Total Posts:114|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Apeiron's ridiculously long argument

DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 2:00:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Introduction

I'm pleased to note that Con doesn't really object at all to the argument! Rather he focuses his case on terminology and clarification points, which is like a backhanded compliment to the KCA by its own right. My opening round had some technical difficulties, but the case easily stands. First, recall my claim that plausibly, a First Cause exists as a supernatural Personhood. Second, this argument takes place against the backdrop of what the best explanation of the cosmos seems to be. The space-time reality with which we find ourselves is endowed with a beautiful mathematical structure that allows for embodied moral agents and physical regularity together with the reliability of that regularity.

What seems to be the best explanation for this cosmic mystery? Well recall that whatever exists is either necessary or not, and whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence. However, if the cosmos has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a necessary uncaused cause of the cosmos, who without the cosmos, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, and enormously powerful. But since the cosmos is contingent since it came to be, then it follows therefore, that the cosmos must have an external grounf ot its existence found in a necessary cause with said ultramundade properties. So in the quest for discovering if mind or matter came first, it seems reasonable to think that mind comes from mind and reasoning things come to be for a reason. If this is the case, and if this substrate that the royal we (minds) call home was birthed, then it becomes not a question of what, but rather who bore the labor? William Lane Craig writes [10].

The supernatural alternative
If we go the route of postulating some casual agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the origin of the universe, then conceptual analysis enables us to recover a number of striking properties which must be possessed by such an ultra-mundane being. For as the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially, at least sans the universe. This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any antecedent causal conditions. Ockham"s Razor will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe without any material cause.
Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent cause is plausibly to be taken to be personal. As Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne points out, there are two types of causal explanation. Scientific explanations in terms of law and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions.57 A first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation. Since there is nothing before it, and therefore it can be accounted for only in terms of a personal explanation. Moreover, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timeless and immateriality, since the only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be of the order of mind. This same conclusion is also implied by the fact that we have in this case the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the origin of the universe were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, it would be impossible for the cause to exist without its effect. For if the necessary and sufficient conditions of the effect are timelessly given, then their effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and changeless but for its effect to originate de novo a finite time ago is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without antecedent determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal creator.

The kCA can be summarized as follows -

1. the cosmos began
2. If the cosmos began, then it has a transcendent cause
3. Therefore, the cosmos has a transcendent cause

Argument Outline
P1, The cosmos began
Note what Con affirms, "I wholly agree: the cosmos must have a finite past " [it] began to exist." His only reservation is that I must clearly define what "began to exist" means. But that's easy! Take "begins to exist" to be synonymous with "comes into being." In this case, the cosmos comes into being just if it is finite.... well that was simple enough, what about Con"s tautology that everything in time is in time?

First, Con mistakes a temporally prior state for a causally prior state of affairs. He merely posits, "that there was no previously existing state of affairs before the cosmos existed." Clearly he means there was no state of affairs temporally prior, not causally prior, and I agree. But the KCA demonstrates a causally prior state of affair, to think otherwise is to beg the question against the mutakallim. We"ll need to know why there can be no causally prior state. (No one"s arguing there was a temporally prior state, indeed I'm arguing against it).

The KCA therefore successfully argues that there must be a causally prior state of affairs since, as Con already agrees, being cannot arise from a state of non-being. A cosmos can"t arise from a state of non-cosmos, otherwise it faces the Parmenidean Reductio that Con totally failed to address! Con has simply done nothing to eliminate the possibility that the cosmos is in fact contingent, he"s just mistaken the CP (see below). And so the BOP is on him to show that there was no state of affairs causally prior to the cosmos' beginning.

Second, Con complains that the definition of contingency appears inadequate, he says this because it seems that temporal talk is equivocated with causal talk. This just takes an easy clarification. When we speak of things beyond space and time, we use misnomers to describe such things, but that does not imply that what these misnomers are attempting to describe or convey is therefore incoherent or false. At worse we would just have to revise our provisional definitions. For instance, taken in terms of the two criteria for contingency that Con derived from our provisional definition,

(i) there must be a time T in which X exists, and
(ii) there must be a time prior to T, -T, in which X does not exist.

