People have a bad habit of interpreting the bible to say whatever they want. This is why hate groups such as Westboro Baptist Church can read the same bible as U2, but decide on polar opposite morals are contained within. Some even interpret the bible as predicting the messiah Donald Trump.
Not a complaint, but for future votes I suggest naming one source (the video introduction to the FSM, or the overview of consequentialism for example) to appease your fan-club.
A debate I suggest studying is "Fetuses as a replacement for the USD" (https://www.debateart.com/debates/866)
While that debate was [no comment], the extreme scale of the proposal is similar. Note the big areas pro focused on in R1: Justification, followed immediately by Practicality.
End of his R2's opening sentence confirms he's either talking to his opponent, or else insisting all readers have artificial red skin. By the context I choose to interpret that he was speaking to his opponent.
"I am green side, you are red. If you are a blind user of this website who reads the text on an audible means of taking them in, Please ask anyone you know who can see and that you trust to verify this."
Full agreement with pro's R1 followed by no case for the Chicago being at least equal by any standard (to my knowledge, Scott Adkins is not a pizza... even if he would be the most complete pizza). You guessed accurately that pro would forfeit, so you got a free win. Enjoy it.
"For this Round, Con agrees with most of what Pro has suggested so far. The NY flimsy-crust is a good lunch-to-dinner ranked meal that's low quantity+quality of cheese and dough and low time-consuming to make, relative to the Chicago luscious alternative."
On this one due to one side forfeiting more than half the rounds (or is it half or more? Not sure the current moderation standard to call something an FF), they cannot be awarded the majority of the points.
Why anyone bothered to report your vote on this one, seems to be an act of pettiness.
As for Ram's vote, it's non-removal was explained in detail in comment #8.
In the comics I turned against the act when Luke Cage was attacked at midnight in his home having not used his powers. Yet I do understand the dramatic tensions were needed, so Iron Man had to go about things in the worst possible way.
Welcome to the site! Sorry you got trolled like that on your first debate here... I recently had a debate on the same topic, which reading it may help you refine your arguments against my side (yup, I respectfully firmly disagree with you): https://www.debateart.com/debates/949
"The rebel fleet, traveling through the vacuum of space, should be able to maintain its speed without the additional expenditure of fuel for propulsion"
I had no problem with the fuel bit, but the related thing that if burning fuel they are accelerating, and then unconscious people fly faster than them...
I could argue either side of that one. However, I have a job interview this weekend, so really shouldn't get involved in another debate (I've got a weird one going on right now).
I of course advise knowing the common arguments against it being outright ruined, and have counters ready. Expect minor K's in the form of 'well the old movies are not harmed' and 'well they can ignore it like that did with Star Trek: Intro Darkness' (obvious counter to the second being that rebuilding something does not mean it was not ruined).
I'd be more interested in this in the forums... But what precisely do you mean by the Avengers Movement? I feel like you mean the Superhuman Registration Act, but it is unclear.
You likely got frustrated (justifiably so), but ended up saying this: "THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU A RIGHT TO CONCEDE TO MY TOPICS PRESENTED!!! AND THAT IS NOT OFF-TOPIC IN ANYWAY, SHAPE, OR FORM!"
You got 4 points instead of 5, it's more or less me reminding you to be careful in future debates.
Voting can be tricky. I honestly haven't gotten used to the requirements here, I am used to a much lower standard of voter BoP (make it clear you read the debate, and are not voting just as a game of who/what you like). I'd call voting here a trinity system, which isn't bad, it just isn't what I'm used to.
Try! ... Bare in mind, pro is the one with the real burden of proof. If you so much as cast sufficient doubt on Messi being objectively better (as a human being, humanitarian works, whatever...), you win.
Regarding the trinity I was speaking of the rule you set for this debate, that it is off limits: "Please stay on topic. This is not a debate about ... how God can be two seperate persons and still one God."
