Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

RFD for "Necessity of Religion" Debate

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 5:19:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
**This is an RFD for the debate here: http://www.debate.org... **

At around 17k characters, it was too big to put in the comments on the debate.

Okay, so this debate had some problems over and above the arguments. As an aside, neither Pro nor Con has a gender selection. I've used "he" here, if that's incorrect I apologize; I based it off profile pics, basically. Anyway, on to the preamble:

First, to Pro: Generally speaking, it is not proper for you to try to change the terms of the debate after acceptance. While you may not necessarily know this, the BoP is on the Instigator by default; they make the statement, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to have to defend it. Most judges will consider the BoP to be in the Instigator unless otherwise specified in R1 (since R1 is posted before the Contender accepts), and it's poor conduct to attempt to assert a change in rules in R2. R1 is where you set up the debate; by R2, the Contender has accepted and can't back out if they strongly object, so it's not particularly fair to them. That said, from a literalist standpoint your resolution should have been exceedingly easy to win from a BoP standpoint, since the BoP only factors in to what would otherwise be a tie, and it's pretty easy to argue a presumption of non-necessity without a showing of necessity. That said, your opponent explicitly accepted the new rule, so it stands (Only in the most limited and abusive situations would I not have accepted his acceptance, and frankly at the moment I can't even think of a good hypothetical to use as example).

Second, also to Pro: Con did not plagiarize. A necessary element of plagiarism is to pass another's work off as your own. I see no evidence of that. Con cited, and said "I will defend the following arguments from[1]:" Now, I would would have preferred he used quotes to indicate he was directly quoting the source. I would say that it was improper for him not to do so. but he did indicate that "the following arguments" were "from[1]", and then gave the link at the bottom. I do not accept the charge of plagiarism; had he truly plagiarized, that could have warranted a win on the grounds that the conduct in plagiarizing is so bad as to essentially be a forfeit. But that's not what happened here.

Third, to Pro one last time: You do still need to engage the presented arguments. If you don't, you run serious risk of losing even in clear-cut plagiarism. Here, it would have been better if you'd spent more time on his arguments, and less on pasting the picture and attacking the plagiarism. Note it, give the link and your reasoning, then move on and address the substance. Which is not to say you ignored it entirely, but I think you allowed what you saw as bad conduct to distract you--and letting things distract you in debate is a bad idea.

Fourth, to Con: You really should use quotes when you're taking directly from a source. Had you only cited at the bottom, I probably would have agreed that you plagiarized; your saving grace was the opening sentence. If you make sure that you always put direct quotes in quotation marks, you can help avoid confusion.

Fifth, to Con: You said "I would like everyone to understand that plagiarism is Not against any rules here on DDO, and it only makes sense as an arguing tool." To that I say: No. Plagiarism is unethical. The "rules" of DDO are the rules for site participation (and they do, actually make note of rights: "All material you post on Debate.org, including debate arguments, comments, forums, profiles, pictures, and messages becomes the property of Debate.org, and you waive all claims of ownership for said property.", and you can't give DDO rights you don't have, as well as "Will not upload...or use any Content, in whole or in part in any manner exceeding the scope of your rights to use such Content"). Rules for how to score a debate are different and not listed in the terms of use. Instead, they're enforced by moderation, and are a scoring mechanism. Plagiarism is quite obviously cheating. In fact, there was just a debate on this very subject nigh-two-months ago (http://www.debate.org...). Plagiarism is taking someone else's work without crediting them. In this debate, you DID credit, and therefore did not plagiarize. Again, quotation marks would have been clearer and better. I also think that it's a fair criticism to say that you could have, and perhaps should have, written in your own words. I think you would have stood a better chance of crafting a better case had you done so. But, to be very clear, had you plagiarized, you would have lost this debate. Conduct, for unsportsmanlike behavior, would have gone against you and there are many voters who would have disregarded the plagiarzed arguments as invalid, leaving you with no actual content in your round, thus leaving you with no argument, thus likely losing you arguments. You did have a final round to still post and, had you not plagiarized there, you could have in theory salvaged things. The inherent problem in plagiarism is NOT the use of the words, it's the lack of citation--it's the theft. Quote as much as you like; some may find fault or feel you've overdone it, but if you're properly quoting and citing, you're never plagiarizing. It's a moot point, given that I do not accept that you plagiarized, but let's be very clear here: Do Not Plagiarize.

