And just because we say that God is omnipotent, and I believe tat, does it mean that he should not limit the use of his power on some occasions> He remains omnipotet, but he does not force us, and does not live our lives for us. Free agency is our greatest gift after life and the Atonement of Christ.
You have to know that there may be records that were created, then lost, and we have not found them, and may never find them, mostly because we don't know about them. We do know of apparent books named in other books we have, but not the books named. Some of it may be very valuable scripture. Some of it may be shyte. Do you think maybe, since it's lost, and some of it is shyte, anyway, that God may be keeping it hidden, but for a man's insistence that he dig, and find, and even though it may be shyte and of no worth to us, somebody is going to believe it without taking the advice we have in James 1: 2 - 5?
I did not say that, did I? Did you read the last sentence of my post #15? Although it sounds like it, it's not a joke. What I am saying is that since God did not write one jot or tittle of the scriptures, but men did, it behooves men to preserve the record. That they've done a poor job of it is entirely on them, not God. God allows free will. That means we can make shyte or shinola of what we do, and God says, either, "Nice shot, Broken Arrow," or "You did good."
I note Fruit_Inspector's #6 post posing a question about Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. In chronology, the Hebrew & Greek certainly precede any English translation, regardless of acronym, but it may be a stretch to consider any of the more ancient texts as accurate because none in current possession by anybody date any more anciently than about 300 BCE, so any traceability to "original texts" in Hebrew or Greek, from the periods they respectively describe is, to date, utterly without foundation. Further, transliteration [copying] and translation [one language to another] are both activities fraught with error potential, either by accident, or intentional. I suggest the only means to determine authenticity of any biblical text, since none of it was written by God or Christ in their own respective hand, is to inquire of them what is true, or not. revelation is alive and well to the sincere seeker who expresses sincere desire to know, with real intent, and having faith in Christ that understanding is able to be received. Or, what? You claim God is asleep, or refuses to converse with us? The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't.
Pro contends in the Description [has otherwise remained silent] "Because the idea of the trinity is a Christian belief..." as if it is exclusively Christian. Nope. The concept of multiple gods is consistent in many ancient religions of diverse cultures, and some modern reeligions. Therefore, the restriction to the Hoy Bible, but not even accepting that as source for argument is a bit cheeky if you ask me.
Mall claims "there is no scripture that says three separate beings." I assume Mall is restricting "scripture" to that of the Holy Bible, but, there is, nevertheless, other Holy Writ. However, employing just the Bible, The baptism of Jesus [Matthew 3] describes, in the last two verses, Jesus, a physical person, being baptized by John the Baptist, and when Jesus rises out of the water, the Holy Spirit [Holy Ghost] - a second distinct being, not Jesus or God the Father - is seen by Jesus to descend from heaven to rest upon him, while a voice FROM heaven [still there, not the Holy Spirit descending to rest on Jesus, nor Jesus himself], speaking, "This is my beloved Son." This being is God the Father, though not acknowledged as such by Matthew - but it is descriptively a third person, in heaven.
Now that I have published my R2, I'll give you the answer: The 14A. It does not use the term "open border" but the language is clearly defending sovereignty of the United States. Borders are a function of sovereignty.
Your open border policy "probably by federal law" is a non-sequitur. The Constitution already stipulates against such a policy, and to change that requires more than a federal statute. It requires a congressionally-passed [by 75% majority] and State-ratified [by 75% majority] amendment, per Article V. Good luck.
You will note that the definition I've cited in Description of "literacy," even from my revered OED, does not agree with the resolution, in its total expression. Therefore, how can the resolution be a truism? In fact, check another dictionary; Webster's, for example...
I am arguing that the definition of literacy, alone, does not cover the full intent of the word.
In passing, looking at debates, I completely missed this one. On the surface, just reading the description, it looks like a fascinating debate. I'll read through the arguments and plan on voting. It's a well structured proposal. Congrats!
I've just asked that my vote be removed. I accidentally gave the points to Pro when they all should go to you as Pro forfeited. I'll re-vote, but I can't until the baad vote is removed. I've reported it to Blamonkey, and he'll remove. My sincere apologies. Thanks to Theweakeredge for catching my error.
In my vote, I indicated that you offered no sources. In fact, you quoted Nathan Robinson in R1, but did not offer a citation such that I was unable to go to any specific source to confirm the quote. Lacking a citation, I do not consider that meets the demand of sourcing, per voting policy. In the future, please cite your sources so voters may verify.