FYI, I went to a catholic university. As such, I know the history of the bible better than most. ... I could technically argue this from either side, but discussing it while excluding the trinity seems like an interesting challenge; to which I've thought of a solid counter.
I have decided not to vote on this. I began an analysis, but found myself pulled toward con more than con had yet earned.
This is my bias against a whiny baby who thinks that facts are subjective (Trump, not Our_Boat), and another day I might be feeling the pull of it less, but today I cannot say my analysis would be fair enough.
---Initial thoughts toward voting---
BoP:
Usually pro would have BoP, but this debate setup places it upon con. Until con has shown subject X to be a racist, the debate is assumed to be given to pro.
Conduct:
Con gets a lot of credit here for waiving the final round, when the debate rules made no such specification (basically, I'd probably give him conduct if giving pro arguments).
Sources:
Sourcing in this debate was a hot mess. It looks like it gets better later, but tossing a couple links at the end of a round not connected to arguments does no favors, nor does “Watch the video. This actually is a perfect example of Trump not being racist” without a video link.
C1 (tie): Gish Gallop
By tie I mean neither managed to prove anything with this. (subpoints which gain ground will be given their own Contention listings)
R1 I’d call a bit of a Gish Gallop. It could have been improved with some analysis over a smaller number of examples. (and yeah, I know the intent was to overwhelm with a preponderance of evidence)
Pro mostly countered this with pointing out the missing context. (note: greater context I am aware of does not count, it is con’s analysis of the data which I can judge, followed by any counters from pro).
C2 (): Lynne Parton
To answer the question directed at the voters: yes, a racist would still be capable of those actions. One of the head's of the Heritage Front for example, always maintained exactly one black friend, in case a character witness was needed (it's damned creepy).
It's a weird one, because feelings override truth. We even have the term "alternate facts" to spare the feelings of someone who is objectively wrong. So well it should not be the case, if we don't consider feelings the search for truth gets set back by book burnings and the like.
I can envision some good arguments for and against.
For fan fiction, Steven Moffat wrote Doctor Who fan fiction before going on to writing the actual show; and Max Landis' fan fiction ending to Wonder Woman was far superior to what we actually got (still a great movie).
Against fan fiction, the majority of fan fiction is really bad, and then a good deal just is terrible... Let us not forget that Mary Sue originated in fan fiction, before she went on to damage so many beloved series (joke, she would have existed even if not named).
Someone came out with a GoT extended ending, and while intended as comedy, I'd say it's a nice improvement! https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/1130581319593783296
"Please stay on topic. This is not a debate about ... how God can be two seperate persons and still one God."
Were this a debate about Jesus Christ is Zeus, that rule would be equally logical. It really seems like you want to debate that many believe the interpretation of monotheism without question, and ignoring any challenge that a whole pantheon might negate that.
To anyone accepting this, read the description first: The pro side is in defense of her, the con side is affirming the negative statement.
I cannot speak for other voters, but trying to get a cheap win by arguing you're too dumb to understand, will not bode well for you.
Actually surprised you did not get a No True Scotsman opponent.
People have a bad habit of interpreting the bible to say whatever they want. This is why hate groups such as Westboro Baptist Church can read the same bible as U2, but decide on polar opposite morals are contained within. Some even interpret the bible as predicting the messiah Donald Trump.
Also thanks for voting multiple times.
Thanks for voting... multiple times apparently.
Not a complaint, but for future votes I suggest naming one source (the video introduction to the FSM, or the overview of consequentialism for example) to appease your fan-club.
Glad to see you're back on this site, and good luck with this debate.
Please clarify which side of the debate you are taking.
A debate I suggest studying is "Fetuses as a replacement for the USD" (https://www.debateart.com/debates/866)
While that debate was [no comment], the extreme scale of the proposal is similar. Note the big areas pro focused on in R1: Justification, followed immediately by Practicality.
