You: "I am treating this debate as if we haven't had any interactions before."
But you ignore that this second debate proposal is a virtual quote from our previous debate. My quote. So, take your claim from your #4, #6, let alone your reference in your round 2 argument and strike them because your claim is not true. You, you, you, and no one but you made the reference to our previous debate before anybody else in this debate. Period.
Drop it.
Are you really going to contend that your debate proposal is NOT cross-thread contamination, being nearly a direct quote from our previous debate??? Motes and beams, my friend. Sticks and stones.
My opponent said, to begin round 2: "My first note: Con needs to keep our previous debate out of this." Yes, I brought up our previous debate, still in debate mode https://www.debateart.com/debates/2021/there-should-be-a-limit-to-the-number-of-debates-a-person-can-be-engaged-in-at-a-time
in my round 1.
I will remind my opponent that he is the initiator of this debate, and that his debate proposal, "I can't" isn't necessarily a defeatist attitude," is a virtual direct quote of my round 3, argument I.d in the above referenced debate: "'I can’t' is a defeatist’s attitude," but changed to its negative counterpart.
"...why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Matthew 7: 3
Let the readers take note.
Re: your #1: why do you assume A&E did not eat meat? Because the Bible doesn't say otherwise? It doesn't speak to their final digestive results, either, but I have it on good authority [human anatomy and biological functions] that they did it in the woods.
Normally, I would vote on this debate, but I'm afraid my extensive experience in the PRC precludes an objective voting platform on my part. I am too personally aware of the corruption in the Chinese media and its government to believe anything that either institution says. Further, understanding that Con may have no experience other than reading the media and government reports from China, and those outside China in support of China, including WHO, I would be inclined to reject all Con sourcing, and, therefore, arguments. Therefore, I am not voting in this debate. My apologies.
The original text, as written in my round 1 of our debate [regarding who should be the authority to determine the number of simultaneous debates we would be allowed to engage]: "Is that person the superlative debate participant, both in quality of debate and the number of simultaneous debates engaged?"
Is context really so difficult to conceive for the usage of "superlative?" Maybe you're using an inferior dictionary [or a more inferior Google]. My OED offers not just grammar & definition, but complete historic etymology. That's why the unabridged version is fully 20 volumes, and supplied with a magnifying glass because the print is a 6-point font.
Still looking to have someone else define for you, huh? Start with looking up "I can't," since you believe it is a good attitude. It isn't. The issue is not "I can't." It's "I won't."
"I do not understand your judgment." I never said Pro's argument lacked intelligence. I said it exhibited intelligence, in agreement with Con, but I also said the debate was not about relative intelligence, therefore, Con's argument lost the debate.
"In a sense I am not speaking English. I am speaking American." Nope. Take a look in your dictionary; I don't care which it it is if it of your nation's mother tongue. It does not say it is an American Dictionary, does it? The Dictionary I always use is the OED. Yes, a British production, but in it, "bonnet" and "boot" are defined both as Americans understand the sense of these words, as well as the British sense of them. Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in parsing details, we parse then out of rational existence, which is what you tried to do with this debate. Stop it.
Good God, step away from yourself for one minute. Of course, some intelligence went into the debate, BUT THAT IS NOT THE DEBATE!!!!!!
The debate was: it is stupid. As I said [again, for the third time: The debate was not about intelligence. It was not "about" anything. The debate was stupid.
Look, there is a painting by Rene Magritte from the early 20th century. It is a painting of a smoking pipe on a plain background. Beneath the image is a phrase, in French, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." [This is not a pipe]. One will wonder, even when fluent in French, what that means because, clearly, it is a picture of a pipe, and you will argue that it is a pipe. No, it's not a pipe, it's a picture of a pipe. The painting is titled "The Treachery of Images." The image is not the object, just as intelligence was not the nature of the debate.
Like I said, the issue of the debate was NOT relative intelligence. Intelligent people can still do stupid things, yeah? Like accepting a debate that was stupid. Get it?