Sixth, to Con: You say you "refuse and should not be forced to stay up all night to craft a 10k response to this case". No one forced you to accept this debate. Once you did, you are not forced to continue. That said, you should not accept debates if you don't intend to participate in them. Accepting the debate and then refusing to participate is poor form. You aren't forced to post immediately, unless the rounds are shorter than normal. That can be considered abuse on the part of the instigator if that is what happened, and would have been worth noting; How long was each round?

As to the debate itself:

I made a list of arguments, because I wanted to see what each side presented and whether it was rebutted. I reordered them for my convenience, lumping the ones that are essentially the same argument restated into the same line-item. I recognize that I've lumped more of Con's together than Pro's, but Pro seems to have put more effort in a diverse range of specific points he wanted to make. Con's bulleted list did not come from a debate, and given that he copy-pasted it, it wasn't really formatted in a way to differentiate the points in my opinion. I do recognize that the points aren't identical, but as regards to what they're addressing, I believe the way I've grouped them is sound.

Pro:

1 Religious laws are man-made rules that were tailored for a different set of circumstances
2 Science right now does what religion did in a better way
3 Religion offers a false sense of comfort (religion blinds us from seeing our problems as they actually are) / Religion promotes irrational thinking
4 Religion can be misleading due to misinterpretation
5 Religion divides us and breeds violence
6 Counter Proposal

Con:
X Religion provides mental peace / Religion explains individual suffering / Religion converts the animal qualities to human qualities
Y It inculcates social virtues / Religion promotes social solidarity / Religion is an agent of socialization and social control / Religion promotes welfare / Religion comes as a source of social cohesion / Religion Strengthens Self-confidence
Z Religion gives recreation
T Religion promotes welfare

Q (Other) Religion influences economy (Non-topical--never mentions benefit, compares Protestant to Hindu, shows contrast, doesn't explain which if either is better and given the contradictory positions doesn't help with the motion) Religious influences political system (Non-
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 5:20:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Q (Other) Religion influences economy (Non-topical--never mentions benefit, compares Protestant to Hindu, shows contrast, doesn't explain which if either is better and given the contradictory positions doesn't help with the motion) Religious influences political system (Non-topical--never mentions benefit)

Con didn't directly engage with Pro's arguments in R2. Neither side sourced or supported their statements very much (with Pro having 5, and Con having the 1), which is problematic because in this round, they both largely made bare assertions (Con's should be obvious, but Pro, for example, says things like "In the U.S alone people give more than $82.5 billion a year to religion [3] and what do we get in return? Practically nothing.", where he gives the cite for the money amount (which is good, don't get me wrong), but doesn't justify his "Practically nothing" point beyond his asserting it). X and Y seem to address 3 and 5, but Con's arguments don't seem to affect 1, 2, 4, or 6. 3 and 5 and X and Y seem to be an overall wash at this point, with both sides simply asserting positions on them. So at this point in the debate, it's 1, 2, 4, and 6 vs. Z and T. Z doesn't seem particularly compelling (and is trivially non-unique). T is the only significant argument left standing. Originally, I had it grouped in Y, to be honest, as it's all in the same vein, but given that welfare is a bit more specific and given that it comes up a bit later as an important point, I gave it its own letter.

Pro opens R3 with the point regarding plagiarism I discussed in my preamble. He then condenses Con's case into what he sees as Con's 3 major points, dismissing the rest as "either absurd claims or didn"t have enough evidences to be considered as arguments". I'm not really clear on the validity of the latter justification, and the former seems a bit mean on Pro's part. But I think his condensing is largely valid and not a strawman.

Pro believes he's "dealt with the first part of the argument" in his R2 C2; I believe they both really just made assertions. He hasn't defended that "false sense" either as truly false or as a bad thing. That said, given that all Con's offered as of yet is assertion of his own, it's a wash. Pro says "Religion has also been known to push the emotional side of humans, negatively. This has gone to extents where large scale wars like the Eighty Years" War, Nigerian Civil War, German Peasants" War etc[1] getting caused because of religious reasons", an argument I think would more properly fit in ii; when he gets to ii, he simply refers back to R2 C5.

Pro seems to concede part of Con's Y, admitting that religion provides social values and virtues, but claiming that other things like education do this just as well.

Of particular note is that Pro cites the same list again in R3 as he does in R2. This will be relevant later.

