A personal note: Dr. Nibley [R1, citation [13], was my professor of Egyptian hieroglyphics, a 4-semester course, who told this story of dictionary-to-dictionary translation issues at least twice each semester, so it was drilled into my little ear. He also told me once, personally, knowing that I published poetry as a student [still do] and was on a writing scholarship, while he fancied himself as an historian [really an ancient languages professor], he said to me, "A poet is someone who will hold you head while you puke. An historian will examine the remains." I loved that guy. He lectured seamlessly in seven or eight languages. Dead now, sadly.
Somehow, my R1 argument III.d printed twice with the reepeated paragraph having more information. Don't know how that happened, it's not in my originating document from which I did copy/paste. Please disregard te first iteration and use the more complete second iteration.
1. I think to argue that that God does not exist to have created exceeds the boundary of the resolution because a dichotomy already exists within the resolution that material pre-existed creation, or creation was ex nihilo.
2. A biblical ex nihilo framework... well, that is a discussion for my round 1, already composed
I realize I've made an error in my vote in verbiage under "Argument." Where I say "..discounts that whatever has always existed has no cause," please read "... has always existed also has cause." Doesn't affect the vote, but clarifies what I was trying to say.
I agree with you; our RFD's draw upon differing observations to reach similar results, so I see no bandwagon. However, as I advised Whiteflame, it was a difficult vote, not because I'm partial to either debater, but because I have a personal, and publicly aware bias against Wiki, mainly because of it's own opinion of its reliability. Since reliability is a primary element of oromagi's argument, I very nearly did not vote at all. In the end, I did because oromagi tried, and failed, I thought, regardless of reliability [and I was able to dismiss my bias], to put Wiki and Fox on the same playing field, and they just are not. Fruit_Inspector's argument of tiered sources was a superb counter-argument to argue that very point.
This was a difficult debate to judge, mainly because I think Pro's resolution lacked merit because Wiki and Fox simply exist for different purposes. I kept debating myself wondering why I should try to judge the merits. Fox is essentially a news outet; Wiki is essentially an encyclopedia. That Fox has a bias, no one will argue. That Wiki gives itself a poor reliability grade is also undeniable. That they both offer information is true, but I would not compare Facebook and the OED on that basis. Sorry, oromagi, this was not your best shot subject-wise, although you may end up winning just on your overall strength as a debater with extensive experience and know-how. Fruit Inspector, considering your experience compared to oromagi, you did a superb job. Using your library source was a beautiful argument. Being unaware of it before, I've added it to my favorites because I see it as invaluable to my profession. Thanks.
In the future, whoever initiated this debate [my vote concluded it was Ancap460, but now I'm not so sure, recalling that the instigator is is usually Pro, but that can be properly assigned by hte instigator, and that was a failed effort.
Whichever of you was really instigator, in the future, don't get cute with not providing a subject, not choosing your side of the debate clearly, and waiving a round [which I consider a forfeit]. Good thing this was just a winner system and not a four-point judgment, because this would have been conduct failure for making the debate incohenrent.
You've missed a point of the proposal: "No, I am not talking coercion; this is a pro-choice, and perhaps even a pro-life matter; another private [if you will], individual choice" You cited article does not consider the matter of personal choice.
Appreciate you position, but I will not comment yet beyond the proposal. I let it stand on its merit, alone, until and if the debate is engaged. However, I think you'll make a fine judge once done because I am taking the whole "murder" charge, and all religious/secular morality out of the debate.
Who, here and now, is forced to sterilize? Eugenics is past history. Curious, though, that Planned Parenthood [the very title is a giveaway that parenthood is the last thing on their minds] grew out of a eugenicist's mind, Margaret Sanger.
Pro agreed by citing the definitions in Description. Con agreed de facto by accepting the debate as proposed. Your YouTube notwithstanding, which is not cited as policy in DA.
