"That entire context is revealing: when we fall into temptation [or ignorance], maintain patience by the work of faith, letting patience have its perfect work. Then when we lack wisdom, ask God. We have just been through a process of personal purification and are worthy to receive knowledge and wisdom we lack. Nevertheless, that, too, must be acted on in faith, without doubt, to earn the knowledge that will come."
This is a great interpretation, however fauxlaw is failing to interpretate the evils of the bible Rat Skep conjured. If this continue. then it is 0-4 argument
0-3 argument
0-9 sources
0-1 conduct
"That said, the quote my opponent offered from the Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 169-170, is just such a passage that, allegedly, described what he interpreted, but by what words I must challenge. "And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. “Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision, rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them - that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.”[3] My opponent concluded by that passage that “This is severely alarming. Encouragement of abuse to one’s wife, stoning, and many other things…”[4]"
Here fauxlaw makes two source violations in my estimation. Have already explaained why i consider them violations
He interprets the bible, trying to rebute Rat Skep, and what is in the writing is horrific, almost 0-4 argument
Source 0-11
Argument still 0-3
Conduct 0-1
"I do not read Arabic. My volume of the Qur’an is a slightly different passage of words, which are similar enough to understand that my opponent's quotation and my volume are saying the same thing. Close enough to know that in neither volume do I perceive “encouragement of abuse to one’s wife…”[1] etc. Do you? I will quote The Imrans, 3: 3 - 5, refuting a later claim by my opponent that “many intra-religion contradictions, intra-Abrahamic-inter-religion contradictions and to furthermore not irrationally rule out all non-Abrahamic religions as worth your time.” The above reference reads, “He [Allah] has revealed to you the Book with the Torah, confining the scriptures which preceded it; for He has already revealed the Torah and the Gospel for the guidance of, and the distinction of right and wrong.”[2]
Here my opponent admits he has not read the quran. I may or may not see that as contradicting earlier claims about himself. But will let him off. He appears to now be of the opinion he has successfuly rebuffed Rat Skep and shown how he was mistaken about the quran encouraging stoning women.But i do not see how. He says it. yes. but what he says to does support the claim he has offered a logical and coherent explanation. It is just a baselss claim.
fauxlaw R1
"First, I will argue that my opponent has not read the Torah, The Holy Bible, nor the Qur’an word for word, cover to cover. It is effortless at this juncture in our technical history to conceive a topic, and research an associated passage, holy writ to profane text [profane in the sense as described by the Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, OED] as: “2. In a neutral sense. Not relating or devoted to what is sacred or biblical; unconsecrated, secular, lay; civil as distinguished from ecclesiastical; as profane history, profane literature, etc.”[1] However, I have read all three, and other holy writ, cover to cover. They are worth the read."
I am going to start with proposing awarding fauxlaw with a conduct violation.
He opened his argument by arguing his opponent has not read the Torah, The holy bible, or quran word for word cover to cover.
I claim this is a conduct violation, because nowhere in what opponent said, did he suggest anything about himself. There was also a claim made by fauxlaw himself. Obviously he claims to have read all this word for word, cover to cover. So i am also going to suggest a source violation. As we are just supposed to take his word for this? no source given. And it does not just fall under conjecture, like opponents conjecture did, as he is making a huge claim that would influence what people think of him, which requires validation and citation
0-1 conduct
0-4 sources
For his source for "profane" i award no points for source. His link requires copying and pasting in to google, and his (1) does not work. whereas his opponent produced the link in a manner it could simply be clicked on.
"It is tempting to focus on the relevant passage, ignoring context. Nor is it revealing to ignore the culture behind the language. I digress a moment to comment on the last reference to explain what I mean by “culture behind the language.” I was an undergraduate student at BYU, Provo, UT, taking a course in Egyptian [hieroglyphs] Grammar. The professor, Dr. Hugh Nibley, in the Antiquities Department, and fluent in at least a dozen languages in which he lectured at will, in utter fluidity from one to another, assumed we poor students were hanging on every word. I felt fortunate that at least I had French mastered, and some Greek and Italian. Other than ancient Egyptian, and English, of course, he spoke Hebrew, Greek, German, French, Italian, Russian, Sanskrit, and Arabic. And more.
Ok so from above we learn a lot about fauxlaw, but fauxlaw is not the subject. Also nothing to source the claims about himself he is making. I am not saying he is a charlatan. But is foolish to just assume anything without citation.
0-1 conduct
0-5 sources
Still 2-0 Rat Skep argument
"Nibley taught that all language translation was necessarily flawed as being merely dictionary-to-dictionary transcription while lacking any understanding of the culture behind the language to translate. He taught that it was culture that drove language, and not the reverse. Dictionaries do not teach the culture of the language. The OED approaches the lack by its exhaustive etymological investigation,[2]but even that is not enough. Therefore, his course taught us, first, an in-depth understanding of ancient Egyptian life, simple daily activities, thoughts on the cosmos, on farming techniques along the Nile, religion and gods, worship of the pharaoh, etc. Only then did we crack the alphabet, vocabulary, and grammar.[3]
A lot about Nibley. Nothing that i see contradicts Rat Skep, as yet, and again "source" (2) does not even work when clicked on. And what is he sourcing exactly? why not provide the quote? As far as i can see, those are his own words. He is sourcing his own words? Due to it being 2020, and the ability for a debater to provide a quote, and source the link above the quote, this has to constitute a black mark. Same with (3)
My opponent then sources the holy bible that my opponent has already shown believes to be inaccurate. Or believes to be inaccurate. And fauxlaw has not proven that Rat Skeps opinion is wrong. And again, that "source", [1] Without quote, or link, it is meaningless.
conduct 0-1
Sourcing 0-9
argument 0-3
"“2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.”[2]
conduct 0-1
sourcing 0-11
argument 0-3
Ok, my opponents post is so long, i will post this, and continue on his round 1 rebuttal
Only one way to get around this problem of votes being reported, is to show properly how one comes to the conslusion they do, and allow users to sub-debate the votes.
R1 Rational Skeptics 1st claim of relevance
"This is severely alarming. Encouragement to abuse one's wife, stoning and many other things are there in all three religions. If you are to seriously take the scripture as the ineffible word of an omnipotent, omniscient being that demands worship from you or eternal damnation, you are on your way to being flat out insane."
Regarding this
"And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision, rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them - that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve."
