Fascism and communism are both left-wing. Communist China and Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are all indistinguishable from each other.
The left right paradigm is socialism (left) and capitalism (right).
Alternatively it is big government (left) and small government (right). But this one is almost never used.
By all metrics, though, a ruling class that owns everything is much closer to socialism than it is to capitalism. So these are actually left-wing policies, not right-wing policies.
I wonder what your definition of elite and "right wing economics" is, because the World Economic Forum clearly only supports a ruling class where everyone else will "own nothing and be happy." That isn't capitalist at all. It is fascist or an oligarchy.
Python, itself, is not a hard language. It is the moronic ways of explaining it that make it hard. Every Python class I've ever seen only focuses on making calculators and data analysis algorithms. It completely ignores a foundation in the mechanics of the language and how to use it to do whatever you want. Python can be used for web development, server-side development, artificial intelligence, and virtually everything else, but I have yet to find a decent class that presents Python in the way a language should be presented. So I gave up learning it a long time ago lol.
The chances of having both psychopathy and narcissism are extremely low. I agree with pedophilia. Delusions of Grandeur is often a symptom of narcissism, not a separate mental illness. Anxiety is a symptom of dementia. I don't know of any proof Biden has anger management. But I do think Biden is a pedophile. I hadn't thought about the idea of him having narcissism or psychopathy in addition to that. But I'd have to guess narcissism over psychopathy. Biden exhibits empathy and emotional processing. Psychopathy is the lack of empathy in general and usually, though not always, stunted emotions.
The gross majority of Narcissists actually do have empathy and they can love, and they also can overcome much of their narcissism. Many just have a severely damaged psyche. It is a mixture of severely low self esteem but also an acknowledgement that they are not like other people, are more logical and generally smarter, and are not emotional trainwrecks (that is how many narcissists see it), but they do also have an understanding that other people are humans like them and they do love and many try to be good people, not the malignant ones. There's two types of narcissists.
A good example of the differences is Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Obama was a malignant narcissist. He only cared about his career and his fame. He didn't care who he had to hurt or use to get to the top. Trump actually cares about other people and tries to be a good person, to the extent a narcissist who hasn't accepted they are a narcissist can. But they are both narcissists.
This isn't to say Trump has never gaslighted or tried to ruin people who slighted him. He has. But the difference between malignant narcissists and non-malignant ones is the first foot they put forward. A non-malignant narcissist will often act in good faith until you slight them. A malignant one will never act in good faith to begin with. They are just using you to accomplish their purposes. Trump acts in good faith until you seriously slight him. Then he goes in for the kill. Obama rarely acted in good faith.
I actually have those rules for all my debates that I create. It keeps both people honest and focuses solely on the facts and the logical analysis as opposed to who is the better sophist. It wasn't just for Oromagi.
When I was on DDO I had a modified version of it. But the original website I used has changed its format entirely and gotten rid of the pages I used to stamp out logical fallacies and keep the rules of logic, so I needed to cobble a few different sources together.
Well, to do the debates I actually have to be at my computer, since it is significantly harder to write debate responses on mobile.
I am almost never on my computer and, when I am, I have client work, so having more than 1 or 2 debates right now takes up too much free time that I have lol.
Oromagi and I are still debating election irregularities in the 2020 election and I just started this new one.
If we wait a couple weeks then I can debate you on something! But as of right now I just don't have the time for 3 debates.
Though, tbh, I think this is an open and shir case for CON. But I won't explain why because that would be debate manipulation, and I also want to see RM's prowess defending a difficult position.
What is the definition of democracy and republic? And are we going with the classical understanding of republic or the classically liberal view of republic? And is a democracy simply a majority vote, as the classical liberals understood it? Or is it the way 21st century Democrat Party understands it, as the government having a popular vote for officials and then doing whatever it wants once in power without any checks or balances other than another vote?
Without these definitions it is impossible to actually have this debate. Because, in the classically liberal sense, America is not a democracy, because it is not based solely on a majority vote. It is a Republic, which is based on controlled representation in government, where the people get just enough representation to have a voice, but not a bigger voice than the government itself. In this case, America is a republic.
But if we are going by the ancient understanding of a Republic, then it could be a dictatorship, a warrior king society, or a society built on natural rights, since all of these were called a "republic" in ancient times. In this case, America is a Republic.
And if we are going by the 21st century Democrat Party definition of a republic, then America does not qualify as a Republic, because of the huge scores of unelected bureaucrats determining policy without the people's majority voice.
I think it is abundantly obvious that MisterChris's status as a former mod is heavily manipulating whiteflame's moderating of the vote section.