BearMan, Separately defining both words allows full disclosure of their independent definitions, neither of which are diminished by linking them together as a noun [racism] preceded by an adjective [systemic], which is the typical English syntax. The complete phrase does not exist in Merriam-Webster, nor in my preferred OED, which is why I did not use the combined phrase in definition.
I do agree with your #18, however. Once accepted, the terms as defined in Description hold and cannot be altered to fit an argument by Con.
Did I say racism does not exist? No. I am saying it is not systemic. That is, by definition, racism is not evident in the system, i.e., the government. Individual people are not the government; they are individuals who think contrary to government-originated legislation and policy. It is individuals who are racist. There's a distinct difference, and that is what this debate is about. I replied to your comment after posting my R1 argument because I was not aware of it before posting. I will answer no more questions while in active debate.
I didn't realize how new you were to the site. I, too, welcome you. My comments may have been premature because there is a delay, only bgased on your relative activity, that prevents your being able to vote right away. It's an easy threshold to cross, and y6ou may have already crossed it; I don't know. And, yes, it is possible to remain objective even having a bias. We must do it all the time. I was forceful because other than actually debating, we must mostly be careful in comments within debates. Ands it actually depends on what you say in voting that determines whether it is worthy of report, which just means that a member refers the vote to a mod to determine if the voting verbiage is within voting policy, or not.
An interesting commentary you mention as your last point in your #18 re: removing liberal bias from the Bible. I met a woman in France whose Bible seemed to be a little shy of pages. About a quarter of them. I asked why, she told me she ripped out any page she did not understand or had disagreement, leaving everything else. I suppose that's one way to manage one's beliefs, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Not to mention, in view of RM's commentary in his post #15, that you have effectively taken yourself out of the potential role of voting on this debate since you have so evidently offered Con talking points to argue, sufficient to demonstrate your bias in this debate. Should you vote, you will be reported.
Sourcws cited in round 2
Bill Wortman, Joe DeSimone, Frank Bensley, et al, CSSBB Primer, Quality Council of Indiana, 2009. The definitive ASQ-certification body of knowledge in Six Sigma.
i https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a
ii https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.019376
iii https://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/trust-and-accuracy/
iv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources
v https://www.tfes.org/
vi https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/24/flat-earth-what-would-happen/
vii https://www.unlv.edu/news/release/round-earth-clues-how-science-proves-our-home-globe
No, there is no question about it; I consider Wiki less reliable than no source at all. It not a bad place to start, but to finish and cite Wiki as a source is a dangerous precedent to set. For meaningless matters, I suppose it's ok, but if a better source can be found, the time should be taken to do so. Please check out my new debate with seldiora on wiki reliability once it gets started. And, in the future, I'll try to be less cynical toward you; I much prefer a positive association, while having differing opinions, although I think we'd find much to agree on.
re: c[o]unt: Yes, a cheeky accident. Well, cheeky is the wrong anatomy, but it was an accidental exclusion. I never learned to type properly [I call my method "search and destroy] because I use mostly the thumbs and first two fingers of both hands, and letters at the extremes of that range, like 'o' are sometimes stroked only as a near-miss and do not register, particularly from my right hand. I'm left-handed. Plus the fact that I am an abominable speller. Just in this paragraph, I have had to go back and correct three words. My biggest issue is stray letters that are added because my fingertips are too large for the size of the keyboard, and I go through a keyboards annually because I really have a heavy-handed typing style. I crash against my keys. That's a problem because although I find mac keyboards more robust than windows devices, mac keyboards, like everything apple, are damn expensive.
Fallacious is in the eye of the beholder. Not to mention, however, that my reach for metaphor is extensive. Sometimes I miss. That's life in the pages.
Yes, mocking is a correct assessment.
The point:
1. As you point out, my opponent did not call out the allegation that my source was not valid; therefore, it was accepted, even by tacit acceptance.
2. IN this instance, the Tower of Babel may have been entirely fictitious, but fiction can be a legitimate source for the same reason you allege: "effective because...of the philosophical principle it explains." Your words. You must live by the application of them. Indeed, Wiki, my opponent's source [in another debate] rated as "reliable," says of the Bible that "These texts include theologically-focused historical accounts."
