Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debate Voting Drama

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 11:52:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I made this thread hoping that we can move the arguing over here, rather than clogging up the comments section of a debate.

Just to clarify to Pennington with regards to his vote, I was not trying to undermine Medic's own personal "belief" as frankly I believe he can believe as an individual whatever he wants. What I was looking to undermine was the case he presents in the open arena about evolution/CD being a hoax or a conspiracy by biologists engaging in a cover-up.

I've never called it a conspiracy or a cover-up, that is your interpretation of what I've said. Sure, I've used the word hoax a few times, and I believe that someday UCD will be invalidated. In hindsight, many people will say that it was a hoax perpetrated by those who longed for an explanation that ruled out God as creator. However, that doesn't mean that I think people don't actually believe it to be a valid hypothesis today, and are seeking to find credible justification for it. I do believe that there is great prejudice against anyone who strays from the majority opinion, but I don't believe there's a secret organization and a smoke-filled room where they go to plot against the creationists.

Regardless, asking me to "speculate", which is all I can do on the issue, about people's motives and behaviors does absolutely nothing to undermine my position, or make my case weaker, which is a critical requirement of the resolution that you challenged me to debate.

I believe I've shown how Medic failed to explain why Lenski's offered explanation about how God used evolution instead of creationism to be non-sufficient,

Just as asking for speculation does not undermine my case in any way, presenting Lenski's opinion on a Biblical issue also fails to help you uphold the resolution.

You, nor Lenski, provide Biblical support for your interpretation. I did show why I believe that Lenski's opinion is invalid, and I showed why my opinion on the issue is well supported by simply reading what the Bible says.

Arguing that God used UCD requires one to invalidate the term "bring forth after their kind". I showed how that term is used 10 times in Genesis 1 alone. Repeated use of that term is obviously meant to make a particular point.

Simply presenting an alternate interpretation to the traditional creationist reading of the Bible, does not invalidate or undermine our case in any way, thus his opinion does not help you uphold the resolution of the debate.

and I also believe Medic failed to give a clear cut motive for why evolutionists would reject creationist claims in the mainstream scientific arena if the creationist claims are actually valid, and I also believe showed how Medic failed to sufficiently answer why it isn't out in the real credible mainstream news and scientific journals if evolution/CD is in fact untrue.

As with the other question you asked, this one too requires me to speculate on other people's belief and behavior. I don't know what motivates each individual who chooses to ignore certain peices of evidence. Just as you can't be responsible for explaining why creationists look at the exact same evidence you have, and come up with a different interpretion than UCD.

The simple fact that people disagree does not invalidate either side and your argument amounts to an appeal to majority within the scientific community. Again, whether you agree or disagree with my speculation is irrelevant and does nothing to help you uphold the resolution that you challenged me to debate.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 12:01:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I haven't gotten a chance to read that debate yet, so I don't mean to stick my nose in the whole thing yet, but:

"Hoax" does imply intent to deceive...

We don't call other wrong theories "hoaxes" unless there was an actual effort to deceive. What was done to Beringer was a Hoax, that some doctors thought that drinking gold would cure disease was just wrong.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 12:27:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Vulpes Inculta says...

'Reasons for voting decision: Debate was essentially a tie. Giving sources to Pro because many of Con's sources were Biblegateway, which is neither a reliable source or an encyclopedia.'

Unlike Pro's use of biased sources, biblegateway was not used as a source to present an opinion or as a reference that supports my opinion. It was used simply to show that the wording that I used in my argument was indeed in the Bible, as I said it was.

Had Vulpes actually read the debate and checked the source to see why I might use it, that point would have been crystal clear to him. Instead, he simply sees "Bible" and wants to invalidate the source, even though Pro is the one that raised the issue in the first place. Had I not sourced my argument then Pro could have argued that I'm just making it up. If his question requires Biblical justification for my position, then where the heck am I suppose to reference from, if not from the Bible?? That's ridiculous.

'I think Pro held his ground and showed these questions by Con do not undermine his belief. Which is macroevolution is still a educated assumption.

This clearly show that Vulpes doesn't even understand the resolution of the debate that he's voting on, nor does he understand the burden of proof for either debater.

The resolution clearly states that PRO is the one who has the burden of asking questions, and cross-examining, and it is PRO'S questions that must be shown to undermine, hold back, or cripple Con's position.

