if you look up what the work darkness is in scripture, it tells you what it is, no guess work, no philosophical musings about darkness being nothing.
(nothing, as an object and concept, does not exist except in the heads of ignorant people who are unable to describe what nothing is. thus, proving they cant imagine nothing, nor prove it)
according to scripture God made all things, light and darkness. it seemed like con couldnt grasp that idea.
or people forgot what darkness is, close your eyes and think about it.
this debate is based on biblical narrative, anyone trying to use anything other than scripture to invalidate scripture not only is debating dishonestly, but lacks the intelligence to think within a framework.
this is more an arguement of intelligence, as all things has life to it.
but to what point is intelligence and identity associated to a human being? as a specific group of cells combine?
ok. i can understand that.
do you feel that he violated his own rule in round 2 and should be held to that standard? seeing he is holding con to his rules?
i understand. and that can be justified by invoking the spirit of a debate. the purpose of a debate is to create dialogue and FAIR grounds for exchange for ideas according to bsh1 and 1st meep.
no, first loss is usually the perimeter. however, due to the description given, simotaneous loss is alloted. the rules governing the usual flow of debates has been altered by consent to description by both parties. therefore, both have lost.
see voting policy under Cheating, absurd special rules, and i quote:
"… Not to be confused with merely somewhat unfair ones, like setting favorable definitions (to which their opponent could have requested alterations prior to the start)."
it is therefore implied that because alterations COULD be requested, that the rules laid out operate under authority.
it is recognized as the framework
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346-about-dart-resources-for-new-members
V debating jargon
and furthermore
VI Debating
"Debating typically begins in the first round of the debate. The rules of the debate, as well as the exact topic or resolution up for debate, should be made clear in the debate's full description or title."
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1CJQT_PS9k82QkgrsyTQMKaQ90uY9yubVT0KPMR9XFcc/mobilebasic
see "rules" under "formating/making rules for a debate" I quote:
"First, these rules help you define for the judge what penalty should be issued for a forfeit."
unless there is a meep that specifically addresses this type of frame work, the description rules you posted are authoritative and create a double loss scenario.
"All arguments given MUST be at least 3,500 characters to prove that both participants are committed to the debate. Failure to adhere to this will result in a loss."
"Forfeiting a round will result in a loss."
his round 2 post is under 3500 characters. he should have made 3500 characters even if it was just him spamming 1 letter.
he did not specify the conditions were nullified once the other person broke said conditions first.
i mean, based on the definition given, its a truism debate. unless you argue the thing inside the person isnt human.
and that would be a very nuianced debate.
this was a terrrible debate. instead of arguing back and forth over semantics and contridictions You BOTH failed to consider the idea that sex could be for another reason rather than procreation.
what about pleasure? what about intimacy? reproduction is the result of sex, true, but does the goal define the process?
mall, you need to stop qubbiling with what others think and just give your evidence. you get distracted too easily by what others say that you lose your point.
lancelot, you do the same thing, you argued the semantics and didnt even bother trying to counter prove mall. the fallacy only is determined at the end of the debate. You werent taking this seriously and i am annoyed by your lack of effort.
no offense, but this is something that should have been talked over in a discussion, not a debate.
the way its presented looks like someone has a strong opinion, nothing more.
i challenge m.h.s to make a forum on this very debate and discuss with others.
in a debate, confrontation against an idea you oppose will happen, but its not the main focus of a debate. This was an arguement, not a debate. a focus that is pointedly decided on proving the opposition is incorrect that few to no facts or truths are made. That being said, it should be noted that this is not a truism debate because morality and law were not appropriately defined or agreed upon.
here is the thing. murder is a legal term. it goes all the way back to being established as a word to describe unlawful killing.
the semantics and morality of this debate are therefore confused in the approach of both viper and mall.
you cannot seperate legality and morality from the precept of murder, you have to define both legality and morality before doing that. and thats another debate in its self.
one stresses the concept of murder via morality of societal law, while the other stresses the morality and semantics of murder via conscience/godly law.
however, because this website allots points based on logic pertaining to societal and supposedly unbiased reasoning. viper will end up winning this one.
the only thing worth observing in this debate is mall and viper's view of morality. otherwise this is a waste of space unless one or both reconcile the application and source of morality/law as i showed above.
im sorry, but its not up to you to designate the seriousness or levity of a debate. the person making the debate sets the tone/mood.
even if he is okay with you being serious, it doesnt negate the prescendent of his debate.
this is a non sequistur debate, you dont win it by logic or tearing apart arguements.
you win it by being just as silly or by assuming he is right and then trolling/joking back.
you can say "is" its not an impossible proof. impossible to you and your logic? perhaps. but thats what debates are about. attempting to convince someone of something they dont accept/believe.
but that would mean you have no desire to regard God as existing or provable. How strange.
it just means you want to find a new way to not believe in him to satisfy your ego.
and you still didnt ask what i meant. you are just assuming what you think i meant at this point.
wisdom doesnt begin or die with you. but any hope of a conversation just did.
