If Mall proclaims to be a thinking being, and, potentially, an example of the "paragon of animals," with the ability to manipulate elements [such as hydrogen and oxygen], dare I challenge Mall to produce a molecule of those two elements that has at least four separate physical construct phases [a fluid, a solid, a gas, and a plasma]? If non-intelligent random selection can produce such a molecule, surely a thinking person can do so, too. Or, does it require intelligence even greater than the "paragon of animals?"
Very representative of the debate. I had a contender and a referee against me. Not to mention a mod who was already self-admittedly biased. 3 on 1? Yup.
And with that, my friends, having completed my last argument of my last debate for now, I wave a fond, and hopefully brief farewell hiatus, self-imposed; a necessity I have found necessary to indulge. I have a couple of unfinished books badly in need of editing, and some associated artwork; a science fiction [my first in that genre] and another non-fiction. I wish you good luck, best wishes, and fond memories. Be well. Be happy. Be productive.
Sorry. I'ii try to do better, but I do virtually all my work on my iMac with 3 x 27" screens. That way, I can maximize my page to over 160%. I like working large scale. For you, that doesn't exist. It's not that I'm blind; I have 25/20 [at 70, that's a miracle!]
Consider it in this vein: words may demonstrate our intentions, our potential, but only our actions demonstrate true character. Whether we believe we have the right to be offended, or not, [the set-up of the Pro/Con positions], what we will do about our relative positions will demonstrate the true character of our relative positions. The point is, we can believe whatever we wish, but only upon its action is the truth revealed. Yes, description of action, i.e., "what we will do about it" are just words, as well, but at least it will demonstrate that we have thought about consequences.
As stated in description: for Con, there's no affirmative. The Con argument is that we do not have the right to be offended, but there still must be a description about what to do about not having the right to be offended.
It's a debate about what IO consider to be an unwritten right of the 1A; that because we have the right of freedom of speech, it naturally follows [to me] that we thereby have the right to be offended. The Con side would argue that this unwritten right does not exist. However, since we may still be offended by the words/actions of another, what do we do about it?
I suppose you can argue whatever floats your boat in your rounds, and voters will decide your adherence to the intent of the resolution as worded. Have your say. The Constitution is misused in just such fashion.
By the way, your pronoun use is wanting. You're Con, not me. You say, therefore, As Con, [that's YOU] I can negate. S&G says as much.
The resolution, itself, is either/or. "Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane." Either it is sacred, or it is profane. Period. What about that tells you that one option is that it is neither? That resolution would be: Art is sacred and profane, or it is neither. But I did not word it that way. Syntax is everything.
Bamboozled? The resolution is clearly an either/or statement. The first four sentences of the full description emphasize that either/or. The definitions are careful to define each term of the resolution separately and distinctly. Sorry, but it is your misunderstanding, not my bamboozlement. I hold with all statements. No do-overs.
Chris, just a note to you as I review the arguments. You mention reparations in r1. Did you know that the proposal does not pass constitutional muster?Article I, section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Ex post facto is retro-active law. reparations would be retro-active. Can't be done.
Not my place to suggest one way or the other, but I'd consider a PM just a specialized comment exchange, and PM is not even within the "walls" of the debate file, whereas comments are within them, and they are forbidden to use as a voting factor per Voting Policy, ergo, a PM would best fit in that category. Isn't it still a matter of sheer logic as one considers the various forms of communication within DebateArt? Now you've heard from my side.
Chris, I didn't see your post #3 until I completed and posted my last round, sending the debate to voting. I cautioned Seldiora by PM before our debate began about referencing outside material in our debate, not that we cannot [because sources are outside material] but that it is a problem for voters who consider that outside material in their deliberation. You'll note in reading the debate [I hope you do], that I had to mention this again, so I hope your note will have effect in the future. That said, fun debate. I wish I'd thought of some things I raised this time; it may have made a difference in outcome last time.
Seldiora, that was a fun debate. Thanks for the invitation.
Thanks! I was afraid the arrow symbols would not transfer into the form. Whew! Did you enjoy my "Winter is coming?" Maybe you shouldn't answer that if you're going to vote. I'd rather have the vote than the commentary!