Christopher Hitchens, while maybe the most recent of irreverent anti-theists, may have been tearing at his own foundation with the publication of "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" four years before his death in 2011. By mere mention of God is the grounding that there is something there against which he is opposed. Opposition to an idea does not, by itself, negate the idea. Not a great ending for a life-long critic siding with divine non-existence. So, of what formal authority is the man's dulling razor? I can afford to reply to his razor, "Who's razor, and why should it necessarily be sharper than mine?" After all, I'm still alive, and I was born but 5 months after Hitchens, and still have my sharpening leather strap in good use. And, yeah, I use a straight razor. Bic and Gillette are for girly men.
Rule #4 shows incredible bias. It is allowed, certainly, in practice, but as a rule, particularly on this subject, it is limiting. Should I trust, rather, a source that says, "I am the husband of Joe Biden," "I'm Joe Biden, and I'm running for the United States Senate," and the ever popular, "I will beat Joe Biden." That "testimony or opinion must never be mistaken for reliable evidence." Yes, that's limiting, too, isn't it? Oh, well.
I was prepared to vote on this debate, but found the results of the debate untenable to render a vote.
Pro R1 says [presume the meaning is in the US, as the source indicates American voting] that a vote has never been registered by a majority of Americans. That is not true: Not all Americans are eligible to vote; there is an age restriction that limits the voting population, and pro does not account for this. Neither does the cited source, Wiki, which says of itself that it is an "unreliable source." Further, Pro offers an abstention option, which takes any certainty out of voter increase, effectively negating Pro's argument.
Con R1 effectively waives, which was not offered by Pro as an acceptable argument round, and is, therefore, effectively a forfeit.
Pro R2 offers one argument already set in R1: "It is evident that compulsory voting laws can and will increase voting turnout," but there is no further evidence shown beyond that offered in R1, In effect, this amounts to a waived round.
Con R2: Con effectively demonstrates the futility of an abstention option by cost and fear factor. This is the only valid argument Con makes in the debate.
Pro R3: The argument made that the fear factor does mean votes are foced, but then argues that inaccurate voting may eliminate compulsory voting. Neither argument makes sense.
Con R3: Forfeit, effectively the second occurrence, negating Con from consideration.
Pro R4: Extend argument [not possible being the last round.
Con R4: Declares victory
Con effectively argued a successful R2, but the forfeits cost Con the vote. Pro did not overwhelm Con's rebuttals, but made faulty proofs of arguments. I cannot vote even vote to offer a tie, because there was no tie. Con would have won without throwing two rounds away. Both participants failed
Class M, which is descriptive of neither Jupiter, nor an astroid. Fictitious, yes, but still based on some science, and, who said fiction cannot contain truth, other than a few on this site, and elsewhere, who do not recognize variant origins of truth. Particularly since the whole set-up of conditions in this debate are fictitious. Fiction can be supported by truth. Fiction is imaginary, but suspension of disbelief, the armor of fiction, says you can believe it, anyway.
Congratulations!. Looks like you're #3 in the population of debaters in number of debates engaged. Thanks for accepting. I wish you best of luck, but I promise I won't back you [bad joke!] Seriously, let's have a good, enjoyable debate!
I try to make every word cunt. However, as I have indicated before, in this open period during the debate challenge, negotiation is always on the table/
Again, I apologize for not taking on this debate. It has a good first round, but as I plan to vote on the debate, I will not tip my hand to any favoritism of argument, etc. However, relative to post #10, and your response in #11, may I recommend that you not engage in conversation with anyone relative to your debate strategy by either description of intent, nor or avoidance. While in debate, stay aloof from direct conversation re: the debate. The debate should be entirely contained within the debate, except for use of comments to post sources, or to converse on subjects completely unrelated to the debate. Voters should be keen to watch for debate outside of the debate, and award points for keeping that distinction.
Same advice to MarkWebberFan.