Your statement, "Whether these actions have been justified (morally or legally) is a separate question that will not be pursued here" is completely counterproductive to debating the issue since it is essentially your argument that Trump's motives have not been justified, morally or legally. Isn't that really the turning point of your proposed debate? To declare that it is not relevant, and will not be part of the debate takes the very core issue out of it. Nice surgery, Doctor, but the patient was not declared a surgical candidate in the first place. Remove that declarative statement in total, I'll be more inclined to debate.
Further, effectively opposing a "morally neutral" position, as Trump is accused of taking, will be an interesting justification for arguing that Trump has done more harm than good. Good luck.
I love limitation debates. It's an argument entirely in line with TV's Ancient Aliens, which tries to sell the nonsense that our ancients didn't know anything without the help of visitors of alien origin. No, we're not innovative at all, and never have been. You can laugh now; I am.
My access to the internet failed, and I lost track of the schedule needed to present a third round, resulting in forfeit of that round. Having lost having a last round argument, I will publish my conclusion in a day or so.
What record says Adam and Eve never ate meat in the Garden? There was no mention of meat-eating in the Garden, but then, there was no mention of eating bread, either, until it was mentioned as a duty of sorrow. Nor of drinking water, for that matter. Nothing about bathing in water. The lack of these details does not mean they were not done. You don't see any instruction of urinating, or defecating. Were these not done, either? Be serious; the Bible is not a tell-all story, is it?
Before a debate is accepted, the initiator can edit anything they want. Once accepted, as whiteflame said, it can no longer be edited. I decided to take the debate as is
Like Whitflame, I'm intrigued with this subject, but I have two conditions:
1. Con [you] cannot use a religious morality [playing God, for example] to argue against the premise, since "society" is the section you've placed the debate.
2. I fail to see the sense of waiving arguments. If you only want 3 rounds of debate, declare 3 rounds. I believe instigator, pro or con, should make the first argument, and the respondent has the last word.
Venberg, I congratulate you on your presentations over the four rounds. Very well done, easy to follow, and well documented by sources. I also appreciate your candor, while remaining positively civil throughout. Regardless of the outcome, it has been a pleasure debating with you, and I look forward to another debate in the near future. Thank you very much for a lively and challenging debate!
Moreover, relative to my post #13, according to U.S. Nav archives, the U.S.S. Eldridge was never near Philadelphia during the alleged "experiment," and ship's log shows no mention of said "experiment," nor its alleged effects., although both issues are part of the movie of that name produced by New World Pictures in 1984. It's a fiction, along with, to date, the evidence of teleportation from anywhere to anywhere.
Round 1: "I will sit by and see you destroying yourself."
Round 2: "I will go on full power even though my opponent didn't say a thing. Expect my opponent's answer. Been it for 2 rounds already."
Taunting. That's why Conduct to Pro, who said nothing of this nature against you.
I'm just going to say this here, and not make it part of my vote verbiage, but I've come to believe a debate posed by using an interrogative is not the best form. I've done it myself, so I'm not throwing stones, other than at me. For example: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1805/are-democrats-tired-of-losing-against-trump
So, avoiding that bad form, I'll vote...
Lest any question my resolve in conducting this debate in taking the contrary view, I remind readers to review my commentary in post #10, accepting this debate. I took the debate knowing I was arguing against my own conviction that Jesus was and is an historic figure. The proof of that is in my heart, where no man can assail and no man deceives. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, as was so eloquently repeated by Peter upon the question from his Master, "Whom say ye that I am?" There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he is the Christ, the Lamb of God.
I have modified the verbiage of the full description, removing the "unconstitutional" reference, exchanging it for violation of House Rules. You are correct, the Con issue will not be successfully engaged by demonstrating the constitutionality of the vacating, however, House Rules are affected by it.
