Inteli - You're a great debater, I don't know if you have this one. Particularly your first rebuttal - to 9.9.9's claim that sex and gender are without distinction.
As someone who's dated Transgender people, and has spent a lot time researching the subject, and it's implications and things of that nature, I would be inclined to agree. Unless maliciousness could be proven, that shouldn't be a thing. Of course I'm not familiar with the law there, so there could be context we're both missing.
Hmm, I would disagree. Hypotheticals can be interesting and all, but not when the thesis is completely contradictory. Gender is itself, definitionally non binary. Of course, if someone could demonstrate this untrue, or provide a definition that does not imply this, then fine. Until then, I find the topic insensitive to say the least. Not to say I would report it, simply a matter of fact on my feelings on it.
I've been wanting to debate this for a bit, but I thought no one would accept. I have a feeling our pro of a new debater, 9.9.9, might have something to say to this.
No, if you look at the under debating it specifies that it's waiting for the instigator's first argument, the instigator is the person who has made the debate, you are the contender.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Your entire argument falls under Hitchen's claw, nothing you claim is verified, and therefore can be dismissed.
Not to mention, it is the ratio we look at, black victims to white victims compared to their crimes, and black victims are nearly 3 times more likely according to my source. Not to mention, due to the fact that the majority of people in America are white, the majority of crime is caused by white people. Don't believe me? Have a source.
"Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites. Most victims were reported to be armed (83%); however, black victims were more likely to be unarmed (14.8%) than white (9.4%) or Hispanic (5.8%) victims. "
Being "open" to questions and such means literally nothing if you only answer things semantically and with very clear non-sequiturs, For example; Oromagi asked the following question;
"why do you never use sources?"
And you reply:
"I can't answer this because again, I've at least had one topic concerning source material and a most recent debate using the Google search engine as a source which is a very large reference. This means when the person just simply searches for a term, they'll get a link after link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on. So because the word ***never**** does not apply, I can't give an explanation on that as it's inapplicable."
The first thing to point out is that given the context, Oromagi was most likely using the word "never" colloquially as a stand-in for general. Probably in order to get your attention and for you to provide a proper response.
Second of all, your answer is practically a nonanswer. "they'll get link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on." Except that presumes that every link on the google page would agree with your claim, and whenever a person makes a claim, the BoP lies on them to justify said claim. Therefore it would be your "burden" to provide the specific source that backs up or justifies your claim.
So because you didn't answer these questions for Oromagi:
Why do you, in general, fail to provide dictionary definitions?
Why do you, in general, fail to provide sources to justify your arguments?
And just one for me:
Why do you, in general, and if available to you, argue semantically so often? Why not just A) Ask for clarification, or B) Use context and background inference to come up with the most logical framing for the argument? Or better yet, why not do both?
Hmm... not a very efficient debate tactic, but UpholdingTheFaith is a very intellectually honest individual, taking time to reevaulte biases and revise their opinion. I have to say, that great, it's not very often that people are like that. Props to Pro for the conduct.
As agreed in the description however, more than one forfeit is considered a loss on the part of the forfeiter, regardless of whether I have the argument done NOW, I am still technically in the lost category. I'm sorry for the difficulties and disappointment this debate has been on my side. I will post my next argument as soon as I am able, simply to continue the discussion.
To answer the resolution -
I don't know if I would I say anybody (Besides perhaps Seldiora and others of that ilk) have a problem with you personally. Maybe you're a great person in real life, I wouldn't know. But your argumentation and rhetoric definitely seems frustrating at the very least. It seems as if you ignore the actual point being made on purpose to semantically gish gallop all around your opponent.
I never said it wasn't valid, I simply state that, in my opinion: votes shouldn't as opinionated as yours was, due to the inherent bias it produces and conveys.
Um... so, I kinda lean towards RationalMadman's opinion, though to a much lesser degree, but I also think you're opinions and political leanings should not inform your voting. Hopefully my vote was fine? My point is, I do agree that RationalMadman's vote is too opinionated.
I'd be inclined to agree, but I refuse to sacrifice content, what I'll do is just make arguments a week for now on. Also, considering our last debate.... I can tell you. It is so frustrating whenever, I, type out a argument worth like 10 pages in google docs, and then you respond with a like a page. For me, I just like establishing my presuppositions.
What do you mean? I typed out a paragraph for you, here I have to establish the definitions, argue for the definitions, establish a case for morality, then establish a case for which standard, then the actual argument for abortion. Not to mention, that I deleted half of it by my switching of gmails, so.... Calm down.
Okay..... that' s my bad. MisterChris was right is the basics, 3 days isn't enough (for me at least) to write out these arguments with classes and everything. Soorrry. At least now I'll have more time?