And i agree. 1-0 Rational Skeptic, argument
And his source https://quran.com/3/169-170
And his source does say this, word for word. 1-0 rational skeptic sources.
and 'sane' as the following:
If you refer to a sane person, action, or system, you mean one that you think is reasonable and sensible.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sane
I agree - 2-0 rational skeptic, for argument
And source said that word for word. 2-0 Rational skeptic, for sourcing
The rest was conjecture.
So round 1 for rational skeptic ended with 2 hits for argument and 2 hits for sourcing.
Now i will way this up with fauxlaws argument in next post.
wrong.
Ask a moderator from this forum if they agree with you.
Because i quote "everything" i say. And do not add my own words, or opinions, i would then likely be quoting the entire article.
I cannot do this, due to just how much i quote my sources.
You are only allowed to quote one or two sentences. Which acts as click-bait. But over quoting becomes theift.
You may be able to quote a sentence here and there. As you mostly explain things in your own words, and put the links in comment section, and rarely do the links say 100% what you say, they say.
But that is not my style. I could not get away with quoting the sources. As i always source everything i say.
Well 100% of debaters on here, including you, leave it to the opponent to search through comment sections for your sources. On top of that, they may have to search through 535page books to find the quote one is referring to. I noticed one the other day. Wont mention who it was. He used as a source. A book, purchasable at £28, and really recommended it. Can be purchased on Amazon apparently.
Where-as "i", always quote word for word what my source said. just click on the link i always provide above the quote. And then click on the blue number, and see the source. You can then check through the source for the quote, just like you would have to do with a source in the comment section.
I always also when quoting wikipedia, link to the sub sections the source is relating to, so it zooms straight to the source.
Your criticism is invalid,
the problem with sourcing the actual wikipedia sources themselves, is "copyright".
If i source something, i "must" quote it, so that i cannot be accused of putting it in to my own words.
I cannot do this with outside sources.
Therefore i quote the wikipedia article.
And it is then up to my opponents if they wish to check the wikipedia sources.
They could do this just as easily by clicking on my link and checking the source themselves, just as they would check through the comments section to check my opponents sources. Your criticism is not valid
This has to come down to the integrity of my opponent.
Jackle. Do you agree with fauxlaw, that you successfully argued against my claim that Polio is treatable by vaccination?
Do you agree that this claim is consistant with your argument?
Can you please show me the list of diseases i produced that are not treated by vaccines?
Fauxlaw - Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting, which they have a right to do [this is, after all, the point of busness]
This is a lie.
You may believe vaccines do not treat diseases such as polio.
But the scientific community, and any sources i produced, very much believe that diseases such as Polio, are treatable by vaccine.
I object also to the vote by Fauxlaw "Argument: I look at the debate title and conclude, by the arguments, that Con did a better job of staying on point with regard to vaccines, the subject of the debate, whereas Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting, which they have a right to do [this is, after all, the point of busness] and is the direct cause of world sanitation issues [which pro did not prove regarding direct cause]. Points to Con"
I object on the grounds "whereas Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting",
This is "his" opinion. It was never discussed in the debate whether or not the diseases in my list are treatable by "big pharma". That specific topic did not arise. And it has not been concluded that diseases such as polio, are not treated by vaccine.
"Con did a better job of staying on point with regard to vaccines, the subject of the debate,"
I also object this was the subject of the debate.
The debate was "over reliance on vaccines may lead to profiteering and sanitation issues".
It actually, "was not" about vaccines.
I had already stated at beginnign of round 1, "Now the debate i am having here, in no way contradicts my belief in the good, and importance, of vaccines".
My opponent also awarded conduct a "tie".
Yet i was sworn at, abused, and was accused of holding beliefs i do not hold.
DrSpy round 5 - Con
"Con does a very detailed job at defending Wikipedias honour, and failing to see that Pro had no specific accusation. Con got easily sucked into a rabbit hole of irrelevance, something they should be aware of."
DrSpy again contradicts himself. In his round 4 analysis he was very critical of my opponents objections to my sourcing wikipedia.
Yet at the beginning of round 5, he is confused as to why i defend wikipedia, when my opponent apparently did not mention wikipedia.
DrSpy "And the final fatal admission made by Con was "Therefore i (sic) do not require to discuss Charles Darwin in order to show that texts in Genesis do not co-cooperate with our current understandings of evolution,"
Yet by DrSpys own admission, i had done a good job detailing Darwins lack of theistic belief.
So i find it questionable how DrSpy calculated this as a victory for my opponent. His very own analysis points to an overwhelming victory for me.
DrSpy round 4 "Pro does question the extensive use of Wikipedia as a source. Pro does not demonstrate any misquotes, or places where Cons arguments are misattributed, or taken out of context.".
So, i have never been accused "once" of misattribution, nor taking quotes out of context.
DrSpy actually continues to quite badly frown upon my opponent on this issue. " I think this was a case of screaming fire, without even smoke. I do not think this was a firecracker distraction and was based on genuine concern. The credibility of this concern would have been exponentially higher had a single reference related to Cons arguments been presented".
DrSpy literally said that my source was attacked, yet for no reason. There was no misattribution. No taking out of context. Yet DrSpy did still manage to conclude, somehow, that it was "a credible concern". Though my opponent failed to attack any of my statements. DrSpy still managed to find in favour of my opponent, quite simply, becaause "it may have been a credible concern".
DrSpy then continues to be skeptical regarding my opponets continuing to produce arguments made in the last round "Some may wonder if it is appropriate to leave such arguments to the last round. No restriction on new arguments was made at the onset. And considering the eclectic nature of Cons rebuttals, I see this as an attempt to ensure the corpus of the debate is maintained."
Yet DrSpy still continued to find in favour of my opponent due to the fact i did not raise an objection
DrSpy analysis round 2. "Con uses this round to attack the theistic tendencies and authenticity of Darwin. Con does a good job of this, however, I was left wondering what the overall value to the argument this would add, particularly when Con admits that the belief of Darwin is irrelevant."
I object to this on the grounds that DrSpy has contradicted his own statement. He says i did a good job attacking Darwins beliefs. Yet still upholds my opponents argument that i failed to include Darwin in my argument, which is proof right there my opponent was obviously misrepresenting what i had said, as DrSpy himself acknowledges i did a good job of this, whilst pooping in his own pie very next sentence
DrSpy - "Con concludes with "So, it appears the Adam and Eve narrative is not consistent with evolution theory unless the goal posts shift to Mesopotamian mythology being derived from earlier Sudanese mythology." I see this as an illogical statement. The topic of the debate did not say a co-operation between the texts in question was exclusive."