Con's burden was to defend his position and answer Pro's questions, showing that those questions do not undermine his case against UCD. Con had absolutely no burden to ask questions, or do anything other than defend his own position.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 12:38:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 11:52:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:

I've never called it a conspiracy or a cover-up, that is your interpretation of what I've said. Sure, I've used the word hoax a few times

You've just contradicted yourself here. As Bladerunner's just pointed out, "hoax" does mean an intent to deceive, and likewise so does a conspiracy, the notion of trying to "keep the truth hidden" as it were. So it turns out you DID say what I claimed you said.

and I believe that someday UCD will be invalidated. In hindsight, many people will say that it was a hoax perpetrated by those who longed for an explanation that ruled out God as creator.

Million dollars if you can submit that genius hypothesis and test results that I assume you have against UCD to a peer reviewed journal and then win that Nobel Prize you surely deserve.

However, that doesn't mean that I think people don't actually believe it to be a valid hypothesis today, and are seeking to find credible justification for it. I do believe that there is great prejudice against anyone who strays from the majority opinion, but I don't believe there's a secret organization and a smoke-filled room where they go to plot against the creationists.

Didn't you describe the evolutionists as "cults" in our debate and claim that the news of UCD being false somehow hadn't made it to the evolutionist scientists yet even though they're in the mainstream and such a story would be huge news? Wow. You've changed your tune.

Regardless, asking me to "speculate", which is all I can do on the issue, about people's motives and behaviors does absolutely nothing to undermine my position, or make my case weaker, which is a critical requirement of the resolution that you challenged me to debate.

I was asking you to provide a coherent explanation as to why evolutionists were suppressing anti-evolutionist ideas even if they are valid, which is a belief you clearly hold to. If UCD truly is false and yet news this big hasn't gone all around the world (because I seriously doubt how in the current age of the scientific arena anything THAT BIG could be kept secret) then there should be some clear specific reasons why the evolutionists are keeping it quiet. You didn't provide this. In contrast, one could for example find some staggeringly clear reasons why creationists try to cover up the fact that Creationism has been proved over and over to be bogus. For example, they want their theory in the science classrooms so that they can brainwash kids into becoming Christians and have a legal way of doing so without violating separation of church and state. That was staggeringly simple, wasn't it? There's also Kitzmiller v Dover and Edwards v Aguillard, which exposed the way Creationist minds work all too well.

Just as asking for speculation does not undermine my case in any way, presenting Lenski's opinion on a Biblical issue also fails to help you uphold the resolution.

Fallacy of assuming it's purely a Biblical issue as opposed to an overall Christian issue.

You, nor Lenski, provide Biblical support for your interpretation. I did show why I believe that Lenski's opinion is invalid, and I showed why my opinion on the issue is well supported by simply reading what the Bible says.

Again, not every Christian is a Biblical literalist like you. Furthermore, I showed why your Biblical stuff is BS. You falsely claimed I didn't present anything that contradicted the Bible scientifically, and yet you completely ignored the TWO occasions I mentioned where the Bible erroneously claims the Moon is a "light" as well as the fact that I also pointed out that stars are clearly millions of years old, as well as also pointing out that the Bible claims whales and birds came before reptiles and insects.

Arguing that God used UCD requires one to invalidate the term "bring forth after their kind". I showed how that term is used 10 times in Genesis 1 alone. Repeated use of that term is obviously meant to make a particular point.

Sure, but again, your definition of "kind" didn't make any kind of sense, and I demonstrated how absurd it was in Round 4.

Simply presenting an alternate interpretation to the traditional creationist reading of the Bible, does not invalidate or undermine our case in any way, thus his opinion does not help you uphold the resolution of the debate.

I disagree. I think a good case could be made, granting the argument that God exists for a second, that you put far too much trust in what the writings of ancient men with limited imaginations and scientific ignorance of what was to be discovered in later times had to say.

As with the other question you asked, this one too requires me to speculate on other people's belief and behavior. I don't know what motivates each individual who chooses to ignore certain peices of evidence. Just as you can't be responsible for explaining why creationists look at the exact same evidence you have, and come up with a different interpretion than UCD.

See above.

The simple fact that people disagree does not invalidate either side and your argument amounts to an appeal to majority within the scientific community. Again, whether you agree or disagree with my speculation is irrelevant and does nothing to help you uphold the resolution that you challenged me to debate.

