i disagree with leaving definitions to the argument phase. Initiator-limitation of waiting for definitions until argument phase leaves an impression that the initiator is holding cards too close to the vest. No. Either definitions are revealed in the Description, or don't bother with them. We have opportunity to contest given definitions in Comments before accepting debates. I learned in my very first debate that even with definitions offered in Description, an opponent may still challenge them, using the challenge as a debate tactic to overwhelm the other side. Better to put definitions out there and obtain agreement prior to argument phase.
That said, I, too, am troubled by the Topic/resolution. I'm left thinking, of course a human fetus is human; it smacks of a truism, and I don't think that's what you mean. As Ragnar said, the distinction between human and person [even though we can equate the two, but not cleanly] muddles the topic. Worse that I think that is exactly your resolution, that a fetus is a person. If that is what is meant, say it. Or, stick with what is said, and be prepared for a barage of argument from Con, who ever it is. Not going to be me.
To clarify my own understanding, your Pro position [BoP] is that the concept of God compares to unknown information, and Con's position [BoP] is that the concept of God compares to known information? If I have the dichotomy of the positions correctly understood, am I correct in the assumption that while Con may present holy writ of whatever source as evidence, you may not consider it as valid sourcing compared to, say, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and it's up to voters to determine which argument/sources are more valid? https://plato.stanford.edu/
Completely understandable given your current debate on a similar subject. Good luck to you on that one. As this one may be complete through voting before yours ends, I may be able to vote on it.
I would really like to vote on this debate, but I am in such broad disagreement with David's argument here, particularly in view of my previous commentary #4, and that this is a clear full forfeiture for which others have already voted sufficiently to assure David the victory on that basis, alone. My vote would merely add to my stats without real benefit to David. Sorry, David, but I'm sure you understand my position. I would have really enjoyed having the debate myself. If you want to revisit it, I'd be glad to engage, even though I've offered up one argument, already. I'd really be interested in. your rebuttal. Interested at some point in the future?
Re" your #4, I'll take that under advisement because I really am passionate about the subject [can't you tell?] and would appreciate a robust debate from a contrary opponent. I get your hesitation, because it is, almost, a truism, but, there is certainly plenty of argument in favor of the abolishment, and, after all, it's not like an amendment to change the convention is impossible to make happen. So far, the efforts have been clumsy. Besides, the potential of an amendment takes it out of a truistic sense, I believe.
Thank you for your four full rounds of debate. I will be entering my 4th round soon, working on it now, with a first draft complete. I appreciate your attention to this debate with serious arguments offering good challenges. Well done.
Either of you; if you disagree with the vote, don't complain to me; I can do nothing to a submitted vote; I would not do it anyway simply by your complaint, even if I could. Go to a Mod. You do so by reference to the debate [copy/paste its URL] and PM a Mod with your complaint, requesting my vote be removed. The Mod will review and render judgment.
Your R3: "My opponent has forfeited, leaving my argument unrebutted." Con rebutted your argument in his R1, and R2, demonstrating your own wandering argument, as I said in my RFD. And, as I said, the Voting policy allows a single forfeit, yet you declared a forfeit [I took that as a declaration of victory] ignoring that Con had an additional round left to enter. I call that a premature call of victory, because Con did have a remaining round to offer rebuttal.. So what if he forfeited R3?
Con notes in his R1: "Pro notes that he and many people think budgies are *beautiful*, not merely cute. He has not proven that Budgies have traits that are common to youthful or childish animals." MY RFD advised the bad choice to add adjectives to your original elements of "childish, youthful, and delicate," particularly when, in R2, as my RFD recognized, you argued that, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute." You tanked your own argument.
Yes, and you even noted that the debate should attract atheists, which I took to mean as debate opponents, but that probably might have extended to voters, as well. I'll try to make comment further after the vote is finished.
I would normally be very interested in voting on this debate, but I am too close to the subject, and have too many personal thoughts on it that I'm afraid they would sway a fair, unbiased vote, so I think I'll pass on this one. Besides, I am currently involved in a debate with Benjamin that is much the same subject that would further influence my vote, I'm afraid. Sorry, guys. I'm sure this will attract sufficient voters to compensate. Good luck to both.
Thank you. I should advise that, during a debate, I tend to avoid comments so that voters are not influenced by any commentary outside of the debate, itself. Strictly a personal rule b y which I mean no offense. The only exception I try to make is if I need to add my sourcing outside of the debate to conserve all characters/spaces needed within the debate, for the debate, which is allowed by DArt policy.