I agree with SirAnonymous on the relevance of Conduct. There are plenty of occasions of unintentional errors in debate texts, and I used to point them out. If, however, the context of the argument is fully understood, I don't call it anymore. The Conduct rule calls it "incoherent." If the sense of text does not convey understanding, I'll call it, even if s&g are correct. It does impose an editing function, and I believe that is the duty of the debate participant. In your case, 9.9.9, reading your argument, even with the spacing issues, is coherent, so, no problems on my end with s&g. If it is a matter you're not causing, definitely consult with moderators to see what is causing the translation from your original writing to the text field in the argument page.
You: "I think the sources is barely enough explanation of why Con didn't earn the point too."
My vote: "Examples: Both in the battery/engine argument and the Ship of Perseus argument, Pro demonstrated Con's sources supporting Pro's position."
What more do you want? I specifically showed two examples where Con's sourcing failed by supporting Pro's argument. I notice you did not bother to vote at all.
Wrong interpretation. You have to read my words in their order. I stated: "Con's last round argument that Pro dropped the 50-50 split..." an accusation levied by Con, was followed by, "...lost conduct for failure to recognize Pro's rebuttal," a statement of conclusion of the drop. The problem was, Con offered a last-round defense, as my last comment indicated, which was incoherent, meeting the discipline of conduct points voting. It matters not that I could see what Con was trying to do, but Con didn't know their argument was incoherent. As a voter, that was my assessment; that Con didn't understand, and therefore displayed incoherent conduct.
You're going to have to do better than that in calling my vote out because both arguments by Con re: car batteries and babies babbling were effectively rebutted by Pro, and I found Con's final round defense ineffective, and, in fact, incoherent, per the definition of conduct voting. The defense simply did not make sense. That is incoherence, according to my dictionary, the OED. Face it, man, you just have a itch you cannot scratch in my regard.
Jill asks me why I’m such a hairy guy,
I’m hairy night and day, enough for you to buy,
I’m hairy high and low; don’t ask; don’t know
Just stroke it smooth, t’will rise and show…
So, Darlin, give me head with hair,
Such long, beautiful hair,
Shining, gleaming, sniffing, flaxen, wax on,
Turn on, give me hair down to there
Hair that thrills when you stare,
Hair, baby, hair, momma, hair wherever,
Hair----
Show it, but don’t mow it, God, can I grow it!
Flies in the breeze, tangles in the trees,
Give a home to the fleas, a hive for the bees,
A nest for the birds, don’t they love my sniffing yours,
There ain’t no words for the wonders of coiffeurs,
Legs, hairy, pits, hairy, everywhere I’m hairy, Harry.
Hair…
As you will present the "science" side of this debate, I'd wonder how science defines the distinction of "human" vs. "person." I don't believe science has that distinction any better defined than the law has. To me, "human" is a species, and, as far as that goes, that is defined immediately upon conception. Actually, it's immediately defined by each gamete, but they each represent just half the species, and they begin to exist at the point in zygotic development upon cell differentiation in vitro. A "person" is far less well defined, and federal law defines that as immediately upon live birth [Title 1, USC 8] However, the law disagrees with itself by several State fetal homicide statutes, for example, Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006), which apply a duaql murder charge with the homicide of a pregnant woman. Murder is a legal term that applies to human persons, only. Murder of a dog is a misnomer.
I have no objection to either a vote or feedback
A personal note: Dr. Nibley [R1, citation [13], was my professor of Egyptian hieroglyphics, a 4-semester course, who told this story of dictionary-to-dictionary translation issues at least twice each semester, so it was drilled into my little ear. He also told me once, personally, knowing that I published poetry as a student [still do] and was on a writing scholarship, while he fancied himself as an historian [really an ancient languages professor], he said to me, "A poet is someone who will hold you head while you puke. An historian will examine the remains." I loved that guy. He lectured seamlessly in seven or eight languages. Dead now, sadly.
Somehow, my R1 argument III.d printed twice with the reepeated paragraph having more information. Don't know how that happened, it's not in my originating document from which I did copy/paste. Please disregard te first iteration and use the more complete second iteration.
