Well, you've seeminlgy improved since I beat you so I'm definitely looking forward to the rematch. I wouldn't say I'm "better" per se, but I'm less rusty. I'm more or less a conversational debater and have most of my debates in person with a speech outline, so that first debate was still out of my comfort zone. Now I've shaken off the rust and have more or less of a style to argue with.
Intelligence can definitely be beaten, even in this debate, I just think Imminent could have started off with a better case, forcing the BoP on Con, and having an easy time rebutting Intelligence.
Like I am genuinely confused.... .I suppose if you over inflate how many riots happened.... and presumed BLM was an organized movement..... and presumed that they were communist (is working for working equality in a capitalist nation - hmmm... i wonder if they're communist)
I love how accurate that is, needless to say, I plan on trying to be as objective as possible while I vote. I'll go off of the arguments presented here, and which is more logically consistent and all.
Regardless of your view, it's always a good idea to consider the opposing side, not to say that you should weigh each proposition with the same reliability or validity, only to consider them.
Wooh, this'll be a long one, but I'm looking forward to reading it. I think I'll vote, but, just like this debate, it'll be longer than your average vote..
I hate to see it so close, but alas, I suppose I lost this debate. Unless we get a last minute voter, which I do not see happening. Thanks for the good debate Ancap, I look forward to future endeavors!
Is that debate open? I'd be fine with arguing either point. The problem with a lot of these resolution are:
A) The wording - they make it very easy to argue some extreme or exception
B) They often correlate to false equivalences, automatically making your arguments fallacious.
Umm.... win streaks and rankings really shouldn't matter, the only thing that matters are the idea presented the validity of reasoning used. The rest is useless bureaucracy. Yes, I am "far-left" I will vote regardless. Any capable voter should be able to put aside their biases and vote based on the arguments provided.
That's cool... I guess... I don't need that, nor do I care. Thank you? The entire axiom of your argument is fallacious, I think I'll attack that instead.
It's fine. I'm a teenager of 16, a leftist, and gay. I can see why the stereotype would make you assume I am someone to be aggressive towards. I'm sure there is certain aspects we would agree on.
Yes, wiki is a good place to start, to track down leads and all.
And I totally get the keyboard thing, luckily I took a couple of classes in middle school, dodged a bullet there.
And while certain fallacies can be misinterpreted and such, as long as valid justified.
How absolutely fascinating, despite the fact of your established "authorhood" and you being the "wordsmith" so to speak, your responses are quite lackluster. Elaborate, I suppose, but fallacy ridden nonetheless.
A) "Wiki" isn't the best source for claiming something reliable or not, and B) Seldiora likes to challenge themselves, its why he accepts and creates so many different debates. Even if they did disagree and find your lack of sourcing they wouldn't call it out.
No, no, I was simply calling out the fact, I care not if Seldiora did or didn't.
Plus, in addition, your words, "my opponent's source" tells me you aren't quite convinced by Wiki as a source either. I only clarify the specifics due to something you said, "I try to make every word c(o)unt)." (Sorry couldn't resist) Therefore when approaching your words, one should take careful note of the potential motivation behind each word.
I don't think you unintelligent, so this hogwash of a response must be your mocking of me. Regardless my point stands. Christopher Hitchen's Razor is not effective because it is his, but because of the philosophical principle it explains, the BoP. As it states: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
You never demonstrated the Bible to be of valid historic use, and the fact that you do not address that part of my comment is telling.
I find it interesting that Seldiora did not object to you claiming the bible as history and providing no evidence of such, making that entire section dismissible according to Hitchen's razor.
One of your sections is based on the definition of transgender, the sources they come from, the history of such, and who it is logically fallacious. It is important to be precise. Regardless I will save all of that for my rebuttal. I will try to have most of it typed out tonight, expect a post either tonight sometime around 3 or 4 or tomorrow.
I work best in the middle of the night don't ask why.
The number of logical fallacies that contained...... You spent 5 days on this argument? And you still got my position wrong? I very specifically told you that I did not use WHO or dictionary.com as a source for the definition of gender because it was outdated. The definition I use in the description is not from who, and paying attention would prove that.
Don't worry you haven't, though I appreciate the sentiment, I'm tired of responding to the same tired old arguments over and over again. I will continue to do so however.
Incorrect, before one could claim that they would have to show an inherent logical inconsistency within transgenderism. There is not one, as I have already demonstrated and will rebuke the egregious claims of the heritage foundation later.
You clearly have no idea what philosophy is, science is nothing more than applicable philosophy. I used science to prove my premises, not to make the argument itself, you have no idea what you're talking about philosophically. But I will get into the actual argument in the debate rounds.
Roy's arguments? And Chris's arguments? (Let's just ignore the fact I've already debunked these in forums) lmao
Well okay then, let's clash!
I'm on pro side, Con's strongest points are just intuitive. Oof.
Yay! It's fixed!
Also, you work fast! Props to the programming team!
Yeah, your no doubt right, and that's kind of boring, so I probably won't be accepting this debate.
Do you think I shall accept and kritik then prove?
Well, you've seeminlgy improved since I beat you so I'm definitely looking forward to the rematch. I wouldn't say I'm "better" per se, but I'm less rusty. I'm more or less a conversational debater and have most of my debates in person with a speech outline, so that first debate was still out of my comfort zone. Now I've shaken off the rust and have more or less of a style to argue with.
I almost did the exact same thing, I was halfway through voting when I remembered that Inteli was Pro, and Imminent was Con, xD
I suppose I'll weigh in
Intelligence can definitely be beaten, even in this debate, I just think Imminent could have started off with a better case, forcing the BoP on Con, and having an easy time rebutting Intelligence.