... We can revise it thusly,

(i') there must be a state in which X exists, and
(ii') there must be a state in which X does not exist

... the definition for contingency therefore becomes,

By this definition, Con get around there having to be a cause. For we can state the first tensed fact, that at t=0 thecosmos comes to be, as well as stating it tenselessly, the cosmos began. So in addition to tenseless facts, there also appear to be tensed facts, but if there are tensed facts, then time itself is tensed, therefore, temporal becoming is real- there is a dynamism about reality, a constant becoming of reality in time! What could be more obvious that thecosmos is contingent? [13]

So by his own stripes Con must admit that the cosmos, including time itself, must have come to be, it must have been generated. As if this point weren"t solidified enough, consider the following argument that renders time itself contingent-

Grim Reaper Paradox
Supper there were denumerably infinitely many Grim Reaper gods assigned to your death each at their appointed time from 12-1p. Once you"re dead no further Reaper swings his scythe. You start out alive at 12:00p. and Reaper 1 will strike you dead at 1p. if you"re alive at that time.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 2:00:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Reaper 2 strikes at 12:30p if you"re alive then and Reaper 3 strikes at 12:15p. etc. But this leads to a contradiction: you can"t survive or be killed past 12! Therefore, an infinite set of time is impossible (which leaves presentism over eternalism), from which it follows that the cosmos has a beginning; our local universe at -14Ga.

Empirical Confirmation
Other than the cited work done by Vilenkin and Mithani, cosmic expansion and thermodynamics provide empirical confirmation of a cosmic beginning.

Cosmic Expansion
The big bang name is misleading since the singularity didn't occur at some point in a preexisting empty space like a superdense pellet exploding. The theory is more radical than that, since space and time as well as matter and energy came into being. For as we trace the expansion back in time, distances between any two points equals zero- space and time can't be extended any further back than this.

So while the typical model cone of universe can be extended forward in time indefinitely, nevertheless it has a boundary backwards in time. The geometry of space-time shrinks down to a boundary point before which it doesn"t exist so that no geodesic coordinates can describe the non-space-time past this point. Astrophysicist PW Davies explains, "the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science" is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization" upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing. [14]

Since that direction in the figure above represents time, that means that at some point in the past space began to exist. There is a boundary point before which nothing existed. What this implies, therefore, is that the past is finite and that time and space had a beginning. Because space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, this means that all matter and energy also came into being at this point. It is the beginning of the universe. Notice that at the beginning point, it is false that there was anything prior to the universe. Therefore, given all this data, Con cannot escape the cosmos having a finite past and therefore being a contingent thing requiring a cause.

P2, If the cosmos began, then it has a transcendent cause
It"s obviously false that I "spent the majority of [my] previous round proving the cosmos must have a finite past"" for most of my introduction was spent on supporting the casual principle with two arguments: the parmenidea reductio and the prima facie. Warrant within the absence of empirical defeaters. Both arguments Con never even addressed.
No impossible existence Con is mistaken to think that which cannot exist somehow is in a mode of being. This is wrong headed, impossible things just fail to exist, they don"t exist in an impossible state. This blunder illustrates the same context in which he views the casual principle CP. He argues that CP is true, but that it"s irrelevant because nothing can come from absolute nothing.
Of course that"s true, but that"s not only what is being argued. The causal principle simply states that whatever comes to be has a cause. It"s not thinking of the impossibility of an absolute state of nothingness! For example, when I fail to have lunch, and my friend asks me how my lunch was, I don"t need to posit an absolute state of non-being in order to tell him that I didn"t cause a sandwich to exist that day! Nor do I tell him that the sandwich I never had was good. There just was no matter of fact about the sandwich other than it failed to exist, by my hand it failed to have a cause. Yet if the sandwich was made, then since it could not have come to be ex nihilo, then it logically follows that it requires an efficient cause in terms of agency. Yes there is also a material cause involved as well as a formal cause. But in the case of the universe, all matter and energy as well as time and space came to be, it was generated, and so therefore it requires an efficient transcendent cause.

Parmenidean Reductio
[Argument Extended]

Lack of Empirical Defeaters
[Argument Extended]
Modal Argument
Apart from the pima facie rational warrant the CP enjoys in the absence of empirical defeaters and also as an alternative to the parmenidean contradiction, a modal argument can be constructed for its necessary truth. Whatever could have a cause, does; since causes appear to be an essential property of effects, that is, cause-effect is a necessary relationship.
If all wholly contingent positive facts have causes, then those facts can have a cause. For wholly contingent facts with causes obtain in worlds lacking indiscernibles. But if wholly contingent facts with causes obtain in worlds lacking indiscernibles, then wholly contingent facts with causes obtain in wordlds not lacking indiscernibles also because indiscernible things are maximally specific. For example, why couldn"t there be a world consisting of a single uncaused brick, but there could be a world consisting of two indiscernible uncaused brick? Therefore, the CP holds in all worlds for all wholly contingent facts.

Theistic Implications
Conceptual Analysis of a First Cause
Ultramundanity
[Argument Extended]

Personal
Again, Con offered no argument here that the cause is more plausibly personal. He complains that "agency" wasn"t defined. But I already said that a necessary condition for agency or Personhood is freedom of the will. And the existence of such a cause is the conclusion of the KCA as well as the conceptual analysis of the first cause I give below. It argues first that the only things which exist immaterially or at least timelessly are either abstract ideas or a mind. But since abstract ideas by definition are causally impotent, then it follows that a mind is the best candidate for the first cause. This is argued under, "Noncontingent First Cause."

Second, under "Personal Over Scientific" it was argued that only two types of explanation exist, personal or scientific, and since it can't be scientific because whatever created the universe is causally prior to it, then the cause of the universe must therefore be personal. Then the personhood of the first cause was argued for under "Temporal Effect from a Non-temporal Cause" and then "Cosmic Properties" of the universe was shown to indicate the plausibility of a personal cause over a non-personal one. Let"s look at each in turn.

Noncontingent First Cause
[Extend Arguments]

Personal Over Scientific
Here it was argued that there are two types of known explanations sufficient for any cause, scientific or personal. But the universe cannot be given a scientific explanation since it is the cause of space-time. There is no spatiotemporal thing before or beyond space and time so it couldn't be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of personal explanation in terms of volition, a personal explanation wherein something new is created spontaneously by an immaterial timeless being.

Temporal Effect from a Non-temporal Cause
Here we saw that there are three known classes of causation, state-state, event-event, and agent causation. Recall that the first cause of space-time cannot be the former two, thus the cause must be a free agent since in state-state and event-event causality, the cause is sufficient to produce its effect, meaning that the cause must be coeternal with the effect. But if the cosmic cause is timeless and so exists permanently, why isn"t the effect also timeless and permanent as well? I argued that the best answer remains to be found in agent causation wherein a free person spontaneously creates a new thing! (This is what agency is defined by).
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 2:00:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Cosmic Properties
The cosmos could have been many different ways that make a non-sentient cause more probably; if, say certain features like the cosmological constant had been altered, or if the initial conditions put in as boundary conditions within the Planck era, if any of these had been very slightly different not only would life be impossible, but so would the regularity and reliability of that regularity that science demands. In fact it"s namely intention action that requires this reliable regularity. But more importantly, it also requires our implicit assuming its regularity, our cognitive faculties therefore must somehow be adequated to this particular reality. And it makes no sense to say this adequation to reality arose by chance since evolution selects for survival and not for true beliefs. Therefore, the statistical success of the adequation of our intellect to this reality strongly disconfirms non-sentient creation over what theists have always affirmed, that God is mindful of man.

Con doesn"t at all reply to this point however, other than just asserting that the cosmos with these collective properties is necessary. But that doesn"t at all seem possible, first because of the KCA, and second because we could just as easily imagine a possible world in which the cosmos doesn"t have these properties. The cosmos by definition therefore is not only contingent, but plausibly willed.

Argument Map Summary

Conclusion
Thus given the fact that the denials of a cosmic beginning and causal principle are impossible, it follows necessarily that the universe has a supernatural cause which is more plausibly personal given the nature of a noncontingent cause. The non-scientific explanation, the nature of a non-temporal effect from a timeless cause indicating agency, and finally the collective properties in which the cosmos was created with strongly disconfirm a non-personal cause. As physicist JM Wersinger said, "At first the scientific community was very reluctant to accept the idea of a birth of the universe. Not only did the Big Bang model seem to give in to the idea Judeo-Christian diea of a beginning of the world, but it also seemed to have to call for an act of supernatural creation"" [15]

Citations
13. http://www.reasonablefaith.org......
14. http://www.abc.net.au......
15. Wersinger, "Genesis: the Origin of the Universe," 1996
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 2:19:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 2:07:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
What do you hope to achieve by posting this here?

I posted this as a thread so that I might link to it from my debate.
larztheloser
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 2:39:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 2:19:31 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 5/15/2013 2:07:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
What do you hope to achieve by posting this here?

I posted this as a thread so that I might link to it from my debate.

Could you have used the "Religion" or "Philosophy" forum?
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 2:52:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 2:39:20 AM, larztheloser wrote:
At 5/15/2013 2:19:31 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 5/15/2013 2:07:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
What do you hope to achieve by posting this here?

I posted this as a thread so that I might link to it from my debate.

Could you have used the "Religion" or "Philosophy" forum?

In this case, I'm not interested in the content or the genre of the argument, unfortunately. I'm interested in how insanely long it is.

Apeiron exploited a loophole to bypass our debate's generous character limit of 8,000 by posting "pictures" that were nothing but paragraphs of text. This is that same argument, only with the paragraphs of text actually typed out instead of in picture format.

Apeiron objected to him exceeding the character limit by more than 1,000 so I posted this here to link to it from our debate so that everyone can see for themselves just how long it is. It's easy to copy/paste this now into a Word document and use "word count" see how many characters he used (close to 18,000!).
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 3:17:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 2:52:58 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 5/15/2013 2:39:20 AM, larztheloser wrote:
At 5/15/2013 2:19:31 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 5/15/2013 2:07:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
What do you hope to achieve by posting this here?

I posted this as a thread so that I might link to it from my debate.

Could you have used the "Religion" or "Philosophy" forum?

In this case, I'm not interested in the content or the genre of the argument, unfortunately. I'm interested in how insanely long it is.

Apeiron exploited a loophole to bypass our debate's generous character limit of 8,000 by posting "pictures" that were nothing but paragraphs of text. This is that same argument, only with the paragraphs of text actually typed out instead of in picture format.

Apeiron objected to him exceeding the character limit by more than 1,000 so I posted this here to link to it from our debate so that everyone can see for themselves just how long it is. It's easy to copy/paste this now into a Word document and use "word count" see how many characters he used (close to 18,000!).

Whether it be 1000 or 10,000, going over the limit is going over the limit. It's a conduct violation, and since this violation ended up ruining the debate Apeiron deserves a loss in this debate.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 6:41:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Conduct and voting is completely subjective. There is nothing in the ToS that says he should forfeit for this. There is also nothing in the ToS saying this is wrong. Unless both parties agree that it was the wrong thing to do, there isn't any objective standard to use to charge Pro with conduct violation.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 8:08:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sounds like a damn fine case to me... any reason why you didn't respond other than to complain about length?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 8:49:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 6:41:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Conduct and voting is completely subjective. There is nothing in the ToS that says he should forfeit for this. There is also nothing in the ToS saying this is wrong. Unless both parties agree that it was the wrong thing to do, there isn't any objective standard to use to charge Pro with conduct violation.

Pretty much Dakota saw he had no substantive objections, so he opted for emotive complaint instead.. his friends'll vote conduct for him.. that's about it.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:00:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 8:49:32 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/15/2013 6:41:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Conduct and voting is completely subjective. There is nothing in the ToS that says he should forfeit for this. There is also nothing in the ToS saying this is wrong. Unless both parties agree that it was the wrong thing to do, there isn't any objective standard to use to charge Pro with conduct violation.

Pretty much Dakota saw he had no substantive objections, so he opted for emotive complaint instead.. his friends'll vote conduct for him.. that's about it.

You cheated, and you'll loose because of it. If you played by the rules, this wouldn't have been an issue. Don't pretend like this is because of something Dakota did. You made the choice to go WELL OVER 8k characters.
Tsar of DDO
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:04:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 9:00:18 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/15/2013 8:49:32 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/15/2013 6:41:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Conduct and voting is completely subjective. There is nothing in the ToS that says he should forfeit for this. There is also nothing in the ToS saying this is wrong. Unless both parties agree that it was the wrong thing to do, there isn't any objective standard to use to charge Pro with conduct violation.

Pretty much Dakota saw he had no substantive objections, so he opted for emotive complaint instead.. his friends'll vote conduct for him.. that's about it.

You cheated, and you'll loose because of it. If you played by the rules, this wouldn't have been an issue. Don't pretend like this is because of something Dakota did. You made the choice to go WELL OVER 8k characters.

As evidenced in the debate, Dakota agreed to my methods and then later lied about it. Plus this was a private message between him and I as Pennington was was also part of the message, it was a group discussion.

Nothing on this site said I cheated, pictures are allowed to be used in any way.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:08:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 9:04:59 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/15/2013 9:00:18 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/15/2013 8:49:32 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/15/2013 6:41:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Conduct and voting is completely subjective. There is nothing in the ToS that says he should forfeit for this. There is also nothing in the ToS saying this is wrong. Unless both parties agree that it was the wrong thing to do, there isn't any objective standard to use to charge Pro with conduct violation.

Pretty much Dakota saw he had no substantive objections, so he opted for emotive complaint instead.. his friends'll vote conduct for him.. that's about it.

You cheated, and you'll loose because of it. If you played by the rules, this wouldn't have been an issue. Don't pretend like this is because of something Dakota did. You made the choice to go WELL OVER 8k characters.

As evidenced in the debate, Dakota agreed to my methods and then later lied about it. Plus this was a private message between him and I as Pennington was was also part of the message, it was a group discussion.

Nothing on this site said I cheated, pictures are allowed to be used in any way.

The issue is the character limit (NOT images), which you violated, and he did not in the round.
Tsar of DDO
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:12:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 6:41:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Conduct and voting is completely subjective. There is nothing in the ToS that says he should forfeit for this. There is also nothing in the ToS saying this is wrong. Unless both parties agree that it was the wrong thing to do, there isn't any objective standard to use to charge Pro with conduct violation.

Wrong. You can click the question mark next to each point to see what the standard is for giving each point.

Unsportsmanlike behaviour is one such standard. Now, I don't know about you, but cheating, lying, and trying to cover up said cheating is not sportsmanlike behaviour by any means as far as I'm concerned, and I'll eat my laptop if a single mod disagrees with me on this.

I've re-instated my vote, and if you continue to falsely counter me I'll request a CVB against you.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:13:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why are you showing this here?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:15:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 9:08:18 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/15/2013 9:04:59 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/15/2013 9:00:18 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/15/2013 8:49:32 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/15/2013 6:41:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Conduct and voting is completely subjective. There is nothing in the ToS that says he should forfeit for this. There is also nothing in the ToS saying this is wrong. Unless both parties agree that it was the wrong thing to do, there isn't any objective standard to use to charge Pro with conduct violation.

