I should have removed this debate, because I have began a marathon scrabble tournament which I have had to pause to quickly write my first round argument. But I did not, so good luck to my opponent, I shall do my best to keep up.
Must be a different Nevets. I can assure you I only ever had one debate on DDO and it was about the Triune brain. But sure, if you want to accept then go ahead.
Then please don't make me see comments regarding the debate from you, even if it is in reply. Show some respect. Letting Ragnar know what Webos means was sufficient. Thanks for the debate btw. You are a good writer.
What is the catch? You found a source that did not mention who baptized Constantine. So you fill the missing bit in yourself with a conspiracy theory that maybe, just maybe, because your source does not mention who baptized Constantine, he was baptized by a Nicene Christian? I can certainly see why you wanted to wait until round 5 to come out with that one.
I have modified the title slightly. I have also considered the title already. But my argument is not going to be based upon what most people think. I am going to be simply arguing that cruise ship holidays (vacations) are better than other forms of holiday vacation. Why they are better will be contained in the argument within.
Then he should have went with that argument. But he did not. Instead he threw all his eggs in to trying to claim that Eusebius of Nicomedia was a Nicene Christian at the time of baptizing Constantine, and he was totally wrong. The passage he quoted to prove this fact was actually referring to Arius, not Eusebius.. Eusebius of Nicomedia at the time of baptizing Constantine "was" an Arian Christian and at no point in his life did he become Nicene! Anyway, I apologise to Fauxlaw for discussing this in the comment section. I am not trying to influence opinion, but merely responding to coaching.
I am going to be a day late posting my next round argument. I got to the Summary and my computer crashed and my argument was gone when I reloaded pages. Will do it tomorrow morning instead. Or maybe later today. Apologies.
I have revaluated my vote based upon your complaint and I may have awarded Bones the source point by accident. If you wish for me to revote minus the source point then please contact a Mod and ask them to remove my current vote. However it will make not much difference. You are still 100% guaranteed to lose this debate and due to your concession my next vote will still be awarding the argument to Bones.
No problem Fauxlaw. I shall make it one week, and two months for voting. Any other issues regarding the title please feel free to also raise now, before accepting the debate. Thank you
You can't be neutral? Where is this rule in writing? Sounds like a made up crime, which actually does not exist outside of the head.
p.s And why on earth would I have any interest in votebombing one of two people I have never met in my life before that are both on their first debate, and at the time of writing this message I cannot even remember either of their usernames? Why?
"Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).". https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
I see no misunderstanding of the voting policy. According to the voting policy one forfeiture warrants an automatic conduct loss and a justification presented for arguments.
However two forfeitures (40% of a five round argument) can be considered an automatic argument loss.
Hi, the weakeredge has made a complaint to me on another comment section regarding my failure to award him with the argument as well as sources and conduct. The easy solution to this is to simply remove my vote. Can this be done please?
"Con notes in his R1: "Pro notes that he and many people think budgies are *beautiful*, not merely cute. He has not proven that Budgies have traits that are common to youthful or childish animals." MY RFD advised the bad choice to add adjectives to your original elements of "childish, youthful, and delicate," particularly when, in R2, as my RFD recognized, you argued that, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute." You tanked your own argument.".
But was this argued or brought up by Con? If not then surely that is a black mark against Con.. Though unless Pro argued this, that is also not worthy of expressing an opinion on.. And those appear to be your arguments, not arguments made by either of the debaters. It would require a seperate debate with yourself to establish that your opinions are correct. They may actually not be.. Also whilst a forfeiture may not be an automatic argument loss, perhaps had the party that forfeited, had not forfeited, then those points might have been raised and Pro might have had the chance to respond to those points.. The fact that we will never know should not reflect more badly on the person that did not forfeit and there is no reason to offer any benefit of doubt to the person that did.. But regarding the conduct point, you somehow managed to state that Con had forfeited, and that Pro had somehow handed the conduct point back by making some kind of violation. So should this not be a tie considering it is in your opinion one violation each? How did you manage to conclude that Pros violation was any more serious than Cons forfeiture?