Roger, and roger.
Uhhh... well, let's just say, because I have a problem with giving stores away, that this is discussed in my r1
1. I think to argue that that God does not exist to have created exceeds the boundary of the resolution because a dichotomy already exists within the resolution that material pre-existed creation, or creation was ex nihilo.
2. A biblical ex nihilo framework... well, that is a discussion for my round 1, already composed
I realize I've made an error in my vote in verbiage under "Argument." Where I say "..discounts that whatever has always existed has no cause," please read "... has always existed also has cause." Doesn't affect the vote, but clarifies what I was trying to say.
I agree with you; our RFD's draw upon differing observations to reach similar results, so I see no bandwagon. However, as I advised Whiteflame, it was a difficult vote, not because I'm partial to either debater, but because I have a personal, and publicly aware bias against Wiki, mainly because of it's own opinion of its reliability. Since reliability is a primary element of oromagi's argument, I very nearly did not vote at all. In the end, I did because oromagi tried, and failed, I thought, regardless of reliability [and I was able to dismiss my bias], to put Wiki and Fox on the same playing field, and they just are not. Fruit_Inspector's argument of tiered sources was a superb counter-argument to argue that very point.
Nope. Never ran across that person here on site. Former member, or is there another username?
Sorry, I deleted the proposed debate before seeing your comment, but I've reinstated it after correcting an error. Please re-post.
I really hope you do vote. I'll be very interested in your perspective
This was a difficult debate to judge, mainly because I think Pro's resolution lacked merit because Wiki and Fox simply exist for different purposes. I kept debating myself wondering why I should try to judge the merits. Fox is essentially a news outet; Wiki is essentially an encyclopedia. That Fox has a bias, no one will argue. That Wiki gives itself a poor reliability grade is also undeniable. That they both offer information is true, but I would not compare Facebook and the OED on that basis. Sorry, oromagi, this was not your best shot subject-wise, although you may end up winning just on your overall strength as a debater with extensive experience and know-how. Fruit Inspector, considering your experience compared to oromagi, you did a superb job. Using your library source was a beautiful argument. Being unaware of it before, I've added it to my favorites because I see it as invaluable to my profession. Thanks.
Sorry, don't know anyone by "Roy." Must know by a different name. Who is Roy. I enjoyed the debate. Hope you did too.
R3, VI.c
In the future, whoever initiated this debate [my vote concluded it was Ancap460, but now I'm not so sure, recalling that the instigator is is usually Pro, but that can be properly assigned by hte instigator, and that was a failed effort.
Whichever of you was really instigator, in the future, don't get cute with not providing a subject, not choosing your side of the debate clearly, and waiving a round [which I consider a forfeit]. Good thing this was just a winner system and not a four-point judgment, because this would have been conduct failure for making the debate incohenrent.
You've missed a point of the proposal: "No, I am not talking coercion; this is a pro-choice, and perhaps even a pro-life matter; another private [if you will], individual choice" You cited article does not consider the matter of personal choice.
Appreciate you position, but I will not comment yet beyond the proposal. I let it stand on its merit, alone, until and if the debate is engaged. However, I think you'll make a fine judge once done because I am taking the whole "murder" charge, and all religious/secular morality out of the debate.
I would sterilize neither. I'm not a physician, and it would be entirely their choice, individually and independently
Thank you for voting
Who, here and now, is forced to sterilize? Eugenics is past history. Curious, though, that Planned Parenthood [the very title is a giveaway that parenthood is the last thing on their minds] grew out of a eugenicist's mind, Margaret Sanger.
Rhetorician! That's great! Nope, sorry, you don't get to play humility in this one. Be the book... and the secret is there is no spoon.
Intel, Bear, oro, edge, I encourage your votes.
seldiora, thank you for voting.
Pro agreed by citing the definitions in Description. Con agreed de facto by accepting the debate as proposed. Your YouTube notwithstanding, which is not cited as policy in DA.