Pretty much Dakota saw he had no substantive objections, so he opted for emotive complaint instead.. his friends'll vote conduct for him.. that's about it.

You cheated, and you'll loose because of it. If you played by the rules, this wouldn't have been an issue. Don't pretend like this is because of something Dakota did. You made the choice to go WELL OVER 8k characters.

As evidenced in the debate, Dakota agreed to my methods and then later lied about it. Plus this was a private message between him and I as Pennington was was also part of the message, it was a group discussion.

Nothing on this site said I cheated, pictures are allowed to be used in any way.

The issue is the character limit (NOT images), which you violated, and he did not in the round.

The images had characters on them, sure, but that's no violation since Dakota agreed to what I messaged him, if he was confused he should have asked me to clarify. The character limit is impossible to violate, I couldn't submit my debate otherwise. Thanks for vote-bombing btw and masking it as a counter. He that is without sin cast the first stone bud.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:18:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 9:12:04 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 5/15/2013 6:41:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Conduct and voting is completely subjective. There is nothing in the ToS that says he should forfeit for this. There is also nothing in the ToS saying this is wrong. Unless both parties agree that it was the wrong thing to do, there isn't any objective standard to use to charge Pro with conduct violation.

Wrong. You can click the question mark next to each point to see what the standard is for giving each point.

Unsportsmanlike behaviour is one such standard. Now, I don't know about you, but cheating, lying, and trying to cover up said cheating is not sportsmanlike behaviour by any means as far as I'm concerned, and I'll eat my laptop if a single mod disagrees with me on this.

I've re-instated my vote, and if you continue to falsely counter me I'll request a CVB against you.

Look at this self-righteous twit. This isn't a wresting match kid, it's a debate about a philosophical argument. And even more important, Dakota agreed to my methods, if he was confused he should have asked to clarify.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:20:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 9:18:00 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/15/2013 9:12:04 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 5/15/2013 6:41:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Conduct and voting is completely subjective. There is nothing in the ToS that says he should forfeit for this. There is also nothing in the ToS saying this is wrong. Unless both parties agree that it was the wrong thing to do, there isn't any objective standard to use to charge Pro with conduct violation.

Wrong. You can click the question mark next to each point to see what the standard is for giving each point.

Unsportsmanlike behaviour is one such standard. Now, I don't know about you, but cheating, lying, and trying to cover up said cheating is not sportsmanlike behaviour by any means as far as I'm concerned, and I'll eat my laptop if a single mod disagrees with me on this.

I've re-instated my vote, and if you continue to falsely counter me I'll request a CVB against you.


Look at this self-righteous twit. This isn't a wresting match kid, it's a debate about a philosophical argument. And even more important, Dakota agreed to my methods, if he was confused he should have asked to clarify.

He's not being self-righteous, or a twit. You're acting like a petulant child.
Tsar of DDO
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:27:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 9:20:49 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/15/2013 9:18:00 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/15/2013 9:12:04 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 5/15/2013 6:41:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Conduct and voting is completely subjective. There is nothing in the ToS that says he should forfeit for this. There is also nothing in the ToS saying this is wrong. Unless both parties agree that it was the wrong thing to do, there isn't any objective standard to use to charge Pro with conduct violation.

Wrong. You can click the question mark next to each point to see what the standard is for giving each point.

Unsportsmanlike behaviour is one such standard. Now, I don't know about you, but cheating, lying, and trying to cover up said cheating is not sportsmanlike behaviour by any means as far as I'm concerned, and I'll eat my laptop if a single mod disagrees with me on this.

I've re-instated my vote, and if you continue to falsely counter me I'll request a CVB against you.


Look at this self-righteous twit. This isn't a wresting match kid, it's a debate about a philosophical argument. And even more important, Dakota agreed to my methods, if he was confused he should have asked to clarify.

He's not being self-righteous, or a twit. You're acting like a petulant child.

Haha
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:28:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Apeiron,

I thought you said it was a couple of paragraphs over the length? It's over double the character limit! I mean seriously, what did you expect?