Undefeatable cast his vote, and now that MisterChris isn't satisfied, whiteflame is thinking about removing it.
Undefeatable, funnily enough, noticed the same things I did, said the same things I did in more detail, and not his vote is about to be axed too unless whiteflame changes his mind.
This comment section is literally evidence of mod voter suppression and mod circle jerking and it amazes me.
I would like to debate you on combatabilism as an orthodox doctrine.
Simply because I believe the Bible does not, in any way, shape, or form argue for it. Neither do any of the Apostolic Church Fathers or any seriously revered church father until Augustine.
One more thing, GotQuestions.org is run by a calvinist who wrote long articles explaining why Calvinism is the true Biblical position, not compatabilism.
But, you know, your two random theologians are completely infallible and agree with your position.
Nevermind the reformed tradition. Nevermind Augustine. Nevermind the books of Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews, Galatians and more.
Nevermind how both the Orthodox and Catholic churches argued literally for centuries that calvinism was wrong and arminianism was correct (arminianism predates Arminius by about 1200 years, fyi. They simply named it after him because he was the most recent guy to popularize it).
As a Christian myself I find it laughable that you want to absolve any dependency to orthodox Christianity when your OPENING STATEMENT was that we must understand PSA as a Christian would.
You then go on to state blatant falsehoods about Christianity such as calvinism and arminianism being unbiblical and then argue for compatabilism as the orthodox tradition.
What are your sources for this? A couple theologians I have never heard of in my life, and that is saying something as I went to a Christian college and minored in Theology after trying to double major in theology and Communications. I have read, spoken to and/or debated Orthodox, Catholic, Messianic Jewish, Pentecostal, Lutheran, and True Reformed people from across the theological spectrum and most of your sources were people I had never come across nor were cited by any of the people I spoke with and debated.
Nevermind the fact that we literally have thousands of pages of Church teaching going back to AD 100 from Church Fathers and you can find people like Augustine in AD 400 touting predestination and rejecting compatabilism as a doctrine.
You can also find people like Irenaeus arguing for Arminianism flat out.
But, you know, both are unbiblical and not the "orthodox" church position, even though very revered church fathers taught them.
You can have your own beliefs on Christian orthodoxy, but please don't pass it off as real orthodoxy. I actually studied early church theology and have read large sections of the Apostolic Fathers and I studied many of Luther and Calvin's writings in addition to others. You honestly have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to Church Orthodoxy.
At least RationalMadman realized we agree that the Bible is what is orthodoxy and not concepts spouted by theologians. Since there are hundreds of thousands of them, after all.
Moreover, the official Catholic position is not compatabilism. It is Arminianism. They actually anstematized Calvinists for many years in Catholic Church history until Vatican II.
Orthodox also has a similar view to Catholicism.
So. Like, get off your soapbox. I am sorry that the thousands of pages of Christian church teaching collected over 2,000 years does not prove your statements. But that really isn't our problems as voters. It is yours for saying you wanted to understand PSA the way a Christian would, and then not actually understanding it as the Christian would.
There's a difference between being asked to follow the standards and being asked to follow someone else's opinions of the standards.
I agree with you on my lack of explanation for grammar and conduct, because I did not provide concrete examples.
But your opinion of how I graded the sources and argument is being a Kritik, not trying to objectively apply rules. I cited examples and I gave justifications for my reasons. But you told me I was wrong for basically no real reason.
And then when I clarified how this one is impossible to vote on based on the TOS, you said, essentially, we enforce the rules however we want and if you don't like it, oh well.
That wasn't my point. My point was you blatantly stated you were going to be offensive and then were.
I personally don't care. But conduct is actually an award in this debate so I voted on it and my reasoning was that, if someone says they are about to be offensive, then they get docked for conduct. Seems pretty straightforward.
"Assessing conduct violations requires more than a debater's statement that they are likely to offend people,"
So people admitting they are going to do something doesn't count as a reason to state they did so? RationalMadman literally stated "I am not obligated to speak to Christians about their religion with deep respect while tearing a central idea in it to pieces. Let me have my fun and forgive me, cheers Christians."
This is a blatant admission of guilt of using bad conduct. RationalMadman blatantly stated he doesn't want to be respectful and would rather "have fun."
I have no idea what a standard of good conduct is if people who openly admit they are about to be an asshole then shouldn't be judged based on their admission that they are going to be an asshole. Why else would they give the warning if they weren't intending on being an asshole at all?
Whiteflame said: "Assessing spelling and grammar requires that one of the debaters made it substantially more difficult to understand their arguments as a result of how they were written." What? Grammar is grammar and spelling is spelling. Neither are reading comprehension, which is entirely different. Someone can have completely flawless grammar and spelling and still not be understood. Why even bother grading on grammar at all if we are actually grading on communication effectiveness? Just call it that instead.