I object that DrSpy takes statements from me he either misunderstands, or, disagrees with, to validate statements made by my opponent, he either misunderstands, or, disagrees with, to validate the statements of my opponent
I initially respected the voting results. However i did have some objections that i initially did not raise. However i now wish to raise them.
To begin with.
DrSpy RD 1 analysis... DrSpy begins by pointing out what he considers to be a logical fallacy and error my opponent made. "When I first started reading this, it appears as if Pro had opened up a logical flank to be brutally attacked on. The statement "but much of the Bible is allegory, or metaphor, and it may have been a simple expression of inter-species evolution on an accelerated schedule." I thought would be the home base for assault by Con. It was not."
DrSpy decides that my not attacking it means my error validates my opponents error. Even though i did state this in round 5 "There is absolutely no need for Riddles. Allegory. Cryptic messages that only the truelly gifted can decipher."
DrSpy then write "Pro produces another potential error when implying that stem cells are the source of evolution, which is why a "rib" was used. Pro provides no support for this premise, however, Con does not address this."
Again. He is claiming that "my" error validates my opponents error....Even though i had already established that i believe the Genesis to be mesopotamian mythology..This would include, the rib allegations. "The first problem with my opponents contention arises in almost his first sentence, when he contaminates Scientific knowledge with Mesopotamian mythology". This was from my opening in round 1.
I also object to this
" Pro admits to agreeing to everything that Con was saying but just wanted Con to add sanitation to his/her agenda. That was not the debate purpose."
I said this at the opening of round 1.
"Now the debate i am having here, in no way contradicts my belief in the good, and importance, of vaccines."
I "was not" agreeing with Con...Con was agreeing with me.
By DrSpys own admission that the "agreement part" was any consequence to decision making, then it should have been in my favour
I also dispute the honesty of his conclusion, that me providing sources and links to every single little thing i said, is defeated by someone being diverse with their use of sourcing
" Pro relied heavily on Wikipedia quotes. 35 wiki references, and only one nonreference (quotes 3x). Con was very diverse, and while not as many, certainly demonstrates they did their homework. Points to Con"
DrSpys own analysis does not support his conclusions
This for example - "Pro hints that some new vaccines support his financial motives. But he frustratingly Pro does not develop anything related to CDC patents, the fact that so many current big pharma execs used to work at the CDC or FDA, the lobbying done, the fact that FDA recommended no testing for Gardasil 9... the contradictions by the WHO. Another HUGE area that was not developed was the fact that drug companies are indemnified by the federal government for any injuries caused by vaccines. There was so much potential and Pro did not address any of it."
Nowhere did my opponent state any of this, or make those objections
I have challenged DrSpys vote on the grounds he challenges the information i provided based upon his own understandings, and not the understandings of my opponent. He also says i did a good job on certain things, and i was attacked with rudeness and swearing. Yet he still concludes that i am wrong. Not based so much on my opponents understandings. But his own. His own understandings might also be wrong however.
"Summary, I do think that Pro deserved overall a larger point differential win than this vote shows, I am restricted by the categories."
Given that i voted for Con, i hope Con does not complain to much about me allerting DrSpy to his error.
As a voter for Con, i am not in anyway whatsoever allerting DrSpy for anyother reason than honesty.
DrSpy. You appear to think Pro deserved the victory. You appear under the impression that you awarded him a narrow victory. You did not. Your Maths ended at a 3-3 draw.
Sorry Con. that was not personal. I voted for you.
Hi, i forgot to provide a citation for this claim here.
"And now, today, we have the likes of Prevnar, Gardasil, Pedarix, which each had sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008."
Here it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy#Financial_motives
"In the early 21st century, the vaccine market greatly improved with the approval of the vaccine Prevnar, along with a small number of other high-priced blockbuster vaccines, such as Gardasil and Pediarix, which each had sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008"
I will try to remember and include it at the beginning of round 2
tdap is a typo
However i have changed it, and it is not the topic of the argument.
And i am not discussing anything in comments.
If you take the challenge you read the description first.
I will reveal the study in round 1.
If you are not happy with the study. Then it is a bit different to your other debate.
There are expectations on you to prove why "your" doubts should be considered worthy over that of Scientific consensus
Hi Jackie. I am also new here. This is a great site. But i have learnt a few lessons this week. I also went in to debates assuming it would be conducted openly and honestly. I have also learnt you need to be aware when taking on debates. A person arguing in favour of "evil over good" for example, should be easy pickings, However they narrow it down in scope so much that they might just be able to provide no other argument other than "you failed to prove anything". In reality, this is not a good argument. And no argument could ever prove that evil is morally better than good. Proving this would take more than a good argument. It would require an "extraordinary argument" with "extraordinary evidence". But i would not worry Jackie if you feel you lost a debate that is equal to "evil" preceding over "good". But it wasn't. Anyone can see it was just a play on words preceding over a newby.
Instead of becoming angry, i would suggest before starting debates you pay some attention to the description and make sure you clarify that this is an "honest debate" and define what you mean by honest.
That is what i will be doing in future. I am working on my description just now, and one of the main focuses will be on the requirement of my opponent to also have expectations to not just disprove my claims, but also to prove their own counter arguments. And that it is expected they do also have counter arguments of their own, which they should be attempting to prove and support with quoted citation.
You might also want to include before publishing your debate, that wordplay arguments should not be assumed as being a good debate strategy. The onus is not just on you to "prove" your argument. But also for your opponent to provide a counter argument that can be weighed up against your own.
If we wish to have professional debates then we must make clear in description.
But it is too late for you to do this now. But good luck. I wont be voting on this however as i by me posting this to you, it is too obvious that i am biased towards your side of the argument
If there is a "sticky" on here, then this debate should deserve a "sticky".
What a great topic.
I am extremely interested in this.
But first i must make sure that i feel i have an argument to provide.
I think i definitely do. But need to do some studying first to get my tactics organised.
If someone else comes along in the meantime, so be it.
Apologies i voted against you. I did so because i felt your opponent considered the most important thing of all, the baby. Having had a relationship with a woman that had a nervous breakdown after she miscarried at an early stage, i know abortion is not an easy thing for most women to consider.
