Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Need more Non-Atheist Objective Voters.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 1:57:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We may have our disagreements about religion. We may have disagreements about a lot of things.

It's evident that many of the young Atheist on this site vote with confirmation bias.

Observe my debate with Sagey http://www.debate.org....

In the comments Sagey admits to taking the debate as a time to troll William Lane Craig. He also admits to agreeing with me and giving him some things to think about. The votes don't reflect this. They voted on space filled up with stuff that had little to do with the resolution. I'm asking for some fair voting.

The non to little religious crowd are constantly voting on these issues because they don't want to let win an idea based on merit, evidence, and fact. Ideas that are contrary to their blind faith.

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

I was not arguing for Intelligent Design. I was arguing for Inferred Design an argument of construction. My points went largely unanswered. And the whole 2nd round seemed to be directed at claims I was not making.

I encourage more Christians, Muslims, deist, whoever that believe in a supernatural. That that believe is reasonable. And we should vote more often to counter such bias lobbying.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 2:19:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As an agnostic, I'll freely admit that the voting on DDO is somewhat biased, especially with regards to the pig-headed Atheist contingent. The religious nuts on here are just as bad, but there's a lot less of them, so their effect isn't as significant.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:40:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 1:57:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
We may have our disagreements about religion. We may have disagreements about a lot of things.

It's evident that many of the young Atheist on this site vote with confirmation bias.

Observe my debate with Sagey http://www.debate.org....

In the comments Sagey admits to taking the debate as a time to troll William Lane Craig. He also admits to agreeing with me and giving him some things to think about. The votes don't reflect this. They voted on space filled up with stuff that had little to do with the resolution. I'm asking for some fair voting.

The non to little religious crowd are constantly voting on these issues because they don't want to let win an idea based on merit, evidence, and fact. Ideas that are contrary to their blind faith.

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

I was not arguing for Intelligent Design. I was arguing for Inferred Design an argument of construction. My points went largely unanswered. And the whole 2nd round seemed to be directed at claims I was not making.

I encourage more Christians, Muslims, deist, whoever that believe in a supernatural. That that believe is reasonable. And we should vote more often to counter such bias lobbying.

Response: And in my debate on homosexuality, my opponent forfeited after seeing the strength of my argument and admits to doing so in the debate. (He even PM me and said I completely convinced him). Yet I lost the votes.

The forum is bias. So I suggest when you debate in the future, understand this. I have. And don't worry about votes. For truth is based on facts anyway. Not votes. So let the egotistical and prideful people think they have won something because of votes, while you sit back and enjoy the fact that the evidence is in your favor. And those who are reasonable will see that.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:40:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 2:42:30 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I can't complain about the free publicity :-D

Well it gives me the opportunity to make my argument stronger. Not really stronger against any rebuttals but to alleviate the confusion with ID (intelligent Design).

I thought I did that by presenting 8 scholarly papers to that point specifically, but the voters says I gave none. And you did not read them. Or you would have known what my argument of construction was about.

But you just lumped it into Intelligent design and wow your arguments against The discovery Institutes arguments resonates with the voters. Even tho I made no arguments for purpose, probability, or irreducible design. Go figure??
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:44:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You just figured this out?

Of course it is biased - I don't even bother reading the debates anymore, let alone participating in them. This site has no accountability mechanism. It is a playground for trolls.
Zylorarchy
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:49:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 1:57:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
We may have our disagreements about religion. We may have disagreements about a lot of things.

It's evident that many of the young Atheist on this site vote with confirmation bias.

Observe my debate with Sagey http://www.debate.org....

In the comments Sagey admits to taking the debate as a time to troll William Lane Craig. He also admits to agreeing with me and giving him some things to think about. The votes don't reflect this. They voted on space filled up with stuff that had little to do with the resolution. I'm asking for some fair voting.

The non to little religious crowd are constantly voting on these issues because they don't want to let win an idea based on merit, evidence, and fact. Ideas that are contrary to their blind faith.

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

I was not arguing for Intelligent Design. I was arguing for Inferred Design an argument of construction. My points went largely unanswered. And the whole 2nd round seemed to be directed at claims I was not making.

I encourage more Christians, Muslims, deist, whoever that believe in a supernatural. That that believe is reasonable. And we should vote more often to counter such bias lobbying.

Very interesting. I have always found this site to be more biased towards theists. Not in the debates as such, but in general. I so often see forum posts made by theists who try to prove God is real to the atheists. I often see posts claiming that theism is proved because of X reason.

I have even once considered making a poll asking the users of DDO on whether this site is somewhat anti atheist? Because from where I am sitting, the atheists are the minority (be it a large minority).
"I am not intolerant of religion, I am intolerant of intolerance"
"True freedom is not simply left or right. It is the ability to know when a law is needed, but more importantly, know when one is not"
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:54:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:40:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:42:30 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I can't complain about the free publicity :-D

Well it gives me the opportunity to make my argument stronger. Not really stronger against any rebuttals but to alleviate the confusion with ID (intelligent Design).

I thought I did that by presenting 8 scholarly papers to that point specifically, but the voters says I gave none. And you did not read them. Or you would have known what my argument of construction was about.

I usually only read papers to fact-check and to check the context quotes and claims are made from. Or for further interest, I only need to address what you actually talk about in the debate and the soundness of your arguments and logic, so the extra reading I felt is a waste of time.

But you just lumped it into Intelligent design and wow your arguments against The discovery Institutes arguments resonates with the voters. Even tho I made no arguments for purpose, probability, or irreducible design. Go figure??

