Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

My first debate

tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:59:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
I was just looking through my debates and found my first ever argument, it"s hilarious.

== Topic: "A supreme being can rationally exist" ==

I have no idea what the topic even means. What does "rationally exist" mean? I'm pretty sure I intended it to mean "it is rational to believe in the existence of a supreme being." So, it starts off bad: terrible resolution drafting.

== Argument ==

"A Supreme Being, by definition, is a sentient creature of high-level intelligence that exercises physical control over the universe. By the basic laws of Charles Darwin's evolutionary concept, the fact that a living being existed before the dawn of genetic evolution, in unfavorable conditions (according to quantum physics), is impossible. No creature could possibly have the genetic and evolutionary requirements for such metaphysical devices. In 1927, Georges Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang theory, and it was confirmed to be possible by Edwin Hubble in 1929. The Big Bang theory, now the most scientifically accepted theory for the creation of the universe, proposes a singularity (a gravitational point in spacetime with infinite density and zero volume) acted as a focus for photonic energy that resulted in a de-annihilation that caused a split of particles of matter and antimatter. The formation of these substances could not be caused by a metaphysical sentient creature due to the genetic and biological impossibility of a creature, without usage of advanced technology, to have an ability to warp quantum spacetime itself. Therefore, any argument supporting the existence of a sapient deity is not justifiable by logical means."

(1) The supreme being isn"t necessarily a "living being," so the evolution argument is nonsense.

(2) "Focus for photonic energy" and "de-annihilation" are incoherent.

(3) "Quantum spacetime" doesn't have any meaning. Also, I don't see how creating space-time equals "warping" or "manipulating" it.

(4) "Without use of advanced technology" is an implicit concession; if that being had advanced technology, they could have created the universe.

(5) The Big Bang is irrelevant as well.

== My RFD ==

The burden of proof is on Pro; the resolution is a fact claim, so Pro has to prove the resolution true. Now, the resolution itself is poorly drafted, but it seems both sides implicitly agree that the debate is basically a "God exists" one. Con (the instigator) defines God as "an intelligent creator and ruler of the universe" (which is basically what the definition means, at least). By accepting and not contesting the definition in R1, Pro essentially concedes the definition. So let"s move to the substance. Con"s argument is bullsh*t, I don"t buy an inch of it. Everything about it is incoherent, and I have no idea how Con extrapolates God being a living organism from the definition of God. So I"m just left ignoring Con"s arguments. Pro"s arguments are better articulated than Con"s. Pro asks for an explanation to the Big Bang and the origin of life; she concedes to Con"s framework via the Big Bang theory and evolution, but asks for an explanation to the Big Bang. She argues that God is the explanation.

It"s clear that Pro is the better debater, but Con is right in that she isn"t fulfilling her BOP. Pro"s BOP is to prove a "supreme being," as defined, exists. Her argument, as Con rightly points out, is "deistic." She has to prove something beyond that deism, and has to prove an *intelligent* creator of the universe. Pro doesn"t do that, and only succeeds in shifting the BOP. In the final round, Pro raises an objection to the definition (which is fine since arguments begin in R1 so the definitions aren"t set in the rules), but her objection is a new argument in the final round, which is bad form. It also isn"t clearly sourced either.

On this basis, I would have voted Con despite Con"s nonsense arguments, because Pro had the greater BOP which she didn"t fulfill. Pro is the better debater, but loses on the BOP issue and the "deism" objection.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 8:11:58 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 8:09:28 AM, Romaniii wrote:
Nope. Sorry. Nice Try, Tej.

16kadams and I are still (and will always be) the most-improved debaters on the site.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

16k definitely, but my arguments are worse than yours.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 8:16:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 8:11:58 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/25/2016 8:09:28 AM, Romaniii wrote:
Nope. Sorry. Nice Try, Tej.

16kadams and I are still (and will always be) the most-improved debaters on the site.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

16k definitely, but my arguments are worse than yours.

