Before this debate begins, having heard official commentary by Ragnar, and making a final preliminary comment, the name is fauxlaw [lowercase], Con, or opponent. All others, such as "punk," cross the conduct line by a polite request. Fair warning.
Pro’s rule #7 stipulates: “Fauxlaw cannot participate.” Should Pro attempt my removal by Mod, let me assure: I am not that member. That member does not exist. I depend on exact representation. My membership profile clearly indicates I am “fauxlaw," and I therefore claim admissibility. Pro knows I am sticky with details. They're important, and ought to be recognized.
How does Con avoid having nothing but kritiks? On the other hand, how does Pro avoid having nothing but kritiks, particularly Pro's exception, which is superlative kritik?
I look forward to this one dying unaccepted; best for all.
Look, my friend. Stop airing your dirty laundry in public. It is an influence on voters, as Ragnar said in his #21. STOP IT. Use PM. I will note for you, since it is already noted in my R1 and R4, that you:
1. Had ample opportunity [10 days] to change your resolution, before I accepted the debate. You chose to leave it as is.
2. My R4, referring to my R1, paragraph I, including all sub-paragraphs I.a thru I.d, that you had ample time to defend your Resolution, and chose to ignore it. R1 was not my last round. My R4 merely repeats. Learn the distinction between argument and rebuttal. I've explained it in R4, as well.
I'm pleased you accepted the debate. I will enjoy this one and enjoy debating you in particular. To be honest, I prepared my challenge without preparing at least a first round in advance. Don't know why; I usually do. So, I will not post R1 for a couple of days while I collect my thoughts. Sorry, but it will be posted well before the deadline. Good luck.
Y'all are starting to engage a preliminary glimpse of what the nature of my argument will be, and, that, dear friends, is for the debate. This format, as opposed to the Forum, is not the free exchange of ideas, but is structured, and, by necessity, restricted to the eventual participants, at which point, only my opponent will have the necessity of discourse. Sorry to be so blunt, but a bit of a leap of faith on the potential nature of my debate is all you get, and that has been revealed by the Description and the Resolution. The rest is for debate, should anyone take it up.
I am referring to the whole. Our body of knowledge is much less than the potential, which is what I argue is "endless." In a sense, I argue that claiming God is omniscient may be a fallacy, which is specifically why I did not make this a religious debate, but one of philosophy. Do we ever reach a boundary of knowledge beyond which there is nothing? I say: No.
Categorically disinterested in entertaining still another identical debate I've already engaged twice as a debater and at least once as a voter. Not interested in another, because:
1. It's been debated to death
2. I simply do not engage debates that have waived rounds. The initiator of a debate needs to have the top frame of the first round, and every round thereafter. The policy states there shall be argument in every round [including rebuttal, and defense], so waiving, to me, is contrary to that policy. If Initiator doesn't have the courage to present argument first. I don't believe the debate should done.
3. In no debate I've had, or seen on this site has the Pro position [that there is systemic racism in America] been able to demonstrate by citation of any current legal statute, federal, state, or local, or government or private industry policy that dictates the acceptance of racial animus. If Pro wants to argue that it once was so, there's plenty to demonstrate, but the resolution is always given in present tense, meaning current conditions, not historic.
4. If the initiator cannot define terms, I refuse to do it for the Initiator.
5. 3,000 characters is too few to engage a subject this complex.
The rule, “no new argument in the last round” is a different statement than “no argument in the last round,” whether one includes rebuttal, or not. I’ll get to rebuttal later. Suppose our debate is: “Resolved: sod is not a better way to have a lawn in a new area of yard than planting seeds.” If you are instigator and Pro, I, as Con, having the last frame of the round, should not present a new argument: planting sod will provide instant lawn. That gives you no opportunity to reply by rebuttal. But if I have offered that argument in an earlier round, I am open to defending the argument in my last frame, such as by saying, “In five years, what’s the difference? You have the desired lawn.” having already given you opportunity to rebut it.
