Can you give me the opportunity to revote. It was my first time voting on this site and I seem to have accidentally violated sitewide rules.
I will keep my personal opinions out of this and future analyses. They did not sway my opinion, but I can see how it appears that way, so I would like a re-do.
When I said verifiable, I meant it in the colloquial sense. But I can see how it couldn't have been taken that way.
I just thought it was funny how you got him to scale back his argument from "it's truth, man" to "it can be detected."
Like, you got him to move his own goalposts toward your position without even having to debate him yet.
I just thought that was funny. Detectably reincarnates is so much more difficult to prove than reincarnation. And reincarnation, itself, is already impossible to prove. Let alone detecting it.
To answer your question: obviously I don't believe that. To know things you have to be able to first detect them.
One addendum to my vote, PRO had the opportunity to demolish RM's claims, but he ultimately failed to do so by stating, essentially, "it is too deep for us to understand" and then stating "it isn't relevant."
Yeah. It may not be completely relevant to your opening statement, but that doesn't mean that:
1. Your opening statement was completely correct
2. It is not relevant to the debate as a whole.
So, basically, by leaning on the "we can't understand it" argument, you default to CON by saying "you're wrong but I can't explain why."
You're right. I didn't cite a source. I didn't know I had to when I asked a question. But just because you asked:
North Korea sex trafficking:
https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-trafficking-in-persons-report/north-korea/
https://humantraffickingsearch.org/resource/statistics-on-human-trafficking-in-north-korea/
Here's actual victims saying they were sex trafficked by North Korea:
https://www.freedomunited.org/news/north-korean-defectors-escape-sex-trafficking/
I am pretty certain North Korea is not the "best" for them.
Also, on starvation, here are North Korean defectors speaking on how everyone was starving daily for years due to a government-caused famine:
https://bookriot.com/escaping-starvation-a-reading-list-of-north-korean-defectors/
Do you actually believe people in North Korea haven't heard of a VPN? Do you also honestly believe the North Korean government doesn't engage in sex trafficking?
Thus far neither side is winning. While both cited sources, both also did not explain the methodology of the sources, why the sources make credible arguments, or even summarize any key points by the sources.
Citing NELP, for instance, can be spurious because they are an organization that, according to their website, are working to raise the minimum wage, so without explaining their methodology or anything about the report, that is basically like stating "here's a biased source in my favor."
Yes, NELP could have solid methodology and such, but without explaining it, or even citing the applicable part of the study, PRO does not actually have to debunk the claim.
The same is true with PRO, who cited a CBO link on the minimum wage. While the CBO is generally a significantly more credible organization than NELP, that does not mean the source:
1. Actually proved anything PRO stated on minimum wage, because he did nor cite any portion of the paper in question or even why it is relatable.
2. Actually had good methodology.
Additionally, at least in my opinion, the CBO tends to be partisan to whichever party is in control. Which could prove spurious to an argument about a public policy.
Yes. I admit this is the genetic fallacy to a degree. But without explaining why it is or is not the genetic fallacy, then the other party does not actually have to respond to the sourcing. They can just claim "xxx failed to prove how that source supported his case. The burden of proof is on xxx."
Well... if pluralism means multiple truths, then no. There is no religious pluralism. But if religious pluralism means multiple religions coexisting, then that is possible.
CON and PRO basically didn't agree on definitions early on lol
I'd argue your equivocation of legality with morality and bodily autonomy with personhood are arbitrary and based on your own subjective applications of those ideas.
This is why the whole abortion debate, as it is currently bring carried out today, is arbitrary. It all depends on what a person's premises are. Therefore, it is entirely subjective and not based in any sort of objectivity or fact.
You argue personhood as a legal right. Who says? The law? Which law? Whose law? And why is that law any more valid than any other law? Your whole argument is subjective.
Before anyone can even begin to debate this subject, they need to agree to certain frameworks based on arbitrary standards. Nobody is bothering to sit down and ask "what are the facts, and where will they lead?"
This is because the facts will undoubtedly lead to abortion being wrong. Yes. I would debate that position. But it would take significantly longer than a 5 round debate, so due to the constraints of time I choose not to debate it starting from ground zero without assuming anything.
"An appeal to the law (argumentum ad legem in Latin) is a fallacy in which someone tries to encourage/defend an action purely because it is legal, or tries to discourage an action purely because it is illegal. This line of reasoning is faulty because the law of the land does not necessarily match up with the morality or sensibility of an action." [1]
Just because something is legal or illegal, that does not mean it is moral or even right. Laws are just as subjective and relative as anything else.
yeah, but the "personhood" debate is silly because people come to the table with different ideas of what personhood means.
Biologically, a fetus is a person from the very beginning. Genetically as well.
But if a person is a "fatherless biped," then a fetus is not a person.
Or if a person is someone who physiologically aligns with a post-birth human, then it is not a person. But neither are amputees, brain dead individuals, and those born with deformities.
Which is why these arguments are unresolvable.
To me, logically, the fetus is a person because of the arguments from biology and genetics. However, one can make a tautological argument as well, that you can't just assign personhood at some arbitrary moment post-development because there is no particular reason THAT moment defines personhood. So the logical conclusion is either that human beings are never persons, or they are always persons. And from that conclusion, we are always persons.
But not everyone will agree with a tautological argument like that because they have their own definitions of person.
It amazes me the red herrings people use to justify murder.
God allowed you to get raped, so we should murder babies.
Can you PLEASE explain to me how that is, in any way, shape, or form, a dynamic equivalency?
That is like saying we should allow guns because Russia has a military. One does not depend on the other. It is a completely incoherent line of thinking and ignores almost all of the particulars in the situation.
Can it, though? Or is it simply an explanation we don't know yet? Or is that what you meant?
Also, what source states there are 37.2 trillion cells in the human body? I would like to read it to know their methodology and see if it is sound or not.
To me, be the very definition of the laws of this universe, including those found via quantum physics, everything has an explanation.
I would have actually liked to have taken this debate, as a Christian.
But, to be clear, Mall, was your identification of "Christian" a person who tries to the best of his ability to obey Scripture and follow God, or a person who DOES obey Scripture 100% correctly.
Because I would argue that, either way, the Bible itself states a person can fail to follow Scripture perfectly and still be a Christian.
As I stated earlier, this is about the 2020 election. The sources I cited were the U.S. Code, and a reputable American legal dictionary to ensure the words used would stick to their legislative and therefore properly contextualized meaning. The U.S. Code is the rule of law for the United States in addition to the Constitution, which is also codified in the U.S. Code.
I did not engage in special pleading for the sources. They are simply the laws of the land, and a reputable dictionary. We are debating illegal election activities in the 2020 election, so the U.S. Code is the standard of what is illegal. It is that simple. This is similar to any court case that happens in America. The law is used as the standard. Criminals are convicted based on breaking the law. The law states what it states and is not a biased source.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the rules barring additional sources on the 2020 election as evidence. As long as any source aligns with the Federal standards for evidence, it can be a source. This is stated in the rules. It just cannot supercede the U.S. Code or the two dictionaries listed for definitions of words or for laws, because, obviously, we are debating illegal election activities in the 2020 election.
Oromagi and I had a forum post where we both supplied the rules we wanted for the debate. Without definitions, there is no objective way to prove what anyone is saying. If Oromagi did not like the usage of the particular dictionaries, he was free to suggest his own.
It is also worth noting that the U.S. Legal system largely does not prosecute intent. They prosecute actions. So since we were debating whether illegal election activities took place, then this is simply the actions, not the intent. This is a specific debate about a specific election in a country governed by a specific set of laws. This is not a tautological or thought experimental debate. It is based on whether the 2020 election held enough illegal election activities to decertify it. To do so, there needs to be adherence to the U.S. Code.
By banning logical fallacies, propaganda techniques, and compliance gaining strategies, all that is left is pure logic. Which is the point of this dispute. Any matter of national importance should be handled with the utmost care, should it not? Why bother to debate things otherwise?
This comments section shows the decline in rational discourse from where we were 20 years ago. PRO does not want to have an argument. He specifically stated he wants a rational, logical discourse where two people hold a sort of socratic seminar.
But the people in the comments can't handle that. They want to use cheap parlor tricks and illogical nonsense to win a debate for points. No intellectual honesty. They care more about semantics and winning than about being smart or logical. That's a shame.
There's plenty of places to win with cheap parlor tricks on this site. But PRO, for once, brought forth a debate based on intellectual honesty and rational discourse, and that is too difficult for most people these days.
I'd take the debate, but the problem is I agree with PRO that there are universals. So I would only be practicing my polemics.
Well if your definition of stolen is that all votes were illegitimate then that is obviously a given that the election was not stolen.
I think there was fraudulent activity that was enough to tip the election in favor of President Biden. I do not believe no ballots cast were legitimate.
I used "stolen" because this was the wording used in the title of this debate. So I was just using the language that was already in use.
Maybe we should do a forum post where we both come to terms with what we would like to debate. That way it will speed up the process, and it will also provide context to the potential voters.
Oh, especially in regard to things like "stolen" and such. Does a stolen election mean it was simply rigged or that Trump actually won and the left stole it?
We would need to define these terms. This is why I prefer the legal definitions as set out in the U.S. Code. Or at minimum the closest we can get to them.
If I accept, we would need to start with a commonly-held set of definitions or at least a common dictionary.
Ideally, I'd want to use the U.S. Federal Government's terms and the U.S. Code to determine the ground rules and such for what we are debating.
Without doing this then there is really no point in debating it, right? There's no common ground and we could just make up our own arguments, definitions, and sources at that point.
I'm unsure why CON forfeited when all Oromagi did was appeal to authority.
Basic burden of proof requires that the person who makes the claim must cite evidence for their claim.
The problem is, state and city governments DO NOT publicly reveal the vote tally. Not even to the people who cast their vote. So there is no way to know if the governing officials are lying or not. We are not allowed to see that data.
Additionally, the CISA document does not actually show any evidence for why they make their assertion. They simply make a claim without evidence, which violates basic burdens of proof and also constitutes as an appeal to authority.
Those in favor of voter fraud have brought forth 900 fact witnesses, hundreds of news articles, and mathematical analyses that purportedly show voter fraud. This evidence was conveniently ignored.
It's a shame. Because I really wanted to read a good debate on this.
Thanks!
Yes. Thank you so much!
Can you give me the opportunity to revote. It was my first time voting on this site and I seem to have accidentally violated sitewide rules.
I will keep my personal opinions out of this and future analyses. They did not sway my opinion, but I can see how it appears that way, so I would like a re-do.
Faith is a reasoned reasoned belief, of which reincarnation has none, because there is no belief to be possibly reasoned for it.
When I said verifiable, I meant it in the colloquial sense. But I can see how it couldn't have been taken that way.
I just thought it was funny how you got him to scale back his argument from "it's truth, man" to "it can be detected."
Like, you got him to move his own goalposts toward your position without even having to debate him yet.
I just thought that was funny. Detectably reincarnates is so much more difficult to prove than reincarnation. And reincarnation, itself, is already impossible to prove. Let alone detecting it.
To answer your question: obviously I don't believe that. To know things you have to be able to first detect them.
One addendum to my vote, PRO had the opportunity to demolish RM's claims, but he ultimately failed to do so by stating, essentially, "it is too deep for us to understand" and then stating "it isn't relevant."
Yeah. It may not be completely relevant to your opening statement, but that doesn't mean that:
1. Your opening statement was completely correct
2. It is not relevant to the debate as a whole.
So, basically, by leaning on the "we can't understand it" argument, you default to CON by saying "you're wrong but I can't explain why."
I guess nobody wants to vote on this debate. Sigh.
Gosh. No definitions. No rules. No banning of kritiks. This will just be a shouting match.
I love how this debate started with proving reincarnation is a verifiable fact and ended with the current title.
You're right. I didn't cite a source. I didn't know I had to when I asked a question. But just because you asked:
North Korea sex trafficking:
https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-trafficking-in-persons-report/north-korea/
https://humantraffickingsearch.org/resource/statistics-on-human-trafficking-in-north-korea/
Here's actual victims saying they were sex trafficked by North Korea:
https://www.freedomunited.org/news/north-korean-defectors-escape-sex-trafficking/
I am pretty certain North Korea is not the "best" for them.
Also, on starvation, here are North Korean defectors speaking on how everyone was starving daily for years due to a government-caused famine:
https://bookriot.com/escaping-starvation-a-reading-list-of-north-korean-defectors/
Ok. Your turn now. Where are your sources?
Do you actually believe people in North Korea haven't heard of a VPN? Do you also honestly believe the North Korean government doesn't engage in sex trafficking?
"As for the definitions, to each their own."
Well, I mean, by that logic then mass starvation and malnourishment and a stagnant economy could definitely be considered "the best."
I know one thing. North Korea is certainly the best if you are Kim Jong Un. But not if you are the vast majority of his subjects.
Thus far neither side is winning. While both cited sources, both also did not explain the methodology of the sources, why the sources make credible arguments, or even summarize any key points by the sources.
Citing NELP, for instance, can be spurious because they are an organization that, according to their website, are working to raise the minimum wage, so without explaining their methodology or anything about the report, that is basically like stating "here's a biased source in my favor."
