Feels like it'd be a bit difficult to argue against this one. Obviously, differing social norms for boys and girls will result in them being pressed into different things and in different ways.
Well, looks like this one is going to be a tie. I always find it a little unfortunate when that happens -- I like to see there be a winner -- but I think this is a good debate to receive a tie. Reading through it, I felt my mind getting changed to the other side after each new round of arguments from each of the contenders.
If I could offer you one piece of advice, CA, it's that, while your writing is excellent and works well for an apologetic style of writing, it's not necessarily the best in a competitive debate like this one. It's good to thoroughly cover the ground on which you are arguing, don't get me wrong, but sometimes it's more impactful to be more concise. I found your last round to be your strongest and most convincing, personally. Just my two cents.
I have a really, really bad habit of procrastination that I have never been able to fully shake, even in adulthood, but I have read this debate and it is really good. Working on my vote.
I should be able to get a vote up this weekend. And yeah, suffice it to say that Mall has a certain "reputation" around here. That's the nicest way I can put it. I would never take his insistence that you "conceded" at face value.
I haven't used them much before, but everything about Con's R1 struck me as being very GPT-esque. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but AI writing has a certain style that's generally pretty easy to identify. I used the detectors as evidence for my claim and to ensure that I wasn't just jumping to conclusions.
Given how repetitive this debate got towards the end, I think it's a good example of why I believe that the vast majority of debates don't need to be longer then three rounds, or four if you're doing the whole "I waive the first round, my opponent waives the last round" thing. If you're a competent debater who is knowledgeable about the topic at hand, then three rounds should be sufficient to make your entire case.
I'll try and get my vote up before the voting period expires.
Also, just helpful suggestion, there's a vote request thread in the forums where you can request a vote on your debate. I'd recommend posting there if you have a debate no one has voted on.
Look, there's a lot I could say here, but frankly I don't desire to carry on this discussion with you. I think it's pretty clear that Pro simply wanted to find another Christian to debate with about Christian doctrine. I understood this immediately, and was not offended, because I don't need to be able to participate in every single debate. You can complain about them being "biased" if you want. My suggestion would be to find a bridge and get over it.
"For example, if an atheist takes the debate (without the rule) they could argue that the father and the holy spirit are not distinct persons because neither exists despite the Bible's insistence that they might, and that is completely valid position that works well within the topic if a rule not requiring you to act as a Christian is never made ."
Do you seriously see nothing wrong with this? Yeah, you could do that, but now the ENTIRE topic of the debate has been changed completely. That's what the rule is meant to prevent. Do you seriously not get that? Or do you just want to have the right to be as annoying as fuck? Because having someone barge in and completely derail the debate IS annoying, and I would never judge anyone for including a rule to prevent that. In fact, I'd encourage it.
That analogy is so deeply flawed, it doesn't even make sense. This is a doctrinal debate -- it's about whether or not a certain doctrine is supported by the Bible. Starting with the assumption that the Bible is true is *completely standard* for this type of debate. It would be an odd choice to not include it.
I absolutely do NOT understand what you're getting at. CA wants to debate whether or not the bible supports the idea that the Father and the Holy Spirit are different persons, not whether or not the bible is the divinely inspired and inerrant word of God. The rule exists to make sure the debate stay on-topic. What's wrong with that?
I have to say, I found your arguments in this debate to be very surprising in that you hardly mentioned God at all. In your previous debate, you argued that "if God does not exist, then morality is speculative at best", yet here, you made an argument for moral realism while scarcely appealing to God at all. I must ask, why is that?
> "I will say that I find it a little confusing that you both say that I did not give you a reason to doubt the possibility of Jesus resurrection when you also point out that I proved such an event is medically impossible and that Pro conceded that point."
That's not really what I said. I said that "Con doesn't seem to dispute that a supernatural event could at least theoretically happen, so Pro really just has to show evidence that a fully natural explanation for the events around Jesus's death is less likely than the given supernatural one."
And yes, you did draw a distinction between viewing the Bible as a religious text and viewing it as a factual, historical account, but there's a difference between doing that and actually arguing that a supernatural event simply can't happen at all. I agree that the medical impossibility of resurrection after brain death means that Pro has a difficult case to prove, but as I said, they just had to show that the given supernatural event was more likely than a completely natural explanation.
> "Lastly, I disagree with you saying that I put undue burden of proof is on Pro because ultimately the burden of proof is on pro. He is the one who must prove that it is possibility of Jesus coming back to life. My job as Con was to show reasons for why we should doubt it."
