We are not built the same way a car is built. Even the idea is plainly ludicrous. We’re not even built. We grow. Nothing about a production line is the same as how organisms develop - just sweeping, broad, metaphorical interpretation.
Your confusing metaphor - with real tangible substance.
Did you listen to anything I just said? I guess not.
A cell is not a production line, it doesn’t have the properties of a production line that we use to determine cars are created. It doesn’t have many properties of a human production at all.
But if you want to describe it in terms that are easy to understand, you can use metaphors.
Unfortunately - no number of metaphor make cells an actual production line.
The DNA replication isn’t a production line. It’s a set of chemical reactions.
This is the entire issue with arguments from design: the thing that lets us know cars are built - is that cars are built.
You then use broad metaphors to gloss over all the ways in which the two things are different. Cells aren’t assembled by robots on production lines that we know are created, managed and manipulated by humans.
A cell doesn’t have a production line; it has a organic chemical process which you can explain in familiar human terms as a production line: but again - you ignore all the ways it isn’t a production line.
We can tell a car is designed because we know it was designed, it contains components and objects that we know humans design. It contains bolts, seams, as disparate materials that are bolted together. It contains no maintaining processes that can replicate, fix, or manage the car as a whole, rather than individual systems within it. And a thousand other things that allow us to assign a car to one of the billion things humans have created. Without those properties you cannot tell whether a car was designed or not: but if a car didn’t have those properties it would not be recognizable as a car at all.
We know Nintendo characters are created by humans - because they are computer games. Computer games that we know are created by humans.
No one has ever looked at the colour of a Pikachu and thought: “hmmm, you know, this character must have been created because this shade of yellow is too perfect.”
Now, what you’re doing is frankly grade A denial.
I said that cars have creates. We see them. We meet them.
Kinda seems like a property indicative of being created. Don’t you?
We can see physical production lines - built by humans that create cars.
Again: that seems like a dead giveaway!
We see fool marks, welding prints, etc: and aspects of manufacture. Kind of indicative of manufacture, right?
So quite frankly, I have no clue why you’re contesting that having a creator is not a good indicator of having a creator : but hey.
The other properties I listed are the reason we conclude computer game characters are created by an intelligence, and the colours were intelligently selected. If rabbits don’t have ALL of those properties - which they don’t - that conclusions cannot cross apply: which it doesn’t. So those properties are fundamental to the question.
I understand exactly what you’re saying - it’s just not logical, for the reasons I keep repeating. The same goes for the complexity of animals.
You’re trying to claim two things have the same cause because they have similar properties - but ignoring all the properties relevant to the actual cause which are different.
We know computer games and cars have creators - because they have their creators. We’ve seen them. Met them, we’ve seen car production lines. We see tool marks, they familiar human items and machinery that we have observed needing intelligent intervention. They don’t breed, they cannot be grown, they don’t have biological processes, they don’t reproduce their genetic material to the next generation. That’s how we know they have creators.
Because of those differences, it is not valid or logical to claim the cause is the same.
Yes it completely change that the logic is the same.
When the properties of two things are completely manifestly different, you can’t just cherry pick similarities and then assert the cause is the same, with no additional logic.
As I keep saying - and you keep ignoring - it is irrelevant.
You can’t apply what happened to video games to what happens to living organisms - they are different things with different properties, and are fundamentally different in almost every way. Because they are so different you can’t say what what caused something in one caused something In the other.
It’s just ridiculously bad logic, and faulty critical thinking.
It’s a computer game character, we know people draw computer game characters; we know computer game characters are drawn, because it’s a computer game character.
It’s not an organism, that lives, breeds, reproduced, etc: the cause of the colour of one doesn’t allow you to infer the colour of the other because they are completely different.
You can completely ignore that issue if you want; but thats the error in your logic.
It is not a major leap to presume that the colour of a character we know was created by humans was chosen deliberately.
However, as a rabbit is not a fictional cartoon character that was drawn by humans, and whose history and origins are known and document as a process of artistic design by humans; nor is a rabbit a demonstrable or has been directly observed to be a piece of art work, or the product of a specific intentional design, and appears to exist, life, mate, reproduce and change colour in the absence of any specific human or any form of intelligent interaction ; and given that their pigment is affected by their genetic make up which is a copied variants of previous generations that has been imperfectly copied, and whose generations were subject to colour based selective pressure - there is no logical basis to conclude that the reason human designers made a known computer game character have a particular colour is the same reason that rabbits are a particular colour.
