Are you telling me that you will not trust the conclusion of a medical doctors when it comes to trying to analyze fossils? Why would you not trust me if I show a medical doctor who has analyzed fossils and show that they are Transitional?
Again - you seem to be blatantly ignoring everything being said to focus on the same false premises I have explained are wrong. Let me be clear - again.
The bones found included portions of skull and ear that indicated transitional properties of the war between ungulates and whales - more complete forms of the fossils have subsequently been found.
That the ear wasn’t identical to a whale does not change that this is a transitional form. Your website lied.
That the fossil has properties of ungulates does not change that this is a transitional form. Your website lied.
That an —artist— painted a blow hole, or tried to fill in the gaps for an incomplete skeleton does not mean the bones discovered are not transitional.
Starting off with few bones does not make this not a Jew species, or not transitional. As mentioned (and ignored - we can tell age sex and species from pieces of femur alone - so not having lots of bone isn’t a big deal).
The website - and you 1 have made it clear you don’t really understand what a transitional form is - given your demand that it be more whale like; and this ignorance of how transitional forms is being used to attack it.
Now, if you want to persistently ignore every fact presented against you - feel free to continue your own ignorance, but please stop repeating the same nonsense I have already addressed.
This entire point is nothing but dishonest misrepresentation of the science and the specimen.
Yes - this is all covered in what I said below; and is a deliberately dishonest and unscientific attempt to attack evolution, and to convince those ignorant of the science or the discovery.
The discovered species is not a whale - it doesn’t look like a whale - it doesn’t have the ear of a whale - however the bones discovered (and have now been corroborated with multiple other finds), show a sigmoid process in the ear, the ear isn’t a whale ear, but has a diagnostic traits of a whale, as well as diagnostic traits of ungulates.
Creation.com is deliberate misrepresenting this find, by implying the war must be exactly like a whale to be transitional (false), that a complete skeleton is required to determine that (false - as explained), and that because artist - that isn’t the scientist who made the discovery - used artistic license and painted a blow hole : that the diagnostic trait that exist doesn’t
This is dishonest claptrap from a non scientific source, being parroted by those who don’t know any better and seem not to care about what anyone says.
“The reason why the whale fossil are fraud is because a scientist called them out.”
No: a creationist deliberately distorted and misrepresents the evidence. To try and convince the gullible.
“There model had a bunch of parts in which they did not discover yet. There was a blow whole flipper and other body parts even though no flipper or blowhole was found.”
The form is transitional because of key bones related to the ear and jaw that were like both undulates - and whales.
Whether an artist embellished what was found, to include elements that the complete skeleton did not have - does not change the fact the remains have features that are part ungulate - part whale: this is the dishonest omission made by creation.com
“They had bone parts even though they did not discover any bones. They had a couple bones and they drew an entire animal.”
Again - artists drew their impression of an animal : the scientist claimed the transitional form was transitional form as the bones (and subsequently more examples discovered) contained a mosaic of traits between ungulates and whales.
Secondly - this is again dishonesty trying to undersell what was found: stating it’s just a few bones completely ignores the fact that pathologists are able to tell whether a potion of femur found in the ground is human, what sex that human was and how old: bones can tell you a substantial amount, and it’s obvious when large portions of bone look like two different families of organism.
“Secondly Ramshutu claim on similarity is false They should have more similarity then given.”
Why? Because you want it to?
Transitional forms are when an animal that appears to be of one group acquires specific traits that are diagnostic of another. Whales evolved from ungulates; which means that - scientifically - a transitional whale can appear to be an ungulate - with a single trait that only whales have. That’s how transitional forms have.
And you’re pretty much spelling out why creation.com is completely dishonest.
Science test books, evolution and all literature teach that vertebrate embryos also through similar phases early on: a key example is that fish embryo develops neck ridges that subsequently develop into gills - mammals develop almost identical neck ridges that then develop into ears (among other things).
This is an unassailable fact demonstrated by embryo images, and photos, and is not once - not one single time - challenged by creation.com.
Instead of —showing— that the organisms don’t show the patterns of similarity evolution says they do, creation.com insinuates it ; by pointing out someone who embellished (he didn’t explicitly invent the whole image), to support his own pet theory.
They important thing is that the differences are not actually that far off from what embryos actually look like, and what other scientists drew - and certainly the photo images and molecular phylogeny demonstrate the common origins and the evolution principles involved better sources Han the original drawings ever could.
However - creation.com does bother to attempt to show embryos are dissimilar, or to use relevant context here - this website is interested only on attacking a scientific theory that shows the evidence is at odds with their religion - rather than being accurate or honest.
Hell, even the accusation of fraud is completely overstated; by sounding like the images are completely different, the deviations were subtle, some similarities embellished, and differences were ignored a nuance ignored by creation.com
Likewise, what’s also ignored or glossed over is the - fact - that Haeckel was discredited by scientists in the 1870s, the recapitulation theory was junked in favour of Baer - which is what we see in embryos today; and is a demonstration of how science is self correcting. William His was most instrumental, as was Rutimeyer - a zoologist - who examined Haekels work
Pakicetus Is not a whale, it is a transitional form. This means it has traits of an ancestral species with some additional traits of a descendent species without being that species. The article implies it cannot be a transitional form because it has traits dissimilar towhales: this is a dishonest misrepresentation of what a transitional form is.
Reality 5: creation 0.
It also claims that the artists impressions and artistic reconstructions made by artists are from the scientists and are wholly presumed to be accurate and peddled by science to misrepresent the data / this is just made up nonsense. The reality is artists often get the science wrong - as they are artists.
Reality 6: creation 0.
Also Pakicetus does actually have a sigmoid process / despite assertions to the contrary.
There are also plate features - as this species is transitional, it has a mixture of traits.
Reality 7: creation 0.
This is exactly how creation.com dishonestly misrepresent the data. They use simplistic pseudoscience that completely fail to understand the science and key data - omitting the context and key information, such as what a transitional form means, what it must have and what it can’t have; oversell errors, and undersell accuracy.
Evolution is either an accurate description of life, or it isn’t. What Hitler believed, or didn’t, what he misrepresented or didn’t; cannot have any impact or influence on whether evolution is accurate or not.
This is an example of an appeal to emotion; trying to get you to dislike evolution due to what a psychopathic dictator believed - this is a pretty dishonest and completely unscientific premise, and has no impact on the validity of evolution. The fact that it is included in the website shows that the purpose of the site is to attack evolution, not to obtain clear facts about reality.
Reality/science 1: creation.com: 0.
Hitler also said this about evolution: “nothing indicates that development within a species has occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man would have to have made to transform him from an apelike condition to his present state” - it doesn’t appear as if he believed in evolution.
Reality 2: creation.com: 0
Secondly: Heckles drawings were discovered as false by scientists. Scientists confirm and double check others work, and given that they discovered the fraud demonstrates that they are interested in what is accurate rather than what is convenient. This key omission from creation.com is dishonest - as it paints science as fraudulent - rather than the reality, that science roots out fraud.