I've already explained how scientific consensus works. I could make exactly the same argument that your constant crusade against evolutionary theory is an appeal to the apparently 45% of laymen in the United States who disagree with the Theory of Evolution. I believe I upheld your resolution, because in our debate I believe you were the less credible one.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 1:23:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, I guess it is obvious that the 4 questions in that debate undermines all people who do not believe in evolution? It answers all errors made by evolutionist? Which was made mention. It answers all unknowns still existing? It showed that evolution can never be determined wrong?

I did not think so. I do not have to be biased. It is not about who was the better debater. It was about who tilted the scale for their side. Pro had a huge mountain to climb and no one is realizing that. Am I the only one who is intellectually honest here?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 1:29:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Furthermore I mention again Pro did not stay the resolution. See never addressed all people who do not believe in evolution but instead on Pro and a select few instances. Pro did not supply enough evidence for their case. In the later rounds she went from all people into focusing on Con. Then Con did not even disagree with some of the points Pro made because......the questions were not adequate to show all non-evolutionist are undermined.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 1:31:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 1:23:16 PM, Pennington wrote:
So, I guess it is obvious that the 4 questions in that debate undermines all people who do not believe in evolution? It answers all errors made by evolutionist? Which was made mention. It answers all unknowns still existing? It showed that evolution can never be determined wrong?

I did not think so. I do not have to be biased. It is not about who was the better debater. It was about who tilted the scale for their side. Pro had a huge mountain to climb and no one is realizing that. Am I the only one who is intellectually honest here?

In the normal connotation of the words of the resolution, this would be true; however as defined in R1 I don't believe that's the case.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 1:49:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 12:01:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I haven't gotten a chance to read that debate yet, so I don't mean to stick my nose in the whole thing yet, but:

"Hoax" does imply intent to deceive...

Fair point, and I don't totally disagree with you here, but I think this goes far beyond simply evaluating UCD's status as a valid scientific theory, it actually gets into the religious beliefs held by many creationists, and Biblical literalists.

Satan is known as the great deciever. He wants to be God and will seek to decieve man into turning against God. The Bible says that many will be decieved, and will be willfully ignorant. Many people believe that evolutionary thinking, particularly UCD, turns people away from God. The intent to decieve is on Satan's part, he is the one perpetrating the hoax, and many humans are decieved by that hoax. I saw a video on youtube where some guy was even saying that Lucifer himself was working directly with Darwin in crafting the theory of evolution.

Anyway, even if there is no malicious intent on the part of evolutionists, the fact that their position seeks to undermine and discredit that theistic viewpoint is seen as a hoax perpetrated by Satan, to decieve man.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 2:56:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 12:38:03 PM, JonMilne wrote:

You've just contradicted yourself here. As Bladerunner's just pointed out, "hoax" does mean an intent to deceive, and likewise so does a conspiracy, the notion of trying to "keep the truth hidden" as it were. So it turns out you DID say what I claimed you said.

Can you quote where I denied ever using the word hoax?? Can you quote where I ever called it a "conspiracy"?? If not, then I have not contradicted myself, and I explained "hoax" in my response to Blade.

Tell me John, even if I were to admit to calling it a conspiracy, how does that in any way undermine my case against UCD's validity?? Your questions in no way have any effect on my scientific objections to UCD, thus you failed to meet your burden to uphold the resolution.

Didn't you describe the evolutionists as "cults" in our debate

Here is my exact quote...

"As I said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I never said that I don't believe in mass hysteria or cults. I've already addressed this point, we have falsified CD, but we can't force acceptance. All we can do is spread the word."

Did I call anyone in particular anything?? No, I'm simply commenting on what I do and do not believe.

I do believe there are some evolutionists who are also atheists, who push it to near-cultish extremes. Dawkins, for instance, believes that people who don't believe in evolution are "wicked".

I was asking you to provide a coherent explanation as to why evolutionists were suppressing anti-evolutionist ideas even if they are valid, which is a belief you clearly hold to. If UCD truly is false and yet news this big hasn't gone all around the world (because I seriously doubt how in the current age of the scientific arena anything THAT BIG could be kept secret) then there should be some clear specific reasons why the evolutionists are keeping it quiet. You didn't provide this. In contrast, one could for example find some staggeringly clear reasons why creationists try to cover up the fact that Creationism has been proved over and over to be bogus. For example, they want their theory in the science classrooms so that they can brainwash kids into becoming Christians and have a legal way of doing so without violating separation of church and state. That was staggeringly simple, wasn't it? There's also Kitzmiller v Dover and Edwards v Aguillard, which exposed the way Creationist minds work all too well.