To answer your question, I agree with no new argument, as the rule you defined in Description actually says. I have no problem repeating an argument made in a previous round in the last round, but it should not have new evidence provided for it. I consider that defense, rather than calling it argument.
Relative to rebuttal, rebuttal is not really argument. Rebuttal attacks an opponent’s argument from a perspective of relevance, assumption, and impact of an opponent’s argument, even if that rebuttal is given in the final frame of the last round. You are making a case against the opponent, not bolstering your own case.
Therefore, for clarification, when I forbid new argument in the last round, I also stipulate that rebuttal, defense, and conclusion are allowed in the last round for both parties.
Notice: somehow, I managed to omit the referenced source for the definition of. "[The burden of the proof] lies upon him who affirms not he who denies" that is in my R1, I.c paragraph. The source is. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/ei-incumbit-probatio-qui-dicit-non-qui-negat/
Thanks for voting. Would you like to vote on https://www.debateart.com/debates/3019-the-biblical-god-acts-fairly please? There are 3 days left, and it is at risk of going out as another no-vote tie. I've had quite enough of those
Being offended is everyone's right [or, choosing not to be offended]. Why one is offended is on them, entirely. Censorship is not the answer to being offended.
"Apollo 11 moon landings?"Plural landings? How many times did Apollo 11 land on the moon?
I should accept the debate and argue on that point, alone, because, for certain, while one landing was not a fake, additional landings of Apollo 11 certainly were. But, that would ridicule the debate.
My vote contained an error of identification. I said, "The killer for Pro was accusing Con the lack of sourcing; something Con failed to do himself." The error was at the last phrase, which should have said "...Pro failed to do himself." Sorry for the confusion. Does not change the vote result.
"Please keep with the spirit of this debate and do not try to win by any loopholes or underhanded means." I agree with Sum1hugme; a laugher, particularly after Puachu makes the claim, "...and you must concede this [pigs fly] in your first round or automatically forfeit the entire debate." Cheeky. I offer the following non-syllogism:
P1 Birds fly
P2 Camels walk
C: Therefore, butterflies swim.
Notice: I would have left this until my frame of R4, but I don't want to mislead anyone, particularly my opponent. In my R3, I made an error of identification in argument X.a.3, which said, "...and Con has said it within his own definition of similarity..." I meant to say that Pro said this.
Yeah, this should be a good debate. However, I totally disagree with both definitions of 'state,' and not only because of my well-known disgust with Wiki. While you do acknowledge that no definition is undisputed, I do not see a state as necessarily an enforcer, nor as a nebulous sovereignty of land, either.
Defined in my R4, a personal acronym meaning "without evidence cited, but merely by opinion"
You know how big I am on citation of evidence, aka sourcing.
In the case of this debate, since it has now finished the argument phase, I'll admit, as I do in R5, that some misdirection occurred, relative to sourcing, but I clarified in R4 by delay of one source, my final source, until R4, and then defended in R5, because R4 was a net, and R5 yielded a catch. Yeah, vague on purpose. Got to read the arguments. I'll agree, they grew more characters than necessary, because somebody decided to make the Resolution a block party instead of quite dinner for one; the one named in the Resolution.
After reviewing these arguments, and much as I would like to vote on the proceedings, I find that I am, after all, too biased to offer a fair vote. The reason: meta-analysis. For the uninitiated, meta-analysis is simply the combination of several different studies on the same topic and applying so-called statistical analysis to the collected sets of data into one, super-analytical report. While to the ordinary, typical person, this may make sense, in actuality, the way statistical science operates, the more individual studies's data are combined, there is an inverse of accuracy resulting in the meta-analysis: as the number of studies combined increases, the statistical accuracy decreases. It's the nature of the beast, and no one can alter the fact that such combinations are disastrous in proving a super-resulting "statistic." In summary, it is not statistical at all; it's merely playing with numbers. Worse that the play is driven by an agenda, which is anathema to any statistical effort. Since I know too much about that phenomenon, I cannot be an unbiased voter because my own knowledge on the subject, which is an unfair problem brought to the voting protocol, because it brings in outside content to the vote, would bias my analysis of the arguments. Meta-analysis is simply the wrong data set to present.