Reality 3: creation.com: 0
Thirdly : Hackles fakery wasn’t done to prove evolution - it was to provide evidence for his own theory that embryos develop progressively through their evolutionary history: recapitulation theory. This theory isn’t correct, and has known not to be correct since actual embryos were studied by other people. But saying this, embryology does show key similarities that support evolution - this is why creation.com shows no images of “real embryos” that differ from what any textbook shows - they simply imply that the modern view of embry
All humans are biased, the scientific community, including evolutionary biologists, frequently and repeatedly challenge orthodoxy, do not hold any premises as sacrosanct, and evolution as we know it today has changed substantially over the last 150 years as new data and information has been discovered.
So in this respect, they are far less biased than creation.com - as they do not hold key premises sacred.
I have given you an explicit, demonstrable reason as to why their website is biased: that they trying to find evidence to fit their conclusion rather than the other way around.
What you’re doing, is now using vague, unsupported and unsubstantiated claims of bias to claim I’m just as bad. If you have specific reason for claiming I’m biased, go ahead: but as I’ve explained - there is genuine reason to doubt their Claims.
Secondly, and importantly: you can use cold hard facts to refute their arguments, and there are multiple websites dedicated to doing just that. What happens, is that you should explore and independently validate examples one after another until you a pattern develops - that each link misrepresents or distorts the data. However, what invariably happens, is that those who view the site will continue to believe it unless every link is disproven.
Genuine scientific websites, and the scientific process requires you to draw a conclusion based on the evidence: creation.com, as mentioned, rejects any other conclusion and the goal is simply to make the facts fit their assumes conclusion.
That is not scientific; that’s apologetics.
Scientific truth is not about finding evidence that agrees with you - but searching for evidence that disagrees with you very hard and not finding any. Creation.com is shoddy science as conclusions are incomplete, unexplored, and are mostly attempts to distort or misrepresent evidence in order to arrive at their preferred conclusion with almost no focus on falsification.
As a result of all of this, and the fact that the affirmation of faith basically states up front shows this is not a credible source, and is inherently unscientific by design.
I would recommend not using a website that explicitly claims it will not change it’s mind no matter what the facts are as a valid quasi scientific source - the website explicitly states it is inherently biased - and thus it’s conclusions cannot be trusted.
This ghost voter who claimed RM didn’t use sources, is an excellent hacker - not only has he managed to vote without leaving an RfD, and without anyone other than RM seeing them, they also managed to vote without changing the score either.
This ghost voter is as good as me; being able to dishonesty misrepresent or dismiss RMs position, and ignore his key rebuttals - without leaving any specific examples or evidence that could be clearly quoted or pointed out.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:Christen// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments, 2 points to pro for conduct and S&G
>Reason for Decision:Billbatard ironically gave more convincing arguments for why Trump should not be re-elected than Virtuoso, even though he should have been arguing against that...
Both side's provided sources that were equally bad, and I actually addressed multiple of Virtuoso's sources in the comments.
I give spelling, grammar, and conduct to Virtuoso since Billbatard wasn't doing the debate right, nor spelling words correctly or using proper grammar.
Reason for Mod Action>None of these points are sufficient. Please require the code of conduct for more detail on what is required:
For arguments, it’s not sufficient to state which argument you found most convincing, you must show you have surveyed the main arguments and counter arguments and weigh them against each other to reach a conclusion.
For spelling, you must provide examples and reasoning as to why bad spelling or grammar significantly impacted the readability or understandability of the debate.
For conduct, you must give examples and reasoning as to why one side’s Conduct was excessively poor, unfair, or led to a toxic environment.
Dustryder's strong arguments were that the Danish junk food tax doesn't really count since it "includes meats, dairy products such as margarine, butter, milk and cheese as well as a kitchen staples such as cooking oils," which shows that a junk food tax should not be including things that are not junk food. Dustryder also offers some solutions of his own for addressing the obesity problem, like how "One, by increasing general health, less must be necessarily be spent on healthcare. Two, by increasing general health, better productivity can be achieved which translates to better outcomes economically speaking."
I'm referring to the debaters by their actual usernames, and not by Pro and Con, since that's lame.
I give conduct to dustryder because NotClub forfeited 2 rounds for no reason.
I gave spelling and grammar to NotClub since dustryder made a major grammar error in round 3 which was recognized by NotClub in round 4: "Grammar error (I'm pretty sure you don't mean to help obesity"
I give sources dustryder since NotClub's source were vague and biased. NotClub tries to cite articles to show that "Junk Food Taxes Don't Work" but it's like NotClub didn't actually read past the title or something. For example, one of NotClub's sources said that "many people live in areas where little else besides this type of food is available, areas called food deserts" and by "this type of food" it's referring to junk food. The simple solution to this would be to only apply a junk food tax in areas that do not have these food deserts, so that way, you are still helping cutting down on junk food, but just not in the areas that can only have junk food. Then you can use the tax dollars raised from these junk food taxes to help build for markets, with fresh food, in the areas with food deserts, so you can then start a junk food tax there, and raise more money for more junk food taxes and for eliminating the food deserts.
I tied arguments, as both sides had strong arguments.
NotClub's strong arguments were how the junk food taxes were ultimately going to initially hurt the poorest people instead of help them, since they would just spend more on junk food instead of switching to healthy food, which would not be available to them very easily, also NotClub also argued how people would just go somewhere else to get their junk food if they were really determined to get it. NotClub's other strong argument was about food deserts in general, and how junk food taxes don't really address the main problem with people being unhealthy to begin with.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:Christen// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for sources and conduct; 1 point to con for S&G
>Reason for Decision:See above
Reason for Mod Action>Conduct is sufficient.
S&G is not sufficient: Spelling and Grammar should be awarded when one sides spelling or grammar substantially effects readability of the debate, a few typos is not sufficient to award these points.
Sources: Source point is not sufficiently justified. Sources are to be awarded based on the impact and quality of the sources, and the voter must compare how the sources impact the arguments one side presented, using examples.
Arguments: for the purposes of completeness - arguments here are borderline. As the voter tied arguments, these are sufficient
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:PressF4Respect// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and conduct.
>Reason for Decision:Effs
Reason for Mod Action>The conduct point is sufficient.
However, arguments cannot be awarded solely on the grounds of forfeits unless the debate is a full forfeit (ie: no arguments offered after the opening round).
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:Ragnar// Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, conduct and sources.
>Reason for Decision:
See vote
Reason for Mod Action>This vote was deemed sufficient as per the voting guidelines.
NotClub needs to quit waiving rounds for no reason and actually start providing some arguments. I give conduct to Exile because of this, and also because NotClub was being overconfident and obnoxious: "I like how you're changing the rules of the debate (sarcasm). Let me make this clear: YOUR JOB IS TO PROVE THAT VAPING IS GOOD BECAUSE YOU'RE PRO, I'M SAYING IT'S BAD AND I HAVE TO PROVE THAT."
I give the spelling and grammar to Exile because NotClub used capital letters inappropriately: "Good Debate Arguments!"
I give sources to NotClub since Exile's sources were relevant for his arguments, but not so relevant for the debate, overall. It didn't have much to do with vaping, but was instead about sodas. NotClub was guilty of this too, but Exile was more guilty of it.
