1. I consider myself bisexual favoring the gay side. I don't know honestly I am a bit confused, my sexual preferences for women has been steadily going down and in a few years, it'll probably be nonexistent.
2. I believe head is overrated quite frankly, I've been on both sides and didn't enjoy it.
3. Depends on the day, it's like with women and positions some days you may want one position, other days you may like another.
Alright well I got this notion from you since you're talking about how you'll savagely take me down.
It's very obvious you think you're some hyper-intelligent genius and the fact you assume that's where I got this notion from proves it even further.
Assuming you're Kvng from debate.org, you're far from hyper-intelligent in fact you're arguably one of the worst debaters currently on the site.
The fact you tried to impersonate and take down Omar and failed on a broken platform with no mods disproves your preconceived notions about yourself.
Also, I mean who's the one being more childish here, so far you've been making up childish insults like " Mrs pink " ( which isn't even that funny ) and overall misrepresented the rules of the site.
I mean I could explain the rules to you however since you've already demonstrated to me you're incompetent and have no real argument and just lash out insults, I'd be wasting my time.
I just find it funny that King_8 has this ego complex where he believes I am scared of him or he is some intelligent genius, both are laughable assertions at best and very narcissistic behavior at worse.
King_8 if you are reading this, I am not scared of you on a physical or mental level and I personally believe you suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect if you believe this to be the case.
Posting new arguments at the final round isn't poor conduct considering you had yourself another round to respond, I never agreed to the format you cited at the beginning of the round.
I tried to explain to you that you can't change the terms in the middle of the debate if you ignored this then this is your fault.
As far as your criticisms for not bringing up other parts of socialization, you gave me no choice.
I asked if it was ok to extend the character limit and you said no.
How was I supposed to add more parts when we were already cutting it close as is?
What's your point? I don't have time to spend hours formulating an argument that I can state in around an hour.
Considering my win-loss ratio on DART and on DDO, my strategy seems to be doing ok.
I don't expect you to spend hours on an argument and neither should you.
If I did misrepresent points, bring it up in the debate however it's my choice how long I need to spend on an argument, if I can make a good argument in an hour I don't see the problem.
Forgot to bring up a few arguments concerning the questions and how they're important, I'll add them to the next round as they're pretty important. My apologies.
Yeah ok then I mean if you don't want to accept the dictionary definitions of the terms and don't want to listen to reason that's on you.
Also, I am pretty sure you're trolling at this point ( and judging from your win-loss ratio and past debates this is most likely the case ). You do understand that socialization can also mean socialistic policies right? Even if you were correct you're just playing word games at this point.
You're pathetic attempts to insult me have only outlined that you truly have no argument or counter-argument and are instead trying to win by use of personal insults ( which aren't even valid since I proved your poorly constructed hypothesis wrong ).
Alright so now you're not only ignoring the definitions I sited which I explained in a pretty simple and easy to understand way, but now you're resorting to baseless personal insults.
Ok, so you are completely going to ignore the countless definitions of it I've cited to you and instead make up your own definitions which have little to do with objective and subjective morality.
The situations and semantics of the statements have nothing to do with this.
Objective morality means the morality is inarguable and it's a fact.
So under an objective morality system if murder happened to be wrong and I stated,
" Murder is right"
Well under that system since it's objective morality that statement is incorrect.
Under a subjective morality system, that statement would be arguable hence why I am clarifying that this debate will assume God's morality is subjective as inarguable and not a fact.
I am having a hard time understanding why you believe this is so troubling when these are established definitions and am having a hard time why you're making up your own definitions for these words.
I mean the definition I cited literally states that objective morality is implying the morality is a fact.
Ok I don't think you actually understand the definition.
The definition heavily implies that Subjective morality is SUBJECTIVE as in an opinion that matters purely of what a person believes in.
The definition heavily implies that objective morality is OBJECTIVE as in an opinion that matters of fact.
I am choosing to tackle it in terms of subjective morality since objective morality would imply Bibles morality as a fact.