Con opens R3 first by claiming that he believed R2 was for opening statements. Given his rant about plagiarism not being "against the rules" that immediately follows, I'm inclined to think he doesn't know as much as, perhaps, he thinks he does about how debates go on DDO. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I'll take the opportunity to again caution Con that no, he shouldn't plagiarize.

Con then attempts to assert victory through dropped arguments. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't hold. Con, as a general rule I wouldn't recommend telling voters how they "must" score--especially since two of your arguments were complete non sequitors in terms of the resolution. The "Religion influences economy" point had no relevance to the motion, nor did the "Religion influences political systems". It is true, however, that Pro never addressed "Religion promotes welfare"; in my list, I kept that with social unity, and Pro said he was combining the arguments. That said, there was nothing in Pro's rebuttal about welfare, so that is a dropped argument.

Con moves on to the point labeled i. Con argues that wars are "almost never" religiously based. That on its own is a partial concession of the point. Almost never is not never, and so if starting wars is fundamentally accepted as a bad thing, then Con has conceded that some are. Con also doesn't address the wars Pro explicitly noted. Instead, there is a quote (Properly quoted, but without an actual citation at the bottom, making it impossible to see where he got it from) that doesn't really give any argument of its own beyond assertion. Now, to be clear, Pro essentially just gave us a list and a link to more on the list. But Pro specifically mentioned several by name, and justifications were available at that source. So Con could have argued those points in a similar fashion. But he didn't; he didn't address any of the ones that Pro mentioned by name. He closes with a new argument, that religion is synonymous with "quite literally culture and identity", such that "The resolution at hand basically asks whether or not culture and identity are necessary in a modern world". Not only is this a new argument that Pro can't respond to, but it's a bare assertion, and I don't find it a compelling one. Con hasn't shown how the link between culture/identity and religion is necessary, and it comes across as an equivocation.

Con then moves on to ii. He opens by claiming that the use of "cult" was offensive, and saying that its use "shows a supreme amount of ignorance and blatant stupor". He never justifies this, so it stands as mere insult, and honestly bad conduct. That alone does not warrant the conduct point, however, though see the point summary for where and why that was awarded, and it certainly does factor in. He then claims, bizzarely, that even if religion is divisive, within the divisions there's unity, and so therefore somehow Pro has conceded. This is not at all compelling as a defense. In terms of the resolution, Pro established it as "the world", so even more than simply being uncompelling on its face as an argument, Con's interpretation is inconsistent with the resolution as written.

Con then makes another bizarre claim in iii: That "Education is solely the acquisition of new skills, at best you can learn from education offhand, by developing your own morality, but education in no way teaches morality or social virtues". Now, we as voters approach these debates as much tabula rasa as possible. But the basic meaning of words is not something we're expected to ignore. You can't use the phrase "teach" without, implicitly, there being "education" involved, and Con himself spoke about religion "teaching" things. Implicit in Pro's arguments, of course, was it being *secular* "education", and certainly Pro was rather vague on it. But I can't take this rebuttal seriously on its face.

Con then addresses Pro's listed points. Strangely, he seems to focus his main attack (that of topicality) on the title, rather than the substance, of the argument. It wasn't particularly compelling. He then simply handwaves away the rest, claiming that Pro has no right as an atheist to call anything bad, and asserting that any examples of bad behavior are outliers. He doesn't address this claim by Pro at all "no matter how ideal it might seem, religious texts would inevitably be, riddled with opinionated views and biases on situations". It's a bare assertion, but it's dropped by Con. Con drops the amendability point and the caste system point entirely. He drops R2C1B entirely. Despite his claims to the contrary, Con has not "refuted" C1.

For C2, Con argues that the truth of the foundation of the comfort is irrelevant. Given that Pro never really justified its relevance beyond asserting it so. I would call this one a wash.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 5:20:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
For C3, Con's rebuttal doesn't properly explicate itself well enough to rebut. For C4, Con doesn't defend these things as good, and given the resolution, this rebuttal is insufficient. In C5, Con doesn't actually address the points that Pro makes, appealing to assertion and arguing that history is irrelevant. None of these three are particularly compelling.

For the "Science" point, Con argues "do both". Unfortunately, his burden was to show that religion was necessary, framed by the debaters essentially as an on balance styled resolution. This rebuttal doesn't support Con's side of that.

