Yes I am correct that pro means taking a side of an argument. I am also correct that it does not mean "shorthand for protagonist", which means you were incorrect when you said that is what it meant.
Is it possible for you to admit that you were incorrect?
Hmmm...
But anyway, as for your question to me...
I have answered this question already, comrade.
A debate is a discussion where people take positions on a topic and argue in favor of their position.
That is simply what the word debate means.
Look it up in the dictionary. "Debate" and "discussion" are not synonyms.
If you wanted a discussion where positions are not taken then you do not want a debate.
If you do not want a debate then you should not start a debate.
If you start a debate there is a chance that someone will accept your debate.
That is the reason that you should start a debate only if you want a debate.
So if what you seek is a discussion without a debate... Listen carefully...
If you do not know what the meaning of the word forum is then I will tell you:
An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.
This is the definition given by Wikipedia.
On the top of your screen there is a word which you may click. This word is "forum".
Pro is not shorthand for protagonist. Nor is it shorthand for progenitor.
Notice that next to pro it says "instigator".
Instigator indicates that you instigated the debate.
Look at other debates you will notice that some have the instigator as con and the contender as pro.
This is possible due to the fact that pro and instigator are not synonyms.
Pro in this context means to be in favor of. For example "I am pro human rights".
Con in this context means to be against. It is short for "contra".
I wish to tell you something... A debate is a discussion where people take positions on a topic and argue in favor of their position.
That is simply what the word debate means.
Look it up in the dictionary. "Debate" and "discussion" are not synonyms.
If no position is taken then it isn't a debate.
Because that is what is required by a debate, taking a position.
That is why when you set up a debate the site has you take a position. Either pro or con. It is one of the drop-down menus.
You could have selected the con position. You chose the pro position instead. That was your choice.
If you did not know what pro and con meant then you could have looked it up after you saw the option to select either the pro or con position while creating the debate.
Your misunderstanding is therefore not the websites fault. It is yours.
"because I exageretd it, disc_dic is not interested in exaggerations"
Pointing out that your opponent is only interested in the truth is usually not considered an insult.
Furthermore the definitions we agreed to allowed more than enough room for exaggeration as fauxlaw has already pointed out. The fact that women experience more poverty than men means that you were wrong, it doesn't mean I cheated.
I am a feminist? Laughable. Want to debate that topic too Frankie?
The resolution would be "Discipulus_Didicit is a feminist". Present a reasonable definition of the word feminist and I will set the debate up right now.
I would agree that the definition of "rare" which I proposed is way more lenient than would be fair. These definitions definitely favored my opponent. As I said in round 2:
"This is due to my very lenient definitions of the words 'only' and 'rare'. A stricter interpretation of the resolution would technically make my job a bit easier but the claim is outlandish enough that I think my job is easy enough as it is."
In theory the higher the number of exceptions allowed the easier this debate is for pro so I intentionally gave the definition a ridiculous value specifically with the intent to show just how ridiculous pro's claim is.
Yea giving pro points for conduct is definitely fair. I kinda got frustrated at responding to arguments that started devolving into blocks of gibberish text and never really cared about my leaderboard position so just sort of forgot this debate even existed.
As always thank you for taking the time to read the debate and leave a vote.
Yeah I understand that the public dole was the issue, that was pretty clear. That is why I worded my question the way I did with emphasis on the 'god/bad for society over individuals' aspect. I still think I had a valid point but you are right that we should not talk too much about it while in the voting period and like I said I only skimmed it and will be reading more closely later, perhaps something you said already will change my mind.
Have not read the entire debate yet. I did skim it though and noticed one of cons arguments was that increased lifespans increase the chance of people eventually becoming afflicted with some form of disease. This seems silly to me. Let's take cancer for example. If aging is cured but cancer is not cured then more people are likely to end up with cancer as their lives progress, yes this is true. If you are saying that trading death for cancer is a net negative however then you are by definition saying that a bunch of people with cancer is litterally worse for society than a bunch of people dying. If this is the case then would con be willing to advocate for the euthenasia of people that have cancer today (without a cure for aging)? Why or why not? I do understand that it is an argument from the point of view of what is more beneficial for society (a person dying or a person having cancer) and not what is more beneficial for the individual. My question remains.
I will be reading through this debate entirely at some point, though probably will not be voting on it. I hope pro brought up something along the lines of what I just did.