This is a very simple concept to understand, subjective means opinion based while objective means a fact. There's a reason why they call them objective and subjective morality.
And yes actually because if God exists then that means the Bible is objective morality since the Bible are the teachings of God.
If God truly did exist this would prove the Bible correct which would mean the Bible is objective morality.
" A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be TRUE independently of the person who is stating them."
Both definitions stating that objective morality is based on facts.
if we assumed God's version of morality is objective, then my opponent could just state that because God's morality is objectively right, it should be taken as a moral compass since it's correct.
" The reason that cities are more liberal is that they gain a lot more for voting liberal. Government spending on roads, public transportation, etc is much more popular in cities than in rural areas for obvious reasons."
- Not true, if this was the case than educated states like Oregon, Vermont, and Colorado wouldn't be voting liberal.
Also, this analogy fails since people in rural areas also have benefited from government spending.
Do you seriously not believe people in rural areas need to be kept up roads or healthcare benefits?
" Give me specifications for quantifying this bias and I can look into it in the next few days. Do I look at reasons for voting and say they are insufficient?"
- Look at votes by liberals with votes that are biased.
Finding insufficient votes doesn't prove a bias, plenty of votes by both sides are insufficient.
Personally, this would be the best way however on such a small website without statistical data nor studies this is rather hard to back up as evidenced by Dr.Franklin who gave up and conceded.
If you have a low ratio on the site, it's your fault not a " liberal bias "
" . However, again, these "statistics" could be caused by biased votes that support liberals. "
- You have to actually prove that to be true.
" Again, I'm not arguing that everyone votes for their own side. I'm arguing that they tend to vote for people with similar opinions."
- Not true at all, the more likely reason that I backed up earlier with evidence is that liberals are generally more educated and have better arguments.
Alright, thanks for answering the questions, are you going to take this debate seriously because looking at a few debates lead me to believe you don't take debating on the site seriously and just troll.
Oh and another question, I assume you're an economic nationalist correct?
" The bias is that the liberals are doing all the voting. They find other liberals' arguments more agreeable. Common sense."
- If this was the case then explain how in a lot of instances the liberals generally vote for the side that has the best argument as evidenced by omars debate with boat and Dr.Franklins debate. Among several other debates.
" You said that smarter countries are more liberal, that more urbanized places are more liberal, and that they are more educated. You were calling (at least most) conservatives dumb."
- Less educated doesn't necessarily mean dumb personally.
Yes, people in less urbanized areas are generally dumber than people in urban areas however we need to also remember the conservatives in urban areas.
However considering urban areas are generally more liberal and unurbanized areas are more conservative, ok fine conservatives are generally dumber than liberals.
" Even if that were true, you are saying that the entire reason for the disparity is just that we have worse debate skills and are less educated? That sounds incredibly ignorant and generalizing."
- Statistics are statistics.
This hypothesis is most likely true and is a better explanation than a " liberal bias " as the bias isn't backed up by evidence at all.
" Yeah, most of those studies that show disparities are very misleading. Once they take into account the circumstances of each shooting, sentence, or whatever you choose, the difference is either highly mitigated or disappears entirely."
- I merely did this to demonstrate a point, how are they misleading?
" I'm not saying that liberals are the problem. In terms of active members on the site, the majority of them are liberal. Most of the consistent voters are liberal. Perhaps that is conservatives' fault for not voting more. I know I should."
- If you admit this, then where is the bias than?
" Alec got really high up because early on he did a lot of "all guns should be banned debates".
- More character assassinations, Alec still faced off against worthy opponents and did topics about other issues.
" I would have to look into those two specific debators. They could be trolls or children for all I know."
- They were Ramshutu and Ragnar both of which top debaters on the site and liberals who voted for Dr.Franklin
". Economic and social "liberalism" is correlated with intelligence. Economic liberalism is defined as the ability to enter into voluntary transactions and enjoy "the fruits of their labor"."
My point is that the reason why they are lower on the leaderboards is that conservatives are generally less educated and therefore less skilled at debating.
