At this point anything other than a concession from con would be poor conduct to be dismissed. Final round blitzkriegs are not a tactic anyone with integrity rewards.
There's no true altruism is an interesting but non-falsifiable hypothesis. I ultimately take the side that it's without significance if good people do good because they enjoy it.
I could honestly argue either side of this, but given the warning from Alec, it's important to give the instigator a chance to clarify his or his stance.
If trying to reply to someone, put their name in the receivers textbox, otherwise they will not get a notification.
"did not say that christians are terrorists"
The threat of 'do what I want or be tortured,' is itself a terrorist threat. If it doesn't count because you believe you are right, would mean the 9/11 terrorist attacks were not acts of terror, because they thought they were right and that god was on their side.
No need to bother admin, especially on an FF... However for clarity:
Con decided to drop the entire pro case without challenge (or even being read, as his #2 and #7 was already contradicted by pro's #2), and forfeiture.
Pretty straight forward, a benefit made available to twice the current population, at the expense of a negative effect applied to precisely zero people... Con's traditional values issue for example, is done without showing any way even one traditional value would be harmed (appeals to tradition need an actual appeal, like what would be harmed if girls learned how to tie knots?) ... The distracted angle was not shown to be meaningful and was countered with basic logic.
Note on the distracted clause: Pro technically if there were so many more gay people in the scouts, they would not be the ones banned, you would be for being so distracting to them; that is the standard con's logic proposes if taken to the conclusion. An additional point you could have done (not that it was needed), is since boy scouts are about teaching discipline, learning to deal with distractions (which I know, your number 2 prevents anyway, as the proposal specifically did not include the troops being mixed) would lead to greater self improvement for boys (which then goes back to traditional values being harmed by not doing it!).
If not trying to straw-person certain arguments to which you lost the previous debate, then please inform us of your real intent and opinion of said arguments?
You may want to delete this and remake it with the error corrected... Setting some extra parameters might also be good for a clean debate (God in what sense? What is considered evidence? etc.). Plus these religious debates get needlessly long, perhaps cut the character limit down to 5k-10k?
Arguments and Sources (my opinions, not moderation policy):
Evidence is used in convert assertions into arguments. If there's enough good evidence, sources may be awarded. These two things can end up going to opposite sides (Like 'oh wow this person researched their case well, but their logic still didn't line up so well'). However winning sources is somewhat about the effort differential; they're never awarded merely for 'had a source.' It's also important to note they are not awarded for source spamming (I actually hold it against people).
Nice to see evidence coming in from the comment section :)
I'm not Rational Madman... However, apparently I am Airmax, Bsh, BoT, and anyone else oppressing your badly misunderstood "freedom of speech." Oh and I'm not reading your PMs just to make you look bad.
And yes, those were all things to which I have been accused.
1. Use the description to define the debate you want to have (like if the bible is considered valid evidence, and God is assumed to exist).
2. Write your R1 before starting the debate, then grab the character count from it (word and Google docs make this easy... probably the same with every other application). Double and round that character counter count, and use it for the characters per argument (this way you don't get too far in over your head).
3. Never assume hurt feelings if people do not agree with you. By starting a debate, you are literally asking them to do just that. They might wholly agree with you, but are trying to help you strengthen your argument as if it were an academic paper being peer reviewed.
It was a question that would have defined my rebuttal tactic.
I live in the USA, where "certain inalienable rights" is a thing. ... Not that rights are never violated, but that the government is supposed to never violate them (and in general protect against their violation). Had pro agreed, I would have merely shown prisoners not being allowed to vote.
I do disagree with with your assessment that there were no sources, as I gave several to support my reasoning (the blue underlined words were links to evidence).
Thanks for voting.
Note: I have zero objections to any of the votes cast.
You may want to give context.
Truisms are rarely well supported.
Plus Orwell.
Thanks for voting.
In case you're worried about spoilers from episodes 68-73, I have a large warning around the small bit of discussion I give to them.
I've seen every episode. To include episode 6. I really liked how Bran met Osha as an enemy, but they were destined to be allies.
At this point anything other than a concession from con would be poor conduct to be dismissed. Final round blitzkriegs are not a tactic anyone with integrity rewards.
Just re-read the rules. I remembered FF's being forfeiting more than half the rounds, but I was mistaken. Thanks for the clarification.
Please don't put recent spoilers into debate titles.
Hopefully you get a non-troll contender...
Thanks for re-voting!
It sounds like you've already ended up having to give the arguments at least a good skimming. If you're not too busy, would you mind casting a vote?
I made the same bet when I accepted this debate.
Oh well, at least it taught me something about the mental state of certain (not all) pro-lifers.
Re-voting (following the COC guidelines of course) would be appreciated.
There's no true altruism is an interesting but non-falsifiable hypothesis. I ultimately take the side that it's without significance if good people do good because they enjoy it.
Please don't use racist nicknames for people.