NotClub could have argued better and tried to keep things simple, but I still give him the arguments anyways. I appreciate and respect Exile for putting up a good fight and not giving up or backing down on this one, but I feel that both sides need to make sure certain things are properly defined and what exactly are some of the basic rules for both sides.
Well done to both debaters.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:Christen// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for arguments and sources; 2 points to con for S&G and conduct.
>Reason for Decision:
See above.
Reason for Mod Action>While the Conduct point is borderline; all other points awarded are insufficient.
For arguments the voter does not:
- Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
- Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
- Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
-
For sources, the voter does not:
- Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
- Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
- Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
For S&G, the voter does not:
- Explain how these errors were excessive
- Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision:
I think 0.999 does not equal 1, and believe I could've put up a better debate. That being said, the Instigator by far won this debate, because they actually used legitimate arguments, unlike the contender.
Reason for Mod Action>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.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for sources and arguments, 2 points to con for S&G conduct.
>Reason for Decision:
Both participants solely used the Bible as their sources. Pro used the context of the verses whereas con did not, and failed to realize the assumptions he made were incorrect.
Con made one error (saying "u" instead of "you") but overall, had better spelling and grammar.
Pro forfeited a round.
Reason for Mod Action>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.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con arguments, 1 point to pro for conduct.
>Reason for Decision:
Con provided convincing arguments suggesting that vaping is not good for you.
Pro did not seem to prove that vaping was not bad for you, rather that it was less bad than other things.
Both had good grammar and good conduct, but pro seemed to be *slightly* more polite.
Reason for Mod Action>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.
Saying that, the vote is also insufficient as it doesn’t meet the voting rules mentioned in the code of conduct. The voter should review the CoC rules for what constitutes a valid vote.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 2 points to con for sources, 2 points to pro for conduct and grammar
>Reason for Decision:
Personally, I think right-wing policies are more beneficial for the economy, but the instigator was clearly a more affluent speaker and probably won this debate.
Reason for Mod Action>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.
Saying that, the vote is also insufficient as it doesn’t meet the voting rules mentioned in the code of conduct. The voter should review the CoC rules for what constitutes a valid vote.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: club// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and grammar
>Reason for Decision: Arguments:
Pro conceded in the first round, saying the best for last was a bad business plan. Pro mostly manipulated the meaning so it fit around his arguments, making "the best" probably the least productive, and healthy things, like having fun and eating cake. The arguments he made were fairly weak as Con could've just manipulated it back. Con actually had solid arguments stating, that the best deteriorates if you use it last, and many other points about food.
TRN also was confused about time frames. If one is against "best for last" it doesn't mean they're for "best for first"
Sources:
Con didn't provide sources but, probably used them, whereas Pro used and posted sources. Because of lack of sources for con, I can't judge sources, therefore awarding a tie.
S&G
Both had pretty bad grammar, but TRN had significantly more occurrences.
Conduct
Good conduct for both of them.
Reason for Mod Action>The voter does not appear to sufficiently survey the main arguments or counter arguments of the debate and weigh them to make a decision. While the voter references some arguments - it is unclear why one set of arguments were not sufficient to over turn the other (only statements that they were).
For S&G, the voter only provide a general comparison of S&G: To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Billbatars// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: People that do not respect intellectuals are by definition stupid , only stupid people are too stupid to know how stupid they really are
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.
Secondly, this debate is neither a technical full forfeit, nor does the final round count as a concession - thus this debate is moderated.
The voter is expected to fully justify all pointed votes for using the CoC voting
Standards guide; this vote is thus insufficient as it merely states an opinion and gives no additional reasoning on any of the points awarded.
please ready the rules for more information.
*******************************************************************
Firstly pro appears to argue that con is not showing that the bible is inconsistent - yet he seems to be doing just that.
Secondly, pro argues that we should not be judging the bible against our own standard, that it cannot be assessed as a good standard if compared against our own. This part of the argument had legs (though this whole portion of the debate was very hard to follow)
If pro had doubled down and asked why is it bad to support slavery or sexism- as you can’t judge it agains your own standard- I may have awarded the win; but the argument somewhat Peters out and leaves me dangling on this front.
As a result, pro doesn’t give me much of a reason to object to the slavery or sexism points.
The final aspect is consistency and general - I agree with pro that cons standard was a bit nebulous: but my main issue is that did not appear to be a better one. Cons position throughout mostly appealed to moral contradiction (established) and bad morality like slavery (intuitive), in the absence of pro arguing an acceptable level of contradiction and what standard I should use to measure the morality - I have to weigh it by intuition.
Given that slavery and sexism both appeared to be portrayed either odiously to me, or contradictarly: either way I feel stands against the bible.
As pro does not offer a positive case for himself - this means that arguments go to con.
Pro goes on to claim that con hasn’t got a
Consistent argument, but pro makes a big error here by pointing out that pro can’t decide which damning indictment of the Bible he wishes to argue. The main problem is that without actually refuting the damning indictments - they are dangling over pros position.
My issue in this point is that the bible as a moral framework stated slavery is okay. While I could accept a change, pro doesn’t give me a good reason as to why it’s okay for a moral framework to claim slavery was okay - even if historically. There’s not enough here for me to give this to pro - even though I think con could have been more specific.
Translation:
Pro begins by claiming that there is a problem with cons context and translational understanding of the bible.
Whilst pro does a good job of convincing me that such errors are easily possible: pro doesn’t actually give examples of con making these errors in context. As a result this whole argument doesn’t add much to the detail. Thus this doesn’t change any of my weighing.
Sexism: con lists examples of sexism in the bible, where women are expected to be treated in a different, more negative way (such as keeping quiet in church, or being subject to men)
Pros response doesn’t rebut any of the specific claims made. Instead pro merely lists reasons that other parts of the bible are not sexist or exalt woman: the one I found most odd, was that God chose a woman to give birth to Jesus: which was just an odd point - is God found to make a man give birth to Jesus?
Pros last example is odd; as pro appears to confirm the man-head-woman-subservient; but appears to argue this is okay, because the man is required to love the woman.
In the next round con basically points out that the bible is inconsistent - that even if one buys pros case - some parts are sexist some are not is inherently inconsistent.
Pro then argues con has not shown any inconsistency - I don’t get this, as con is pretty explicit. The entire topic is changed up to a discussion about consistency rather than one specifically revolving around what the bible says about sexism
This argument mostly fizzles out; with pro dropping the point to focus on another argument.
Slavery:
Cons case seems fairly self explanatory: that slavery was okay, but is exempted for Israel - making the case that it’s also racist and hypocritical.
Pros response was to simply say that the bible teaches the slavery aspect as history; that there were also rules for treating slaves well, and this were only the rules for the given time.
I don’t think con did as well with this: and mostly doubled down on the contention, without addressing the “different rules”
Portion.
Pro mostly drops these points in the second round to focus on other points: con points out that the bible has two stances on slavery, one accepting and one rejecting.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar// Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: see comments.
Reason for Mod Action>Arguments are sufficient; the voter surveys all the main arguments, weights them against each other, and reaches a conclusion.
Sources are also sufficient: the voter surveys sources, uses examples and shows how these source affected the individual arguments.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PoliceSheep// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con do arguments, 2 points to pro for sources
>Reason for Decision: I was more convinced by pro and they certainly had better conduct.