The answer to the question is completely irrelevant.
The particular colourization of a fictional computer generated character is completely unrelated to the origin of skin pigments in a living, breeding family of creatures that perpetuate their genetic material (and subsequent generations pigmentation) through sexual reproduction and inexact genetic duplication ; and whose life, habits, habitat and death are perpetuated in the absence of any direct involvement and intervention of an intelligent agent.
These things are so ridiculously different ; there is absolutely no possibly basis upon which to conclude the cause of one is the same as the cause of the other.
The same logic can’t be applied at all - the logic is terrible - this is the same error you keep making.
You can’t state the cause of one thing is the same as the cause of another thing because they share a superficial similarity despite being fundamentally different.
What Nintendo did or didn’t do has no relevance at all to the colour of rabbits on any way; unless you can specifically (and separately) show that the colour of rabbits was definitely chosen in a similar way.
And given that rabbits are not a human school, and snow is not a school uniforms, their properties and nature are fundamentally different; and neither have anything to do with the human decision making process; the reason your clothes match your mascots cannot be inferred to be the same reason as why rabbits match the snow
Yeah; they’re both connected. What you’re doing is simply illogical question begging. There is nothing implicit in the properties of rabbits colour or snow that necessitate only a divine creator is responsible for it. That’s the problem.
You’re arguing that rabbits and snow, and fridge and microwave colours share some properties thus they must share the same underlying cause. This is just poor logic and is laughably false. It’s just bizarre cherry picking and bad critical thinking.
Only if rabbits and snow, and fridges and microwave share ALL properties, could you argue that the cause of colour in one is the same as the cause of colour in the other.
The brown of my poop matches the brown of the eyes I am looking at it with; they are both organically related to me; so are both connected.So now it is safe for me to say God created my poop brown to match my eyes.
Your just making arbitrary and nonsensical connections that make no logical sense.
Because they’re humans, with an eye for aestethics, and they are choosing home appliances. I explained this in the previous post you are replying to
Human taste in home appliances colour and the elements of the scenario by which we know the decision requires intent are completely unrelated to anything in life.
There is literally no connection other than they both have colour match.
My poop matches my eye colour sometimes.
According to your logic - the colour of my poop is intelligently selected by God.
Saying the same thing over and over again doesn’t make it any more logical.
A microwave and a fridge are manufactured home utilities designed and created by humans. These devices are mostly placed in the homes of humans, who’s personal tastes and aesthetics often lead to the choice of matching colour coordination. They are often produced in different colours, affording the consumer who buys them for a given location to deliberately chose the specific colour.
Those are the properties that allow us to infer that matching colours are likely a choice: because humans like matching colours, these appliances come in different colours, and a human is often forced to chose which colours
None of those properties are true of any aspect of life; this is why you’re claim is simply nonsensical and illogical clap trap that makes no sense. There is no relationship of any kind between the cause of colours of home appliances - and the colours of living organisms in the wild.
No you really, really can’t, and it’s a major failure of critical thinking on your part to even begin to presume you can.
You’re literally saying that you can conclude that the deeply ingrained biological processes in a wild animal that drives its pigmentation must be manually specified by an intelligent designed - on the basis that humans are able to make colours match.
There are properties and circumstances that allow us to determine whether agency was responsible for one of those things; you haven’t bothered to compare any of those properties and circumstances ; you just arbitrarily determine that if the colour of a thing matches something else - it requires intelligence because other times a colour of a thing matches something else - it requires intelligence.
Welcome to the site, thanks for taking a look at the code of conduct relating to voting! Unfortunate I do have to remove this vote, though the requirements are hopefully fairly easy to meet. Feel free to ask any questions about the voting rules, I’ll be happy to answer!
Concerning whether or not Trump broke the law, I think both sides presented fairly equal arguments, and I do not consider myself enough of a legal expert to make a judgment on this. However, I can make a judgment on definitions. The definition that Pro provided and Con accepted was as follows:
COLLUSION [noun] is secret agreement for an illegal purpose; conspiracy.
