whole contention linking his definition to being an agent of volition rather than just chance (which was challenged under pro's definition, not cons).
Comparing the strength of the contentions for and against, and then the refutations for each, that God exists (at least within the stated definition) seems true. I was not left in question of the validity nor soundness of con's case (https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/), and his pre-refutations took the major sting out of the offense (things like mentioning the infinite regression problem).
---RFD (1 of 3)---
Interpreting the resolution:
Dem. or Rep. better match Tor.
Gist:
Con intentionally or not used Argumentum ad tl;dr. Followed by what I hope was pure trolling, rather than trying to prove the republican party more closely adheres to religious values. At a certain point I could not continue to read the hate speech; but it seemed going forward from there con continued to drop everything to make attacks against various groups of people he dislikes, rather than ever try to meet his BoP of showing the republican party related to the Torah (if the democrats do not, or if people deserve bad things in life, does not actually say anything about the republican party as the resolution requires).
1. Health Care
“…we are commanded to care for the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and to guard our health and our brother’s blood” this is further supported with “A scholar is forbidden to live in any town that does not have these ten things: a court, a charity fund, a synagogue, a bathhouse, a latrine, a doctor, a bloodletter, a scribe, a kosher butcher and a teacher of children.” A good opening, followed by some hard facts about insulin prices and attempts to strip away health care access.
Con eventually responds, drops that less people are insured thanks to Trump (who I would have argued isn’t to blame, but con’s got the right to argue how he wishes), he then argues against science because of a profound distrust for math “45,000 people died due to the lack of health coverage. The problem is, that's just a statistic.” … continued into attacks against people he dislikes and talk of the Torah commanding greed… I’m just giving this to pro as con is at best just trolling.
---RFD (2 of 3)---
2. Minimum Wage
Pro offers various bible and Torah lines, but in gist: “Increasing the minimum wage to a living wage fulfills the Torah’s obligation to care for our employees and improve their dignity via work. Democrats are fulfilling this obligation while Republicans are opposing this.”
And the start to con’s reply: “My only comment is that if you're dumb enough to still be on minimum wage by 36, in which case, you've disregarded other opportunities such as college or trade school, then you're IQ must be at room temperature and you deserve whatever hell comes your way because you've failed as a human being…”
3. Immigration
4. Democracy
5. Bandwagon fallacy
“One in six Jews are Republican. … But these are just a few examples of how Republican beliefs align with Torah.” This was the limited on topic highlight of con’s R1, the rest was a fine example of Argumentum ad tl;dr.
6. Ad Hominem
“I couldn't help but look at the profile of my opponent's page. To be short,…” I should never see this inside a debate, for a host of reasons… This primarily affects conduct, but it lowers the credibility of the person wasting my time (identifying when these happen would be fine, as I know what content will be there so can skim, at least if given a proper headline,).
---RFD (3 of 3)---
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points (at least the ones I went through before realizing what this debate was corrupted into). If redoing this, understand that I am not going to read the Torah (with the exception of any vital cited passages) to read a debate, so much is taking what the debaters say about it at face value (about like fiat assumptions).
Sources:
I never thought I would see the say, but I’m awarding sources for religious texts. This was a debate about religious teachings, so failing to connect back to them (or even the gist of them) is failing to even try for BoP. Pro provided a ton to prove his case (plus lots of quality ones which given that this debate was trolled, I am not going to bother getting into). His other sources had a high tendency to be ON TOPIC. In contrast, a Gallup poll proving (while elsewhere complaining on pro using statistics, which are science thus must be distrusted…) a fallacious band wagon appeal which does not prove anything about ideologies of the political parties (this was the closest thing I could find to an on topic argument from con in R1). This is not even getting into the issue of source spamming.
S&G:
Not deducting the point, but con seriously, don’t hide your points in walls of text. Also less question marks.
Conduct:
“Have you put an ounce of thought into this? You seem like a smart guy, you surely must have, so what's your answer?” clearly designed to insult the intellect of the other debater, while ignoring the on topic arguments (a case could be made the Torah opposes abortion, and thus the democratic party falls short in this comparative metric, but such was not presented). And it continues. “I didn't expect a response at all. I thought he'd be too scared after I mentioned abortion.”