Just not pragmatic? Why? Just because it happens to be composed 230 years ago and not 30 years ago, or 3 years ago? Well, my friend, there's a different Constitution composed 2,000 years ago which, as a code of conduct, as a document of rights and privileges, and even as a political platform, let alone a document of proper morality, exceeds theConstitution of the United States, as lofty, and relevant a composed set of words that most mysterious of American documents is. It is called the Sermon on the Mount. That document, if followed and lived by as faithfully as some follow the original intent of the Constitution, wold solve every single social ill we suffer today, and will evert suffer into the distant future ahead, just as written originally. It does not even need amendment.
The SOM even exceeds the universal concepts, which it is, itself, the composition of the 10 commandments some 3,500 years ago. Not pragmatic? You'd best look that one up. Use the OED as I suggest.
I'll just say this: There's a reason why my preferred dictionary, the OED, holds that personal distinction. It is the most complete of any English dictionary in the volume of the words it defines; virtually the entire authorized lexicon. Moreover, it is fully 20 volumes in print because it includes an exhaustive etymology of words defined going back to each word's first historic use. That is invaluable for understanding 18th century syntax, when the Constitution was written. By such etymology, the scope of which all other English dictionaries lack, the Constitution is well understood in time and context. It is not a matter of random interpretation, as Pro suggests. Of course, use an inferior dictionary, you yield random results. That's the fault of the interpreter, not the composer. Therefore, the text is not "open-ended."
You: "I am treating this debate as if we haven't had any interactions before."
But you ignore that this second debate proposal is a virtual quote from our previous debate. My quote. So, take your claim from your #4, #6, let alone your reference in your round 2 argument and strike them because your claim is not true. You, you, you, and no one but you made the reference to our previous debate before anybody else in this debate. Period.
Drop it.
Are you really going to contend that your debate proposal is NOT cross-thread contamination, being nearly a direct quote from our previous debate??? Motes and beams, my friend. Sticks and stones.
Re: your waive, I think you mean you'll let me show you what I have. No prob.
thanks to both for voting!
My opponent said, to begin round 2: "My first note: Con needs to keep our previous debate out of this." Yes, I brought up our previous debate, still in debate mode https://www.debateart.com/debates/2021/there-should-be-a-limit-to-the-number-of-debates-a-person-can-be-engaged-in-at-a-time
in my round 1.
I will remind my opponent that he is the initiator of this debate, and that his debate proposal, "I can't" isn't necessarily a defeatist attitude," is a virtual direct quote of my round 3, argument I.d in the above referenced debate: "'I can’t' is a defeatist’s attitude," but changed to its negative counterpart.
"...why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Matthew 7: 3
Let the readers take note.
Re: your #1: why do you assume A&E did not eat meat? Because the Bible doesn't say otherwise? It doesn't speak to their final digestive results, either, but I have it on good authority [human anatomy and biological functions] that they did it in the woods.
If a singular argument by sourcing is flawed, it should not be awarded. See my vote
Normally, I would vote on this debate, but I'm afraid my extensive experience in the PRC precludes an objective voting platform on my part. I am too personally aware of the corruption in the Chinese media and its government to believe anything that either institution says. Further, understanding that Con may have no experience other than reading the media and government reports from China, and those outside China in support of China, including WHO, I would be inclined to reject all Con sourcing, and, therefore, arguments. Therefore, I am not voting in this debate. My apologies.
Thanks, much appreciated
Ma gavte la nata
The original text, as written in my round 1 of our debate [regarding who should be the authority to determine the number of simultaneous debates we would be allowed to engage]: "Is that person the superlative debate participant, both in quality of debate and the number of simultaneous debates engaged?"
Is context really so difficult to conceive for the usage of "superlative?" Maybe you're using an inferior dictionary [or a more inferior Google]. My OED offers not just grammar & definition, but complete historic etymology. That's why the unabridged version is fully 20 volumes, and supplied with a magnifying glass because the print is a 6-point font.
Still looking to have someone else define for you, huh? Start with looking up "I can't," since you believe it is a good attitude. It isn't. The issue is not "I can't." It's "I won't."