There is a debate in voting https://www.debateart.com/debates/3049-drunk-driving-should-be-legal between Pro and myself on the identical topic which was launched on 5/10. So far, a no-vote tie, but there's still 20+ days left to vote. Consider this a bump.
You have no idea what influences voters. Comments shouldn't, but that does not mean they don't. Best to stay clear of the possibility. After all, it's a debate in which I am a participant. Go corrupt your own.
Do you mean the military and police are the most important agencies run BY the government, as opposed to some other agencies, such as EPA? I choose that one at random just as an example, and one which I find effectively too political in its current guise to be legitimate.
selective adherence to grammar rules negates argument. "ur" is not grammatical, either, so, the matter may be stuffed. move on.
Before this debate begins, having heard official commentary by Ragnar, and making a final preliminary comment, the name is fauxlaw [lowercase], Con, or opponent. All others, such as "punk," cross the conduct line by a polite request. Fair warning.
Pro’s rule #7 stipulates: “Fauxlaw cannot participate.” Should Pro attempt my removal by Mod, let me assure: I am not that member. That member does not exist. I depend on exact representation. My membership profile clearly indicates I am “fauxlaw," and I therefore claim admissibility. Pro knows I am sticky with details. They're important, and ought to be recognized.
How does Con avoid having nothing but kritiks? On the other hand, how does Pro avoid having nothing but kritiks, particularly Pro's exception, which is superlative kritik?
I look forward to this one dying unaccepted; best for all.
thank you for your vote
I refer you to your definition of "likely"
Look, my friend. Stop airing your dirty laundry in public. It is an influence on voters, as Ragnar said in his #21. STOP IT. Use PM. I will note for you, since it is already noted in my R1 and R4, that you:
1. Had ample opportunity [10 days] to change your resolution, before I accepted the debate. You chose to leave it as is.
2. My R4, referring to my R1, paragraph I, including all sub-paragraphs I.a thru I.d, that you had ample time to defend your Resolution, and chose to ignore it. R1 was not my last round. My R4 merely repeats. Learn the distinction between argument and rebuttal. I've explained it in R4, as well.
I'm pleased you accepted the debate. I will enjoy this one and enjoy debating you in particular. To be honest, I prepared my challenge without preparing at least a first round in advance. Don't know why; I usually do. So, I will not post R1 for a couple of days while I collect my thoughts. Sorry, but it will be posted well before the deadline. Good luck.
I will read and vote on this debate
asked and answered
And I think your offering suggestions of interpretation of argument to a potential voter ought not be done during debate, either.
I think you ought to stop offering suggestions to anyone in current debate.
Y'all are starting to engage a preliminary glimpse of what the nature of my argument will be, and, that, dear friends, is for the debate. This format, as opposed to the Forum, is not the free exchange of ideas, but is structured, and, by necessity, restricted to the eventual participants, at which point, only my opponent will have the necessity of discourse. Sorry to be so blunt, but a bit of a leap of faith on the potential nature of my debate is all you get, and that has been revealed by the Description and the Resolution. The rest is for debate, should anyone take it up.
I am referring to the whole. Our body of knowledge is much less than the potential, which is what I argue is "endless." In a sense, I argue that claiming God is omniscient may be a fallacy, which is specifically why I did not make this a religious debate, but one of philosophy. Do we ever reach a boundary of knowledge beyond which there is nothing? I say: No.
I prefer to not comment during debate. Read again. Stop skimming. You have less than VII days. And, I have another round of rebuttal remaining, yeah?