1. Of course you think your argument was more convincing, but your argument chiefly attacked military weaponry, and, as Pro pointed out, there's more to militarization of police than just weapons. You raised the training time issue, noting the increased hours of training of military personnel over the police, but manage to avoid the fact that all military training is not on weapons; your chief complaint in this matter.
2. The number of your arguments vs. your opponent is not a valid argument since, A, there was just one round of argument, even by you, B. The number of arguments, as with sources, is not the critical analysis.
3. Your argument had a rebuttal because Con offered the first argument and had nothing to rebut in R1, whereas, you did. But rebuttal fits under the generic description of "argument," as does defense; it is not a separate judgment matter that, in an effectively 1-round debate, has value.
4. Look, you won the debate, by what point value is not the issue and is not a rating factor, so, what's the beef? I didn't have to say anything other than a default win by full forfeiture. Dude.
Actually, I have one. The PhD, that is, in English Lit. And in that process of education, I took a couple of classes examining the Bible strictly as a piece of literature; a different perspective. Sorry, can't help what I bring to the table.
Just wanted to break with tradition [by making comment during a debate] to tell you that this one is very enjoyable. You're making some challenging points [of course, I disagree, but I remember that you are playing devil's advocate]. Hope you're having fun, too.
Thanks fore voting. Yeah, the history bit was a questionable feature, but, I had 3 rounds to fill in what could have been a 2-round debate, and, you know me; I'm going to fill them. Being challenged to a 500 word debate per round would, indeed, be a challenge. I simply don't take them, but it should be a good exercise. Someday. Anyway, good analysis. Thanks.
Oh, boy. "Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld that the discrimination cases under the Fair Housing Act do not need to show explicit discrimination..." This is the first line of your citation POL.H4 in your other debate. Problem is, in the quote, "upheld that" is a link to the SCOTUS case, only, the link fails. Did you try it to cite it? Come on, I want to see that case. Yeah, I can go look for it, but why should I have to do it? Your link needs to work. Period. See, I'm trying to review your other debate, as asked, but, you're making it difficult.
Bell [2005] is, by self-admission [with spelling error, to boot: “analyses???”] a theory camped on a theory. “In this theoretical analysis… we demonstrate that racial formation theory…” Yeah, real evidentiary, isn’t it? So, where’s the “evidence” in this citation of an Abstract? I have no access to the article. A failed reference. [POL1] merely takes me back to Bell, with its limitations. [POL.H2] references the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which is neither a federal or state official agency in the construct of legislation or policy beyond the duties of individual mayors limited to their local jurisdictions. Further, the paper cited cites no legislation or policy directly to demonstrate the allegations made, and the references the paper does make uses data that is ¼ century old. I’ve asked for CURRENT evidence.
“An expert delivers more detail…” What “expert” and what “detail?” I have not passed through 3 paragraphs of your argument, and I’m already missing your “There are housing, immigration and voting laws taken standard to prove systemic racism. I failed to mention these against you due to lack of research, but I know better know.” Your “research” still fails. Show my the money, man, or I’m done.
Yet, you still fail to cite. What "newest policy debate?" There are several as you seem married to this topic and cannot let it go, but
I am not going to wade through them all.
Your #6 has tied you in a knot. Fruit_Inspector concluded [rightly, I contend] that you must prove the existence of systemic racism, and you begin acknowledging the truth of that, then backtrack in the same post to contend that it does exist, ex post facto. Which is it? Starting with a contradiction will not win the debate. Remember, I'm a potential voter. If your debate contains the same confusion... well, let's just say it will be obvious. As I challenged in our debate on the very subject of its existence, show me the evidence of "systemic" by citation of a current law or gov't dept policy that exhibits racism of any kind, Critical Race Theory, or otherwise. For all its claims, CRT has yet to demonstrate one example of CURRENT law or policy that stipulates, in writing, CRT claims. If you are to prove systemic racism, that remains your objective. Jim Crow, as a legal or policy standard, at this point in history, has but one link: the uncredited name of a crow in Disney's "Dumbo."
Wiggle doesn't giggle by "LOL."
Yeah, if anyone bothers to vote. Since I lead the pack, at least in the top ten, in no-vote ties [4 of my 10 - and I wish like hell the last update to voting policy took care of that], I'm not just a little concerned.
Had I not already completed a debate with Undefeatable on this very subject, I would take it up, but everything I have to say on the subject was said then. Besides, there have been other debates on this issue by other members, and they have seldom drawn much interest by voters. I conclude it is not now a hot button, if it ever really was. Personally, I suggest we give the Left a break and ignore this red herring excuse for social unrest. It is a sufficiently whipped talking point and I wish BLM would just SYF, and the 1619 project would join 2021.
