Attacking someone's character if they disagree with you, just creates the fact that you've used the most well known logical fallacy; it does not prove that by disagreeing with you they're Literally Hitler or anything else (this is an example of hyperbole, to clarify the problem with your words).
If you're going to keep debating, I highly suggest familiarizing yourself with the most common logical fallacies. When caught committing them, you undermine your own claims (voters are not immune to the fallacy fallacy). For Ad Hominems: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem that website features 23 more, with fast and easy to understand explanations.
If no one has voted on this in a couple days, remind me and I'll vote. ... Also in case no one has said it, atheism isn't a religion (surprised con did not raise this point).
Left Wing. There are many competing definitions for it, so unless you want to debate which definition is best instead of the topic, it should be pre-defined.
Sounds like something that might be better handled on the forums (the short description has information on what Anko is looking for).
For a decent sample of the more sane version of the sides, I had a recent debate on it: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024
If you want to know more about the less sane versions, I can give you information on how conservative politicians are trying to increase teen pregnancy and abortion rates so they can publicly pretend to cry about it.
I've had good luck with all formatting from google docs transferring over (except those highlighted indented "quotes"). Mixed results with word. But glad to know everything except hyperlinks will transfer from word to docs to debateart.
"Four or five moments. That's all it takes to be a [racist]. People think you wake up a [racist], brush your teeth a [racist], ejaculate into a soap dispenser a [racist]. But now, being a [racist], it's only a few moments. Few moments doing the ugly stuff no one else will do."
I'm happy to clarify any point on my vote. The process of weighting the three contentions pro won against the zero con won, lead to the conclusion that pro won the debate.
I know the FSM is a weird one, given that he relies so much less on comedy...
In all seriousness, when my faith in God peaks (I alternate between atheism and Catholicism) is when I look to the FSM the most. If we forget that we don't have the answers and thinking we do is silly, we're doing it wrong.
Welcome to the site. I suggest familiarizing yourself with what styles can be done here (as opposed to what could be done at DDO): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Quote bricks are good for lengthy quotes, but most of the time I suggest formatting which does not add so much space above and below.
tiny.cc/DebateArt
I did start an analysis, but I see how little time in left, and honestly don't believe it's fair to knowingly cast last minute votes without some compelling reason.
Not actually sure which way I would give arguments (likely sources to pro, his analysis of the census.gov data tips this). Key problem that has made me not vote way earlier, is that I can't quite get the penalties out of my head if I don't automatically give arguments to the pro side. I've had stalkers on these sites before, and don't care for any repeats of that.
Closing rounds are a weird thing, because they are both where we want to give everything, but also where we should be putting in the least effort (most things of consequence should have already been said).
A tactic some unmentionables use is a Final Round Blitzkrieg, which is holding off arguments until the other side truly cannot respond. I advice judges to dismiss these for being inorganic to the debate.
I got challenged to a weird informal continuation of this (I've already dropped out, but you might enjoy the counters to my case): https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1936
It could be argued they did not kill L3, merely enslaved and never mentioned her again...
As for the villains from the prequels, I disagree with calling them badly acted. Two of them had some great talent (not sure about the CGI guy), the fault lies with the director.
Prepping my closing statements, and it turns out I used exactly 42 sources. I wonder if that number will ever cease popping up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboZctrHfK8
Bare in mind, my vote here was very tryhard (as said, it was an experiment), so don't model your future votes on it...
The big flaw to your vote is not naming any key argument lines (you would not even need to name them all, but just make it easy for mods to verify you read the debate).
Next time I have insomnia I'll probably grade this.
Given that the name calling started in the debate listing "This guy is a idiot," I'll probably include a grade for comedy, as I believe this to be at least in part a troll debate.
That would have been a decent (if simplistic) rebuttal had my opponent made it. But on actual trials character witnesses are a thing (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/as-defendant-can-i-offer-evidence-good-character.html, https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/character-as-evidence.html). Someone having not committed a certain crime before, does not prove they are truly incapable, but does lower the likelihood. So yeah, they should still be investigated for the crime spree, but defense has every reason to show their lack of any criminal record.
I am focusing on disproving "They are the same in nature, essence, and being." To which my analogy holds up, since regardless of physical limitations, Bob and Robert are of different natures; just like Jesus and God (admittedly, were my opponent not a literalist he'd have an easier time disputing this).
While we also know that Batman and Bruce Wayne are different people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01vWvocMc6M), a strong argument could be made for them having the same nature and essence. They both go about helping Gotham, and Batman indeed does attend "fancy rich parties"; as highlighted in a 1997 documentary (wiki entry): "That night, a charity event is held by Wayne Enterprises with special guests, Batman and Robin, and [Poison Ivy] decides to use her abilities to seduce them. Mr. Freeze crashes the party and steals a diamond from the event."
Anyway, my opponent failed to find any logical fallacies within those introductory examples of how Jesus and God behave vastly different.