It depends on which axiom you're presuming a stance of ethical from. I would bet that most humans have a similar axiom which they base their morality off of, but I could even argue the same for egoist and nihalist.
Nah, I don't think Atheism and Christianity are a proper dichotomy, being a atheist literally only describes not believing in god. Whereas Christianity has a established moral set of rules.
Once more, I post it with almost no time, and do not include sources:
[1] https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/
[3] Bible - (https://www.openbible.info/topics/all_have_sinned)
[4] https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression.shtml
[5] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146107915577097
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
[7] https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
[8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
[10] https://u.osu.edu/parlettehymeguo/discovery-or-imperialization/forcing-religion-on-the-indigenous/
[11] https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/mandated-areas1/culture.html#:~:text=Indigenous%20cultures%20threatened%20with%20extinction.&text=However%2C%20indigenous%20peoples%20have%20continued,many%20parts%20of%20the%20world.
[12] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/08/02/catholic-schools-for-native-americans-known-for-abuse-and-assimilation-try-to-do-good/
Rest assured, the sources will be listed in round 4.
As an atheist this debate shouldn't interest me, but the way that PRO argues is immaculate. Great respect to you Fruit_Inspector, I am solidly on your side (as far as the context as this debate goes), and will be adding this to my list of great ways to format a debate.
Your second contention is fairly convincing, but the problem of evil isn't particularly convincing of an argument. I suppose your specific definition of god kind of helps it out, but usually we could simply conclude the god not caring of humans, irrespective of it's kindness or lack thereof.
And because it's like 4 in the morning and I accidentally deleted my sources from the argument, Round 2 sources here, if you don't accept this, I'll simply post them in round 3.
Of course I'd be willing to discuss your views. My problem is the propensity of the further right's usage of that "Freedom of Speech". Particularly when they use it to abuse the disadvantaged, discriminated, and harmed individuals.
Tolerate: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction
RationalMadman means that progressives and social democrats will not allow harmful rhetoric towards the discriminated minorities without contradiction.
I would definitely not accept this debate, the opponent has an anti-definition, but not the actual definition? Not only that, but they provide no actual reason for the topicality of the definition. On top of both of these things, the Pro would necessarily adopt the BoP and be responsible for a constructive. Overall I don't like the framing of this debate. Dishonest.
Yes, yes, you have three very impressive debates on the subject, which you lost all of. Bragging about being able to dispute a debaters evidence, and then obviously failing to do so, in separate but related cases, multiple times......
Obviously the size of each religion matters. Let's say you have a multi flavored cake. and the majority flavors were Chocolate, Vanilla, and Strawberry. With tiny, tiny slices of Cheese cake, birthday cake, all kinds of different flavors. If a person were to decide whether they liked the cake or not, whether the majority flavors tasted good or not would matter much more than the tiny tiny percentages. If you were to only look at something semantically, PERHAPS, you could come to the conclusion you have, but with context I have provided, obviously it is a non-sequitur.
First of all, I still haven't implied all religions, I simply said "Religion" not "All religion" this is a clear distinction. Saying the former instead of latter, implies generality. Second, you ignoring the fact that all of my examples were large sects of christianity, which is one of the most, if not the most populated religions. Obviously they represent a bigger chunk then the thousand other 1% religions.
Did you... just ignonre what he DID? "Easy to disprove?" Challenge the Pro to this debate then! You've made a claim, actually fill it instead of being toxic in a comment section.
Inteli - You're a great debater, I don't know if you have this one. Particularly your first rebuttal - to 9.9.9's claim that sex and gender are without distinction.
Ummm, no I don't think so. I haven't checked it in a while (working on congress uil) but I don't think it was this. Could be wrong.
Brilliantly done! I'm definitely taking notes! I was right to follow this debate after all.
They can argue the definitions, or try to provide a better one. I simply gave a definition of gender which is topical.
As someone who's dated Transgender people, and has spent a lot time researching the subject, and it's implications and things of that nature, I would be inclined to agree. Unless maliciousness could be proven, that shouldn't be a thing. Of course I'm not familiar with the law there, so there could be context we're both missing.
Hmm, I would disagree. Hypotheticals can be interesting and all, but not when the thesis is completely contradictory. Gender is itself, definitionally non binary. Of course, if someone could demonstrate this untrue, or provide a definition that does not imply this, then fine. Until then, I find the topic insensitive to say the least. Not to say I would report it, simply a matter of fact on my feelings on it.
Nah, Con can argue the definitions, or just make a convincing argument in opposing. If I were to tweak it, how would you suggest I do so?
