Wrink's vote is at best a troll vote. He changed a couple words from the old vote (deleted for failing to meet the standard), to dismiss any need to have read the debate or weight arguments within it... He voted his religious bias, not the debate content.
I say this as someone who dislikes Boat, and AOTBE would prefer to see him loss.
Under C3 (tied), and again under an entire section just for it...
"Sources:
"Con giving an outdated source sucks, but even his old political beliefs were not conclusively shown to be purely religious (or pro really should have shown the quote in the bible the border wall is based on). Plus, here's the big thing: if you have reason to challenge him to a debate, there should be something he's said somewhere to make you think the resolution is true, not merely his old profile from a dead website, or a religious conspiracy theory to which he happens to be listed as a member of said religion. So pro, next time quote him on something."
Regarding the not enough disk space error when in fact there is a ton of space... Usually that's an error with a partition, in particular the paging file size.
Good news, it's actually an easy and free fix: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/972502/there-is-not-enough-free-space-on-partition-c-error-when-you-try-to-up
First, please use the long description to set rules, such as "that my opponent believes the Torah and the Tanakh to be authoritative, I will also reference the Talmud several times." This will avoid a lot of problems.
Second, if at all possible please use consistent headings. You can share these, number them, and expand the number as needed. Following trains of thoughts through a lot of disorganized text is not fun.
I would be mildly opposed to such a rule. However, I'd wholly understand someone opting to make a new account to distance themselves from their old behavior.
I know it's too late now, but I believe raaron's vote falls well short of the voting standards. It looks to me like a profile potentially made just to cast a vote on this debate.
Holy @&>/, an amature debate on this topic which entertained me.
I'll vote when on a proper terminal later. But credit to both for the back and forth on fallacies, use of sources (I disagree with posting any in the comments, but if doing so I suggest giving a link to the comment # containing them), and general consistency.
Here was the partial RFD, this is not a vote, merely sharing thoughts I had while reading this to help the debaters refine their future arguments...
The debate almost immediately shifted away from Con's opening evidence, so they will only be minimally addressed. As his evidence was dropped without direct challenge (I'll grant there was indirect), and the evidence was convincing, he attained base BoP (as I hate votes which don't go deeper, I'll continue).
I'd like to thank both debaters for using headings to make things easy to follow.
Argument lines:
1. BoP: Pro's discussion of this leads to his tactic, but he presumes an exclusivity qualifier statement which was not within "BoP on Con." It's a nice attempted gotcha moment, but unworthy of trying to replace the actual debate.
2. Alternative: Going to heavily paraphrase here... The Flying Spaghetti Monster (insert your favorite name for it) has tricked us into believing there's a world, but that spherical world is just an illusion. Pro got caught up trying to prove that if so voting for him still has meaning, but that strengthened the case that our observations of a spherical world have meaning (if the Earth is an illusion, and the illusion is spherical, then the Earth is still spherical). Pro's assertion that it's flat and round, conflicted with his BoP argument (if con indeed has sole BoP, both being true would give him the debate. It's with shared BoP that both being true results in a tie).
To be clear, I agree there are serious problems with our prison systems, in particular regards to abuse of three-strike laws.
In the case of shoplifting, just charging them for the merchandise and trespassing them, would be a more fitting solution than anything I've heard of produced by the criminal justice system for such a puny violation.
Someone remind me in a couple days and I'll vote on this. Actually started to write one, but the arguments under separate headings are starting to blur together (I need sleep).
Reminder, you've got eight hours remaining to post your R1. Given that you probably live in the US, you'll want to post before you go to sleep tonight.
"The lord doesn't want any to die."
With time travel, we could send everyone into the very end of time at the precise moment before their death. Thus no one dies...
"force the entire population of China into slavery so they could build him a giant sky-scraper sized steel dildo to get his rocks off with."