I will remind my opponent that your opportunity to debate the subject has passed. Your rounds are done, as are mine. Stop debating the point.
thanks for voting
Thanks for voting
Thank you for voting
"I do not understand your judgment." I never said Pro's argument lacked intelligence. I said it exhibited intelligence, in agreement with Con, but I also said the debate was not about relative intelligence, therefore, Con's argument lost the debate.
"In a sense I am not speaking English. I am speaking American." Nope. Take a look in your dictionary; I don't care which it it is if it of your nation's mother tongue. It does not say it is an American Dictionary, does it? The Dictionary I always use is the OED. Yes, a British production, but in it, "bonnet" and "boot" are defined both as Americans understand the sense of these words, as well as the British sense of them. Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in parsing details, we parse then out of rational existence, which is what you tried to do with this debate. Stop it.
Good God, step away from yourself for one minute. Of course, some intelligence went into the debate, BUT THAT IS NOT THE DEBATE!!!!!!
The debate was: it is stupid. As I said [again, for the third time: The debate was not about intelligence. It was not "about" anything. The debate was stupid.
Look, there is a painting by Rene Magritte from the early 20th century. It is a painting of a smoking pipe on a plain background. Beneath the image is a phrase, in French, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." [This is not a pipe]. One will wonder, even when fluent in French, what that means because, clearly, it is a picture of a pipe, and you will argue that it is a pipe. No, it's not a pipe, it's a picture of a pipe. The painting is titled "The Treachery of Images." The image is not the object, just as intelligence was not the nature of the debate.
Like I said, the issue of the debate was NOT relative intelligence. Intelligent people can still do stupid things, yeah? Like accepting a debate that was stupid. Get it?
Yes, I believe I did err in my identification of participants. I will re-cast a vote.
Your statement, "Whether these actions have been justified (morally or legally) is a separate question that will not be pursued here" is completely counterproductive to debating the issue since it is essentially your argument that Trump's motives have not been justified, morally or legally. Isn't that really the turning point of your proposed debate? To declare that it is not relevant, and will not be part of the debate takes the very core issue out of it. Nice surgery, Doctor, but the patient was not declared a surgical candidate in the first place. Remove that declarative statement in total, I'll be more inclined to debate.
Further, effectively opposing a "morally neutral" position, as Trump is accused of taking, will be an interesting justification for arguing that Trump has done more harm than good. Good luck.
Yes, and History.com, too.
I love limitation debates. It's an argument entirely in line with TV's Ancient Aliens, which tries to sell the nonsense that our ancients didn't know anything without the help of visitors of alien origin. No, we're not innovative at all, and never have been. You can laugh now; I am.
My access to the internet failed, and I lost track of the schedule needed to present a third round, resulting in forfeit of that round. Having lost having a last round argument, I will publish my conclusion in a day or so.
What record says Adam and Eve never ate meat in the Garden? There was no mention of meat-eating in the Garden, but then, there was no mention of eating bread, either, until it was mentioned as a duty of sorrow. Nor of drinking water, for that matter. Nothing about bathing in water. The lack of these details does not mean they were not done. You don't see any instruction of urinating, or defecating. Were these not done, either? Be serious; the Bible is not a tell-all story, is it?
Before a debate is accepted, the initiator can edit anything they want. Once accepted, as whiteflame said, it can no longer be edited. I decided to take the debate as is
Does anyone know if Dr. Spy has abandoned the site? Hasn't been here for a month.
Like Whitflame, I'm intrigued with this subject, but I have two conditions:
1. Con [you] cannot use a religious morality [playing God, for example] to argue against the premise, since "society" is the section you've placed the debate.
2. I fail to see the sense of waiving arguments. If you only want 3 rounds of debate, declare 3 rounds. I believe instigator, pro or con, should make the first argument, and the respondent has the last word.
Venberg, I congratulate you on your presentations over the four rounds. Very well done, easy to follow, and well documented by sources. I also appreciate your candor, while remaining positively civil throughout. Regardless of the outcome, it has been a pleasure debating with you, and I look forward to another debate in the near future. Thank you very much for a lively and challenging debate!