In the end, I was left with: 1, 2, 4, and 5 remaining from Pro's side. From Con's side, Z and T were still remaining. The biggest problem with T is that Con has consistently rejected Pro's negatives, arguing they aren't inherent to religion. Had Pro argued the same thing for T, I'd have accepted it, but Pro did not. So, I'm left weighing these arguments out. Does the rules being unamendable, made from a different set of circumstances, possibly misinterpreted and riddled with bias (points raised by Pro and unrebutted), with Science answering many of the questions Religion does in a better way (again, uncontested), and with division and violence as a result, outweigh welfare and recreation?

In the end, I judged that those things did outweigh welfare and recreation.

So:

Arguments for the reasoning above.
S&G was equal enough.

For conduct:
Between the defense of plagiarism and the insults, I am sorely tempted to award conduct to Pro. At present, however, I'm keeping it nulled. I may change my mind.

For sourcing:
Pro obviously put more effort into sourcing than Con. Had Con gotten that second citation right, I might have called it "close enough". But between the first source and the second, unknown source, it's obvious that Pro had the better and more reliable sources. (Incidentally, as far as I can tell, Karen Armstrong wrote it in her book, and it's been quoted rather extensively. Knowing from whence a quote comes is helpful in judging whether to take it seriously), and Con's failure to properly cite was the tipping point here.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 12:15:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh, I neglected to add:

As always, I'm happy to clarify this RFD.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
TinyBudha
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 3:43:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 5:19:33 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
**This is an RFD for the debate here: http://www.debate.org... **

how can you use a debate as the authority on what can and cannot be done by the judges? I think it lacks this authority. If plagiarism is against the rules then there needs to be a rule about it, not speculation. The closest you have to a rule is a quote from airmax and it doesn't even mention whether or not he was in office at the time.

In your RFD you cite me for 'insulting' the opponent after I point out his own insult at all religious people, saying they all are in cults, its blatantly offensive and cocksure.

You also completely ignored my weighing argument that war will happen anyways and that religion protects all people who have it from their own breaking points.

You discredited my quote on the wars yet do you realize that the website he gave for his own example-wars did not support that they were created by religion.

Pro's R2 literally refutes 3 basic ideas of my post, not nearly all of them and then concedes the others. How can you say that they just have no impact, that simply sounds like your trying to find ways to agree with pro, it would only make sense to declare they have no impact when and if pro would have made that an argument, you are making arguments for him. You should have to assume they are maximally important since they are conceded.

Pro never gives an explanation as to why education can teach morals he simply says it does. At the very least I offer a reason that it doesn't which should be good enough to override his point. Basically, his point is a bare assertion, and that asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I give evidence, in the form of reason.

And you also ignored my argument that other things divide us such as race and that without religion these things grow which outweighs the few minor wars that I concede

even if the argument I made on culture and identity were new, where does it say that new arguments aren't allowed in that post? Nowhere, he failed his R1 duties in many ways. Pro made a bad round as far as speech order, that's not my fault.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 3:58:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 3:43:09 PM, TinyBudha wrote:
At 6/19/2015 5:19:33 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
**This is an RFD for the debate here: http://www.debate.org... **

how can you use a debate as the authority on what can and cannot be done by the judges? I think it lacks this authority. If plagiarism is against the rules then there needs to be a rule about it, not speculation. The closest you have to a rule is a quote from airmax and it doesn't even mention whether or not he was in office at the time.

We're talking about scoring--scoring is based on performance within the debate. Norms of scoring are norms of scoring--pretending a "rule" needs to exist outlining every possible type of argument that can be made and how it should be scored is an absurdity you can pursue, but in the meantime, judges will be scoring debates. In the case of plagiarism, you're stealing material. If that doesn't fall under "unsportsmanlike conduct", then your definition is incredibly non-standard. As to whether the arguments would be rejected--again, that's a case you can make. Judges who are scoring you based solely on what's going on in the debate can justify throwing out the stolen arguments, and you can't make a case for their votes being invalid such that they should be removed. Remember that no single judge determines the winner--we determine the score we assign only.

In your RFD you cite me for 'insulting' the opponent after I point out his own insult at all religious people, saying they all are in cults, its blatantly offensive and cocksure.

I reject your reasoning. You see cult as pejorative--and it may be so. But there's still a difference between insulting a group of people and insulting someone personally, and a difference between making a general statement and insulting your opponent.

You also completely ignored my weighing argument that war will happen anyways and that religion protects all people who have it from their own breaking points.