Ok, why did that point come from pro? It clearly shows how intelligent ST was to organize such... (not including this in my vote, it was just really funny to me)
I can't speak for Virtuoso, but I suspect the vote was just slightly below the level of detail the standard requires. For example: "Brining the justice system into the topic after the fact was pro's critical mistake." That I slapped the lily pads of that into the water, gets to the heart of the issue, but doesn't quite explain how I slapped them into the water (or for that matter how pro defended their inclusion).
Your comments were linked to a previous debate. This is a new debate with the same resolution, but with an added description (such as changing his mind not being a factor in voting).
That was a painful source to skim through (cold stone)...
"52% neg and 48% pos. (fair and balanced more than anyone else, but still tilted against Trump)."
So apparently if any source is off by even 2%, it's fake news to be complained about (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wG_h3U568w)... Got to wonder how they would rank by their own standards.
Boat and Omar, any chance you two can have a debate? With a potential day until con responds, and the amount of energy you two have, it seems like a waste not to utilize it constructively.
Also Boat, you may want to have a debate with Dust. He made a fantastic point.
"I am saying they spread fake news, not in a whole that it is a 'fake news network'"
Welcome to English, where words have meaning. I suggest reading the resolution you set out to prove.
"these things are not measurable nor quantifiable."
Anyone skilled at math would disagree. Heck your previous link assigns percentages.
"The BOP is on the contender to provide counter-evidence and his opening arguments to my claims"
Given that you haven't met your basic burden yet for con to need to do much of anything, you may want study up on BoP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2zJX6-A0NNwQguIoWrM9HDoB_nbGhi7NIhYZ2v68Q4/edit#heading=h.x8du3l5l9kog
That said... Seriously, good luck on this debate. You're up against someone who is very skilled at critical thinking.
"So do you agree that the Instigator must show that it is deliberate or are you using a different definition of Fake News?"
1. I agree that the instigator must meet BoP...
2. I'm good with your definition, or any other. It's up to the debaters to pick one inside the rounds.
3. If one fails to be picked, then sure, I've got nothing against defaulting to yours. Deliberate Deception is indeed a good standard.
Yours is a good one, especially when applied in this context.
One piece of news I like to bring up, is when Fox and Friends cried about how Captain America is now anti-conservative (because said comic character punched a Hitler stand-in). While their reporting was awful and hilarious for many reasons, and I want it to be "fake news," it was still a real news story. What they reported on factually happened, even if their perspective was certifiably insane.
As a voter, if CNN is shown to be more fake than not (say ~50% of their stories being complete fiction, or >90% of their stories being >50% fiction) pro wins hands down. I say this not to be unreasonable, but to remind the less experienced debater about Burden of Proof.
There are other definitions of fake, but a clear and concise one needs to be specified (and soon). And please not some definition about anyone's hurt feelings, as ironic as that would be.
Your current vote is scheduled for deletion. You may of course vote again, but back up your decision with information from the debate. It need not even be a long and detailed vote, usually just proving you read the debate is enough.
I fully agree with you about conduct being within the tied range. Given what a jerk I was about the sources, I would not protest if anyone pinged me on that.
Just tried to watch the fight in question... Problem being that Farscape is now on Amazon Prime, and re-watching a couple episodes made CGI Yoda painful to look at. Episode III came out after Rygel's final moment on TV, and with an unlimited budget they could not best him.
That said, if this debate is still tied in a few days, someone remind me and I'll cast a vote.
I try to not discuss my debates while in voting, but in short...
1. You would call that an outright concession that it was a kritik (four separate times you claimed that of arguments if they were not responded to enough).
2. I did not accuse you of a kritik until after your R2, it was ironically your R2 response to topicality which identified K as your intent.
I was planning to vote on this, but was unexpectedly very busy. Still, I'll offer a few thoughts...
Regarding the resolution: Were this one done again, I'd change the resolution to remove the word "potential," but add a disclaimer in the description that the debate is discussing the fairly likely goods and ills of the system. Potentially is just too open ended.
Regarding mandatory conversion: The biggest benefits would only be realized if this happens. While there's some ugliness to this, for anything worthwhile there's always opportunity costs.