Purpose was my own argument AGAINST intelligent design, as was the argument of IDer's dependence on life, and therefore implausibility to have designed the first living cell as per the resolutions. I'm allowed to give my own arguments too, FYI.

Also the probability argument fed quite well as it appears your own arguments are a rehash of these, the implausibility of two 'mutually destructive' environments working out, seems to ring all the bells of this argumentation.

The only interesting point I found was the 'conformational breaks', which. I admit I did not properly address as you poorly defined it until your final round, but you didn't make much of a case for it so it doesn't really matter.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:57:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:49:44 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 5/6/2014 1:57:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
We may have our disagreements about religion. We may have disagreements about a lot of things.

It's evident that many of the young Atheist on this site vote with confirmation bias.

Observe my debate with Sagey http://www.debate.org....

In the comments Sagey admits to taking the debate as a time to troll William Lane Craig. He also admits to agreeing with me and giving him some things to think about. The votes don't reflect this. They voted on space filled up with stuff that had little to do with the resolution. I'm asking for some fair voting.

The non to little religious crowd are constantly voting on these issues because they don't want to let win an idea based on merit, evidence, and fact. Ideas that are contrary to their blind faith.

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

I was not arguing for Intelligent Design. I was arguing for Inferred Design an argument of construction. My points went largely unanswered. And the whole 2nd round seemed to be directed at claims I was not making.

I encourage more Christians, Muslims, deist, whoever that believe in a supernatural. That that believe is reasonable. And we should vote more often to counter such bias lobbying.

Very interesting. I have always found this site to be more biased towards theists. Not in the debates as such, but in general. I so often see forum posts made by theists who try to prove God is real to the atheists. I often see posts claiming that theism is proved because of X reason.

I have even once considered making a poll asking the users of DDO on whether this site is somewhat anti atheist? Because from where I am sitting, the atheists are the minority (be it a large minority).

Well I have never admitted that my reasoning was infallible. I merely am ready to support what I say. In the religious and science forums when I draw attention to an assertion and ask for evidence the atheist goes silent. Unable to defend his position, with reason or science.

Such cases as abiogenesis, Scientific method is the only way to truth, There is no reasonable proof for god, calling out anthropomorphic straw man arguments of god, etc.

I look forward to debating on anything I said cause I think it is like peer review and makes every one stronger. Zylorarchy if I say anything you disagree with feel free to challenge me on it. Thank you for your incite. Such a poll would be interesting.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:05:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:54:34 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:40:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:42:30 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I can't complain about the free publicity :-D

Well it gives me the opportunity to make my argument stronger. Not really stronger against any rebuttals but to alleviate the confusion with ID (intelligent Design).

I thought I did that by presenting 8 scholarly papers to that point specifically, but the voters says I gave none. And you did not read them. Or you would have known what my argument of construction was about.

I usually only read papers to fact-check and to check the context quotes and claims are made from. Or for further interest, I only need to address what you actually talk about in the debate and the soundness of your arguments and logic, so the extra reading I felt is a waste of time.

But you just lumped it into Intelligent design and wow your arguments against The discovery Institutes arguments resonates with the voters. Even tho I made no arguments for purpose, probability, or irreducible design. Go figure??

Purpose was my own argument AGAINST intelligent design, as was the argument of IDer's dependence on life, and therefore implausibility to have designed the first living cell as per the resolutions. I'm allowed to give my own arguments too, FYI.

Also the probability argument fed quite well as it appears your own arguments are a rehash of these, the implausibility of two 'mutually destructive' environments working out, seems to ring all the bells of this argumentation.

The only interesting point I found was the 'conformational breaks', which. I admit I did not properly address as you poorly defined it until your final round, but you didn't make much of a case for it so it doesn't really matter.

The pre-boitic earth could not have produced RNA and a cell wall for a precursor to a living cell. Debate me on that then. All your cases will fail.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:09:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 5:05:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:54:34 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:40:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:42:30 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I can't complain about the free publicity :-D

Well it gives me the opportunity to make my argument stronger. Not really stronger against any rebuttals but to alleviate the confusion with ID (intelligent Design).

I thought I did that by presenting 8 scholarly papers to that point specifically, but the voters says I gave none. And you did not read them. Or you would have known what my argument of construction was about.

I usually only read papers to fact-check and to check the context quotes and claims are made from. Or for further interest, I only need to address what you actually talk about in the debate and the soundness of your arguments and logic, so the extra reading I felt is a waste of time.

But you just lumped it into Intelligent design and wow your arguments against The discovery Institutes arguments resonates with the voters. Even tho I made no arguments for purpose, probability, or irreducible design. Go figure??

Purpose was my own argument AGAINST intelligent design, as was the argument of IDer's dependence on life, and therefore implausibility to have designed the first living cell as per the resolutions. I'm allowed to give my own arguments too, FYI.

Also the probability argument fed quite well as it appears your own arguments are a rehash of these, the implausibility of two 'mutually destructive' environments working out, seems to ring all the bells of this argumentation.

The only interesting point I found was the 'conformational breaks', which. I admit I did not properly address as you poorly defined it until your final round, but you didn't make much of a case for it so it doesn't really matter.

The pre-boitic earth could not have produced RNA and a cell wall for a precursor to a living cell. Debate me on that then. All your cases will fail.

My case is on the chemical properties. It is similar to you saying an ice sculpture in the Sahara is capable from a natural process. That's how silly your argument is.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:10:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 5:05:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:54:34 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:40:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:42:30 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I can't complain about the free publicity :-D

Well it gives me the opportunity to make my argument stronger. Not really stronger against any rebuttals but to alleviate the confusion with ID (intelligent Design).