If this is going to be a Roko's Basilisk debate I wish I had accepted before Oromagi. Easy win for con. Obviously I am not going to explain why because that would just help oro which would be incredibly rude of me but in short I am familiar with the concept but have serious doubts regarding that thought experiments litteral real-world application.
Challenger space shuttle described as a 'not so famous event'
LMAO the Challenger launch is one of the most well-known space exploration disasters in history. Anybody who knows anything at all about space has heard of Challenger. Describing it as a little-known event honestly makes it seem like con doesn't know much on the subject and just Googled 'space disaster' then when the top result was something about Challenger (because, again, very well known event so naturally a top result) they said "wow I never heard of this before. Well if I never heard of it I assume nobody else has either!"
Edit: As a test I googled just "space disaster", nothing else, and on a brand new phone I just got last week and have not connected my Google account to so no results tailored for me. All top 3 results were listicles about space disasters and all 3 included Challenger launch. Unsuprisingly Colombia was in a lot of the results too.
Lmao Speedrace made a thread about wanting people to challenge him to a debate so I threw a bunch of nonsense phrases at him. I had just happened to read the SCP-001-ex file a few days before that so I decided to take the nonsense phrases from there. I didn't expect him to accept any challenges, but then I suspect that he didn't expect me to make a serious argument in favor of a [seemingly] nonsense phrase.
Are you forfeiting because you want that to be the end of the debate like we discussed? If yes then I will put "Agreed to end the debate here, please disregard pros forfeit and any further arguments by pro or myself. See comments for details." as my next round.
Voters are not going to count any arguments made in the comments section so go ahead and just say it in the debate section. Bring up something good and I promise to devote more than a half hour to my next round.
"How can silver choose to kill bad germs but strengthens the good germs?"
It doesn't. You have done nothing to demonstrate that it does other than link to ads for 'jesus juice' and voters are going to notice this. Please try harder so I don't get bored and forget this debate exists.
Okay I seriously want to know... is this a debate or an ad page? because you have mostly just been advertising for a bunch of random products that have been various levels of pseudo scientific in nature.
Saying 'here is my argument' and not making an argument but instead linking other peoples arguments should honestly be grounds for awarding conduct points.
Five rounds seems a bit long for this debate but I am willing if that is really what you want. If at any point you wish for the debate to be shorter I am fine with that though. For example if you decide after three rounds that we have talked enough then you can just put for round four and five "Cutting the debate short as suggested by my opponent in the comments" or something like that and I will just put "Agreed" in my round four and five, or at any other point if you wish.
But like I said I am willing to slog through five whole rounds... just seems like that will be more than necessary.
I reccomend you use part of round one to explain to the audience just what healing properties you are referring to. I know what you mean because I was on the thread that started this debate and you talked about it there but not everyone voting on this debate will have seen that thread.
You don't have to do this but I recommend it because it will help your case by reducing confusion among the voters, thus limiting the possibility of me using some unforeseen technicality to steal a win.
Yes I am correct that pro means taking a side of an argument. I am also correct that it does not mean "shorthand for protagonist", which means you were incorrect when you said that is what it meant.
Is it possible for you to admit that you were incorrect?
Hmmm...
But anyway, as for your question to me...
I have answered this question already, comrade.
A debate is a discussion where people take positions on a topic and argue in favor of their position.
That is simply what the word debate means.
Look it up in the dictionary. "Debate" and "discussion" are not synonyms.
If you wanted a discussion where positions are not taken then you do not want a debate.
If you do not want a debate then you should not start a debate.
If you start a debate there is a chance that someone will accept your debate.
That is the reason that you should start a debate only if you want a debate.
So if what you seek is a discussion without a debate... Listen carefully...
If you do not know what the meaning of the word forum is then I will tell you:
An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.
This is the definition given by Wikipedia.
On the top of your screen there is a word which you may click. This word is "forum".
I think I have given you enough hints for now...
"I never speak in an absolute manner"
My question - Do you mean absolutely never or do you mean sometimes never?
Pro is not shorthand for protagonist. Nor is it shorthand for progenitor.
Notice that next to pro it says "instigator".
Instigator indicates that you instigated the debate.
Look at other debates you will notice that some have the instigator as con and the contender as pro.
This is possible due to the fact that pro and instigator are not synonyms.