There are things called "pill" and responsibility which should be encouraged before abortion.
I feel Con was more sympathetic to this side of the argument
What is the unborn? Does it matter what we do with the unborn? Personhood? The Dehumanizing of the Unborn.
I apologise for agreeing with your opponent and costing you points.
Can you please remove my vote. I volunteer it's removal, as it appears there is a debating process to go through before votes will be accepted. And i suspect that this debate will just continue, until they get the vote they want. Thank you
Thanks. Have tried to vote a second time in good faith. But if this fails i will not try a 3rd time. I am not looking to have a debate with Pro over the votes.
Ok, if you are going to argue against Chemtrail conspiracy. I will not be opposing the view as such, as i will be establishing that your argument is as born as much out of ignorance, as that of a Chemtrail believer. I will be arguing that your belief is just the opposite side of same ignorant coin, more than me taking the side of the conspiracy theorist. (Yes, i am well aware i have the unique ability of upsetting both factions)
And please do not take that literally. Stating that i will be debating that your belief on this occasion is born out of ignorance, is not the same as calling you ignorant. I do not think you are. Purely the belief you have chosen to assume for this debate, is a belief born out of ignorance.
I am doing no such thing Dr as using Chemtrails as an unoffensive topic.
It is a topic. I will be discussing it philosophically and in good nature with the best of luck to my opponent.
If my opponent wishes to be emotional about the subject, or be offended, then that is their perogative.
And i am making no such arguments about free speech. Whether or not i believe free speech should be protected regardless of how extreme that speech is, could only be concluded after a debate on that specific subject, and i am not sure whether i would be the Pro for that debate. I will likely be the Con.
But what i am actually arguing, is that if one is a chemtrailer, i will be able to oppose their argument.
And if one is of the anti-chemtrail debunking group, then i will be able to challenge that too.
Though those are just advisories.
My opponent can make any argument they wish.
In order for the contender to win. The contender would need to be either left wing or right wing.
right wing being that they believe Satan/Illuminati or some other Lex Lutherian figure is quite literally sitting on the back of contrails and intentionally harming humans for nefarious purposes. And this type of right winger likely believes that anyone that does not realise that our governments are puppets for this evil ringleader, must be sheeple, or shills..The left winger to win, would obviously also require to prove this to the voters.
The flip side of the coin, that i also accept as a challenger, are the contemporary contrailers.
The left winger.
However they would need to be a of the mindset of the "debunker", or "skeptic". A person that actively "opposes" conspiracy theories. A debunker is likely 100% opposed to the chemtrail conspiracy theory, to the extent, those that posit the erroneous claims are uneducated tin foil hat wearing junkies, that do not understand contemporary science to the degree those that debunk such claims do.
And just like a conspiracy theorists likely believes his mission is so important, and he needs to save mankind by waking them up to the dangers of chemtrails, a debunker likely also believes that the disinformation spread by chemtrail believers is so dangerous, that it could lead to radicalisation, and acts of extremity, those people should be censored with free speech removed.
But you are right oromagi. This debate is quite narrow in scope.
It could only be conducted by one of the two descriptions i have described.
While there are plenty chemtrail believers out there. And also many debunkers and active skeptics. I am not sure if there are any here. In which case, the debate would be best just falling in to the abyss
ps
Apologies if you do not agree with who is left wing and who is right wing.
I did not give it much thought. So is not really important.
Ah very interesting ancestry you have. It sounds like you are walking in the footsteps of the "Fitz Flaad family".
My familial roots come out of Olduvai via Gaul, then to Scotland, where according to Robert Louis Stevenson The 'Pagans of North Berwick' had the worst of reputations. They were said to tie a horse's neck to its knee and attach a lantern to the rope, then drive the horse slowly along the cliffs, so that a vessel out at sea would think it a ship riding at anchor, and come in, only to be wrecked on the rocky reef known as the Great Car and be plundered by the ghoulish people. These tales gave Stevenson the idea for his story 'The Wreckers'. Stevenson also wrote in his novel 'Catriona' (sequel to Kidnapped) of the 'lights of "Hidden to protect my second name from public view"' and purposely put 'Tam Dale' in charge of the prisoners on the Bass Rock
I would not necessarily disagree with that. Though i don't want to give away what my arguments will be. However if someone is looking for psychic readings in to what facts i am likely to come up with, then they could ask the person that invited me to this site, Dr Franklin, as he has seen my argument before.
Just like to say thank you for the debate, and for helping me choose my avatar. I went for a picture of Procopious, seen as how my first debate on this site was regarding the writings of procopious, thanks to you.
Thank you for the kind help and support you are providing to newbies such as myself. Please feel free to also answer the question i posed to Ragnar regards to whether i can now start a new debate, even though this debate has currently ran it's course prematurely, but is still for all intents and purposes active
As this debate has ran it's course prematurely, i would like to partake in a new debate. The only problem is that "officially" this current debate is no longer being argued, though i am willing to continue the debate in round 3 if my opponent decides to change his/her mind. I am just wondering however, am i able to create a debate whilst i still have a for all intents and purposes debate running?
I assume you are a moderator? My opponent no longer wishes to contunue due to unforseen circumstances. In the event of me having no debate to counter. I have nothing else to add. Can we close the debate now please?
Thank you oromagi....It appears my opponent has gone awol. What happens in the event that he does not show up? Will this debate still be included in one of my three debates to obtaining voting status? Will the debate just be pulled? Or will the round just pass to me?
I would just like to say, i am away working without internet access between Wednesday and Friday evening, so if this debate is still going on, on wednesday morning, can i then ask for the good grace of my opponent to not post his argument until Thursday evening or Friday morning, so that i can then resond, with what i imagine would be the final round, on Saturday
Don't worry Doc. Will give it a try, once i have recovered from my days wasted on that Saddam debate at Debate.org
You got voting privileges over there btw?
"That entire context is revealing: when we fall into temptation [or ignorance], maintain patience by the work of faith, letting patience have its perfect work. Then when we lack wisdom, ask God. We have just been through a process of personal purification and are worthy to receive knowledge and wisdom we lack. Nevertheless, that, too, must be acted on in faith, without doubt, to earn the knowledge that will come."