S&G: This is my sole disagreement with the existing vote. I view the issues cited on awarding it, to be covered by the argument point. Granted, I've had many complain when I vote against them that I clearly do not understand what points they were really trying to make... But knowing how the rules are interpreted by admin, is useful.
Political standings do not define what sides someone can take on a debate. Ideally people should practice arguing against their beliefs, so as to understand that there are other perspectives.
Key definitions should really be in the debate description, along with which country's standard for left/right are to be measured for racism.
I'll defend Wikipedia as a source. About 10 years ago it was not trustworthy (at least to an academic level), but any controversial topics now get protected from the general public.
The bulk of sources should not be saved for the final round (it happens, even to me), as they cannot be responded to, so are of much lower value than they otherwise would be.
The comment section is not the debate itself, as much as it is a discussion of it. Borrowing arguments from it can be useful (reword them), they can technically be used as a source (copy the link from the comment number), but it's best to avoid just saying that someone happened somewhere in them.
Affirmative Action is a poor term for Positive Discrimination.
Wrink's vote is at best a troll vote. He changed a couple words from the old vote (deleted for failing to meet the standard), to dismiss any need to have read the debate or weight arguments within it... He voted his religious bias, not the debate content.
I say this as someone who dislikes Boat, and AOTBE would prefer to see him loss.
Under C3 (tied), and again under an entire section just for it...
"Sources:
"Con giving an outdated source sucks, but even his old political beliefs were not conclusively shown to be purely religious (or pro really should have shown the quote in the bible the border wall is based on). Plus, here's the big thing: if you have reason to challenge him to a debate, there should be something he's said somewhere to make you think the resolution is true, not merely his old profile from a dead website, or a religious conspiracy theory to which he happens to be listed as a member of said religion. So pro, next time quote him on something."
Had you read my vote, you would know I mentioned that multiple times.
Thanks for voting.
So many different ways by different definitions... No True Scotsman will probably get heavily involved in this as a logical proof.
I could not find the quoted political belief explanations within the link, just one about how con identifies as culturally Asian.
That seems to be a weird vote for anyone to report. I'm guessing someone did a blanket report when he went to dozens of debates and voted profanity.
Regarding the not enough disk space error when in fact there is a ton of space... Usually that's an error with a partition, in particular the paging file size.
Good news, it's actually an easy and free fix: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/972502/there-is-not-enough-free-space-on-partition-c-error-when-you-try-to-up
Initial thoughts...
First, please use the long description to set rules, such as "that my opponent believes the Torah and the Tanakh to be authoritative, I will also reference the Talmud several times." This will avoid a lot of problems.
Second, if at all possible please use consistent headings. You can share these, number them, and expand the number as needed. Following trains of thoughts through a lot of disorganized text is not fun.
He technically wrote " "
I would be mildly opposed to such a rule. However, I'd wholly understand someone opting to make a new account to distance themselves from their old behavior.
It is oddly tempting...
I am pro. For the most part, I believe instigators should word resolutions such that they are the pro side, as it makes everything easier.
To bother following him around and reporting his votes on forfeited debates, someone small minded must really hate him.
I know it's too late now, but I believe raaron's vote falls well short of the voting standards. It looks to me like a profile potentially made just to cast a vote on this debate.
Holy @&>/, an amature debate on this topic which entertained me.
I'll vote when on a proper terminal later. But credit to both for the back and forth on fallacies, use of sources (I disagree with posting any in the comments, but if doing so I suggest giving a link to the comment # containing them), and general consistency.
Not the weakest conspiracy theory I've disproven. Still, two pages handled with half a page, feels nice.
Here was the partial RFD, this is not a vote, merely sharing thoughts I had while reading this to help the debaters refine their future arguments...
The debate almost immediately shifted away from Con's opening evidence, so they will only be minimally addressed. As his evidence was dropped without direct challenge (I'll grant there was indirect), and the evidence was convincing, he attained base BoP (as I hate votes which don't go deeper, I'll continue).