Whim? You will document that. And I refer you to the current debate, https://www.debateart.com/debates/2221/resolved-referenced-sources-are-necessary-in-a-debate
Back to class, my friend. Your source article from Bloomberg admits: "The FBI finally launched its database on police-involved shootings just this year, [i.e., Aug, 2019] which is why researchers rely on databases created by journalists. And even the subset of data that academics have been working with—police shooting fatalities—have their own range of limitations." Not to mention that it lacks statistical data background, such as the all important margin of error, which journalist-based surveys consistently and historically, are too large in range to be sufficiently accurate data. Not to mention that journalist-based surveys are also consistently and historically biased, agenda-driven surveys. I happen to be a certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Don't know what that is? Look it up. I live and breath this stuff.
But I'm not your debate opponent. pay attention to him, not me.
I note you failed to cite any source for you allegation of demolishing my argument. You can say it, but research is my best friend and surest guide, and the research data refutes your claim. According to https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/nationaltrends, over the inclusive years of 2013 to 2019 [7 years], police shootings/killings of blacks over the period amounted to 244 unarmed citizen deaths, while police shootings/killings of unarmed whites was 354 citizen deaths. Come on, man, do your research. Your claims are dead fish, and do not help your debate in any way. It's called BoP, and it's yours.
45 seconds? Looks like 11 hours to me, between my post and yours. Time is not your friend, either.
"The recent protests/riots came into fruition because of white America's true nature and feelings towards Black people." I would challenge your r1 claim [uncited, I'll note] on the basis f this statistic: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
which turns the tables on your "facts." In the period referenced, 2017 - 2020 [inclusive and to the current date of 2020] 778 blacks have been shot and killed by police, while 1,441 whites have been shot and killed by police. What is America's true nature, again?
1. Both abandoned sources after r1. But Con had more and better sources supporting his argument. You offered three sources, all saying the same thing: a 4-day work week is not a 40-hour work week, and you said a 40-hr work week is standard, but offered no evidence of that. Don't assume. Cite a source. It may be a standard, but a little research will reveal that most people do not work 40 hr/wk. You also said employees [implying all employees] are paid hourly. Once I finished school, I never worked an hourly wage. And after 20 years working for somebody else, I ran my own companies. Again, don't assume.
2. You assumed productivity is demonstrated by time cards and progress reports. Don't assume. Cite a source. As it happens, you're wrong on both counts and have obviously never had to run a company or demonstrate productivity. Your opponent was correct. There is evidence of higher productivity, and he showed it. Just because you put in 40 hours, or whatever, of "work" does not prove you are producing 40 hours of work. Look it up.
3. You assume 8 hours of work, 8 hours of sleep, and 14 hours of other activity. That may be your schedule, but don't assume you're the norm. For over 50 years, I worked 12 - 16 hours, slept 4 hours, and the rest... But I love my work, so it's more play than work. I'm retired and still work. Don't assume. You cited none of your claims, and assume everyone is the same. Such a poor assumption.
3. You assume because your opponent forfeited the last roud that you had nothing to rebut. You did, but didn't. Such as the above issues.
Since a miserable failure of a theory will not carry the day, will a sound failed theory win the debate? I cannot imagine one, but, as they say, all things are possible. Even always. Nik is well versed in Engineering. I'm not really asking for an answer because its bad form to argue during a debate outside of the debate...
No, not at all. I was in a joking mood, and you took the brunt of it. It was a good debate and I'm glad we had the opportunity to wage it together. I look forward to more. Bottom line, we're friends, and I value that. Friends sometimes take a a punch from friends. That's what we're for. But I do have a very cynical side at it is provoked by the slightest thing. Always be aware that I prefer to be good natured, and I apologize for ill feelings the cynic may cause.
You're both boxes of rocks. If most members of police forces were as you claim, you might have a case. As usual, your youth and inexperience, and the drivel you're taught convinces you that a few are the majority, that it has always been so and needs to change, and so the whole of our society needs to be replaced with your version of utopia, which has been tried previously, and has never, ever succeeded for a mere hundred years, let alone more. And as that argument is obvious, I will say no more since this is not a forum.
Hot damn!!! You have an argument that features ZERO original wiki references!!!! I blame oromagi for the ever present source in his debates that you cited. Well done. And a very good argument, as well.
No comment to any of you. Don't you guys get it, yet? My position: if you're going to take out your gun, you better be shooting it; i.e., stop commentary here because this is not the debate venue. Have some cojones and accept the debate, but leave me out of your empty, flatulent comment pens. Thank you, Death23; you're the only one with a generic comment and not directed to me.
Yes, but commentary is outside of debate rounds, and I've completed my rounds. The vote is already cast, and I did not ask that it be re-cast, did I? Do not read anything into what I write but what I write. I am a demon for detail. Believe it.