I did not report it in order to have it removed. I reported it so that it is noted that this user has already previously voted against me three times now. On the first occasion the user did so only two minutes after I expressed an alternative opinion regarding religion on the forum, and in order to vote against me he had to ignore the advice in the voting policy that 40% of a debate being forfeited can be considered an argument loss if so choosing. The person even awarded spelling and grammar to the other side, ignoring the fact that in one of the rounds the person appeared to have been under the influence of alcohol during the reply as almost every single word contained a typographical error. Also it was a borderline fluff vote as it included writing arguments against one side (me) which were not present nor implied within the debate. Secondly he person then had another vote removed for votebombing which coincidentally only came around five minutes after I had yet again expressed an alternative religious opinion on the forum. And in this debate the user made a "third" borderline vote and needlessly expressed intentions to attempt to actually award the victory to Benjamin. I say needlessly because he had absolutely no reason to voice those intentions. However this vote also contains elements of a fluff vote as it contains his own arguments which were never raised by Benjamin nor myself. Although the voting policy does appear to allow for a voter to award a tie even in the instance that one player has actually conceeded, it is yet again borderline, and at the end of this voters vote he has made it quite clear that he intended to award Benjamin with the crucial point that would see him win the debate and has went to the voting policy only to find out that the policy will not actually allow him to award Benjamin with a victory, and so he ends it (nope, not gonna do that). However the intentions are surely quite clear. This voter has now ignored two forfeitures, had a vote removed for vote bombing and ignored a concession in order to vote against me. So the reason I reported this is so that it is noted for my future debates that I may have a user that is actually voting against me due to bias. P.S I have no idea why the voter decided to include his intentions to award Benjamin with the conduct point. But he did and the intentions are clear... I have no problems with Benjamin however.
Let me know asap if you are still going to post an argument. If you don't let me know then I shall post a round 1 argument in the next couple of days. I am happy to pass it back to you however for round 2, if you let me know.
Well at least you appear to admit to grasping the concept. I could not admit to not grasping the concept either, even if I do not 100% agree with my own "theory".
I asked you for a cancellation. I have even requested voters not to give me a win and call it a draw. If I thought I made a serious enough mistake to warrant actually losing I would say so. Fact is, "I did" read your short description. You are only guessing that I didn't. Also, you "cannot possibly miss" your short description. It is the first thing everyone sees. Just go to voting and look at the debate link you will see what I mean.
100% disagree and words such as deplorable should not be getting thrown about lightly. Nor should accusations of me accusing others of using pedophilic undertones. Nor should I have to declare that I 100% believe in the theory I am arguing for when I don't. RationalMadman accepted the terms written in the description and therefore if I was awarded a conduct violation due to what was written in my description that should also be removed. "deplorable" really!
Thank you for the assassination. However whilst you have put up a great argument, the debate was not Nevets v Fauxlaw. It was Nevets v RationalMadman and you never once mentioned RationalMadman in the comment below, and you "barely" gave him a mention in your explanation in the voting section. Nowhere did RationalMadman make any of the arguments "you" are arguing. Therefore, apart from not being able to support the facts he put over, such as the Picts drawing depictions of Nessie dating back to 500bc, and Ireland getting their legends from Iceland, which fact did you think RM was correct about?
You merely said RM's argument was better but you did not establish which argument was better nor how it was better. You also agree that I accused RationalMadman of writing with Pedophilic undertones. Can you please clarify how you come to this conclusion, as I was referring to the story of St Columba and the wizard with the Irish slave girl. Not RationalMadman.
My other debate is totally seperate from this debate and circumstances seperate. To begin with on my other debate I noticed my error instantly and I "asked" for a cancellation. However with this debate with you I did not notice my error instantly and this is because I did not check the features as you had already wrote in your short description that you were Pro flat earth. I felt I had no reason too. It is mere coincidence that just the day before I made a similar error and has nothing to do with our debate.
Well I was certainly taught the basics about God and Jesus, aswell as the main biblical stories including creation. The exodus et cetera. And I seem to remember sitting in assembly saying prayers and singing hymns.
As it was my first time back in a while I think what I have done is looked at the title, then the short description, and then seen the word Contender/pro in the green and due to a few tipples (i am over 18) have mistaken "contender" for "Con". That is probably why I did not contend at the time.
You are right. I will never argue another debate again out of embarrassment if I lose a debate to a flat earther lol (I'm being serious haha).. no seriously. That is how bad it is. Arguing for flat earth? Errrr no.
I spoke to undefeatable about the positions? Errr I have not spoken to anyone about this. So you are mistaken. I have never spoken to Undefeatable about anything in my life. Been absolutely no contact anywhere. (I hope claiming no contact is not breaching confidentiality).
I claim another cancellation on the grounds that the Weakerage wrote in his/her short description that he/she was Pro "Theweakeredge: Pro Contender: Con". https://www.debateart.com/debates
That is what he/she advertised in the short description.
I certainly did not accuse him of any such thing Ragnar.