Reason for Mod Action>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.
The voter should review the site code of conduct for details of what does and does not constitute a valid vote.
*******************************************************************
The rules clearly spell out that you are ineligible to vote, as you have neither completed 2 debates, nor have 100 forum posts.
The rules also clearly state exactly what a valid vote must include; and I have highlighted the key reasons why your vote falls short. Any vote by any user that is ineligible to vote will be removed, and any vote on a moderated debate that is not sufficiently justified in similar ways would be removed too.
These rules are in place to explicitly prevent voters from placing votes for one side or another simply because they found one side more convincing than the other. They are a check list of requirements to assist voters in a way that focuses on who’s arguments were better, rather than which arguments you agree with - as well as providing a way of moderating those same votes against a measurable standard.
This is not an issue of bias - But simply enforcing the clearly outlined voting rules.
Yet, Con called Virt a non-progressive, which is equally as bad.
As Socrates said, once one resorts to name-calling (which is childish), they lose all credibility and are not worthy of their arguments. It follows that they automatically lost their argument and their debate suffers because they could not bring further enhancement to the discussion in question. Personally, I think there should be rules to flag ad hominems.
Their grammar was fine.
The reason:
I would also like to thank the debtors for organizing the wonderful debate. Now for my vote and my decision. Thank you for your feedback.
This is my first time voting on a discussion platform. Please allow me to use Pinkfreud08's format. Sorry, Pinkfreud08.
Argument:
Pro quoted his sources and I appreciate it but, I enjoyed Con's discussion more. I am of course Republican. So I will try to avoid any creeping bias. But overall, I thought Con made the more persuasive arguments. They were logical and thoughtful (although both seemed professional and deserve this talent). For this reason, the point goes to Con.
Source:
Con's source was so scarce that we will admit that Pro provided the better-sourced arguments. Pro has a reliable source record and I think it has been presented here well. It goes without saying that Pro has presented more sources of information which adds to his credibility. That is not to say that Con lacked validity. This point defiantly goes to Pro.
Action:
Overall, I think this behavior was appropriate, save the name-callings which were a crime for both sides. Though both participants acted normally, as anyone would, I would like to see the name-calling decrease.
I feel that it is misleading for Pinkfreud08 to mention only Con's misconduct. Do not receive it personally, Pinkfreud08. But obviously, Pro has called Conn a racist.
“Now my adversary is showing his complete light cont against the African American community. This is often a false statistic and, as the Southern Poverty Law Center explains, white supremacy Is my favorite "
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jonathon.Horowitz// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con do arguments, 2 points to pro for sources
>Reason for Decision: See above
Reason for Mod Action>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.
Also: the source and argument points are non specific and generic enough that they could apply to any individual debate.
The argument point does not survey or weight any of the arguments, and the source point also does not explain the specific impact one source on each side had on the sides debate.
*******************************************************************
Club states-"Have you ever debate IRL, do you even know what a crossfire is? You are force to think on your feet in any IRL debate. Video games and sports, are a different style of thinking on your feet, you are thinking in a different way, for games it's where you should do something, and sports, what you should do."
Overall a good point, but Club fails to prove how the "style" of thinking on your feet from debating was unique from that of sports or video games.
BTW Club did use a very poor source to prove debating helped you as an adult, but TRN didn't backup anything he said with any sources. So I refuse to score it against Club.
Debate vs debate voting- TRN fails to show how the two are connected. Not all debates are voted on. It's a fairly irrelevant point overall though.
Con=TRN Pro=Club
Grammar-both sides had bad grammar, TRN was worse, but not enough to warrant a deduction.
Club states how debating helps you think quick and makes you a critical thinker. The critical thinker point was dropped by TRN. But, he states how thinking quickly isn't exclusive to debating. Also how you could probably play sports or video games as an alternative. TRN also states how there are better ways to use your time. Club states that, assuming being able to think on your feet is desirable, then even though it's not exclusive to debating it's still a good trait.
Frankly I'd say Club did prove that being good at debating was a useful trait to have, and how the benefits out way the drawbacks.
Lets observe this exchange Club states-" IRL debating, particularly in the crossfire section, you have to think on your feet. After much experience in IRL debating, you can think of quick solutions to everyday problems. Thinking quick has it's positives."
TRN-"If I hit my head on a stone. It doesn't mean I become less prone to damage. It just means I will most likely suffer a severe concussion. If I am not prepared for a debate I will most likely be forced to think on my feet. The problem with this of course is that if I am not good at thinking on my feet then in a debate scenario I would be really bad. That's if I even accept this as a positive to debating which it isn't because thinking on your feet can be done in a multitude of activities like video games, sports etc. You haven't demonstrated why this is the most effective or more advantages that separate it from the rest."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to or for arguments
>Reason for Decision: See above
Reason for Mod Action> I have gone back and forth on this one over the last few days: but ultimately my view is that this vote falls short of what can be considered borderline.
While the voter cites some examples from pros argument, it is not fully clear from the RFD why he weighted pros point more strongly than cons. In fact, these extra quotes muddy the water for why the voter felt pros arguments were better.
Likewise, there is little detail on why the voter rejected cons arguments on the grounds of relevance - though this alone would have simply made the vote borderline.
I will normally consider a vote to be borderline if only semantic or formatting changes are required; but I feel the explanation in the first portion of the RfD is sufficiently lacking in clarity to pass the borderline test.
I won’t be voting here; as a comment I made to TRN made it into his debate argument - I wasn’t intending it as coaching or an argument suggestion, nor offered any further advice; but Given that the comment was made, I won’t be voting and I’m going to avoid any impression of impropriety; and recuse myself from vote moderation on this debate too.
Looking at SFs definition, my first thought was that we know the universe is caused, and an atheistic explanation would qualify as God under SFs definition, so I inherently agree with TRNs objection, and I made a comment along those lines - and my comment to him seemed to have spurred this round. I won’t comment further on whether he made a good defense.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Press Ff4Respect// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: More convincing arguments
Reason for Mod Action>The voter doesn’t sufficiently justify or weigh arguments.
Please review the code of conduct; for specific detail of what is expected from voters.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Press Ff4Respect// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, Sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Arguments:
PRO used circumstantial and coincidental evidence with no backing whatsoever
Sources:
PRO used biased sources (Infowars, really?)
S&G:
About equal
Conduct:
PRO should have waived
Reason for Mod Action>The voter doesn’t sufficiently justify or weigh arguments, compare sources, or conduct, or really justify any of the voting criteria, and offers a minimal justification on all points.
Please review the code of conduct; for specific detail of what is expected from voters.
Are you telling me that you will not trust the conclusion of a medical doctors when it comes to trying to analyze fossils? Why would you not trust me if I show a medical doctor who has analyzed fossils and show that they are Transitional?
Would you like me to quote a Medical Doctor (MD) that has analyzed the whale skeleton and will vouch that it is definitely a transitional form?
Again - you seem to be blatantly ignoring everything being said to focus on the same false premises I have explained are wrong. Let me be clear - again.
The bones found included portions of skull and ear that indicated transitional properties of the war between ungulates and whales - more complete forms of the fossils have subsequently been found.
