Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Losing Debates

Maryland_Kid
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 8:21:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why am I losing debates?

I kinda knew that Evolution is going to win because science has a Secular Progressive agenda and people won't think outside the box. The debate about Calvinism had no one vote for it. The debate about Mary was just ridiculous. The government spending was another ridiculous debate since the only points I got were for citing sources. There are no examples of government spending going right. The debate about DDO having a Secular slant actually had my opponent agree with me.
The defender of Christianity, Calvinism, Creationism, and Conservative politics.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 8:33:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Read the voting RFDs, they tend to include why people voted the way they did.

The other side agreeing with you, is usually a win... But is not assured to be.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 9:01:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 8:21:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
Why am I losing debates?

The short answer would be because the voters think you did not do as good a job as your opponent.

To be less flippant, though, what do you really take issue with? Are there any RFDs you don't understand? You can often ask the voters to clarify or, if you think the debate is too old to do so, you could post here the ones you are questioning...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Subutai
Posts: 3,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 10:47:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm sure you'll call my perspective biased, but I hope you appreciate my opinions.

I think you truly did lose your evolution debate. On the sources, it isn't merely enough to post a ridiculously large amount of sources (especially considering the majority were from, at best, questionable sites, at least in integrity). You have to cite the major portion of the article because that is what makes your argument. Also, you need a few arguments yourself. The resolution of that debate anyway was a little strange, because it was strongly slanted in pro's favor. Making the playing field more level, con's arguments were a lot stronger than yours, not the least because you dropped several of his arguments. You seemed to alter what science says to your advantage. Overall, it was a relatively poor performance by you and a good performance by con.

You did win your Calvinism debate, but no one voted on it because forfeited debates at the time were not advertised on the front page. If no one votes on your debate, you can post said debate here: http://www.debate.org...

On your Mary debate, it was like that last debate, only one person voted this time. Again, see the link if you want more people to vote. Getting more to judging the arguments themselves, your arguments were solely lacking, especially in the first two rounds. As that one voter pointed out, you are arguing an affirmative, meaning you have the BoP. Con was more detailed in his rebuttal, and you didn't satisfy that BoP I was talking about. Overall, con's arguments were more detailed, and this is what won him the debate.

Yet again, utilize that link for tied debates. Personally, I think you did win that debate, and that Oromagi's vote was a vote bomb, specifically on sources. You obviously substantiated your case a lot more than con did, and you should have been voted for that. Overall, your arguments were still left standing from the here say of con's arguments.

Finally, for your most recent debate. First off, you forfeited twice, which a lot of voters reasonably consider a full forfeit (a single forfeit generally warrants the loss of only the conduct point), and I think this was the main problem for you in this debate. Again, you obviously had the BoP in this debate because you made an affirmative resolution. That being so, you didn't satisfy that burden. and con's arguments were strong enough to make the resolution unproven, meaning you lost the debate.

Overall, I have two main suggestions for you. First, your arguments need to extend beyond the use of your sources. Sources are designed to substantiate and provide evidence for the claims you make - not to be the arguments themselves. At the very least, put in some quotes, but preferably, make your own conclusions. Second, understand where the BoP lies. When you are affirming a positive resolution, you generally have the BoP, meaning you have a lot more to prove than your opponent does.

You aren't losing because there is a "secular vote bloc" or something. You are losing mainly because of the two things I just pointed out, but also use that link when you have a tie or you want more votes.

I hope you find my perspective helpful.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 10:53:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Btw, I still want to debate you on the General Theory of Relativity.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 11:03:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 10:47:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
I'm sure you'll call my perspective biased, but I hope you appreciate my opinions.

I think you truly did lose your evolution debate. On the sources, it isn't merely enough to post a ridiculously large amount of sources (especially considering the majority were from, at best, questionable sites, at least in integrity). You have to cite the major portion of the article because that is what makes your argument. Also, you need a few arguments yourself. The resolution of that debate anyway was a little strange, because it was strongly slanted in pro's favor. Making the playing field more level, con's arguments were a lot stronger than yours, not the least because you dropped several of his arguments. You seemed to alter what science says to your advantage. Overall, it was a relatively poor performance by you and a good performance by con.

You did win your Calvinism debate, but no one voted on it because forfeited debates at the time were not advertised on the front page. If no one votes on your debate, you can post said debate here: http://www.debate.org...