Con argued that Zelensky did not know that the monetary assistance had been canceled, and Pro never attempted to refute it. Since Zelensky did not know the assistance had been canceled, it was clearly impossible for him to make an "agreement for an illegal purpose." Regardless of Trump's intentions, Zelensky was incapable of being leveraged or agreeing to an illegal deal because he did not know there was a deal. All he knew was that Trump asked him to investigate Biden. Therefore, Zelensky did not make an agreement for illegal purpose; to the best of his knowledge, he was merely granting a request. Since Zelensky did not make such an agreement with Trump, it inevitably follows that Trump did not make one with Zelensky. Therefore, the phone call was not clear-cut conclusion.
Later in the debate, Con provided a contradictory definition of collusion:
"Essentially, you have to prove three things:
1) Trump made an offer
2) This offer was illegal
3) This offer was secret
I only need to show that any one of these three things is false."
I think that both sides offered nearly equal arguments regarding this definition. Combining the two definitions, I think the debate was almost completely equal, but I give a slight edge to Con in regards to the first definition.
This is not did say that what Trump did was legal (or illegal). I cannot reach a conclusion on that matter. If that had been the topic, I would have voted for a tie. But since the debate was about whether or not the phone call was collusion and not whether or not Trump's actions were illegal, I must give the arguments points to Con.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SirAnonymous// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments.
>Reason for Decision: see above
Reason for Mod Action> This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Oh I missed that on the conduct point, I apologize.
However, the vote was insufficient for a multitude of reasons. Removing the section would not correct the other remaining issues I listed other than the issues with external content and conduct.
For any of the criteria that you place in your vote, you must provide a justification - if you don’t specify why conduct was awarded, I can’t tell whether the vote awarded the conduct point for valid reasons or not. While I think the clarification for why you awarded conduct is good - you must include this in the vote for it to be valid.
Secondly, and most importantly, voting is not about explaining who you think is correct - but who made the better arguments, only including information contained within the debate. Each debater is arguing against his opponent - not his opponent and whatever information all voters can produce or review after the fact.
Actually, with lots of lead in your system you go crazy and eventually die; they used a lot of lead in the hat industry - hence the phrase “mad as a hatter”.
There’s actually a strong possibility that the reduction of violent crime across the board in most countries irrespective of crime policy since the 90s. If I recall there is a potential causal link there too. It’s actually a pretty interesting topic!
Also interesting is the story of the guy who discovered the impact of lead in the environment: it started out as a story of trying to use U-Pb to date rocks - no one could figure out why the amount of lead meant you never got valid results.
I hope con realizes that is how they legally bribe people. you randomly give someone a mansion. Just don't say you gave it to them to pass a law. If you do not say it is a bribe to pass a law. then it is not a bribe to pass a law and claim it is just a Christmas gift like thing. Then it is legal. But con is right it is not technically illegal. This is just how Hillary was able to be gifted millions of dollars from other country's. Just say it is a gift not for political purpose's and will not be put into politics. Just for her own use's. This is not what trump did. But that's what cons logic can apply to.But con refuted the point that it was illegal.Con only had to refute one point.
Reason:
Better spelling and grammar tie. Con forgave pro mistakes
Better conduct to Con. Because pro requested it.
More convincing argument to con
All con had to do and i quote
"
1) Trump made an offer
2) This offer was illegal
3) This offer was secret
I only need to show that any one of these three things is false."
It took me ten minutes to read it. . But con showed that pro points were wrong.
here an example
"Pro's claims in R2 boil down to the idea that Trump has only his self-interest in mind and does not even comprehend justice, but does not back up his claim.
Pro claims the quid of the quid pro quo is there. Pro claims Zelensky knew the money had not yet arrived.
Con points out pro's failure to back up his claim the Trump does not comprehend justice."
Pro did not source that Zelensky knew the money was being held up. Con points out he has no source for this. Given my knowledge on the topic. Zelensky said in an interview that he did not even know the money was held up. So pro argument is false. and con was right to call out the no source for this.
"Over the course of the day, Zelenskiy told shifts of journalists he had not been blackmailed by Trump in their phone call on 25 July and did not know US military aid had been delayed at the time."