I thought I did that by presenting 8 scholarly papers to that point specifically, but the voters says I gave none. And you did not read them. Or you would have known what my argument of construction was about.

I usually only read papers to fact-check and to check the context quotes and claims are made from. Or for further interest, I only need to address what you actually talk about in the debate and the soundness of your arguments and logic, so the extra reading I felt is a waste of time.

But you just lumped it into Intelligent design and wow your arguments against The discovery Institutes arguments resonates with the voters. Even tho I made no arguments for purpose, probability, or irreducible design. Go figure??

Purpose was my own argument AGAINST intelligent design, as was the argument of IDer's dependence on life, and therefore implausibility to have designed the first living cell as per the resolutions. I'm allowed to give my own arguments too, FYI.

Also the probability argument fed quite well as it appears your own arguments are a rehash of these, the implausibility of two 'mutually destructive' environments working out, seems to ring all the bells of this argumentation.

The only interesting point I found was the 'conformational breaks', which. I admit I did not properly address as you poorly defined it until your final round, but you didn't make much of a case for it so it doesn't really matter.

The pre-boitic earth could not have produced RNA and a cell wall for a precursor to a living cell. Debate me on that then. All your cases will fail.

I agree with you, cell walls are significantly more complex than membranes as far as I understand, and needless for abiogenesis.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:12:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 5:10:05 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:05:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:54:34 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:40:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:42:30 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I can't complain about the free publicity :-D

Well it gives me the opportunity to make my argument stronger. Not really stronger against any rebuttals but to alleviate the confusion with ID (intelligent Design).

I thought I did that by presenting 8 scholarly papers to that point specifically, but the voters says I gave none. And you did not read them. Or you would have known what my argument of construction was about.

I usually only read papers to fact-check and to check the context quotes and claims are made from. Or for further interest, I only need to address what you actually talk about in the debate and the soundness of your arguments and logic, so the extra reading I felt is a waste of time.

But you just lumped it into Intelligent design and wow your arguments against The discovery Institutes arguments resonates with the voters. Even tho I made no arguments for purpose, probability, or irreducible design. Go figure??

Purpose was my own argument AGAINST intelligent design, as was the argument of IDer's dependence on life, and therefore implausibility to have designed the first living cell as per the resolutions. I'm allowed to give my own arguments too, FYI.

Also the probability argument fed quite well as it appears your own arguments are a rehash of these, the implausibility of two 'mutually destructive' environments working out, seems to ring all the bells of this argumentation.

The only interesting point I found was the 'conformational breaks', which. I admit I did not properly address as you poorly defined it until your final round, but you didn't make much of a case for it so it doesn't really matter.

The pre-boitic earth could not have produced RNA and a cell wall for a precursor to a living cell. Debate me on that then. All your cases will fail.

I agree with you, cell walls are significantly more complex than membranes as far as I understand, and needless for abiogenesis.

What ever scenario you have for abiogenesis that excludes an intelligently governed process by a designer I will debate you on. Thanks for admitting you completely ignored my arguments and sources in our debate.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:13:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 5:09:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:05:13 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:54:34 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:40:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:42:30 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I can't complain about the free publicity :-D

Well it gives me the opportunity to make my argument stronger. Not really stronger against any rebuttals but to alleviate the confusion with ID (intelligent Design).

I thought I did that by presenting 8 scholarly papers to that point specifically, but the voters says I gave none. And you did not read them. Or you would have known what my argument of construction was about.

I usually only read papers to fact-check and to check the context quotes and claims are made from. Or for further interest, I only need to address what you actually talk about in the debate and the soundness of your arguments and logic, so the extra reading I felt is a waste of time.

But you just lumped it into Intelligent design and wow your arguments against The discovery Institutes arguments resonates with the voters. Even tho I made no arguments for purpose, probability, or irreducible design. Go figure??

Purpose was my own argument AGAINST intelligent design, as was the argument of IDer's dependence on life, and therefore implausibility to have designed the first living cell as per the resolutions. I'm allowed to give my own arguments too, FYI.

Also the probability argument fed quite well as it appears your own arguments are a rehash of these, the implausibility of two 'mutually destructive' environments working out, seems to ring all the bells of this argumentation.

The only interesting point I found was the 'conformational breaks', which. I admit I did not properly address as you poorly defined it until your final round, but you didn't make much of a case for it so it doesn't really matter.

The pre-boitic earth could not have produced RNA and a cell wall for a precursor to a living cell. Debate me on that then. All your cases will fail.

My case is on the chemical properties. It is similar to you saying an ice sculpture in the Sahara is capable from a natural process. That's how silly your argument is.

Sure, but I disagree that the ice sculpture was the only 'winning' hand, and that there ever needed to be a jump to something that complex/breaking/whatever in the first place. And even if there did, I don't see how it's implausible given an enormously large number of attempts.

I argued this in my first round, sure seems relevant now.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Zylorarchy
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:13:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:57:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:49:44 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 5/6/2014 1:57:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
We may have our disagreements about religion. We may have disagreements about a lot of things.

It's evident that many of the young Atheist on this site vote with confirmation bias.

Observe my debate with Sagey http://www.debate.org....

In the comments Sagey admits to taking the debate as a time to troll William Lane Craig. He also admits to agreeing with me and giving him some things to think about. The votes don't reflect this. They voted on space filled up with stuff that had little to do with the resolution. I'm asking for some fair voting.

The non to little religious crowd are constantly voting on these issues because they don't want to let win an idea based on merit, evidence, and fact. Ideas that are contrary to their blind faith.

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

I was not arguing for Intelligent Design. I was arguing for Inferred Design an argument of construction. My points went largely unanswered. And the whole 2nd round seemed to be directed at claims I was not making.

I encourage more Christians, Muslims, deist, whoever that believe in a supernatural. That that believe is reasonable. And we should vote more often to counter such bias lobbying.

Very interesting. I have always found this site to be more biased towards theists. Not in the debates as such, but in general. I so often see forum posts made by theists who try to prove God is real to the atheists. I often see posts claiming that theism is proved because of X reason.

I have even once considered making a poll asking the users of DDO on whether this site is somewhat anti atheist? Because from where I am sitting, the atheists are the minority (be it a large minority).

Well I have never admitted that my reasoning was infallible. I merely am ready to support what I say. In the religious and science forums when I draw attention to an assertion and ask for evidence the atheist goes silent. Unable to defend his position, with reason or science.

Such cases as abiogenesis, Scientific method is the only way to truth, There is no reasonable proof for god, calling out anthropomorphic straw man arguments of god, etc.

I look forward to debating on anything I said cause I think it is like peer review and makes every one stronger. Zylorarchy if I say anything you disagree with feel free to challenge me on it. Thank you for your incite. Such a poll would be interesting.

I would say what we need, is not necessarily "non-atheist" objective voters. But just honest voters which discard their religious beliefs. I know what I say is probably merely a fantasy that cannot be achieved. And I understand where you are coming from. As an atheist I would automatically be "biased" or more leaning towards the atheist argument, as opposed to the theist one.

But I merely point out that I fell that when people address atheism as "stupid", or "absurd", or looking at suggestions that atheists have no morality, I can't help but think this is effectively discrimination, and that there is no such need to call a group of people, with their own beliefs, absurd, and question if they even have morality. Sure by all means, question if there is a shared morality, but when I see posts suggesting we have none at all, I can't help but think it is simply an anti-atheist post.
"I am not intolerant of religion, I am intolerant of intolerance"
"True freedom is not simply left or right. It is the ability to know when a law is needed, but more importantly, know when one is not"
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:17:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 5:13:26 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:57:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:49:44 PM, Zylorarchy wrote:
At 5/6/2014 1:57:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
We may have our disagreements about religion. We may have disagreements about a lot of things.

It's evident that many of the young Atheist on this site vote with confirmation bias.

Observe my debate with Sagey http://www.debate.org....

In the comments Sagey admits to taking the debate as a time to troll William Lane Craig. He also admits to agreeing with me and giving him some things to think about. The votes don't reflect this. They voted on space filled up with stuff that had little to do with the resolution. I'm asking for some fair voting.

The non to little religious crowd are constantly voting on these issues because they don't want to let win an idea based on merit, evidence, and fact. Ideas that are contrary to their blind faith.

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

I was not arguing for Intelligent Design. I was arguing for Inferred Design an argument of construction. My points went largely unanswered. And the whole 2nd round seemed to be directed at claims I was not making.

I encourage more Christians, Muslims, deist, whoever that believe in a supernatural. That that believe is reasonable. And we should vote more often to counter such bias lobbying.

Very interesting. I have always found this site to be more biased towards theists. Not in the debates as such, but in general. I so often see forum posts made by theists who try to prove God is real to the atheists. I often see posts claiming that theism is proved because of X reason.

I have even once considered making a poll asking the users of DDO on whether this site is somewhat anti atheist? Because from where I am sitting, the atheists are the minority (be it a large minority).

Well I have never admitted that my reasoning was infallible. I merely am ready to support what I say. In the religious and science forums when I draw attention to an assertion and ask for evidence the atheist goes silent. Unable to defend his position, with reason or science.

Such cases as abiogenesis, Scientific method is the only way to truth, There is no reasonable proof for god, calling out anthropomorphic straw man arguments of god, etc.

I look forward to debating on anything I said cause I think it is like peer review and makes every one stronger. Zylorarchy if I say anything you disagree with feel free to challenge me on it. Thank you for your incite. Such a poll would be interesting.

I would say what we need, is not necessarily "non-atheist" objective voters. But just honest voters which discard their religious beliefs. I know what I say is probably merely a fantasy that cannot be achieved. And I understand where you are coming from. As an atheist I would automatically be "biased" or more leaning towards the atheist argument, as opposed to the theist one.

But I merely point out that I fell that when people address atheism as "stupid", or "absurd", or looking at suggestions that atheists have no morality, I can't help but think this is effectively discrimination, and that there is no such need to call a group of people, with their own beliefs, absurd, and question if they even have morality. Sure by all means, question if there is a shared morality, but when I see posts suggesting we have none at all, I can't help but think it is simply an anti-atheist post.

I tend not to address people by their general beliefs 'Atheists' 'Christians' 'Muslims', the terms are far too general, seems much more polite to address the specific beliefs they are talking about, such as intelligent design in this case. Or their interpretation of God and the arguments for/about it.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:37:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 1:57:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
We may have our disagreements about religion. We may have disagreements about a lot of things.

It's evident that many of the young Atheist on this site vote with confirmation bias.

Observe my debate with Sagey http://www.debate.org....

In the comments Sagey admits to taking the debate as a time to troll William Lane Craig. He also admits to agreeing with me and giving him some things to think about. The votes don't reflect this. They voted on space filled up with stuff that had little to do with the resolution. I'm asking for some fair voting.

Umm. Trolling means that you are not being serious, or simply not making any arguments. While I agree with you that he did break the parameters, you simply set unreasonable parameters, and I think that may have turned that one voter off.

The non to little religious crowd are constantly voting on these issues because they don't want to let win an idea based on merit, evidence, and fact. Ideas that are contrary to their blind faith.