And once again I answered your question as best as I can possibly be expected to answer it. I can't possibly do anything more than speculate about someone's motives, and that question has no bearing on my argument against UCD, on a scientific basis.

Just as asking for speculation does not undermine my case in any way, presenting Lenski's opinion on a Biblical issue also fails to help you uphold the resolution.

Fallacy of assuming it's purely a Biblical issue as opposed to an overall Christian issue.

Fallacy of making up your own fallacies.

lol...Ok genius, if not the Bible then where does a Christian find the foundation for his overall Christian worldview??

You, nor Lenski, provide Biblical support for your interpretation. I did show why I believe that Lenski's opinion is invalid, and I showed why my opinion on the issue is well supported by simply reading what the Bible says.

Again, not every Christian is a Biblical literalist like you. Furthermore, I showed why your Biblical stuff is BS. You falsely claimed I didn't present anything that contradicted the Bible scientifically, and yet you completely ignored the TWO occasions I mentioned where the Bible erroneously claims the Moon is a "light" as well as the fact that I also pointed out that stars are clearly millions of years old, as well as also pointing out that the Bible claims whales and birds came before reptiles and insects.

John, just because you make a claim does not mean that you have proven anything. Besides, going off on a tangent about what you believe to be Biblical contradictions is exactly what Pennington was talking about. It had nothing to do with the resolution that we were debating. Even if you disproved Christianity, that still does not affect the scientific objections I have against UCD, thus it was irrelevant to the debate.

Arguing that God used UCD requires one to invalidate the term "bring forth after their kind". I showed how that term is used 10 times in Genesis 1 alone. Repeated use of that term is obviously meant to make a particular point.

Sure, but again, your definition of "kind" didn't make any kind of sense, and I demonstrated how absurd it was in Round 4.

Not liking it is not a demonstration of absurdity. Your approval of the definition is not needed, and does not affect the debate outcome.

Simply presenting an alternate interpretation to the traditional creationist reading of the Bible, does not invalidate or undermine our case in any way, thus his opinion does not help you uphold the resolution of the debate.

I disagree. I think a good case could be made, granting the argument that God exists for a second, that you put far too much trust in what the writings of ancient men with limited imaginations and scientific ignorance of what was to be discovered in later times had to say.

That's your interpretation, and you're entitled to it, but if one is Christian then they know that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Where do you propose that a Christian should turn to for the foundations of his belief system, rationalwiki??

As with the other question you asked, this one too requires me to speculate on other people's belief and behavior. I don't know what motivates each individual who chooses to ignore certain peices of evidence. Just as you can't be responsible for explaining why creationists look at the exact same evidence you have, and come up with a different interpretion than UCD.

See above.

The simple fact that people disagree does not invalidate either side and your argument amounts to an appeal to majority within the scientific community. Again, whether you agree or disagree with my speculation is irrelevant and does nothing to help you uphold the resolution that you challenged me to debate.

I've already explained how scientific consensus works. I could make exactly the same argument that your constant crusade against evolutionary theory is an appeal to the apparently 45% of laymen in the United States who disagree with the Theory of Evolution. I believe I upheld your resolution, because in our debate I believe you were the less credible one.

You're entitled to your belief, just as I'm entitled to believe that your questions and arguments did not help you at all in meeting your burden, and upholding the resolution.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 2:57:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 12:56:38 PM, Vulpes_Inculta wrote:
The point I tried to make was obviously lost on Medic.

Apparently so, what point were you trying to make??
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 4:24:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 1:49:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:01:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I haven't gotten a chance to read that debate yet, so I don't mean to stick my nose in the whole thing yet, but:

"Hoax" does imply intent to deceive...

Fair point, and I don't totally disagree with you here, but I think this goes far beyond simply evaluating UCD's status as a valid scientific theory, it actually gets into the religious beliefs held by many creationists, and Biblical literalists.

Satan is known as the great deciever. He wants to be God and will seek to decieve man into turning against God. The Bible says that many will be decieved, and will be willfully ignorant. Many people believe that evolutionary thinking, particularly UCD, turns people away from God. The intent to decieve is on Satan's part, he is the one perpetrating the hoax, and many humans are decieved by that hoax. I saw a video on youtube where some guy was even saying that Lucifer himself was working directly with Darwin in crafting the theory of evolution.

Anyway, even if there is no malicious intent on the part of evolutionists, the fact that their position seeks to undermine and discredit that theistic viewpoint is seen as a hoax perpetrated by Satan, to decieve man.

I lol'd
Vulpes_Inculta
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 5:20:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My point was that the two votes in your favor could easily be used to justify a Pro vote if you just tweaked them enough. They're mad lib votes. You just put 'Con' and 'Pro' wherever you need to in order to vote for your side. That's why I countered them.

Consider the vote against Pro for sources. The only thing you have to to make that vote is read the first round of the debate. You just scroll down to Pro's sources, see 'RationalWiki', and vote against Pro for sources without ever reading the debate.

That's why I took your one of your sources and created the parody. It's meant to show that voting based solely on a single source you didn't like is just lazy and stupid. It was not, as your selective quoting of my posts seems suggests, an actual attempt at voting against you because of sources.
Vulpes_Inculta
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 5:21:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's why

'Instead, he simply sees "Bible" and wants to invalidate the source...'

is nothing but hilarious, because it's the same exact reasoning I used to counter.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 5:24:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
medic0506's sig:
Creation vs. Evolutionism, please vote.

Evolution"ism" ? That is quite a twist. What is evolution "ism" ? Why do you refer to the theory of evolution or UCD as "evolutionism" or "darwinism?" It is obviously not analogous to "creation."

It actually refers specifically to a 19th century belief: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think that representation is accurate.
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 5:25:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 4:53:54 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Here's the video. I think this guy might be muslim, I'm not sure.



That video is hilarious.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 6:30:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I admit I generally dislike wiki sources, but it's first round sources so probably definitions. (I have not read the debate yet, as I don't want to vote until the drama dies down) Neither side looks to be using any sources past the first round; so likely if I vote neither will get source points.

The way I'm seeing votes on this talked about on the VB thread, sounds almost like someone saying 'another Christian voted on a religious issue, please counter.' Which it has not crossed the line into, but is a dangerous one to be near. I mean if we claim no one with a bias can vote on this, it'd call for no one who believes in or is opposed to the theory of evolution being able to vote. If Christians and atheists don't vote on this type of debate, how many people will we really have left voting?

A worrisome comment:
Vulpes_Inculta wrote:
TNO5: "I am too lazy to read this debate, so I'm going to pretend as a moderate and leave it a tie. Then, I'm going to skim Pro's first round and vote sources against him, so I can support my side of the debate."

Did TNO5 actually write this statement?
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...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 8:42:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 6:30:12 PM, Ragnar wrote:
I admit I generally dislike wiki sources, but it's first round sources so probably definitions. (I have not read the debate yet, as I don't want to vote until the drama dies down) Neither side looks to be using any sources past the first round; so likely if I vote neither will get source points.

We both put our sources in the comments section, they're back on the last page of comments.

The way I'm seeing votes on this talked about on the VB thread, sounds almost like someone saying 'another Christian voted on a religious issue, please counter.' Which it has not crossed the line into, but is a dangerous one to be near. I mean if we claim no one with a bias can vote on this, it'd call for no one who believes in or is opposed to the theory of evolution being able to vote. If Christians and atheists don't vote on this type of debate, how many people will we really have left voting?

A worrisome comment:
Vulpes_Inculta wrote:
TNO5: "I am too lazy to read this debate, so I'm going to pretend as a moderate and leave it a tie. Then, I'm going to skim Pro's first round and vote sources against him, so I can support my side of the debate."

Did TNO5 actually write this statement?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 8:45:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 1:49:13 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/1/2013 12:01:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I haven't gotten a chance to read that debate yet, so I don't mean to stick my nose in the whole thing yet, but:

"Hoax" does imply intent to deceive...

Fair point, and I don't totally disagree with you here, but I think this goes far beyond simply evaluating UCD's status as a valid scientific theory, it actually gets into the religious beliefs held by many creationists, and Biblical literalists.

Satan is known as the great deciever. He wants to be God and will seek to decieve man into turning against God. The Bible says that many will be decieved, and will be willfully ignorant. Many people believe that evolutionary thinking, particularly UCD, turns people away from God. The intent to decieve is on Satan's part, he is the one perpetrating the hoax, and many humans are decieved by that hoax. I saw a video on youtube where some guy was even saying that Lucifer himself was working directly with Darwin in crafting the theory of evolution.

Anyway, even if there is no malicious intent on the part of evolutionists, the fact that their position seeks to undermine and discredit that theistic viewpoint is seen as a hoax perpetrated by Satan, to decieve man.

How is this hoax perpetrated, then?

It is your position that UCD can be disproven, and that it is not in keeping with evidence, is it not?

"Hoax" would seem to apply if you conceded the evidence was in its favor, but were arguing the evidence itself was fake.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 9:24:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 5:20:11 PM, Vulpes_Inculta wrote:
My point was that the two votes in your favor could easily be used to justify a Pro vote if you just tweaked them enough.

lol..."if you just tweak them enough".

They're mad lib votes. You just put 'Con' and 'Pro' wherever you need to in order to vote for your side. That's why I countered them.

That fact that you went after other votes, trying to play policeman, rather than voting on the actual debate, is proof that you were doing exactly the very thing that you're accusing them of. You were actively looking for a reason to defend your side.

Consider the vote against Pro for sources. The only thing you have to to make that vote is read the first round of the debate. You just scroll down to Pro's sources, see 'RationalWiki', and vote against Pro for sources without ever reading the debate.

He used rationalwiki as an example. If you look at the sources, most of Pro's sources are skeptic sites, obviously biased sources which will only present one side of the issue. I used many neutral unbiased sources, peer-reviewed papers etc.

That's why I took your one of your sources and created the parody. It's meant to show that voting based solely on a single source you didn't like is just lazy and stupid. It was not, as your selective quoting of my posts seems suggests, an actual attempt at voting against you because of sources.

Again, you're reading something into TN's use of that example, that isn't there. You're simply trying to defend voting your bias on this debate. Once again I'll say, it is not your job as a debate judge, to police other votes and invalidate those that you don't agree with.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 9:54:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 5:24:44 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
medic0506's sig:
Creation vs. Evolutionism, please vote.

Evolution"ism" ? That is quite a twist. What is evolution "ism" ? Why do you refer to the theory of evolution or UCD as "evolutionism" or "darwinism?" It is obviously not analogous to "creation."

It actually refers specifically to a 19th century belief: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think that representation is accurate.

What's innaccurate about it??

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org...
Vulpes_Inculta
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 9:58:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 9:24:11 PM, medic0506 wrote:
lol..."if you just tweak them enough".

Well, yeah. It's very easy to get a Pro vote from the votes on those debates. It's just mad lib voting.

'Reasons for voting decision: Debate was essentially a tie. Giving sources to [insert side I agree with] because many of [insert side I don't agree with] sources were [list source side I don't agree with gave], which is [insert reason here].'

This was the whole purpose of the parody, which is something you misunderstood to be a serious RFD. That's why I posted the following on the comments section...

'Reasons for voting decision: Debate was essentially a tie. Giving sources to Pro because Con used Aplogetics Press, which is neither a reliable source or an encyclopedia.'

'Reasons for voting decision: Debate was essentially a tie. Giving sources to Pro because Con used CreationResearch, which is neither a reliable source or an encyclopedia.'

See how easy it is? You don't even need to read the debate to make mad lib votes like that.

That fact that you went after other votes, trying to play policeman, rather than voting on the actual debate, is proof that you were doing exactly the very thing that you're accusing them of. You were actively looking for a reason to defend your side.

Whether or not I actually read the debate isn't an issue, because this is a debate about countering votebombs. You don't have to read a debate to counter a votebomb.

People on DDO counter bad votes. That's why there is a thread on the forum for posting links to debates that contain poor votes. I was led to the debate by such a link. In this context, countering other votes is perfectly justified. You can call it 'play[ing] policeman' all you want, as long as you call everyone who counters bad votes the same thing.

Simply, the votes given were mad lib votes. They don't require anyone to have actually read the debate. That's why I countered them.

He used rationalwiki as an example. If you look at the sources, most of Pro's sources are skeptic sites, obviously biased sources which will only present one side of the issue. I used many neutral unbiased sources, peer-reviewed papers etc.

This has nothing at all to do with countering bad votes. This is *your* reasoning as to why you had better sources. We're talking about the reasoning a particular user gave for a vote. Your reasoning (liberal use in this context) isn't relevant.

Again, you're reading something into TN's use of that example, that isn't there. You're simply trying to defend voting your bias on this debate. Once again I'll say, it is not your job as a debate judge, to police other votes and invalidate those that you don't agree with.