See con was right. Pro did not source it because it was untrue
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/10/ukraine-president-volodymyr-zelenskiy-press-conference-donald-trump
Con gets better sources
" This is untrue. This is comparable to saying, “If you give Bill Gates money, you are supporting Microsoft.” If Bill Gates simply puts that money in his bank and never uses it for Microsoft, the money is never used to support Microsoft. In the same way, giving something to Trump is not inherently for the election."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crossed// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for sources, conduct and arguments.
>Reason for Decision: see above
Reason for Mod Action>
- Voter does not explain the conduct point award.
- The voter appears to being in external content (the guardian article - I could not find this in the debate), which is prohibited.
- Sources are insufficiently explained, the voter does not give examples of sources and explain how these aided or harmed each sides argument.
- While the vote may exclude arguments by explaining why only one set of points are important (the portion about whether it was a crime, and secret), the voter doesn’t survey the main arguments or rebuttals around this point from both sides.
- In much of the vote, the voter appears to be relitigating the debate from his own perspective, rather than offering a justification if why one sides arguments were better.
I agree that there is a correlation - there is also a correlation with the reduction of lead in the atmosphere at a time where those in their mid to late twenties were growing up.
Do draw a causal conclusion - you must have a definitive link to how reduction in guns in homes leads to reduction of Guns in the hands of murderers. Now, it maybe the case that guns per capita are falling, but if criminals and those most likely to commit murders with weapons have a significant issues acquiring a weapon - more than they did before - I’d agree with you, however, I see no evidence of that being the case.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheRealNihilist// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Win to con.
>Reason for Decision: I consider Con giving his reason in the comment section sufficient enough to award him the point.
Reason for Mod Action>
This debate is a full forfeit from both sides. While a comment in the debate implies con was waiting for pro, this needs to be in the debate - any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes, comment sections, and separate forums.
So in this case, I don’t believe any award can be made in either direction.
*******************************************************************
I’m actually hoping they get deleted (I asked the question when I accepted - imo they’re kinda spam anyway), as I don’t think 12 debates in challenge period that will be auto forfeited as you say is a bit much for throwing out a lot of free wins. If they don’t, I took a handful couple of the shorter ones, so if they aren't removed; I’m at least not at a disadvantage (hence why I didn’t accept them all). I’ll only get bout 3 points per win; and I haven’t milked Bill for free points thus far - but I still mostly agree that these should be removed.
There are literally hundreds of major transitional forms, between many of the major groupings. There are scientific arguments around whether some forms of therapsids should be called mammal like reptiles or reptile like mammals. The same goes for hominid my favourite one is the creationists are unable to agree whether some advanced australapithicus species are 100% human or 100% ape (which seems a pretty definitive example of a transitional form).
The idea that there have been major perpetuated frauds for transitional forms is largely an invention from creationists, and sites like creation.com who demonstrably lie about them; and the idea that there should be constant and continuous change that would produce a blended rainbow of species seems not to understand that evolution is mostly adaptation to changes in environment, when the environment is stable for tens millions of of years, one would not expect large scale rapid evolution.
Finally ; as you should know - a whale with a partially formed gill would completely refute evolution - I mean seriously, do you understand how evolution even works before rejecting it out of hand? We already have whales with legs: they’re called Peregocetus pacificus
Sharing some superficial anthropomorphised similarities != materially identical.
This logic is why you keep losing debates
We are not built the same way a car is built. Even the idea is plainly ludicrous. We’re not even built. We grow. Nothing about a production line is the same as how organisms develop - just sweeping, broad, metaphorical interpretation.
Your confusing metaphor - with real tangible substance.
Once’s a physical machine assembling parts into a whole.
The other is a chemical reaction.
They are not at all the same.
Again - metaphor.
A cell isn’t a production line. It’s a metaphor that’s used to explain roughly how cells work in terms humans are familiar with.
It’s not an actual production line.
Did you listen to anything I just said? I guess not.
A cell is not a production line, it doesn’t have the properties of a production line that we use to determine cars are created. It doesn’t have many properties of a human production at all.
But if you want to describe it in terms that are easy to understand, you can use metaphors.
Unfortunately - no number of metaphor make cells an actual production line.
The DNA replication isn’t a production line. It’s a set of chemical reactions.
This is the entire issue with arguments from design: the thing that lets us know cars are built - is that cars are built.