Good luck on this troll debate.
A follow-up to this has finished (different instigator, so not the same quality):
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1125-should-abortion-be-illegal
Something good I will say about it, is the slavery angle goes much deeper.
Thanks for voting!
*LMAO*
Thanks for voting! And I'm sorry it wasn't an enjoyable read like last time.
So I suspect your RFD needs to be lengthened in order to have the debate you desire. What you're probably going to argue is that people should read the papers published by the scientist, as opposed to just cherry-picked snippets (just had a creationist basically concede a debate by pulling a source which was directly opposed to his beleifs, because he did not bother to read it: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1267/life-coming-into-existence-without-god-is-zero). Your current RFD basically translates 'reject expert opinion,' when what you want is 'don't blindly trust appeals to authority.'
If someone intentionally prevents you from reading their case, it's fair to vote on that. Besides, you got the gist of the debate quite well marked up in your vote.
Hard to have any true inaccuracies on one of these (when I accepted this debate I genuinely thought he'd attempt a new argument, rather than spam trolling the old tried and not true ones). I honestly suspect you read more of what pro wrote than I did.
Regarding spaghetti, it would be an intelligent creator (not just intelligent life, I assume this was a typo) and a bowl of pasta. The FSM is a useful bare minimum test for any absurd claim, if the claim makes more sense with the involvement of sentient omnipotent pasta (or the invisible pink unicorns... being invisible they lack color, but we have faith that they're pink anyway), it's probably just garbage.
Regarding BoP, I am pretty certain pro saw people saying the other person has it in debates, so tried to copy that without understanding what it means. Were he to have BoP (as the setup outright demands... but I'm willing to play), if he proved that life could not develop without God he would win no matter how much I ridicule him; by shifting it to me, if God not being involved has any chance greater than zero (even the absurdity of someone else like Jesus having done it, as pro conceded), I win no matter what the bible says about the appendix (I seriously did not read that argument from him in the debate, but I assume it's in there given pro's comment about it).
Thank you both for voting.
Thanks for voting, doubly so for such a long and detailed one with so much thought put into it. At 13,490 characters, it surpassed our 12K limit, and was in fact almost twice the length of my R3.
Thanks for the vote. Unfortunately it falls a little below the standards for a couple reasons, so an admin will be removing it.
Also welcome to the site. I hope you have a lot of fun here.
Someone forfeiting sets them at an inherent argument disadvantage, as they dropped all arguments for a whole round. I've seen less organic judges disallow people to pick things up again once they've been dropped.
Special rules are copy/pasted without understanding of what they mean. The citations rule is not even a special rule, it's something that goes without saying. The K rule, well you saw how that played out (honestly, I would fold that one and trolling into a single rule along the lines of "No Trolling, to include BS Kritiks").
All this said, there's almost a week of voting left. The two most active voters on the site are maybe 30% of the active voting power (Ram's castd like 25%, and I've done 5%?), but you're behind by only five points. Any vote in your favor can be expected to be 4 points, most against you will only be 2 (I assume most people will give you conduct).
Interestingly I support the idea of automating a loss for R1 forfeiture or any 2 otherwise. Yet where I support that, I do also point out that R1 is the place that is most recoverable (just if someone forfeits it, they are most likely going to forfeit the rest anyway, so save people time and effort).
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2290/propositions-for-automatically-finished-debates
https://youtu.be/oVnuFY20st0?t=40
I would accept, but I expect leg counts and opinions on medicine proving God to somehow work its' way in... I've already had enough of those.
Anyway, the description should clarify the terms such as ESP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasensory_perception). Also, please fix your formatting inside the debate rounds, here's a guide for how to do it right (if it helps, I'll claim God told me to tell you...): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
The strength of your interest in me (some random dude online) is unhealthy and quite frankly disturbing.
When someone explains to you why they don't want to be your friend, you complain they're wrong to not want to be your friend and that it's trying to "shut down the dialogue as a way of avoidance and it is a vicious attack." That is exactly what you just did to me. Then you followed this up by tagging me in random single word posts as a desperate plea for yet more attention. This is all just after admitting you tried to trick the system into thinking I had unblocked you so that you could tag me in page after page of unprompted drivel.