Moreover, relative to my post #13, according to U.S. Nav archives, the U.S.S. Eldridge was never near Philadelphia during the alleged "experiment," and ship's log shows no mention of said "experiment," nor its alleged effects., although both issues are part of the movie of that name produced by New World Pictures in 1984. It's a fiction, along with, to date, the evidence of teleportation from anywhere to anywhere.
As Melcharaz suggested, this appears to be a semantics debate, turning not on the word "food," but "consumption."
Round 1: "I will sit by and see you destroying yourself."
Round 2: "I will go on full power even though my opponent didn't say a thing. Expect my opponent's answer. Been it for 2 rounds already."
Taunting. That's why Conduct to Pro, who said nothing of this nature against you.
I'm just going to say this here, and not make it part of my vote verbiage, but I've come to believe a debate posed by using an interrogative is not the best form. I've done it myself, so I'm not throwing stones, other than at me. For example: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1805/are-democrats-tired-of-losing-against-trump
So, avoiding that bad form, I'll vote...
Lest any question my resolve in conducting this debate in taking the contrary view, I remind readers to review my commentary in post #10, accepting this debate. I took the debate knowing I was arguing against my own conviction that Jesus was and is an historic figure. The proof of that is in my heart, where no man can assail and no man deceives. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, as was so eloquently repeated by Peter upon the question from his Master, "Whom say ye that I am?" There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he is the Christ, the Lamb of God.
I have modified the verbiage of the full description, removing the "unconstitutional" reference, exchanging it for violation of House Rules. You are correct, the Con issue will not be successfully engaged by demonstrating the constitutionality of the vacating, however, House Rules are affected by it.
Thanks for voting with the detailed analysis.
Thanks for voting
Thank you. I reviewed the voting policy in detail before casting my vote and felt I was within the guidelines.
Sorry, did not see your reply before close of voting. Did not affect outcome
Ragnar, as noted in my post #9, I erred in actual assignment of points, contrary to my text. Can this be corrected? I don't know how.
Yes, textually, I gave yo the point, but erred in the actual assignment of the point. I don't know how to change that.
Just not pragmatic? Why? Just because it happens to be composed 230 years ago and not 30 years ago, or 3 years ago? Well, my friend, there's a different Constitution composed 2,000 years ago which, as a code of conduct, as a document of rights and privileges, and even as a political platform, let alone a document of proper morality, exceeds theConstitution of the United States, as lofty, and relevant a composed set of words that most mysterious of American documents is. It is called the Sermon on the Mount. That document, if followed and lived by as faithfully as some follow the original intent of the Constitution, wold solve every single social ill we suffer today, and will evert suffer into the distant future ahead, just as written originally. It does not even need amendment.
The SOM even exceeds the universal concepts, which it is, itself, the composition of the 10 commandments some 3,500 years ago. Not pragmatic? You'd best look that one up. Use the OED as I suggest.
I'll just say this: There's a reason why my preferred dictionary, the OED, holds that personal distinction. It is the most complete of any English dictionary in the volume of the words it defines; virtually the entire authorized lexicon. Moreover, it is fully 20 volumes in print because it includes an exhaustive etymology of words defined going back to each word's first historic use. That is invaluable for understanding 18th century syntax, when the Constitution was written. By such etymology, the scope of which all other English dictionaries lack, the Constitution is well understood in time and context. It is not a matter of random interpretation, as Pro suggests. Of course, use an inferior dictionary, you yield random results. That's the fault of the interpreter, not the composer. Therefore, the text is not "open-ended."
Bitte.
Are you getting tired of winning, yet? Nope, keep it up
Congratulations, again!
Congratulations on your win, my friend. Well argued on your part, even if your opponent forfeited against superior argument.
References for round 1"
1 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed37.asp
2 http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html
3 http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html
4 http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/midcol.htm
5 http://candst.tripod.com/jaspltrs.htm
6 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468
7 ibid
Thanks for voting