This is a great interpretation, however fauxlaw is failing to interpretate the evils of the bible Rat Skep conjured. If this continue. then it is 0-4 argument
0-3 argument
0-9 sources
0-1 conduct
"That said, the quote my opponent offered from the Qur’an, The Imrans, 3: 169-170, is just such a passage that, allegedly, described what he interpreted, but by what words I must challenge. "And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. “Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision, rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them - that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.”[3] My opponent concluded by that passage that “This is severely alarming. Encouragement of abuse to one’s wife, stoning, and many other things…”[4]"
Here fauxlaw makes two source violations in my estimation. Have already explaained why i consider them violations
He interprets the bible, trying to rebute Rat Skep, and what is in the writing is horrific, almost 0-4 argument
Source 0-11
Argument still 0-3
Conduct 0-1
"I do not read Arabic. My volume of the Qur’an is a slightly different passage of words, which are similar enough to understand that my opponent's quotation and my volume are saying the same thing. Close enough to know that in neither volume do I perceive “encouragement of abuse to one’s wife…”[1] etc. Do you? I will quote The Imrans, 3: 3 - 5, refuting a later claim by my opponent that “many intra-religion contradictions, intra-Abrahamic-inter-religion contradictions and to furthermore not irrationally rule out all non-Abrahamic religions as worth your time.” The above reference reads, “He [Allah] has revealed to you the Book with the Torah, confining the scriptures which preceded it; for He has already revealed the Torah and the Gospel for the guidance of, and the distinction of right and wrong.”[2]
Here my opponent admits he has not read the quran. I may or may not see that as contradicting earlier claims about himself. But will let him off. He appears to now be of the opinion he has successfuly rebuffed Rat Skep and shown how he was mistaken about the quran encouraging stoning women.But i do not see how. He says it. yes. but what he says to does support the claim he has offered a logical and coherent explanation. It is just a baselss claim.
sources - 0-11
argument 0-4
conduct 0-1
fauxlaw R1
"First, I will argue that my opponent has not read the Torah, The Holy Bible, nor the Qur’an word for word, cover to cover. It is effortless at this juncture in our technical history to conceive a topic, and research an associated passage, holy writ to profane text [profane in the sense as described by the Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, OED] as: “2. In a neutral sense. Not relating or devoted to what is sacred or biblical; unconsecrated, secular, lay; civil as distinguished from ecclesiastical; as profane history, profane literature, etc.”[1] However, I have read all three, and other holy writ, cover to cover. They are worth the read."
I am going to start with proposing awarding fauxlaw with a conduct violation.
He opened his argument by arguing his opponent has not read the Torah, The holy bible, or quran word for word cover to cover.
I claim this is a conduct violation, because nowhere in what opponent said, did he suggest anything about himself. There was also a claim made by fauxlaw himself. Obviously he claims to have read all this word for word, cover to cover. So i am also going to suggest a source violation. As we are just supposed to take his word for this? no source given. And it does not just fall under conjecture, like opponents conjecture did, as he is making a huge claim that would influence what people think of him, which requires validation and citation
0-1 conduct
0-4 sources
For his source for "profane" i award no points for source. His link requires copying and pasting in to google, and his (1) does not work. whereas his opponent produced the link in a manner it could simply be clicked on.
"It is tempting to focus on the relevant passage, ignoring context. Nor is it revealing to ignore the culture behind the language. I digress a moment to comment on the last reference to explain what I mean by “culture behind the language.” I was an undergraduate student at BYU, Provo, UT, taking a course in Egyptian [hieroglyphs] Grammar. The professor, Dr. Hugh Nibley, in the Antiquities Department, and fluent in at least a dozen languages in which he lectured at will, in utter fluidity from one to another, assumed we poor students were hanging on every word. I felt fortunate that at least I had French mastered, and some Greek and Italian. Other than ancient Egyptian, and English, of course, he spoke Hebrew, Greek, German, French, Italian, Russian, Sanskrit, and Arabic. And more.
Ok so from above we learn a lot about fauxlaw, but fauxlaw is not the subject. Also nothing to source the claims about himself he is making. I am not saying he is a charlatan. But is foolish to just assume anything without citation.
0-1 conduct
0-5 sources
Still 2-0 Rat Skep argument
"Nibley taught that all language translation was necessarily flawed as being merely dictionary-to-dictionary transcription while lacking any understanding of the culture behind the language to translate. He taught that it was culture that drove language, and not the reverse. Dictionaries do not teach the culture of the language. The OED approaches the lack by its exhaustive etymological investigation,[2]but even that is not enough. Therefore, his course taught us, first, an in-depth understanding of ancient Egyptian life, simple daily activities, thoughts on the cosmos, on farming techniques along the Nile, religion and gods, worship of the pharaoh, etc. Only then did we crack the alphabet, vocabulary, and grammar.[3]
A lot about Nibley. Nothing that i see contradicts Rat Skep, as yet, and again "source" (2) does not even work when clicked on. And what is he sourcing exactly? why not provide the quote? As far as i can see, those are his own words. He is sourcing his own words? Due to it being 2020, and the ability for a debater to provide a quote, and source the link above the quote, this has to constitute a black mark. Same with (3)
My opponent then sources the holy bible that my opponent has already shown believes to be inaccurate. Or believes to be inaccurate. And fauxlaw has not proven that Rat Skeps opinion is wrong. And again, that "source", [1] Without quote, or link, it is meaningless.
conduct 0-1
Sourcing 0-9
argument 0-3
"“2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.”[2]
conduct 0-1
sourcing 0-11
argument 0-3
Ok, my opponents post is so long, i will post this, and continue on his round 1 rebuttal
Only one way to get around this problem of votes being reported, is to show properly how one comes to the conslusion they do, and allow users to sub-debate the votes.
R1 Rational Skeptics 1st claim of relevance
"This is severely alarming. Encouragement to abuse one's wife, stoning and many other things are there in all three religions. If you are to seriously take the scripture as the ineffible word of an omnipotent, omniscient being that demands worship from you or eternal damnation, you are on your way to being flat out insane."
Regarding this
"And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision, rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them - that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve."
And i agree. 1-0 Rational Skeptic, argument
And his source https://quran.com/3/169-170
And his source does say this, word for word. 1-0 rational skeptic sources.
and 'sane' as the following:
If you refer to a sane person, action, or system, you mean one that you think is reasonable and sensible.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sane
I agree - 2-0 rational skeptic, for argument
And source said that word for word. 2-0 Rational skeptic, for sourcing
The rest was conjecture.
