Round 2 Sources::
[1]: page, M., & Exa..., 1. (2018). 1 and .999 repeating are the same quantity. Exactly equal.. DebateArt.com. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from https://www.debateart.com/debates/130
[2]: The Existential Risk of Math Errors - Gwern.net. (2019). Gwern.net. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from https://www.gwern.net/The-Existential-Risk-of-Mathematical-Error
[3]: (2019). Mentalmodels.princeton.edu. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from http://mentalmodels.princeton.edu/papers/2010mms%26human-reasoning.pdf
I'm not attacking, I'm asking for justification for claims made during a vote which were contrary to the truth. When I noticed that Ralph would rather trade ad hominems and misrepresent the other person, I blocked him.
May I remind you that when I voted on one of your debates I responded to your questions about my vote (the whole five times when you tagged me).
Your poor conduct reflects badly on you and what reflects even worse on you is the fact that your votes are clearly biased. You've given the win to the atheistic position in five out of five debates related to religion that you've voted on. In one of these debates you gave the win to the debater with the lowest rating on this website over RM who is currently the highest rated. This was followed by three other users giving a clear win to RM. In this debate you are the only one out of four people to give my opponent the win for a reason that you do not seem to be able to justify during questioning.
Please don't vote on any of my debates again until your voting is objective.
I'm an agnostic atheist as well, I don't see why your religious views or absence of these should influence your vote in any way though.
I wrote "entirely non-literalist" several times throughout the debate while referring to several people and denominations, whereas I wrote higher metaphorical truth only once while referring to one psychology professor. I don't think claiming that it is "ambiguous" is fair at all since even the (In my opinion not ambiguous) "higher truth" was clarified as relating to a metaphorical truth.
How is that? If they reject a literal interpretation and take God symbolically or as "a higher truth" (as I outlined), then surely none of Pro's arguments apply:
Pro's argument:
P1: Everyone who believes in magic is delusional.
P2: All Christians believe in magic.
C: All Christians are delusional.
If there were even a single Christian out of all 2.3b, then P2 would be incorrect and the conclusion would not follow, since Pro's sole argument for all Christians being delusional was based on them believing in "magic" we can form the following syllogism:
P1: Only those who believe in magic are delusional (since that was Pro's sole argument).
P2: Some Christians do not believe in magic (i.e. the non-literalists).
C1: Some Christians are not delusional.
C2: Not all Christians are delusional
Because Evans, Barston and Pollard (1983) shows why votes on debates are often incomprehensibly irrational (as people's biases - whether they agree with the conclusion - has a highly signficant effect on whether arguments are accepted/considered valid). You seem like you'd be interested in finding out more about people's decision-making process while voting on your debates.
The User PsychometricBrain ("I") has the impression ("feel like") that the user RationalMadman ("you") would find PB's opening argument enjoyable (would dig my round 1)...
As far as I can tell from your vote, you agree that I have established in this debate that there is a fringe group of Christians (namely non-literalists such as those that take the Bible entirely symbolic, metaphorical or are cultural Christians). Is that correct?
I feel your pain, I thought Ralph was actually Con and was disappointed that I couldn't take the Con position. Turns out I was wrong though, lucky for me :)
Just out of interest. Do you not think that women have universal mate preferences?
For example, it is is quite obvious that there are universal taste preferences (people generally prefer sweet & savoury foods over bitter food). In the same way it seems obvious to me that women tend to prefer wealthy, athletic, caring, etc. individuals and that the more of these traits a man posseses (i.e. the more holistic), the better his chances should be.
Because by repeatedly relying on rhetorical questions you force the readers to come to conclusions. This is a good way of convincing people of a view that they have not considered before hand by forcing them to actively engage with your premises. However, in a formal debate it is your job to elaborate on points made and point to how they contradict your opponent, using rhetorical questions in an academic context is rather lazy and I can not award points for implications that I had to deduce by myself in the same way that I can not award points for arguments that support a certain position but were not made in the actual debate.