Your vote was a great analysis. I was planning to vote on this one, but became frustrated by arguments from both sides that seemed to wander on me. I appreciate you thoughtful and concise piercing of that frustration. Well done.
It is argued that Matt 24: 34 is a difficult verse to interpret. Yes, it is when one attempts to do so by cherry-picking the verse on its own. But the set up begins verses earlier, specifically at verse 3, when the entire discussion begins at the Mount of Olives, and many signs are given of the [second] coming of the Lord. We still await some of those signs, such as the sun darkening in concert with the moon turning red. Typically, a red moon is caused by a lunar eclipse, the result of being in Earth's shadow, but that is not the only cause of a red moon. It can also turn red when Earth's atmosphere's air molecules scatter blue light more than usual. If that occurs in conjunction with a darkening sun [it can], then we have the sign foretold. Hasn't happened, yet. Other signs are given, that haven't happened, yet, either. It is THIS [that is, that still future generation] the "difficult" verse speaks of, not the generation of the first century C.E.
All the effort of defining the Greek term γενεά (genea), was a red herring argument. As usual, cherry picking solves very little and is the primary reason that some say verse 34 is difficult to interpret. Words mean things, yes, but context, such as including the previous 31 verses to capture the whole story, is just as important, if not more so.
For future reference, as a voter, I am to consider content only with the text of the debate rounds, along with cited sources, but Comments are outside of consideration; therefore, I ignored your definitions, even though Con agreed to their location. His say so does not agree with Voting Policy, which disallows voting on the basis of outside comment. Neither opponents definitions were convincing, in any event.
My vote: cont'd from #13
Sources: Sourcing by both opponents fail to convince any more than their arguments. Tie.
Legibility: My vote in this regard goes to both the Resolution/Description by Con [initiator] and in argument round by Pro. Con uses an acronym without defining it, assuming it is a commonly known term: YEC. What is that, an expression of disgust? I am a life-long Christian, but have never encountered the acronym. A simple definition of the acronym, to dissuade assumptions, would have been simple and prevent time taken away to find out for myself. Any debater ought to preclude this dissatisfaction simply by assuming the audience wants definition. Provide it. Pro makes the same mistake in R1 by the use of BB. Again, not familiar with the acronym. BB king? BB, the stock market acronym for BlackBerry? The projectile fired from a small gun? Any debater ought to… and finish as above. DEFINE YOUR TERMS. Acronyms, in particular. I have to consult Google to find the acronym, but Google failed to provide a definition in context with the debate. Actually, by a re-read, I find the it was Con who first provided the answer: big bang, but Con spelled it out, did not use an acronym. Google, itself, never gave me big bang. Tie, but holding my nose.
Conduct: Both opponents treat one another with sufficient respect. Tie.
Notes: I would have really liked to offer a winner, but both failed to convince with sufficient dedication to the Resolution, allowing themselves to be sidetracked by an absurd flat-earth extended discussion. As I said, shape of Earth is of no consequence to the Resolution. Would that it had led the way and the day. In this debate, I declare the Resolution as ignored, and the clear loser. Definitions were another loser, as noted on arguments. Both opponents should give them better deference. Pity.
My vote:
Argument: Con began R1 with a series of definitions; a long series. Once the argument began in earnest, I was still in a quandary when I was going to encounter the crux of the debate: is YEC a reasonable position? I wade through 1,400 words of definition and a scattered expose on scientific/philosophical jargon before encountering something that appears to have relevance to the Resolution, when, finally, the acronym YEC makes sense. I realize it is Young Earth Creation. And I find I must put away my bias because my own thinking on the matter definitively sides with Con. I can do that. I want to be convinced by either opponent based on their arguments, alone. But “Creation” is the 1,411th word in the Con R1 argument; it’s first mention when it is of ultimate necessity to the Resolution. Honestly, I am wondering why I have waited so long to encounter this critical word.