BearMan, Separately defining both words allows full disclosure of their independent definitions, neither of which are diminished by linking them together as a noun [racism] preceded by an adjective [systemic], which is the typical English syntax. The complete phrase does not exist in Merriam-Webster, nor in my preferred OED, which is why I did not use the combined phrase in definition.
I do agree with your #18, however. Once accepted, the terms as defined in Description hold and cannot be altered to fit an argument by Con.
Did I say racism does not exist? No. I am saying it is not systemic. That is, by definition, racism is not evident in the system, i.e., the government. Individual people are not the government; they are individuals who think contrary to government-originated legislation and policy. It is individuals who are racist. There's a distinct difference, and that is what this debate is about. I replied to your comment after posting my R1 argument because I was not aware of it before posting. I will answer no more questions while in active debate.
Thank you for voting.
I didn't realize how new you were to the site. I, too, welcome you. My comments may have been premature because there is a delay, only bgased on your relative activity, that prevents your being able to vote right away. It's an easy threshold to cross, and y6ou may have already crossed it; I don't know. And, yes, it is possible to remain objective even having a bias. We must do it all the time. I was forceful because other than actually debating, we must mostly be careful in comments within debates. Ands it actually depends on what you say in voting that determines whether it is worthy of report, which just means that a member refers the vote to a mod to determine if the voting verbiage is within voting policy, or not.
An interesting commentary you mention as your last point in your #18 re: removing liberal bias from the Bible. I met a woman in France whose Bible seemed to be a little shy of pages. About a quarter of them. I asked why, she told me she ripped out any page she did not understand or had disagreement, leaving everything else. I suppose that's one way to manage one's beliefs, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Not to mention, in view of RM's commentary in his post #15, that you have effectively taken yourself out of the potential role of voting on this debate since you have so evidently offered Con talking points to argue, sufficient to demonstrate your bias in this debate. Should you vote, you will be reported.
Sourcws cited in round 2
Bill Wortman, Joe DeSimone, Frank Bensley, et al, CSSBB Primer, Quality Council of Indiana, 2009. The definitive ASQ-certification body of knowledge in Six Sigma.
i https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a
ii https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.019376
iii https://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/trust-and-accuracy/
iv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources
v https://www.tfes.org/
vi https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/24/flat-earth-what-would-happen/
vii https://www.unlv.edu/news/release/round-earth-clues-how-science-proves-our-home-globe
No, there is no question about it; I consider Wiki less reliable than no source at all. It not a bad place to start, but to finish and cite Wiki as a source is a dangerous precedent to set. For meaningless matters, I suppose it's ok, but if a better source can be found, the time should be taken to do so. Please check out my new debate with seldiora on wiki reliability once it gets started. And, in the future, I'll try to be less cynical toward you; I much prefer a positive association, while having differing opinions, although I think we'd find much to agree on.
re: c[o]unt: Yes, a cheeky accident. Well, cheeky is the wrong anatomy, but it was an accidental exclusion. I never learned to type properly [I call my method "search and destroy] because I use mostly the thumbs and first two fingers of both hands, and letters at the extremes of that range, like 'o' are sometimes stroked only as a near-miss and do not register, particularly from my right hand. I'm left-handed. Plus the fact that I am an abominable speller. Just in this paragraph, I have had to go back and correct three words. My biggest issue is stray letters that are added because my fingertips are too large for the size of the keyboard, and I go through a keyboards annually because I really have a heavy-handed typing style. I crash against my keys. That's a problem because although I find mac keyboards more robust than windows devices, mac keyboards, like everything apple, are damn expensive.
Fallacious is in the eye of the beholder. Not to mention, however, that my reach for metaphor is extensive. Sometimes I miss. That's life in the pages.
All who have commented are encouraged to vote
Yes, mocking is a correct assessment.
The point:
1. As you point out, my opponent did not call out the allegation that my source was not valid; therefore, it was accepted, even by tacit acceptance.
