Virt's right.
If it's the case that you want to award source points, you need to:
1. take at least one source example from Pro and say what it did for his case (impact).
2. take at least one source example from Con and say what it did for his case (impact).
3. say which impact was more successful and why (credibility, relevance, support).
So more accusations and defaming me publicly?
Noted.
What does moderation think about RM continuing to accuse me of collusion after being told by moderation to stop, see below.
Look, I don't want to speak for bifolkal, but he granted 2/3 of your burdens up front, so he gave you massive ground in the RFD.
Per the RFD, your 1st round was rather lacking in the intelligent department, right?
I think that's what bifolkal was getting at, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually yes, you were very honest, you addressed the major points, I just happen to disagree with your assessment, but your vote was thorough and points were taken.
"Had he challenged (1) and (3) then I think Con would have won big time with this argument."
I did, 3rd round when he says infer in the quote, he's referring to inferring causation when it could be correlation and the association fallacy of two categories.
"but it would be fallacious to infer that all minds, including any alleged supernatural minds like the mind of God, would also be contingent on neuroscience merely because both sets involve minds."
My response:
Ok, Pro, I'm claiming that intelligence is necessarily a property of neurological substrates, and that all evidence indicates that if these neurological substrates do not exist, then neither does consciousness, intention, or intelligence.
Pro can you show an example of intelligence that does not use or is not contingent on neurological substrates?
Like a computer is intelligent, but it's contingent on humans' neurological substrates to exist and process.
So, Pro, give an example of how intelligence can exist WITHOUT neurological substrates.
I'm saying that all of our examples indicate that intelligence and neurological substrates are inextricably connected, so we've no reason to infer that intelligence can exist outside of these neurological substrates, even if we assert supernature."
None of these were addressed and they directly link to the intelligence point.
Also, just for shits and giggles, how did Pro explain the phrase "timelessly prior?"
This was his explanation to his concession of my #1 and his drop of my claim that precedence is temporal.
Remember, Pro said that I had not made the argument and it was my first argument and central to my case, so he necessarily dropped that precedence is temporal and timelessly prior is not a contradiction you want your proof resting on.
"Con argues that the argument says that whatever exists has a cause, but Pro correctly pointed out that this is not what the argument says! It says whatever begins to exist has a cause. "
No, I pointed out and sourced the original first cause argument which the KCA is demonstrably a modern formulation of.
I even separated the two arguments, the original frist cause argument and the KCA, but you made it sound like I mischaracterized Pro's argument.
Conduct
Pro attempted two times to unfairly and rudely sway the voters.
1. Pro got a little testy and said to Con, “There is no way to deny it now Con, you dug your own grave on this one.”
Not only does Con mention that this should be considered bad conduct, I was thinking the exact same thing. Rather than provide a substantial argument, Pro resorted to angrily intimidating his opponent and saying that basically they lost.
I was debating on whether or not to give the conduct point here, but then Pro, in the last round sealed his conduct fate by ignoring the rules instructed to him to follow.
2. Instead of just nicely waiving the round without attempting to influence voters in a last ditch effort, Pro says “Unfair to bring so many new points in the last Round...Sadly I can't rebuke as per debate structure” this is both unfair to Con because it attempts to soften the voters one way AND it goes against the rules which say “my opponent will waive the last round. They must signify this in the round. Violation is an automatic loss of the conduct point” because it’s ultimately not a waiving of the round, but a rude little jab at Con attempting to swing the debate.
Con’s sources however referenced the Census Bureau and with these statistics, Con was able to substantiate his case by showing so many people to not have voted speaking to the flaw of the implementation of this mandate. Inspecting Con’s sources on countries’ statistics for mandating voting and for how many people abstained from voting in the last election showed that they were credible and without the sources, Con would not have been able to show such a negative impact of voting, so for solidly supporting a successful negation of the resolution with these inspected-to-be-credible sources and since Pro’s source was less than credible and slightly negated Pro’s intent, Sources to Con.
Sources:
Pro provided sources to show the keys to democracy and why democracy is the best.