Categorically disinterested in entertaining still another identical debate I've already engaged twice as a debater and at least once as a voter. Not interested in another, because:
1. It's been debated to death
2. I simply do not engage debates that have waived rounds. The initiator of a debate needs to have the top frame of the first round, and every round thereafter. The policy states there shall be argument in every round [including rebuttal, and defense], so waiving, to me, is contrary to that policy. If Initiator doesn't have the courage to present argument first. I don't believe the debate should done.
3. In no debate I've had, or seen on this site has the Pro position [that there is systemic racism in America] been able to demonstrate by citation of any current legal statute, federal, state, or local, or government or private industry policy that dictates the acceptance of racial animus. If Pro wants to argue that it once was so, there's plenty to demonstrate, but the resolution is always given in present tense, meaning current conditions, not historic.
4. If the initiator cannot define terms, I refuse to do it for the Initiator.
5. 3,000 characters is too few to engage a subject this complex.
Good Luck, again. I'll try to not screw up so bad this time.
The rule, “no new argument in the last round” is a different statement than “no argument in the last round,” whether one includes rebuttal, or not. I’ll get to rebuttal later. Suppose our debate is: “Resolved: sod is not a better way to have a lawn in a new area of yard than planting seeds.” If you are instigator and Pro, I, as Con, having the last frame of the round, should not present a new argument: planting sod will provide instant lawn. That gives you no opportunity to reply by rebuttal. But if I have offered that argument in an earlier round, I am open to defending the argument in my last frame, such as by saying, “In five years, what’s the difference? You have the desired lawn.” having already given you opportunity to rebut it.
To answer your question, I agree with no new argument, as the rule you defined in Description actually says. I have no problem repeating an argument made in a previous round in the last round, but it should not have new evidence provided for it. I consider that defense, rather than calling it argument.
Relative to rebuttal, rebuttal is not really argument. Rebuttal attacks an opponent’s argument from a perspective of relevance, assumption, and impact of an opponent’s argument, even if that rebuttal is given in the final frame of the last round. You are making a case against the opponent, not bolstering your own case.
Therefore, for clarification, when I forbid new argument in the last round, I also stipulate that rebuttal, defense, and conclusion are allowed in the last round for both parties.
Congratulations for winning the debate. Well done.
I'll not comment either way - inappropriate, but I know Benjamin would agree, we hope you and others find a means to vote.
Notice: somehow, I managed to omit the referenced source for the definition of. "[The burden of the proof] lies upon him who affirms not he who denies" that is in my R1, I.c paragraph. The source is. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/ei-incumbit-probatio-qui-dicit-non-qui-negat/
Thanks for voting. Would you like to vote on https://www.debateart.com/debates/3019-the-biblical-god-acts-fairly please? There are 3 days left, and it is at risk of going out as another no-vote tie. I've had quite enough of those
Thanks for voting
I would like to know how one quotes what has not yet been said.
Breathe, cowboy. If all you're about is spreading a message, you're in the wrong gig. Go to Forum.
Being offended is everyone's right [or, choosing not to be offended]. Why one is offended is on them, entirely. Censorship is not the answer to being offended.
As a potential voter, it would be inappropriate to add comment at this time.
"Apollo 11 moon landings?"Plural landings? How many times did Apollo 11 land on the moon?
I should accept the debate and argue on that point, alone, because, for certain, while one landing was not a fake, additional landings of Apollo 11 certainly were. But, that would ridicule the debate.
My vote contained an error of identification. I said, "The killer for Pro was accusing Con the lack of sourcing; something Con failed to do himself." The error was at the last phrase, which should have said "...Pro failed to do himself." Sorry for the confusion. Does not change the vote result.
I will vote soon
Thank you for voting
Thanks for voting
Thank you for voting
"Please keep with the spirit of this debate and do not try to win by any loopholes or underhanded means." I agree with Sum1hugme; a laugher, particularly after Puachu makes the claim, "...and you must concede this [pigs fly] in your first round or automatically forfeit the entire debate." Cheeky. I offer the following non-syllogism:
P1 Birds fly
P2 Camels walk
C: Therefore, butterflies swim.
Notice: I would have left this until my frame of R4, but I don't want to mislead anyone, particularly my opponent. In my R3, I made an error of identification in argument X.a.3, which said, "...and Con has said it within his own definition of similarity..." I meant to say that Pro said this.
Yeah, this should be a good debate. However, I totally disagree with both definitions of 'state,' and not only because of my well-known disgust with Wiki. While you do acknowledge that no definition is undisputed, I do not see a state as necessarily an enforcer, nor as a nebulous sovereignty of land, either.
this is not the place for this discussion. Either delay until after voters have voted, or forget it. Too much said already
Defined in my R4, a personal acronym meaning "without evidence cited, but merely by opinion"
You know how big I am on citation of evidence, aka sourcing.
In the case of this debate, since it has now finished the argument phase, I'll admit, as I do in R5, that some misdirection occurred, relative to sourcing, but I clarified in R4 by delay of one source, my final source, until R4, and then defended in R5, because R4 was a net, and R5 yielded a catch. Yeah, vague on purpose. Got to read the arguments. I'll agree, they grew more characters than necessary, because somebody decided to make the Resolution a block party instead of quite dinner for one; the one named in the Resolution.
Thank you
After reviewing these arguments, and much as I would like to vote on the proceedings, I find that I am, after all, too biased to offer a fair vote. The reason: meta-analysis. For the uninitiated, meta-analysis is simply the combination of several different studies on the same topic and applying so-called statistical analysis to the collected sets of data into one, super-analytical report. While to the ordinary, typical person, this may make sense, in actuality, the way statistical science operates, the more individual studies's data are combined, there is an inverse of accuracy resulting in the meta-analysis: as the number of studies combined increases, the statistical accuracy decreases. It's the nature of the beast, and no one can alter the fact that such combinations are disastrous in proving a super-resulting "statistic." In summary, it is not statistical at all; it's merely playing with numbers. Worse that the play is driven by an agenda, which is anathema to any statistical effort. Since I know too much about that phenomenon, I cannot be an unbiased voter because my own knowledge on the subject, which is an unfair problem brought to the voting protocol, because it brings in outside content to the vote, would bias my analysis of the arguments. Meta-analysis is simply the wrong data set to present.
No prob. It is just for that reason that I prefer a week [some want longer] just to allow for contingencies.
There is a debate in voting https://www.debateart.com/debates/3049-drunk-driving-should-be-legal between Pro and myself on the identical topic which was launched on 5/10. So far, a no-vote tie, but there's still 20+ days left to vote. Consider this a bump.
I will accept this debate on condition that the time for argument is extended to one week, and the voting period reduced to 2 months.
Thank you for voting
You have no idea what influences voters. Comments shouldn't, but that does not mean they don't. Best to stay clear of the possibility. After all, it's a debate in which I am a participant. Go corrupt your own.
Your conversation prior to end of voting is not appropriate in this venue because of its potential to influence voters. Keep it in PM.
I'm taking the chance that I understand gugigor's premise. Looking forward to a good debate.
Thank you. It was a good debate. Well done.
Do you mean the military and police are the most important agencies run BY the government, as opposed to some other agencies, such as EPA? I choose that one at random just as an example, and one which I find effectively too political in its current guise to be legitimate.
Here are my sources for R3:
1 https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=understanding-alcohols-effects-1-2860
2 https://reason.com/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws-2/
3 https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
4 https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-releases-2016-fatal-traffic-crash-data
5 https://www.sallerlaw.com/20-facts-to-understand-a-dui-arrest/
5 https://driversed.com/trending/driving-under-influence-do-strict-dui-laws-really-work
7 https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fmotorvehiclesafety%2Fimpaired_driving%2Fimpaired-drv_factsheet.html
8 https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
9 https://www.responsibility.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/FAAR_3974_State-of-Drunk-Driving-Fatalities_Shareable_JPGS-V2-Pg10.jpg
10 https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/alcohol/crimes/dui/