I'm in process of voting, and ran across this item in your argument in your R1, or your preference of PC over Mac, and, having not yet finished a review of the arguments, I still had to stop to comment on this point, only because I, too had that choice, and have made it several times in my life, bouncing back and forth. I've chosen PC s a few times, but only because I needed compatibility with my office while I was working for "the man." But, many years ago, having decided I could do better on my own, and started my own business, I doggedly maintained Macs in succession because they are simply more dependable, and do not constantly ask me if I'm sure I want to do such and such a function, afraid that I might make a mistake, and also that I was asked to use a counter-intuitive shutdown of the machine using the START button. Absurd. I was broken on the pane of Windows. Mac forever!! But I do support that argument. At least, we have the individual choice!
There's no contest in voting, and that's unfortunate because your vote was a brilliant piece of work. It certainly deserves kudos. Well done!
The hour is short and I intend to vote. I hope I can get it done before the time closes. Again, bravo.
Nope. I don't play that game. That is a done debate, and buried from my perspective, regardless of outcome. The differentiation of "organ" and "tissue" is somewhat tenuous. As an avid student of human anatomy and the medical profession [my father was a hospital administrator, my mother a medical transcriber, and my older brother is a physician], the linkage of organ and tissue is tight. While I would agree that hair, specifically, is not an organ, it is clearly tissue [living at the root, or follicle, and dead in the exposed length, regardless of length], both heart and skin are organs. Pro clearly dismissed hair as tissue while Con offered it as an example of donated/sold tissue, and skin was my reference; not offered by either Pro or Con.
Are morality and ethics the same thing? Both terms are used in apparent acceptance that this is so in the resolution v. the description. I don't agree, and is one reason I passed on the debate.
You're welcome, even though it didn't turn out in your favor. I note, however, that you remain at the top on the leaderboard. Congratulations for that. Undefeated is not all it's cracked up to be [I can afford to say that, having lost]. The ruthlessness, fairly and nobly applied will return, I am certain.
A win would destroy my arguments. A tie doesn't. Unless your definition of dichotomy differs my OED, which declares the word as essentially unchanged from 1588's first iteration of it.
To be fair, the profile reads, "I will destroy any argument you try to come up with." Regardless of the grammar grist, the statement stands. Re-read your vote's second sentence and tell me if you don't fail to recognize that "describes something that is done according to a system or method; a systematic approach to learning that involves carefully following the program's steps; what relates to or affects an entire system; a systemic disease affects the entire body or organism, and systemic changes to an organization have an impact on the entire organization, including its most basic operations." That's my definition of "systemic." How is one going to follow program steps, etc, if that program is not documented, if the steps are not documented, as in legislation and policies, and be sure they are really following and not doing their own, anecdotal thing; "experts" be damned? Further, the description spells out the goals of the respective BoPs: "The challenge/BoP for Con is to demonstrate that such legislation and policy is documented. My BoP is to demonstrate the validity of the resolution." Did Con successfully demonstrate that the alleged racism is systemic by citing any legislation or policy that states it in print? No. You bought aqn argument of statistics of "experts" that I said was statistical nonsense, and demonstrated why.
No, I've been kicking this around for a couple of months, trying to figure out just how to combat the idea of ex nihilo from a scientific, not a religious perspective, and to propose that Genesis does not describe the creation of all the universe. It was serendipity that I looked beyond Newton to Causius and his first law of thermodynamics, which sealed the deal for me that nothing can come from nothing. Then considering how black holes might be demonstrated on a more local basis, galaxy-wise, I discovered an article that compared the physics of black holes and that of Saturn and its rings. It just all popped together. Then there's the subject I peeked at, but purposely did not explore further; the idea of multiple gods; generations of them stretching back to infinity, and not just one who created everything. Like I said, perhaps a forum thing, but I'd love to find sufficient science to make it a debate instead.
Re-read my commentary. I did not charge anything relative to God. I do not charge that He is a murderer. You will note that I did not vote, and explained why. You will note that I criticized your acceptance of the debate, accepting the definitions as is. Pro prohibited nothing. You could have asked via comments for clarification of definitions, and did not, so accept that for what it was: a mistake. I did not vote because neither of you treated the debate, or each other, with any respect.
Sorry if you concluded I was criticizing your vote; I wasn't. I just could not come to your conclusion to proffer a vote. I, too, however, believfe the debate could have been waged, and a clear winner determined. I just don'r think either participant had that as a worthy goal.