He produced the source from Wikipedia regarding St Columba's loch ness sighting as proof that the loch ness monster legend dates back to before the story of Ness was even told (even though mythology holds that it dates to 1AD) and I responded that this story actually also contains a story about an Irish slave girl being held captive by a wizard. It was the story I was suggesting contained Pedophilic underetones, not RM's writing as I am aware RationalMadman did not even know about the full story of St Columba's account. On top of that I produced evidence that St Columba's story is believed to not have been a true story, but instead plagiarized from Irish legends.
I was guilty of several forfeitures last year and I rightfully lost. It would be a scandal if I did not.
If I forfeit a round then there should be some kind of penalty. If it is instant loss, so be it.
It is not fair I get any advantage out of forfeiting and that was an opportunity for my opponent to get me on the ropes lost.
If I have to leave to go to work then it is my fault for having taken on the debate in the first place.
But if I forfeit it could also mean I was simply too slow, especially if it is a two hour quickfire debate. The whole point of setting the timer to 2 hours or 1 day is to make it more difficult for the opponent and it is not within the nature of sport to think it is ok to let them off because they were too slow or did not have enough time for corrections.
But a forfeiture feature suits me to the ground as I always play quickfire even if I am involved in a two week debate. I rarely spend much time fixing errors and I feel I am cheating if I do.
Thank you for putting up a second debate on this subject. However I have decided not to just sit there and watch you debate this subject with someone else whilst I sit there and give you a free unmerited extra win.
Your putting up a second debate and the chance of a jackpot bonanza has gave me the insentive I require to temporarily change my views on the subject. Many thanks for this adrenaline rush and opportunity. I look forward to this double decker debate, and good luck.
I should have removed this debate, because I have began a marathon scrabble tournament which I have had to pause to quickly write my first round argument. But I did not, so good luck to my opponent, I shall do my best to keep up.
Ok, have reduced to four
I've met you half way. Changed it to two weeks for arguments but kept at five rounds.
Must be a different Nevets. I can assure you I only ever had one debate on DDO and it was about the Triune brain. But sure, if you want to accept then go ahead.
Your argument is completely your choice, so long as you understand the definition of what I am arguing for. Which I am sure is not hard to grasp.
Then please don't make me see comments regarding the debate from you, even if it is in reply. Show some respect. Letting Ragnar know what Webos means was sufficient. Thanks for the debate btw. You are a good writer.
What is the catch? You found a source that did not mention who baptized Constantine. So you fill the missing bit in yourself with a conspiracy theory that maybe, just maybe, because your source does not mention who baptized Constantine, he was baptized by a Nicene Christian? I can certainly see why you wanted to wait until round 5 to come out with that one.
I have modified the title slightly. I have also considered the title already. But my argument is not going to be based upon what most people think. I am going to be simply arguing that cruise ship holidays (vacations) are better than other forms of holiday vacation. Why they are better will be contained in the argument within.
I always adjust the settings to suit the requests of those interested in the debate! Are you wishing to argue? If so how many rounds do you want?
Ok, debate updated
Then he should have went with that argument. But he did not. Instead he threw all his eggs in to trying to claim that Eusebius of Nicomedia was a Nicene Christian at the time of baptizing Constantine, and he was totally wrong. The passage he quoted to prove this fact was actually referring to Arius, not Eusebius.. Eusebius of Nicomedia at the time of baptizing Constantine "was" an Arian Christian and at no point in his life did he become Nicene! Anyway, I apologise to Fauxlaw for discussing this in the comment section. I am not trying to influence opinion, but merely responding to coaching.
How do you know what I like and don't like. However it will be getting removed anyway.
You said: " can talk a bit about the song if we want to" But Ok, will remove
I am going to be a day late posting my next round argument. I got to the Summary and my computer crashed and my argument was gone when I reloaded pages. Will do it tomorrow morning instead. Or maybe later today. Apologies.
I made a slight error with the link for Constantine being P Maximus.
Here it is here.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06729c.htm
I shall include it in round 2.
But I will send you it now here just incase you need to research it.
I have revaluated my vote based upon your complaint and I may have awarded Bones the source point by accident. If you wish for me to revote minus the source point then please contact a Mod and ask them to remove my current vote. However it will make not much difference. You are still 100% guaranteed to lose this debate and due to your concession my next vote will still be awarding the argument to Bones.
In actual fact, I only set my debates like this because it is my preference. However I will change the settings upon request
No problem Fauxlaw. I shall make it one week, and two months for voting. Any other issues regarding the title please feel free to also raise now, before accepting the debate. Thank you
You can't be neutral? Where is this rule in writing? Sounds like a made up crime, which actually does not exist outside of the head.
p.s And why on earth would I have any interest in votebombing one of two people I have never met in my life before that are both on their first debate, and at the time of writing this message I cannot even remember either of their usernames? Why?
"Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).". https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
I see no misunderstanding of the voting policy. According to the voting policy one forfeiture warrants an automatic conduct loss and a justification presented for arguments.
However two forfeitures (40% of a five round argument) can be considered an automatic argument loss.
I see no misunderstanding?
Hi, the weakeredge has made a complaint to me on another comment section regarding my failure to award him with the argument as well as sources and conduct. The easy solution to this is to simply remove my vote. Can this be done please?
Ok I will remove my vote for you from your debate as I have no wish to votebomb your opponent.
"Con notes in his R1: "Pro notes that he and many people think budgies are *beautiful*, not merely cute. He has not proven that Budgies have traits that are common to youthful or childish animals." MY RFD advised the bad choice to add adjectives to your original elements of "childish, youthful, and delicate," particularly when, in R2, as my RFD recognized, you argued that, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute." You tanked your own argument.".
But was this argued or brought up by Con? If not then surely that is a black mark against Con.. Though unless Pro argued this, that is also not worthy of expressing an opinion on.. And those appear to be your arguments, not arguments made by either of the debaters. It would require a seperate debate with yourself to establish that your opinions are correct. They may actually not be.. Also whilst a forfeiture may not be an automatic argument loss, perhaps had the party that forfeited, had not forfeited, then those points might have been raised and Pro might have had the chance to respond to those points.. The fact that we will never know should not reflect more badly on the person that did not forfeit and there is no reason to offer any benefit of doubt to the person that did.. But regarding the conduct point, you somehow managed to state that Con had forfeited, and that Pro had somehow handed the conduct point back by making some kind of violation. So should this not be a tie considering it is in your opinion one violation each? How did you manage to conclude that Pros violation was any more serious than Cons forfeiture?
I did not report it in order to have it removed. I reported it so that it is noted that this user has already previously voted against me three times now. On the first occasion the user did so only two minutes after I expressed an alternative opinion regarding religion on the forum, and in order to vote against me he had to ignore the advice in the voting policy that 40% of a debate being forfeited can be considered an argument loss if so choosing. The person even awarded spelling and grammar to the other side, ignoring the fact that in one of the rounds the person appeared to have been under the influence of alcohol during the reply as almost every single word contained a typographical error. Also it was a borderline fluff vote as it included writing arguments against one side (me) which were not present nor implied within the debate. Secondly he person then had another vote removed for votebombing which coincidentally only came around five minutes after I had yet again expressed an alternative religious opinion on the forum. And in this debate the user made a "third" borderline vote and needlessly expressed intentions to attempt to actually award the victory to Benjamin. I say needlessly because he had absolutely no reason to voice those intentions. However this vote also contains elements of a fluff vote as it contains his own arguments which were never raised by Benjamin nor myself. Although the voting policy does appear to allow for a voter to award a tie even in the instance that one player has actually conceeded, it is yet again borderline, and at the end of this voters vote he has made it quite clear that he intended to award Benjamin with the crucial point that would see him win the debate and has went to the voting policy only to find out that the policy will not actually allow him to award Benjamin with a victory, and so he ends it (nope, not gonna do that). However the intentions are surely quite clear. This voter has now ignored two forfeitures, had a vote removed for vote bombing and ignored a concession in order to vote against me. So the reason I reported this is so that it is noted for my future debates that I may have a user that is actually voting against me due to bias. P.S I have no idea why the voter decided to include his intentions to award Benjamin with the conduct point. But he did and the intentions are clear... I have no problems with Benjamin however.
Let me know asap if you are still going to post an argument. If you don't let me know then I shall post a round 1 argument in the next couple of days. I am happy to pass it back to you however for round 2, if you let me know.
Well at least you appear to admit to grasping the concept. I could not admit to not grasping the concept either, even if I do not 100% agree with my own "theory".
I asked you for a cancellation. I have even requested voters not to give me a win and call it a draw. If I thought I made a serious enough mistake to warrant actually losing I would say so. Fact is, "I did" read your short description. You are only guessing that I didn't. Also, you "cannot possibly miss" your short description. It is the first thing everyone sees. Just go to voting and look at the debate link you will see what I mean.
We can't argue about this forever.
100% disagree and words such as deplorable should not be getting thrown about lightly. Nor should accusations of me accusing others of using pedophilic undertones. Nor should I have to declare that I 100% believe in the theory I am arguing for when I don't. RationalMadman accepted the terms written in the description and therefore if I was awarded a conduct violation due to what was written in my description that should also be removed. "deplorable" really!
Thank you for letting me know.