Conversely, Pro begins the R1 rebuttal that this debate is not about science, which Con goes to great lengths, at a frank disadvantage to himself, to effectively come to the same conclusion, but there is so much science offered by Con that Pro is inclined to feel it necessary to oppose. Con offer3es a simple rebuttal to science, that Christians should believe "…exactly as described IN the Bible." A good rebuttal to all the science discussed by Con. However, Con’s BoP is that science is the best explanation for Creation as not being YEC. But a period of activity over eons of time. Pro offers three propositions, all of which are supported by scripture, but none of the propositions convince that Pro has proven YEC. They do demonstrate God as the creator, but that is not relevant to the Resolution. Pro’s R1 could have had a convincing argument for YEC with his summary of a book by R. Raymond, with a discussion of “day,” [“yom” in Hebrew] and that this Hebrew word can signify a single day, or multiple days, and even points out the number of times “yom” appears biblically, and separates the usage as singular or plural, but then throws the argument a curve by saying that even in the 27% of the references of plural meaning, they also signify a single day. Yet, Pro never quotes Raymond directly, so we are left wondering just what is the point the author is making because Pro will not let us see his point. The argument fails on that missing quotation.
Con’s R2 begins by allowing that Pro has accepted all definitions. So, why must I have a regurgitation of them? In fact, having provided sufficient explanation of science in his R1, Con complains that Pro barely mentions “science,” [it is not Pro’s BoP to do so, by the way], but then cites several rebuttals from Pro’s R1, disputing that Pro does not mention it. Con declares that “Pro undermines our knowledge of the past,” while Pro has alleged that our past is described at length biblically. Con’s R2 argues the Pro has failed to provide an account of evolution, or that new stars are observed being “born,” ignoring that mention of these should be made to prove Pro’s BoP. Again, these are factors for Con to prove.
Pro’s R2 begins with questions for Pro, which neither offer argument for Pro, nor supports those arguments by sourcing. Questions are, indeed, challenges, but to what purpose? Pro also challenged a question in R1 with the same opinion on my part that questions are not arguments. Pro should just make argument, and support it to my convincing. I am not convinced of an argument by challenging questions. Pro then complains that Con assumed Pro’s acceptance of Con’s definitions, ands since Pro said naught about not accepting them in R1, and offering rebuttal to them, specifically, I am not now convinced of Pro’s sincerity by his denial only in R2, by which Pro concludes R2: denial of definitions.
R3 entertains a discussion entirely off-track hat actually began in Con’s R2, and spills into R3 as a knock-down/drag-out: flat earth. Neither opponent does their BoP credit by this off-debate subject, and I fear both have lost track of the Resolution, because, sphere or flat, Earth’s creation by YEC, or not, has completely fled the field.
R4, R5, ditto, and I’m done. Result: Neither side has convinced me of their argument. Tie.
In my R2, I erroneously referred to Jack Pierce as David Pierce. An error. My apologies. There are three David Pierces with whom I am more familiar than Jack, an actor, a songwriter, and a former CEO of Atari, Inc.
I do look forward to a lively, but friendly debate. Good luck to you, too. Though you do not imply, other than by the Resolution, that our scriptural sources are to be biblical, even though there are other religion's holy writ, I commit to avoiding other scriptural references.
Good argument in your round 2 regarding the potential of parents to corrupt their children, and their being spared of that consequence, even by their death at God’s hand due to the wickedness of the adults. Since death is not a permanent condition, it is merely the last enemy that will be defeated.
As I replied to your pm two days ago (4/25), no. Your choices, as instigator, are continue, concede, or forfeit. The time to make concessions is. Before the debate is accepted. I do not agree to do-overs. That is child’s play
This debate has a useless voting potential since both participants fully forfeited, and should, in my opinion, conclude as a no-vote tie. Never thought I'd see one as I am personally opposed to that debate result, but, here is the unique exception. Instigator should not have the advantage merely by offering the debate with a description. In fact, perhaps by making the challenge, and then not meeting it, it is a potential instigator loss, but I cannot award a win to a full forfeit by either side. This could have been an easy win for one side, but...
Just to advise of personal preference, since this is not a vote, and cannot by critiqued as one, parents should let their children choose their own path in life, whether or not a career is part of that choice. Guide them, certainly, but let them live their own lives. The parents, presumably, have already lived theirs. That should suffice. If they have not, their children should not be the victims of poor parental choices.
I'll note, coincidentally, that as we begin this debate, you and I are virtually tied in debate rating. I'll admit it was one reason I chose to engage it. Just to add some friendly competition. Good luck, my friend. It is truly a great subject. As you say, deviation.
i disagree with leaving definitions to the argument phase. Initiator-limitation of waiting for definitions until argument phase leaves an impression that the initiator is holding cards too close to the vest. No. Either definitions are revealed in the Description, or don't bother with them. We have opportunity to contest given definitions in Comments before accepting debates. I learned in my very first debate that even with definitions offered in Description, an opponent may still challenge them, using the challenge as a debate tactic to overwhelm the other side. Better to put definitions out there and obtain agreement prior to argument phase.