2. IN this instance, the Tower of Babel may have been entirely fictitious, but fiction can be a legitimate source for the same reason you allege: "effective because...of the philosophical principle it explains." Your words. You must live by the application of them. Indeed, Wiki, my opponent's source [in another debate] rated as "reliable," says of the Bible that "These texts include theologically-focused historical accounts."
Christopher Hitchens, while maybe the most recent of irreverent anti-theists, may have been tearing at his own foundation with the publication of "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" four years before his death in 2011. By mere mention of God is the grounding that there is something there against which he is opposed. Opposition to an idea does not, by itself, negate the idea. Not a great ending for a life-long critic siding with divine non-existence. So, of what formal authority is the man's dulling razor? I can afford to reply to his razor, "Who's razor, and why should it necessarily be sharper than mine?" After all, I'm still alive, and I was born but 5 months after Hitchens, and still have my sharpening leather strap in good use. And, yeah, I use a straight razor. Bic and Gillette are for girly men.
Rule #4 shows incredible bias. It is allowed, certainly, in practice, but as a rule, particularly on this subject, it is limiting. Should I trust, rather, a source that says, "I am the husband of Joe Biden," "I'm Joe Biden, and I'm running for the United States Senate," and the ever popular, "I will beat Joe Biden." That "testimony or opinion must never be mistaken for reliable evidence." Yes, that's limiting, too, isn't it? Oh, well.
I was prepared to vote on this debate, but found the results of the debate untenable to render a vote.
Pro R1 says [presume the meaning is in the US, as the source indicates American voting] that a vote has never been registered by a majority of Americans. That is not true: Not all Americans are eligible to vote; there is an age restriction that limits the voting population, and pro does not account for this. Neither does the cited source, Wiki, which says of itself that it is an "unreliable source." Further, Pro offers an abstention option, which takes any certainty out of voter increase, effectively negating Pro's argument.
Con R1 effectively waives, which was not offered by Pro as an acceptable argument round, and is, therefore, effectively a forfeit.
Pro R2 offers one argument already set in R1: "It is evident that compulsory voting laws can and will increase voting turnout," but there is no further evidence shown beyond that offered in R1, In effect, this amounts to a waived round.
Con R2: Con effectively demonstrates the futility of an abstention option by cost and fear factor. This is the only valid argument Con makes in the debate.
Pro R3: The argument made that the fear factor does mean votes are foced, but then argues that inaccurate voting may eliminate compulsory voting. Neither argument makes sense.
Con R3: Forfeit, effectively the second occurrence, negating Con from consideration.
Pro R4: Extend argument [not possible being the last round.
Con R4: Declares victory
Con effectively argued a successful R2, but the forfeits cost Con the vote. Pro did not overwhelm Con's rebuttals, but made faulty proofs of arguments. I cannot vote even vote to offer a tie, because there was no tie. Con would have won without throwing two rounds away. Both participants failed
Class M, which is descriptive of neither Jupiter, nor an astroid. Fictitious, yes, but still based on some science, and, who said fiction cannot contain truth, other than a few on this site, and elsewhere, who do not recognize variant origins of truth. Particularly since the whole set-up of conditions in this debate are fictitious. Fiction can be supported by truth. Fiction is imaginary, but suspension of disbelief, the armor of fiction, says you can believe it, anyway.
Congratulations!. Looks like you're #3 in the population of debaters in number of debates engaged. Thanks for accepting. I wish you best of luck, but I promise I won't back you [bad joke!] Seriously, let's have a good, enjoyable debate!
Hold that thought through my round 1, if anyone accepts the debate. Otherwise, giving the store away is not my thing.
I try to make every word cunt. However, as I have indicated before, in this open period during the debate challenge, negotiation is always on the table/
Again, I apologize for not taking on this debate. It has a good first round, but as I plan to vote on the debate, I will not tip my hand to any favoritism of argument, etc. However, relative to post #10, and your response in #11, may I recommend that you not engage in conversation with anyone relative to your debate strategy by either description of intent, nor or avoidance. While in debate, stay aloof from direct conversation re: the debate. The debate should be entirely contained within the debate, except for use of comments to post sources, or to converse on subjects completely unrelated to the debate. Voters should be keen to watch for debate outside of the debate, and award points for keeping that distinction.