This debate is absurd from both sides. Just reading the arguments, dismissing the rationale of morality and law, I wanted to kill both combatants. Their utter disregard for one another made a vote a disservice in the extreme. The set-up, as Con charged in R1, was biased to the point of creating an attempted truism, and Pro actually bragged in R1 that his set-up was a virtual win for him. Nope. A win for that is ill-gotten. However, as Con accepted the debate with the full knowledge of the biased set-up, he bears responsibility for accepting the debate. Con charged Pro with prohibition of disputing definitions. The time to dispute definitions is prior to accepting the debate. As soon as the Instigator creates the debate, the comments section is open. Prior to accepting the debate as is, anyone can message the Instigator to seek clarification of the resolution, the set-up, definitions, etc. Having accepted the debate as is, those doors of query close, and Con is on one's own to develop arguments with the conditions set. Pro's definition is the only dictionary definition I see that does not add to the definition the notion of murder being an unlawful act. As Cambridge defines it [I checked], murder is a virtual match with the act of killing. Every other dictionary I consulted [a half-dozen, including my go-to, the OED] draws the distinct of murder being unlawful, or words to that effect, separate from killing, which draws no such distinction. The choice of Cambridge stacks the deck, in my view. Con's argument that God, being the Creator, has the authority as a life-giver, to take it, has merit, but God does not kill indiscriminately, as did all mortal murderers Pro names. In all of Pro's examples in R1, the people are steeped in sin. But Con does not defend the point, choosing to abandon the entire debate. Likewise, Pro turns the debate to attacking Con,, and Con replies in kind losing all sense of conduct as expected. This debate was doomed, IMO. I think Fruit_Inspector did a good job in reducing my commentary to simple graphics.
As the debate voting rules do not allow for deducting points, [a flaw, imo] I will not vote, because neither side deserves any points for any factor. But, that's my view; I'll impose it on no one. Please vote as your inclination suggests. seldiora did the next best thing - a tie, but that's being generous, imo.
The preceding is the legal definition. But y'all who offer advice back and forth ignore that Con has the right, indeed, a responsibility, prior to accepting the debate, to clarify definitions if there is objection to them. If the Instigator does not wish to clarify, that also is a choice, but will likely have no takers in the debate. There is no reason not to seek such clarification before the debate begins, because to accept it, yet complain about misunderstandings is defacto acceptance of what is proposed.
"Murder: the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought."
-https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1303
Sorry for the delay. I never comment during a debate about the debate. Now that my final round is in, I'll reply:
You miss the entire point of "pro choice." I would not impose any choice on another. It's their decision, yeah? I'm merely indicating my opinion that of the choices of contraceptives, sterilization is the best choice if the goal of contraception is prevention of pregnancy. I am not applying either a moral judgment, nor insisting on the application of any contraceptive as a coercion. Refer to my #2
Regarding the kudos suggestion, It occurred to me that a kudos award belongs in argument rather than conduct because it would be a compliment for an above-the-rim argument, after all. Same conditions would apply; that is, an added fourth point for argument when deserved, leaving the other three categories at their current 2, 1, 1 points. Therefore, with kudos added, an 8-point award for a participant, by one voter's assessment, if all four factors are awarded their maximum points that one participant.
At one time, I thought S&G was a weak sister in the quad, but I've changed my mind because there have actually been debates wherein I thought a participant made truly incoherent argument. I originally thought it ought to be replaced with a "kudos" for a truly exemplary and above-the-rim argument. I would still lobby to include a kudos award, but only if truly deserved as an added points award [which could potentially be awarded to both participants in a truly outstanding debate], and make it an expansion on conduct, thereby keeping the four points, but enhancing Conduct. I suggest an added point for kudos, making Conduct a value of 2 points, but only if really deserved.
And just because we say that God is omnipotent, and I believe tat, does it mean that he should not limit the use of his power on some occasions> He remains omnipotet, but he does not force us, and does not live our lives for us. Free agency is our greatest gift after life and the Atonement of Christ.
You have to know that there may be records that were created, then lost, and we have not found them, and may never find them, mostly because we don't know about them. We do know of apparent books named in other books we have, but not the books named. Some of it may be very valuable scripture. Some of it may be shyte. Do you think maybe, since it's lost, and some of it is shyte, anyway, that God may be keeping it hidden, but for a man's insistence that he dig, and find, and even though it may be shyte and of no worth to us, somebody is going to believe it without taking the advice we have in James 1: 2 - 5?