Whiteflame said " it does require doing more than just stating that one type of source is automatically better than another." What more do you want? A Cambridge dissertation on why original sources are better than people repeating them? I can't do that because that would require going to outside content. Additionally, the Bible is hundreds of thousands of words long. To cite one or two sentences of it according to your statement "Assessing sources requires digging into what specific sources say", would leave the whole premise of the argument and become me grandstanding my opinions on what the sources themselves say. And isn't that illegal by the very TOS I just cited?
Whiteflame said "I think you're applying them much more harshly than we would." They are rules, are they not? Do we apply rules arbitrarily as we feel or are they objective and have one meaning and purpose? It certainly seems here to me that they are being applied arbitrarily.
So, I won't be voting for a third time because there is insufficient grading material present in the debate rules to adhere to the TOS:
"Related to this, votes based on outside content are deemed insufficient; said content may still be commented upon if made clear it is not a determinant."
And this section:
"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
I need to rely on outside content to grade the sources, grammar, and conduct. So this debate is ungradable without violating the TOS. In relation to the sources, neither side actually fully engaged with the other person's sources. They never really explained why one source was worse than another. This was because they both seemed to implicitly agree that the Bible was the primary source and the theologians were secondary sources. But saying this out loud would violate the voting TOS because neither party argued for why the other source wasn't a good source, so I literally have NOTHING to grade for that category.
I find this thread is devolving into what it sought to avoid.
I apparently breached some sort of etiquette by sticking to epistemic logic as my analysis of the debate. Apparently my problem was I made assumptions that universally-held debate standards applied to a debate where they were not mentioned (this is my interpretation as to why my second vote was removed. Please explain if I am wrong here) and that I shouldn't grade the quality of sources based on universally held standards for sources, even though I am asked to grade sources as part of the voting process.
This is why I specifically asked for the TOS on voting, because I didn't feel I did anything wrong other than fail to point out specific grammar errors or specific instances where RationalMadman said he was going to offend people, because I thought they were abundantly obvious.
I apologize for assuming things, I guess. Because, in Epistemic Logic, there is this idea of universal truths that are apparent upon observation alone. Things like grammar errors and people blatantly stating things such as "I am going to offend people now" didn't really seem to be needed to be pointed out, since they are so painfully obvious you would have to hold extreme comprehension issues to miss them. But I guess I will note for future debate votes not to hold the debate to any sort of outside standard and stick solely to the debate rules themselves.
Which, in this case means neither side actually won. Because the debate rules aren't specific enough. No definition of good sources, no definition of which types of arguments are to be accepted and rejected. No commonly agreed upon definitions for 99.9% of the words used, etc. So neither side actually accomplished anything if I can't use some sort of outside measuring standard. The debate rules make it impossible to grade the debate by the metrics asked for.
Also, I think that, if anything, a moderator removing votes he doesn't like based on his own opinions of what was and was not explained is significantly more voter manipulation than someone giving pointers while blatantly stating they have a vested interest in doing so, e.g. admitting their bias up front for why they are giving pointers. But that's just my 2c.
I actually wanted to argue this one as CON even though I don't actually disagree.
I just wanted to see how great my argument against racist policing would have held up. Or, rather, how a very intelligent research friend of mine's argument would have held up.
Can you just give me the TOS agreement section for how to vote on debates? It is apparent that I seem to not understand some of the aspects of voting according to this website's TOS.
I was trying to nudge based on objectively-held standards of logic and argumentation and sourcing. But I can see how thay might not me appropriate depending on the site's rules.
And on Oromagi, I agree it is really painful on phone browser, considering 90% of the time I am on my phone browser I have to agree that, to respond to his debates, I have to wait until the next time I am home and on my computer.
Idk if bullet points inherently makes a person a bad debater. But I don't think that was your main point anyways.
Idk who Oromagi was on DDO, so I have no idea if he was always like that or not. But, I tend to find with him that, if I'm not careful, I am suddenly defending straw man positions of my own arguments and such.
Ya know what might be an interesting debate?
RESOLVED: Oromagi Would Beat Bluesteel In A DebateArt Rated Debate
I understand your concern. I try to be as objective as possible when I vote. Even though Orimagi and I, for instance, disagree on things, I still recognize he is a great debater and has successfully won the debates he won.
If you think I lost, simply tell me what I could have done better. If you think I won, then great lol.
Proof: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact [1]
My sources were proof. They were sources that gave reference to primary sources and therefore satisfied the burden of proof.