I didn't even make an argument, so it's impossible for your argument to be worse than mine :)

"Religion is NOT illusion. That is your own opinion, which is fine by me; I am not going to try and convert you ... The whole point of me opening this debate was that I was tired of atheists calling religious people primitive, anti-science idiots, and I wanted to make it clear that religion does NOT contradict science. I wanted to prove that religion and science are to totally different pursuits with two totally different goals which are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE."

I am ashamed...
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 8:23:34 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Just for fun, I thought I"d analyze another old debate of mine (specifically, my second debate).

Note: I"m referring to myself as "Pro" since it helps my psychology in pretending I"m not myself while analyzing this debate.

== Topic: animal rights ==

The resolution isn"t nearly as sh*tty as the previous one. It is very tough to normatively frame this resolution (though it"s clear that it is intended to be a normative resolution). So let"s look at the definition: "the idea that all non-human sentient animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and deserve proper welfare." This is a fair definition. So the rez is basically "society should recognize that *all* animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives." I think Pro has made a critical error by using the word "all," which can be (and is) easily exploited by Con. Anyway, let"s look to the debate.

== My argument ==

"Animals are an important portion to the world's evolution. Why do animals deserve to be treated equally to humans? Many years ago, humans created the concept of ethics, where an advanced psychological being, the human, treats another with emotions and psychological environmental-fostering such as compassion. By these ethics, murder and torture, for example, are considered crimes, as is cannibalism. While one could argue that it is biologically necessary for humans to help each other for the survival of the human species, ethics was, in fact, made as the framework of civilization and society for humanity. So, humans gave rights and welfare great importance. Yet, why are animals not given the same respect? As the legendary Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Why do other non-human species deserve such equal respect?

1. Animals can feel emotions and physical impulses. They feel pain, et cetera.

2. By the basic human concept of ethics, they do not deserve any direct infliction of pain by humans, bound to follow these ethics by society.

3. Humans have caused great harm and destruction to the Earth, while animals have merely helped the ecosystem balance.

4. Animals cannot commit "crimes". What an animal does is morally justifiable as animals have a varied notion of "ethics", and do not have the psychological complexity to understand these ethical propositions. Therefore, animals have not committed crimes, and do not deserve infliction of pain.

Research on dogs and arthropods at the University of Lincoln showed that these animals react to stimuli by a nervous charge pattern similar to that of humans while experiencing emotions, proving that animals are capable of emotions. Thus, I conclude with the fact that animals deserve equal respect, welfare and rights, and do not deserve to be treated in cruel conditions of factory farming, slaughterhouses and laboratories that practice animal testing.

Sources - en.wikipedia.org, peta.org, en.wikispecies.org, www.thetimes.co.uk, www.nytimes.org."


Alright, so this was much better than the first argument. There are still *severe* arguments and it"s very tough to read this (it"s a bad argument; in fact, so annoying I had to divide into spaces because there were no spaces). The lack of spacing really hurts readability and could even merit awarding the S&G point to Con (though I wouldn"t do that because I refrain from awarding S&G at all).

Okay, let"s look to the substance:

The argument is poorly articulated. Here"s what it basically says: "Animals can feel pain, they have pain inflicted upon them and this pain should stop because they don"t deserve the pain." There"s no clear explanation as to why "pain is bad," or how any of this is relevant to the resolution. The University of Lincoln study is good to add since it forms a clear warrant (and the study *is* real). But Pro doesn"t help me understand why pain is bad or why it should be avoided. Furthermore, all of Pro"s arguments are *irrelevant* since they don"t have any clear link to self-ownership.

Next, a major strategic error shows. The definition of "animal rights" says all animals. The University of Lincoln study *only* deals with dogs and arthropods, so even if the pain link is there, it isn"t close to sufficient to warrant a Pro ballot.