You then use broad metaphors to gloss over all the ways in which the two things are different. Cells aren’t assembled by robots on production lines that we know are created, managed and manipulated by humans.
A cell doesn’t have a production line; it has a organic chemical process which you can explain in familiar human terms as a production line: but again - you ignore all the ways it isn’t a production line.
We can tell a car is designed because we know it was designed, it contains components and objects that we know humans design. It contains bolts, seams, as disparate materials that are bolted together. It contains no maintaining processes that can replicate, fix, or manage the car as a whole, rather than individual systems within it. And a thousand other things that allow us to assign a car to one of the billion things humans have created. Without those properties you cannot tell whether a car was designed or not: but if a car didn’t have those properties it would not be recognizable as a car at all.
“ Yes we know Nintendo was created by humans because duh.But we can see Nintendo created it just by observing the final product”
Yes: we observe the final product is a cartoon character - and we know cartoon characters are created.
We know Nintendo characters are created by humans - because they are computer games. Computer games that we know are created by humans.
No one has ever looked at the colour of a Pikachu and thought: “hmmm, you know, this character must have been created because this shade of yellow is too perfect.”
Now, what you’re doing is frankly grade A denial.
I said that cars have creates. We see them. We meet them.
Kinda seems like a property indicative of being created. Don’t you?
We can see physical production lines - built by humans that create cars.
Again: that seems like a dead giveaway!
We see fool marks, welding prints, etc: and aspects of manufacture. Kind of indicative of manufacture, right?
So quite frankly, I have no clue why you’re contesting that having a creator is not a good indicator of having a creator : but hey.
The other properties I listed are the reason we conclude computer game characters are created by an intelligence, and the colours were intelligently selected. If rabbits don’t have ALL of those properties - which they don’t - that conclusions cannot cross apply: which it doesn’t. So those properties are fundamental to the question.
I understand exactly what you’re saying - it’s just not logical, for the reasons I keep repeating. The same goes for the complexity of animals.
You’re trying to claim two things have the same cause because they have similar properties - but ignoring all the properties relevant to the actual cause which are different.
We know computer games and cars have creators - because they have their creators. We’ve seen them. Met them, we’ve seen car production lines. We see tool marks, they familiar human items and machinery that we have observed needing intelligent intervention. They don’t breed, they cannot be grown, they don’t have biological processes, they don’t reproduce their genetic material to the next generation. That’s how we know they have creators.
Because of those differences, it is not valid or logical to claim the cause is the same.
Yes it completely change that the logic is the same.
When the properties of two things are completely manifestly different, you can’t just cherry pick similarities and then assert the cause is the same, with no additional logic.
As I keep saying - and you keep ignoring - it is irrelevant.
You can’t apply what happened to video games to what happens to living organisms - they are different things with different properties, and are fundamentally different in almost every way. Because they are so different you can’t say what what caused something in one caused something In the other.
It’s just ridiculously bad logic, and faulty critical thinking.
Again, it’s completely irrelevant.
It’s a computer game character, we know people draw computer game characters; we know computer game characters are drawn, because it’s a computer game character.
It’s not an organism, that lives, breeds, reproduced, etc: the cause of the colour of one doesn’t allow you to infer the colour of the other because they are completely different.
You can completely ignore that issue if you want; but thats the error in your logic.
We know that Nintendo designs video game characters.
Rabbits are not artificially designed computer game characters - so you cannot attribute the causation is colour in one with the other.
It is not a major leap to presume that the colour of a character we know was created by humans was chosen deliberately.
However, as a rabbit is not a fictional cartoon character that was drawn by humans, and whose history and origins are known and document as a process of artistic design by humans; nor is a rabbit a demonstrable or has been directly observed to be a piece of art work, or the product of a specific intentional design, and appears to exist, life, mate, reproduce and change colour in the absence of any specific human or any form of intelligent interaction ; and given that their pigment is affected by their genetic make up which is a copied variants of previous generations that has been imperfectly copied, and whose generations were subject to colour based selective pressure - there is no logical basis to conclude that the reason human designers made a known computer game character have a particular colour is the same reason that rabbits are a particular colour.
The answer to the question is completely irrelevant.