That the ear wasn’t identical to a whale does not change that this is a transitional form. Your website lied.
That the fossil has properties of ungulates does not change that this is a transitional form. Your website lied.
That an —artist— painted a blow hole, or tried to fill in the gaps for an incomplete skeleton does not mean the bones discovered are not transitional.
Starting off with few bones does not make this not a Jew species, or not transitional. As mentioned (and ignored - we can tell age sex and species from pieces of femur alone - so not having lots of bone isn’t a big deal).
The website - and you 1 have made it clear you don’t really understand what a transitional form is - given your demand that it be more whale like; and this ignorance of how transitional forms is being used to attack it.
Now, if you want to persistently ignore every fact presented against you - feel free to continue your own ignorance, but please stop repeating the same nonsense I have already addressed.
This entire point is nothing but dishonest misrepresentation of the science and the specimen.
Yes - this is all covered in what I said below; and is a deliberately dishonest and unscientific attempt to attack evolution, and to convince those ignorant of the science or the discovery.
The discovered species is not a whale - it doesn’t look like a whale - it doesn’t have the ear of a whale - however the bones discovered (and have now been corroborated with multiple other finds), show a sigmoid process in the ear, the ear isn’t a whale ear, but has a diagnostic traits of a whale, as well as diagnostic traits of ungulates.
Creation.com is deliberate misrepresenting this find, by implying the war must be exactly like a whale to be transitional (false), that a complete skeleton is required to determine that (false - as explained), and that because artist - that isn’t the scientist who made the discovery - used artistic license and painted a blow hole : that the diagnostic trait that exist doesn’t
This is dishonest claptrap from a non scientific source, being parroted by those who don’t know any better and seem not to care about what anyone says.
“The reason why the whale fossil are fraud is because a scientist called them out.”
No: a creationist deliberately distorted and misrepresents the evidence. To try and convince the gullible.
“There model had a bunch of parts in which they did not discover yet. There was a blow whole flipper and other body parts even though no flipper or blowhole was found.”
The form is transitional because of key bones related to the ear and jaw that were like both undulates - and whales.
Whether an artist embellished what was found, to include elements that the complete skeleton did not have - does not change the fact the remains have features that are part ungulate - part whale: this is the dishonest omission made by creation.com
“They had bone parts even though they did not discover any bones. They had a couple bones and they drew an entire animal.”
Again - artists drew their impression of an animal : the scientist claimed the transitional form was transitional form as the bones (and subsequently more examples discovered) contained a mosaic of traits between ungulates and whales.
Secondly - this is again dishonesty trying to undersell what was found: stating it’s just a few bones completely ignores the fact that pathologists are able to tell whether a potion of femur found in the ground is human, what sex that human was and how old: bones can tell you a substantial amount, and it’s obvious when large portions of bone look like two different families of organism.
“Secondly Ramshutu claim on similarity is false They should have more similarity then given.”
Why? Because you want it to?
Transitional forms are when an animal that appears to be of one group acquires specific traits that are diagnostic of another. Whales evolved from ungulates; which means that - scientifically - a transitional whale can appear to be an ungulate - with a single trait that only whales have. That’s how transitional forms have.
So despite your false claims to the contrary - this was most assuredly exposed by science - at the time.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Haekel.html
And you’re pretty much spelling out why creation.com is completely dishonest.
Science test books, evolution and all literature teach that vertebrate embryos also through similar phases early on: a key example is that fish embryo develops neck ridges that subsequently develop into gills - mammals develop almost identical neck ridges that then develop into ears (among other things).
This is an unassailable fact demonstrated by embryo images, and photos, and is not once - not one single time - challenged by creation.com.
Instead of —showing— that the organisms don’t show the patterns of similarity evolution says they do, creation.com insinuates it ; by pointing out someone who embellished (he didn’t explicitly invent the whole image), to support his own pet theory.
They important thing is that the differences are not actually that far off from what embryos actually look like, and what other scientists drew - and certainly the photo images and molecular phylogeny demonstrate the common origins and the evolution principles involved better sources Han the original drawings ever could.
However - creation.com does bother to attempt to show embryos are dissimilar, or to use relevant context here - this website is interested only on attacking a scientific theory that shows the evidence is at odds with their religion - rather than being accurate or honest.
Hell, even the accusation of fraud is completely overstated; by sounding like the images are completely different, the deviations were subtle, some similarities embellished, and differences were ignored a nuance ignored by creation.com
Likewise, what’s also ignored or glossed over is the - fact - that Haeckel was discredited by scientists in the 1870s, the recapitulation theory was junked in favour of Baer - which is what we see in embryos today; and is a demonstration of how science is self correcting. William His was most instrumental, as was Rutimeyer - a zoologist - who examined Haekels work
Moving on - the whale claims are dishonesyz
Pakicetus Is not a whale, it is a transitional form. This means it has traits of an ancestral species with some additional traits of a descendent species without being that species. The article implies it cannot be a transitional form because it has traits dissimilar towhales: this is a dishonest misrepresentation of what a transitional form is.
Reality 5: creation 0.
It also claims that the artists impressions and artistic reconstructions made by artists are from the scientists and are wholly presumed to be accurate and peddled by science to misrepresent the data / this is just made up nonsense. The reality is artists often get the science wrong - as they are artists.
Reality 6: creation 0.
Also Pakicetus does actually have a sigmoid process / despite assertions to the contrary.
http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/cetartiodactyla/protocetidae.html
There are also plate features - as this species is transitional, it has a mixture of traits.
Reality 7: creation 0.
This is exactly how creation.com dishonestly misrepresent the data. They use simplistic pseudoscience that completely fail to understand the science and key data - omitting the context and key information, such as what a transitional form means, what it must have and what it can’t have; oversell errors, and undersell accuracy.
So let’s start out with some basic logic.
Evolution is either an accurate description of life, or it isn’t. What Hitler believed, or didn’t, what he misrepresented or didn’t; cannot have any impact or influence on whether evolution is accurate or not.
This is an example of an appeal to emotion; trying to get you to dislike evolution due to what a psychopathic dictator believed - this is a pretty dishonest and completely unscientific premise, and has no impact on the validity of evolution. The fact that it is included in the website shows that the purpose of the site is to attack evolution, not to obtain clear facts about reality.
Reality/science 1: creation.com: 0.
Hitler also said this about evolution: “nothing indicates that development within a species has occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man would have to have made to transform him from an apelike condition to his present state” - it doesn’t appear as if he believed in evolution.
Reality 2: creation.com: 0
Secondly: Heckles drawings were discovered as false by scientists. Scientists confirm and double check others work, and given that they discovered the fraud demonstrates that they are interested in what is accurate rather than what is convenient. This key omission from creation.com is dishonest - as it paints science as fraudulent - rather than the reality, that science roots out fraud.