That said, I, too, am troubled by the Topic/resolution. I'm left thinking, of course a human fetus is human; it smacks of a truism, and I don't think that's what you mean. As Ragnar said, the distinction between human and person [even though we can equate the two, but not cleanly] muddles the topic. Worse that I think that is exactly your resolution, that a fetus is a person. If that is what is meant, say it. Or, stick with what is said, and be prepared for a barage of argument from Con, who ever it is. Not going to be me.
To clarify my own understanding, your Pro position [BoP] is that the concept of God compares to unknown information, and Con's position [BoP] is that the concept of God compares to known information? If I have the dichotomy of the positions correctly understood, am I correct in the assumption that while Con may present holy writ of whatever source as evidence, you may not consider it as valid sourcing compared to, say, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and it's up to voters to determine which argument/sources are more valid? https://plato.stanford.edu/
Completely understandable given your current debate on a similar subject. Good luck to you on that one. As this one may be complete through voting before yours ends, I may be able to vote on it.
I would really like to vote on this debate, but I am in such broad disagreement with David's argument here, particularly in view of my previous commentary #4, and that this is a clear full forfeiture for which others have already voted sufficiently to assure David the victory on that basis, alone. My vote would merely add to my stats without real benefit to David. Sorry, David, but I'm sure you understand my position. I would have really enjoyed having the debate myself. If you want to revisit it, I'd be glad to engage, even though I've offered up one argument, already. I'd really be interested in. your rebuttal. Interested at some point in the future?
Re" your #4, I'll take that under advisement because I really am passionate about the subject [can't you tell?] and would appreciate a robust debate from a contrary opponent. I get your hesitation, because it is, almost, a truism, but, there is certainly plenty of argument in favor of the abolishment, and, after all, it's not like an amendment to change the convention is impossible to make happen. So far, the efforts have been clumsy. Besides, the potential of an amendment takes it out of a truistic sense, I believe.
Thanks for voting. Good to see you back on board.
Thank you for your four full rounds of debate. I will be entering my 4th round soon, working on it now, with a first draft complete. I appreciate your attention to this debate with serious arguments offering good challenges. Well done.
Either of you; if you disagree with the vote, don't complain to me; I can do nothing to a submitted vote; I would not do it anyway simply by your complaint, even if I could. Go to a Mod. You do so by reference to the debate [copy/paste its URL] and PM a Mod with your complaint, requesting my vote be removed. The Mod will review and render judgment.
Your R3: "My opponent has forfeited, leaving my argument unrebutted." Con rebutted your argument in his R1, and R2, demonstrating your own wandering argument, as I said in my RFD. And, as I said, the Voting policy allows a single forfeit, yet you declared a forfeit [I took that as a declaration of victory] ignoring that Con had an additional round left to enter. I call that a premature call of victory, because Con did have a remaining round to offer rebuttal.. So what if he forfeited R3?
Con notes in his R1: "Pro notes that he and many people think budgies are *beautiful*, not merely cute. He has not proven that Budgies have traits that are common to youthful or childish animals." MY RFD advised the bad choice to add adjectives to your original elements of "childish, youthful, and delicate," particularly when, in R2, as my RFD recognized, you argued that, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute." You tanked your own argument.
You're welcome. Good luck in future debates.
Yes, and you even noted that the debate should attract atheists, which I took to mean as debate opponents, but that probably might have extended to voters, as well. I'll try to make comment further after the vote is finished.
I would normally be very interested in voting on this debate, but I am too close to the subject, and have too many personal thoughts on it that I'm afraid they would sway a fair, unbiased vote, so I think I'll pass on this one. Besides, I am currently involved in a debate with Benjamin that is much the same subject that would further influence my vote, I'm afraid. Sorry, guys. I'm sure this will attract sufficient voters to compensate. Good luck to both.
Thank you. I should advise that, during a debate, I tend to avoid comments so that voters are not influenced by any commentary outside of the debate, itself. Strictly a personal rule b y which I mean no offense. The only exception I try to make is if I need to add my sourcing outside of the debate to conserve all characters/spaces needed within the debate, for the debate, which is allowed by DArt policy.
I'll take it, regardless.
FourTrouble: welcome to DArt. Good luck.
Thank you re-voting.
Bigfoot, A.I.
Thanks, Much appreciated. Didn't mean to sound like I was complaining.
Why are you appealing to me? I'm not a mod. That's where you go, but be certain of your position, because I did declare you the winner by default.