you didnt understand the nuiance of my question. you admitted it made no sense. but you didnt ask what i meant. i fear that you dont seek wisdom or understanding. as many debaters here do not.
consider this. you know of muhammud and his lifestyle and teachings. But what do you know of Jesus? Do you know what "christian" means? i do not impose a muslim is not a muslim because of a disagreement over leadership
surely as a muslim you can appreciate that just because a majority believe something, doesnt mean they practice it.
a sunni and a shia follows muhammud. they are both called muslims, but they are not the same.
if you desire a label, then say, unitarian and trinitarian believers. it will suffice in understanding.
not anything : not a thing
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/nothing
I argue that this debate is both something in existance and meaning.
the burden of proof is that something does exist. and by definition it does, even if it is an unspecified thing.
con must rebutt or argue that something does not exist.
supporting semantic kritik. debate (if abiding by the arguement something is something and not nothing) is truism and is not subject to serious voting procedure
semantic kritik.
this debate is something and cannot be debated as nothing. it is impossible for something to be nothing.
since pro must affirm it is something and con must reject it, and con cannot logically reject it is something. bella loses and ifoundashotgun wins by default.
no arguements needed.
all that is needed is definiton of something, nothing and a statement declaring the debate is something.
i question your vote. how did you side with con when scripture says God created water, and you agree with the guy who says God moved it.
if you look up what the work darkness is in scripture, it tells you what it is, no guess work, no philosophical musings about darkness being nothing.
(nothing, as an object and concept, does not exist except in the heads of ignorant people who are unable to describe what nothing is. thus, proving they cant imagine nothing, nor prove it)
according to scripture God made all things, light and darkness. it seemed like con couldnt grasp that idea.
or people forgot what darkness is, close your eyes and think about it.
this debate is based on biblical narrative, anyone trying to use anything other than scripture to invalidate scripture not only is debating dishonestly, but lacks the intelligence to think within a framework.
this website couldnt contain all the debates it could have about thomas sowell and his writings and works
all rounds characters have been counted both sides used more than 3500 consistently.
this is more an arguement of intelligence, as all things has life to it.
but to what point is intelligence and identity associated to a human being? as a specific group of cells combine?
he tied 1. tied votes count as half win. not a loss.
ok. i can understand that.
do you feel that he violated his own rule in round 2 and should be held to that standard? seeing he is holding con to his rules?
what are your thoughts on this situation? have you ever encountered a rule that could tie up a vote?
i understand. and that can be justified by invoking the spirit of a debate. the purpose of a debate is to create dialogue and FAIR grounds for exchange for ideas according to bsh1 and 1st meep.
so if i interpret the rules as binding i can vote points as tie even if tatie.bella would be the first to forfeit 40%?
As chief moderator i believe you have ultimate authority to allow such rules to create such a scenario or not. i am unaware of any prescedents.
see below
no, first loss is usually the perimeter. however, due to the description given, simotaneous loss is alloted. the rules governing the usual flow of debates has been altered by consent to description by both parties. therefore, both have lost.
see voting policy under Cheating, absurd special rules, and i quote:
"… Not to be confused with merely somewhat unfair ones, like setting favorable definitions (to which their opponent could have requested alterations prior to the start)."
it is therefore implied that because alterations COULD be requested, that the rules laid out operate under authority.
it is recognized as the framework
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346-about-dart-resources-for-new-members
V debating jargon
and furthermore
VI Debating
"Debating typically begins in the first round of the debate. The rules of the debate, as well as the exact topic or resolution up for debate, should be made clear in the debate's full description or title."
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1CJQT_PS9k82QkgrsyTQMKaQ90uY9yubVT0KPMR9XFcc/mobilebasic
see "rules" under "formating/making rules for a debate" I quote:
"First, these rules help you define for the judge what penalty should be issued for a forfeit."
unless there is a meep that specifically addresses this type of frame work, the description rules you posted are authoritative and create a double loss scenario.
according to viper's rules, he also has lost.
"All arguments given MUST be at least 3,500 characters to prove that both participants are committed to the debate. Failure to adhere to this will result in a loss."
"Forfeiting a round will result in a loss."
his round 2 post is under 3500 characters. he should have made 3500 characters even if it was just him spamming 1 letter.
he did not specify the conditions were nullified once the other person broke said conditions first.
wanna try again?
please look at voting policy on kritiks, truisms and other forms of debate before posting, its needful you be aware of them.
the terms and definitions presented are acceptable. i will be only using scripture as the source as well.
i mean, based on the definition given, its a truism debate. unless you argue the thing inside the person isnt human.
and that would be a very nuianced debate.
or you try to argue semantics of fetus.
pravda
tiesa
sanhed
wahrheit
different languages for word truth. they all have letters.
this was a terrrible debate. instead of arguing back and forth over semantics and contridictions You BOTH failed to consider the idea that sex could be for another reason rather than procreation.
what about pleasure? what about intimacy? reproduction is the result of sex, true, but does the goal define the process?