Wouldn't have been my main argument, but okay then.
I've been wanting to debate this for a bit, but I thought no one would accept. I have a feeling our pro of a new debater, 9.9.9, might have something to say to this.
Thank you for the advice! I'll definitely take it into consideration in my next debate, I'll try to make my arugments more succint.
Mm.
No problem! Welcome to the site, I'm looking forward to seeing this debate, I was thinking about accepting it. To a good debate and all!
No, if you look at the under debating it specifies that it's waiting for the instigator's first argument, the instigator is the person who has made the debate, you are the contender.
OOh, Debate wars? Because that seems like fun, looking forward to that in all of its glory.
Regardless, welcome to the site, to a good debate and all.
This is why I just refer to my opponent as they or Con/Pro.
It's more of a conduct/suggestion to side thing. Regardless I moved my objection to 9.9.9's private messages to appease all parties involved.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Your entire argument falls under Hitchen's claw, nothing you claim is verified, and therefore can be dismissed.
Not to mention, it is the ratio we look at, black victims to white victims compared to their crimes, and black victims are nearly 3 times more likely according to my source. Not to mention, due to the fact that the majority of people in America are white, the majority of crime is caused by white people. Don't believe me? Have a source.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43
Unfortunately, you would be mistaken.
"Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites. Most victims were reported to be armed (83%); however, black victims were more likely to be unarmed (14.8%) than white (9.4%) or Hispanic (5.8%) victims. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/
Being "open" to questions and such means literally nothing if you only answer things semantically and with very clear non-sequiturs, For example; Oromagi asked the following question;
"why do you never use sources?"
And you reply:
"I can't answer this because again, I've at least had one topic concerning source material and a most recent debate using the Google search engine as a source which is a very large reference. This means when the person just simply searches for a term, they'll get a link after link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on. So because the word ***never**** does not apply, I can't give an explanation on that as it's inapplicable."
The first thing to point out is that given the context, Oromagi was most likely using the word "never" colloquially as a stand-in for general. Probably in order to get your attention and for you to provide a proper response.
Second of all, your answer is practically a nonanswer. "they'll get link after link after link just giving reports of what's going on." Except that presumes that every link on the google page would agree with your claim, and whenever a person makes a claim, the BoP lies on them to justify said claim. Therefore it would be your "burden" to provide the specific source that backs up or justifies your claim.
So because you didn't answer these questions for Oromagi:
Why do you, in general, fail to provide dictionary definitions?
Why do you, in general, fail to provide sources to justify your arguments?
And just one for me:
Why do you, in general, and if available to you, argue semantically so often? Why not just A) Ask for clarification, or B) Use context and background inference to come up with the most logical framing for the argument? Or better yet, why not do both?
Hmm... not a very efficient debate tactic, but UpholdingTheFaith is a very intellectually honest individual, taking time to reevaulte biases and revise their opinion. I have to say, that great, it's not very often that people are like that. Props to Pro for the conduct.
As agreed in the description however, more than one forfeit is considered a loss on the part of the forfeiter, regardless of whether I have the argument done NOW, I am still technically in the lost category. I'm sorry for the difficulties and disappointment this debate has been on my side. I will post my next argument as soon as I am able, simply to continue the discussion.
Okay, I have the argument in it's completeness done. But it is not letting me post it, it is within character limits however. I'm very confused
To answer the resolution -
I don't know if I would I say anybody (Besides perhaps Seldiora and others of that ilk) have a problem with you personally. Maybe you're a great person in real life, I wouldn't know. But your argumentation and rhetoric definitely seems frustrating at the very least. It seems as if you ignore the actual point being made on purpose to semantically gish gallop all around your opponent.
I never said it wasn't valid, I simply state that, in my opinion: votes shouldn't as opinionated as yours was, due to the inherent bias it produces and conveys.
Um... so, I kinda lean towards RationalMadman's opinion, though to a much lesser degree, but I also think you're opinions and political leanings should not inform your voting. Hopefully my vote was fine? My point is, I do agree that RationalMadman's vote is too opinionated.
I'd be inclined to agree, but I refuse to sacrifice content, what I'll do is just make arguments a week for now on. Also, considering our last debate.... I can tell you. It is so frustrating whenever, I, type out a argument worth like 10 pages in google docs, and then you respond with a like a page. For me, I just like establishing my presuppositions.
What do you mean? I typed out a paragraph for you, here I have to establish the definitions, argue for the definitions, establish a case for morality, then establish a case for which standard, then the actual argument for abortion. Not to mention, that I deleted half of it by my switching of gmails, so.... Calm down.