Glad to have read the debate although I was somewhat disappointed by your debating technique. I'd cut back on the rhetorical questions, add some sources and definitely avoid making the debate personal. You could have had a better shot (in my opinion) by citing the literature of evolutionary psychologist Stephen Jay Gould instead of relying on ad lib arguments.
Evolutionary biology and psychology have always been controversial, it has often been pointed out on DART that the easiest way to win a debate is to pick a resolution that most people agree with as you've pretty much got the argument points in your pocket from the start.
I'm perplexed by the fact that you awarded sources to both debaters even though Pro cited mostly peer-reviewed scientific literature, while Con did not cite a single source even after Pro pointed this out and requested a source for Con's assertion in round 3. Could you explain how you determined how to award the sources point in this debate?
I can see counter-arguments for S&G, few for conduct and possibly some for arguments but sources clearly has to go to Pro.
I consider repetitive, straight up boring or a good build-up but a poor drop undewhelming, if everything is at least all right, then it's not underwhelming
Cheers for the vote my man, I appreciate the feedback.
I took a bit of a risk with my third and fourth song and it didn't really pay off, I've learnt a few lessons for my next music battle though. Glad you enjoyed Bad and Boujee
The only reasonable argument I can see against legalising an enjoyable sport is that some might use the guns to harm animals. However, if someone really wants to harm animals, they could just as well do so without softair guns. Softair is legal in the UK and I don't see why you guys shouldn't be permitted to enjoy the same privileges as us, airsoft probably makes people handle weapons more responsible rather than less.
I'll vote later (without considering my slightly biased views obv.), good luck in the debate.
It's a phrase that is used to indicate that something is amusing. It's pretty popular on the internet and stands for "laughing my ass off", although it's usually more of a quiet chuckle
I didn't actually notice that. That's another reason why you should try to keep it a little more concise, there are 44 words between "might devote" and "buy some rope" which makes the rhyme quite imperceptible
While our taste in music is certainly quite different, a statistical significance test (Spearman's Rho) nonetheless shows that there's around a .5 correlation between our ratings and, while these findings are not statistically significant, there's still only a 17% chance that this correlation came about through chance.
Quite interesting and possibly useful for future music battle debates
I've only read the first rounds of this rap battle so far but Pro's disses are solid, I loved
"He’s gunna trying to make this into a dick waving contest.
Sorry bro, waving? you’ll just be jiggling at best."
and
"Forget mental heavyweights chumps like Einstein, newton or even Forrest fucking Gump.
If I wanted to find his equal, I’d pull my pants down and take a dump. "
But Con's got to work on his flow, solid considering that this is his first rap battle though, might read the rest later and leave some feedback.
I liked your pony with a saddle/your mother with a paddle line. However, you're sacrificing the flow by having lines that include more than 50 words like
"Is that your ambition is just fiction, you’re not on a mission but addiction and just might devote your whole life into being a bystander while your ass is handed to ya’ when you try penetrate my defences; drown in your own juice, pussy, how you like my Viking moat?" ryhmed with "Suck my blood? Dumbfuck, I appear to be a vampire, come and buy some rope, you didn’t suck your own kind, even the disguise you failed to fall for’s a lie but you’ll die as I’m a Lycanthrope". They're 88 words combined...
You should create a rock music battle debate, I don't listen to much rock music these days so I don't feel qualified to be your opponent but I'd vote on the debate
None of these arguments seem to me to be convincing, especially the arguments referring to God's omnipotence. Are you willing to defend one of these (of your choice) in a debate?
If you keep creating these debates you'll mess up the entire leaderboard, perhaps you should try to improve your AI on DI and then come back to DA once it works adequately
How should we vote on this?
-Compare who "won" more rounds by having the better song?
-Vote who had the best song overall?
-Evaluate the overall quality of all songs?
Na, Kant argues that you have the moral duty to never perform certain actions (such as lying or withholding information in general) and that you can figure out these moral laws using reason alone. Aristotle on the other hand would not have an issue with witholding information sometimes and based his virtues on the observations that people who follow them seem to be successful and happy. Furthermore, Kant believed that following his CI would not make you happy and that therefore God must exist and reward you in the afterlife for following the moral laws as the world would otherwise not be just.
