If you want me to revote, I can do that. I don't know why you particularly care about the amount of points you're getting, though. I can practically guarantee you won't lose this debate.
I can't speak for 21Pilots, but as for me, I was simply following the voting policy. If someone forfeits every round, or every round except the first, then you are allowed to award all the points to the other side on the basis of "full forfeiture". In this case, Pro did provide arguments for two rounds at least, so this doesn't apply. However, the voting policy still allows you to not award argument points if one side forfeits 40% or more of the debate. This is why I voted based on conduct alone. No sense writing out a whole detailed vote on a debate where the one with the BoP missed the majority of it.
Con obviously wins on arguments but also obviously used AI heavily. But Pro also used nothing but copy-pasting other sources in R3 and forfeited R4. So I'm really not sure how to vote here.
Does it really matter? I simply left sources and legibility tied, which for some reason awards them to both sides on this site. I'm not quite sure why, but I think it's obvious that no one will cast a vote in favor of your opponent. Even if they did, the mods would remove it. Trust me, you are in no danger of losing this one.
Honestly, 1 week. I know that's a lot of time and I understand if you don't want to be waiting up to a week for my arguments. However, I'm crazy busy at work these days. I have to work overtime almost every day. I might still accept if the time for argument is 3 days however. I'll have to think about it.
I'm guessing Pro either didn't mean to make the argument time only two hours, or didn't think through the consequences. I remember doing a 'speed debate' back on DDO once and had to put a ton of stipulations in the description to prevent myself from getting sniped. I lost that one (I admittedly didn't do very good research), but I still enjoyed that experience. I should do something like that again tbh.
P2 also seems unfounded. Just because something conceivably could exist, doesn't mean it does. There must be something I'm missing here, because I can't see how anyone could be convinced by this argument.
I have a bad habit of saying I'll vote on a debate and then not doing so. That being said, I do want to vote on this one. I'll try and get my vote up over the weekend. Probably won't come sooner.
You'd really never listened to Radiohead or Coldplay before this debate? The Bends and Parachutes aren't bad places to start for either band, but they're not either band's best. OK Computer (Radiohead) and Viva La Vida (Coldplay) are both much better imo.
I don't have the time to read through this debate and provide a full vote, but just skimming through it, it seems like the rare debate where one side is actually arguably deserving of all seven points, even in the absence of any forfeits or rule violations. That doesn't happen very often.
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.
If you want me to revote, I can do that. I don't know why you particularly care about the amount of points you're getting, though. I can practically guarantee you won't lose this debate.
I can't speak for 21Pilots, but as for me, I was simply following the voting policy. If someone forfeits every round, or every round except the first, then you are allowed to award all the points to the other side on the basis of "full forfeiture". In this case, Pro did provide arguments for two rounds at least, so this doesn't apply. However, the voting policy still allows you to not award argument points if one side forfeits 40% or more of the debate. This is why I voted based on conduct alone. No sense writing out a whole detailed vote on a debate where the one with the BoP missed the majority of it.
Con obviously wins on arguments but also obviously used AI heavily. But Pro also used nothing but copy-pasting other sources in R3 and forfeited R4. So I'm really not sure how to vote here.
Shit, I've been putting this off. I'll try and get my vote up when I get home tonight.
He cannot. He can create any standards he wants, but this system of morality is still inherently subjective to God.
Prove it.
With or without God
Because objective morality doesn't exist at all.
I would also be interested in doing this debate with you sometime. It will have to be later, however. As of late, I'm simply too busy.
Well, nvm then ig
Does it really matter? I simply left sources and legibility tied, which for some reason awards them to both sides on this site. I'm not quite sure why, but I think it's obvious that no one will cast a vote in favor of your opponent. Even if they did, the mods would remove it. Trust me, you are in no danger of losing this one.
Arabic numerals obviously must be banned to prevent the West from falling to Shakira law.
Honestly, 1 week. I know that's a lot of time and I understand if you don't want to be waiting up to a week for my arguments. However, I'm crazy busy at work these days. I have to work overtime almost every day. I might still accept if the time for argument is 3 days however. I'll have to think about it.
I may just accept this one, then. I would prefer more time to write arguments, however. I have a very busy schedule.
To be clear, you intend to take the Pro position?
Actually, I've changed my mind. I agree with Savant; this debate ought to be a tie. Would one of the mods please remove my vote?
What's the deal with new users and accidentally making debates with a two hour time limit for writing arguments? It's not the default option.
I'll vote on this one by the end of this weekend.
This is the best abortion debate I have ever read.
I'm guessing Pro either didn't mean to make the argument time only two hours, or didn't think through the consequences. I remember doing a 'speed debate' back on DDO once and had to put a ton of stipulations in the description to prevent myself from getting sniped. I lost that one (I admittedly didn't do very good research), but I still enjoyed that experience. I should do something like that again tbh.
Tempted to Kritik this one...
P2 also seems unfounded. Just because something conceivably could exist, doesn't mean it does. There must be something I'm missing here, because I can't see how anyone could be convinced by this argument.
How is P3 uncontroversial? It's basically just stating that anything which possibly exists, does exist. Where is the logic there?
I have a bad habit of saying I'll vote on a debate and then not doing so. That being said, I do want to vote on this one. I'll try and get my vote up over the weekend. Probably won't come sooner.
I mean, the way the resolution is worded makes this pretty trivial to argue against from an atheist perspective.
You'd really never listened to Radiohead or Coldplay before this debate? The Bends and Parachutes aren't bad places to start for either band, but they're not either band's best. OK Computer (Radiohead) and Viva La Vida (Coldplay) are both much better imo.
I don't have the time to read through this debate and provide a full vote, but just skimming through it, it seems like the rare debate where one side is actually arguably deserving of all seven points, even in the absence of any forfeits or rule violations. That doesn't happen very often.
Oh snap, almost forgot about this one. I'll try to get a vote up over the weekend
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.