While the stanford source both seemed credible and supported what Pro was trying to show, Pro's source that linked to "Eva Kooijmans’ essay" from the New College of Humanities is both underwhelming and carries with it very little weight, because Eva Kooijman is merely a student at some college who thinks "democracy is just so awesome" that she had to write about it. Kooijman has no apparent credentials and, since is only a student, has not even graduated from the very source being cited so we have no reason to buy anything from this source, and, perhaps Pro missed it, the source says some damning things about democracy with respects to Pro's case.
It says "In reality, however, democracy is slightly more problematic, because it can be difficult for leaders to satisfy an entire population." This not only shows democracy to be problematic, antithetical to Pro's intent here, it also shows that democracy fails to satisfy the entire population, directly in line with Con’s point that “in no country is the voter turnout at 100% and only 3 countries have a voter turnout of 90% or higher.”
I really do appreciate you putting in the effort whether it's for me or against me, I trust your judgment, and thank you for the time you put in to the site in general.
Oh RM, just take the debate if you're so sure, otherwise, please stop deterring people from my debates.
Like clockwork this guy.
Cue RM posting to the debate discouraging people from accepting in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
Word, hopefully someone will accept this.
Don't worry man, RM was objectively defeated by you so you deserve to be where you are.
You're just better than he.
Virt's right.
If it's the case that you want to award source points, you need to:
1. take at least one source example from Pro and say what it did for his case (impact).
2. take at least one source example from Con and say what it did for his case (impact).
3. say which impact was more successful and why (credibility, relevance, support).
So more accusations and defaming me publicly?
Noted.
What does moderation think about RM continuing to accuse me of collusion after being told by moderation to stop, see below.
Thanks man, yeah, I get on this site to get away from people at work!
Thanks for sticking up for me bud and letting RM know that I'm not a bad guy.
Look, I don't want to speak for bifolkal, but he granted 2/3 of your burdens up front, so he gave you massive ground in the RFD.
Per the RFD, your 1st round was rather lacking in the intelligent department, right?
I think that's what bifolkal was getting at, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Nice RFD, you precisely understood how I attempted to refute Pro's intelligent creator and for that I thank you.
Actually yes, you were very honest, you addressed the major points, I just happen to disagree with your assessment, but your vote was thorough and points were taken.
Thanks for the vote Virt...you know my thoughts.
I'll accept and you can see, ok?
If I accept, will you allow me to provide the definitions?
Yeah, I'm aware of the semantics, guess who SportsGuru is.
Think about it.
That's an old debate!
Nothing about this debate indicates that.
If I were to accept this, I would have to defend that glue guns and nail guns should be banned
What are the odds it's a vote for me?
Not gonna put definitions?
I feel like this could use a vote.
Wait, now I have a gang?
Dude, you're fucking losing it.
Ok, well here's my formal request to not have you vote on this debate.
Please do not vote on this debate.
Dude I've excluded you from every debate, just leave me alone.
"Had he challenged (1) and (3) then I think Con would have won big time with this argument."
I did, 3rd round when he says infer in the quote, he's referring to inferring causation when it could be correlation and the association fallacy of two categories.
"but it would be fallacious to infer that all minds, including any alleged supernatural minds like the mind of God, would also be contingent on neuroscience merely because both sets involve minds."
My response:
Ok, Pro, I'm claiming that intelligence is necessarily a property of neurological substrates, and that all evidence indicates that if these neurological substrates do not exist, then neither does consciousness, intention, or intelligence.
Pro can you show an example of intelligence that does not use or is not contingent on neurological substrates?
Like a computer is intelligent, but it's contingent on humans' neurological substrates to exist and process.
So, Pro, give an example of how intelligence can exist WITHOUT neurological substrates.
I'm saying that all of our examples indicate that intelligence and neurological substrates are inextricably connected, so we've no reason to infer that intelligence can exist outside of these neurological substrates, even if we assert supernature."
None of these were addressed and they directly link to the intelligence point.
Also, just for shits and giggles, how did Pro explain the phrase "timelessly prior?"
This was his explanation to his concession of my #1 and his drop of my claim that precedence is temporal.