Taking it out of the mythology: imagine a blood test has revealed Bob (a man known for charitable works) is the son of Robert (a serial killer), and Bob is now on trial for a few dozen murders which Robert committed before Bob was even born. The prosecutor argues fathers and sons are the same, so he should be held accountable... Along with a few dozen other points, what's wrong with the defense using the superior character of Bob having a noted lack of any violent tendencies?
To quote my link:
"Plagiarism is the use of others' material without proper attribution. ... Please, please, please don't do it, even if your original material is in the public domain. ... Plagiarism and copyright are orthogonal. Plagiarism is about credit, copyright is about whether you're allowed to copy at all."
So my complaint is not about any copyright issues, it's about intellectual integrity. Not plagiarizing is pretty easy, some quotation marks and a URL is usually all it takes.
Were you and I debating this, you getting your bible lines from biblegateway.com and saying that would be fine (even without an explicit version listed). The way my opponent spammed them (especially so many ones which were off topic or already directly refuted), made me suspicious. The suspicion bore fruit that he was stealing not just which biblical lines to use (probably from a webpage which says to use those exact ones, regardless of context), but his actual arguments.
Good luck on this debate. A few words of advice...
1. You've picked a two clause resolution. While proving she's nuts (X), goes a long way toward proving she's unfit to govern (Y), both need to be supported.
2. I suggest defining some criteria for fitness to govern, to include in your opening round.
3. I advise the following as an aid to make whatever your case is easy to follow: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Attacking someone's character if they disagree with you, just creates the fact that you've used the most well known logical fallacy; it does not prove that by disagreeing with you they're Literally Hitler or anything else (this is an example of hyperbole, to clarify the problem with your words).
If you're going to keep debating, I highly suggest familiarizing yourself with the most common logical fallacies. When caught committing them, you undermine your own claims (voters are not immune to the fallacy fallacy). For Ad Hominems: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem that website features 23 more, with fast and easy to understand explanations.
As the users most active in abortion debates, would any of you mind giving feedback and/or voting?
>"If you don't agree, then you are simply racist."
Ad Hominem attacks in the description are never a good way to start a debate.
If no one has voted on this in a couple days, remind me and I'll vote. ... Also in case no one has said it, atheism isn't a religion (surprised con did not raise this point).
Left Wing. There are many competing definitions for it, so unless you want to debate which definition is best instead of the topic, it should be pre-defined.
Definitions?
Sounds like something that might be better handled on the forums (the short description has information on what Anko is looking for).
For a decent sample of the more sane version of the sides, I had a recent debate on it: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024
If you want to know more about the less sane versions, I can give you information on how conservative politicians are trying to increase teen pregnancy and abortion rates so they can publicly pretend to cry about it.
I've had good luck with all formatting from google docs transferring over (except those highlighted indented "quotes"). Mixed results with word. But glad to know everything except hyperlinks will transfer from word to docs to debateart.
You might want to also clarify which level of education this is for. But either way, you've closed the major loophole.
You should refine this for precise class and limits, otherwise someone will just say the teacher should have one.
Given that number of animals that the bible calls unclean, do you think God made them all intelligently?
"Four or five moments. That's all it takes to be a [racist]. People think you wake up a [racist], brush your teeth a [racist], ejaculate into a soap dispenser a [racist]. But now, being a [racist], it's only a few moments. Few moments doing the ugly stuff no one else will do."
I'm happy to clarify any point on my vote. The process of weighting the three contentions pro won against the zero con won, lead to the conclusion that pro won the debate.
I know the FSM is a weird one, given that he relies so much less on comedy...
In all seriousness, when my faith in God peaks (I alternate between atheism and Catholicism) is when I look to the FSM the most. If we forget that we don't have the answers and thinking we do is silly, we're doing it wrong.
Neato!
Welcome to the site. I suggest familiarizing yourself with what styles can be done here (as opposed to what could be done at DDO): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
It would seem you need to define the general land area to which the two-state solution is to take place... lol
25,000 characters... this is planned to be a very long one.
Quote bricks are good for lengthy quotes, but most of the time I suggest formatting which does not add so much space above and below.
tiny.cc/DebateArt
There comes a point where you should probably move into the argument section of the debate.
someone remind me in a couple days and I'll vote. Started an analysis tonight, but sleep beckons.
Given that you were already reading some of this debate, would you mind voting on it at some point?
I did start an analysis, but I see how little time in left, and honestly don't believe it's fair to knowingly cast last minute votes without some compelling reason.
Not actually sure which way I would give arguments (likely sources to pro, his analysis of the census.gov data tips this). Key problem that has made me not vote way earlier, is that I can't quite get the penalties out of my head if I don't automatically give arguments to the pro side. I've had stalkers on these sites before, and don't care for any repeats of that.
Closing rounds are a weird thing, because they are both where we want to give everything, but also where we should be putting in the least effort (most things of consequence should have already been said).