Your videos, which are not comprehensive nor even really prove half of what you are saying, are cherry picked data. And cherry picking does not "prove" all that much.
Evidence: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY [2]
My sources contain "something that furnishes proof" therefore they count as evidence.
You also gotta stop engaging in special pleading. Your sources are not comprehensive data. They also are not asked to PROVE why they believe North Korea is the best country or why they are fully satisfied. Whereas the defectors were questioned and their statements were scrutinized and they were asked to supply actual reasons for their beliefs. This is what is called "burden of proof" and it is required for any assertion made, or else there is no reason to believe the assertion.
Also, it is worth noting that disagreeing with the "supreme leader" results in spending years in a hard labor camp, or being tortured, or even killed. [3] So there is significant pressure to lie, unlike with the defectors. Which, btw, you have not provided any proof they are paid. That assertion is therefore dismissed without evidence, like so many of your other statements lol.
1. Genetic fallacy. Just because it is a U.S. source, that doesn't mean it is wrong.
2. Ad hominem. Just because it is a random site, that doesn't mean it lacks credibility. Btw, it isn't a "random website." It is a premier organization that publishes human trafficking statistics. In other words, it republishes source material for public consumption.
3. So you would rather trust the North Korean government over actual eyewitnesses? If that isn't an appeal to authority I don't know what possibly could be.
So, you basically have willfully refused to talk about the evidence, which means you likely can't disagree with the evidence, and you likely know, therefore, that North Korea is a leading country complicit in sex trafficking.
Oh, and one more thing. The website you listed doesn't cite where its data came from, meaning it fails the burden of proof standard required for evidence. So you basically cited a website that doesn't prove anything.
FWIW, I don't actually believe CON's views are Christian. But CON just did a much better job arguing for his beliefs as being Christian since both parties implicitly agreed that the Scriptures are a primary source document. In reality, CON's Scriptural definitions fail due to translation issues that do not convey what the text is saying, and also due to ignorance of the terms and words as they were used when Scripture was being written.
Furthermore, CON heavily engaged in Cherry Picking, but PRO never explained how or why it was cherry picking. PRO simply responded with anecdotal evidence. He did not use the source document, the original manuscripts, the definitions of the Greek and Hebrew words, or even surveys or polls to explain why CON cannot be engaging in proper interpretation of the document. His argument boiled down to "my three of four experts say you are wrong, and here's some Scriptures I am going to interpret to fit their opinions instead of try to interpret them objectively myself."
To win this debate, PRO had to first explain why his view is, in fact, the Christian one, since he made that the central tenet of his thesis, and then explain why CON's usage of the source document was flawed and inaccurate, since it severely crushed his argument's central point. PRO failed on both, so CON had better arguments.
Fascism and communism are both left-wing. Communist China and Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are all indistinguishable from each other.
The left right paradigm is socialism (left) and capitalism (right).
Alternatively it is big government (left) and small government (right). But this one is almost never used.
By all metrics, though, a ruling class that owns everything is much closer to socialism than it is to capitalism. So these are actually left-wing policies, not right-wing policies.
Thanks!
I wonder what your definition of elite and "right wing economics" is, because the World Economic Forum clearly only supports a ruling class where everyone else will "own nothing and be happy." That isn't capitalist at all. It is fascist or an oligarchy.
Understood. Thanks!
Any of you wanting to vote on this one?
Python, itself, is not a hard language. It is the moronic ways of explaining it that make it hard. Every Python class I've ever seen only focuses on making calculators and data analysis algorithms. It completely ignores a foundation in the mechanics of the language and how to use it to do whatever you want. Python can be used for web development, server-side development, artificial intelligence, and virtually everything else, but I have yet to find a decent class that presents Python in the way a language should be presented. So I gave up learning it a long time ago lol.
The chances of having both psychopathy and narcissism are extremely low. I agree with pedophilia. Delusions of Grandeur is often a symptom of narcissism, not a separate mental illness. Anxiety is a symptom of dementia. I don't know of any proof Biden has anger management. But I do think Biden is a pedophile. I hadn't thought about the idea of him having narcissism or psychopathy in addition to that. But I'd have to guess narcissism over psychopathy. Biden exhibits empathy and emotional processing. Psychopathy is the lack of empathy in general and usually, though not always, stunted emotions.
The gross majority of Narcissists actually do have empathy and they can love, and they also can overcome much of their narcissism. Many just have a severely damaged psyche. It is a mixture of severely low self esteem but also an acknowledgement that they are not like other people, are more logical and generally smarter, and are not emotional trainwrecks (that is how many narcissists see it), but they do also have an understanding that other people are humans like them and they do love and many try to be good people, not the malignant ones. There's two types of narcissists.
