Honestly, Pro is doing decently well so far. Barney is a good debater, but AmDeb is holding his own. The point he brought out at the end of Rebuttal #3 was both surprising and very strong imo. I could see this being Barney's first defeat, though at this point it's still anyone's game.
I already reported the vote. You can, too. If it doesn't get removed in a few days, feel free to message Whiteflame or Barney and they'll be able to remove it for you.
That's one of the most obvious vote bombs I've ever seen. You do realize you actually have to comment on the content of the debate, right? I have no idea why or even if you actually think Con is the winner.
Alright, I don't want to get deeper into this with you than I already have, so I'm just going to say that the absence of evidence is only evidence of absence in that it affects the probability of making something existing, but it doesn't typically prove something doesn't exist at all. You can use the lack of any direct evidence for God as evidence that one doesn't likely exist and that's valid. You just can't use it as proof that no God exists. That's the point I'm trying to make here. If you disagree with that, then idk what to tell you.
Anyway, I'm not going to carry on this particular conversation any further.
You're missing the point entirely. My point is that for your side to be true, it has to be possible to live a moral life, and in order for that to be true, moral realism has to be true. However, moral realism can't be true if morality is inherently subjective and vice-versa.
Also, the fact that morality isn't a tangible thing doesn't make it inherently subjective either. Mathematics is an intangible concept. That doesn't mean that the fact that 2+2=4 depends on people believing in it.
> I recognize my stance as Pro; I am simply highlighting that Con cannot provide any proof, as doing so would challenge the principles of science. Since the existence of God cannot be proven, my argument stands substantiated.
That's the thing though, Con doesn't have to prove anything if you have the burden of proof. All they have to do is show how your arguments are insufficient to prove God does not exist, which they are.
> Actually, that's a fallacy argument because you acknowledge that you lack sufficient proof to establish God, then you haven't proven God, and therefore, it, by definition, is not proven. Thus admitting that God can't be proven.
Incorrect. Again, you are committing the argument from ignorance fallacy. You are making the invalid assumption that because something has not been proven, it cannot be proven and must therefore be false. Mathematicians have been trying to prove the Riemann Hypothesis for decades and have been unable to, yet there is still little doubt that it's actually true. Many theorems have been proven that rely on it being true. Again, Con doesn't have the BoP here and doesn't have to prove that God exists. As long as they can prove that his existence is at least possible, then they win.
You completely misunderstand the burden of proof. Generally speaking, the Pro position is assumed to have the primary burden of proof in a debate, which means that you would have to prove that God doesn't exist. It's funny that you bring up that you can't assert something is true just because something hasn't been disproven, when you are doing exactly that, but in inverse. You're assuming that God doesn't exist because his existence hasn't been proven. Either way, it's the logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. At best, you can say we have insufficient evidence to believe in God and maybe even argue that God's existence is unlikely, but you can't disprove it, and that's actually what you have to do in this debate since you have the presumptive burden of proof.
I've seen that done before. I remember looking at old debates on this site and seeing a debate where bsh1 argued against the existence of God by defining God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity, and ended up winning. However, bsh1 wasn't actually trying to argue that God didn't exist, but that it was more reasonable to not have faith in his existence than to have faith, and he clearly defined 'God' in the description of the debate. Here, Pro just defines 'God' as the entity who created the world, and is just using an argument from ignorance to try and 'prove' his non-existence
By arguing that morality is subjective, you're pretty much undermining your whole case. The resolution of this debate implies that a moral life is a thing that one can, in fact, lead, which further implies moral realism. You've basically Kritik'ed your own setup here.
Also, your arguments don't actually disprove moral realism. Everybody on Earth could be wrong about what is and isn't moral and morality could still be objective. If no one believes something to be true, it doesn't cease to be true.
As an atheist myself, I of course don't consider myself to be an immoral person. However, I think there is an interesting angle that one could use to argue the Con side. I'll wait to see if you get anyone that genuinely disagrees with you, but if a few days pass with no takers, I'll consider playing Devil's Advocate.