I did not say that, did I? Did you read the last sentence of my post #15? Although it sounds like it, it's not a joke. What I am saying is that since God did not write one jot or tittle of the scriptures, but men did, it behooves men to preserve the record. That they've done a poor job of it is entirely on them, not God. God allows free will. That means we can make shyte or shinola of what we do, and God says, either, "Nice shot, Broken Arrow," or "You did good."
I note Fruit_Inspector's #6 post posing a question about Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. In chronology, the Hebrew & Greek certainly precede any English translation, regardless of acronym, but it may be a stretch to consider any of the more ancient texts as accurate because none in current possession by anybody date any more anciently than about 300 BCE, so any traceability to "original texts" in Hebrew or Greek, from the periods they respectively describe is, to date, utterly without foundation. Further, transliteration [copying] and translation [one language to another] are both activities fraught with error potential, either by accident, or intentional. I suggest the only means to determine authenticity of any biblical text, since none of it was written by God or Christ in their own respective hand, is to inquire of them what is true, or not. revelation is alive and well to the sincere seeker who expresses sincere desire to know, with real intent, and having faith in Christ that understanding is able to be received. Or, what? You claim God is asleep, or refuses to converse with us? The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't.
Pro contends in the Description [has otherwise remained silent] "Because the idea of the trinity is a Christian belief..." as if it is exclusively Christian. Nope. The concept of multiple gods is consistent in many ancient religions of diverse cultures, and some modern reeligions. Therefore, the restriction to the Hoy Bible, but not even accepting that as source for argument is a bit cheeky if you ask me.
Mall claims "there is no scripture that says three separate beings." I assume Mall is restricting "scripture" to that of the Holy Bible, but, there is, nevertheless, other Holy Writ. However, employing just the Bible, The baptism of Jesus [Matthew 3] describes, in the last two verses, Jesus, a physical person, being baptized by John the Baptist, and when Jesus rises out of the water, the Holy Spirit [Holy Ghost] - a second distinct being, not Jesus or God the Father - is seen by Jesus to descend from heaven to rest upon him, while a voice FROM heaven [still there, not the Holy Spirit descending to rest on Jesus, nor Jesus himself], speaking, "This is my beloved Son." This being is God the Father, though not acknowledged as such by Matthew - but it is descriptively a third person, in heaven.
Now that I have published my R2, I'll give you the answer: The 14A. It does not use the term "open border" but the language is clearly defending sovereignty of the United States. Borders are a function of sovereignty.
Once I begin a debate, I stop commentary on it. Look it up yourself.
Valid points, but having accepted the debate, I no longer comment on strategy. I am aware.
Your open border policy "probably by federal law" is a non-sequitur. The Constitution already stipulates against such a policy, and to change that requires more than a federal statute. It requires a congressionally-passed [by 75% majority] and State-ratified [by 75% majority] amendment, per Article V. Good luck.
cherchez la femme
The topic stands. The definitions are from the OED.
Seems you want argument before the debate. Nope, not going there.
You will note that the definition I've cited in Description of "literacy," even from my revered OED, does not agree with the resolution, in its total expression. Therefore, how can the resolution be a truism? In fact, check another dictionary; Webster's, for example...
I am arguing that the definition of literacy, alone, does not cover the full intent of the word.
Yes, I read your argument, and found it deficient, as was your sourcing. I spent the time reading through both. My RFD stands.
In passing, looking at debates, I completely missed this one. On the surface, just reading the description, it looks like a fascinating debate. I'll read through the arguments and plan on voting. It's a well structured proposal. Congrats!
This debate isn't. Not worthy of a vote
This debate isn't
We'll get this right, I promise.
By the way, how does Pro earn tie points on sourcing, S&G, and conduct in a full forfeit?
I've just asked that my vote be removed. I accidentally gave the points to Pro when they all should go to you as Pro forfeited. I'll re-vote, but I can't until the baad vote is removed. I've reported it to Blamonkey, and he'll remove. My sincere apologies. Thanks to Theweakeredge for catching my error.
!~$@~##$@!#%%
Mea culpa! I'll have the vote removed and I'll re-vote. My apologies!!!
In my vote, I indicated that you offered no sources. In fact, you quoted Nathan Robinson in R1, but did not offer a citation such that I was unable to go to any specific source to confirm the quote. Lacking a citation, I do not consider that meets the demand of sourcing, per voting policy. In the future, please cite your sources so voters may verify.