No, I didn't. "War will happen anyways" is irrelevant to you conceding that war causes some fights, and you dropped the examples Pro gave. As to the "protects people who have it from their own breaking points", I didn't find it compelling or substantiated, and it was folded into X in terms of consideration.

You discredited my quote on the wars yet do you realize that the website he gave for his own example-wars did not support that they were created by religion.

I discredited your quote for being nothing but an unsourced quote that didn't address the points that Pro made, yes.

Pro's R2 literally refutes 3 basic ideas of my post, not nearly all of them and then concedes the others.

Please read the RFD--and the debate. Pro notes that he's condensing the arguments.

How can you say that they just have no impact, that simply sounds like your trying to find ways to agree with pro, it would only make sense to declare they have no impact when and if pro would have made that an argument, you are making arguments for him. You should have to assume they are maximally important since they are conceded.

They weren't conceded. They were dropped where I noted they were dropped--your assertions that some were dropped simply because they weren't addressed in a similar bullet point fashion were not credible.

I do not go into any debate with trying to find a reason to agree with either side. My own opinion on any resolution is irrelevant.

Pro never gives an explanation as to why education can teach morals he simply says it does. At the very least I offer a reason that it doesn't which should be good enough to override his point.

Not when what you said was incoherent.

Basically, his point is a bare assertion, and that asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I give evidence, in the form of reason.

No, you gave an assertion in the form of a direct contradiction of yourself.

And you also ignored my argument that other things divide us such as race and that without religion these things grow which outweighs the few minor wars that I concede

You didn't prove that at all, and that there are other bad things is irrelevant to the resolution.

even if the argument I made on culture and identity were new, where does it say that new arguments aren't allowed in that post? Nowhere, he failed his R1 duties in many ways. Pro made a bad round as far as speech order, that's not my fault.

I didn't say they weren't allowed, so your objection is nonsensical. I noted that it was a new argument in the final round, made where Pro couldn't possibly address it. That's simple statement of fact.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 3:59:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 3:58:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

No, I didn't. "War will happen anyways" is irrelevant to you conceding that *religion* causes some fights, and you dropped the examples Pro gave. As to the "protects people who have it from their own breaking points", I didn't find it compelling or substantiated, and it was folded into X in terms of consideration.

Fixed a typo.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
TinyBudha
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:42:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 3:58:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/19/2015 3:43:09 PM, TinyBudha wrote:
At 6/19/2015 5:19:33 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
**This is an RFD for the debate here: http://www.debate.org... **

how can you use a debate as the authority on what can and cannot be done by the judges? I think it lacks this authority. If plagiarism is against the rules then there needs to be a rule about it, not speculation. The closest you have to a rule is a quote from airmax and it doesn't even mention whether or not he was in office at the time.

We're talking about scoring--scoring is based on performance within the debate. Norms of scoring are norms of scoring--pretending a "rule" needs to exist outlining every possible type of argument that can be made and how it should be scored is an absurdity you can pursue, but in the meantime, judges will be scoring debates. In the case of plagiarism, you're stealing material. If that doesn't fall under "unsportsmanlike conduct", then your definition is incredibly non-standard. As to whether the arguments would be rejected--again, that's a case you can make. Judges who are scoring you based solely on what's going on in the debate can justify throwing out the stolen arguments, and you can't make a case for their votes being invalid such that they should be removed. Remember that no single judge determines the winner--we determine the score we assign only.

In your RFD you cite me for 'insulting' the opponent after I point out his own insult at all religious people, saying they all are in cults, its blatantly offensive and cocksure.

I reject your reasoning. You see cult as pejorative--and it may be so. But there's still a difference between insulting a group of people and insulting someone personally, and a difference between making a general statement and insulting your opponent.

You also completely ignored my weighing argument that war will happen anyways and that religion protects all people who have it from their own breaking points.

No, I didn't. "War will happen anyways" is irrelevant to you conceding that war causes some fights, and you dropped the examples Pro gave. As to the "protects people who have it from their own breaking points", I didn't find it compelling or substantiated, and it was folded into X in terms of consideration.

You discredited my quote on the wars yet do you realize that the website he gave for his own example-wars did not support that they were created by religion.

I discredited your quote for being nothing but an unsourced quote that didn't address the points that Pro made, yes.

Pro's R2 literally refutes 3 basic ideas of my post, not nearly all of them and then concedes the others.

Please read the RFD--and the debate. Pro notes that he's condensing the arguments.