The particular colourization of a fictional computer generated character is completely unrelated to the origin of skin pigments in a living, breeding family of creatures that perpetuate their genetic material (and subsequent generations pigmentation) through sexual reproduction and inexact genetic duplication ; and whose life, habits, habitat and death are perpetuated in the absence of any direct involvement and intervention of an intelligent agent.
These things are so ridiculously different ; there is absolutely no possibly basis upon which to conclude the cause of one is the same as the cause of the other.
The same logic can’t be applied at all - the logic is terrible - this is the same error you keep making.
You can’t state the cause of one thing is the same as the cause of another thing because they share a superficial similarity despite being fundamentally different.
What Nintendo did or didn’t do has no relevance at all to the colour of rabbits on any way; unless you can specifically (and separately) show that the colour of rabbits was definitely chosen in a similar way.
Do Nintendo make live rabbits?
You cannot infer the cause of one thing is the same as the cause of a completely different thing, based on some superficial similarity.
And given that rabbits are not a human school, and snow is not a school uniforms, their properties and nature are fundamentally different; and neither have anything to do with the human decision making process; the reason your clothes match your mascots cannot be inferred to be the same reason as why rabbits match the snow
Yeah; they’re both connected. What you’re doing is simply illogical question begging. There is nothing implicit in the properties of rabbits colour or snow that necessitate only a divine creator is responsible for it. That’s the problem.
You’re arguing that rabbits and snow, and fridge and microwave colours share some properties thus they must share the same underlying cause. This is just poor logic and is laughably false. It’s just bizarre cherry picking and bad critical thinking.
Only if rabbits and snow, and fridges and microwave share ALL properties, could you argue that the cause of colour in one is the same as the cause of colour in the other.
The brown of my poop matches the brown of the eyes I am looking at it with; they are both organically related to me; so are both connected.So now it is safe for me to say God created my poop brown to match my eyes.
Your just making arbitrary and nonsensical connections that make no logical sense.
This is exactly your logic.
If I see a red microwave and red fridge - the colours we’re intelligently chosen.
If a rabbit has a white coat in the shown; as a result of the above - the colours must be intelligently chosen.
If my poop is brown and it matches my eyes; as a result of the above - the colours must be intelligently chosen.
It’s the same logic - neither are relevant or connected
It makes no sense whatever - none at all. I understand completely the logic you’re using. It’s just terrible logic for the reasons I just explained.
“ God apparently like matching colors to..”
Sure. If God existed and chose colours of animals.
Feel free to try and prove that.
Because they’re humans, with an eye for aestethics, and they are choosing home appliances. I explained this in the previous post you are replying to
Human taste in home appliances colour and the elements of the scenario by which we know the decision requires intent are completely unrelated to anything in life.
There is literally no connection other than they both have colour match.
My poop matches my eye colour sometimes.
According to your logic - the colour of my poop is intelligently selected by God.
Saying the same thing over and over again doesn’t make it any more logical.
A microwave and a fridge are manufactured home utilities designed and created by humans. These devices are mostly placed in the homes of humans, who’s personal tastes and aesthetics often lead to the choice of matching colour coordination. They are often produced in different colours, affording the consumer who buys them for a given location to deliberately chose the specific colour.
Those are the properties that allow us to infer that matching colours are likely a choice: because humans like matching colours, these appliances come in different colours, and a human is often forced to chose which colours
None of those properties are true of any aspect of life; this is why you’re claim is simply nonsensical and illogical clap trap that makes no sense. There is no relationship of any kind between the cause of colours of home appliances - and the colours of living organisms in the wild.
Again - you’re making a major logical error here.
Just because human chose things to match colour - doesn’t mean everything that matches is made to match by intelligence.
The argument is so illogical and so irrational, I don’t fully understand why you could possibly think it’s compelling.
No you really, really can’t, and it’s a major failure of critical thinking on your part to even begin to presume you can.
You’re literally saying that you can conclude that the deeply ingrained biological processes in a wild animal that drives its pigmentation must be manually specified by an intelligent designed - on the basis that humans are able to make colours match.
There are properties and circumstances that allow us to determine whether agency was responsible for one of those things; you haven’t bothered to compare any of those properties and circumstances ; you just arbitrarily determine that if the colour of a thing matches something else - it requires intelligence because other times a colour of a thing matches something else - it requires intelligence.
Both are false analogies.