1. Of course you think your argument was more convincing, but your argument chiefly attacked military weaponry, and, as Pro pointed out, there's more to militarization of police than just weapons. You raised the training time issue, noting the increased hours of training of military personnel over the police, but manage to avoid the fact that all military training is not on weapons; your chief complaint in this matter.
2. The number of your arguments vs. your opponent is not a valid argument since, A, there was just one round of argument, even by you, B. The number of arguments, as with sources, is not the critical analysis.
3. Your argument had a rebuttal because Con offered the first argument and had nothing to rebut in R1, whereas, you did. But rebuttal fits under the generic description of "argument," as does defense; it is not a separate judgment matter that, in an effectively 1-round debate, has value.
4. Look, you won the debate, by what point value is not the issue and is not a rating factor, so, what's the beef? I didn't have to say anything other than a default win by full forfeiture. Dude.
Actually, I have one. The PhD, that is, in English Lit. And in that process of education, I took a couple of classes examining the Bible strictly as a piece of literature; a different perspective. Sorry, can't help what I bring to the table.
Thank you for voting. Much appreciated
Just wanted to break with tradition [by making comment during a debate] to tell you that this one is very enjoyable. You're making some challenging points [of course, I disagree, but I remember that you are playing devil's advocate]. Hope you're having fun, too.
Thanks fore voting. Yeah, the history bit was a questionable feature, but, I had 3 rounds to fill in what could have been a 2-round debate, and, you know me; I'm going to fill them. Being challenged to a 500 word debate per round would, indeed, be a challenge. I simply don't take them, but it should be a good exercise. Someday. Anyway, good analysis. Thanks.
Thanks for voting, guys.
Oh, boy. "Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld that the discrimination cases under the Fair Housing Act do not need to show explicit discrimination..." This is the first line of your citation POL.H4 in your other debate. Problem is, in the quote, "upheld that" is a link to the SCOTUS case, only, the link fails. Did you try it to cite it? Come on, I want to see that case. Yeah, I can go look for it, but why should I have to do it? Your link needs to work. Period. See, I'm trying to review your other debate, as asked, but, you're making it difficult.
Bell [2005] is, by self-admission [with spelling error, to boot: “analyses???”] a theory camped on a theory. “In this theoretical analysis… we demonstrate that racial formation theory…” Yeah, real evidentiary, isn’t it? So, where’s the “evidence” in this citation of an Abstract? I have no access to the article. A failed reference. [POL1] merely takes me back to Bell, with its limitations. [POL.H2] references the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which is neither a federal or state official agency in the construct of legislation or policy beyond the duties of individual mayors limited to their local jurisdictions. Further, the paper cited cites no legislation or policy directly to demonstrate the allegations made, and the references the paper does make uses data that is ¼ century old. I’ve asked for CURRENT evidence.
“An expert delivers more detail…” What “expert” and what “detail?” I have not passed through 3 paragraphs of your argument, and I’m already missing your “There are housing, immigration and voting laws taken standard to prove systemic racism. I failed to mention these against you due to lack of research, but I know better know.” Your “research” still fails. Show my the money, man, or I’m done.
Yet, you still fail to cite. What "newest policy debate?" There are several as you seem married to this topic and cannot let it go, but
I am not going to wade through them all.
Your #6 has tied you in a knot. Fruit_Inspector concluded [rightly, I contend] that you must prove the existence of systemic racism, and you begin acknowledging the truth of that, then backtrack in the same post to contend that it does exist, ex post facto. Which is it? Starting with a contradiction will not win the debate. Remember, I'm a potential voter. If your debate contains the same confusion... well, let's just say it will be obvious. As I challenged in our debate on the very subject of its existence, show me the evidence of "systemic" by citation of a current law or gov't dept policy that exhibits racism of any kind, Critical Race Theory, or otherwise. For all its claims, CRT has yet to demonstrate one example of CURRENT law or policy that stipulates, in writing, CRT claims. If you are to prove systemic racism, that remains your objective. Jim Crow, as a legal or policy standard, at this point in history, has but one link: the uncredited name of a crow in Disney's "Dumbo."
Wiggle doesn't giggle by "LOL."
Your description and arguments need to agree. I get the attempt to be cute. Doesn’t fly.
No thanks. As we fundamentally disagree on the root of the resolution, and that we've already been there before, I've said all I need on the matter.
"Willing to be respectful and professional at all times," but forfeits R1? In a 2-week argument schedule? Well, maybe Bigfoot ate the homework.
Yeah, if anyone bothers to vote. Since I lead the pack, at least in the top ten, in no-vote ties [4 of my 10 - and I wish like hell the last update to voting policy took care of that], I'm not just a little concerned.
Had I not already completed a debate with Undefeatable on this very subject, I would take it up, but everything I have to say on the subject was said then. Besides, there have been other debates on this issue by other members, and they have seldom drawn much interest by voters. I conclude it is not now a hot button, if it ever really was. Personally, I suggest we give the Left a break and ignore this red herring excuse for social unrest. It is a sufficiently whipped talking point and I wish BLM would just SYF, and the 1619 project would join 2021.
Your vote was a great analysis. I was planning to vote on this one, but became frustrated by arguments from both sides that seemed to wander on me. I appreciate you thoughtful and concise piercing of that frustration. Well done.
It is argued that Matt 24: 34 is a difficult verse to interpret. Yes, it is when one attempts to do so by cherry-picking the verse on its own. But the set up begins verses earlier, specifically at verse 3, when the entire discussion begins at the Mount of Olives, and many signs are given of the [second] coming of the Lord. We still await some of those signs, such as the sun darkening in concert with the moon turning red. Typically, a red moon is caused by a lunar eclipse, the result of being in Earth's shadow, but that is not the only cause of a red moon. It can also turn red when Earth's atmosphere's air molecules scatter blue light more than usual. If that occurs in conjunction with a darkening sun [it can], then we have the sign foretold. Hasn't happened, yet. Other signs are given, that haven't happened, yet, either. It is THIS [that is, that still future generation] the "difficult" verse speaks of, not the generation of the first century C.E.
All the effort of defining the Greek term γενεά (genea), was a red herring argument. As usual, cherry picking solves very little and is the primary reason that some say verse 34 is difficult to interpret. Words mean things, yes, but context, such as including the previous 31 verses to capture the whole story, is just as important, if not more so.
For future reference, as a voter, I am to consider content only with the text of the debate rounds, along with cited sources, but Comments are outside of consideration; therefore, I ignored your definitions, even though Con agreed to their location. His say so does not agree with Voting Policy, which disallows voting on the basis of outside comment. Neither opponents definitions were convincing, in any event.
I sympathize.
My vote: cont'd from #13
Sources: Sourcing by both opponents fail to convince any more than their arguments. Tie.
Legibility: My vote in this regard goes to both the Resolution/Description by Con [initiator] and in argument round by Pro. Con uses an acronym without defining it, assuming it is a commonly known term: YEC. What is that, an expression of disgust? I am a life-long Christian, but have never encountered the acronym. A simple definition of the acronym, to dissuade assumptions, would have been simple and prevent time taken away to find out for myself. Any debater ought to preclude this dissatisfaction simply by assuming the audience wants definition. Provide it. Pro makes the same mistake in R1 by the use of BB. Again, not familiar with the acronym. BB king? BB, the stock market acronym for BlackBerry? The projectile fired from a small gun? Any debater ought to… and finish as above. DEFINE YOUR TERMS. Acronyms, in particular. I have to consult Google to find the acronym, but Google failed to provide a definition in context with the debate. Actually, by a re-read, I find the it was Con who first provided the answer: big bang, but Con spelled it out, did not use an acronym. Google, itself, never gave me big bang. Tie, but holding my nose.
Conduct: Both opponents treat one another with sufficient respect. Tie.
Notes: I would have really liked to offer a winner, but both failed to convince with sufficient dedication to the Resolution, allowing themselves to be sidetracked by an absurd flat-earth extended discussion. As I said, shape of Earth is of no consequence to the Resolution. Would that it had led the way and the day. In this debate, I declare the Resolution as ignored, and the clear loser. Definitions were another loser, as noted on arguments. Both opponents should give them better deference. Pity.
My vote:
Argument: Con began R1 with a series of definitions; a long series. Once the argument began in earnest, I was still in a quandary when I was going to encounter the crux of the debate: is YEC a reasonable position? I wade through 1,400 words of definition and a scattered expose on scientific/philosophical jargon before encountering something that appears to have relevance to the Resolution, when, finally, the acronym YEC makes sense. I realize it is Young Earth Creation. And I find I must put away my bias because my own thinking on the matter definitively sides with Con. I can do that. I want to be convinced by either opponent based on their arguments, alone. But “Creation” is the 1,411th word in the Con R1 argument; it’s first mention when it is of ultimate necessity to the Resolution. Honestly, I am wondering why I have waited so long to encounter this critical word.
Conversely, Pro begins the R1 rebuttal that this debate is not about science, which Con goes to great lengths, at a frank disadvantage to himself, to effectively come to the same conclusion, but there is so much science offered by Con that Pro is inclined to feel it necessary to oppose. Con offer3es a simple rebuttal to science, that Christians should believe "…exactly as described IN the Bible." A good rebuttal to all the science discussed by Con. However, Con’s BoP is that science is the best explanation for Creation as not being YEC. But a period of activity over eons of time. Pro offers three propositions, all of which are supported by scripture, but none of the propositions convince that Pro has proven YEC. They do demonstrate God as the creator, but that is not relevant to the Resolution. Pro’s R1 could have had a convincing argument for YEC with his summary of a book by R. Raymond, with a discussion of “day,” [“yom” in Hebrew] and that this Hebrew word can signify a single day, or multiple days, and even points out the number of times “yom” appears biblically, and separates the usage as singular or plural, but then throws the argument a curve by saying that even in the 27% of the references of plural meaning, they also signify a single day. Yet, Pro never quotes Raymond directly, so we are left wondering just what is the point the author is making because Pro will not let us see his point. The argument fails on that missing quotation.
Con’s R2 begins by allowing that Pro has accepted all definitions. So, why must I have a regurgitation of them? In fact, having provided sufficient explanation of science in his R1, Con complains that Pro barely mentions “science,” [it is not Pro’s BoP to do so, by the way], but then cites several rebuttals from Pro’s R1, disputing that Pro does not mention it. Con declares that “Pro undermines our knowledge of the past,” while Pro has alleged that our past is described at length biblically. Con’s R2 argues the Pro has failed to provide an account of evolution, or that new stars are observed being “born,” ignoring that mention of these should be made to prove Pro’s BoP. Again, these are factors for Con to prove.
Pro’s R2 begins with questions for Pro, which neither offer argument for Pro, nor supports those arguments by sourcing. Questions are, indeed, challenges, but to what purpose? Pro also challenged a question in R1 with the same opinion on my part that questions are not arguments. Pro should just make argument, and support it to my convincing. I am not convinced of an argument by challenging questions. Pro then complains that Con assumed Pro’s acceptance of Con’s definitions, ands since Pro said naught about not accepting them in R1, and offering rebuttal to them, specifically, I am not now convinced of Pro’s sincerity by his denial only in R2, by which Pro concludes R2: denial of definitions.
R3 entertains a discussion entirely off-track hat actually began in Con’s R2, and spills into R3 as a knock-down/drag-out: flat earth. Neither opponent does their BoP credit by this off-debate subject, and I fear both have lost track of the Resolution, because, sphere or flat, Earth’s creation by YEC, or not, has completely fled the field.
R4, R5, ditto, and I’m done. Result: Neither side has convinced me of their argument. Tie.
cont'd in post #14
Thanks for voting
Thank you
In my R2, I erroneously referred to Jack Pierce as David Pierce. An error. My apologies. There are three David Pierces with whom I am more familiar than Jack, an actor, a songwriter, and a former CEO of Atari, Inc.
I do look forward to a lively, but friendly debate. Good luck to you, too. Though you do not imply, other than by the Resolution, that our scriptural sources are to be biblical, even though there are other religion's holy writ, I commit to avoiding other scriptural references.
Good argument in your round 2 regarding the potential of parents to corrupt their children, and their being spared of that consequence, even by their death at God’s hand due to the wickedness of the adults. Since death is not a permanent condition, it is merely the last enemy that will be defeated.
As I replied to your pm two days ago (4/25), no. Your choices, as instigator, are continue, concede, or forfeit. The time to make concessions is. Before the debate is accepted. I do not agree to do-overs. That is child’s play
You're welcome
This debate has a useless voting potential since both participants fully forfeited, and should, in my opinion, conclude as a no-vote tie. Never thought I'd see one as I am personally opposed to that debate result, but, here is the unique exception. Instigator should not have the advantage merely by offering the debate with a description. In fact, perhaps by making the challenge, and then not meeting it, it is a potential instigator loss, but I cannot award a win to a full forfeit by either side. This could have been an easy win for one side, but...
Just to advise of personal preference, since this is not a vote, and cannot by critiqued as one, parents should let their children choose their own path in life, whether or not a career is part of that choice. Guide them, certainly, but let them live their own lives. The parents, presumably, have already lived theirs. That should suffice. If they have not, their children should not be the victims of poor parental choices.
I'll note, coincidentally, that as we begin this debate, you and I are virtually tied in debate rating. I'll admit it was one reason I chose to engage it. Just to add some friendly competition. Good luck, my friend. It is truly a great subject. As you say, deviation.
You're on. Good luck. I look forward to a good debate.
I will vote, but cannot today - I don't think.