Same advice to MarkWebberFan.
I agree with SirAnonymous on the relevance of Conduct. There are plenty of occasions of unintentional errors in debate texts, and I used to point them out. If, however, the context of the argument is fully understood, I don't call it anymore. The Conduct rule calls it "incoherent." If the sense of text does not convey understanding, I'll call it, even if s&g are correct. It does impose an editing function, and I believe that is the duty of the debate participant. In your case, 9.9.9, reading your argument, even with the spacing issues, is coherent, so, no problems on my end with s&g. If it is a matter you're not causing, definitely consult with moderators to see what is causing the translation from your original writing to the text field in the argument page.
You: "I think the sources is barely enough explanation of why Con didn't earn the point too."
My vote: "Examples: Both in the battery/engine argument and the Ship of Perseus argument, Pro demonstrated Con's sources supporting Pro's position."
What more do you want? I specifically showed two examples where Con's sourcing failed by supporting Pro's argument. I notice you did not bother to vote at all.
Wrong interpretation. You have to read my words in their order. I stated: "Con's last round argument that Pro dropped the 50-50 split..." an accusation levied by Con, was followed by, "...lost conduct for failure to recognize Pro's rebuttal," a statement of conclusion of the drop. The problem was, Con offered a last-round defense, as my last comment indicated, which was incoherent, meeting the discipline of conduct points voting. It matters not that I could see what Con was trying to do, but Con didn't know their argument was incoherent. As a voter, that was my assessment; that Con didn't understand, and therefore displayed incoherent conduct.
You're going to have to do better than that in calling my vote out because both arguments by Con re: car batteries and babies babbling were effectively rebutted by Pro, and I found Con's final round defense ineffective, and, in fact, incoherent, per the definition of conduct voting. The defense simply did not make sense. That is incoherence, according to my dictionary, the OED. Face it, man, you just have a itch you cannot scratch in my regard.
Thank you for voting
Joe’s Hair
Jill asks me why I’m such a hairy guy,
I’m hairy night and day, enough for you to buy,
I’m hairy high and low; don’t ask; don’t know
Just stroke it smooth, t’will rise and show…
So, Darlin, give me head with hair,
Such long, beautiful hair,
Shining, gleaming, sniffing, flaxen, wax on,
Turn on, give me hair down to there
Hair that thrills when you stare,
Hair, baby, hair, momma, hair wherever,
Hair----
Show it, but don’t mow it, God, can I grow it!
Flies in the breeze, tangles in the trees,
Give a home to the fleas, a hive for the bees,
A nest for the birds, don’t they love my sniffing yours,
There ain’t no words for the wonders of coiffeurs,
Legs, hairy, pits, hairy, everywhere I’m hairy, Harry.
Hair…
©2019 by fauxlaw
worst rap: all or any
Source notes for r2:
1. https://www.whitman.edu/Documents/Academics/Debate/WNDI_LD_Starter_Kit_2014_v2.pdf
2. http://www.criminallawconsulting.com/blog/a-criminal-law-myth-never-ask-a-question-to-which-you-do-not-know-the-answer
As you will present the "science" side of this debate, I'd wonder how science defines the distinction of "human" vs. "person." I don't believe science has that distinction any better defined than the law has. To me, "human" is a species, and, as far as that goes, that is defined immediately upon conception. Actually, it's immediately defined by each gamete, but they each represent just half the species, and they begin to exist at the point in zygotic development upon cell differentiation in vitro. A "person" is far less well defined, and federal law defines that as immediately upon live birth [Title 1, USC 8] However, the law disagrees with itself by several State fetal homicide statutes, for example, Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006), which apply a duaql murder charge with the homicide of a pregnant woman. Murder is a legal term that applies to human persons, only. Murder of a dog is a misnomer.