Okay..... that' s my bad. MisterChris was right is the basics, 3 days isn't enough (for me at least) to write out these arguments with classes and everything. Soorrry. At least now I'll have more time?
It depends on which axiom you're presuming a stance of ethical from. I would bet that most humans have a similar axiom which they base their morality off of, but I could even argue the same for egoist and nihalist.
Safety vs Liberty? That's a super interesting one, I'm always one to like a values debate!
It's fine, good luck with the tournament and school stuff.
I'm sorry, could you clarify your question?
I can lengthen the time for arguments if you'd like. I'd be fine with that, three days are a bit short, but it's what I usually have it set as.
Nah, I don't think Atheism and Christianity are a proper dichotomy, being a atheist literally only describes not believing in god. Whereas Christianity has a established moral set of rules.
Yeah? I mean... maybe... I'll think about it.
Once more, I post it with almost no time, and do not include sources:
[1] https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/
[3] Bible - (https://www.openbible.info/topics/all_have_sinned)
[4] https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression.shtml
[5] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146107915577097
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
[7] https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
[8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
[10] https://u.osu.edu/parlettehymeguo/discovery-or-imperialization/forcing-religion-on-the-indigenous/
[11] https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/mandated-areas1/culture.html#:~:text=Indigenous%20cultures%20threatened%20with%20extinction.&text=However%2C%20indigenous%20peoples%20have%20continued,many%20parts%20of%20the%20world.
[12] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/08/02/catholic-schools-for-native-americans-known-for-abuse-and-assimilation-try-to-do-good/
Rest assured, the sources will be listed in round 4.
Yeah, I'm actually reading the guide now.
As an atheist this debate shouldn't interest me, but the way that PRO argues is immaculate. Great respect to you Fruit_Inspector, I am solidly on your side (as far as the context as this debate goes), and will be adding this to my list of great ways to format a debate.
Your second contention is fairly convincing, but the problem of evil isn't particularly convincing of an argument. I suppose your specific definition of god kind of helps it out, but usually we could simply conclude the god not caring of humans, irrespective of it's kindness or lack thereof.
And because it's like 4 in the morning and I accidentally deleted my sources from the argument, Round 2 sources here, if you don't accept this, I'll simply post them in round 3.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_religion#cite_note-69
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war
[4] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183657/average-size-of-a-family-in-the-us/#:~:text=Families%20in%20the%20United%20States&text=The%20average%20family%20consisted%20of,18%20living%20in%20the%20household.
[5] https://dunmorepa.gov/news/importance-strong-communities/#:~:text=Being%20a%20part%20of%20a,have%20a%20sense%20of%20community.
[6] https://verdict.justia.com/2020/04/14/religions-harm-people
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_abuse
Of course I'd be willing to discuss your views. My problem is the propensity of the further right's usage of that "Freedom of Speech". Particularly when they use it to abuse the disadvantaged, discriminated, and harmed individuals.
I agree..... I dont like that you're right in this case, but you are
Or... you know,
Tolerate: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction
RationalMadman means that progressives and social democrats will not allow harmful rhetoric towards the discriminated minorities without contradiction.
I would definitely not accept this debate, the opponent has an anti-definition, but not the actual definition? Not only that, but they provide no actual reason for the topicality of the definition. On top of both of these things, the Pro would necessarily adopt the BoP and be responsible for a constructive. Overall I don't like the framing of this debate. Dishonest.
Yes, yes, you have three very impressive debates on the subject, which you lost all of. Bragging about being able to dispute a debaters evidence, and then obviously failing to do so, in separate but related cases, multiple times......
Obviously the size of each religion matters. Let's say you have a multi flavored cake. and the majority flavors were Chocolate, Vanilla, and Strawberry. With tiny, tiny slices of Cheese cake, birthday cake, all kinds of different flavors. If a person were to decide whether they liked the cake or not, whether the majority flavors tasted good or not would matter much more than the tiny tiny percentages. If you were to only look at something semantically, PERHAPS, you could come to the conclusion you have, but with context I have provided, obviously it is a non-sequitur.
First of all, I still haven't implied all religions, I simply said "Religion" not "All religion" this is a clear distinction. Saying the former instead of latter, implies generality. Second, you ignoring the fact that all of my examples were large sects of christianity, which is one of the most, if not the most populated religions. Obviously they represent a bigger chunk then the thousand other 1% religions.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/05/christians-remain-worlds-largest-religious-group-but-they-are-declining-in-europe/
Did you... just ignonre what he DID? "Easy to disprove?" Challenge the Pro to this debate then! You've made a claim, actually fill it instead of being toxic in a comment section.
Thats fair, school is school.