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

I was not arguing for Intelligent Design. I was arguing for Inferred Design an argument of construction. My points went largely unanswered. And the whole 2nd round seemed to be directed at claims I was not making.

I encourage more Christians, Muslims, deist, whoever that believe in a supernatural. That that believe is reasonable. And we should vote more often to counter such bias lobbying.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:43:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 1:57:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
We may have our disagreements about religion. We may have disagreements about a lot of things.

It's evident that many of the young Atheist on this site vote with confirmation bias.

Observe my debate with Sagey http://www.debate.org....

In the comments Sagey admits to taking the debate as a time to troll William Lane Craig. He also admits to agreeing with me and giving him some things to think about. The votes don't reflect this. They voted on space filled up with stuff that had little to do with the resolution. I'm asking for some fair voting.

The non to little religious crowd are constantly voting on these issues because they don't want to let win an idea based on merit, evidence, and fact. Ideas that are contrary to their blind faith.

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

I was not arguing for Intelligent Design. I was arguing for Inferred Design an argument of construction. My points went largely unanswered. And the whole 2nd round seemed to be directed at claims I was not making.

I encourage more Christians, Muslims, deist, whoever that believe in a supernatural. That that believe is reasonable. And we should vote more often to counter such bias lobbying.

Look, you shouldn't care about whether you win or lose. The point of the debate is to increase your debating skill, which you should be able to evaluate, and/or to increase your knowledge on your position and/or the opposing position. If you get hung up on who wins or loses, and don't care about any constructive criticism, then you shouldn't do debates on where the people decide. People are biased.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:46:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 5:43:54 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 5/6/2014 1:57:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
We may have our disagreements about religion. We may have disagreements about a lot of things.

It's evident that many of the young Atheist on this site vote with confirmation bias.

Observe my debate with Sagey http://www.debate.org....

In the comments Sagey admits to taking the debate as a time to troll William Lane Craig. He also admits to agreeing with me and giving him some things to think about. The votes don't reflect this. They voted on space filled up with stuff that had little to do with the resolution. I'm asking for some fair voting.

The non to little religious crowd are constantly voting on these issues because they don't want to let win an idea based on merit, evidence, and fact. Ideas that are contrary to their blind faith.

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

I was not arguing for Intelligent Design. I was arguing for Inferred Design an argument of construction. My points went largely unanswered. And the whole 2nd round seemed to be directed at claims I was not making.

I encourage more Christians, Muslims, deist, whoever that believe in a supernatural. That that believe is reasonable. And we should vote more often to counter such bias lobbying.

Look, you shouldn't care about whether you win or lose. The point of the debate is to increase your debating skill, which you should be able to evaluate, and/or to increase your knowledge on your position and/or the opposing position. If you get hung up on who wins or loses, and don't care about any constructive criticism, then you shouldn't do debates on where the people decide. People are biased.

That's a good point. And I certainly do gain even when I lose. I can only suggest that voting be taking over by more objective and honest voters. I know they are out there. Your words don't go unheard to me.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 6:03:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 5:46:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:43:54 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 5/6/2014 1:57:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
We may have our disagreements about religion. We may have disagreements about a lot of things.

It's evident that many of the young Atheist on this site vote with confirmation bias.

Observe my debate with Sagey http://www.debate.org....

In the comments Sagey admits to taking the debate as a time to troll William Lane Craig. He also admits to agreeing with me and giving him some things to think about. The votes don't reflect this. They voted on space filled up with stuff that had little to do with the resolution. I'm asking for some fair voting.

The non to little religious crowd are constantly voting on these issues because they don't want to let win an idea based on merit, evidence, and fact. Ideas that are contrary to their blind faith.

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

I was not arguing for Intelligent Design. I was arguing for Inferred Design an argument of construction. My points went largely unanswered. And the whole 2nd round seemed to be directed at claims I was not making.

I encourage more Christians, Muslims, deist, whoever that believe in a supernatural. That that believe is reasonable. And we should vote more often to counter such bias lobbying.

Look, you shouldn't care about whether you win or lose. The point of the debate is to increase your debating skill, which you should be able to evaluate, and/or to increase your knowledge on your position and/or the opposing position. If you get hung up on who wins or loses, and don't care about any constructive criticism, then you shouldn't do debates on where the people decide. People are biased.

That's a good point. And I certainly do gain even when I lose. I can only suggest that voting be taking over by more objective and honest voters. I know they are out there. Your words don't go unheard to me.

I do vote objectively. I once gave Neutral 3 points in a debate because he deserved them, and not only did I not agree with him, I do not like him. To accuse me of not being an objective voter is offensive.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 6:09:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 6:03:25 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:46:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:43:54 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 5/6/2014 1:57:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
We may have our disagreements about religion. We may have disagreements about a lot of things.

It's evident that many of the young Atheist on this site vote with confirmation bias.

Observe my debate with Sagey http://www.debate.org....

In the comments Sagey admits to taking the debate as a time to troll William Lane Craig. He also admits to agreeing with me and giving him some things to think about. The votes don't reflect this. They voted on space filled up with stuff that had little to do with the resolution. I'm asking for some fair voting.

The non to little religious crowd are constantly voting on these issues because they don't want to let win an idea based on merit, evidence, and fact. Ideas that are contrary to their blind faith.

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

I was not arguing for Intelligent Design. I was arguing for Inferred Design an argument of construction. My points went largely unanswered. And the whole 2nd round seemed to be directed at claims I was not making.

I encourage more Christians, Muslims, deist, whoever that believe in a supernatural. That that believe is reasonable. And we should vote more often to counter such bias lobbying.