I'd like to thank both debaters for using headings to make things easy to follow.
Argument lines:
1. BoP: Pro's discussion of this leads to his tactic, but he presumes an exclusivity qualifier statement which was not within "BoP on Con." It's a nice attempted gotcha moment, but unworthy of trying to replace the actual debate.
2. Alternative: Going to heavily paraphrase here... The Flying Spaghetti Monster (insert your favorite name for it) has tricked us into believing there's a world, but that spherical world is just an illusion. Pro got caught up trying to prove that if so voting for him still has meaning, but that strengthened the case that our observations of a spherical world have meaning (if the Earth is an illusion, and the illusion is spherical, then the Earth is still spherical). Pro's assertion that it's flat and round, conflicted with his BoP argument (if con indeed has sole BoP, both being true would give him the debate. It's with shared BoP that both being true results in a tie).
3. Obligations: Just BoP again.
Biblical or historical?
Thanks for the debate.
To be clear, I agree there are serious problems with our prison systems, in particular regards to abuse of three-strike laws.
In the case of shoplifting, just charging them for the merchandise and trespassing them, would be a more fitting solution than anything I've heard of produced by the criminal justice system for such a puny violation.
Thanks for voting.
Someone remind me in a couple days and I'll vote on this. Actually started to write one, but the arguments under separate headings are starting to blur together (I need sleep).
Reminder, you've got eight hours remaining to post your R1. Given that you probably live in the US, you'll want to post before you go to sleep tonight.
At casual skimming, it looks like a well researched debate by both sides.
However, due to ethical principles I do not vote on abortion debates (I'm too biased).
"The lord doesn't want any to die."
With time travel, we could send everyone into the very end of time at the precise moment before their death. Thus no one dies...
Never considered the issue of what it would take to rename a quarter-century old movie.
Not accepting the debate, as my arguments would probably amount to a K (sidestepping the true topic pro wishes to discuss).
"force the entire population of China into slavery so they could build him a giant sky-scraper sized steel dildo to get his rocks off with."
Ok, why did that point come from pro? It clearly shows how intelligent ST was to organize such... (not including this in my vote, it was just really funny to me)
Thanks for voting.
I can't speak for Virtuoso, but I suspect the vote was just slightly below the level of detail the standard requires. For example: "Brining the justice system into the topic after the fact was pro's critical mistake." That I slapped the lily pads of that into the water, gets to the heart of the issue, but doesn't quite explain how I slapped them into the water (or for that matter how pro defended their inclusion).
I don't know if the old one is still accessible.
Your comments were linked to a previous debate. This is a new debate with the same resolution, but with an added description (such as changing his mind not being a factor in voting).
That was a painful source to skim through (cold stone)...
"52% neg and 48% pos. (fair and balanced more than anyone else, but still tilted against Trump)."
So apparently if any source is off by even 2%, it's fake news to be complained about (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wG_h3U568w)... Got to wonder how they would rank by their own standards.
...
Also subscribed to PewDiePie.
Boat and Omar, any chance you two can have a debate? With a potential day until con responds, and the amount of energy you two have, it seems like a waste not to utilize it constructively.
Also Boat, you may want to have a debate with Dust. He made a fantastic point.
"I am saying they spread fake news, not in a whole that it is a 'fake news network'"
Welcome to English, where words have meaning. I suggest reading the resolution you set out to prove.
"these things are not measurable nor quantifiable."
Anyone skilled at math would disagree. Heck your previous link assigns percentages.
"The BOP is on the contender to provide counter-evidence and his opening arguments to my claims"
Given that you haven't met your basic burden yet for con to need to do much of anything, you may want study up on BoP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2zJX6-A0NNwQguIoWrM9HDoB_nbGhi7NIhYZ2v68Q4/edit#heading=h.x8du3l5l9kog
That said... Seriously, good luck on this debate. You're up against someone who is very skilled at critical thinking.