I'm in process of voting, and ran across this item in your argument in your R1, or your preference of PC over Mac, and, having not yet finished a review of the arguments, I still had to stop to comment on this point, only because I, too had that choice, and have made it several times in my life, bouncing back and forth. I've chosen PC s a few times, but only because I needed compatibility with my office while I was working for "the man." But, many years ago, having decided I could do better on my own, and started my own business, I doggedly maintained Macs in succession because they are simply more dependable, and do not constantly ask me if I'm sure I want to do such and such a function, afraid that I might make a mistake, and also that I was asked to use a counter-intuitive shutdown of the machine using the START button. Absurd. I was broken on the pane of Windows. Mac forever!! But I do support that argument. At least, we have the individual choice!
I'm hoping I still can, but consider this a ping
There's no contest in voting, and that's unfortunate because your vote was a brilliant piece of work. It certainly deserves kudos. Well done!
The hour is short and I intend to vote. I hope I can get it done before the time closes. Again, bravo.
Nope. I don't play that game. That is a done debate, and buried from my perspective, regardless of outcome. The differentiation of "organ" and "tissue" is somewhat tenuous. As an avid student of human anatomy and the medical profession [my father was a hospital administrator, my mother a medical transcriber, and my older brother is a physician], the linkage of organ and tissue is tight. While I would agree that hair, specifically, is not an organ, it is clearly tissue [living at the root, or follicle, and dead in the exposed length, regardless of length], both heart and skin are organs. Pro clearly dismissed hair as tissue while Con offered it as an example of donated/sold tissue, and skin was my reference; not offered by either Pro or Con.
I sure hope your R1 forfeit is not going to continue. I really look forward to your arguments.
Thanks to both of you for voting.
Thank you for your vote
Bump, please.
Victim of the old adage: If you're going to take out your gun, shoot the bloody thing. Don't waste time talking about it.
For future reference, you are allowed to add your list of reference sources here in comments, but only during the debate, such as
Sources for R1:
[1] abc
[2] lmn
[3] xyz
Are morality and ethics the same thing? Both terms are used in apparent acceptance that this is so in the resolution v. the description. I don't agree, and is one reason I passed on the debate.
I misspoke; the re-definition is of "subjective," not "morality." Sorry for the confusion. This will be clarified in my round 1.
Based on our PMs, I accept the debate and will offer my alternate definition of morality in my R1.
You're welcome, even though it didn't turn out in your favor. I note, however, that you remain at the top on the leaderboard. Congratulations for that. Undefeated is not all it's cracked up to be [I can afford to say that, having lost]. The ruthlessness, fairly and nobly applied will return, I am certain.
A win would destroy my arguments. A tie doesn't. Unless your definition of dichotomy differs my OED, which declares the word as essentially unchanged from 1588's first iteration of it.
To be fair, the profile reads, "I will destroy any argument you try to come up with." Regardless of the grammar grist, the statement stands. Re-read your vote's second sentence and tell me if you don't fail to recognize that "describes something that is done according to a system or method; a systematic approach to learning that involves carefully following the program's steps; what relates to or affects an entire system; a systemic disease affects the entire body or organism, and systemic changes to an organization have an impact on the entire organization, including its most basic operations." That's my definition of "systemic." How is one going to follow program steps, etc, if that program is not documented, if the steps are not documented, as in legislation and policies, and be sure they are really following and not doing their own, anecdotal thing; "experts" be damned? Further, the description spells out the goals of the respective BoPs: "The challenge/BoP for Con is to demonstrate that such legislation and policy is documented. My BoP is to demonstrate the validity of the resolution." Did Con successfully demonstrate that the alleged racism is systemic by citing any legislation or policy that states it in print? No. You bought aqn argument of statistics of "experts" that I said was statistical nonsense, and demonstrated why.
A tie is not a win, my friend; it's only half-points. No, I don't like them either, but then I don't declare the impossibility.
No, I've been kicking this around for a couple of months, trying to figure out just how to combat the idea of ex nihilo from a scientific, not a religious perspective, and to propose that Genesis does not describe the creation of all the universe. It was serendipity that I looked beyond Newton to Causius and his first law of thermodynamics, which sealed the deal for me that nothing can come from nothing. Then considering how black holes might be demonstrated on a more local basis, galaxy-wise, I discovered an article that compared the physics of black holes and that of Saturn and its rings. It just all popped together. Then there's the subject I peeked at, but purposely did not explore further; the idea of multiple gods; generations of them stretching back to infinity, and not just one who created everything. Like I said, perhaps a forum thing, but I'd love to find sufficient science to make it a debate instead.