A good example of the differences is Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Obama was a malignant narcissist. He only cared about his career and his fame. He didn't care who he had to hurt or use to get to the top. Trump actually cares about other people and tries to be a good person, to the extent a narcissist who hasn't accepted they are a narcissist can. But they are both narcissists.
This isn't to say Trump has never gaslighted or tried to ruin people who slighted him. He has. But the difference between malignant narcissists and non-malignant ones is the first foot they put forward. A non-malignant narcissist will often act in good faith until you slight them. A malignant one will never act in good faith to begin with. They are just using you to accomplish their purposes. Trump acts in good faith until you seriously slight him. Then he goes in for the kill. Obama rarely acted in good faith.
I actually have those rules for all my debates that I create. It keeps both people honest and focuses solely on the facts and the logical analysis as opposed to who is the better sophist. It wasn't just for Oromagi.
When I was on DDO I had a modified version of it. But the original website I used has changed its format entirely and gotten rid of the pages I used to stamp out logical fallacies and keep the rules of logic, so I needed to cobble a few different sources together.
ACH! I thought today was my last day to reply. If you choose not to extend I understand.
This week I had much more work than usual so I messed up scheduling the reply.
Thank you for the debate! It was great getting to talk about the supernatural in a respectable dialogue.
Round One Sources:
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/language
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spatial
[3] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skills
[4] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason
[5] https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-biden-babbles-aliens-man-moon-asked-black-vaccine-hesitancy/
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvA-Vf0MomM
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_59agcnLAj4
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeXW1Ys1KHg
[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGRxVITBGOA
[10] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orientation
[11] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gcQrFsUFzQ
[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87aPi_qwL1k
[13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-3fzNmsQfQ
[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_ex2yQJaZE
[15] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAHoul4IYMY
[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMjnSP0sOhM
[17] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGRxVITBGOA
[18] https://www.dementia.org/symptoms
[19] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woPy7K-rt3Y
[20] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWbi7B_NkaA
[21] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgement
[22] https://www.medicinenet.com/dementia/definition.htm
[23] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toMcQVfLCyQ
[24] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/memory
[25] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykkjjZYKwQw
[26] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ssNav3MnBg
[27] https://www.medicinenet.com/dementia_pictures_slideshow/article.htm
[28] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvqJQRmE4mg
[29] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XitWPke9kU
[30] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IrZXz_22rk
[31] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChQvRlSzL5g
[32] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXyrj2FR4X8
[33] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/c1aC-ixXS0o
[34] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/function
[35] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reasonably
This whole debate is set up to PRO's disadvantage.
Also, without clearly defining any terms this debate will go nowhere fast.
I'd be willing to have a follow-up debate on Biden sniffing women being a longstanding sexual assault issue of his.
Update: BEST DEBATE EVAR!!!
Ain't that the truth!!
Well, to do the debates I actually have to be at my computer, since it is significantly harder to write debate responses on mobile.
I am almost never on my computer and, when I am, I have client work, so having more than 1 or 2 debates right now takes up too much free time that I have lol.
Oromagi and I are still debating election irregularities in the 2020 election and I just started this new one.
If we wait a couple weeks then I can debate you on something! But as of right now I just don't have the time for 3 debates.
Though, tbh, I think this is an open and shir case for CON. But I won't explain why because that would be debate manipulation, and I also want to see RM's prowess defending a difficult position.
You JUST missed me!!
I am currently about to embark on a debate on whether Joe Biden probably has dementia.
What is the definition of democracy and republic? And are we going with the classical understanding of republic or the classically liberal view of republic? And is a democracy simply a majority vote, as the classical liberals understood it? Or is it the way 21st century Democrat Party understands it, as the government having a popular vote for officials and then doing whatever it wants once in power without any checks or balances other than another vote?
Without these definitions it is impossible to actually have this debate. Because, in the classically liberal sense, America is not a democracy, because it is not based solely on a majority vote. It is a Republic, which is based on controlled representation in government, where the people get just enough representation to have a voice, but not a bigger voice than the government itself. In this case, America is a republic.
But if we are going by the ancient understanding of a Republic, then it could be a dictatorship, a warrior king society, or a society built on natural rights, since all of these were called a "republic" in ancient times. In this case, America is a Republic.
And if we are going by the 21st century Democrat Party definition of a republic, then America does not qualify as a Republic, because of the huge scores of unelected bureaucrats determining policy without the people's majority voice.
This is a great lesson in setting up the structure for the debate before going into it early.
Thanks for voting whiteflame!! RM, are you still going to vote on this one?
Going over previous statements I think I misread something that made me think you were going to remove undefeatable's vote. I apologize.
I think it is abundantly obvious that MisterChris's status as a former mod is heavily manipulating whiteflame's moderating of the vote section.
Undefeatable cast his vote, and now that MisterChris isn't satisfied, whiteflame is thinking about removing it.
Undefeatable, funnily enough, noticed the same things I did, said the same things I did in more detail, and not his vote is about to be axed too unless whiteflame changes his mind.
This comment section is literally evidence of mod voter suppression and mod circle jerking and it amazes me.
Sure thing.
I apologize for being rather curt. I assumed you were not a Christian. I checked your profile and it appears you are one.
I completely apologize for assuming things without verifying them with you personally.
A good lesson in fact checking ourselves before we do things, eh?
I would like to debate you on combatabilism as an orthodox doctrine.
Simply because I believe the Bible does not, in any way, shape, or form argue for it. Neither do any of the Apostolic Church Fathers or any seriously revered church father until Augustine.
One more thing, GotQuestions.org is run by a calvinist who wrote long articles explaining why Calvinism is the true Biblical position, not compatabilism.
But, you know, your two random theologians are completely infallible and agree with your position.
Nevermind the reformed tradition. Nevermind Augustine. Nevermind the books of Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews, Galatians and more.
Nevermind how both the Orthodox and Catholic churches argued literally for centuries that calvinism was wrong and arminianism was correct (arminianism predates Arminius by about 1200 years, fyi. They simply named it after him because he was the most recent guy to popularize it).
Compatabilism is the "orthodox" position.
As a Christian myself I find it laughable that you want to absolve any dependency to orthodox Christianity when your OPENING STATEMENT was that we must understand PSA as a Christian would.
You then go on to state blatant falsehoods about Christianity such as calvinism and arminianism being unbiblical and then argue for compatabilism as the orthodox tradition.
What are your sources for this? A couple theologians I have never heard of in my life, and that is saying something as I went to a Christian college and minored in Theology after trying to double major in theology and Communications. I have read, spoken to and/or debated Orthodox, Catholic, Messianic Jewish, Pentecostal, Lutheran, and True Reformed people from across the theological spectrum and most of your sources were people I had never come across nor were cited by any of the people I spoke with and debated.
Nevermind the fact that we literally have thousands of pages of Church teaching going back to AD 100 from Church Fathers and you can find people like Augustine in AD 400 touting predestination and rejecting compatabilism as a doctrine.
You can also find people like Irenaeus arguing for Arminianism flat out.
But, you know, both are unbiblical and not the "orthodox" church position, even though very revered church fathers taught them.
You can have your own beliefs on Christian orthodoxy, but please don't pass it off as real orthodoxy. I actually studied early church theology and have read large sections of the Apostolic Fathers and I studied many of Luther and Calvin's writings in addition to others. You honestly have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to Church Orthodoxy.
At least RationalMadman realized we agree that the Bible is what is orthodoxy and not concepts spouted by theologians. Since there are hundreds of thousands of them, after all.
Moreover, the official Catholic position is not compatabilism. It is Arminianism. They actually anstematized Calvinists for many years in Catholic Church history until Vatican II.
Orthodox also has a similar view to Catholicism.
So. Like, get off your soapbox. I am sorry that the thousands of pages of Christian church teaching collected over 2,000 years does not prove your statements. But that really isn't our problems as voters. It is yours for saying you wanted to understand PSA the way a Christian would, and then not actually understanding it as the Christian would.
There's a difference between being asked to follow the standards and being asked to follow someone else's opinions of the standards.
I agree with you on my lack of explanation for grammar and conduct, because I did not provide concrete examples.
But your opinion of how I graded the sources and argument is being a Kritik, not trying to objectively apply rules. I cited examples and I gave justifications for my reasons. But you told me I was wrong for basically no real reason.
And then when I clarified how this one is impossible to vote on based on the TOS, you said, essentially, we enforce the rules however we want and if you don't like it, oh well.
Tell me how that is being a good moderator?
That wasn't my point. My point was you blatantly stated you were going to be offensive and then were.
I personally don't care. But conduct is actually an award in this debate so I voted on it and my reasoning was that, if someone says they are about to be offensive, then they get docked for conduct. Seems pretty straightforward.
I did not call you an asshole.