On your Mary debate, it was like that last debate, only one person voted this time. Again, see the link if you want more people to vote. Getting more to judging the arguments themselves, your arguments were solely lacking, especially in the first two rounds. As that one voter pointed out, you are arguing an affirmative, meaning you have the BoP. Con was more detailed in his rebuttal, and you didn't satisfy that BoP I was talking about. Overall, con's arguments were more detailed, and this is what won him the debate.

Yet again, utilize that link for tied debates. Personally, I think you did win that debate, and that Oromagi's vote was a vote bomb, specifically on sources. You obviously substantiated your case a lot more than con did, and you should have been voted for that. Overall, your arguments were still left standing from the here say of con's arguments.

Finally, for your most recent debate. First off, you forfeited twice, which a lot of voters reasonably consider a full forfeit (a single forfeit generally warrants the loss of only the conduct point), and I think this was the main problem for you in this debate. Again, you obviously had the BoP in this debate because you made an affirmative resolution. That being so, you didn't satisfy that burden. and con's arguments were strong enough to make the resolution unproven, meaning you lost the debate.

Overall, I have two main suggestions for you. First, your arguments need to extend beyond the use of your sources. Sources are designed to substantiate and provide evidence for the claims you make - not to be the arguments themselves. At the very least, put in some quotes, but preferably, make your own conclusions. Second, understand where the BoP lies. When you are affirming a positive resolution, you generally have the BoP, meaning you have a lot more to prove than your opponent does.

You aren't losing because there is a "secular vote bloc" or something. You are losing mainly because of the two things I just pointed out, but also use that link when you have a tie or you want more votes.

I hope you find my perspective helpful.

Get wrecked.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Subutai
Posts: 3,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2013 11:06:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 11:03:27 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 10/19/2013 10:47:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
I'm sure you'll call my perspective biased, but I hope you appreciate my opinions.

I think you truly did lose your evolution debate. On the sources, it isn't merely enough to post a ridiculously large amount of sources (especially considering the majority were from, at best, questionable sites, at least in integrity). You have to cite the major portion of the article because that is what makes your argument. Also, you need a few arguments yourself. The resolution of that debate anyway was a little strange, because it was strongly slanted in pro's favor. Making the playing field more level, con's arguments were a lot stronger than yours, not the least because you dropped several of his arguments. You seemed to alter what science says to your advantage. Overall, it was a relatively poor performance by you and a good performance by con.

You did win your Calvinism debate, but no one voted on it because forfeited debates at the time were not advertised on the front page. If no one votes on your debate, you can post said debate here: http://www.debate.org...

On your Mary debate, it was like that last debate, only one person voted this time. Again, see the link if you want more people to vote. Getting more to judging the arguments themselves, your arguments were solely lacking, especially in the first two rounds. As that one voter pointed out, you are arguing an affirmative, meaning you have the BoP. Con was more detailed in his rebuttal, and you didn't satisfy that BoP I was talking about. Overall, con's arguments were more detailed, and this is what won him the debate.

Yet again, utilize that link for tied debates. Personally, I think you did win that debate, and that Oromagi's vote was a vote bomb, specifically on sources. You obviously substantiated your case a lot more than con did, and you should have been voted for that. Overall, your arguments were still left standing from the here say of con's arguments.

Finally, for your most recent debate. First off, you forfeited twice, which a lot of voters reasonably consider a full forfeit (a single forfeit generally warrants the loss of only the conduct point), and I think this was the main problem for you in this debate. Again, you obviously had the BoP in this debate because you made an affirmative resolution. That being so, you didn't satisfy that burden. and con's arguments were strong enough to make the resolution unproven, meaning you lost the debate.

Overall, I have two main suggestions for you. First, your arguments need to extend beyond the use of your sources. Sources are designed to substantiate and provide evidence for the claims you make - not to be the arguments themselves. At the very least, put in some quotes, but preferably, make your own conclusions. Second, understand where the BoP lies. When you are affirming a positive resolution, you generally have the BoP, meaning you have a lot more to prove than your opponent does.

You aren't losing because there is a "secular vote bloc" or something. You are losing mainly because of the two things I just pointed out, but also use that link when you have a tie or you want more votes.

I hope you find my perspective helpful.

Get wrecked.

Why?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 12:39:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 11:06:57 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 10/19/2013 11:03:27 PM, Zaradi wrote:
Get wrecked.

Why?

Nvm >.>
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 2:53:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 8:21:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
Why am I losing debates?

It would be nice of you to provide links to the debates you want us to review.