So round 1 for rational skeptic ended with 2 hits for argument and 2 hits for sourcing.
Now i will way this up with fauxlaws argument in next post.
Can you please source from the debate, just where myself and TheJackle had the debate about heart disease please
wrong.
Ask a moderator from this forum if they agree with you.
Because i quote "everything" i say. And do not add my own words, or opinions, i would then likely be quoting the entire article.
I cannot do this, due to just how much i quote my sources.
You are only allowed to quote one or two sentences. Which acts as click-bait. But over quoting becomes theift.
You may be able to quote a sentence here and there. As you mostly explain things in your own words, and put the links in comment section, and rarely do the links say 100% what you say, they say.
But that is not my style. I could not get away with quoting the sources. As i always source everything i say.
But my article was relating to cholera, and other diseases such as Polio.
Not heart disease. Nowehere was heart disease the central point
http://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2009/05/14/sanitation-vs-vaccination-cholera-control
Well 100% of debaters on here, including you, leave it to the opponent to search through comment sections for your sources. On top of that, they may have to search through 535page books to find the quote one is referring to. I noticed one the other day. Wont mention who it was. He used as a source. A book, purchasable at £28, and really recommended it. Can be purchased on Amazon apparently.
Where-as "i", always quote word for word what my source said. just click on the link i always provide above the quote. And then click on the blue number, and see the source. You can then check through the source for the quote, just like you would have to do with a source in the comment section.
I always also when quoting wikipedia, link to the sub sections the source is relating to, so it zooms straight to the source.
Your criticism is invalid,
the problem with sourcing the actual wikipedia sources themselves, is "copyright".
If i source something, i "must" quote it, so that i cannot be accused of putting it in to my own words.
I cannot do this with outside sources.
Therefore i quote the wikipedia article.
And it is then up to my opponents if they wish to check the wikipedia sources.
They could do this just as easily by clicking on my link and checking the source themselves, just as they would check through the comments section to check my opponents sources. Your criticism is not valid
This has to come down to the integrity of my opponent.
Jackle. Do you agree with fauxlaw, that you successfully argued against my claim that Polio is treatable by vaccination?
Do you agree that this claim is consistant with your argument?
Can you please show me the list of diseases i produced that are not treated by vaccines?
Fauxlaw - Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting, which they have a right to do [this is, after all, the point of busness]
This is a lie.
You may believe vaccines do not treat diseases such as polio.
But the scientific community, and any sources i produced, very much believe that diseases such as Polio, are treatable by vaccine.
I object also to the vote by Fauxlaw "Argument: I look at the debate title and conclude, by the arguments, that Con did a better job of staying on point with regard to vaccines, the subject of the debate, whereas Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting, which they have a right to do [this is, after all, the point of busness] and is the direct cause of world sanitation issues [which pro did not prove regarding direct cause]. Points to Con"
I object on the grounds "whereas Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting",
This is "his" opinion. It was never discussed in the debate whether or not the diseases in my list are treatable by "big pharma". That specific topic did not arise. And it has not been concluded that diseases such as polio, are not treated by vaccine.
"Con did a better job of staying on point with regard to vaccines, the subject of the debate,"
I also object this was the subject of the debate.
The debate was "over reliance on vaccines may lead to profiteering and sanitation issues".
It actually, "was not" about vaccines.
I had already stated at beginnign of round 1, "Now the debate i am having here, in no way contradicts my belief in the good, and importance, of vaccines".
My opponent also awarded conduct a "tie".
Yet i was sworn at, abused, and was accused of holding beliefs i do not hold.
Please can you read my objections below, and tell me you actually agree that DrSpys own analysis supports his own conclusion
DrSpy round 5 - Con
"Con does a very detailed job at defending Wikipedias honour, and failing to see that Pro had no specific accusation. Con got easily sucked into a rabbit hole of irrelevance, something they should be aware of."
DrSpy again contradicts himself. In his round 4 analysis he was very critical of my opponents objections to my sourcing wikipedia.
Yet at the beginning of round 5, he is confused as to why i defend wikipedia, when my opponent apparently did not mention wikipedia.
DrSpy "And the final fatal admission made by Con was "Therefore i (sic) do not require to discuss Charles Darwin in order to show that texts in Genesis do not co-cooperate with our current understandings of evolution,"
Yet by DrSpys own admission, i had done a good job detailing Darwins lack of theistic belief.
So i find it questionable how DrSpy calculated this as a victory for my opponent. His very own analysis points to an overwhelming victory for me.
DrSpy round 4 "Pro does question the extensive use of Wikipedia as a source. Pro does not demonstrate any misquotes, or places where Cons arguments are misattributed, or taken out of context.".
So, i have never been accused "once" of misattribution, nor taking quotes out of context.
DrSpy actually continues to quite badly frown upon my opponent on this issue. " I think this was a case of screaming fire, without even smoke. I do not think this was a firecracker distraction and was based on genuine concern. The credibility of this concern would have been exponentially higher had a single reference related to Cons arguments been presented".
DrSpy literally said that my source was attacked, yet for no reason. There was no misattribution. No taking out of context. Yet DrSpy did still manage to conclude, somehow, that it was "a credible concern". Though my opponent failed to attack any of my statements. DrSpy still managed to find in favour of my opponent, quite simply, becaause "it may have been a credible concern".
DrSpy then continues to be skeptical regarding my opponets continuing to produce arguments made in the last round "Some may wonder if it is appropriate to leave such arguments to the last round. No restriction on new arguments was made at the onset. And considering the eclectic nature of Cons rebuttals, I see this as an attempt to ensure the corpus of the debate is maintained."
Yet DrSpy still continued to find in favour of my opponent due to the fact i did not raise an objection
DrSpy analysis round 2. "Con uses this round to attack the theistic tendencies and authenticity of Darwin. Con does a good job of this, however, I was left wondering what the overall value to the argument this would add, particularly when Con admits that the belief of Darwin is irrelevant."
I object to this on the grounds that DrSpy has contradicted his own statement. He says i did a good job attacking Darwins beliefs. Yet still upholds my opponents argument that i failed to include Darwin in my argument, which is proof right there my opponent was obviously misrepresenting what i had said, as DrSpy himself acknowledges i did a good job of this, whilst pooping in his own pie very next sentence
DrSpy - "Con concludes with "So, it appears the Adam and Eve narrative is not consistent with evolution theory unless the goal posts shift to Mesopotamian mythology being derived from earlier Sudanese mythology." I see this as an illogical statement. The topic of the debate did not say a co-operation between the texts in question was exclusive."