Reality 3: creation.com: 0
Thirdly : Hackles fakery wasn’t done to prove evolution - it was to provide evidence for his own theory that embryos develop progressively through their evolutionary history: recapitulation theory. This theory isn’t correct, and has known not to be correct since actual embryos were studied by other people. But saying this, embryology does show key similarities that support evolution - this is why creation.com shows no images of “real embryos” that differ from what any textbook shows - they simply imply that the modern view of embry
Reality 4: creation.com: 0
All humans are biased, the scientific community, including evolutionary biologists, frequently and repeatedly challenge orthodoxy, do not hold any premises as sacrosanct, and evolution as we know it today has changed substantially over the last 150 years as new data and information has been discovered.
So in this respect, they are far less biased than creation.com - as they do not hold key premises sacred.
I have given you an explicit, demonstrable reason as to why their website is biased: that they trying to find evidence to fit their conclusion rather than the other way around.
What you’re doing, is now using vague, unsupported and unsubstantiated claims of bias to claim I’m just as bad. If you have specific reason for claiming I’m biased, go ahead: but as I’ve explained - there is genuine reason to doubt their Claims.
Secondly, and importantly: you can use cold hard facts to refute their arguments, and there are multiple websites dedicated to doing just that. What happens, is that you should explore and independently validate examples one after another until you a pattern develops - that each link misrepresents or distorts the data. However, what invariably happens, is that those who view the site will continue to believe it unless every link is disproven.
Genuine scientific websites, and the scientific process requires you to draw a conclusion based on the evidence: creation.com, as mentioned, rejects any other conclusion and the goal is simply to make the facts fit their assumes conclusion.
That is not scientific; that’s apologetics.
Scientific truth is not about finding evidence that agrees with you - but searching for evidence that disagrees with you very hard and not finding any. Creation.com is shoddy science as conclusions are incomplete, unexplored, and are mostly attempts to distort or misrepresent evidence in order to arrive at their preferred conclusion with almost no focus on falsification.
As a result of all of this, and the fact that the affirmation of faith basically states up front shows this is not a credible source, and is inherently unscientific by design.
I would recommend not using a website that explicitly claims it will not change it’s mind no matter what the facts are as a valid quasi scientific source - the website explicitly states it is inherently biased - and thus it’s conclusions cannot be trusted.
This ghost voter who claimed RM didn’t use sources, is an excellent hacker - not only has he managed to vote without leaving an RfD, and without anyone other than RM seeing them, they also managed to vote without changing the score either.
This ghost voter is as good as me; being able to dishonesty misrepresent or dismiss RMs position, and ignore his key rebuttals - without leaving any specific examples or evidence that could be clearly quoted or pointed out.
I’m drawing a contrast between what you say, and reality.
If you feel bad, or consider it “bullying” when what happens in actuality is pointed out to you, this says much more about you than it does me!
You’ll objectively annihilate me so completely you’ll be forced to forfeit and then concede like the last two times?
I’m still waiting for him to accept a debate that it’s even possible for the earth to be flat.
Corncobbed.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:Christen// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments, 2 points to pro for conduct and S&G
>Reason for Decision:Billbatard ironically gave more convincing arguments for why Trump should not be re-elected than Virtuoso, even though he should have been arguing against that...
Both side's provided sources that were equally bad, and I actually addressed multiple of Virtuoso's sources in the comments.
I give spelling, grammar, and conduct to Virtuoso since Billbatard wasn't doing the debate right, nor spelling words correctly or using proper grammar.
Reason for Mod Action>None of these points are sufficient. Please require the code of conduct for more detail on what is required:
For arguments, it’s not sufficient to state which argument you found most convincing, you must show you have surveyed the main arguments and counter arguments and weigh them against each other to reach a conclusion.
For spelling, you must provide examples and reasoning as to why bad spelling or grammar significantly impacted the readability or understandability of the debate.
For conduct, you must give examples and reasoning as to why one side’s Conduct was excessively poor, unfair, or led to a toxic environment.
*******************************************************************
Dustryder's strong arguments were that the Danish junk food tax doesn't really count since it "includes meats, dairy products such as margarine, butter, milk and cheese as well as a kitchen staples such as cooking oils," which shows that a junk food tax should not be including things that are not junk food. Dustryder also offers some solutions of his own for addressing the obesity problem, like how "One, by increasing general health, less must be necessarily be spent on healthcare. Two, by increasing general health, better productivity can be achieved which translates to better outcomes economically speaking."
I'm referring to the debaters by their actual usernames, and not by Pro and Con, since that's lame.
I give conduct to dustryder because NotClub forfeited 2 rounds for no reason.
I gave spelling and grammar to NotClub since dustryder made a major grammar error in round 3 which was recognized by NotClub in round 4: "Grammar error (I'm pretty sure you don't mean to help obesity"
I give sources dustryder since NotClub's source were vague and biased. NotClub tries to cite articles to show that "Junk Food Taxes Don't Work" but it's like NotClub didn't actually read past the title or something. For example, one of NotClub's sources said that "many people live in areas where little else besides this type of food is available, areas called food deserts" and by "this type of food" it's referring to junk food. The simple solution to this would be to only apply a junk food tax in areas that do not have these food deserts, so that way, you are still helping cutting down on junk food, but just not in the areas that can only have junk food. Then you can use the tax dollars raised from these junk food taxes to help build for markets, with fresh food, in the areas with food deserts, so you can then start a junk food tax there, and raise more money for more junk food taxes and for eliminating the food deserts.
I tied arguments, as both sides had strong arguments.
NotClub's strong arguments were how the junk food taxes were ultimately going to initially hurt the poorest people instead of help them, since they would just spend more on junk food instead of switching to healthy food, which would not be available to them very easily, also NotClub also argued how people would just go somewhere else to get their junk food if they were really determined to get it. NotClub's other strong argument was about food deserts in general, and how junk food taxes don't really address the main problem with people being unhealthy to begin with.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:Christen// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for sources and conduct; 1 point to con for S&G
>Reason for Decision:See above
Reason for Mod Action>Conduct is sufficient.
S&G is not sufficient: Spelling and Grammar should be awarded when one sides spelling or grammar substantially effects readability of the debate, a few typos is not sufficient to award these points.
Sources: Source point is not sufficiently justified. Sources are to be awarded based on the impact and quality of the sources, and the voter must compare how the sources impact the arguments one side presented, using examples.
Arguments: for the purposes of completeness - arguments here are borderline. As the voter tied arguments, these are sufficient
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:PressF4Respect// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and conduct.
>Reason for Decision:Effs
Reason for Mod Action>The conduct point is sufficient.
However, arguments cannot be awarded solely on the grounds of forfeits unless the debate is a full forfeit (ie: no arguments offered after the opening round).
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:Ragnar// Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, conduct and sources.
>Reason for Decision:
See vote
Reason for Mod Action>This vote was deemed sufficient as per the voting guidelines.
*******************************************************************
RFD:
NotClub needs to quit waiving rounds for no reason and actually start providing some arguments. I give conduct to Exile because of this, and also because NotClub was being overconfident and obnoxious: "I like how you're changing the rules of the debate (sarcasm). Let me make this clear: YOUR JOB IS TO PROVE THAT VAPING IS GOOD BECAUSE YOU'RE PRO, I'M SAYING IT'S BAD AND I HAVE TO PROVE THAT."
I give the spelling and grammar to Exile because NotClub used capital letters inappropriately: "Good Debate Arguments!"
