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.
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?
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.
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?