Anybody who wants to read the text of TN05's original vote is free to do. A rational reading of that vote would show anybody that he voted against Pro just because he thinks RW is a bad source. That's all there was to the vote. I'll paste the text here just in case anyone is interested.

'Debate was essentially a tie. Giving sources to Con because many of Pro's sources were RationalWiki, which is neither a reliable source or an encyclopedia.'

How I'm seeing things that aren't there is a mystery to me.

As for allegations that I'm just trying to prop up 'my side', I refer Medic to what is known as an 'appeal to motive'.

Vale, profligate.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 10:22:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Vulpes, first, your charge that they are mad lib votes is wrong. If they were just voting their side then why did they give such a low number of points. Why did TN call the debate a tie, instead of saying it was a whitewash by Con, or find some reason to give me the argument points?? Secondly, if TN didn't read the debate, then how was he able to decide that it was a tie??

Your points make no sense and it was actually you who was mad lib voting. Your statement that the second vote was "tolerable", yet you decided there was a need to counter it anyway, is proof of your bias on this.

There is no logical rationale for your vote.
Vulpes_Inculta
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 10:57:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 10:22:34 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Vulpes, first, your charge that they are mad lib votes is wrong. If they were just voting their side then why did they give such a low number of points. Why did TN call the debate a tie, instead of saying it was a whitewash by Con, or find some reason to give me the argument points?? Secondly, if TN didn't read the debate, then how was he able to decide that it was a tie??

They voted in a way that secured a Con vote. That doesn't require a massive seven point votebomb. It requires you to give as many points as necessary for Con to win. Given that the only votes on the debate were Con votes, this isn't too difficult. Once people start voting for the other side, however, it is necessary to change up the vote and give Con more points to make up for it.

Which is...exactly what happened.

Your points make no sense and it was actually you who was mad lib voting. Your statement that the second vote was "tolerable", yet you decided there was a need to counter it anyway, is proof of your bias on this.

Yes, tolerable. Tolerable relative to the vote TH gave. Not worthy of standing on its own, however.
Vulpes_Inculta
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 10:59:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Secondly, if TN didn't read the debate, then how was he able to decide that it was a tie??

This argument is pitiful. It's very easy to write 'Debate was essentially a tie." on an RFD without even reading the debate.

Besides, my contention was that TH's vote could have been made by somebody who didn't read the debate. It wasn't that he didn't read the debate.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2013 11:43:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 10:57:32 PM, Vulpes_Inculta wrote:
At 5/1/2013 10:22:34 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Vulpes, first, your charge that they are mad lib votes is wrong. If they were just voting their side then why did they give such a low number of points. Why did TN call the debate a tie, instead of saying it was a whitewash by Con, or find some reason to give me the argument points?? Secondly, if TN didn't read the debate, then how was he able to decide that it was a tie??

They voted in a way that secured a Con vote.

Big deal, that's how they interpreted the debate. You also voted in a way that secured a Pro vote. What the heck is the difference?? You're saying that no one has a right to have their vote count unless it agrees with your side and that is absolutely asinine.

That doesn't require a massive seven point votebomb. It requires you to give as many points as necessary for Con to win. Given that the only votes on the debate were Con votes, this isn't too difficult. Once people start voting for the other side, however, it is necessary to change up the vote and give Con more points to make up for it.

Which is...exactly what happened.

Your points make no sense and it was actually you who was mad lib voting. Your statement that the second vote was "tolerable", yet you decided there was a need to counter it anyway, is proof of your bias on this.

Yes, tolerable. Tolerable relative to the vote TH gave. Not worthy of standing on its own, however.

As the judge of a debate, that is not your decision. You clearly and egregiously overstepped the bounds of what a debate judge is suppose to do. Your logic in this is offensive to a sense of fairness that should exist in a formal debate.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2013 12:02:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/1/2013 10:59:39 PM, Vulpes_Inculta wrote:
Secondly, if TN didn't read the debate, then how was he able to decide that it was a tie??

This argument is pitiful. It's very easy to write 'Debate was essentially a tie." on an RFD without even reading the debate.

Besides, my contention was that TH's vote could have been made by somebody who didn't read the debate. It wasn't that he didn't read the debate.

The reason for my vote was satisfactory. I do not vote bomb and I read all debates I vote on. You insult me. Do not mention me nor comment on my votes any further.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...