I'm in R3, and a debate this length should not take this long to read. For future debates, please use better organization: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
The organization in this debate has finally made me go write a formatting guide for debates here...
That said, I've starting writing a RFD, but am only a round in. I have a pub crawl to attend tonight, so I'll probably publish a vote tomorrow.
End of his R2's opening sentence confirms he's either talking to his opponent, or else insisting all readers have artificial red skin. By the context I choose to interpret that he was speaking to his opponent.
"I am green side, you are red. If you are a blind user of this website who reads the text on an audible means of taking them in, Please ask anyone you know who can see and that you trust to verify this."
Full agreement with pro's R1 followed by no case for the Chicago being at least equal by any standard (to my knowledge, Scott Adkins is not a pizza... even if he would be the most complete pizza). You guessed accurately that pro would forfeit, so you got a free win. Enjoy it.
"For this Round, Con agrees with most of what Pro has suggested so far. The NY flimsy-crust is a good lunch-to-dinner ranked meal that's low quantity+quality of cheese and dough and low time-consuming to make, relative to the Chicago luscious alternative."
R1.
It's more complicated than this, but a reminder about blind nationalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo
If no one votes on this, remind me.
On this one due to one side forfeiting more than half the rounds (or is it half or more? Not sure the current moderation standard to call something an FF), they cannot be awarded the majority of the points.
Why anyone bothered to report your vote on this one, seems to be an act of pettiness.
As for Ram's vote, it's non-removal was explained in detail in comment #8.
In the comics I turned against the act when Luke Cage was attacked at midnight in his home having not used his powers. Yet I do understand the dramatic tensions were needed, so Iron Man had to go about things in the worst possible way.
If you keep coming back this should be a free win for you, as AKmath seems to have dropped off this site in the middle of debates.
Welcome to the site! Sorry you got trolled like that on your first debate here... I recently had a debate on the same topic, which reading it may help you refine your arguments against my side (yup, I respectfully firmly disagree with you): https://www.debateart.com/debates/949
The most powerful and skilled force user of all time... In her sleep...
"The rebel fleet, traveling through the vacuum of space, should be able to maintain its speed without the additional expenditure of fuel for propulsion"
And of course Carrie Fisher's duex ex machina.
I had no problem with the fuel bit, but the related thing that if burning fuel they are accelerating, and then unconscious people fly faster than them...
I could argue either side of that one. However, I have a job interview this weekend, so really shouldn't get involved in another debate (I've got a weird one going on right now).
I of course advise knowing the common arguments against it being outright ruined, and have counters ready. Expect minor K's in the form of 'well the old movies are not harmed' and 'well they can ignore it like that did with Star Trek: Intro Darkness' (obvious counter to the second being that rebuilding something does not mean it was not ruined).
What's your definition of Ruined?
I'd be more interested in this in the forums... But what precisely do you mean by the Avengers Movement? I feel like you mean the Superhuman Registration Act, but it is unclear.
Both of you, nice job on biblical interpretations.
Given that number of abortions God performs within the bible...
He is gorgeous! ... Glad someone caught that snippet.
Nice catch. If you haven't already, I strongly advise reading the Bonus History Lesson (it's great fuel for mocking people later).
You likely got frustrated (justifiably so), but ended up saying this: "THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU A RIGHT TO CONCEDE TO MY TOPICS PRESENTED!!! AND THAT IS NOT OFF-TOPIC IN ANYWAY, SHAPE, OR FORM!"
You got 4 points instead of 5, it's more or less me reminding you to be careful in future debates.
But math is so hard... 1-7=0 right?
/sarcasm
Welcome to the site, and good luck!
You've got four hours. I left holes in my case to make at least claim I. winnable for you... Not so much for II., all hail the FSM!
Voting can be tricky. I honestly haven't gotten used to the requirements here, I am used to a much lower standard of voter BoP (make it clear you read the debate, and are not voting just as a game of who/what you like). I'd call voting here a trinity system, which isn't bad, it just isn't what I'm used to.