I believe your reasoning is flawed and every single argument you've made has been refuted during the course of this debate, if you would like to continue this debate with you arguing that God (a maximally great being) could say "After this point I can no longer lift this 1 million pound rock because it is too heavy" and that this would lead to God subsequently not being able to lift the rock as it is too heavy, I would be willing to have another debate about this.
Your reasoning is flawed Wylted, God could say that he will not lift the stone, but it follows from argument 1 and argument 2 (see round 1) that it would be logically inconsistent for God to say that there is a stone that is too heavy for him to lift:
Argument 2 (see round 1): "Talking about a stone that an omnipotent being can not lift implies an absurdity..." As it is logically impossible for a stone to be too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift, it follows that it would be logically impossible for an omnipotent being to honestly say that there is a stone that is too heavy for the omnipotent being to lift, which only leaves the possibility that God would have to lie about the stone being too heavy for him to lift which is however also logically impossible (argument 1) as God's perfection entails moral perfection from which perfect honestly follows (also see the Bible verse where it is said that it is logically impossible for God to lie).
I think it'd be hard to argue that the Judeo-Christian God is not almighty, he is referred to as the almighty God dozens of time in the Bible.
E.g. "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect." (Genesis 17:1)
"Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:" (Genesis 49:25)
What is your definition of skepticism?
I agree, I believe we went through the important points on both sides of the debate
I meant to say "C: 2+2=4 can not be known to be 100% true." in round 2, not "C: 2+2=4 can not be known to be 100%."
Round 2 Sources::
[1]: page, M., & Exa..., 1. (2018). 1 and .999 repeating are the same quantity. Exactly equal.. DebateArt.com. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from https://www.debateart.com/debates/130
[2]: The Existential Risk of Math Errors - Gwern.net. (2019). Gwern.net. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from https://www.gwern.net/The-Existential-Risk-of-Mathematical-Error
[3]: (2019). Mentalmodels.princeton.edu. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from http://mentalmodels.princeton.edu/papers/2010mms%26human-reasoning.pdf
I'm not attacking, I'm asking for justification for claims made during a vote which were contrary to the truth. When I noticed that Ralph would rather trade ad hominems and misrepresent the other person, I blocked him.
May I remind you that when I voted on one of your debates I responded to your questions about my vote (the whole five times when you tagged me).
Your poor conduct reflects badly on you and what reflects even worse on you is the fact that your votes are clearly biased. You've given the win to the atheistic position in five out of five debates related to religion that you've voted on. In one of these debates you gave the win to the debater with the lowest rating on this website over RM who is currently the highest rated. This was followed by three other users giving a clear win to RM. In this debate you are the only one out of four people to give my opponent the win for a reason that you do not seem to be able to justify during questioning.
Please don't vote on any of my debates again until your voting is objective.
I'm an agnostic atheist as well, I don't see why your religious views or absence of these should influence your vote in any way though.
I wrote "entirely non-literalist" several times throughout the debate while referring to several people and denominations, whereas I wrote higher metaphorical truth only once while referring to one psychology professor. I don't think claiming that it is "ambiguous" is fair at all since even the (In my opinion not ambiguous) "higher truth" was clarified as relating to a metaphorical truth.
How is that? If they reject a literal interpretation and take God symbolically or as "a higher truth" (as I outlined), then surely none of Pro's arguments apply:
Pro's argument:
P1: Everyone who believes in magic is delusional.
P2: All Christians believe in magic.
C: All Christians are delusional.
If there were even a single Christian out of all 2.3b, then P2 would be incorrect and the conclusion would not follow, since Pro's sole argument for all Christians being delusional was based on them believing in "magic" we can form the following syllogism:
P1: Only those who believe in magic are delusional (since that was Pro's sole argument).
P2: Some Christians do not believe in magic (i.e. the non-literalists).
C1: Some Christians are not delusional.
C2: Not all Christians are delusional
Because Evans, Barston and Pollard (1983) shows why votes on debates are often incomprehensibly irrational (as people's biases - whether they agree with the conclusion - has a highly signficant effect on whether arguments are accepted/considered valid). You seem like you'd be interested in finding out more about people's decision-making process while voting on your debates.