Well, yes, but there's different standards for the burden of proof. Compare civil trials and criminal trials in the US, for instance. In both types of trials, the one bringing the case generally has the burden of proof, but in a criminal trial the burden of proof is much stricter than in a civil trial (preponderance of evidence vs beyond a reasonable doubt). Pro only needed to prove that the resurrection was *probable*, not that there is no reasonable doubt that it happened. It seemed like you wanted Pro to be able to prove it as an absolute fact, when that was never necessary for them.
I feel I should add on a little bit to my vote -- a lot of the discussion in this debate was around the idea that the fact that the disciples believed they had seen Jesus after his death does not mean that they actually had. Pro did not disagree with this idea, but argues that it's still strong evidence in favor of the resurrection actually happening. Con tries to provide a counterexample with Nazi soldiers dying for the cause of Adolf Hitler. (Why do so many debaters feel the need to invoke Nazi Germany when it's not directly relevant?) However, as Pro points out, most of these soldiers did not directly interact with Hitler himself, but fell for propaganda. I agree with this point, but more broadly, I can't say that I really understand Con's comparison in the first place, as it's not as though Nazi soldiers believed that Hitler had supernatural abilities or anything. No one disputes that Adolf Hitler existed. On the other hand, people do dispute whether the supernatural events talked about in the Bible actually happened and whether Jesus even existed at all. I don't really see the comparison that Con makes, so I don't think the argument really counts for anything.
Sorry to keep you waiting! I did intend to have my arguments up earlier, but to be honest with you, I have a really bad habit of procrastinating until the last minute. Looking forward to your responses!
I saw your post on the vote requests thread. I've been slacking a little bit on this site. I have a round of arguments due in a debate I'm participating in, and there are a couple other debates I've been asked to vote on but haven't done so yet. I'm going to write my arguments, then vote on the other debates I said I'd vote on, but after that, I promise you, I will vote on this one.
Voting conduct only due to forfeiture is allowed, but only if one party misses 40% of the debate or more due to forfeitures. Missing one round in a three round debate doesn't meet this bar, so you do actually have to explain the arguments section of your vote.
It's up to you to decide how to handle an opponent's forfeiture. You can decide to make no arguments if you wish, or you can summarize all the arguments you've made so far and try to present your case that you've made so far.
"moral sense theory is more obscure, perhaps I will get into it more when your debate is done, but I think it goes a long way to prove objective morality exists."
Sure, I'd like to hear more about it after this debate is over. Ethical theory is very interesting to me, personally, and I like learning more about it.
"Your opponent doesn't need to prove God exists. He could claim that in fact God is not real, but that if God were real hypothetically speaking than objective morality would have to be real."
Yup, he could do that. I was well aware of that when I created this debate. I'm interested to see what arguments he will use.
Sure, technically I don't have to disprove moral realism to win, but if I can successfully do so, then there is no way for my opponent to win. Conversely, my opponent could win by simply proving that morality is objective without bringing God into the equation at all. Given that he believes that objective morality can't exist without God, however, I doubt he'll take that route.
As far as moral theories go, I'll admit I'm not the most well-educated person. I know a bit about philosophy, but I'm no expert. But when it comes to theories like utilitarianism, Kantianism, etc., I find that they all seem to have been formed by starting with the conclusion that moral realism is true and working backwards from there. I don't think that any of them actually manage to prove that morality is objective.
Let me know if there's anything you need me to adjust about the debate setup. Please do not reject the challenge; that will delete the entire debate. Just let me know if you need me to change anything and I can do so.
Feels like it'd be a bit difficult to argue against this one. Obviously, differing social norms for boys and girls will result in them being pressed into different things and in different ways.
Ping me when this one is done. I think I'll vote on it.
Surpass in what way? Having a vague resolution won't help you here.
Agreed with Moozer, you should probably update the title/resolution to make it clear exactly what position you are supporting.
Not since the passing of the 14th Amendment, it doesn't.
I'll consider voting on this one
Well, looks like this one is going to be a tie. I always find it a little unfortunate when that happens -- I like to see there be a winner -- but I think this is a good debate to receive a tie. Reading through it, I felt my mind getting changed to the other side after each new round of arguments from each of the contenders.
If I could offer you one piece of advice, CA, it's that, while your writing is excellent and works well for an apologetic style of writing, it's not necessarily the best in a competitive debate like this one. It's good to thoroughly cover the ground on which you are arguing, don't get me wrong, but sometimes it's more impactful to be more concise. I found your last round to be your strongest and most convincing, personally. Just my two cents.