Yes, NELP could have solid methodology and such, but without explaining it, or even citing the applicable part of the study, PRO does not actually have to debunk the claim.
The same is true with PRO, who cited a CBO link on the minimum wage. While the CBO is generally a significantly more credible organization than NELP, that does not mean the source:
1. Actually proved anything PRO stated on minimum wage, because he did nor cite any portion of the paper in question or even why it is relatable.
2. Actually had good methodology.
Additionally, at least in my opinion, the CBO tends to be partisan to whichever party is in control. Which could prove spurious to an argument about a public policy.
Yes. I admit this is the genetic fallacy to a degree. But without explaining why it is or is not the genetic fallacy, then the other party does not actually have to respond to the sourcing. They can just claim "xxx failed to prove how that source supported his case. The burden of proof is on xxx."
The right: Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Norris
The left: Greta Thunberg, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Lizzo
I think this is a pretty easy debate.
Well... if pluralism means multiple truths, then no. There is no religious pluralism. But if religious pluralism means multiple religions coexisting, then that is possible.
CON and PRO basically didn't agree on definitions early on lol
I'd argue your equivocation of legality with morality and bodily autonomy with personhood are arbitrary and based on your own subjective applications of those ideas.
This is why the whole abortion debate, as it is currently bring carried out today, is arbitrary. It all depends on what a person's premises are. Therefore, it is entirely subjective and not based in any sort of objectivity or fact.
You argue personhood as a legal right. Who says? The law? Which law? Whose law? And why is that law any more valid than any other law? Your whole argument is subjective.
Before anyone can even begin to debate this subject, they need to agree to certain frameworks based on arbitrary standards. Nobody is bothering to sit down and ask "what are the facts, and where will they lead?"
This is because the facts will undoubtedly lead to abortion being wrong. Yes. I would debate that position. But it would take significantly longer than a 5 round debate, so due to the constraints of time I choose not to debate it starting from ground zero without assuming anything.
"An appeal to the law (argumentum ad legem in Latin) is a fallacy in which someone tries to encourage/defend an action purely because it is legal, or tries to discourage an action purely because it is illegal. This line of reasoning is faulty because the law of the land does not necessarily match up with the morality or sensibility of an action." [1]
Just because something is legal or illegal, that does not mean it is moral or even right. Laws are just as subjective and relative as anything else.
Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_law
I mean, there's already a few forum posts on it, so I don't know if we'd be beating a dead horse lol
yeah, but the "personhood" debate is silly because people come to the table with different ideas of what personhood means.
Biologically, a fetus is a person from the very beginning. Genetically as well.
But if a person is a "fatherless biped," then a fetus is not a person.
Or if a person is someone who physiologically aligns with a post-birth human, then it is not a person. But neither are amputees, brain dead individuals, and those born with deformities.
Which is why these arguments are unresolvable.
To me, logically, the fetus is a person because of the arguments from biology and genetics. However, one can make a tautological argument as well, that you can't just assign personhood at some arbitrary moment post-development because there is no particular reason THAT moment defines personhood. So the logical conclusion is either that human beings are never persons, or they are always persons. And from that conclusion, we are always persons.
But not everyone will agree with a tautological argument like that because they have their own definitions of person.
PRO's ROUND 2 SOURCES:
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
[2] https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/6d
[3] https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
[4] https://dictionary.thelaw.com/effect/
[5] https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/09/california-admits-dmv-error-added-noncitizens-to-voter-rolls/
It amazes me the red herrings people use to justify murder.
God allowed you to get raped, so we should murder babies.
Can you PLEASE explain to me how that is, in any way, shape, or form, a dynamic equivalency?
That is like saying we should allow guns because Russia has a military. One does not depend on the other. It is a completely incoherent line of thinking and ignores almost all of the particulars in the situation.
Thanks!
Can it, though? Or is it simply an explanation we don't know yet? Or is that what you meant?
Also, what source states there are 37.2 trillion cells in the human body? I would like to read it to know their methodology and see if it is sound or not.
To me, be the very definition of the laws of this universe, including those found via quantum physics, everything has an explanation.
I would have actually liked to have taken this debate, as a Christian.
But, to be clear, Mall, was your identification of "Christian" a person who tries to the best of his ability to obey Scripture and follow God, or a person who DOES obey Scripture 100% correctly.
Because I would argue that, either way, the Bible itself states a person can fail to follow Scripture perfectly and still be a Christian.
So what is your definition of Christian?