I find this hypothesis more likely than a leftist bias on the site for the reason why conservatives can't pull ahead on the leaderboards.
There is no " liberal bias ", generally conservatives make poor arguments and are generally uneducated as evidenced by statistics that show that generally, the more educated states are the more urbanized liberal states and the more socialized countries.
" The point wasn't guilted by association, it was that people cite biases all the time, but it is difficult to believe."
- Actually, bias's are provable.
Surveys and statistical data have done a fine job of doing so.
Racist bias can be proven with statistical data such as policies.
Homophobia could be proven with statistical data such as hate crime statistics.
Neither of you has provided substantial evidence for me to believe DART is biased, therefore there is nothing me nor the mods can do about it.
" Just because you provided one example doesn't prove anything. What a pathetic attempt at "citing" your point. "
- I've provided numerous examples of Alec winning against liberals and people voting for Dr.Franklin as well as basic facts to debunk the " bias ".
For a website with only 200 people, this is the best I can do. The BOP is on you guys, not me.
" My point is that in close debates, they will generally choose people who they initially agree with. If you think that these voters are 100% objective every time they vote, you are quite mistaken."
- I ask again, can you provide me several examples of this occurring to back up your point?
Voters don't remain 100 % objective every time, I agree and it is a problem.
However, you guys are acting as though there is a liberal bias implying liberals are the problem.
Which is a poorly constructed hypothesis neither of you has backed up.
If there is a bias, then explain how Alec a conservative who makes good points was on the # 1 spot and has consistently remained on the top 10.
Explain how two liberals voted for Dr.Franklin
Explain how on DDO two liberals being billsands and backwardseden have poor ratios and one of which being backwardseden is hated.
Not to mention several other liberals on the site who have poor ratios.
No, it isn't if you aren't going to address my counter-arguments than they still stand thus I will not be buying your conspiracy theory and character assassinations made.
If this is how you debate in actual debates than it isn't a " liberal " bias that's making you lose.
Aright sounds good.
1. I consider myself bisexual favoring the gay side. I don't know honestly I am a bit confused, my sexual preferences for women has been steadily going down and in a few years, it'll probably be nonexistent.
2. I believe head is overrated quite frankly, I've been on both sides and didn't enjoy it.
3. Depends on the day, it's like with women and positions some days you may want one position, other days you may like another.
I mean he isn't a troll obviously but his profile definitely does look trollish.
Upon further research, I found his DDO account in which he has pretty impressive stats.
But yeah I was definitely confused and I apologized.
I also feel bad that he battles depression which is a condition my boyfriend's mom suffers from.
Also, I find it funny how you're acting as if
" oh I'll just turn to the mods and not feed you "
when very obviously you've taken matters into your own hands and just thrown out unfunny and childish insults.
Alright well I got this notion from you since you're talking about how you'll savagely take me down.
It's very obvious you think you're some hyper-intelligent genius and the fact you assume that's where I got this notion from proves it even further.
Assuming you're Kvng from debate.org, you're far from hyper-intelligent in fact you're arguably one of the worst debaters currently on the site.
The fact you tried to impersonate and take down Omar and failed on a broken platform with no mods disproves your preconceived notions about yourself.
Also, I mean who's the one being more childish here, so far you've been making up childish insults like " Mrs pink " ( which isn't even that funny ) and overall misrepresented the rules of the site.
I mean I could explain the rules to you however since you've already demonstrated to me you're incompetent and have no real argument and just lash out insults, I'd be wasting my time.
I just find it funny that King_8 has this ego complex where he believes I am scared of him or he is some intelligent genius, both are laughable assertions at best and very narcissistic behavior at worse.
King_8 if you are reading this, I am not scared of you on a physical or mental level and I personally believe you suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect if you believe this to be the case.
Why would I be pissed off if King_8 voted on it fairly?
Just ignore the obvious attempt to offend me, King_8 just has no substance and just lashes out insults and gets angry when people criticize him.