I have a really, really bad habit of procrastination that I have never been able to fully shake, even in adulthood, but I have read this debate and it is really good. Working on my vote.
I'll try and get a vote up before the window is over.
I should be able to get a vote up this weekend. And yeah, suffice it to say that Mall has a certain "reputation" around here. That's the nicest way I can put it. I would never take his insistence that you "conceded" at face value.
Did you receive the message I sent you?
Awesome! I take it you're in, then? Have you ever played before? If not, please be sure to read the guide to forum mafia first.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/21-guide-to-forum-mafia
Yes, I will cast another vote on this one.
Did you see the forum post I tagged you in? Are you interested in Mafia at all?
Fair enough I suppose. I'll redo my vote.
I haven't used them much before, but everything about Con's R1 struck me as being very GPT-esque. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but AI writing has a certain style that's generally pretty easy to identify. I used the detectors as evidence for my claim and to ensure that I wasn't just jumping to conclusions.
To what extent did you use AI, exactly? I may rescind my vote.
AI Detectors:
https://quillbot.com/ai-content-detector
https://gptzero.me/
https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector
Given how repetitive this debate got towards the end, I think it's a good example of why I believe that the vast majority of debates don't need to be longer then three rounds, or four if you're doing the whole "I waive the first round, my opponent waives the last round" thing. If you're a competent debater who is knowledgeable about the topic at hand, then three rounds should be sufficient to make your entire case.
I'll try and get my vote up before the voting period expires.
Also, just helpful suggestion, there's a vote request thread in the forums where you can request a vote on your debate. I'd recommend posting there if you have a debate no one has voted on.
Look, there's a lot I could say here, but frankly I don't desire to carry on this discussion with you. I think it's pretty clear that Pro simply wanted to find another Christian to debate with about Christian doctrine. I understood this immediately, and was not offended, because I don't need to be able to participate in every single debate. You can complain about them being "biased" if you want. My suggestion would be to find a bridge and get over it.
"For example, if an atheist takes the debate (without the rule) they could argue that the father and the holy spirit are not distinct persons because neither exists despite the Bible's insistence that they might, and that is completely valid position that works well within the topic if a rule not requiring you to act as a Christian is never made ."
Do you seriously see nothing wrong with this? Yeah, you could do that, but now the ENTIRE topic of the debate has been changed completely. That's what the rule is meant to prevent. Do you seriously not get that? Or do you just want to have the right to be as annoying as fuck? Because having someone barge in and completely derail the debate IS annoying, and I would never judge anyone for including a rule to prevent that. In fact, I'd encourage it.
That analogy is so deeply flawed, it doesn't even make sense. This is a doctrinal debate -- it's about whether or not a certain doctrine is supported by the Bible. Starting with the assumption that the Bible is true is *completely standard* for this type of debate. It would be an odd choice to not include it.
I absolutely do NOT understand what you're getting at. CA wants to debate whether or not the bible supports the idea that the Father and the Holy Spirit are different persons, not whether or not the bible is the divinely inspired and inerrant word of God. The rule exists to make sure the debate stay on-topic. What's wrong with that?
Honestly, I would say so. I think it lives up to the standard.
It was, and I definitely put off my vote until the last minute, but it was a good read. Congrats on maintaining your winning streak!
Two excellent, undefeated debaters on this site? I will definitely vote on it.
Remind me to vote on this debate this weekend.
I have to say, I found your arguments in this debate to be very surprising in that you hardly mentioned God at all. In your previous debate, you argued that "if God does not exist, then morality is speculative at best", yet here, you made an argument for moral realism while scarcely appealing to God at all. I must ask, why is that?
This is actually so easy to counter that I'm not even going to bother. It would be too easy.
> "I will say that I find it a little confusing that you both say that I did not give you a reason to doubt the possibility of Jesus resurrection when you also point out that I proved such an event is medically impossible and that Pro conceded that point."
That's not really what I said. I said that "Con doesn't seem to dispute that a supernatural event could at least theoretically happen, so Pro really just has to show evidence that a fully natural explanation for the events around Jesus's death is less likely than the given supernatural one."
And yes, you did draw a distinction between viewing the Bible as a religious text and viewing it as a factual, historical account, but there's a difference between doing that and actually arguing that a supernatural event simply can't happen at all. I agree that the medical impossibility of resurrection after brain death means that Pro has a difficult case to prove, but as I said, they just had to show that the given supernatural event was more likely than a completely natural explanation.