"So do you agree that the Instigator must show that it is deliberate or are you using a different definition of Fake News?"
1. I agree that the instigator must meet BoP...
2. I'm good with your definition, or any other. It's up to the debaters to pick one inside the rounds.
3. If one fails to be picked, then sure, I've got nothing against defaulting to yours. Deliberate Deception is indeed a good standard.
Yours is a good one, especially when applied in this context.
One piece of news I like to bring up, is when Fox and Friends cried about how Captain America is now anti-conservative (because said comic character punched a Hitler stand-in). While their reporting was awful and hilarious for many reasons, and I want it to be "fake news," it was still a real news story. What they reported on factually happened, even if their perspective was certifiably insane.
As a voter, if CNN is shown to be more fake than not (say ~50% of their stories being complete fiction, or >90% of their stories being >50% fiction) pro wins hands down. I say this not to be unreasonable, but to remind the less experienced debater about Burden of Proof.
There are other definitions of fake, but a clear and concise one needs to be specified (and soon). And please not some definition about anyone's hurt feelings, as ironic as that would be.
Your current vote is scheduled for deletion. You may of course vote again, but back up your decision with information from the debate. It need not even be a long and detailed vote, usually just proving you read the debate is enough.
Thank you for that very detailed vote.
I fully agree with you about conduct being within the tied range. Given what a jerk I was about the sources, I would not protest if anyone pinged me on that.
Just tried to watch the fight in question... Problem being that Farscape is now on Amazon Prime, and re-watching a couple episodes made CGI Yoda painful to look at. Episode III came out after Rygel's final moment on TV, and with an unlimited budget they could not best him.
That said, if this debate is still tied in a few days, someone remind me and I'll cast a vote.
Elephants are clearly supplier, making the resolution irrelevant when we should be focused on them! /joke
Oddly entertaining. I do wish the actual sequence were shown, but with the debaters in agreement on the basic events that is not truly needed.
I try to not discuss my debates while in voting, but in short...
1. You would call that an outright concession that it was a kritik (four separate times you claimed that of arguments if they were not responded to enough).
2. I did not accuse you of a kritik until after your R2, it was ironically your R2 response to topicality which identified K as your intent.
These should really use the arguments only voting.
I was planning to vote on this, but was unexpectedly very busy. Still, I'll offer a few thoughts...
Regarding the resolution: Were this one done again, I'd change the resolution to remove the word "potential," but add a disclaimer in the description that the debate is discussing the fairly likely goods and ills of the system. Potentially is just too open ended.
Regarding mandatory conversion: The biggest benefits would only be realized if this happens. While there's some ugliness to this, for anything worthwhile there's always opportunity costs.
S&G: This is my sole disagreement with the existing vote. I view the issues cited on awarding it, to be covered by the argument point. Granted, I've had many complain when I vote against them that I clearly do not understand what points they were really trying to make... But knowing how the rules are interpreted by admin, is useful.
I've got a lot to do today, but someone remind me in a couple days and I'll vote on this...
https://youtu.be/qt93wUzb2E4?t=8
Political standings do not define what sides someone can take on a debate. Ideally people should practice arguing against their beliefs, so as to understand that there are other perspectives.
Initial thoughts on this one:
Key definitions should really be in the debate description, along with which country's standard for left/right are to be measured for racism.
I'll defend Wikipedia as a source. About 10 years ago it was not trustworthy (at least to an academic level), but any controversial topics now get protected from the general public.
The bulk of sources should not be saved for the final round (it happens, even to me), as they cannot be responded to, so are of much lower value than they otherwise would be.
The comment section is not the debate itself, as much as it is a discussion of it. Borrowing arguments from it can be useful (reword them), they can technically be used as a source (copy the link from the comment number), but it's best to avoid just saying that someone happened somewhere in them.
Affirmative Action is a poor term for Positive Discrimination.
Thanks for the debate.
If you'd ever like some help, let me know.
Thanks! Had to deal with some stuff, but I'll whip something up before I go to sleep.