Finally, the sourcing is horrible. It"s just a generic bunch of sources without clear links to any articles. Wikipedia has millions of articles, as does the NY Times, and so do wikispecies and PETA. There"s also no source for the University of Lincoln study, which is bad form. Also, I"ll make a confession: none of the links under "sources" except Wikipedia were used by me in formulating my arguments -- they were just random links to sites I thought good.

== My RFD ==

There"s a misinterpretation of what the debate is about by both sides. Pro"s misinterpretation is obvious re: pain. Pain is irrelevant, there"s no link to it at all, and Pro doesn"t even justify that all animals feel pain. There is no world in which Pro fulfills his BOP. The argument is just irrelevant, tangential nonsense. The lack of paragraph spacing just makes me much more annoyed and it was a pain to read Pro"s argument. Not worth it either, because while it does have a premise-conclusion structure to some extent and warrants part of the pain claim, it doesn"t justify animal self-ownership at all. The BOP is shared, so I"m not necessarily voting Con because of this, but there"s no way I"m voting Pro. Con also fully tears apart Pro"s arguments, by completely rejecting the pain argument as a bare assertion; since the pain argument forms an essential premise and isn"t sufficiently warranted, Pro loses his case entirely.

Con"s argument isn"t that good either. If you skim through it it looks good, but once you read it you realize the clear flaws. Con brings up stuff about the right to property and education, all of which are irrelevant because the debate isn"t about "rights for animals," it"s about animals owning themselves. So to that extent, Con"s argument is as irrelevant. Also, Pro is right that the debate isn"t about the "same" rights as humans, only "equal" rights, though Pro is very unclear on what "equal rights" even means. Pro is wrong about this: the debate is about self-possession and self-ownership *only.* Pro and Con are both shifting the goalposts with irrelevant and tangential arguments.

But Con wins this on a fairly strong argument that the concept of ethics was created by humans for humans. Humans created ethics to apply it to others. Con turns Pro"s argument that animals can"t commit crimes against Pro: if animals don"t understand ethics, there"s no reason to extend ethics to them. Con argues that ethics is built on reciprocity. Based on this, I"m voting Con because Con fully turns Pro"s arguments against him (despite the argument not even being compelling).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 8:30:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
My first ever cogent argument: http://www.debate.org...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:16:21 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 7:59:04 AM, tejretics wrote:
I was just looking through my debates and found my first ever argument, it"s hilarious.

== Topic: "A supreme being can rationally exist" ==

I have no idea what the topic even means. What does "rationally exist" mean? I'm pretty sure I intended it to mean "it is rational to believe in the existence of a supreme being." So, it starts off bad: terrible resolution drafting.

== Argument ==

"A Supreme Being, by definition, is a sentient creature of high-level intelligence that exercises physical control over the universe. By the basic laws of Charles Darwin's evolutionary concept, the fact that a living being existed before the dawn of genetic evolution, in unfavorable conditions (according to quantum physics), is impossible. No creature could possibly have the genetic and evolutionary requirements for such metaphysical devices. In 1927, Georges Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang theory, and it was confirmed to be possible by Edwin Hubble in 1929. The Big Bang theory, now the most scientifically accepted theory for the creation of the universe, proposes a singularity (a gravitational point in spacetime with infinite density and zero volume) acted as a focus for photonic energy that resulted in a de-annihilation that caused a split of particles of matter and antimatter. The formation of these substances could not be caused by a metaphysical sentient creature due to the genetic and biological impossibility of a creature, without usage of advanced technology, to have an ability to warp quantum spacetime itself. Therefore, any argument supporting the existence of a sapient deity is not justifiable by logical means."

(1) The supreme being isn"t necessarily a "living being," so the evolution argument is nonsense.

(2) "Focus for photonic energy" and "de-annihilation" are incoherent.

(3) "Quantum spacetime" doesn't have any meaning. Also, I don't see how creating space-time equals "warping" or "manipulating" it.