I looked at the OP of your creationism debatate:

Hi, I'd first like to say that I'm not a professional Christian Apologist Scientis,t
so if you want to really talk to someone who knows their stuff talk to them.
I would like to cite the fallacies that neither of us should use and the arguments
I suggest my opponent not use [http://www.logicalfallacies.info......]
[http://en.wikipedia.org......] [http://www.theskepticsguide.org......]
[http://www.fallacyfiles.org......] [http://utminers.utep.edu......] [http://www.nizkor.org......]

You wasted your first paragraph. There's nothing relevant here, and, aside from the weird concept of a professional Christian apologist scientist, there's nothing interesting.

My position is that gene mutation does happen and sometimes it is beneficial but it
doesn't happen enough to come up with the design, fossil record, rate of decay, or
probability that the world has.

This would work for a thesis sentence, but you never develop it. You have a claim without an argument, a restatement of the debate title, but not a debate.

Definitions:
Let's define evolution: "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a
population spread over many generations."[http://www.talkorigins.org......].

I'm waiting for you to prove that beneficial mutations don't happen often enough to account for evolution. This doesn't seem helpful. I don't agree with the definition, and I want to tinker with the grammar, so it strikes me as an irritating irrelevancy.

Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Second Law of Thermodynamics says that once a system starts, it decays over time, and doesn't
get better.

It doesn't really say that. And, again, it isn't apparent that you're on topic. Your apparent thesis statement has to do with the frequency of beneficial mutations. Is this a change of topic? Strive for cogency: be "convincingly to the point."

The source I cited used the term "ordered arrangements actually tend to become
simpler and more disorderly with time." [http://www.christiananswers.net......]

That's pretty silly. It's like you're attacking your sources, trying to undermine our faith in them. And there's no showing of relevancy to your thesis.

The objection that
Talk Origins explains is that the world isn't a closed system because of things like sun light.
[http://www.talkorigins.org......]

Clearly, the Earth isn't a closed system. Are you in actually in doubt about this?

Sunlight doesn't bring things back in order, as mentioned in the
previous article. [http://creation.com......]

That's just irritating, patently false. Duane Gish used to argue that order doesn't happen spontaneously, and then he would claim---to the same audience---that "hydraulic sorting" spontaneously created the order of the fossil record. We can all give examples (tornadoes, lightning, rivers) of local inversions where entropy decreases at the expense of a greater overall increase. So, if it is somehow important for you to make this point (whatever point it is) then you need to make the point clearly. Don't settle for a simple falsehood that has no apparent bearing on your thesis. Prove whatever you're trying to say, but first show how it relates to your argument.

And I'm going to stop there. Your OP strings together a bunch of unproven (and sometimes patently false) claims, without ever defending or trying to prove them. It's a collection of catchphrases, not an argument.

You had the burden of proof, so, based on this OP, you could almost have lost even if your opponent didn't say anything.

My advice is to focus. Learn to state a thesis clearly, and then to prove it. Thus:

- I will prove that Socrates is mortal.
- First, all men are mortal.
- Second, Socrates is a man.
- Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

You see how those statements are interrelated; they all work together to form an argument. In a more complex argument, you would then go on to support the claim that all men are mortal, and the claim that Socrates is a man.

You have lots of vague claims. Try making a list of them, and then seeing how they nest. Which ones support others? Make a hierarchy: the thesis, the claims that support the thesis, the claims that support those claims. Build a succinct argument.

And perhaps limit thesis so you won't sprawl. If your thesis were something like, "Thermodynamics proves that evolution didn't happen spontaneously," that might help you focus.

Note also that you have to make your argument on the debate page. Don't expect us to follow all those links, and try to figure out what you wanted us to learn from them, and then to build your case for you out of that information. Assume that nobody will follow any of your links.

That's my advice: Be simple and clear. Support your claims. Don't say things that aren't true. Get right to the point.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 4:01:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I looked at your debate on "DDO has a secular slant."

For what it is worth I think Con conceded arguments in R4, but you didn't have enough experience to say "The debate was about whether the slant exists, not whether it was justified. My opponent conceded the slant exists." Suppose the debate resolution was, "DDO has a slant against the theory the earth is flat." The resolution is, of course, true -- and it is also fair that such is the case. Con argued that the slant to secularism is fair, and that's true. Con correctly points out that debates are about issues that can be argued based upon facts and logic. Matters of faith are only debatable when an article of faith poses a potential conflict with the observed world. When that happens, the facts of the world have a strong advantage in a debate.