Pro in this context means to be in favor of. For example "I am pro human rights".
Con in this context means to be against. It is short for "contra".
I wish to tell you something... A debate is a discussion where people take positions on a topic and argue in favor of their position.
That is simply what the word debate means.
Look it up in the dictionary. "Debate" and "discussion" are not synonyms.
If no position is taken then it isn't a debate.
Because that is what is required by a debate, taking a position.
That is why when you set up a debate the site has you take a position. Either pro or con. It is one of the drop-down menus.
You could have selected the con position. You chose the pro position instead. That was your choice.
If you did not know what pro and con meant then you could have looked it up after you saw the option to select either the pro or con position while creating the debate.
Your misunderstanding is therefore not the websites fault. It is yours.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-pros-and-cons-stand-for
Pro was doing pretty good right up until about a third of the way through his first round. He lost the plot pretty quickly after that.
I just... Do you know what the words pro and con mean?
Should have been an easy win for con.
Uhhh... The upper left part of your screen. The part where it says you took the pro position on the topic. Green rectangle with your username on it.
smh
Question asked by debate title: Is covid-19 a punishment for the whities?
Answer given by marij: Yes.
Later statement by marij: I never said God is specifically punishing the whities.
Classic.
The question that was asked:
Why would God infect any non-whites if he was specifically punishing whites?
The question that was answered:
Why would you say God didn't infect non-whites?
Note that these are not the same question, yet mairj will pretend to have answered Michael's question (despite blatantly ignoring it).
This debate was decided when pro misspelled a three letter word when quoting a common proverb.
I doubt anyone will accept due to the word "immediate".
I accept your admission that you were wrong and acknowledge your resulting backpedal away from your previous bold claim.
"because I exageretd it, disc_dic is not interested in exaggerations"
Pointing out that your opponent is only interested in the truth is usually not considered an insult.
Furthermore the definitions we agreed to allowed more than enough room for exaggeration as fauxlaw has already pointed out. The fact that women experience more poverty than men means that you were wrong, it doesn't mean I cheated.
I accept your admission that you were wrong and the resulting unwillingness to debate.
What does the word disposition mean then, kiddo?
"You want male disposition"
I can only assume you don't know what the word disposition means since that is a nonsense sentence that has no meaning.
I am a feminist? Laughable. Want to debate that topic too Frankie?
The resolution would be "Discipulus_Didicit is a feminist". Present a reasonable definition of the word feminist and I will set the debate up right now.
I would agree that the definition of "rare" which I proposed is way more lenient than would be fair. These definitions definitely favored my opponent. As I said in round 2:
"This is due to my very lenient definitions of the words 'only' and 'rare'. A stricter interpretation of the resolution would technically make my job a bit easier but the claim is outlandish enough that I think my job is easy enough as it is."
In theory the higher the number of exceptions allowed the easier this debate is for pro so I intentionally gave the definition a ridiculous value specifically with the intent to show just how ridiculous pro's claim is.
I accept Frankie's admission that he was wrong and his subsequent forfeit.
Really? You are actually okay with all the definitions I laid out?
I assume you meant pro, in which case I may agree lol.
Thanks =)
AIDS
Yea giving pro points for conduct is definitely fair. I kinda got frustrated at responding to arguments that started devolving into blocks of gibberish text and never really cared about my leaderboard position so just sort of forgot this debate even existed.
As always thank you for taking the time to read the debate and leave a vote.
Yeah I understand that the public dole was the issue, that was pretty clear. That is why I worded my question the way I did with emphasis on the 'god/bad for society over individuals' aspect. I still think I had a valid point but you are right that we should not talk too much about it while in the voting period and like I said I only skimmed it and will be reading more closely later, perhaps something you said already will change my mind.
Have not read the entire debate yet. I did skim it though and noticed one of cons arguments was that increased lifespans increase the chance of people eventually becoming afflicted with some form of disease. This seems silly to me. Let's take cancer for example. If aging is cured but cancer is not cured then more people are likely to end up with cancer as their lives progress, yes this is true. If you are saying that trading death for cancer is a net negative however then you are by definition saying that a bunch of people with cancer is litterally worse for society than a bunch of people dying. If this is the case then would con be willing to advocate for the euthenasia of people that have cancer today (without a cure for aging)? Why or why not? I do understand that it is an argument from the point of view of what is more beneficial for society (a person dying or a person having cancer) and not what is more beneficial for the individual. My question remains.