I mean if you're going to just be a brick wall and not address anything than ok then.
King, I hope you understand you'll probably get banned due to the vast amount of Vote bombs you've spammed onto my account.
Since you appear to be misunderstanding my point I'll try to make you explain it.
I left a vote that was a tie, meaning it doesn't give either any advantage.
You've given a vote that gives one opponent an advantage.
This clearly doesn't make any sense.
Posting new arguments at the final round isn't poor conduct considering you had yourself another round to respond, I never agreed to the format you cited at the beginning of the round.
I tried to explain to you that you can't change the terms in the middle of the debate if you ignored this then this is your fault.
As far as your criticisms for not bringing up other parts of socialization, you gave me no choice.
I asked if it was ok to extend the character limit and you said no.
How was I supposed to add more parts when we were already cutting it close as is?
I gave a tie so you can't CVB me lol
If you're trying to " offend " me by CVB me, you aren't even doing it correctly and are just making yourself look dumber by comparison.
LIVE LOOK AT KING_8 WHEN I DO A TROLL VOTE
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS851US852&biw=1920&bih=937&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=KmoiXc2ZF9O80PEPjNm96Ao&q=Baby+crying&oq=Baby+crying&gs_l=img.3..0l10.33804.36507..36615...0.0..0.98.774.12......0....1..gws-wiz-img.....0..35i39j0i67.AkDHusFnIHk#imgrc=4sAXS2-N075IuM:
I mean you could make the same argument for slavery which is an argument a lot of southern people did.
If we released blacks into society, who's to say they wouldn't conform and would cause trouble or die?
Obviously, we know for the most part they've integrated, animals can do the same thing.
Sure a lot of animals may die, however, future generations would live a life of freedom and not being needlessly slaughtered.
Aright yeah sure, you do you buddy
What's your point? I don't have time to spend hours formulating an argument that I can state in around an hour.
Considering my win-loss ratio on DART and on DDO, my strategy seems to be doing ok.
I don't expect you to spend hours on an argument and neither should you.
If I did misrepresent points, bring it up in the debate however it's my choice how long I need to spend on an argument, if I can make a good argument in an hour I don't see the problem.
Debating for this long, I can comprehend arguments pretty fast. And great if I did miss comprehend issues bring it up in the debate.
Assuming you're asking again, I am taking the con position.
Not to be rude or anything but on the debate itself I took the Con position.
Alright here you go, there are also sources stating the same thing if this one doesn't work again.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/03/would-bernie-sanderss-medicare-for-all-save-americans-money/?utm_term=.fcfeb3402760
Forgot to bring up a few arguments concerning the questions and how they're important, I'll add them to the next round as they're pretty important. My apologies.
ok than
Yeah ok then I mean if you don't want to accept the dictionary definitions of the terms and don't want to listen to reason that's on you.
Also, I am pretty sure you're trolling at this point ( and judging from your win-loss ratio and past debates this is most likely the case ). You do understand that socialization can also mean socialistic policies right? Even if you were correct you're just playing word games at this point.
You're pathetic attempts to insult me have only outlined that you truly have no argument or counter-argument and are instead trying to win by use of personal insults ( which aren't even valid since I proved your poorly constructed hypothesis wrong ).
I mean they're not to my whims I want to debate and have an open mind whether or not the bible is moral or not.
Alright so now you're not only ignoring the definitions I sited which I explained in a pretty simple and easy to understand way, but now you're resorting to baseless personal insults.
So it seems you're just playing word games, are you implying that morality is objective?
Ok, so you are completely going to ignore the countless definitions of it I've cited to you and instead make up your own definitions which have little to do with objective and subjective morality.
The situations and semantics of the statements have nothing to do with this.
Objective morality means the morality is inarguable and it's a fact.
So under an objective morality system if murder happened to be wrong and I stated,
" Murder is right"
Well under that system since it's objective morality that statement is incorrect.
Under a subjective morality system, that statement would be arguable hence why I am clarifying that this debate will assume God's morality is subjective as inarguable and not a fact.