mall, you need to stop qubbiling with what others think and just give your evidence. you get distracted too easily by what others say that you lose your point.
lancelot, you do the same thing, you argued the semantics and didnt even bother trying to counter prove mall. the fallacy only is determined at the end of the debate. You werent taking this seriously and i am annoyed by your lack of effort.
all in all, wasted debate.
no offense, but this is something that should have been talked over in a discussion, not a debate.
the way its presented looks like someone has a strong opinion, nothing more.
i challenge m.h.s to make a forum on this very debate and discuss with others.
i believe that it should. however, because of internal problems, the usa will not be a superpower in the coming years.
i can already tell this debate is going to get messy. the nuiance of harm is very subjective. especially regarding information and emotion.
which neither side did.
in a debate, confrontation against an idea you oppose will happen, but its not the main focus of a debate. This was an arguement, not a debate. a focus that is pointedly decided on proving the opposition is incorrect that few to no facts or truths are made. That being said, it should be noted that this is not a truism debate because morality and law were not appropriately defined or agreed upon.
here is the thing. murder is a legal term. it goes all the way back to being established as a word to describe unlawful killing.
the semantics and morality of this debate are therefore confused in the approach of both viper and mall.
you cannot seperate legality and morality from the precept of murder, you have to define both legality and morality before doing that. and thats another debate in its self.
one stresses the concept of murder via morality of societal law, while the other stresses the morality and semantics of murder via conscience/godly law.
however, because this website allots points based on logic pertaining to societal and supposedly unbiased reasoning. viper will end up winning this one.
the only thing worth observing in this debate is mall and viper's view of morality. otherwise this is a waste of space unless one or both reconcile the application and source of morality/law as i showed above.
sigh, you disappoint me. i have made my vote with the walrus.
at least he doesnt assume what i think or feel.
im sorry, but its not up to you to designate the seriousness or levity of a debate. the person making the debate sets the tone/mood.
even if he is okay with you being serious, it doesnt negate the prescendent of his debate.
sorry.
what about it? are you implying there is a contridiction?
this is a non sequistur debate, you dont win it by logic or tearing apart arguements.
you win it by being just as silly or by assuming he is right and then trolling/joking back.
is there a reason you posted that here? you can ask me on the forum if you want.
otherwise i have no idea why you tagged me.
as a human who is a canadian mongoose i support your silliness.
been a while since i saw a non sequitur debate
basically a semantics debate then. because math is a language.
you can say "is" its not an impossible proof. impossible to you and your logic? perhaps. but thats what debates are about. attempting to convince someone of something they dont accept/believe.
but that would mean you have no desire to regard God as existing or provable. How strange.
it just means you want to find a new way to not believe in him to satisfy your ego.
define standarizeds tests, and what do you mean by abolished?
do you mean the idea of standardized tests in general?
and you still didnt ask what i meant. you are just assuming what you think i meant at this point.
wisdom doesnt begin or die with you. but any hope of a conversation just did.
he has returned. its been awhile blamonkey
you didnt understand the nuiance of my question. you admitted it made no sense. but you didnt ask what i meant. i fear that you dont seek wisdom or understanding. as many debaters here do not.
consider this. you know of muhammud and his lifestyle and teachings. But what do you know of Jesus? Do you know what "christian" means? i do not impose a muslim is not a muslim because of a disagreement over leadership
didnt know lancelot was a cat. do cucumbers scare you?
surely as a muslim you can appreciate that just because a majority believe something, doesnt mean they practice it.
a sunni and a shia follows muhammud. they are both called muslims, but they are not the same.
if you desire a label, then say, unitarian and trinitarian believers. it will suffice in understanding.
im proud of you being responsible and clear in presenting even an assumed truism debate. well done.
christians dont believe in trinity. many who call themselves (and dont do the works of Jesus Christ) believe in a trinty.
very important distinction.
rm left website so he forfeits.
this is mere heresay. unless you can prove that such things did happen, if so then the law should be involved.
this doesnt follow the spirit of a debate, but it does follow the spirit of a criminal trial without deposition and representation or law.
well, just for fun, ill debate you in comments as if i was the pro. i have 1 round.
a
: some indeterminate or unspecified thing
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/something
not anything : not a thing
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/nothing
I argue that this debate is both something in existance and meaning.
the burden of proof is that something does exist. and by definition it does, even if it is an unspecified thing.
con must rebutt or argue that something does not exist.
doesnt matter. its a truism debate, if you define something and nothing in the debate it nets only source and conduct.
by all means, i enourage you to find the defintion, link it and counter something
supporting semantic kritik. debate (if abiding by the arguement something is something and not nothing) is truism and is not subject to serious voting procedure
semantic kritik.
this debate is something and cannot be debated as nothing. it is impossible for something to be nothing.
since pro must affirm it is something and con must reject it, and con cannot logically reject it is something. bella loses and ifoundashotgun wins by default.
no arguements needed.
all that is needed is definiton of something, nothing and a statement declaring the debate is something.
this be a truism matey!