> "Lastly, I disagree with you saying that I put undue burden of proof is on Pro because ultimately the burden of proof is on pro. He is the one who must prove that it is possibility of Jesus coming back to life. My job as Con was to show reasons for why we should doubt it."
Well, yes, but there's different standards for the burden of proof. Compare civil trials and criminal trials in the US, for instance. In both types of trials, the one bringing the case generally has the burden of proof, but in a criminal trial the burden of proof is much stricter than in a civil trial (preponderance of evidence vs beyond a reasonable doubt). Pro only needed to prove that the resurrection was *probable*, not that there is no reasonable doubt that it happened. It seemed like you wanted Pro to be able to prove it as an absolute fact, when that was never necessary for them.
I feel I should add on a little bit to my vote -- a lot of the discussion in this debate was around the idea that the fact that the disciples believed they had seen Jesus after his death does not mean that they actually had. Pro did not disagree with this idea, but argues that it's still strong evidence in favor of the resurrection actually happening. Con tries to provide a counterexample with Nazi soldiers dying for the cause of Adolf Hitler. (Why do so many debaters feel the need to invoke Nazi Germany when it's not directly relevant?) However, as Pro points out, most of these soldiers did not directly interact with Hitler himself, but fell for propaganda. I agree with this point, but more broadly, I can't say that I really understand Con's comparison in the first place, as it's not as though Nazi soldiers believed that Hitler had supernatural abilities or anything. No one disputes that Adolf Hitler existed. On the other hand, people do dispute whether the supernatural events talked about in the Bible actually happened and whether Jesus even existed at all. I don't really see the comparison that Con makes, so I don't think the argument really counts for anything.
Thank you for your well wishes! I am already on the mend, thankfully. Getting my vote in on time shouldn't be an issue.
I'm a bit sick right now, but I still plan on voting on this one.
I understand. I've let things slip away from me before as well.
Ah, I let this get away from me. I'll have my vote up by the end of Friday.
Truly one of the debates of all time
Seems like an interesting debate. I'll try to have my vote up by the end of this weekend
This debate is interesting so far. Tag me when all the rounds have been completed. I will vote on this one.
You voted for the wrong person.
I'm going to try and see if I can get my RfD completed in time, but I might not be able to. These past few days have just been crazy busy for me.
Sorry to keep you waiting! I did intend to have my arguments up earlier, but to be honest with you, I have a really bad habit of procrastinating until the last minute. Looking forward to your responses!
I saw your post on the vote requests thread. I've been slacking a little bit on this site. I have a round of arguments due in a debate I'm participating in, and there are a couple other debates I've been asked to vote on but haven't done so yet. I'm going to write my arguments, then vote on the other debates I said I'd vote on, but after that, I promise you, I will vote on this one.
I've read your opening arguments and it looks like this is going to be a good debate! I'll try to have my arguments up by the end of the week.
Voting conduct only due to forfeiture is allowed, but only if one party misses 40% of the debate or more due to forfeitures. Missing one round in a three round debate doesn't meet this bar, so you do actually have to explain the arguments section of your vote.
It's up to you to decide how to handle an opponent's forfeiture. You can decide to make no arguments if you wish, or you can summarize all the arguments you've made so far and try to present your case that you've made so far.
I genuinely do not know how even the most pro-gun person could genuinely believe this.
"moral sense theory is more obscure, perhaps I will get into it more when your debate is done, but I think it goes a long way to prove objective morality exists."
Sure, I'd like to hear more about it after this debate is over. Ethical theory is very interesting to me, personally, and I like learning more about it.
"Your opponent doesn't need to prove God exists. He could claim that in fact God is not real, but that if God were real hypothetically speaking than objective morality would have to be real."
Yup, he could do that. I was well aware of that when I created this debate. I'm interested to see what arguments he will use.
Sure, technically I don't have to disprove moral realism to win, but if I can successfully do so, then there is no way for my opponent to win. Conversely, my opponent could win by simply proving that morality is objective without bringing God into the equation at all. Given that he believes that objective morality can't exist without God, however, I doubt he'll take that route.
As far as moral theories go, I'll admit I'm not the most well-educated person. I know a bit about philosophy, but I'm no expert. But when it comes to theories like utilitarianism, Kantianism, etc., I find that they all seem to have been formed by starting with the conclusion that moral realism is true and working backwards from there. I don't think that any of them actually manage to prove that morality is objective.
It isn't tho, and I intend to prove it in this debate.
Let me know if there's anything you need me to adjust about the debate setup. Please do not reject the challenge; that will delete the entire debate. Just let me know if you need me to change anything and I can do so.