(4) "Without use of advanced technology" is an implicit concession; if that being had advanced technology, they could have created the universe.

(5) The Big Bang is irrelevant as well.

== My RFD ==

The burden of proof is on Pro; the resolution is a fact claim, so Pro has to prove the resolution true. Now, the resolution itself is poorly drafted, but it seems both sides implicitly agree that the debate is basically a "God exists" one. Con (the instigator) defines God as "an intelligent creator and ruler of the universe" (which is basically what the definition means, at least). By accepting and not contesting the definition in R1, Pro essentially concedes the definition. So let"s move to the substance. Con"s argument is bullsh*t, I don"t buy an inch of it. Everything about it is incoherent, and I have no idea how Con extrapolates God being a living organism from the definition of God. So I"m just left ignoring Con"s arguments. Pro"s arguments are better articulated than Con"s. Pro asks for an explanation to the Big Bang and the origin of life; she concedes to Con"s framework via the Big Bang theory and evolution, but asks for an explanation to the Big Bang. She argues that God is the explanation.

It"s clear that Pro is the better debater, but Con is right in that she isn"t fulfilling her BOP. Pro"s BOP is to prove a "supreme being," as defined, exists. Her argument, as Con rightly points out, is "deistic." She has to prove something beyond that deism, and has to prove an *intelligent* creator of the universe. Pro doesn"t do that, and only succeeds in shifting the BOP. In the final round, Pro raises an objection to the definition (which is fine since arguments begin in R1 so the definitions aren"t set in the rules), but her objection is a new argument in the final round, which is bad form. It also isn"t clearly sourced either.

On this basis, I would have voted Con despite Con"s nonsense arguments, because Pro had the greater BOP which she didn"t fulfill. Pro is the better debater, but loses on the BOP issue and the "deism" objection.

Dang, that gave me brain freeze, You have vastly improved since.

I wonder if I can take the title for no improvement, or worse yet, a decline. :)
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 3:10:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 8:09:28 AM, Romaniii wrote:
Nope. Sorry. Nice Try, Tej.

16kadams and I are still (and will always be) the most-improved debaters on the site.

http://www.debate.org...

xD

http://www.debate.org...

... "have fun beating Yale scholars or the government."

Hahaha xD
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 4:06:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 8:30:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
My first ever cogent argument: http://www.debate.org...

lol
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
lannan13
Posts: 23,064
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 4:38:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 8:09:28 AM, Romaniii wrote:
Nope. Sorry. Nice Try, Tej.

16kadams and I are still (and will always be) the most-improved debaters on the site.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

I disagree.

http://www.debate.org...
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-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...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 4:41:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Mine is the worst. First debate that started, not ended.

http://www.debate.org...
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 4:42:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 4:38:52 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 8:09:28 AM, Romaniii wrote:
Nope. Sorry. Nice Try, Tej.

16kadams and I are still (and will always be) the most-improved debaters on the site.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

I disagree.

http://www.debate.org...

That argument was fine for a first-time debater on the site. You actually presented an argument for God and defended it to some extent. It wasn't a good argument, but it was way better than the first debates of 16k and myself.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:18:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 4:41:09 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Mine is the worst. First debate that started, not ended.

http://www.debate.org...

Lol. I enjoyed that topic.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:23:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Mine actually aint even that interesting

http://www.debate.org...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:26:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:23:46 PM, imabench wrote:
Mine actually aint even that interesting

http://www.debate.org...

Lol. This is really funny.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:51:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:18:49 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 3/25/2016 4:41:09 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Mine is the worst. First debate that started, not ended.

http://www.debate.org...

Lol. I enjoyed that topic.

I didn't,

actually I did.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,561
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:03:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 5:30:20 PM, Romaniii wrote:
== Official Most-Improved Debaters List ==

1. 16kadams
2. Romanii
3. Tejretics
4. Lannan
5. firewings
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka