"Accidental harm is when someone gets hurt or something gets damaged by accident, without anyone meaning to do it on purpose. This is different from when someone intentionally hurts someone or something, which is called a tortious act" from https://www.lsd.law/define/accidental-harm#:~:text=Accidental%20harm%20is%20when%20someone,is%20called%20a%20tortious%20act.
Arguing against a definition is covered in debateart ...rules...style..."Ensure your definitions are outlined. If disagreeing with any established one(s), make a brief case for the superior authority of your alternative(s)."A better definition needs be argued in round one.
You are allowed to argue that the definition offered is too broad. Saying "Evil = causing or have caused harm to person" does not accept accidental harm.
A child is riding his brand new bicycle down the street. He is proceeding in a safe manner. Suddenly his bicycle tire blows out due to an undetected manufacturing defect. His bicycle flips over and lands on another child. That child is injured. How was the bicycle rider "evil"?
According to DART rules ..."Ensure your definitions are outlined. If disagreeing with any established one(s), make a brief case for the superior authority of your alternative(s)."
from https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#first-round
Ergo the premise and the description are debatable.
Much of my argument rests on the use of the term"communism".
I asked BK for an authoritative source in support of BK's usage.
According to DART rules ..."Ensure your definitions are outlined. If disagreeing with any established one(s), make a brief case for the superior authority of your alternative(s)."
from https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#first-round
Ergo the premise and the description are debatable.
Thus the debate ends in a tie. Was no one interested in the topic? Did we both just waste our time?
The debate rules should change so a tie vote = no debate.
"Accidental harm is when someone gets hurt or something gets damaged by accident, without anyone meaning to do it on purpose. This is different from when someone intentionally hurts someone or something, which is called a tortious act" from https://www.lsd.law/define/accidental-harm#:~:text=Accidental%20harm%20is%20when%20someone,is%20called%20a%20tortious%20act.
Arguing against a definition is covered in debateart ...rules...style..."Ensure your definitions are outlined. If disagreeing with any established one(s), make a brief case for the superior authority of your alternative(s)."A better definition needs be argued in round one.
You are allowed to argue that the definition offered is too broad. Saying "Evil = causing or have caused harm to person" does not accept accidental harm.
All YOU need do is stop responding to me.
I will do no such thing! You are the one ranting.
When YOU stop wasting EVERYONE'S time!
You claim.." It fits the definition of evil in this debate, as harm was caused by the child."
How did the child cause injury?
A child is riding his brand new bicycle down the street. He is proceeding in a safe manner. Suddenly his bicycle tire blows out due to an undetected manufacturing defect. His bicycle flips over and lands on another child. That child is injured. How was the bicycle rider "evil"?
Your definition is too broad. You posit that "Evil = causing harm to other person" . Do you mean "Evil = intentionally causing harm to other person"?
What is the whole truth? We need more info in order to accept / reject this debate.
Why accept and then forfeit?
Why post and then not even debate?
Perhaps go after the definition of "fetus", "innocence" and "intention"?
Yes!
According to DART rules ..."Ensure your definitions are outlined. If disagreeing with any established one(s), make a brief case for the superior authority of your alternative(s)."
from https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#first-round
Ergo the premise and the description are debatable.
Definitions must be validated by an authoritative source....always, always, always.
Much of my argument rests on the use of the term"communism".
I asked BK for an authoritative source in support of BK's usage.
According to DART rules ..."Ensure your definitions are outlined. If disagreeing with any established one(s), make a brief case for the superior authority of your alternative(s)."
from https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#first-round
Ergo the premise and the description are debatable.
What "sources" did BK use? ( zero )
According to rules definitions CAN BE DEBATED.
Exactly what "argument" did BK put forth? ( zero)
The vote bears NO resemblance to the reality of the debate.
Let me know how you decide after a "second review"
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
I do not understand why a debater would choose to forfeit.
With 6 hours to go, score is 0 to 14.
No bombers yet seen.....
Thanx for the feedback. I did not intend to break policy. It was my error.
I have corrected and voted again in adherence to the policy.
That may not please everyone, but I along with 2 others have voted for Con, so it appears to be accurate.
With 3 days to go, score is 0 to 14.
No bombers yet seen.....
I was attempting to be sensitive to the beliefs of others.
It was not to be a vote on religious grounds.
Con did a better job on two points which Pro did not counter ( Child marriage traumatizes children. and
Aisha was enslaved)
I included the UN as a neutral third party support for my vote.i
If this was wrong, well .....In the words of Steve Martin......"EXCUSSSSSSE Me!"
To what debate are you making such a groundless accusation?
Will this be "just post what you ate today"?
With six days to go, the score is 0 and 14.
I do not support "troll debates"
Debates should be about FACTS not FEELINGS.
How do you define "complex"?
The debate title was more of a question than a proposition.
It was a good debate.
Con's slight edge to me was the view that dueling had been legal , and is now illegal in 48 states.
What is the debate about?
What topic did you choose?
You have already debated this topic a dozen times.
You have already debated this topic a dozen times.
DebateArt should end "troll debates"
DebateArt should end "troll debates"
The topic is you are pro that people who live in the southern hemisphere are in danger of falling off the bottom of the earth.
" Con takes the position of atheism."
But what if con doesn't believe in atheism?
Would that make con a bad atheist, or a skeptical atheist?
Is a skeptical atheist someone who seeks proof of the non existence of a deity,and then doesn't accept the proof?
Is pro capable of defending a position?
When you say "A.i. should not be used in work place now." , what do you mean by "now"?
Debate has been edited based on comments.
Then let us come to an agreeable debate title, and have at it.