You can’t infer that cause of two events are the same just because the two events share similarities.
Welcome to the site, thanks for taking a look at the code of conduct relating to voting! Unfortunate I do have to remove this vote, though the requirements are hopefully fairly easy to meet. Feel free to ask any questions about the voting rules, I’ll be happy to answer!
RFD:
Concerning whether or not Trump broke the law, I think both sides presented fairly equal arguments, and I do not consider myself enough of a legal expert to make a judgment on this. However, I can make a judgment on definitions. The definition that Pro provided and Con accepted was as follows:
COLLUSION [noun] is secret agreement for an illegal purpose; conspiracy.
Con argued that Zelensky did not know that the monetary assistance had been canceled, and Pro never attempted to refute it. Since Zelensky did not know the assistance had been canceled, it was clearly impossible for him to make an "agreement for an illegal purpose." Regardless of Trump's intentions, Zelensky was incapable of being leveraged or agreeing to an illegal deal because he did not know there was a deal. All he knew was that Trump asked him to investigate Biden. Therefore, Zelensky did not make an agreement for illegal purpose; to the best of his knowledge, he was merely granting a request. Since Zelensky did not make such an agreement with Trump, it inevitably follows that Trump did not make one with Zelensky. Therefore, the phone call was not clear-cut conclusion.
Later in the debate, Con provided a contradictory definition of collusion:
"Essentially, you have to prove three things:
1) Trump made an offer
2) This offer was illegal
3) This offer was secret
I only need to show that any one of these three things is false."
I think that both sides offered nearly equal arguments regarding this definition. Combining the two definitions, I think the debate was almost completely equal, but I give a slight edge to Con in regards to the first definition.
This is not did say that what Trump did was legal (or illegal). I cannot reach a conclusion on that matter. If that had been the topic, I would have voted for a tie. But since the debate was about whether or not the phone call was collusion and not whether or not Trump's actions were illegal, I must give the arguments points to Con.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SirAnonymous// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments.
>Reason for Decision: see above
Reason for Mod Action> This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
AR-15s meet the legal definition of an assault weapon as defined by the department of justice.
It’s not an assault rifle, it’s an assault weapon.
Please put the arguments in the text of the debate, and use the google document for your pictures
Oh I missed that on the conduct point, I apologize.
However, the vote was insufficient for a multitude of reasons. Removing the section would not correct the other remaining issues I listed other than the issues with external content and conduct.
I have it on my list :)
Hi Crossed:
For any of the criteria that you place in your vote, you must provide a justification - if you don’t specify why conduct was awarded, I can’t tell whether the vote awarded the conduct point for valid reasons or not. While I think the clarification for why you awarded conduct is good - you must include this in the vote for it to be valid.
Secondly, and most importantly, voting is not about explaining who you think is correct - but who made the better arguments, only including information contained within the debate. Each debater is arguing against his opponent - not his opponent and whatever information all voters can produce or review after the fact.
Actually, with lots of lead in your system you go crazy and eventually die; they used a lot of lead in the hat industry - hence the phrase “mad as a hatter”.
There’s actually a strong possibility that the reduction of violent crime across the board in most countries irrespective of crime policy since the 90s. If I recall there is a potential causal link there too. It’s actually a pretty interesting topic!
Also interesting is the story of the guy who discovered the impact of lead in the environment: it started out as a story of trying to use U-Pb to date rocks - no one could figure out why the amount of lead meant you never got valid results.
Great whites go crazy for maple pecan swirl.
I hope con realizes that is how they legally bribe people. you randomly give someone a mansion. Just don't say you gave it to them to pass a law. If you do not say it is a bribe to pass a law. then it is not a bribe to pass a law and claim it is just a Christmas gift like thing. Then it is legal. But con is right it is not technically illegal. This is just how Hillary was able to be gifted millions of dollars from other country's. Just say it is a gift not for political purpose's and will not be put into politics. Just for her own use's. This is not what trump did. But that's what cons logic can apply to.But con refuted the point that it was illegal.Con only had to refute one point.
Reason:
Better spelling and grammar tie. Con forgave pro mistakes
Better conduct to Con. Because pro requested it.
More convincing argument to con
All con had to do and i quote
"
1) Trump made an offer
2) This offer was illegal
3) This offer was secret
I only need to show that any one of these three things is false."