The User PsychometricBrain ("I") has the impression ("feel like") that the user RationalMadman ("you") would find PB's opening argument enjoyable (would dig my round 1)...
I feel like you'd dig my round 1, especially since Evans, Barston and Pollard (1983) can account for many of the "funny" votes on DDO/DISL/DART.
As far as I can tell from your vote, you agree that I have established in this debate that there is a fringe group of Christians (namely non-literalists such as those that take the Bible entirely symbolic, metaphorical or are cultural Christians). Is that correct?
I feel your pain, I thought Ralph was actually Con and was disappointed that I couldn't take the Con position. Turns out I was wrong though, lucky for me :)
My bad, I meant "Pro", not "Con".
The only way I can see a Con winning this resolution is through a kritik.
I like your line of argument, you should debate a similar topic again with someone who is more passionate about the topic than Type1
Thanks for checking out the debate and voting!
You might want to expand on your reasons for the voting decision a little bit
Cheers for the feedback, I'll be more specific when voting sources the next time.
Fair play to you.
Just out of interest. Do you not think that women have universal mate preferences?
For example, it is is quite obvious that there are universal taste preferences (people generally prefer sweet & savoury foods over bitter food). In the same way it seems obvious to me that women tend to prefer wealthy, athletic, caring, etc. individuals and that the more of these traits a man posseses (i.e. the more holistic), the better his chances should be.
Because by repeatedly relying on rhetorical questions you force the readers to come to conclusions. This is a good way of convincing people of a view that they have not considered before hand by forcing them to actively engage with your premises. However, in a formal debate it is your job to elaborate on points made and point to how they contradict your opponent, using rhetorical questions in an academic context is rather lazy and I can not award points for implications that I had to deduce by myself in the same way that I can not award points for arguments that support a certain position but were not made in the actual debate.
Glad to have read the debate although I was somewhat disappointed by your debating technique. I'd cut back on the rhetorical questions, add some sources and definitely avoid making the debate personal. You could have had a better shot (in my opinion) by citing the literature of evolutionary psychologist Stephen Jay Gould instead of relying on ad lib arguments.
Evolutionary biology and psychology have always been controversial, it has often been pointed out on DART that the easiest way to win a debate is to pick a resolution that most people agree with as you've pretty much got the argument points in your pocket from the start.
I'm perplexed by the fact that you awarded sources to both debaters even though Pro cited mostly peer-reviewed scientific literature, while Con did not cite a single source even after Pro pointed this out and requested a source for Con's assertion in round 3. Could you explain how you determined how to award the sources point in this debate?
I can see counter-arguments for S&G, few for conduct and possibly some for arguments but sources clearly has to go to Pro.
I consider repetitive, straight up boring or a good build-up but a poor drop undewhelming, if everything is at least all right, then it's not underwhelming
I'll vote some time soon, got two more songs to rate.
Nightcore music is typically not very popular, I like it though so more power to you SupaDudz
Cheers for the fun debate
Cheers for the vote my man, I appreciate the feedback.
I took a bit of a risk with my third and fourth song and it didn't really pay off, I've learnt a few lessons for my next music battle though. Glad you enjoyed Bad and Boujee
The only reasonable argument I can see against legalising an enjoyable sport is that some might use the guns to harm animals. However, if someone really wants to harm animals, they could just as well do so without softair guns. Softair is legal in the UK and I don't see why you guys shouldn't be permitted to enjoy the same privileges as us, airsoft probably makes people handle weapons more responsible rather than less.
I'll vote later (without considering my slightly biased views obv.), good luck in the debate.
It's a phrase that is used to indicate that something is amusing. It's pretty popular on the internet and stands for "laughing my ass off", although it's usually more of a quiet chuckle
Lmao, cheers for the vote regardless
Thanks for the vote Alec, hope you enjoyed the music
“The greater the artist, the greater the doubt. Perfect confidence is granted to the less talented as a consolation prize."