How can you say that they just have no impact, that simply sounds like your trying to find ways to agree with pro, it would only make sense to declare they have no impact when and if pro would have made that an argument, you are making arguments for him. You should have to assume they are maximally important since they are conceded.

They weren't conceded. They were dropped where I noted they were dropped--your assertions that some were dropped simply because they weren't addressed in a similar bullet point fashion were not credible.

I do not go into any debate with trying to find a reason to agree with either side. My own opinion on any resolution is irrelevant.

Pro never gives an explanation as to why education can teach morals he simply says it does. At the very least I offer a reason that it doesn't which should be good enough to override his point.

Not when what you said was incoherent.

Basically, his point is a bare assertion, and that asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I give evidence, in the form of reason.

No, you gave an assertion in the form of a direct contradiction of yourself.

And you also ignored my argument that other things divide us such as race and that without religion these things grow which outweighs the few minor wars that I concede

You didn't prove that at all, and that there are other bad things is irrelevant to the resolution.

even if the argument I made on culture and identity were new, where does it say that new arguments aren't allowed in that post? Nowhere, he failed his R1 duties in many ways. Pro made a bad round as far as speech order, that's not my fault.

I didn't say they weren't allowed, so your objection is nonsensical. I noted that it was a new argument in the final round, made where Pro couldn't possibly address it. That's simple statement of fact.

Hmm, so every objection I just made is flatly wrong? How utterly convenient you biased jackass. There is nothing I could say to change your mind, I could show you a spot in the debate where pro said, "con wins" and that still would be insufficient according to some ludicrous debate that happened 2 years ago. Have fun abusing 'assistant moderator' status, whatever that means, I refuse to continue discourse with someone like yourself, and please, do tick on that extra conduct point and make it 6-0. What a waste.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:58:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 4:42:58 PM, TinyBudha wrote:

Hmm, so every objection I just made is flatly wrong? How utterly convenient you biased jackass.

I'm always happy to explain my position, and to engage in a discussion regarding my RFD. That said, I'm under no obligation to respond to someone who doesn't have an argument other than insult and that's what you just demonstrated. Still, I'll respond anyway.

Not having a response other than unwarranted insult does not help your case. I'm sorry that you are upset someone would disagree with your own assessment of your performance. Where your position is utterly untenable, I'm sorry that you've chosen it. Neither of those things make me "biased". If you had a response, you could have given it--instead, you're apparently trying to appeal to the notion "Well, I must have been right about something." That's just not true. You can be flatly wrong. I expressed why I disagreed with you so, in the absence of any actual response from you on the merits of what I said, I can only presume that's the case.

There is nothing I could say to change your mind, I could show you a spot in the debate where pro said, "con wins" and that still would be insufficient according to some ludicrous debate that happened 2 years ago. Have fun abusing 'assistant moderator' status, whatever that means, I refuse to continue discourse with someone like yourself, and please, do tick on that extra conduct point and make it 6-0. What a waste.

Conduct outside the debate does not impact scoring within the debate save for some extremely rare situations.

That said, you CAN'T point to something like that; if you could, it would affect the score. I'm sorry that your hypothetical is such utter nonsense but, like several things in your reply, that is again not my fault. You are being dishonest in your charge; you have no grounds to make that assertion other than that you don't like my opinion on your debate. Throwing charges of bias around without any evidence is not part of honest intellectual discourse. I explained my points in great detail, and your responses to them were lackluster at best, and you've given up even that--I can only conclude because you don't HAVE any responses.

For what it's worth, I linked to that debate specifically because of the arguments within it--which you have no arguments with except, apparently, that "not every possible argument is outlined in terms of how it should be scored, therefore I can steal other people's work without crediting it". That's not going to get you very far in terms of being taken seriously. Wylted probably could make a somewhat decent defense of plagiarism, and you sir are no Wylted.

Neither petulance nor insult takes the place of reason, no matter how frustrated you may feel.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 5:03:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bladerunner, I think went above and beyond with this RFD. Good job.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 6:33:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 5:03:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
Bladerunner, I think went above and beyond with this RFD. Good job.

Agreed.
Cotton_Candy
Posts: 299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:29:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 5:19:33 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
**This is an RFD for the debate here: http://www.debate.org... **

At around 17k characters, it was too big to put in the comments on the debate.

Lol this RFD puts the 10k debate to shame. :p

Thank you for taking the time to vote ^_^