Did you miss my rebuttal to atheism in r2 that atheism is an expression of jealousy, a sub-set of possession, for denial of time commanded to be devoted to worship of God?
I really thought you argued some good points, and in my view, forgiving oromagi his r3 error was a valiant gesture I'm not sure I would have granted, and, it actually played into my decision of the approach taken by Pro [yes, I mean Pro] that patriotism [from a pride perspective] can forgive our errors sufficient to let forgiveness have a role in our national pride. It was truly a hard debate to vote on, and I wish you have made the voting on the 4-point system. I could have decided it was a tie, as Ragnar did, because I thought, until Con's unforced error, that you might carry the day; it was that close to me. I hate ties. Never the less, your debating is typically very well done, so, keep it up.
Zut, alors! I really messed up descriptions in my vote, confusing Pro and Con. I just hate it when an instigator plays games taking a Con position, even when I've done it. I've decided never again. See, I screw it up, myself. I've committed to always taking the Pro position as an instigator, and to word my resolutions from that perspective. So, lest anyone complain about my vote, ignore the descriptives relative to Pro and Con. I properly designated my vote as oromagi being the winner of this debate.
If Mall proclaims to be a thinking being, and, potentially, an example of the "paragon of animals," with the ability to manipulate elements [such as hydrogen and oxygen], dare I challenge Mall to produce a molecule of those two elements that has at least four separate physical construct phases [a fluid, a solid, a gas, and a plasma]? If non-intelligent random selection can produce such a molecule, surely a thinking person can do so, too. Or, does it require intelligence even greater than the "paragon of animals?"
Thank you for voting
thank you for voting
Very representative of the debate. I had a contender and a referee against me. Not to mention a mod who was already self-admittedly biased. 3 on 1? Yup.
But you needed the finger on the scale from the referee. Wasn't done on your own, was it? DA won this debate, not you. Give him the credit.
And with that, my friends, having completed my last argument of my last debate for now, I wave a fond, and hopefully brief farewell hiatus, self-imposed; a necessity I have found necessary to indulge. I have a couple of unfinished books badly in need of editing, and some associated artwork; a science fiction [my first in that genre] and another non-fiction. I wish you good luck, best wishes, and fond memories. Be well. Be happy. Be productive.
This debate does not deserve to end in a no-vote tie.
Sorry. I'ii try to do better, but I do virtually all my work on my iMac with 3 x 27" screens. That way, I can maximize my page to over 160%. I like working large scale. For you, that doesn't exist. It's not that I'm blind; I have 25/20 [at 70, that's a miracle!]
Thank you for your acceptance. I'll post r1 today
Consider it in this vein: words may demonstrate our intentions, our potential, but only our actions demonstrate true character. Whether we believe we have the right to be offended, or not, [the set-up of the Pro/Con positions], what we will do about our relative positions will demonstrate the true character of our relative positions. The point is, we can believe whatever we wish, but only upon its action is the truth revealed. Yes, description of action, i.e., "what we will do about it" are just words, as well, but at least it will demonstrate that we have thought about consequences.
As stated in description: for Con, there's no affirmative. The Con argument is that we do not have the right to be offended, but there still must be a description about what to do about not having the right to be offended.
It's a debate about what IO consider to be an unwritten right of the 1A; that because we have the right of freedom of speech, it naturally follows [to me] that we thereby have the right to be offended. The Con side would argue that this unwritten right does not exist. However, since we may still be offended by the words/actions of another, what do we do about it?
thanks for voting
I suppose you can argue whatever floats your boat in your rounds, and voters will decide your adherence to the intent of the resolution as worded. Have your say. The Constitution is misused in just such fashion.
By the way, your pronoun use is wanting. You're Con, not me. You say, therefore, As Con, [that's YOU] I can negate. S&G says as much.
The resolution, itself, is either/or. "Resolved: Art is secularly sacred, or it is profane." Either it is sacred, or it is profane. Period. What about that tells you that one option is that it is neither? That resolution would be: Art is sacred and profane, or it is neither. But I did not word it that way. Syntax is everything.
How about some votes, people?
Bamboozled? The resolution is clearly an either/or statement. The first four sentences of the full description emphasize that either/or. The definitions are careful to define each term of the resolution separately and distinctly. Sorry, but it is your misunderstanding, not my bamboozlement. I hold with all statements. No do-overs.