- Robert Hughes
I didn't actually notice that. That's another reason why you should try to keep it a little more concise, there are 44 words between "might devote" and "buy some rope" which makes the rhyme quite imperceptible
While our taste in music is certainly quite different, a statistical significance test (Spearman's Rho) nonetheless shows that there's around a .5 correlation between our ratings and, while these findings are not statistically significant, there's still only a 17% chance that this correlation came about through chance.
Quite interesting and possibly useful for future music battle debates
I've only read the first rounds of this rap battle so far but Pro's disses are solid, I loved
"He’s gunna trying to make this into a dick waving contest.
Sorry bro, waving? you’ll just be jiggling at best."
and
"Forget mental heavyweights chumps like Einstein, newton or even Forrest fucking Gump.
If I wanted to find his equal, I’d pull my pants down and take a dump. "
But Con's got to work on his flow, solid considering that this is his first rap battle though, might read the rest later and leave some feedback.
I liked your pony with a saddle/your mother with a paddle line. However, you're sacrificing the flow by having lines that include more than 50 words like
"Is that your ambition is just fiction, you’re not on a mission but addiction and just might devote your whole life into being a bystander while your ass is handed to ya’ when you try penetrate my defences; drown in your own juice, pussy, how you like my Viking moat?" ryhmed with "Suck my blood? Dumbfuck, I appear to be a vampire, come and buy some rope, you didn’t suck your own kind, even the disguise you failed to fall for’s a lie but you’ll die as I’m a Lycanthrope". They're 88 words combined...
You should create a rock music battle debate, I don't listen to much rock music these days so I don't feel qualified to be your opponent but I'd vote on the debate
Cheers to everyone who is going to vote, we appreciate it
None of these arguments seem to me to be convincing, especially the arguments referring to God's omnipotence. Are you willing to defend one of these (of your choice) in a debate?
If you keep creating these debates you'll mess up the entire leaderboard, perhaps you should try to improve your AI on DI and then come back to DA once it works adequately
How should we vote on this?
-Compare who "won" more rounds by having the better song?
-Vote who had the best song overall?
-Evaluate the overall quality of all songs?
I guess this might end up being a draw :/
@That1User I cited two paragraphs from his lectures. I guess we've both lost conduct points, lmao
Na, Kant argues that you have the moral duty to never perform certain actions (such as lying or withholding information in general) and that you can figure out these moral laws using reason alone. Aristotle on the other hand would not have an issue with witholding information sometimes and based his virtues on the observations that people who follow them seem to be successful and happy. Furthermore, Kant believed that following his CI would not make you happy and that therefore God must exist and reward you in the afterlife for following the moral laws as the world would otherwise not be just.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'll do my best to deliver a high-quality debate.
I'd really like to accept this but I don't feel like risking wasting four rounds arguing over semantics
I believe your reasoning is flawed and every single argument you've made has been refuted during the course of this debate, if you would like to continue this debate with you arguing that God (a maximally great being) could say "After this point I can no longer lift this 1 million pound rock because it is too heavy" and that this would lead to God subsequently not being able to lift the rock as it is too heavy, I would be willing to have another debate about this.
Your reasoning is flawed Wylted, God could say that he will not lift the stone, but it follows from argument 1 and argument 2 (see round 1) that it would be logically inconsistent for God to say that there is a stone that is too heavy for him to lift:
Argument 2 (see round 1): "Talking about a stone that an omnipotent being can not lift implies an absurdity..." As it is logically impossible for a stone to be too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift, it follows that it would be logically impossible for an omnipotent being to honestly say that there is a stone that is too heavy for the omnipotent being to lift, which only leaves the possibility that God would have to lie about the stone being too heavy for him to lift which is however also logically impossible (argument 1) as God's perfection entails moral perfection from which perfect honestly follows (also see the Bible verse where it is said that it is logically impossible for God to lie).
Cheers for the debate, Wylted
I think it'd be hard to argue that the Judeo-Christian God is not almighty, he is referred to as the almighty God dozens of time in the Bible.
E.g. "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect." (Genesis 17:1)
"Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:" (Genesis 49:25)