Remember, Pro said that I had not made the argument and it was my first argument and central to my case, so he necessarily dropped that precedence is temporal and timelessly prior is not a contradiction you want your proof resting on.
"Con argues that the argument says that whatever exists has a cause, but Pro correctly pointed out that this is not what the argument says! It says whatever begins to exist has a cause. "
No, I pointed out and sourced the original first cause argument which the KCA is demonstrably a modern formulation of.
I even separated the two arguments, the original frist cause argument and the KCA, but you made it sound like I mischaracterized Pro's argument.
Slanted votes?
Who would ever start such a thing?
Nice work on getting it in on time...applause.
Yeah, but please get it in there...you know voters
Oh the trick was the word evil and that it was KJV. Virt got it right away...you need to broaden your expectations...getting old
Wow, I thought for sure RM had this debate in the bag...oh well, nice bump for Alec.
You grudge voted me man
Excuse me but I placed a satisfactory and substantial vote.
Conduct
Pro attempted two times to unfairly and rudely sway the voters.
1. Pro got a little testy and said to Con, “There is no way to deny it now Con, you dug your own grave on this one.”
Not only does Con mention that this should be considered bad conduct, I was thinking the exact same thing. Rather than provide a substantial argument, Pro resorted to angrily intimidating his opponent and saying that basically they lost.
I was debating on whether or not to give the conduct point here, but then Pro, in the last round sealed his conduct fate by ignoring the rules instructed to him to follow.
2. Instead of just nicely waiving the round without attempting to influence voters in a last ditch effort, Pro says “Unfair to bring so many new points in the last Round...Sadly I can't rebuke as per debate structure” this is both unfair to Con because it attempts to soften the voters one way AND it goes against the rules which say “my opponent will waive the last round. They must signify this in the round. Violation is an automatic loss of the conduct point” because it’s ultimately not a waiving of the round, but a rude little jab at Con attempting to swing the debate.
Conduct to Con for these reasons.
Con’s sources however referenced the Census Bureau and with these statistics, Con was able to substantiate his case by showing so many people to not have voted speaking to the flaw of the implementation of this mandate. Inspecting Con’s sources on countries’ statistics for mandating voting and for how many people abstained from voting in the last election showed that they were credible and without the sources, Con would not have been able to show such a negative impact of voting, so for solidly supporting a successful negation of the resolution with these inspected-to-be-credible sources and since Pro’s source was less than credible and slightly negated Pro’s intent, Sources to Con.
Sources:
Pro provided sources to show the keys to democracy and why democracy is the best.
While the stanford source both seemed credible and supported what Pro was trying to show, Pro's source that linked to "Eva Kooijmans’ essay" from the New College of Humanities is both underwhelming and carries with it very little weight, because Eva Kooijman is merely a student at some college who thinks "democracy is just so awesome" that she had to write about it. Kooijman has no apparent credentials and, since is only a student, has not even graduated from the very source being cited so we have no reason to buy anything from this source, and, perhaps Pro missed it, the source says some damning things about democracy with respects to Pro's case.
It says "In reality, however, democracy is slightly more problematic, because it can be difficult for leaders to satisfy an entire population." This not only shows democracy to be problematic, antithetical to Pro's intent here, it also shows that democracy fails to satisfy the entire population, directly in line with Con’s point that “in no country is the voter turnout at 100% and only 3 countries have a voter turnout of 90% or higher.”
Virt already figured it out
You'll see that's wrong.
It's not the intend.
Nope.
Try again.
Wait, you're not going to tell people to stay away from my debates?
There's gotta be some trick though, right?
Come on RM, you can figure it out.
I feel like you should have put a picture of someone's head exploding at the end of the debate's description.
I will get on this within the week.
I really do appreciate you putting in the effort whether it's for me or against me, I trust your judgment, and thank you for the time you put in to the site in general.
Hey I think you'd make a great voter for this debate.
Whatya say?
Hey you're coming off the bench...good luck.
You did not say that
Yeah the sun is about 64 MILLION times bigger than the moon.
"you could get about 64.3 million moons inside the Sun"
http://www.solarweek.org/howbig.html