Look, you shouldn't care about whether you win or lose. The point of the debate is to increase your debating skill, which you should be able to evaluate, and/or to increase your knowledge on your position and/or the opposing position. If you get hung up on who wins or loses, and don't care about any constructive criticism, then you shouldn't do debates on where the people decide. People are biased.

That's a good point. And I certainly do gain even when I lose. I can only suggest that voting be taking over by more objective and honest voters. I know they are out there. Your words don't go unheard to me.

I do vote objectively. I once gave Neutral 3 points in a debate because he deserved them, and not only did I not agree with him, I do not like him. To accuse me of not being an objective voter is offensive.

take offense to it then. I can not reason with the unreasonable who do not know the difference between the resolution, that is a conclusion, and the argument to reach the conclusion.

You and your compadre SSwdwm think that becuase the conclusion "basic cells are intelligently designed" is the same for ID proponents like meyer, that my argument reaching the same conclusion is the same argument.

This is not the case. I used a different argument and reasoning then what you expected. Confirmation bias to ignore evidence not supporting you. That is what you did. And you voted according to a straw man argument to make the premises equivalent to ID, not considering the Inferred Design argument. Read my 8 sources. Maybe just maybe you will understand same conclusions do not come from the same arguments.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 6:17:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 6:03:25 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:46:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:43:54 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 5/6/2014 1:57:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
We may have our disagreements about religion. We may have disagreements about a lot of things.

It's evident that many of the young Atheist on this site vote with confirmation bias.

Observe my debate with Sagey http://www.debate.org....

In the comments Sagey admits to taking the debate as a time to troll William Lane Craig. He also admits to agreeing with me and giving him some things to think about. The votes don't reflect this. They voted on space filled up with stuff that had little to do with the resolution. I'm asking for some fair voting.

The non to little religious crowd are constantly voting on these issues because they don't want to let win an idea based on merit, evidence, and fact. Ideas that are contrary to their blind faith.

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

I was not arguing for Intelligent Design. I was arguing for Inferred Design an argument of construction. My points went largely unanswered. And the whole 2nd round seemed to be directed at claims I was not making.

I encourage more Christians, Muslims, deist, whoever that believe in a supernatural. That that believe is reasonable. And we should vote more often to counter such bias lobbying.

Look, you shouldn't care about whether you win or lose. The point of the debate is to increase your debating skill, which you should be able to evaluate, and/or to increase your knowledge on your position and/or the opposing position. If you get hung up on who wins or loses, and don't care about any constructive criticism, then you shouldn't do debates on where the people decide. People are biased.

That's a good point. And I certainly do gain even when I lose. I can only suggest that voting be taking over by more objective and honest voters. I know they are out there. Your words don't go unheard to me.

I do vote objectively. I once gave Neutral 3 points in a debate because he deserved them, and not only did I not agree with him, I do not like him. To accuse me of not being an objective voter is offensive.

Challenge me in a debate then or make a forum post if you disagree with me. Your votes, as are your ideas have no substance and weight. Does that sound offensive. I am ready to defend my assertion with logic and fact.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 6:23:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 6:09:36 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
take offense to it then. I can not reason with the unreasonable who do not know the difference between the resolution, that is a conclusion, and the argument to reach the conclusion.

I see the difference, but SSwdwm showed why making that conclusion in itself is false. I looked at both arguments and saw that SSwdwm's arguments were better, but I also thought your arguments were pretty good. He also used sources in all his rounds, you did not. It was a close debate, but I feel SSwdwm's arguments were better.

You and your compadre SSwdwm think that becuase the conclusion "basic cells are intelligently designed" is the same for ID proponents like meyer, that my argument reaching the same conclusion is the same argument.

And you made some flaws of false analogy in your points, but did I point them out? No.

This is not the case. I used a different argument and reasoning then what you expected. Confirmation bias to ignore evidence not supporting you. That is what you did. And you voted according to a straw man argument to make the premises equivalent to ID, not considering the Inferred Design argument. Read my 8 sources. Maybe just maybe you will understand same conclusions do not come from the same arguments.

I looked at your evidence and your debate. Both you and SSwdwm made fallacies, that is why I did not give you conduct points (though I did consider it). You think that just because I think that SSwdwm's arguments were better that I must be voting with bias. The debate also does not mean that your opponent should have to look at your sources, you should put the information from the sources into the debate in a way to argue your point, so telling me to check out the sources says nothing about the actual debate.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 6:35:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 6:23:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:09:36 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
take offense to it then. I can not reason with the unreasonable who do not know the difference between the resolution, that is a conclusion, and the argument to reach the conclusion.

I see the difference, but SSwdwm showed why making that conclusion in itself is false. I looked at both arguments and saw that SSwdwm's arguments were better, but I also thought your arguments were pretty good. He also used sources in all his rounds, you did not. It was a close debate, but I feel SSwdwm's arguments were better.

You and your compadre SSwdwm think that becuase the conclusion "basic cells are intelligently designed" is the same for ID proponents like meyer, that my argument reaching the same conclusion is the same argument.

And you made some flaws of false analogy in your points, but did I point them out? No.

This is not the case. I used a different argument and reasoning then what you expected. Confirmation bias to ignore evidence not supporting you. That is what you did. And you voted according to a straw man argument to make the premises equivalent to ID, not considering the Inferred Design argument. Read my 8 sources. Maybe just maybe you will understand same conclusions do not come from the same arguments.

I looked at your evidence and your debate. Both you and SSwdwm made fallacies, that is why I did not give you conduct points (though I did consider it). You think that just because I think that SSwdwm's arguments were better that I must be voting with bias. The debate also does not mean that your opponent should have to look at your sources, you should put the information from the sources into the debate in a way to argue your point, so telling me to check out the sources says nothing about the actual debate.