For these reasons, I am telling you to cease and desist, and am blocking you again.
RIP Caesar
August 12th 2006 - August 15th 2019
Given that it's the start of the weekend, I figure now would be an ideal time for a vote reminder. So please vote...
Of course if not voting, any debate feedback would still very much be appreciated.
I see you've now unblocked me, well over a month after I brought it to your attention that you prevented me from tagging you in replies, only for you to tag me in a bunch for attention... As for the friend request, I am not friends with misogynists (for evidence, see your debate arguments based on the assumption that women are not people).
I'm willing to debate with you if Jesus rebuilt the temple. I am not willing to have a debate as a platform for you to preach antisemitism (which broadly calling all Jews irrational for not being Christians would be). But you can create an open challenge, and I'm sure someone will accept.
As for accusing you of word salad, bare in mind you just did five whole posts to reply to a concise three lines of text from me... The choice of calling you that was due to your four post explaining that you think buildings being rebuilt would not imply any physical structures but something akin to someone imagining it really hard.
Good luck on this debate. To predict some counterpoints, you may want to skim through one of my debates on this topic from a few months ago: https://www.debateart.com/debates/566/the-existence-of-god-is-impossible
And no, I do not want to debate this right now. I've been hounded by a couple false flag Christians lately, and don't want to imagine how they think.
I view this debate as an alpha test for group debates, so feel that the benefits and downsides have shown well. With that done, I am not particularly attached to the outcome of this debate.
Alec, do you know when you'll have computer access again? Pretty sure everyone on my team is willing to waive a round to give you more time. Our team nearly had to forfeit R3 over similar issues. We could also post what you've written for you.
Thanks for the fine example of word salad (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Word_salad).
As best I can understand, you want to prove the temple was rebuilt by unstated non-physical standards; if so open the debate with the description detailing what criteria for proof you'll use.
Thanks for changing up your debates. Since it's a new one from you, I'll debate you rather than waiting for the voting period. Hopefully I can correct your misunderstandings related to probability theory (or you correct mine), but either way we should be able to have a decent discussion.
And yes, I assume this debate is intended to be about probability theory, if I am mistaken please put the corrected debate resolution into the start of your R1.
You may wish to start another debate on this topic, as I don't think the contender is coming back...
Pro please format these better. Here’s a guide: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
---RFD---
Gist:
Technically the right poisons in low doses heal, which pro misses is the opposite of harm... Anyway, if pro ever met his BoP, he hid such inside the Gish Gallop.
1. “Evil Definitions”
Yes, words are derived from other words. So very evil indeed.
Con asserts that they are named after it for the similar field, instead of the intent to harm (missed the basic evolution of words, but pro never proved the intent was harm so assertion meet assertion).
2. “pharmaceutical industry is a drug cartel”
15 part Gish Gallop.
Con engages in a Gish reply.
Pro complains that he thinks irrelevant things are relevant.
3. Side Effects
Atenolol indeed has side effects, and if you believe sales fear factics employed by water filtration companies (or homeopathic practitioners... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvuzpeAIm24) diluting it into large bodies of water would magically make it stronger (implied and required for threat to be valid, but not directly stated.
Con points out that you need a prescription to avoid taking too much of it to then be poisoned.
Pro insists they prescribe intentionally dangerous amounts.
Con counters that such would make them less money (which would prevent them from being an effective drug cartel).
4. Doctors Are Secretly Greek Cultists and/or Sorcerers
They do have recognizable symbols, so there’s that. And they take evil oaths to do no harm...
Con compares these symbols to the branding on Jaguar cars, completely overlooking how many people those cars literally envelope every year!
5. CIA Surgical Conspiracies
Unsure what this has to do with the resolution...
---
Arguments: Con
See above review of key points. Sorry if anyone is confused by the dusting of comedy mixed in. Basically con wins or ties every relevant contention.
Sources: Tied
Gish Galloped sources do not win the point.
Conduct: Pro
Forfeited round.
Someone remind me tomorrow morning and I'll vote (maybe even tonight depending on how late my social plans go).