I object that DrSpy takes statements from me he either misunderstands, or, disagrees with, to validate statements made by my opponent, he either misunderstands, or, disagrees with, to validate the statements of my opponent
I initially respected the voting results. However i did have some objections that i initially did not raise. However i now wish to raise them.
To begin with.
DrSpy RD 1 analysis... DrSpy begins by pointing out what he considers to be a logical fallacy and error my opponent made. "When I first started reading this, it appears as if Pro had opened up a logical flank to be brutally attacked on. The statement "but much of the Bible is allegory, or metaphor, and it may have been a simple expression of inter-species evolution on an accelerated schedule." I thought would be the home base for assault by Con. It was not."
DrSpy decides that my not attacking it means my error validates my opponents error. Even though i did state this in round 5 "There is absolutely no need for Riddles. Allegory. Cryptic messages that only the truelly gifted can decipher."
DrSpy then write "Pro produces another potential error when implying that stem cells are the source of evolution, which is why a "rib" was used. Pro provides no support for this premise, however, Con does not address this."
Again. He is claiming that "my" error validates my opponents error....Even though i had already established that i believe the Genesis to be mesopotamian mythology..This would include, the rib allegations. "The first problem with my opponents contention arises in almost his first sentence, when he contaminates Scientific knowledge with Mesopotamian mythology". This was from my opening in round 1.
Hi, can you please read my objections.
I also object to this
" Pro admits to agreeing to everything that Con was saying but just wanted Con to add sanitation to his/her agenda. That was not the debate purpose."
I said this at the opening of round 1.
"Now the debate i am having here, in no way contradicts my belief in the good, and importance, of vaccines."
I "was not" agreeing with Con...Con was agreeing with me.
By DrSpys own admission that the "agreement part" was any consequence to decision making, then it should have been in my favour
I also dispute the honesty of his conclusion, that me providing sources and links to every single little thing i said, is defeated by someone being diverse with their use of sourcing
" Pro relied heavily on Wikipedia quotes. 35 wiki references, and only one nonreference (quotes 3x). Con was very diverse, and while not as many, certainly demonstrates they did their homework. Points to Con"
DrSpys own analysis does not support his conclusions
This for example - "Pro hints that some new vaccines support his financial motives. But he frustratingly Pro does not develop anything related to CDC patents, the fact that so many current big pharma execs used to work at the CDC or FDA, the lobbying done, the fact that FDA recommended no testing for Gardasil 9... the contradictions by the WHO. Another HUGE area that was not developed was the fact that drug companies are indemnified by the federal government for any injuries caused by vaccines. There was so much potential and Pro did not address any of it."
Nowhere did my opponent state any of this, or make those objections
I have challenged DrSpys vote on the grounds he challenges the information i provided based upon his own understandings, and not the understandings of my opponent. He also says i did a good job on certain things, and i was attacked with rudeness and swearing. Yet he still concludes that i am wrong. Not based so much on my opponents understandings. But his own. His own understandings might also be wrong however.
"Summary, I do think that Pro deserved overall a larger point differential win than this vote shows, I am restricted by the categories."
Given that i voted for Con, i hope Con does not complain to much about me allerting DrSpy to his error.
As a voter for Con, i am not in anyway whatsoever allerting DrSpy for anyother reason than honesty.
DrSpy. You appear to think Pro deserved the victory. You appear under the impression that you awarded him a narrow victory. You did not. Your Maths ended at a 3-3 draw.
Sorry Con. that was not personal. I voted for you.
You may be interested in reading the opening post i made on the new "dtap" thread.
Hi, i forgot to provide a citation for this claim here.
"And now, today, we have the likes of Prevnar, Gardasil, Pedarix, which each had sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008."
Here it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy#Financial_motives
"In the early 21st century, the vaccine market greatly improved with the approval of the vaccine Prevnar, along with a small number of other high-priced blockbuster vaccines, such as Gardasil and Pediarix, which each had sales revenues of over $1 billion in 2008"
I will try to remember and include it at the beginning of round 2
tdap is a typo
However i have changed it, and it is not the topic of the argument.
And i am not discussing anything in comments.
If you take the challenge you read the description first.
I will reveal the study in round 1.
If you are not happy with the study. Then it is a bit different to your other debate.
There are expectations on you to prove why "your" doubts should be considered worthy over that of Scientific consensus
Hi Jackie. I am also new here. This is a great site. But i have learnt a few lessons this week. I also went in to debates assuming it would be conducted openly and honestly. I have also learnt you need to be aware when taking on debates. A person arguing in favour of "evil over good" for example, should be easy pickings, However they narrow it down in scope so much that they might just be able to provide no other argument other than "you failed to prove anything". In reality, this is not a good argument. And no argument could ever prove that evil is morally better than good. Proving this would take more than a good argument. It would require an "extraordinary argument" with "extraordinary evidence". But i would not worry Jackie if you feel you lost a debate that is equal to "evil" preceding over "good". But it wasn't. Anyone can see it was just a play on words preceding over a newby.
Instead of becoming angry, i would suggest before starting debates you pay some attention to the description and make sure you clarify that this is an "honest debate" and define what you mean by honest.
That is what i will be doing in future. I am working on my description just now, and one of the main focuses will be on the requirement of my opponent to also have expectations to not just disprove my claims, but also to prove their own counter arguments. And that it is expected they do also have counter arguments of their own, which they should be attempting to prove and support with quoted citation.
You might also want to include before publishing your debate, that wordplay arguments should not be assumed as being a good debate strategy. The onus is not just on you to "prove" your argument. But also for your opponent to provide a counter argument that can be weighed up against your own.
If we wish to have professional debates then we must make clear in description.
But it is too late for you to do this now. But good luck. I wont be voting on this however as i by me posting this to you, it is too obvious that i am biased towards your side of the argument
Thank you for voting. Was wondering if any votes were ever going to come.
If there is a "sticky" on here, then this debate should deserve a "sticky".
What a great topic.
I am extremely interested in this.
But first i must make sure that i feel i have an argument to provide.
I think i definitely do. But need to do some studying first to get my tactics organised.
If someone else comes along in the meantime, so be it.