It took me ten minutes to read it. . But con showed that pro points were wrong.
here an example
"Pro's claims in R2 boil down to the idea that Trump has only his self-interest in mind and does not even comprehend justice, but does not back up his claim.
Pro claims the quid of the quid pro quo is there. Pro claims Zelensky knew the money had not yet arrived.
Con points out pro's failure to back up his claim the Trump does not comprehend justice."
Pro did not source that Zelensky knew the money was being held up. Con points out he has no source for this. Given my knowledge on the topic. Zelensky said in an interview that he did not even know the money was held up. So pro argument is false. and con was right to call out the no source for this.
"Over the course of the day, Zelenskiy told shifts of journalists he had not been blackmailed by Trump in their phone call on 25 July and did not know US military aid had been delayed at the time."
See con was right. Pro did not source it because it was untrue
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/10/ukraine-president-volodymyr-zelenskiy-press-conference-donald-trump
Con gets better sources
" This is untrue. This is comparable to saying, “If you give Bill Gates money, you are supporting Microsoft.” If Bill Gates simply puts that money in his bank and never uses it for Microsoft, the money is never used to support Microsoft. In the same way, giving something to Trump is not inherently for the election."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crossed// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for sources, conduct and arguments.
>Reason for Decision: see above
Reason for Mod Action>
- Voter does not explain the conduct point award.
- The voter appears to being in external content (the guardian article - I could not find this in the debate), which is prohibited.
- Sources are insufficiently explained, the voter does not give examples of sources and explain how these aided or harmed each sides argument.
- While the vote may exclude arguments by explaining why only one set of points are important (the portion about whether it was a crime, and secret), the voter doesn’t survey the main arguments or rebuttals around this point from both sides.
- In much of the vote, the voter appears to be relitigating the debate from his own perspective, rather than offering a justification if why one sides arguments were better.
*******************************************************************
I am aware. I have about 10 seconds online at a time; and it’s a bit tricky on iPhone :)
I’m on it. Patience.
I agree that there is a correlation - there is also a correlation with the reduction of lead in the atmosphere at a time where those in their mid to late twenties were growing up.
Do draw a causal conclusion - you must have a definitive link to how reduction in guns in homes leads to reduction of Guns in the hands of murderers. Now, it maybe the case that guns per capita are falling, but if criminals and those most likely to commit murders with weapons have a significant issues acquiring a weapon - more than they did before - I’d agree with you, however, I see no evidence of that being the case.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheRealNihilist// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Win to con.
>Reason for Decision: I consider Con giving his reason in the comment section sufficient enough to award him the point.
Reason for Mod Action>
This debate is a full forfeit from both sides. While a comment in the debate implies con was waiting for pro, this needs to be in the debate - any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes, comment sections, and separate forums.
So in this case, I don’t believe any award can be made in either direction.
*******************************************************************
I’m actually hoping they get deleted (I asked the question when I accepted - imo they’re kinda spam anyway), as I don’t think 12 debates in challenge period that will be auto forfeited as you say is a bit much for throwing out a lot of free wins. If they don’t, I took a handful couple of the shorter ones, so if they aren't removed; I’m at least not at a disadvantage (hence why I didn’t accept them all). I’ll only get bout 3 points per win; and I haven’t milked Bill for free points thus far - but I still mostly agree that these should be removed.
There are literally hundreds of major transitional forms, between many of the major groupings. There are scientific arguments around whether some forms of therapsids should be called mammal like reptiles or reptile like mammals. The same goes for hominid my favourite one is the creationists are unable to agree whether some advanced australapithicus species are 100% human or 100% ape (which seems a pretty definitive example of a transitional form).
The idea that there have been major perpetuated frauds for transitional forms is largely an invention from creationists, and sites like creation.com who demonstrably lie about them; and the idea that there should be constant and continuous change that would produce a blended rainbow of species seems not to understand that evolution is mostly adaptation to changes in environment, when the environment is stable for tens millions of of years, one would not expect large scale rapid evolution.
Finally ; as you should know - a whale with a partially formed gill would completely refute evolution - I mean seriously, do you understand how evolution even works before rejecting it out of hand? We already have whales with legs: they’re called Peregocetus pacificus