I'd be interested in knowing where you thought I committed fallacies? So I can rectify them in the future? Thanks :-)
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 6:37:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 6:35:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:23:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:09:36 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
take offense to it then. I can not reason with the unreasonable who do not know the difference between the resolution, that is a conclusion, and the argument to reach the conclusion.

I see the difference, but SSwdwm showed why making that conclusion in itself is false. I looked at both arguments and saw that SSwdwm's arguments were better, but I also thought your arguments were pretty good. He also used sources in all his rounds, you did not. It was a close debate, but I feel SSwdwm's arguments were better.

You and your compadre SSwdwm think that becuase the conclusion "basic cells are intelligently designed" is the same for ID proponents like meyer, that my argument reaching the same conclusion is the same argument.

And you made some flaws of false analogy in your points, but did I point them out? No.

This is not the case. I used a different argument and reasoning then what you expected. Confirmation bias to ignore evidence not supporting you. That is what you did. And you voted according to a straw man argument to make the premises equivalent to ID, not considering the Inferred Design argument. Read my 8 sources. Maybe just maybe you will understand same conclusions do not come from the same arguments.

I looked at your evidence and your debate. Both you and SSwdwm made fallacies, that is why I did not give you conduct points (though I did consider it). You think that just because I think that SSwdwm's arguments were better that I must be voting with bias. The debate also does not mean that your opponent should have to look at your sources, you should put the information from the sources into the debate in a way to argue your point, so telling me to check out the sources says nothing about the actual debate.

I'd be interested in knowing where you thought I committed fallacies? So I can rectify them in the future? Thanks :-)

You did strawman a bit (as your opponent pointed out) by making some rebuttals against the classic intelligent design than his inferred design (which is making rebuttals against points not even brought up).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 6:41:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:35:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:23:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:09:36 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
take offense to it then. I can not reason with the unreasonable who do not know the difference between the resolution, that is a conclusion, and the argument to reach the conclusion.

I see the difference, but SSwdwm showed why making that conclusion in itself is false. I looked at both arguments and saw that SSwdwm's arguments were better, but I also thought your arguments were pretty good. He also used sources in all his rounds, you did not. It was a close debate, but I feel SSwdwm's arguments were better.

You and your compadre SSwdwm think that becuase the conclusion "basic cells are intelligently designed" is the same for ID proponents like meyer, that my argument reaching the same conclusion is the same argument.

And you made some flaws of false analogy in your points, but did I point them out? No.

This is not the case. I used a different argument and reasoning then what you expected. Confirmation bias to ignore evidence not supporting you. That is what you did. And you voted according to a straw man argument to make the premises equivalent to ID, not considering the Inferred Design argument. Read my 8 sources. Maybe just maybe you will understand same conclusions do not come from the same arguments.

I looked at your evidence and your debate. Both you and SSwdwm made fallacies, that is why I did not give you conduct points (though I did consider it). You think that just because I think that SSwdwm's arguments were better that I must be voting with bias. The debate also does not mean that your opponent should have to look at your sources, you should put the information from the sources into the debate in a way to argue your point, so telling me to check out the sources says nothing about the actual debate.

I'd be interested in knowing where you thought I committed fallacies? So I can rectify them in the future? Thanks :-)

You did strawman a bit (as your opponent pointed out) by making some rebuttals against the classic intelligent design than his inferred design (which is making rebuttals against points not even brought up).

Oh, I guess I was then if it looked that way. Are you referring mostly to the first round (with the bridge arguments)?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 6:58:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 6:41:42 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:35:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:23:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:09:36 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
take offense to it then. I can not reason with the unreasonable who do not know the difference between the resolution, that is a conclusion, and the argument to reach the conclusion.

I see the difference, but SSwdwm showed why making that conclusion in itself is false. I looked at both arguments and saw that SSwdwm's arguments were better, but I also thought your arguments were pretty good. He also used sources in all his rounds, you did not. It was a close debate, but I feel SSwdwm's arguments were better.

You and your compadre SSwdwm think that becuase the conclusion "basic cells are intelligently designed" is the same for ID proponents like meyer, that my argument reaching the same conclusion is the same argument.

And you made some flaws of false analogy in your points, but did I point them out? No.

This is not the case. I used a different argument and reasoning then what you expected. Confirmation bias to ignore evidence not supporting you. That is what you did. And you voted according to a straw man argument to make the premises equivalent to ID, not considering the Inferred Design argument. Read my 8 sources. Maybe just maybe you will understand same conclusions do not come from the same arguments.

I looked at your evidence and your debate. Both you and SSwdwm made fallacies, that is why I did not give you conduct points (though I did consider it). You think that just because I think that SSwdwm's arguments were better that I must be voting with bias. The debate also does not mean that your opponent should have to look at your sources, you should put the information from the sources into the debate in a way to argue your point, so telling me to check out the sources says nothing about the actual debate.

I'd be interested in knowing where you thought I committed fallacies? So I can rectify them in the future? Thanks :-)

You did strawman a bit (as your opponent pointed out) by making some rebuttals against the classic intelligent design than his inferred design (which is making rebuttals against points not even brought up).

Oh, I guess I was then if it looked that way. Are you referring mostly to the first round (with the bridge arguments)?

Not really, I view that as an argument and not a rebuttal. I am talking more so about your round 3.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 7:00:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 6:58:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:41:42 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:35:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:23:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:09:36 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
take offense to it then. I can not reason with the unreasonable who do not know the difference between the resolution, that is a conclusion, and the argument to reach the conclusion.