I will be reading through this debate entirely at some point, though probably will not be voting on it. I hope pro brought up something along the lines of what I just did.
After this debate perhaps we can talk about it. Again I don't want to give any help to either side.
If this is going to be a Roko's Basilisk debate I wish I had accepted before Oromagi. Easy win for con. Obviously I am not going to explain why because that would just help oro which would be incredibly rude of me but in short I am familiar with the concept but have serious doubts regarding that thought experiments litteral real-world application.
Help create Roko's Basilisk?
Right, that is what you said the first time. I said the opposite.
I never claimed it was a good attempt at a Kritik...
How do you still not know what silver is even after I explained it so clearly?
About 5.5 days left
Challenger space shuttle described as a 'not so famous event'
LMAO the Challenger launch is one of the most well-known space exploration disasters in history. Anybody who knows anything at all about space has heard of Challenger. Describing it as a little-known event honestly makes it seem like con doesn't know much on the subject and just Googled 'space disaster' then when the top result was something about Challenger (because, again, very well known event so naturally a top result) they said "wow I never heard of this before. Well if I never heard of it I assume nobody else has either!"
Edit: As a test I googled just "space disaster", nothing else, and on a brand new phone I just got last week and have not connected my Google account to so no results tailored for me. All top 3 results were listicles about space disasters and all 3 included Challenger launch. Unsuprisingly Colombia was in a lot of the results too.
'Not so famous event' my ass.
"I'm very much intrigued!"
Lmao Speedrace made a thread about wanting people to challenge him to a debate so I threw a bunch of nonsense phrases at him. I had just happened to read the SCP-001-ex file a few days before that so I decided to take the nonsense phrases from there. I didn't expect him to accept any challenges, but then I suspect that he didn't expect me to make a serious argument in favor of a [seemingly] nonsense phrase.
Are you forfeiting because you want that to be the end of the debate like we discussed? If yes then I will put "Agreed to end the debate here, please disregard pros forfeit and any further arguments by pro or myself. See comments for details." as my next round.
You busy with new mod duties or just get caught off guard by this not being a troll debate?
You both keep referring to con as pro and vice versa...
Voters are not going to count any arguments made in the comments section so go ahead and just say it in the debate section. Bring up something good and I promise to devote more than a half hour to my next round.
"How can silver choose to kill bad germs but strengthens the good germs?"
It doesn't. You have done nothing to demonstrate that it does other than link to ads for 'jesus juice' and voters are going to notice this. Please try harder so I don't get bored and forget this debate exists.
Okay I seriously want to know... is this a debate or an ad page? because you have mostly just been advertising for a bunch of random products that have been various levels of pseudo scientific in nature.
Saying 'here is my argument' and not making an argument but instead linking other peoples arguments should honestly be grounds for awarding conduct points.
I will have an argument up by time limit probably.
I am doing the alcohol for a Halloween party so it will be a good round one argument.
Prepare for defeat at my hands.
Shiiiiiiiit I forgot to link the paper
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2014/tb/c3tb21569e#!divAbstract
Like I said it's up to you when you want to end it bud. You really haven't done much so far other than restate the resolution though...
I am putting together my round one now.
Five rounds seems a bit long for this debate but I am willing if that is really what you want. If at any point you wish for the debate to be shorter I am fine with that though. For example if you decide after three rounds that we have talked enough then you can just put for round four and five "Cutting the debate short as suggested by my opponent in the comments" or something like that and I will just put "Agreed" in my round four and five, or at any other point if you wish.
But like I said I am willing to slog through five whole rounds... just seems like that will be more than necessary.
I'm working 60 hours this week so it may be a few days before my round one is complete. I will do so though, thanks in advance for your patience.
Agreed. I show that it is more likely that such effects do not require a supernatural intelligence to be behind them.
I reccomend you use part of round one to explain to the audience just what healing properties you are referring to. I know what you mean because I was on the thread that started this debate and you talked about it there but not everyone voting on this debate will have seen that thread.
You don't have to do this but I recommend it because it will help your case by reducing confusion among the voters, thus limiting the possibility of me using some unforeseen technicality to steal a win.
I think I finally figured out how to counter it. See posts 34 through 36...
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2644/god-precisly-set-asteroids?page=2&post_number=39