I suppose yeah... but it wouldn't it better to do that while having a stronger case?
I suppose I'll leave a vote, let me read through and consider things, shouldn't take too long.
"Because BLM are communist terrorist"
What?
Like I am genuinely confused.... .I suppose if you over inflate how many riots happened.... and presumed BLM was an organized movement..... and presumed that they were communist (is working for working equality in a capitalist nation - hmmm... i wonder if they're communist)
Wow... I am.... very underwhelmed..... Um.... maybe it's a bait? That's all I can see. A bait and switch is the best this argument could be.
I find it funny that this debate has 10 votes and 4 comments.
I was actually gonna do the conduct thing the first time, but I am exhausted and kind of forgot to do that, so I had to fix it. Sorry
Yes?
Yup, I got it, reading it now
You do realize the invite is invalid right? I can't access the actual debate.
I love how accurate that is, needless to say, I plan on trying to be as objective as possible while I vote. I'll go off of the arguments presented here, and which is more logically consistent and all.
I'll add it to the list
Regardless of your view, it's always a good idea to consider the opposing side, not to say that you should weigh each proposition with the same reliability or validity, only to consider them.
Wooh, this'll be a long one, but I'm looking forward to reading it. I think I'll vote, but, just like this debate, it'll be longer than your average vote..
Voted, I provided a pretty long RFD, though I have a google doc that's like 3 pages I had to cut down.
I am voting, right now, I had to break it down and all. I like to be thorough with these types of debates.
No problem
I'll give it a read
Ah, that's all fine, thanks for responding though!
I hate to see it so close, but alas, I suppose I lost this debate. Unless we get a last minute voter, which I do not see happening. Thanks for the good debate Ancap, I look forward to future endeavors!
Is that debate open? I'd be fine with arguing either point. The problem with a lot of these resolution are:
A) The wording - they make it very easy to argue some extreme or exception
B) They often correlate to false equivalences, automatically making your arguments fallacious.
I'd be more than happy to argue with your revised resolution, just have the opponent be me.
Did this surprise you?
There's a third option, a person without feeling or motivation is not an ai
We're fighting now
Umm.... win streaks and rankings really shouldn't matter, the only thing that matters are the idea presented the validity of reasoning used. The rest is useless bureaucracy. Yes, I am "far-left" I will vote regardless. Any capable voter should be able to put aside their biases and vote based on the arguments provided.
One day left, last calls for voters!
There is a fundamental difference between the two that makes this a false equivalence, that I have already explained.
That's cool... I guess... I don't need that, nor do I care. Thank you? The entire axiom of your argument is fallacious, I think I'll attack that instead.
It's fine. I'm a teenager of 16, a leftist, and gay. I can see why the stereotype would make you assume I am someone to be aggressive towards. I'm sure there is certain aspects we would agree on.
Yes, wiki is a good place to start, to track down leads and all.
And I totally get the keyboard thing, luckily I took a couple of classes in middle school, dodged a bullet there.
And while certain fallacies can be misinterpreted and such, as long as valid justified.
How absolutely fascinating, despite the fact of your established "authorhood" and you being the "wordsmith" so to speak, your responses are quite lackluster. Elaborate, I suppose, but fallacy ridden nonetheless.
Except we both know that:
A) "Wiki" isn't the best source for claiming something reliable or not, and B) Seldiora likes to challenge themselves, its why he accepts and creates so many different debates. Even if they did disagree and find your lack of sourcing they wouldn't call it out.
No, no, I was simply calling out the fact, I care not if Seldiora did or didn't.
Plus, in addition, your words, "my opponent's source" tells me you aren't quite convinced by Wiki as a source either. I only clarify the specifics due to something you said, "I try to make every word c(o)unt)." (Sorry couldn't resist) Therefore when approaching your words, one should take careful note of the potential motivation behind each word.
I don't think you unintelligent, so this hogwash of a response must be your mocking of me. Regardless my point stands. Christopher Hitchen's Razor is not effective because it is his, but because of the philosophical principle it explains, the BoP. As it states: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
You never demonstrated the Bible to be of valid historic use, and the fact that you do not address that part of my comment is telling.
I find it interesting that Seldiora did not object to you claiming the bible as history and providing no evidence of such, making that entire section dismissible according to Hitchen's razor.
One of your sections is based on the definition of transgender, the sources they come from, the history of such, and who it is logically fallacious. It is important to be precise. Regardless I will save all of that for my rebuttal. I will try to have most of it typed out tonight, expect a post either tonight sometime around 3 or 4 or tomorrow.
I work best in the middle of the night don't ask why.
The number of logical fallacies that contained...... You spent 5 days on this argument? And you still got my position wrong? I very specifically told you that I did not use WHO or dictionary.com as a source for the definition of gender because it was outdated. The definition I use in the description is not from who, and paying attention would prove that.
To be clear, both arguments had to be dramatically edited, from over 10,000 characters each to under 5,000 by 5 characters that last case.
Don't worry you haven't, though I appreciate the sentiment, I'm tired of responding to the same tired old arguments over and over again. I will continue to do so however.
Incorrect, before one could claim that they would have to show an inherent logical inconsistency within transgenderism. There is not one, as I have already demonstrated and will rebuke the egregious claims of the heritage foundation later.
Testosterone and Estrogen are responsible for the sex phenotypes, not gender identities.
You clearly have no idea what philosophy is, science is nothing more than applicable philosophy. I used science to prove my premises, not to make the argument itself, you have no idea what you're talking about philosophically. But I will get into the actual argument in the debate rounds.