I mean, if you view constitutionality through the eyes of constitutional law, then there really isn't a debate here. Under the Dobbs decision, it is no longer considered a constitutional right. If you were to ask whether it *ought* to be considered one, however, that would be a more interesting question.
"I strongly suspect that Pro just wrote out all of their rounds in advance, because they keep bringing up new points and don't respond to anything Con said."
I'm pretty sure BK has literally said he does exactly that.
That makes sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand where you're coming from. However, the way you have framed the debate makes it unclear whether the underlying thing that needs to be proven is whether e-cigarettes are *dangerous* or whether they ought to be *banned*. Again it could be argued that even if they are dangerous, the government has no right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body. I don't find that to be a particularly compelling argument, but some people believe in that very strongly and would argue along those lines. However, you say in the very first line of your description that Con MUST prove that e-cigs aren't dangerous. If you want Con to be able to argue that they shouldn't be banned regardless of the health risks, you should change that.
Your title (and presumptive resolution) says that e-cigarettes should be banned for children under sixteen, but the first line of your description says, "Pro must prove that e-cigarettes are dangerous for children while con must prove they aren't." One could argue that they should not be banned even if they are dangerous. Do you want to debate the ban, or do you want to debate whether e-cigarettes are harmful? You should make that clear.
I found the original debate through the Hall of Fame, but it's been a couple years since that debate took place, and I'm not sure how many people that are still active here would be interested in it. I saw that you left a comment on the original debate saying that you were on the fence but leaning Pro, but since you're a pretty good debater, I feel like you could argue for the Con side fairly well. Are you at all interested?
Are reports on votes currently functional? I've reported a couple votes, including TheUnderdog's vote on this debate, but I haven't seen any mod response to either of them.
Oh wait, I can't accept rated debates currently. You'd have to make this debate standard for me to accept anyway. If you really want this debate to be rated, that's fine.
Thanks again for the debate. It was an interesting one. I can honestly say this is the only metric vs. imperial debate I've ever seen where the barleycorn and the typographical point got mentioned more than Fahrenheit and Celsius, lol. Usually, that becomes a major point of contention, but in this debate it hardly came up at all. I mentioned Fahrenheit and Celsius briefly in round 1 and then they never got brought up again. I can honestly say I wasn't expecting that, though I was totally prepared to defend Fahrenheit.
Sure thing, if I get my voting qualification before the voting period is ended I will definitely vote on it. I hate to see a debate tie solely due to being unvoted.
All I have to do to get my voting rights is complete three debates without forfeiting. One is already done, I'm just about to complete another, and I plan on making another brief debate very shortly.
That's fair; the relatively low character limit prevented this debate from getting really in-depth, which I think is a shame because there's always so many complex angles to consider when it comes to presidential elections.
Here's the thing though, as Con, you're trying to argue that the charges aren't politically motivated, but the way that the resolution (or question, really) is worded implies that you're arguing that they aren't politically motivated *at all*. If voters agree with that interpretation, and a good debater could certainly persuade them that way, then all it would take for Pro is to argue that the charges were politically motivated at least in part, even if there were other motivations and even if these other motivations took precedence. That's hard to argue against.
Just trying to save you from getting noob stomped.
I can't vote yet. I'm going to start a new debate soon and I might get my voting qualification before the voting period has expired. If not, I'll make a post in the forums detailing how I would have voted and why. I'll reread the debate before casting my vote, but for now, I'm leaning towards Pro. Overall, I think they did a better job connecting their arguments to the resolution.
"The difference from Hitler is that Trump isn't a war criminal and his actions can't possibly lead to a war if you exclude a nuclear bomb threat he had made years ago."
In other words, Trump's actions can't possibly lead to war except for when he threatens war. 10/10 argument
To be honest, I'm surprised this site hasn't seen more of this type of debate. Given that both contestants seem at least minimally competent at debating, I'll be interested to see how this one turns out. (For the record, I'm absolutely team Biden. I don't think anything could make me vote for Trump at this point.)