If you do not wish to support your argument nor engage with me in friendly discussion then that is your perogative. I shall leave you in peace.
Thank you for the assassination. However whilst you have put up a great argument, the debate was not Nevets v Fauxlaw. It was Nevets v RationalMadman and you never once mentioned RationalMadman in the comment below, and you "barely" gave him a mention in your explanation in the voting section. Nowhere did RationalMadman make any of the arguments "you" are arguing. Therefore, apart from not being able to support the facts he put over, such as the Picts drawing depictions of Nessie dating back to 500bc, and Ireland getting their legends from Iceland, which fact did you think RM was correct about?
You merely said RM's argument was better but you did not establish which argument was better nor how it was better. You also agree that I accused RationalMadman of writing with Pedophilic undertones. Can you please clarify how you come to this conclusion, as I was referring to the story of St Columba and the wizard with the Irish slave girl. Not RationalMadman.
My other debate is totally seperate from this debate and circumstances seperate. To begin with on my other debate I noticed my error instantly and I "asked" for a cancellation. However with this debate with you I did not notice my error instantly and this is because I did not check the features as you had already wrote in your short description that you were Pro flat earth. I felt I had no reason too. It is mere coincidence that just the day before I made a similar error and has nothing to do with our debate.
I am not disclosing what the arguments might be in the comment section
Well I was certainly taught the basics about God and Jesus, aswell as the main biblical stories including creation. The exodus et cetera. And I seem to remember sitting in assembly saying prayers and singing hymns.
As it was my first time back in a while I think what I have done is looked at the title, then the short description, and then seen the word Contender/pro in the green and due to a few tipples (i am over 18) have mistaken "contender" for "Con". That is probably why I did not contend at the time.
Which position have I changed?
You are right. I will never argue another debate again out of embarrassment if I lose a debate to a flat earther lol (I'm being serious haha).. no seriously. That is how bad it is. Arguing for flat earth? Errrr no.
And just to let you know I am not claiming a victory. I am claiming a draw. Votes for either of us should be removed.
Oh, that was undefeatable that made that comment. I see what he means now. So it was common knowledge you were "rigging" the debate.
I spoke to undefeatable about the positions? Errr I have not spoken to anyone about this. So you are mistaken. I have never spoken to Undefeatable about anything in my life. Been absolutely no contact anywhere. (I hope claiming no contact is not breaching confidentiality).
Should the comment section be used to ask friends for votes?
I claim another cancellation on the grounds that the Weakerage wrote in his/her short description that he/she was Pro "Theweakeredge: Pro Contender: Con". https://www.debateart.com/debates
That is what he/she advertised in the short description.
I certainly did not accuse him of any such thing Ragnar.
He produced the source from Wikipedia regarding St Columba's loch ness sighting as proof that the loch ness monster legend dates back to before the story of Ness was even told (even though mythology holds that it dates to 1AD) and I responded that this story actually also contains a story about an Irish slave girl being held captive by a wizard. It was the story I was suggesting contained Pedophilic underetones, not RM's writing as I am aware RationalMadman did not even know about the full story of St Columba's account. On top of that I produced evidence that St Columba's story is believed to not have been a true story, but instead plagiarized from Irish legends.
I was guilty of several forfeitures last year and I rightfully lost. It would be a scandal if I did not.
If I forfeit a round then there should be some kind of penalty. If it is instant loss, so be it.
It is not fair I get any advantage out of forfeiting and that was an opportunity for my opponent to get me on the ropes lost.
If I have to leave to go to work then it is my fault for having taken on the debate in the first place.
But if I forfeit it could also mean I was simply too slow, especially if it is a two hour quickfire debate. The whole point of setting the timer to 2 hours or 1 day is to make it more difficult for the opponent and it is not within the nature of sport to think it is ok to let them off because they were too slow or did not have enough time for corrections.
But a forfeiture feature suits me to the ground as I always play quickfire even if I am involved in a two week debate. I rarely spend much time fixing errors and I feel I am cheating if I do.
Of course, I have no objections.
I will debate this one and the other one can be cancelled please.
Or perhaps a Forfeiture ruling within the Parameters with a choice of either Instant win/loss, or 1 point per round, per vote, penalty.
Thank you for putting up a second debate on this subject. However I have decided not to just sit there and watch you debate this subject with someone else whilst I sit there and give you a free unmerited extra win.
Your putting up a second debate and the chance of a jackpot bonanza has gave me the insentive I require to temporarily change my views on the subject. Many thanks for this adrenaline rush and opportunity. I look forward to this double decker debate, and good luck.
tbh gugigor I have mentioned that the same burden of proof applies to me also in my defence