I give sources to NotClub since Exile's sources were relevant for his arguments, but not so relevant for the debate, overall. It didn't have much to do with vaping, but was instead about sodas. NotClub was guilty of this too, but Exile was more guilty of it.
NotClub could have argued better and tried to keep things simple, but I still give him the arguments anyways. I appreciate and respect Exile for putting up a good fight and not giving up or backing down on this one, but I feel that both sides need to make sure certain things are properly defined and what exactly are some of the basic rules for both sides.
Well done to both debaters.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote:Christen// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for arguments and sources; 2 points to con for S&G and conduct.
>Reason for Decision:
See above.
Reason for Mod Action>While the Conduct point is borderline; all other points awarded are insufficient.
For arguments the voter does not:
- Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
- Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
- Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
-
For sources, the voter does not:
- Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
- Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
- Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
For S&G, the voter does not:
- Explain how these errors were excessive
- Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision:
I think 0.999 does not equal 1, and believe I could've put up a better debate. That being said, the Instigator by far won this debate, because they actually used legitimate arguments, unlike the contender.
Reason for Mod Action>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.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for sources and arguments, 2 points to con for S&G conduct.
>Reason for Decision:
Both participants solely used the Bible as their sources. Pro used the context of the verses whereas con did not, and failed to realize the assumptions he made were incorrect.
Con made one error (saying "u" instead of "you") but overall, had better spelling and grammar.
Pro forfeited a round.
Reason for Mod Action>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.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con arguments, 1 point to pro for conduct.
>Reason for Decision:
Con provided convincing arguments suggesting that vaping is not good for you.
Pro did not seem to prove that vaping was not bad for you, rather that it was less bad than other things.
Both had good grammar and good conduct, but pro seemed to be *slightly* more polite.
Reason for Mod Action>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.
Saying that, the vote is also insufficient as it doesn’t meet the voting rules mentioned in the code of conduct. The voter should review the CoC rules for what constitutes a valid vote.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 2 points to con for sources, 2 points to pro for conduct and grammar
>Reason for Decision:
Personally, I think right-wing policies are more beneficial for the economy, but the instigator was clearly a more affluent speaker and probably won this debate.
Reason for Mod Action>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.
Saying that, the vote is also insufficient as it doesn’t meet the voting rules mentioned in the code of conduct. The voter should review the CoC rules for what constitutes a valid vote.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: club// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and grammar
>Reason for Decision: Arguments:
Pro conceded in the first round, saying the best for last was a bad business plan. Pro mostly manipulated the meaning so it fit around his arguments, making "the best" probably the least productive, and healthy things, like having fun and eating cake. The arguments he made were fairly weak as Con could've just manipulated it back. Con actually had solid arguments stating, that the best deteriorates if you use it last, and many other points about food.
TRN also was confused about time frames. If one is against "best for last" it doesn't mean they're for "best for first"
Sources:
Con didn't provide sources but, probably used them, whereas Pro used and posted sources. Because of lack of sources for con, I can't judge sources, therefore awarding a tie.
S&G
Both had pretty bad grammar, but TRN had significantly more occurrences.
Conduct
Good conduct for both of them.
Reason for Mod Action>The voter does not appear to sufficiently survey the main arguments or counter arguments of the debate and weigh them to make a decision. While the voter references some arguments - it is unclear why one set of arguments were not sufficient to over turn the other (only statements that they were).
For S&G, the voter only provide a general comparison of S&G: To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Billbatars// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con
>Reason for Decision: People that do not respect intellectuals are by definition stupid , only stupid people are too stupid to know how stupid they really are
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.
Secondly, this debate is neither a technical full forfeit, nor does the final round count as a concession - thus this debate is moderated.
The voter is expected to fully justify all pointed votes for using the CoC voting
Standards guide; this vote is thus insufficient as it merely states an opinion and gives no additional reasoning on any of the points awarded.
please ready the rules for more information.
*******************************************************************
Consistency:
Firstly pro appears to argue that con is not showing that the bible is inconsistent - yet he seems to be doing just that.
Secondly, pro argues that we should not be judging the bible against our own standard, that it cannot be assessed as a good standard if compared against our own. This part of the argument had legs (though this whole portion of the debate was very hard to follow)
If pro had doubled down and asked why is it bad to support slavery or sexism- as you can’t judge it agains your own standard- I may have awarded the win; but the argument somewhat Peters out and leaves me dangling on this front.
As a result, pro doesn’t give me much of a reason to object to the slavery or sexism points.
The final aspect is consistency and general - I agree with pro that cons standard was a bit nebulous: but my main issue is that did not appear to be a better one. Cons position throughout mostly appealed to moral contradiction (established) and bad morality like slavery (intuitive), in the absence of pro arguing an acceptable level of contradiction and what standard I should use to measure the morality - I have to weigh it by intuition.
Given that slavery and sexism both appeared to be portrayed either odiously to me, or contradictarly: either way I feel stands against the bible.
As pro does not offer a positive case for himself - this means that arguments go to con.
Pro goes on to claim that con hasn’t got a
Consistent argument, but pro makes a big error here by pointing out that pro can’t decide which damning indictment of the Bible he wishes to argue. The main problem is that without actually refuting the damning indictments - they are dangling over pros position.
My issue in this point is that the bible as a moral framework stated slavery is okay. While I could accept a change, pro doesn’t give me a good reason as to why it’s okay for a moral framework to claim slavery was okay - even if historically. There’s not enough here for me to give this to pro - even though I think con could have been more specific.
Translation:
Pro begins by claiming that there is a problem with cons context and translational understanding of the bible.
Whilst pro does a good job of convincing me that such errors are easily possible: pro doesn’t actually give examples of con making these errors in context. As a result this whole argument doesn’t add much to the detail. Thus this doesn’t change any of my weighing.
Sexism: con lists examples of sexism in the bible, where women are expected to be treated in a different, more negative way (such as keeping quiet in church, or being subject to men)
Pros response doesn’t rebut any of the specific claims made. Instead pro merely lists reasons that other parts of the bible are not sexist or exalt woman: the one I found most odd, was that God chose a woman to give birth to Jesus: which was just an odd point - is God found to make a man give birth to Jesus?
Pros last example is odd; as pro appears to confirm the man-head-woman-subservient; but appears to argue this is okay, because the man is required to love the woman.
In the next round con basically points out that the bible is inconsistent - that even if one buys pros case - some parts are sexist some are not is inherently inconsistent.
Pro then argues con has not shown any inconsistency - I don’t get this, as con is pretty explicit. The entire topic is changed up to a discussion about consistency rather than one specifically revolving around what the bible says about sexism
This argument mostly fizzles out; with pro dropping the point to focus on another argument.
Slavery:
Cons case seems fairly self explanatory: that slavery was okay, but is exempted for Israel - making the case that it’s also racist and hypocritical.
Pros response was to simply say that the bible teaches the slavery aspect as history; that there were also rules for treating slaves well, and this were only the rules for the given time.
I don’t think con did as well with this: and mostly doubled down on the contention, without addressing the “different rules”
Portion.
Pro mostly drops these points in the second round to focus on other points: con points out that the bible has two stances on slavery, one accepting and one rejecting.