I am having a hard time understanding why you believe this is so troubling when these are established definitions and am having a hard time why you're making up your own definitions for these words.
I mean the definition I cited literally states that objective morality is implying the morality is a fact.
Ok well just because it's subjective doesn't mean we cannot examine the morality to see whether or not it should be taken as a moral compass.
Ok I don't think you actually understand the definition.
The definition heavily implies that Subjective morality is SUBJECTIVE as in an opinion that matters purely of what a person believes in.
The definition heavily implies that objective morality is OBJECTIVE as in an opinion that matters of fact.
I am choosing to tackle it in terms of subjective morality since objective morality would imply Bibles morality as a fact.
This is a very simple concept to understand, subjective means opinion based while objective means a fact. There's a reason why they call them objective and subjective morality.
And yes actually because if God exists then that means the Bible is objective morality since the Bible are the teachings of God.
If God truly did exist this would prove the Bible correct which would mean the Bible is objective morality.
The Bible and religion call it " objective ".
Many including myself don't believe it's objective since in our opinions God doesn't exist.
" The facts are “objective” in the sense that their truth does not depend on who judges them, or whether anybody judges them at all. "
Keyword, DOES NOT DEPEND.
Meaning that objective morality makes it a FACT.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.1352&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Another definition states this,
" A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be TRUE independently of the person who is stating them."
Both definitions stating that objective morality is based on facts.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30683/what-is-objective-morality
Very baseless accusation to make,
if we assumed God's version of morality is objective, then my opponent could just state that because God's morality is objectively right, it should be taken as a moral compass since it's correct.
So this enables us to be on even ground.
lol
Oh ok that makes sense.
Pretty much.
" The reason that cities are more liberal is that they gain a lot more for voting liberal. Government spending on roads, public transportation, etc is much more popular in cities than in rural areas for obvious reasons."
- Not true, if this was the case than educated states like Oregon, Vermont, and Colorado wouldn't be voting liberal.
Also, this analogy fails since people in rural areas also have benefited from government spending.
Do you seriously not believe people in rural areas need to be kept up roads or healthcare benefits?
" Give me specifications for quantifying this bias and I can look into it in the next few days. Do I look at reasons for voting and say they are insufficient?"
- Look at votes by liberals with votes that are biased.
Finding insufficient votes doesn't prove a bias, plenty of votes by both sides are insufficient.
Personally, this would be the best way however on such a small website without statistical data nor studies this is rather hard to back up as evidenced by Dr.Franklin who gave up and conceded.
If you have a low ratio on the site, it's your fault not a " liberal bias "
" . However, again, these "statistics" could be caused by biased votes that support liberals. "
- You have to actually prove that to be true.
" Again, I'm not arguing that everyone votes for their own side. I'm arguing that they tend to vote for people with similar opinions."
- Not true at all, the more likely reason that I backed up earlier with evidence is that liberals are generally more educated and have better arguments.
Sorry, I don't comprehend this statement, can you explain?
Alright, thanks for answering the questions, are you going to take this debate seriously because looking at a few debates lead me to believe you don't take debating on the site seriously and just troll.
Oh and another question, I assume you're an economic nationalist correct?
I am not against the bible in terms of literature and history to be studied for academia purposes.
I want to debate whether or not the Bibles moral message should be taken.
Perhaps the title is a bit too vague and I should change it.
Are you implying that you weren't an atheist a week ago or something?
" The bias is that the liberals are doing all the voting. They find other liberals' arguments more agreeable. Common sense."
- If this was the case then explain how in a lot of instances the liberals generally vote for the side that has the best argument as evidenced by omars debate with boat and Dr.Franklins debate. Among several other debates.
" You said that smarter countries are more liberal, that more urbanized places are more liberal, and that they are more educated. You were calling (at least most) conservatives dumb."
- Less educated doesn't necessarily mean dumb personally.
Yes, people in less urbanized areas are generally dumber than people in urban areas however we need to also remember the conservatives in urban areas.