I'd consider joining this debate, if not for the fact that I'm in the middle of another debate currently and the instigator of this one is a newbie who so far has not proven that they won't simply FF.
Pro may have a point, but I find it ironic that you of all people agree, given that you're third on the leaderboards, have never lost a debate, and yet have hardly instigated any debates on this site. No shade, I just think that's kinda funny.
Honestly, with abortion rights under siege, the rise of "influencers" like Andrew Tate, and the growing presence of Christian nationalism in our government, I feel like feminism is *more* necessary in the US now than it has been in quite some time.
That makes sense to me, considering it was a bit shorter than your other rounds. I meant to have my R3 arguments up earlier, but I didn't quite get around to working on it.
Honestly, Pro is doing decently well so far. Barney is a good debater, but AmDeb is holding his own. The point he brought out at the end of Rebuttal #3 was both surprising and very strong imo. I could see this being Barney's first defeat, though at this point it's still anyone's game.
I already reported the vote. You can, too. If it doesn't get removed in a few days, feel free to message Whiteflame or Barney and they'll be able to remove it for you.
That's one of the most obvious vote bombs I've ever seen. You do realize you actually have to comment on the content of the debate, right? I have no idea why or even if you actually think Con is the winner.
Seems like an interesting debate. I'm about to get my voting qualification. I'll vote on this one over the weekend.
Pro tip: if you want to go up against people who won't just full forfeit, start making rated debates.
Yeah, iirc a majority of accounts that are created on this site never complete a debate.
Alright, I don't want to get deeper into this with you than I already have, so I'm just going to say that the absence of evidence is only evidence of absence in that it affects the probability of making something existing, but it doesn't typically prove something doesn't exist at all. You can use the lack of any direct evidence for God as evidence that one doesn't likely exist and that's valid. You just can't use it as proof that no God exists. That's the point I'm trying to make here. If you disagree with that, then idk what to tell you.
Anyway, I'm not going to carry on this particular conversation any further.
You're missing the point entirely. My point is that for your side to be true, it has to be possible to live a moral life, and in order for that to be true, moral realism has to be true. However, moral realism can't be true if morality is inherently subjective and vice-versa.
Also, the fact that morality isn't a tangible thing doesn't make it inherently subjective either. Mathematics is an intangible concept. That doesn't mean that the fact that 2+2=4 depends on people believing in it.
> I recognize my stance as Pro; I am simply highlighting that Con cannot provide any proof, as doing so would challenge the principles of science. Since the existence of God cannot be proven, my argument stands substantiated.
That's the thing though, Con doesn't have to prove anything if you have the burden of proof. All they have to do is show how your arguments are insufficient to prove God does not exist, which they are.
> Actually, that's a fallacy argument because you acknowledge that you lack sufficient proof to establish God, then you haven't proven God, and therefore, it, by definition, is not proven. Thus admitting that God can't be proven.
Incorrect. Again, you are committing the argument from ignorance fallacy. You are making the invalid assumption that because something has not been proven, it cannot be proven and must therefore be false. Mathematicians have been trying to prove the Riemann Hypothesis for decades and have been unable to, yet there is still little doubt that it's actually true. Many theorems have been proven that rely on it being true. Again, Con doesn't have the BoP here and doesn't have to prove that God exists. As long as they can prove that his existence is at least possible, then they win.
You completely misunderstand the burden of proof. Generally speaking, the Pro position is assumed to have the primary burden of proof in a debate, which means that you would have to prove that God doesn't exist. It's funny that you bring up that you can't assert something is true just because something hasn't been disproven, when you are doing exactly that, but in inverse. You're assuming that God doesn't exist because his existence hasn't been proven. Either way, it's the logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. At best, you can say we have insufficient evidence to believe in God and maybe even argue that God's existence is unlikely, but you can't disprove it, and that's actually what you have to do in this debate since you have the presumptive burden of proof.