First time I heard that term was in reference to Sasha Grey... I'll resist trolling the debate.
You can probably win this one without arguments, if you simply don't forfeit.
Thanks.
I rarely do the professional sourcing, but due to my history with neo-nazis I like to put their ideals down with prejudice.
Try! ... Bare in mind, pro is the one with the real burden of proof. If you so much as cast sufficient doubt on Messi being objectively better (as a human being, humanitarian works, whatever...), you win.
Regarding the trinity I was speaking of the rule you set for this debate, that it is off limits: "Please stay on topic. This is not a debate about ... how God can be two seperate persons and still one God."
FYI, I went to a catholic university. As such, I know the history of the bible better than most. ... I could technically argue this from either side, but discussing it while excluding the trinity seems like an interesting challenge; to which I've thought of a solid counter.
I have not seen Poe's Law used so well in a very long time. Well done!
I have decided not to vote on this. I began an analysis, but found myself pulled toward con more than con had yet earned.
This is my bias against a whiny baby who thinks that facts are subjective (Trump, not Our_Boat), and another day I might be feeling the pull of it less, but today I cannot say my analysis would be fair enough.
---Initial thoughts toward voting---
BoP:
Usually pro would have BoP, but this debate setup places it upon con. Until con has shown subject X to be a racist, the debate is assumed to be given to pro.
Conduct:
Con gets a lot of credit here for waiving the final round, when the debate rules made no such specification (basically, I'd probably give him conduct if giving pro arguments).
Sources:
Sourcing in this debate was a hot mess. It looks like it gets better later, but tossing a couple links at the end of a round not connected to arguments does no favors, nor does “Watch the video. This actually is a perfect example of Trump not being racist” without a video link.
C1 (tie): Gish Gallop
By tie I mean neither managed to prove anything with this. (subpoints which gain ground will be given their own Contention listings)
R1 I’d call a bit of a Gish Gallop. It could have been improved with some analysis over a smaller number of examples. (and yeah, I know the intent was to overwhelm with a preponderance of evidence)
Pro mostly countered this with pointing out the missing context. (note: greater context I am aware of does not count, it is con’s analysis of the data which I can judge, followed by any counters from pro).
C2 (): Lynne Parton
To answer the question directed at the voters: yes, a racist would still be capable of those actions. One of the head's of the Heritage Front for example, always maintained exactly one black friend, in case a character witness was needed (it's damned creepy).
C3
Ah, football.
Here's a useful source for information on them (this is actually a truism debate): https://michelacosta.com/en/messi-vs-ronaldo/
It's a weird one, because feelings override truth. We even have the term "alternate facts" to spare the feelings of someone who is objectively wrong. So well it should not be the case, if we don't consider feelings the search for truth gets set back by book burnings and the like.
I can envision some good arguments for and against.
For fan fiction, Steven Moffat wrote Doctor Who fan fiction before going on to writing the actual show; and Max Landis' fan fiction ending to Wonder Woman was far superior to what we actually got (still a great movie).
Against fan fiction, the majority of fan fiction is really bad, and then a good deal just is terrible... Let us not forget that Mary Sue originated in fan fiction, before she went on to damage so many beloved series (joke, she would have existed even if not named).
Someone came out with a GoT extended ending, and while intended as comedy, I'd say it's a nice improvement! https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/1130581319593783296
You have a truism, so expect someone to troll you. Stick to the facts and actually login again, for an easy win.
Glad to hear fun was had.
Boat was the instigator in Speed's previous debate on this topic, so it would probably just be a repeat or extension of the same points.
"Please stay on topic. This is not a debate about ... how God can be two seperate persons and still one God."
Were this a debate about Jesus Christ is Zeus, that rule would be equally logical. It really seems like you want to debate that many believe the interpretation of monotheism without question, and ignoring any challenge that a whole pantheon might negate that.