However considering urban areas are generally more liberal and unurbanized areas are more conservative, ok fine conservatives are generally dumber than liberals.
" Even if that were true, you are saying that the entire reason for the disparity is just that we have worse debate skills and are less educated? That sounds incredibly ignorant and generalizing."
- Statistics are statistics.
This hypothesis is most likely true and is a better explanation than a " liberal bias " as the bias isn't backed up by evidence at all.
" Yeah, most of those studies that show disparities are very misleading. Once they take into account the circumstances of each shooting, sentence, or whatever you choose, the difference is either highly mitigated or disappears entirely."
- I merely did this to demonstrate a point, how are they misleading?
" I'm not saying that liberals are the problem. In terms of active members on the site, the majority of them are liberal. Most of the consistent voters are liberal. Perhaps that is conservatives' fault for not voting more. I know I should."
- If you admit this, then where is the bias than?
" Alec got really high up because early on he did a lot of "all guns should be banned debates".
- More character assassinations, Alec still faced off against worthy opponents and did topics about other issues.
" I would have to look into those two specific debators. They could be trolls or children for all I know."
- They were Ramshutu and Ragnar both of which top debaters on the site and liberals who voted for Dr.Franklin
". Economic and social "liberalism" is correlated with intelligence. Economic liberalism is defined as the ability to enter into voluntary transactions and enjoy "the fruits of their labor"."
- No statistic nor study to back this up.
" https://theconversation.com/do-smart-people-tend-to-be-more-liberal-yes-but-it-doesnt-mean-all-conservatives-are-stupid-57713"
- NEVER stated all conservatives are dumb.
My point is that the reason why they are lower on the leaderboards is that conservatives are generally less educated and therefore less skilled at debating.
I find this hypothesis more likely than a leftist bias on the site for the reason why conservatives can't pull ahead on the leaderboards.
Ok bye you're a coward and have no argument.
There is no " liberal bias ", generally conservatives make poor arguments and are generally uneducated as evidenced by statistics that show that generally, the more educated states are the more urbanized liberal states and the more socialized countries.
" The point wasn't guilted by association, it was that people cite biases all the time, but it is difficult to believe."
- Actually, bias's are provable.
Surveys and statistical data have done a fine job of doing so.
Racist bias can be proven with statistical data such as policies.
Homophobia could be proven with statistical data such as hate crime statistics.
Neither of you has provided substantial evidence for me to believe DART is biased, therefore there is nothing me nor the mods can do about it.
" Just because you provided one example doesn't prove anything. What a pathetic attempt at "citing" your point. "
- I've provided numerous examples of Alec winning against liberals and people voting for Dr.Franklin as well as basic facts to debunk the " bias ".
For a website with only 200 people, this is the best I can do. The BOP is on you guys, not me.
" My point is that in close debates, they will generally choose people who they initially agree with. If you think that these voters are 100% objective every time they vote, you are quite mistaken."
- I ask again, can you provide me several examples of this occurring to back up your point?
Voters don't remain 100 % objective every time, I agree and it is a problem.
However, you guys are acting as though there is a liberal bias implying liberals are the problem.
Which is a poorly constructed hypothesis neither of you has backed up.
If there is a bias, then explain how Alec a conservative who makes good points was on the # 1 spot and has consistently remained on the top 10.
Explain how two liberals voted for Dr.Franklin
Explain how on DDO two liberals being billsands and backwardseden have poor ratios and one of which being backwardseden is hated.
Not to mention several other liberals on the site who have poor ratios.
No, it isn't if you aren't going to address my counter-arguments than they still stand thus I will not be buying your conspiracy theory and character assassinations made.
If this is how you debate in actual debates than it isn't a " liberal " bias that's making you lose.
Ok, so you're dodging my critiques and my questions.
Great argument I am convinced.
By not responding to my arguments?
Ok so are you going to address my question and critique of it?
Ok, how is dodging my arguments supporting your original argument?