I've seen that done before. I remember looking at old debates on this site and seeing a debate where bsh1 argued against the existence of God by defining God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity, and ended up winning. However, bsh1 wasn't actually trying to argue that God didn't exist, but that it was more reasonable to not have faith in his existence than to have faith, and he clearly defined 'God' in the description of the debate. Here, Pro just defines 'God' as the entity who created the world, and is just using an argument from ignorance to try and 'prove' his non-existence
Unless you think you can literally prove that god does not exist, your burden of proof in this debate is literally impossible to meet.
By arguing that morality is subjective, you're pretty much undermining your whole case. The resolution of this debate implies that a moral life is a thing that one can, in fact, lead, which further implies moral realism. You've basically Kritik'ed your own setup here.
Also, your arguments don't actually disprove moral realism. Everybody on Earth could be wrong about what is and isn't moral and morality could still be objective. If no one believes something to be true, it doesn't cease to be true.
Again, if you want to get opponents that won't just forfeit every round, start making rated debates.
As an atheist myself, I of course don't consider myself to be an immoral person. However, I think there is an interesting angle that one could use to argue the Con side. I'll wait to see if you get anyone that genuinely disagrees with you, but if a few days pass with no takers, I'll consider playing Devil's Advocate.
I mean, if you view constitutionality through the eyes of constitutional law, then there really isn't a debate here. Under the Dobbs decision, it is no longer considered a constitutional right. If you were to ask whether it *ought* to be considered one, however, that would be a more interesting question.
Thank you for voting!
Hey Moozer, I don't know if you'll see this before it's too late, but you're running out of time to post your round 1 arguments.
If you want to find more serious opponents, you should consider making your debates rated. New accounts can't join rated debates.
"I strongly suspect that Pro just wrote out all of their rounds in advance, because they keep bringing up new points and don't respond to anything Con said."
I'm pretty sure BK has literally said he does exactly that.
His ban should have expired the other day. I wonder why he's not back yet.
That makes sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand where you're coming from. However, the way you have framed the debate makes it unclear whether the underlying thing that needs to be proven is whether e-cigarettes are *dangerous* or whether they ought to be *banned*. Again it could be argued that even if they are dangerous, the government has no right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body. I don't find that to be a particularly compelling argument, but some people believe in that very strongly and would argue along those lines. However, you say in the very first line of your description that Con MUST prove that e-cigs aren't dangerous. If you want Con to be able to argue that they shouldn't be banned regardless of the health risks, you should change that.
Your title (and presumptive resolution) says that e-cigarettes should be banned for children under sixteen, but the first line of your description says, "Pro must prove that e-cigarettes are dangerous for children while con must prove they aren't." One could argue that they should not be banned even if they are dangerous. Do you want to debate the ban, or do you want to debate whether e-cigarettes are harmful? You should make that clear.
This is the single best debate I've ever seen
I see. On an unrelated note, would you be interested in this debate of mine?
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5510-misterchris-won-against-rationalmadman-in-their-2022-penal-substitutionary-atonement-psa-debate
I found the original debate through the Hall of Fame, but it's been a couple years since that debate took place, and I'm not sure how many people that are still active here would be interested in it. I saw that you left a comment on the original debate saying that you were on the fence but leaning Pro, but since you're a pretty good debater, I feel like you could argue for the Con side fairly well. Are you at all interested?
Are reports on votes currently functional? I've reported a couple votes, including TheUnderdog's vote on this debate, but I haven't seen any mod response to either of them.
Oh wait, I can't accept rated debates currently. You'd have to make this debate standard for me to accept anyway. If you really want this debate to be rated, that's fine.
Okay, I've thought about this a bit and I'm interested in this debate. Increase the character limit to at least 5,000 and I'll accept.
Debating people who are more experienced and better than you is good for you in the long run. It helps you grow as a debater.