That the top few debaters are secular doesn't say much one way or the other about the site as a whole. The site demographics show about a third of members are atheists or agnostics, half are believers, and rest don't say. http://www.debate.org... Only about a quarter of Christians as a whole are fundamentalists. There have been about 30,000 debates on DDO, but only 3700 in the religion category. Fairly often, religious debates put one religious belief against another.

Debates on Creationism are likely to lose, for the same reason that claims of a flat earth are likely to lose. Belief in creationism is an article of religious faith, not a scientific theory. The Catholic church, Mormon church, and most of the Protestant denominations accept evolution. So atheists are on the same side as the Pope.

I advise that you pick topics that can be debated on the basis of facts and logic, rather than upon articles of faith.
Maryland_Kid
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 4:39:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 10:47:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
I'm sure you'll call my perspective biased, but I hope you appreciate my opinions.

I think you truly did lose your evolution debate. On the sources, it isn't merely enough to post a ridiculously large amount of sources (especially considering the majority were from, at best, questionable sites, at least in integrity). You have to cite the major portion of the article because that is what makes your argument. Also, you need a few arguments yourself. The resolution of that debate anyway was a little strange, because it was strongly slanted in pro's favor. Making the playing field more level, con's arguments were a lot stronger than yours, not the least because you dropped several of his arguments. You seemed to alter what science says to your advantage. Overall, it was a relatively poor performance by you and a good performance by con.

You did win your Calvinism debate, but no one voted on it because forfeited debates at the time were not advertised on the front page. If no one votes on your debate, you can post said debate here: http://www.debate.org...

On your Mary debate, it was like that last debate, only one person voted this time. Again, see the link if you want more people to vote. Getting more to judging the arguments themselves, your arguments were solely lacking, especially in the first two rounds. As that one voter pointed out, you are arguing an affirmative, meaning you have the BoP. Con was more detailed in his rebuttal, and you didn't satisfy that BoP I was talking about. Overall, con's arguments were more detailed, and this is what won him the debate.

Yet again, utilize that link for tied debates. Personally, I think you did win that debate, and that Oromagi's vote was a vote bomb, specifically on sources. You obviously substantiated your case a lot more than con did, and you should have been voted for that. Overall, your arguments were still left standing from the here say of con's arguments.

Finally, for your most recent debate. First off, you forfeited twice, which a lot of voters reasonably consider a full forfeit (a single forfeit generally warrants the loss of only the conduct point), and I think this was the main problem for you in this debate. Again, you obviously had the BoP in this debate because you made an affirmative resolution. That being so, you didn't satisfy that burden. and con's arguments were strong enough to make the resolution unproven, meaning you lost the debate.

Overall, I have two main suggestions for you. First, your arguments need to extend beyond the use of your sources. Sources are designed to substantiate and provide evidence for the claims you make - not to be the arguments themselves. At the very least, put in some quotes, but preferably, make your own conclusions. Second, understand where the BoP lies. When you are affirming a positive resolution, you generally have the BoP, meaning you have a lot more to prove than your opponent does.

You aren't losing because there is a "secular vote bloc" or something. You are losing mainly because of the two things I just pointed out, but also use that link when you have a tie or you want more votes.

I hope you find my perspective helpful.

Why is it a good idea to not cite everything with sources?
The defender of Christianity, Calvinism, Creationism, and Conservative politics.
Maryland_Kid
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 4:40:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/19/2013 10:53:20 PM, Subutai wrote:
Btw, I still want to debate you on the General Theory of Relativity.

Where do you know me?
The defender of Christianity, Calvinism, Creationism, and Conservative politics.
Subutai
Posts: 3,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 4:49:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/20/2013 4:39:21 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
At 10/19/2013 10:47:13 PM, Subutai wrote:
I'm sure you'll call my perspective biased, but I hope you appreciate my opinions.

I think you truly did lose your evolution debate. On the sources, it isn't merely enough to post a ridiculously large amount of sources (especially considering the majority were from, at best, questionable sites, at least in integrity). You have to cite the major portion of the article because that is what makes your argument. Also, you need a few arguments yourself. The resolution of that debate anyway was a little strange, because it was strongly slanted in pro's favor. Making the playing field more level, con's arguments were a lot stronger than yours, not the least because you dropped several of his arguments. You seemed to alter what science says to your advantage. Overall, it was a relatively poor performance by you and a good performance by con.

You did win your Calvinism debate, but no one voted on it because forfeited debates at the time were not advertised on the front page. If no one votes on your debate, you can post said debate here: http://www.debate.org...

On your Mary debate, it was like that last debate, only one person voted this time. Again, see the link if you want more people to vote. Getting more to judging the arguments themselves, your arguments were solely lacking, especially in the first two rounds. As that one voter pointed out, you are arguing an affirmative, meaning you have the BoP. Con was more detailed in his rebuttal, and you didn't satisfy that BoP I was talking about. Overall, con's arguments were more detailed, and this is what won him the debate.

Yet again, utilize that link for tied debates. Personally, I think you did win that debate, and that Oromagi's vote was a vote bomb, specifically on sources. You obviously substantiated your case a lot more than con did, and you should have been voted for that. Overall, your arguments were still left standing from the here say of con's arguments.

Finally, for your most recent debate. First off, you forfeited twice, which a lot of voters reasonably consider a full forfeit (a single forfeit generally warrants the loss of only the conduct point), and I think this was the main problem for you in this debate. Again, you obviously had the BoP in this debate because you made an affirmative resolution. That being so, you didn't satisfy that burden. and con's arguments were strong enough to make the resolution unproven, meaning you lost the debate.

Overall, I have two main suggestions for you. First, your arguments need to extend beyond the use of your sources. Sources are designed to substantiate and provide evidence for the claims you make - not to be the arguments themselves. At the very least, put in some quotes, but preferably, make your own conclusions. Second, understand where the BoP lies. When you are affirming a positive resolution, you generally have the BoP, meaning you have a lot more to prove than your opponent does.

You aren't losing because there is a "secular vote bloc" or something. You are losing mainly because of the two things I just pointed out, but also use that link when you have a tie or you want more votes.

I hope you find my perspective helpful.

Why is it a good idea to not cite everything with sources?

I didn't say that you shouldn't cite any claims with sources. It's just that sources should not make up the bulk of your argument, nor should you solely rely on them. In general, it's wise to make your own independent conclusions. This is true not just on DDO, but in academic writing in general. Anything that's a claim or requires evidence needs a source, though.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 4:52:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/20/2013 4:40:08 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
At 10/19/2013 10:53:20 PM, Subutai wrote:
Btw, I still want to debate you on the General Theory of Relativity.

Where do you know me?

You said in a comment on your evolution debate, "Also, the Theory of Relativity has been disproven." I, on my prior account (Ron-Paul) asked you if you wanted to debate the subject, which you denied.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Maryland_Kid
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 4:57:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/20/2013 2:53:40 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/19/2013 8:21:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
Why am I losing debates?

It would be nice of you to provide links to the debates you want us to review.

I looked at the OP of your creationism debate:

Hi, I'd first like to say that I'm not a professional Christian Apologist Scientis,t
so if you want to really talk to someone who knows their stuff talk to them.
I would like to cite the fallacies that neither of us should use and the arguments
I suggest my opponent not use [http://www.logicalfallacies.info......]
[http://en.wikipedia.org......] [http://www.theskepticsguide.org......]
[http://www.fallacyfiles.org......] [http://utminers.utep.edu......] [http://www.nizkor.org......]

You wasted your first paragraph. There's nothing relevant here, and, aside from the weird concept of a professional Christian apologist scientist, there's nothing interesting.

My position is that gene mutation does happen and sometimes it is beneficial but it
doesn't happen enough to come up with the design, fossil record, rate of decay, or
probability that the world has.

This would work for a thesis sentence, but you never develop it. You have a claim without an argument, a restatement of the debate title, but not a debate.

Definitions:
Let's define evolution: "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a
population spread over many generations."[http://www.talkorigins.org......].

I'm waiting for you to prove that beneficial mutations don't happen often enough to account for evolution. This doesn't seem helpful. I don't agree with the definition, and I want to tinker with the grammar, so it strikes me as an irritating irrelevancy.

It was true that I might have not developed things as much, but I did talk about genes and mutations.
Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Second Law of Thermodynamics says that once a system starts, it decays over time, and doesn't
get better.

It doesn't really say that. And, again, it isn't apparent that you're on topic. Your apparent thesis statement has to do with the frequency of beneficial mutations. Is this a change of topic? Strive for cogency: be "convincingly to the point."


The Laws of Thermodynamics do contradict mainstream Atheist science, but this isn't a debate.
The source I cited used the term "ordered arrangements actually tend to become
simpler and more disorderly with time." [http://www.christiananswers.net......]

That's pretty silly. It's like you're attacking your sources, trying to undermine our faith in them. And there's no showing of relevancy to your thesis.


So you're attacking my sources because they are from Conservative Christians? That's Ad Hominem.

The objection that
Talk Origins explains is that the world isn't a closed system because of things like sun light.
[http://www.talkorigins.org......]

Clearly, the Earth isn't a closed system. Are you in actually in doubt about this?


The universe isn't an open system unless you're one of those secular progressive science types. I don't think that's good science, everything can't be open unless there's an endless multi-verse. How can sunlight reverse a decaying planet? (I will debate that.)

Sunlight doesn't bring things back in order, as mentioned in the
previous article. [http://creation.com......]

That's just irritating, patently false. Duane Gish used to argue that order doesn't happen spontaneously, and then he would claim---to the same audience---that "hydraulic sorting" spontaneously created the order of the fossil record. We can all give examples (tornadoes, lightning, rivers) of local inversions where entropy decreases at the expense of a greater overall increase. So, if it is somehow important for you to make this point (whatever point it is) then you need to make the point clearly. Don't settle for a simple falsehood that has no apparent bearing on your thesis. Prove whatever you're trying to say, but first show how it relates to your argument.

And I'm going to stop there. Your OP strings together a bunch of unproven (and sometimes patently false) claims, without ever defending or trying to prove them. It's a collection of catchphrases, not an argument.

You had the burden of proof, so, based on this OP, you could almost have lost even if your opponent didn't say anything.

My advice is to focus. Learn to state a thesis clearly, and then to prove it. Thus:

- I will prove that Socrates is mortal.
- First, all men are mortal.
- Second, Socrates is a man.
- Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

You see how those statements are interrelated; they all work together to form an argument. In a more complex argument, you would then go on to support the claim that all men are mortal, and the claim that Socrates is a man.

You have lots of vague claims. Try making a list of them, and then seeing how they nest. Which ones support others? Make a hierarchy: the thesis, the claims that support the thesis, the claims that support those claims. Build a succinct argument.

And perhaps limit thesis so you won't sprawl. If your thesis were something like, "Thermodynamics proves that evolution didn't happen spontaneously," that might help you focus.

Note also that you have to make your argument on the debate page. Don't expect us to follow all those links, and try to figure out what you wanted us to learn from them, and then to build your case for you out of that information. Assume that nobody will follow any of your links.

That's my advice: Be simple and clear. Support your claims. Don't say things that aren't true. Get right to the point.
The defender of Christianity, Calvinism, Creationism, and Conservative politics.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 9:23:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/20/2013 4:57:06 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
At 10/20/2013 2:53:40 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 10/19/2013 8:21:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
Second Law of Thermodynamics says that once a system starts, it decays over time, and doesn't
get better.

It doesn't really say that. And, again, it isn't apparent that you're on topic. Your apparent thesis statement has to do with the frequency of beneficial mutations. Is this a change of topic? Strive for cogency: be "convincingly to the point."


The Laws of Thermodynamics do contradict mainstream Atheist science, but this isn't a debate.

Pay attention: You claimed that 2nd law says that "once a system starts" (starting isn't in there anywhere) "it decays over time" (which omits that this is a "tendency" which is stronger or weaker depending on the size of the system) "and doesn't get better" (which invokes a subjectivity completely lacking in the 2nd law.) That is, you made a false statement, and then went on to other subjects without either defending it or showing its relevance to your thesis. That's my point.

You keep saying things to which people will react with disbelief, and then you neither defend them nor relate them to your thesis. You asked why you lose debates; this is the answer.

The source I cited used the term "ordered arrangements actually tend to become
simpler and more disorderly with time." [http://www.christiananswers.net......]

That's pretty silly. It's like you're attacking your sources, trying to undermine our faith in them. And there's no showing of relevancy to your thesis.


So you're attacking my sources because they are from Conservative Christians? That's Ad Hominem.

You asked for help; I'm trying to give help. You made a false statement, and attributed it to a source. That means you---not I---are undermining our faith in your source. If you want us to believe in your sources, you should attribute believable things to them.

The objection that
Talk Origins explains is that the world isn't a closed system because of things like sun light.
[http://www.talkorigins.org......]

Clearly, the Earth isn't a closed system. Are you in actually in doubt about this?


The universe isn't an open system unless you're one of those secular progressive science types.

In context, you were talking about one planet, not the universe. The planet earth is not a closed system. I don't see how you can have any doubt about this, but you seem to be challenging it. And then, once again, after challenging something that's obviously true, you turn your attention to other things without either defending yourself or showing how this challenge is relevant to the debate.

My point is that you should focus. Avoid dubious claims unless they are essential to your case. If you have to make a dubious claim because it is essential, then defend it: leave us in no doubt as to its truth.

The universe isn't an open system unless you're one of those secular progressive science types.

Yeah, I hadda repeat this one. I don't know what a "secular progressive science type is anymore than I know what "mainstream Atheist [sic] science" is, but everybody knows that it is the theists, not the atheists, who think the universe is an open system. Because gods can add more energy, right? They can affect the universe from outside of it? That makes it an open system. So, once again, you have made a false statement, and then turned your attention to other things without either defending it or showing how it supports your thesis.

That's your pattern. It's why you lose.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2013 9:27:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I love how we're sitting here trying to help him improve as a debater and he's sitting here fighting us.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 12:21:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've read some of the debates and the posts on here--a lot of the criticism is valid. Just try it out on one debate, and see if it works. Don't fight the suggestions before you even attempt to implement them.

Also, if you ever have a specific question, you can always message me and I'll see if I can give you feedback. DDO is about improving and honing your skills, and constructive commentary is important in that process. Best of luck on future debates!
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
MassiveDump
Posts: 3,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 8:55:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/20/2013 9:27:46 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I love how we're sitting here trying to help him improve as a debater and he's sitting here fighting us.

He's debating about debating.

It's practice.
Maryland_Kid
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 4:58:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/20/2013 4:01:07 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I looked at your debate on "DDO has a secular slant."

For what it is worth I think Con conceded arguments in R4, but you didn't have enough experience to say "The debate was about whether the slant exists, not whether it was justified. My opponent conceded the slant exists." Suppose the debate resolution was, "DDO has a slant against the theory the earth is flat." The resolution is, of course, true -- and it is also fair that such is the case. Con argued that the slant to secularism is fair, and that's true. Con correctly points out that debates are about issues that can be argued based upon facts and logic. Matters of faith are only debatable when an article of faith poses a potential conflict with the observed world. When that happens, the facts of the world have a strong advantage in a debate.

That the top few debaters are secular doesn't say much one way or the other about the site as a whole. The site demographics show about a third of members are atheists or agnostics, half are believers, and rest don't say. http://www.debate.org... Only about a quarter of Christians as a whole are fundamentalists. There have been about 30,000 debates on DDO, but only 3700 in the religion category. Fairly often, religious debates put one religious belief against another.

Debates on Creationism are likely to lose, for the same reason that claims of a flat earth are likely to lose. Belief in creationism is an article of religious faith, not a scientific theory. The Catholic church, Mormon church, and most of the Protestant denominations accept evolution. So atheists are on the same side as the Pope.

I advise that you pick topics that can be debated on the basis of facts and logic, rather than upon articles of faith.

First of all, Creationism is being silenced in the public square because it convicts people of sin. That's why it's not selling to the people despite evidence.

Atheism doesn't even make any sense. First there was nothing, then nothing exploded making everything, everything came back together and organized itself, they created intelligent from non-intelligence that self replicated itself, a bunch of mistakes in the DNA copying process got us to where were are today.

What possible argument could you have against the design or the first cause argument? Nothing!

The Christian faith and conviction is based on personal experience and testimony, to which there is a lot of.
The defender of Christianity, Calvinism, Creationism, and Conservative politics.
Maryland_Kid
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 5:03:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Clearly, the Earth isn't a closed system. Are you in actually in doubt about this?


The universe isn't an open system unless you're one of those secular progressive science types.

In context, you were talking about one planet, not the universe. The planet earth is not a closed system. I don't see how you can have any doubt about this, but you seem to be challenging it. And then, once again, after challenging something that's obviously true, you turn your attention to other things without either defending yourself or showing how this challenge is relevant to the debate.

My point is that you should focus. Avoid dubious claims unless they are essential to your case. If you have to make a dubious claim because it is essential, then defend it: leave us in no doubt as to its truth.


The universe isn't an open system unless you're one of those secular progressive science types.

Yeah, I hadda repeat this one. I don't know what a "secular progressive science type is anymore than I know what "mainstream Atheist [sic] science" is, but everybody knows that it is the theists, not the atheists, who think the universe is an open system. Because gods can add more energy, right? They can affect the universe from outside of it? That makes it an open system. So, once again, you have made a false statement, and then turned your attention to other things without either defending it or showing how it supports your thesis.

That's your pattern. It's why you lose.