Apologies i voted against you. I did so because i felt your opponent considered the most important thing of all, the baby. Having had a relationship with a woman that had a nervous breakdown after she miscarried at an early stage, i know abortion is not an easy thing for most women to consider.
There are things called "pill" and responsibility which should be encouraged before abortion.
I feel Con was more sympathetic to this side of the argument
What is the unborn? Does it matter what we do with the unborn? Personhood? The Dehumanizing of the Unborn.
I apologise for agreeing with your opponent and costing you points.
Ok thank you.
Can you please remove my vote. I volunteer it's removal, as it appears there is a debating process to go through before votes will be accepted. And i suspect that this debate will just continue, until they get the vote they want. Thank you
That is fine. I cast a vote. You dont respect it. You attack the voter. As you wish.
Thanks. Have tried to vote a second time in good faith. But if this fails i will not try a 3rd time. I am not looking to have a debate with Pro over the votes.
Ok, if you are going to argue against Chemtrail conspiracy. I will not be opposing the view as such, as i will be establishing that your argument is as born as much out of ignorance, as that of a Chemtrail believer. I will be arguing that your belief is just the opposite side of same ignorant coin, more than me taking the side of the conspiracy theorist. (Yes, i am well aware i have the unique ability of upsetting both factions)
And please do not take that literally. Stating that i will be debating that your belief on this occasion is born out of ignorance, is not the same as calling you ignorant. I do not think you are. Purely the belief you have chosen to assume for this debate, is a belief born out of ignorance.
I am doing no such thing Dr as using Chemtrails as an unoffensive topic.
It is a topic. I will be discussing it philosophically and in good nature with the best of luck to my opponent.
If my opponent wishes to be emotional about the subject, or be offended, then that is their perogative.
And i am making no such arguments about free speech. Whether or not i believe free speech should be protected regardless of how extreme that speech is, could only be concluded after a debate on that specific subject, and i am not sure whether i would be the Pro for that debate. I will likely be the Con.
But what i am actually arguing, is that if one is a chemtrailer, i will be able to oppose their argument.
And if one is of the anti-chemtrail debunking group, then i will be able to challenge that too.
Though those are just advisories.
My opponent can make any argument they wish.
In order for the contender to win. The contender would need to be either left wing or right wing.
right wing being that they believe Satan/Illuminati or some other Lex Lutherian figure is quite literally sitting on the back of contrails and intentionally harming humans for nefarious purposes. And this type of right winger likely believes that anyone that does not realise that our governments are puppets for this evil ringleader, must be sheeple, or shills..The left winger to win, would obviously also require to prove this to the voters.
The flip side of the coin, that i also accept as a challenger, are the contemporary contrailers.
The left winger.
However they would need to be a of the mindset of the "debunker", or "skeptic". A person that actively "opposes" conspiracy theories. A debunker is likely 100% opposed to the chemtrail conspiracy theory, to the extent, those that posit the erroneous claims are uneducated tin foil hat wearing junkies, that do not understand contemporary science to the degree those that debunk such claims do.
And just like a conspiracy theorists likely believes his mission is so important, and he needs to save mankind by waking them up to the dangers of chemtrails, a debunker likely also believes that the disinformation spread by chemtrail believers is so dangerous, that it could lead to radicalisation, and acts of extremity, those people should be censored with free speech removed.
But you are right oromagi. This debate is quite narrow in scope.
It could only be conducted by one of the two descriptions i have described.
While there are plenty chemtrail believers out there. And also many debunkers and active skeptics. I am not sure if there are any here. In which case, the debate would be best just falling in to the abyss
ps
Apologies if you do not agree with who is left wing and who is right wing.
I did not give it much thought. So is not really important.
Ah very interesting ancestry you have. It sounds like you are walking in the footsteps of the "Fitz Flaad family".
My familial roots come out of Olduvai via Gaul, then to Scotland, where according to Robert Louis Stevenson The 'Pagans of North Berwick' had the worst of reputations. They were said to tie a horse's neck to its knee and attach a lantern to the rope, then drive the horse slowly along the cliffs, so that a vessel out at sea would think it a ship riding at anchor, and come in, only to be wrecked on the rocky reef known as the Great Car and be plundered by the ghoulish people. These tales gave Stevenson the idea for his story 'The Wreckers'. Stevenson also wrote in his novel 'Catriona' (sequel to Kidnapped) of the 'lights of "Hidden to protect my second name from public view"' and purposely put 'Tam Dale' in charge of the prisoners on the Bass Rock
Good luck with the debate
I would not necessarily disagree with that. Though i don't want to give away what my arguments will be. However if someone is looking for psychic readings in to what facts i am likely to come up with, then they could ask the person that invited me to this site, Dr Franklin, as he has seen my argument before.
Hi fauxlaw. This is your debate. I accept any rules you wish.
Yes you are correct. I have also added at the end that this is just a thesis. And in particular, my thesis. So that there is no misunderstanding.
Just like to say thank you for the debate, and for helping me choose my avatar. I went for a picture of Procopious, seen as how my first debate on this site was regarding the writings of procopious, thanks to you.
Thank you for the kind help and support you are providing to newbies such as myself. Please feel free to also answer the question i posed to Ragnar regards to whether i can now start a new debate, even though this debate has currently ran it's course prematurely, but is still for all intents and purposes active
As this debate has ran it's course prematurely, i would like to partake in a new debate. The only problem is that "officially" this current debate is no longer being argued, though i am willing to continue the debate in round 3 if my opponent decides to change his/her mind. I am just wondering however, am i able to create a debate whilst i still have a for all intents and purposes debate running?
I assume you are a moderator? My opponent no longer wishes to contunue due to unforseen circumstances. In the event of me having no debate to counter. I have nothing else to add. Can we close the debate now please?
Thank you oromagi....It appears my opponent has gone awol. What happens in the event that he does not show up? Will this debate still be included in one of my three debates to obtaining voting status? Will the debate just be pulled? Or will the round just pass to me?
I would just like to say, i am away working without internet access between Wednesday and Friday evening, so if this debate is still going on, on wednesday morning, can i then ask for the good grace of my opponent to not post his argument until Thursday evening or Friday morning, so that i can then resond, with what i imagine would be the final round, on Saturday
Don't worry Doc. Will give it a try, once i have recovered from my days wasted on that Saddam debate at Debate.org
You got voting privileges over there btw?
Thanks for letting me know about this. Not going to waste time in this case, wasting time on debates and voting if the voting sytstem is manipulated