Re-read my commentary. I did not charge anything relative to God. I do not charge that He is a murderer. You will note that I did not vote, and explained why. You will note that I criticized your acceptance of the debate, accepting the definitions as is. Pro prohibited nothing. You could have asked via comments for clarification of definitions, and did not, so accept that for what it was: a mistake. I did not vote because neither of you treated the debate, or each other, with any respect.
My comment to your in #31 was before you changed your vote, which was a 7-7 tie. So be it. Your vote, your consequence.
Sorry if you concluded I was criticizing your vote; I wasn't. I just could not come to your conclusion to proffer a vote. I, too, however, believfe the debate could have been waged, and a clear winner determined. I just don'r think either participant had that as a worthy goal.
This debate is absurd from both sides. Just reading the arguments, dismissing the rationale of morality and law, I wanted to kill both combatants. Their utter disregard for one another made a vote a disservice in the extreme. The set-up, as Con charged in R1, was biased to the point of creating an attempted truism, and Pro actually bragged in R1 that his set-up was a virtual win for him. Nope. A win for that is ill-gotten. However, as Con accepted the debate with the full knowledge of the biased set-up, he bears responsibility for accepting the debate. Con charged Pro with prohibition of disputing definitions. The time to dispute definitions is prior to accepting the debate. As soon as the Instigator creates the debate, the comments section is open. Prior to accepting the debate as is, anyone can message the Instigator to seek clarification of the resolution, the set-up, definitions, etc. Having accepted the debate as is, those doors of query close, and Con is on one's own to develop arguments with the conditions set. Pro's definition is the only dictionary definition I see that does not add to the definition the notion of murder being an unlawful act. As Cambridge defines it [I checked], murder is a virtual match with the act of killing. Every other dictionary I consulted [a half-dozen, including my go-to, the OED] draws the distinct of murder being unlawful, or words to that effect, separate from killing, which draws no such distinction. The choice of Cambridge stacks the deck, in my view. Con's argument that God, being the Creator, has the authority as a life-giver, to take it, has merit, but God does not kill indiscriminately, as did all mortal murderers Pro names. In all of Pro's examples in R1, the people are steeped in sin. But Con does not defend the point, choosing to abandon the entire debate. Likewise, Pro turns the debate to attacking Con,, and Con replies in kind losing all sense of conduct as expected. This debate was doomed, IMO. I think Fruit_Inspector did a good job in reducing my commentary to simple graphics.
As the debate voting rules do not allow for deducting points, [a flaw, imo] I will not vote, because neither side deserves any points for any factor. But, that's my view; I'll impose it on no one. Please vote as your inclination suggests. seldiora did the next best thing - a tie, but that's being generous, imo.
The preceding is the legal definition. But y'all who offer advice back and forth ignore that Con has the right, indeed, a responsibility, prior to accepting the debate, to clarify definitions if there is objection to them. If the Instigator does not wish to clarify, that also is a choice, but will likely have no takers in the debate. There is no reason not to seek such clarification before the debate begins, because to accept it, yet complain about misunderstandings is defacto acceptance of what is proposed.
"Murder: the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought."
-https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1303
Sorry for the delay. I never comment during a debate about the debate. Now that my final round is in, I'll reply:
You miss the entire point of "pro choice." I would not impose any choice on another. It's their decision, yeah? I'm merely indicating my opinion that of the choices of contraceptives, sterilization is the best choice if the goal of contraception is prevention of pregnancy. I am not applying either a moral judgment, nor insisting on the application of any contraceptive as a coercion. Refer to my #2
Regarding the kudos suggestion, It occurred to me that a kudos award belongs in argument rather than conduct because it would be a compliment for an above-the-rim argument, after all. Same conditions would apply; that is, an added fourth point for argument when deserved, leaving the other three categories at their current 2, 1, 1 points. Therefore, with kudos added, an 8-point award for a participant, by one voter's assessment, if all four factors are awarded their maximum points that one participant.
Thank you for voting
At one time, I thought S&G was a weak sister in the quad, but I've changed my mind because there have actually been debates wherein I thought a participant made truly incoherent argument. I originally thought it ought to be replaced with a "kudos" for a truly exemplary and above-the-rim argument. I would still lobby to include a kudos award, but only if truly deserved as an added points award [which could potentially be awarded to both participants in a truly outstanding debate], and make it an expansion on conduct, thereby keeping the four points, but enhancing Conduct. I suggest an added point for kudos, making Conduct a value of 2 points, but only if really deserved.