Thanks again for the debate. It was an interesting one. I can honestly say this is the only metric vs. imperial debate I've ever seen where the barleycorn and the typographical point got mentioned more than Fahrenheit and Celsius, lol. Usually, that becomes a major point of contention, but in this debate it hardly came up at all. I mentioned Fahrenheit and Celsius briefly in round 1 and then they never got brought up again. I can honestly say I wasn't expecting that, though I was totally prepared to defend Fahrenheit.
Bibliography
(1) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/5/74/contents/enacted
(2) https://web.archive.org/web/20200609181755/https://qz.com/1458672/the-history-of-the-international-prototype-kilogram/
(3) https://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/upload/frn-59-5442-1959.pdf [NOTE: opens a pdf]
(4) https://web.archive.org/web/20180224003632/http://www.sf.airnet.ne.jp/ts/language/number/ndom.html
(5) https://wals.info/feature/131A#2/33.1/146.4
(6) https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cg/cgpm/26-2018/resolution-1
(7) https://www.etymonline.com/word/kilo-#etymonline_v_35298
(8) https://www.etymonline.com/word/centi-#etymonline_v_27865
(9) https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1681-7575/ac6afd
Oh, I guess you figured it out lol
Try typing the first three or four letters of a username into the "Mentions" box and you should get suggestions. Click the one you want.
Sure thing, if I get my voting qualification before the voting period is ended I will definitely vote on it. I hate to see a debate tie solely due to being unvoted.
All I have to do to get my voting rights is complete three debates without forfeiting. One is already done, I'm just about to complete another, and I plan on making another brief debate very shortly.
That's fair; the relatively low character limit prevented this debate from getting really in-depth, which I think is a shame because there's always so many complex angles to consider when it comes to presidential elections.
Here's the thing though, as Con, you're trying to argue that the charges aren't politically motivated, but the way that the resolution (or question, really) is worded implies that you're arguing that they aren't politically motivated *at all*. If voters agree with that interpretation, and a good debater could certainly persuade them that way, then all it would take for Pro is to argue that the charges were politically motivated at least in part, even if there were other motivations and even if these other motivations took precedence. That's hard to argue against.
Just trying to save you from getting noob stomped.
I can't vote yet. I'm going to start a new debate soon and I might get my voting qualification before the voting period has expired. If not, I'll make a post in the forums detailing how I would have voted and why. I'll reread the debate before casting my vote, but for now, I'm leaning towards Pro. Overall, I think they did a better job connecting their arguments to the resolution.
I'm very sorry you did that. You're going to lose a conduct point now.
Tip: don't start so many debates at once. Stick to one, maybe two debates at a time.
Seems my intuition was correct.
"The difference from Hitler is that Trump isn't a war criminal and his actions can't possibly lead to a war if you exclude a nuclear bomb threat he had made years ago."
In other words, Trump's actions can't possibly lead to war except for when he threatens war. 10/10 argument
You're starting a lot of debates at once, huh?
To be honest, I'm surprised this site hasn't seen more of this type of debate. Given that both contestants seem at least minimally competent at debating, I'll be interested to see how this one turns out. (For the record, I'm absolutely team Biden. I don't think anything could make me vote for Trump at this point.)
My parents went camping for memorial day weekend. I went to visit them on Saturday. Other than that, I just chilled at home for the most part.
By the way, you're running out of time to post an argument. I figured I'd let you know.
I feel like this one is pretty much just a truism.
I'd consider joining this debate, if not for the fact that I'm in the middle of another debate currently and the instigator of this one is a newbie who so far has not proven that they won't simply FF.
Pro may have a point, but I find it ironic that you of all people agree, given that you're third on the leaderboards, have never lost a debate, and yet have hardly instigated any debates on this site. No shade, I just think that's kinda funny.
Honestly, with abortion rights under siege, the rise of "influencers" like Andrew Tate, and the growing presence of Christian nationalism in our government, I feel like feminism is *more* necessary in the US now than it has been in quite some time.
That makes sense to me, considering it was a bit shorter than your other rounds. I meant to have my R3 arguments up earlier, but I didn't quite get around to working on it.
How was your Memorial Day weekend?
I'm curious how you would have voted on this one.