I get that you would prefer everyone concentrate on the real content of the debate. And I do have some sympathy with that PoV. Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen. But I don't get you blaming everyone else. You made it the issue by doing what you did.

Smithereens,

Obviously, it's against the rules to go over the character count. That's why there is a character count in the first place.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:34:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 9:28:56 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Apeiron,

I thought you said it was a couple of paragraphs over the length? It's over double the character limit! I mean seriously, what did you expect?

I get that you would prefer everyone concentrate on the real content of the debate. And I do have some sympathy with that PoV. Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen. But I don't get you blaming everyone else. You made it the issue by doing what you did.


Smithereens,

Obviously, it's against the rules to go over the character count. That's why there is a character count in the first place.

It's not over double the limit I don't know where you guys are getting this from, I have it in my google docs and it's only a few paragraphs over, that's happened before on this site and it was no problem.

All this is is Dakota's winey attempt at getting conduct points since he knew he was going to lose, this is evidenced by his over-dramatization of the whole thing. You all are sheep.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:37:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 9:35:18 AM, Idiot wrote:
Hey, I'm not a sheep. I just think you're a child.

Cool story?
Idiot
Posts: 347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:38:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 9:37:16 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/15/2013 9:35:18 AM, Idiot wrote:
Hey, I'm not a sheep. I just think you're a child.

Cool story?

thank u
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:41:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 9:04:59 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/15/2013 9:00:18 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/15/2013 8:49:32 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/15/2013 6:41:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Conduct and voting is completely subjective. There is nothing in the ToS that says he should forfeit for this. There is also nothing in the ToS saying this is wrong. Unless both parties agree that it was the wrong thing to do, there isn't any objective standard to use to charge Pro with conduct violation.

Pretty much Dakota saw he had no substantive objections, so he opted for emotive complaint instead.. his friends'll vote conduct for him.. that's about it.

You cheated, and you'll loose because of it. If you played by the rules, this wouldn't have been an issue. Don't pretend like this is because of something Dakota did. You made the choice to go WELL OVER 8k characters.

As evidenced in the debate, Dakota agreed to my methods and then later lied about it. Plus this was a private message between him and I as Pennington was was also part of the message, it was a group discussion.

Nothing on this site said I cheated, pictures are allowed to be used in any way.

"To clarify the PM he so respectfully posted without my permission (the "P" in "PM" stands for "private," Apeiron): we were discussing the pictures he had tried to post but failed in R2; I thought he had only meant to post pictures in the actual sense of the word with some minor header text explaining them, not pictures in the "Apeiron" sense of the word which apparently means just blocks of text. Obviously, I never would have agreed to let him post double the text that is supposed to be allowed."

I also checked out your PM screen-shot. It definitely does not look like Dakota is agreeing to let you add 10,000 characters to your argument via pictures. I don't see how you could have honestly gathered that out of what Dakota said in that PM.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2013 9:44:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/15/2013 9:34:01 AM, Apeiron wrote:
At 5/15/2013 9:28:56 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Apeiron,

I thought you said it was a couple of paragraphs over the length? It's over double the character limit! I mean seriously, what did you expect?

I get that you would prefer everyone concentrate on the real content of the debate. And I do have some sympathy with that PoV. Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen. But I don't get you blaming everyone else. You made it the issue by doing what you did.


Smithereens,

Obviously, it's against the rules to go over the character count. That's why there is a character count in the first place.

It's not over double the limit I don't know where you guys are getting this from, I have it in my google docs and it's only a few paragraphs over, that's happened before on this site and it was no problem.

All this is is Dakota's winey attempt at getting conduct points since he knew he was going to lose, this is evidenced by his over-dramatization of the whole thing. You all are sheep.

You don't know where we're getting this from? C'mon Apeiron, look at the OP. Are you suggesting that Dakota wrote 9000 characters of that himself? Or are you trying to suggest that 9/10's of the additional characters are spaces? =___=
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.