I could honestly argue either side of this, but given the warning from Alec, it's important to give the instigator a chance to clarify his or his stance.
You're right, we need to save the babies from eternal damnation! >:)
If trying to reply to someone, put their name in the receivers textbox, otherwise they will not get a notification.
"did not say that christians are terrorists"
The threat of 'do what I want or be tortured,' is itself a terrorist threat. If it doesn't count because you believe you are right, would mean the 9/11 terrorist attacks were not acts of terror, because they thought they were right and that god was on their side.
I am thus far unconvinced by the affirmative case...
Laughing my ass off (lmao).
"by virtue of his position being ever slightly more palatable than Pro's"
Palatable... Delicious pun!
Attack on two fronts!
You beat me to accepting by mere seconds! Anyway, best of luck to you.
Thanks for voting.
Well said!
Something to consider in future would be a moderation-lite option for debates like this.
"You have used man's definition of Christianity, but not God's definition."
This is the most funny thing I have read all day.
I hope you enjoyed the rest of the debate. And of course, please vote.
Suggested K: Australia does not exist, so self defense cannot take place there.
Thanks for voting!
And it's good to see someone else handle final round blitzkriegs in the same way as me.
No need to bother admin, especially on an FF... However for clarity:
Con decided to drop the entire pro case without challenge (or even being read, as his #2 and #7 was already contradicted by pro's #2), and forfeiture.
Pretty straight forward, a benefit made available to twice the current population, at the expense of a negative effect applied to precisely zero people... Con's traditional values issue for example, is done without showing any way even one traditional value would be harmed (appeals to tradition need an actual appeal, like what would be harmed if girls learned how to tie knots?) ... The distracted angle was not shown to be meaningful and was countered with basic logic.
Note on the distracted clause: Pro technically if there were so many more gay people in the scouts, they would not be the ones banned, you would be for being so distracting to them; that is the standard con's logic proposes if taken to the conclusion. An additional point you could have done (not that it was needed), is since boy scouts are about teaching discipline, learning to deal with distractions (which I know, your number 2 prevents anyway, as the proposal specifically did not include the troops being mixed) would lead to greater self improvement for boys (which then goes back to traditional values being harmed by not doing it!).
Just re-read it, and at one point yeah. I do wish we could edit our RFDs.
Very nice debate structure!
Normally if I type lol it means I might have chuckled under my breath, but to this I actually laughed out loud. Thanks for improving everyone's day!
If not trying to straw-person certain arguments to which you lost the previous debate, then please inform us of your real intent and opinion of said arguments?
A pro case would be dependent upon the No True Scotsman.
I'm going to resist trolling this... however, I do suggest refining the resolution to have a more clear meaning.
You may want to delete this and remake it with the error corrected... Setting some extra parameters might also be good for a clean debate (God in what sense? What is considered evidence? etc.). Plus these religious debates get needlessly long, perhaps cut the character limit down to 5k-10k?
Arguments and Sources (my opinions, not moderation policy):
Evidence is used in convert assertions into arguments. If there's enough good evidence, sources may be awarded. These two things can end up going to opposite sides (Like 'oh wow this person researched their case well, but their logic still didn't line up so well'). However winning sources is somewhat about the effort differential; they're never awarded merely for 'had a source.' It's also important to note they are not awarded for source spamming (I actually hold it against people).
Nice to see evidence coming in from the comment section :)
I'm not Rational Madman... However, apparently I am Airmax, Bsh, BoT, and anyone else oppressing your badly misunderstood "freedom of speech." Oh and I'm not reading your PMs just to make you look bad.
And yes, those were all things to which I have been accused.
A couple bits of advice:
1. Use the description to define the debate you want to have (like if the bible is considered valid evidence, and God is assumed to exist).
2. Write your R1 before starting the debate, then grab the character count from it (word and Google docs make this easy... probably the same with every other application). Double and round that character counter count, and use it for the characters per argument (this way you don't get too far in over your head).
3. Never assume hurt feelings if people do not agree with you. By starting a debate, you are literally asking them to do just that. They might wholly agree with you, but are trying to help you strengthen your argument as if it were an academic paper being peer reviewed.
I'd simply go by when the expression of your rights (or freedoms to be more precise) would infringe upon the rights of another.
It was a question that would have defined my rebuttal tactic.
I live in the USA, where "certain inalienable rights" is a thing. ... Not that rights are never violated, but that the government is supposed to never violate them (and in general protect against their violation). Had pro agreed, I would have merely shown prisoners not being allowed to vote.
Thanks for voting.
And double thanks for taking the time to read the debate (I am not convinced anyone else has).
Take all the time you need.
Depends on the definition of right. If rights are inalienable, then it is of course not a right.
Thanks for the attempted vote.
I do disagree with with your assessment that there were no sources, as I gave several to support my reasoning (the blue underlined words were links to evidence).
Thanks for voting.
I take the side that to each their own.