Not relevant to anything in particular, but it occurred to me to wonder if a Cribbage board could be used to score Texas Hold-em Poker. Anyone know?
Will it be a great day when debaters recognize the difference between argument and rebuttal?
Thanks for accepting the debate. I'll be posting my r1 soon. This should be a lot of fun.
Chris, just a note to you as I review the arguments. You mention reparations in r1. Did you know that the proposal does not pass constitutional muster?Article I, section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Ex post facto is retro-active law. reparations would be retro-active. Can't be done.
I will vote on it before the deadline
Not my place to suggest one way or the other, but I'd consider a PM just a specialized comment exchange, and PM is not even within the "walls" of the debate file, whereas comments are within them, and they are forbidden to use as a voting factor per Voting Policy, ergo, a PM would best fit in that category. Isn't it still a matter of sheer logic as one considers the various forms of communication within DebateArt? Now you've heard from my side.
Yes, that's what I mean.
My 12-year old grandson understands math when he sees it, even when numerics are replaced by alpha ciphers. It is just logic, after all.
Chris, I didn't see your post #3 until I completed and posted my last round, sending the debate to voting. I cautioned Seldiora by PM before our debate began about referencing outside material in our debate, not that we cannot [because sources are outside material] but that it is a problem for voters who consider that outside material in their deliberation. You'll note in reading the debate [I hope you do], that I had to mention this again, so I hope your note will have effect in the future. That said, fun debate. I wish I'd thought of some things I raised this time; it may have made a difference in outcome last time.
Seldiora, that was a fun debate. Thanks for the invitation.
Thanks! I was afraid the arrow symbols would not transfer into the form. Whew! Did you enjoy my "Winter is coming?" Maybe you shouldn't answer that if you're going to vote. I'd rather have the vote than the commentary!
Quote from your r2: "It is not considered 'murdering a chicken' if one eats the egg." What "birth vs pre-birth?"
thanks for voting
Whim? You will document that. And I refer you to the current debate, https://www.debateart.com/debates/2221/resolved-referenced-sources-are-necessary-in-a-debate
I will vote.
Back to class, my friend. Your source article from Bloomberg admits: "The FBI finally launched its database on police-involved shootings just this year, [i.e., Aug, 2019] which is why researchers rely on databases created by journalists. And even the subset of data that academics have been working with—police shooting fatalities—have their own range of limitations." Not to mention that it lacks statistical data background, such as the all important margin of error, which journalist-based surveys consistently and historically, are too large in range to be sufficiently accurate data. Not to mention that journalist-based surveys are also consistently and historically biased, agenda-driven surveys. I happen to be a certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Don't know what that is? Look it up. I live and breath this stuff.
But I'm not your debate opponent. pay attention to him, not me.
I note you failed to cite any source for you allegation of demolishing my argument. You can say it, but research is my best friend and surest guide, and the research data refutes your claim. According to https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/nationaltrends, over the inclusive years of 2013 to 2019 [7 years], police shootings/killings of blacks over the period amounted to 244 unarmed citizen deaths, while police shootings/killings of unarmed whites was 354 citizen deaths. Come on, man, do your research. Your claims are dead fish, and do not help your debate in any way. It's called BoP, and it's yours.
45 seconds? Looks like 11 hours to me, between my post and yours. Time is not your friend, either.
Winter is coming, and bears the name "Round 3"
"The recent protests/riots came into fruition because of white America's true nature and feelings towards Black people." I would challenge your r1 claim [uncited, I'll note] on the basis f this statistic: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
which turns the tables on your "facts." In the period referenced, 2017 - 2020 [inclusive and to the current date of 2020] 778 blacks have been shot and killed by police, while 1,441 whites have been shot and killed by police. What is America's true nature, again?
1. Both abandoned sources after r1. But Con had more and better sources supporting his argument. You offered three sources, all saying the same thing: a 4-day work week is not a 40-hour work week, and you said a 40-hr work week is standard, but offered no evidence of that. Don't assume. Cite a source. It may be a standard, but a little research will reveal that most people do not work 40 hr/wk. You also said employees [implying all employees] are paid hourly. Once I finished school, I never worked an hourly wage. And after 20 years working for somebody else, I ran my own companies. Again, don't assume.
2. You assumed productivity is demonstrated by time cards and progress reports. Don't assume. Cite a source. As it happens, you're wrong on both counts and have obviously never had to run a company or demonstrate productivity. Your opponent was correct. There is evidence of higher productivity, and he showed it. Just because you put in 40 hours, or whatever, of "work" does not prove you are producing 40 hours of work. Look it up.