As I stated earlier, this is about the 2020 election. The sources I cited were the U.S. Code, and a reputable American legal dictionary to ensure the words used would stick to their legislative and therefore properly contextualized meaning. The U.S. Code is the rule of law for the United States in addition to the Constitution, which is also codified in the U.S. Code.
I did not engage in special pleading for the sources. They are simply the laws of the land, and a reputable dictionary. We are debating illegal election activities in the 2020 election, so the U.S. Code is the standard of what is illegal. It is that simple. This is similar to any court case that happens in America. The law is used as the standard. Criminals are convicted based on breaking the law. The law states what it states and is not a biased source.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the rules barring additional sources on the 2020 election as evidence. As long as any source aligns with the Federal standards for evidence, it can be a source. This is stated in the rules. It just cannot supercede the U.S. Code or the two dictionaries listed for definitions of words or for laws, because, obviously, we are debating illegal election activities in the 2020 election.
Oromagi and I had a forum post where we both supplied the rules we wanted for the debate. Without definitions, there is no objective way to prove what anyone is saying. If Oromagi did not like the usage of the particular dictionaries, he was free to suggest his own.
It is also worth noting that the U.S. Legal system largely does not prosecute intent. They prosecute actions. So since we were debating whether illegal election activities took place, then this is simply the actions, not the intent. This is a specific debate about a specific election in a country governed by a specific set of laws. This is not a tautological or thought experimental debate. It is based on whether the 2020 election held enough illegal election activities to decertify it. To do so, there needs to be adherence to the U.S. Code.
By banning logical fallacies, propaganda techniques, and compliance gaining strategies, all that is left is pure logic. Which is the point of this dispute. Any matter of national importance should be handled with the utmost care, should it not? Why bother to debate things otherwise?
This comments section shows the decline in rational discourse from where we were 20 years ago. PRO does not want to have an argument. He specifically stated he wants a rational, logical discourse where two people hold a sort of socratic seminar.
But the people in the comments can't handle that. They want to use cheap parlor tricks and illogical nonsense to win a debate for points. No intellectual honesty. They care more about semantics and winning than about being smart or logical. That's a shame.
There's plenty of places to win with cheap parlor tricks on this site. But PRO, for once, brought forth a debate based on intellectual honesty and rational discourse, and that is too difficult for most people these days.
I'd take the debate, but the problem is I agree with PRO that there are universals. So I would only be practicing my polemics.
Should I go ahead and set up the forum post?
Well if your definition of stolen is that all votes were illegitimate then that is obviously a given that the election was not stolen.
I think there was fraudulent activity that was enough to tip the election in favor of President Biden. I do not believe no ballots cast were legitimate.
I used "stolen" because this was the wording used in the title of this debate. So I was just using the language that was already in use.
Maybe we should do a forum post where we both come to terms with what we would like to debate. That way it will speed up the process, and it will also provide context to the potential voters.
Oh, especially in regard to things like "stolen" and such. Does a stolen election mean it was simply rigged or that Trump actually won and the left stole it?
We would need to define these terms. This is why I prefer the legal definitions as set out in the U.S. Code. Or at minimum the closest we can get to them.
If I accept, we would need to start with a commonly-held set of definitions or at least a common dictionary.
Ideally, I'd want to use the U.S. Federal Government's terms and the U.S. Code to determine the ground rules and such for what we are debating.
Without doing this then there is really no point in debating it, right? There's no common ground and we could just make up our own arguments, definitions, and sources at that point.
Would if I could. I haven't hit the 100 forum posts or 2 completed rated debates threshold yet.
CON's last two words made me laugh because of the irony of the statement if taken humorously and out of context.
Very thorough debate.
I'm unsure why CON forfeited when all Oromagi did was appeal to authority.
Basic burden of proof requires that the person who makes the claim must cite evidence for their claim.
The problem is, state and city governments DO NOT publicly reveal the vote tally. Not even to the people who cast their vote. So there is no way to know if the governing officials are lying or not. We are not allowed to see that data.
Additionally, the CISA document does not actually show any evidence for why they make their assertion. They simply make a claim without evidence, which violates basic burdens of proof and also constitutes as an appeal to authority.
Those in favor of voter fraud have brought forth 900 fact witnesses, hundreds of news articles, and mathematical analyses that purportedly show voter fraud. This evidence was conveniently ignored.
It's a shame. Because I really wanted to read a good debate on this.
Why the forfeit? You could have used the first round to explain terms and ask CON for agreement.
This would have been a great debate to read, regardless of the perspective on it. Everybody loves a rational, evidence-based debate.