Banned by virtuoso at the request of the user
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar// Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: see comments.
Reason for Mod Action>Arguments are sufficient; the voter surveys all the main arguments, weights them against each other, and reaches a conclusion.
Sources are also sufficient: the voter surveys sources, uses examples and shows how these source affected the individual arguments.
*******************************************************************
Will do my best, but can’t promise :/
:(
You need to write in another app, or program : then transfer when you’re ready to publish.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PoliceSheep// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con do arguments, 2 points to pro for sources
>Reason for Decision: I was more convinced by pro and they certainly had better conduct.
Reason for Mod Action>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.
The voter should review the site code of conduct for details of what does and does not constitute a valid vote.
*******************************************************************
The rules clearly spell out that you are ineligible to vote, as you have neither completed 2 debates, nor have 100 forum posts.
The rules also clearly state exactly what a valid vote must include; and I have highlighted the key reasons why your vote falls short. Any vote by any user that is ineligible to vote will be removed, and any vote on a moderated debate that is not sufficiently justified in similar ways would be removed too.
These rules are in place to explicitly prevent voters from placing votes for one side or another simply because they found one side more convincing than the other. They are a check list of requirements to assist voters in a way that focuses on who’s arguments were better, rather than which arguments you agree with - as well as providing a way of moderating those same votes against a measurable standard.
This is not an issue of bias - But simply enforcing the clearly outlined voting rules.
Yet, Con called Virt a non-progressive, which is equally as bad.
As Socrates said, once one resorts to name-calling (which is childish), they lose all credibility and are not worthy of their arguments. It follows that they automatically lost their argument and their debate suffers because they could not bring further enhancement to the discussion in question. Personally, I think there should be rules to flag ad hominems.
Their grammar was fine.
The reason:
I would also like to thank the debtors for organizing the wonderful debate. Now for my vote and my decision. Thank you for your feedback.
This is my first time voting on a discussion platform. Please allow me to use Pinkfreud08's format. Sorry, Pinkfreud08.
Argument:
Pro quoted his sources and I appreciate it but, I enjoyed Con's discussion more. I am of course Republican. So I will try to avoid any creeping bias. But overall, I thought Con made the more persuasive arguments. They were logical and thoughtful (although both seemed professional and deserve this talent). For this reason, the point goes to Con.
Source:
Con's source was so scarce that we will admit that Pro provided the better-sourced arguments. Pro has a reliable source record and I think it has been presented here well. It goes without saying that Pro has presented more sources of information which adds to his credibility. That is not to say that Con lacked validity. This point defiantly goes to Pro.
Action:
Overall, I think this behavior was appropriate, save the name-callings which were a crime for both sides. Though both participants acted normally, as anyone would, I would like to see the name-calling decrease.
I feel that it is misleading for Pinkfreud08 to mention only Con's misconduct. Do not receive it personally, Pinkfreud08. But obviously, Pro has called Conn a racist.
“Now my adversary is showing his complete light cont against the African American community. This is often a false statistic and, as the Southern Poverty Law Center explains, white supremacy Is my favorite "
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jonathon.Horowitz// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con do arguments, 2 points to pro for sources
>Reason for Decision: See above
Reason for Mod Action>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.
Also: the source and argument points are non specific and generic enough that they could apply to any individual debate.
The argument point does not survey or weight any of the arguments, and the source point also does not explain the specific impact one source on each side had on the sides debate.
*******************************************************************
Club states-"Have you ever debate IRL, do you even know what a crossfire is? You are force to think on your feet in any IRL debate. Video games and sports, are a different style of thinking on your feet, you are thinking in a different way, for games it's where you should do something, and sports, what you should do."
Overall a good point, but Club fails to prove how the "style" of thinking on your feet from debating was unique from that of sports or video games.
BTW Club did use a very poor source to prove debating helped you as an adult, but TRN didn't backup anything he said with any sources. So I refuse to score it against Club.
Debate vs debate voting- TRN fails to show how the two are connected. Not all debates are voted on. It's a fairly irrelevant point overall though.
Con=TRN Pro=Club
Grammar-both sides had bad grammar, TRN was worse, but not enough to warrant a deduction.
Club states how debating helps you think quick and makes you a critical thinker. The critical thinker point was dropped by TRN. But, he states how thinking quickly isn't exclusive to debating. Also how you could probably play sports or video games as an alternative. TRN also states how there are better ways to use your time. Club states that, assuming being able to think on your feet is desirable, then even though it's not exclusive to debating it's still a good trait.
Frankly I'd say Club did prove that being good at debating was a useful trait to have, and how the benefits out way the drawbacks.
Lets observe this exchange Club states-" IRL debating, particularly in the crossfire section, you have to think on your feet. After much experience in IRL debating, you can think of quick solutions to everyday problems. Thinking quick has it's positives."
TRN-"If I hit my head on a stone. It doesn't mean I become less prone to damage. It just means I will most likely suffer a severe concussion. If I am not prepared for a debate I will most likely be forced to think on my feet. The problem with this of course is that if I am not good at thinking on my feet then in a debate scenario I would be really bad. That's if I even accept this as a positive to debating which it isn't because thinking on your feet can be done in a multitude of activities like video games, sports etc. You haven't demonstrated why this is the most effective or more advantages that separate it from the rest."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to or for arguments
>Reason for Decision: See above
Reason for Mod Action> I have gone back and forth on this one over the last few days: but ultimately my view is that this vote falls short of what can be considered borderline.
While the voter cites some examples from pros argument, it is not fully clear from the RFD why he weighted pros point more strongly than cons. In fact, these extra quotes muddy the water for why the voter felt pros arguments were better.
Likewise, there is little detail on why the voter rejected cons arguments on the grounds of relevance - though this alone would have simply made the vote borderline.
I will normally consider a vote to be borderline if only semantic or formatting changes are required; but I feel the explanation in the first portion of the RfD is sufficiently lacking in clarity to pass the borderline test.
*******************************************************************
I won’t be voting here; as a comment I made to TRN made it into his debate argument - I wasn’t intending it as coaching or an argument suggestion, nor offered any further advice; but Given that the comment was made, I won’t be voting and I’m going to avoid any impression of impropriety; and recuse myself from vote moderation on this debate too.
Looking at SFs definition, my first thought was that we know the universe is caused, and an atheistic explanation would qualify as God under SFs definition, so I inherently agree with TRNs objection, and I made a comment along those lines - and my comment to him seemed to have spurred this round. I won’t comment further on whether he made a good defense.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Press Ff4Respect// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: More convincing arguments
Reason for Mod Action>The voter doesn’t sufficiently justify or weigh arguments.
Please review the code of conduct; for specific detail of what is expected from voters.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Press Ff4Respect// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, Sources and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Arguments:
PRO used circumstantial and coincidental evidence with no backing whatsoever
Sources:
PRO used biased sources (Infowars, really?)
S&G:
About equal
Conduct:
PRO should have waived
Reason for Mod Action>The voter doesn’t sufficiently justify or weigh arguments, compare sources, or conduct, or really justify any of the voting criteria, and offers a minimal justification on all points.
Please review the code of conduct; for specific detail of what is expected from voters.
*******************************************************************