Let's say for the sake of argument that he is right that our ancestors had more good ideas than bad (it is subjective to a certain extent, so I would be willing to grant him that)... Agreeing with most of what a group says is no reason to feel obligated to agree with the rest as well. If you agree with say 85% percent of what they did then you can still toss out the remaining 15%.
So even accepting his shaky premise without question his conclusion is laughable.
If you admit that our ancestors were imperfect and did some good things and some bad things then why try to use their opinion on things as justification for anything? Just look at each individual thing on it's own, it doesn't matter what people of the past thought.
Damn lol I guess you did, I didn't even read the debate. It is a pretty obvious route to go though. The argument "X used to be considered good or bad and therefore should still be considered good or bad" is incredibly nonsensical.
"I highly advise if giving more than argument points, to single out the other areas with headings for quick review (makes it easy for the admin, and easy to double check yourself in case you forget something)."
I did exactly that lmao. The part of my RFD you quoted just now wasn't even part of the section where I explained why I gave con the source point, it was part of the section where I explained why I gave con points for arguments.
Sources: As noted above pro does claim to have sourced at least one statistic which he never did in fact source. There may have been other cases of this that I did not notice due to pros poor formatting of his sources making it difficult to tell which links (and MUCH more importantly what specifically within those links) were meant to support which statements of theirs. At one point pro just posts a link to a news websites homepage. In the future pro I recommend that you do something like what con did by placing the links to your sources closer to the part of your arguments they are meant to support or marking your supported statements with numbers like so (1) and assigning matching numbers to the source that is meant to support it.
Cons source formatting was imperfect as well. It was not always immediately clear just what specifically I was supposed to be looking at within a certain web page linked by con but I was usually able to figure out relatively easily what their intentions were. I feel justified in giving points for sources to con in this debate.
S&G: I recall noticing a few minor spelling and grammar mistakes but nothing significant enough to award points for.
Conduct: Pro clearly deserves to be penalized for conduct in this one. Putting aside the fact that the very first lines in their first round are rude insults directed at con their insistence that con answer a number of irrelevant questions then proceeding to take con answering of those questions outside of the debate and use those answers in the debate really rubbed me the wrong way. Pro, this is not a conversation between you and con. This is a debate. The only things that you should be including in the debate are things to convince the readers that your position is logically justified.
So con basically said "that is a bad argument to support your point, here is a good argument to support your point though."
Nice.
Yeah I saw that. Really stupid response.
Let's say for the sake of argument that he is right that our ancestors had more good ideas than bad (it is subjective to a certain extent, so I would be willing to grant him that)... Agreeing with most of what a group says is no reason to feel obligated to agree with the rest as well. If you agree with say 85% percent of what they did then you can still toss out the remaining 15%.
So even accepting his shaky premise without question his conclusion is laughable.
Oh and his response too. Jeez.
If you admit that our ancestors were imperfect and did some good things and some bad things then why try to use their opinion on things as justification for anything? Just look at each individual thing on it's own, it doesn't matter what people of the past thought.
This fucking guy!
Damn lol I guess you did, I didn't even read the debate. It is a pretty obvious route to go though. The argument "X used to be considered good or bad and therefore should still be considered good or bad" is incredibly nonsensical.
Ok, let me ask you a question. If democracy is fine, then why did our many ancestors before us not support it?
Why do so many American christians think that athiests want to make religion a crime?
I mean, I get that is what the propaganda your church and society throws at you but isn't it pretty obviously not true?
"The rest of this RFD can be found in the comments section due to character limitations."
"I highly advise if giving more than argument points, to single out the other areas with headings for quick review (makes it easy for the admin, and easy to double check yourself in case you forget something)."
I did exactly that lmao. The part of my RFD you quoted just now wasn't even part of the section where I explained why I gave con the source point, it was part of the section where I explained why I gave con points for arguments.
Here is the remainder of my RFD:
Sources: As noted above pro does claim to have sourced at least one statistic which he never did in fact source. There may have been other cases of this that I did not notice due to pros poor formatting of his sources making it difficult to tell which links (and MUCH more importantly what specifically within those links) were meant to support which statements of theirs. At one point pro just posts a link to a news websites homepage. In the future pro I recommend that you do something like what con did by placing the links to your sources closer to the part of your arguments they are meant to support or marking your supported statements with numbers like so (1) and assigning matching numbers to the source that is meant to support it.
Cons source formatting was imperfect as well. It was not always immediately clear just what specifically I was supposed to be looking at within a certain web page linked by con but I was usually able to figure out relatively easily what their intentions were. I feel justified in giving points for sources to con in this debate.
S&G: I recall noticing a few minor spelling and grammar mistakes but nothing significant enough to award points for.
Conduct: Pro clearly deserves to be penalized for conduct in this one. Putting aside the fact that the very first lines in their first round are rude insults directed at con their insistence that con answer a number of irrelevant questions then proceeding to take con answering of those questions outside of the debate and use those answers in the debate really rubbed me the wrong way. Pro, this is not a conversation between you and con. This is a debate. The only things that you should be including in the debate are things to convince the readers that your position is logically justified.
I fell asleep lol. Sorry.
Nevermind, I guess I can delete my own vote lol.
I have flagged my vote. Please delete my vote. I accidentally pressed the submit button before I was done writing the RFD.
That is a lot of words, but sure. Give me a few days to read through it and I can offer my vote.