So a source is wrong because it disagrees with you?
took me 5 seconds [NSFW WARNING]:
https://www.google.com/search?q=north+korean+porn&sxsrf=ALiCzsYSIPD7FOMgmyqdhApQDKG0sf1v-Q:1662995563555&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhmNCexY_6AhW_M1kFHWj2DzwQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1536&bih=722&dpr=1.25
"Assessing conduct violations requires more than a debater's statement that they are likely to offend people,"
So people admitting they are going to do something doesn't count as a reason to state they did so? RationalMadman literally stated "I am not obligated to speak to Christians about their religion with deep respect while tearing a central idea in it to pieces. Let me have my fun and forgive me, cheers Christians."
This is a blatant admission of guilt of using bad conduct. RationalMadman blatantly stated he doesn't want to be respectful and would rather "have fun."
I have no idea what a standard of good conduct is if people who openly admit they are about to be an asshole then shouldn't be judged based on their admission that they are going to be an asshole. Why else would they give the warning if they weren't intending on being an asshole at all?
Whiteflame said: "Assessing spelling and grammar requires that one of the debaters made it substantially more difficult to understand their arguments as a result of how they were written." What? Grammar is grammar and spelling is spelling. Neither are reading comprehension, which is entirely different. Someone can have completely flawless grammar and spelling and still not be understood. Why even bother grading on grammar at all if we are actually grading on communication effectiveness? Just call it that instead.
Whiteflame said " it does require doing more than just stating that one type of source is automatically better than another." What more do you want? A Cambridge dissertation on why original sources are better than people repeating them? I can't do that because that would require going to outside content. Additionally, the Bible is hundreds of thousands of words long. To cite one or two sentences of it according to your statement "Assessing sources requires digging into what specific sources say", would leave the whole premise of the argument and become me grandstanding my opinions on what the sources themselves say. And isn't that illegal by the very TOS I just cited?
Whiteflame said "I think you're applying them much more harshly than we would." They are rules, are they not? Do we apply rules arbitrarily as we feel or are they objective and have one meaning and purpose? It certainly seems here to me that they are being applied arbitrarily.
So, I won't be voting for a third time because there is insufficient grading material present in the debate rules to adhere to the TOS:
"Related to this, votes based on outside content are deemed insufficient; said content may still be commented upon if made clear it is not a determinant."
And this section:
"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
I need to rely on outside content to grade the sources, grammar, and conduct. So this debate is ungradable without violating the TOS. In relation to the sources, neither side actually fully engaged with the other person's sources. They never really explained why one source was worse than another. This was because they both seemed to implicitly agree that the Bible was the primary source and the theologians were secondary sources. But saying this out loud would violate the voting TOS because neither party argued for why the other source wasn't a good source, so I literally have NOTHING to grade for that category.
I find this thread is devolving into what it sought to avoid.
I apparently breached some sort of etiquette by sticking to epistemic logic as my analysis of the debate. Apparently my problem was I made assumptions that universally-held debate standards applied to a debate where they were not mentioned (this is my interpretation as to why my second vote was removed. Please explain if I am wrong here) and that I shouldn't grade the quality of sources based on universally held standards for sources, even though I am asked to grade sources as part of the voting process.
This is why I specifically asked for the TOS on voting, because I didn't feel I did anything wrong other than fail to point out specific grammar errors or specific instances where RationalMadman said he was going to offend people, because I thought they were abundantly obvious.
I apologize for assuming things, I guess. Because, in Epistemic Logic, there is this idea of universal truths that are apparent upon observation alone. Things like grammar errors and people blatantly stating things such as "I am going to offend people now" didn't really seem to be needed to be pointed out, since they are so painfully obvious you would have to hold extreme comprehension issues to miss them. But I guess I will note for future debate votes not to hold the debate to any sort of outside standard and stick solely to the debate rules themselves.
Which, in this case means neither side actually won. Because the debate rules aren't specific enough. No definition of good sources, no definition of which types of arguments are to be accepted and rejected. No commonly agreed upon definitions for 99.9% of the words used, etc. So neither side actually accomplished anything if I can't use some sort of outside measuring standard. The debate rules make it impossible to grade the debate by the metrics asked for.
Also, I think that, if anything, a moderator removing votes he doesn't like based on his own opinions of what was and was not explained is significantly more voter manipulation than someone giving pointers while blatantly stating they have a vested interest in doing so, e.g. admitting their bias up front for why they are giving pointers. But that's just my 2c.
Either way, can't wait to read this one since two really good debaters are doing it!
Maaaannn... sucks this one is taken already.
I actually wanted to argue this one as CON even though I don't actually disagree.
I just wanted to see how great my argument against racist policing would have held up. Or, rather, how a very intelligent research friend of mine's argument would have held up.
Can you just give me the TOS agreement section for how to vote on debates? It is apparent that I seem to not understand some of the aspects of voting according to this website's TOS.