3. You assume 8 hours of work, 8 hours of sleep, and 14 hours of other activity. That may be your schedule, but don't assume you're the norm. For over 50 years, I worked 12 - 16 hours, slept 4 hours, and the rest... But I love my work, so it's more play than work. I'm retired and still work. Don't assume. You cited none of your claims, and assume everyone is the same. Such a poor assumption.
3. You assume because your opponent forfeited the last roud that you had nothing to rebut. You did, but didn't. Such as the above issues.
Since a miserable failure of a theory will not carry the day, will a sound failed theory win the debate? I cannot imagine one, but, as they say, all things are possible. Even always. Nik is well versed in Engineering. I'm not really asking for an answer because its bad form to argue during a debate outside of the debate...
No, not at all. I was in a joking mood, and you took the brunt of it. It was a good debate and I'm glad we had the opportunity to wage it together. I look forward to more. Bottom line, we're friends, and I value that. Friends sometimes take a a punch from friends. That's what we're for. But I do have a very cynical side at it is provoked by the slightest thing. Always be aware that I prefer to be good natured, and I apologize for ill feelings the cynic may cause.
Source references for r3:
1 https://nleomf.org/facts-figures/law-enforcement-facts
2 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/us/portland-oregon-protests-white-race.html
3 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219
4 ibid
5 https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
6 https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-homicides-data-tracker-htmlstory.html
7 ibid
8 https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-protests-timeline.html
9 ibid
10 https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/WarDeclarationsbyCongress.htm
11 https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/WarDeclarationsbyCongress.htm
12 Quote attributed to General William Tecumseh Sherman
13 https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-protests-timeline.html
14 https://bracingviews.com/2016/08/28/the-many-purposes-of-war/
15 https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/what-politics/content-section-2.1.1
You're both boxes of rocks. If most members of police forces were as you claim, you might have a case. As usual, your youth and inexperience, and the drivel you're taught convinces you that a few are the majority, that it has always been so and needs to change, and so the whole of our society needs to be replaced with your version of utopia, which has been tried previously, and has never, ever succeeded for a mere hundred years, let alone more. And as that argument is obvious, I will say no more since this is not a forum.
Thanks for voting
I accept your argument and I will follow it. Thank you.
So, instead of asking for a negotiating point, you accuse that I don't understand negotiating? Why don't you ask rather than accuse? Is that so hard?
Hot damn!!! You have an argument that features ZERO original wiki references!!!! I blame oromagi for the ever present source in his debates that you cited. Well done. And a very good argument, as well.
The description and context are given. By acceptance, you agree to them. If not, you don't.
No comment to any of you. Don't you guys get it, yet? My position: if you're going to take out your gun, you better be shooting it; i.e., stop commentary here because this is not the debate venue. Have some cojones and accept the debate, but leave me out of your empty, flatulent comment pens. Thank you, Death23; you're the only one with a generic comment and not directed to me.
I will not comment further until after voting has ended, lest any other voters be unduly influenced
Yes, but commentary is outside of debate rounds, and I've completed my rounds. The vote is already cast, and I did not ask that it be re-cast, did I? Do not read anything into what I write but what I write. I am a demon for detail. Believe it.
Did you miss my rebuttal to atheism in r2 that atheism is an expression of jealousy, a sub-set of possession, for denial of time commanded to be devoted to worship of God?
I really thought you argued some good points, and in my view, forgiving oromagi his r3 error was a valiant gesture I'm not sure I would have granted, and, it actually played into my decision of the approach taken by Pro [yes, I mean Pro] that patriotism [from a pride perspective] can forgive our errors sufficient to let forgiveness have a role in our national pride. It was truly a hard debate to vote on, and I wish you have made the voting on the 4-point system. I could have decided it was a tie, as Ragnar did, because I thought, until Con's unforced error, that you might carry the day; it was that close to me. I hate ties. Never the less, your debating is typically very well done, so, keep it up.
Zut, alors! I really messed up descriptions in my vote, confusing Pro and Con. I just hate it when an instigator plays games taking a Con position, even when I've done it. I've decided never again. See, I screw it up, myself. I've committed to always taking the Pro position as an instigator, and to word my resolutions from that perspective. So, lest anyone complain about my vote, ignore the descriptives relative to Pro and Con. I properly designated my vote as oromagi being the winner of this debate.