I was talking about the whole universe. Sorry if I offended anyone by my tone. I was trying to make my point. I still don't understand why 2nd Law of Thermodynamics didn't get across too well, send me a pm.
The defender of Christianity, Calvinism, Creationism, and Conservative politics.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 5:09:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 4:58:47 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
At 10/20/2013 4:01:07 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I looked at your debate on "DDO has a secular slant."

For what it is worth I think Con conceded arguments in R4, but you didn't have enough experience to say "The debate was about whether the slant exists, not whether it was justified. My opponent conceded the slant exists." Suppose the debate resolution was, "DDO has a slant against the theory the earth is flat." The resolution is, of course, true -- and it is also fair that such is the case. Con argued that the slant to secularism is fair, and that's true. Con correctly points out that debates are about issues that can be argued based upon facts and logic. Matters of faith are only debatable when an article of faith poses a potential conflict with the observed world. When that happens, the facts of the world have a strong advantage in a debate.

That the top few debaters are secular doesn't say much one way or the other about the site as a whole. The site demographics show about a third of members are atheists or agnostics, half are believers, and rest don't say. http://www.debate.org... Only about a quarter of Christians as a whole are fundamentalists. There have been about 30,000 debates on DDO, but only 3700 in the religion category. Fairly often, religious debates put one religious belief against another.

Debates on Creationism are likely to lose, for the same reason that claims of a flat earth are likely to lose. Belief in creationism is an article of religious faith, not a scientific theory. The Catholic church, Mormon church, and most of the Protestant denominations accept evolution. So atheists are on the same side as the Pope.

I advise that you pick topics that can be debated on the basis of facts and logic, rather than upon articles of faith.

First of all, Creationism is being silenced in the public square because it convicts people of sin. That's why it's not selling to the people despite evidence.


This sort of ridiculous statement is why you lose debates.

First of all, it's an ad hominem--you're attacking people's motivations, and then blithely asserting there's evidence being ignored. What evidence? Further, creationism does not inherently convict people of sin--that's absurd. Now, it could lead one down the path towards believing that they're "convicted of sin", but it doesn't necessarily get there. You've got an ad hominem, followed by a false assertion (creationism has no evidence, beyond the bible, in my opinion, but regardless, as noted, even if true it doesn't, on its own "convict people of sin"), packaged up as one ball of BS--that you have no means of defending. The "convicts people of sin" alone is a baseless accusation--it's based on YOUR prejudices of your opponents.

Atheism doesn't even make any sense. First there was nothing, then nothing exploded making everything, everything came back together and organized itself, they created intelligent from non-intelligence that self replicated itself, a bunch of mistakes in the DNA copying process got us to where were are today.

That's not what atheism its. That's a strawman oversimplification of current understandings of cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution--but it's not atheism, and your conflation is, again, unwarranted.

What possible argument could you have against the design or the first cause argument? Nothing!

There are a host of them, actually--if you aren't aware of them, then that's rather YOUR failing, at this point.

The Christian faith and conviction is based on personal experience and testimony, to which there is a lot of.

So is Xenu. And Allah. And Vishnu.

If you ever want to be able to do well in debates, you need to understand your opponent's position.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 4:47:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 4:58:47 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
First of all, Creationism is being silenced in the public square because it convicts people of sin. That's why it's not selling to the people despite evidence.

It isn't being silenced, there are Creationists promoting the belief all over the place. It just isn't catching on. It has nothing to do with sin, that's an independent religious belief.

Atheism doesn't even make any sense. First there was nothing, then nothing exploded making everything, everything came back together and organized itself, they created intelligent from non-intelligence that self replicated itself, a bunch of mistakes in the DNA copying process got us to where were are today.

That's called an Argument from Incredulity. Just because you can't understand it does not mean it is not so. BTW, atheists have no obligation to explain existence with or without magic. They can just leave the question unanswered, which is what some religions do.

What possible argument could you have against the design or the first cause argument? Nothing!

Read some basic texts on philosophy and cosmology. It's foolish to declare there is nothing, when there are hundreds of books on the subjects.

The Christian faith and conviction is based on personal experience and testimony, to which there is a lot of.

You are free to have any faith you want. However, insofar as it contradicts factual evidence, it is wrong. The world has many extremely divergent religions. Obviously, many people are wrong about their certain beliefs.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 11:59:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 5:03:51 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
I still don't understand why 2nd Law of Thermodynamics didn't get across too well, send me a pm.

I won't send you a PM, but I'll discuss it with you in a separate thread, if you'd like.