I was trying to nudge based on objectively-held standards of logic and argumentation and sourcing. But I can see how thay might not me appropriate depending on the site's rules.
And on Oromagi, I agree it is really painful on phone browser, considering 90% of the time I am on my phone browser I have to agree that, to respond to his debates, I have to wait until the next time I am home and on my computer.
Idk if bullet points inherently makes a person a bad debater. But I don't think that was your main point anyways.
Idk who Oromagi was on DDO, so I have no idea if he was always like that or not. But, I tend to find with him that, if I'm not careful, I am suddenly defending straw man positions of my own arguments and such.
Ya know what might be an interesting debate?
RESOLVED: Oromagi Would Beat Bluesteel In A DebateArt Rated Debate
Thanks for voting!
Thanks!
I think it is because our methodologies for a good debater are different is all.
I understand your concern. I try to be as objective as possible when I vote. Even though Orimagi and I, for instance, disagree on things, I still recognize he is a great debater and has successfully won the debates he won.
If you think I lost, simply tell me what I could have done better. If you think I won, then great lol.
Everyone can always learn!
"I cant spend time educating you. You dont even know the basics of proof and you refuse to learn."
I literally gave you the definitions of both words and showed you why you were wrong. I guess you agree you can't debunk my truthful statements.
Proof: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact [1]
My sources were proof. They were sources that gave reference to primary sources and therefore satisfied the burden of proof.
Your videos, which are not comprehensive nor even really prove half of what you are saying, are cherry picked data. And cherry picking does not "prove" all that much.
Evidence: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY [2]
My sources contain "something that furnishes proof" therefore they count as evidence.
You also gotta stop engaging in special pleading. Your sources are not comprehensive data. They also are not asked to PROVE why they believe North Korea is the best country or why they are fully satisfied. Whereas the defectors were questioned and their statements were scrutinized and they were asked to supply actual reasons for their beliefs. This is what is called "burden of proof" and it is required for any assertion made, or else there is no reason to believe the assertion.
Also, it is worth noting that disagreeing with the "supreme leader" results in spending years in a hard labor camp, or being tortured, or even killed. [3] So there is significant pressure to lie, unlike with the defectors. Which, btw, you have not provided any proof they are paid. That assertion is therefore dismissed without evidence, like so many of your other statements lol.
SOURCES:
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence
[3] https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/001/59/PDF/G2100159.pdf?OpenElement
PRO's Round 3 sources:
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/00-949
{3] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
[4] https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
[5] https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/9
[6] https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
[7] https://dictionary.thelaw.com/affect/
[8] https://dictionary.thelaw.com/prejudice/
[9] https://dictionary.thelaw.com/fear/
RESOLVED: RationalMadman and Novice_II should debate this topic next against each other
You seem to be phobic of homophobes, considering your microaggression when you liberalsplained your alternative facts on RationalMadman.
Such an oppressive bigot!
1. Genetic fallacy. Just because it is a U.S. source, that doesn't mean it is wrong.
2. Ad hominem. Just because it is a random site, that doesn't mean it lacks credibility. Btw, it isn't a "random website." It is a premier organization that publishes human trafficking statistics. In other words, it republishes source material for public consumption.
3. So you would rather trust the North Korean government over actual eyewitnesses? If that isn't an appeal to authority I don't know what possibly could be.
So, you basically have willfully refused to talk about the evidence, which means you likely can't disagree with the evidence, and you likely know, therefore, that North Korea is a leading country complicit in sex trafficking.
Oh, and one more thing. The website you listed doesn't cite where its data came from, meaning it fails the burden of proof standard required for evidence. So you basically cited a website that doesn't prove anything.
LOL
FWIW, I don't actually believe CON's views are Christian. But CON just did a much better job arguing for his beliefs as being Christian since both parties implicitly agreed that the Scriptures are a primary source document. In reality, CON's Scriptural definitions fail due to translation issues that do not convey what the text is saying, and also due to ignorance of the terms and words as they were used when Scripture was being written.
Furthermore, CON heavily engaged in Cherry Picking, but PRO never explained how or why it was cherry picking. PRO simply responded with anecdotal evidence. He did not use the source document, the original manuscripts, the definitions of the Greek and Hebrew words, or even surveys or polls to explain why CON cannot be engaging in proper interpretation of the document. His argument boiled down to "my three of four experts say you are wrong, and here's some Scriptures I am going to interpret to fit their opinions instead of try to interpret them objectively myself."
To win this debate, PRO had to first explain why his view is, in fact, the Christian one, since he made that the central tenet of his thesis, and then explain why CON's usage of the source document was flawed and inaccurate, since it severely crushed his argument's central point. PRO failed on both, so CON had better arguments.