A tactic some unmentionables use is a Final Round Blitzkrieg, which is holding off arguments until the other side truly cannot respond. I advice judges to dismiss these for being inorganic to the debate.
What did I just read?
I got challenged to a weird informal continuation of this (I've already dropped out, but you might enjoy the counters to my case): https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1936
Understood. Harder BoP for you if this is taken strictly so serious, but it still can be done...
Even if he does respond, anything other than a concession will be dismissed by judges.
This is my favorite style of troll debate. Something outrageously stupid, but then well argued as satire.
Regardless of how the voting goes, I suggest remaking this debate with refinements. You clearly did not get the intended debate on the subject.
It could be argued they did not kill L3, merely enslaved and never mentioned her again...
As for the villains from the prequels, I disagree with calling them badly acted. Two of them had some great talent (not sure about the CGI guy), the fault lies with the director.
Prepping my closing statements, and it turns out I used exactly 42 sources. I wonder if that number will ever cease popping up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboZctrHfK8
https://www.debateart.com/debates/965/comment_links/12743
A resource you may find useful: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Bare in mind, my vote here was very tryhard (as said, it was an experiment), so don't model your future votes on it...
The big flaw to your vote is not naming any key argument lines (you would not even need to name them all, but just make it easy for mods to verify you read the debate).
It's basically taking land away from people of the wrong skin pigment... This includes vital farm land, without any skilled managers to replace them.
For a recent example: https://www.dw.com/en/zimbabwe-between-land-ownership-and-food-security/a-49056618
A decent topic might be "Zimbabwe: land redistribution is a good policy"
I oddly agree with BoP being shared on this. It hopefully leads to each side presenting a case, instead of just the BoP game.
Expect to get someone with comedic answers.
This will be an easy win for someone...
Please define existence.
By some standards God exists, by others God does not.
Next time I have insomnia I'll probably grade this.
Given that the name calling started in the debate listing "This guy is a idiot," I'll probably include a grade for comedy, as I believe this to be at least in part a troll debate.
You have 12 hours left to post something. Literally posting "BoP on pro." will most likely be enough to give you victory.
It's all good.
That would have been a decent (if simplistic) rebuttal had my opponent made it. But on actual trials character witnesses are a thing (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/as-defendant-can-i-offer-evidence-good-character.html, https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/character-as-evidence.html). Someone having not committed a certain crime before, does not prove they are truly incapable, but does lower the likelihood. So yeah, they should still be investigated for the crime spree, but defense has every reason to show their lack of any criminal record.
I am focusing on disproving "They are the same in nature, essence, and being." To which my analogy holds up, since regardless of physical limitations, Bob and Robert are of different natures; just like Jesus and God (admittedly, were my opponent not a literalist he'd have an easier time disputing this).
While we also know that Batman and Bruce Wayne are different people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01vWvocMc6M), a strong argument could be made for them having the same nature and essence. They both go about helping Gotham, and Batman indeed does attend "fancy rich parties"; as highlighted in a 1997 documentary (wiki entry): "That night, a charity event is held by Wayne Enterprises with special guests, Batman and Robin, and [Poison Ivy] decides to use her abilities to seduce them. Mr. Freeze crashes the party and steals a diamond from the event."
You might have tagged the wrong person...
Anyway, my opponent failed to find any logical fallacies within those introductory examples of how Jesus and God behave vastly different.
Taking it out of the mythology: imagine a blood test has revealed Bob (a man known for charitable works) is the son of Robert (a serial killer), and Bob is now on trial for a few dozen murders which Robert committed before Bob was even born. The prosecutor argues fathers and sons are the same, so he should be held accountable... Along with a few dozen other points, what's wrong with the defense using the superior character of Bob having a noted lack of any violent tendencies?
Thanks for commenting.
To quote my link:
"Plagiarism is the use of others' material without proper attribution. ... Please, please, please don't do it, even if your original material is in the public domain. ... Plagiarism and copyright are orthogonal. Plagiarism is about credit, copyright is about whether you're allowed to copy at all."
So my complaint is not about any copyright issues, it's about intellectual integrity. Not plagiarizing is pretty easy, some quotation marks and a URL is usually all it takes.
Were you and I debating this, you getting your bible lines from biblegateway.com and saying that would be fine (even without an explicit version listed). The way my opponent spammed them (especially so many ones which were off topic or already directly refuted), made me suspicious. The suspicion bore fruit that he was stealing not just which biblical lines to use (probably from a webpage which says to use those exact ones, regardless of context), but his actual arguments.
Good luck on this debate. A few words of advice...
1. You've picked a two clause resolution. While proving she's nuts (X), goes a long way toward proving she's unfit to govern (Y), both need to be supported.
2. I suggest defining some criteria for fitness to govern, to include in your opening round.
3. I advise the following as an aid to make whatever your case is easy to follow: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
From the description: "Pro: AOC is Competent ... Con: AOC is Incompetent"