I see the difference, but SSwdwm showed why making that conclusion in itself is false. I looked at both arguments and saw that SSwdwm's arguments were better, but I also thought your arguments were pretty good. He also used sources in all his rounds, you did not. It was a close debate, but I feel SSwdwm's arguments were better.

You and your compadre SSwdwm think that becuase the conclusion "basic cells are intelligently designed" is the same for ID proponents like meyer, that my argument reaching the same conclusion is the same argument.

And you made some flaws of false analogy in your points, but did I point them out? No.

This is not the case. I used a different argument and reasoning then what you expected. Confirmation bias to ignore evidence not supporting you. That is what you did. And you voted according to a straw man argument to make the premises equivalent to ID, not considering the Inferred Design argument. Read my 8 sources. Maybe just maybe you will understand same conclusions do not come from the same arguments.

I looked at your evidence and your debate. Both you and SSwdwm made fallacies, that is why I did not give you conduct points (though I did consider it). You think that just because I think that SSwdwm's arguments were better that I must be voting with bias. The debate also does not mean that your opponent should have to look at your sources, you should put the information from the sources into the debate in a way to argue your point, so telling me to check out the sources says nothing about the actual debate.

I'd be interested in knowing where you thought I committed fallacies? So I can rectify them in the future? Thanks :-)

You did strawman a bit (as your opponent pointed out) by making some rebuttals against the classic intelligent design than his inferred design (which is making rebuttals against points not even brought up).

Oh, I guess I was then if it looked that way. Are you referring mostly to the first round (with the bridge arguments)?

Not really, I view that as an argument and not a rebuttal. I am talking more so about your round 3.

The penultimate round?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 7:04:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 6:58:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:41:42 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:35:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:23:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:09:36 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
take offense to it then. I can not reason with the unreasonable who do not know the difference between the resolution, that is a conclusion, and the argument to reach the conclusion.

I see the difference, but SSwdwm showed why making that conclusion in itself is false. I looked at both arguments and saw that SSwdwm's arguments were better, but I also thought your arguments were pretty good. He also used sources in all his rounds, you did not. It was a close debate, but I feel SSwdwm's arguments were better.

You and your compadre SSwdwm think that becuase the conclusion "basic cells are intelligently designed" is the same for ID proponents like meyer, that my argument reaching the same conclusion is the same argument.

And you made some flaws of false analogy in your points, but did I point them out? No.

This is not the case. I used a different argument and reasoning then what you expected. Confirmation bias to ignore evidence not supporting you. That is what you did. And you voted according to a straw man argument to make the premises equivalent to ID, not considering the Inferred Design argument. Read my 8 sources. Maybe just maybe you will understand same conclusions do not come from the same arguments.

I looked at your evidence and your debate. Both you and SSwdwm made fallacies, that is why I did not give you conduct points (though I did consider it). You think that just because I think that SSwdwm's arguments were better that I must be voting with bias. The debate also does not mean that your opponent should have to look at your sources, you should put the information from the sources into the debate in a way to argue your point, so telling me to check out the sources says nothing about the actual debate.

I'd be interested in knowing where you thought I committed fallacies? So I can rectify them in the future? Thanks :-)

You did strawman a bit (as your opponent pointed out) by making some rebuttals against the classic intelligent design than his inferred design (which is making rebuttals against points not even brought up).

Oh, I guess I was then if it looked that way. Are you referring mostly to the first round (with the bridge arguments)?

Not really, I view that as an argument and not a rebuttal. I am talking more so about your round 3.

Oh, you meant the first part of my third round, regarding the train if logic?

I can see what you mean I guess, I didn't think I was getting the point strongly enough across that Pro was not connecting the dots to argue for the intelligently designed conclusion, and was trying to construct it for him spot show where the holes were... I guess it was bad practice, hmm.

Did I not get that point across though? That the conclusion was not logically reached? Because if anything this was the main thing I was digging at, and not the science.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 7:08:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 7:04:27 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:58:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:41:42 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:35:20 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:23:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:09:36 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
take offense to it then. I can not reason with the unreasonable who do not know the difference between the resolution, that is a conclusion, and the argument to reach the conclusion.

I see the difference, but SSwdwm showed why making that conclusion in itself is false. I looked at both arguments and saw that SSwdwm's arguments were better, but I also thought your arguments were pretty good. He also used sources in all his rounds, you did not. It was a close debate, but I feel SSwdwm's arguments were better.

You and your compadre SSwdwm think that becuase the conclusion "basic cells are intelligently designed" is the same for ID proponents like meyer, that my argument reaching the same conclusion is the same argument.

And you made some flaws of false analogy in your points, but did I point them out? No.

This is not the case. I used a different argument and reasoning then what you expected. Confirmation bias to ignore evidence not supporting you. That is what you did. And you voted according to a straw man argument to make the premises equivalent to ID, not considering the Inferred Design argument. Read my 8 sources. Maybe just maybe you will understand same conclusions do not come from the same arguments.

I looked at your evidence and your debate. Both you and SSwdwm made fallacies, that is why I did not give you conduct points (though I did consider it). You think that just because I think that SSwdwm's arguments were better that I must be voting with bias. The debate also does not mean that your opponent should have to look at your sources, you should put the information from the sources into the debate in a way to argue your point, so telling me to check out the sources says nothing about the actual debate.

I'd be interested in knowing where you thought I committed fallacies? So I can rectify them in the future? Thanks :-)

You did strawman a bit (as your opponent pointed out) by making some rebuttals against the classic intelligent design than his inferred design (which is making rebuttals against points not even brought up).

Oh, I guess I was then if it looked that way. Are you referring mostly to the first round (with the bridge arguments)?

Not really, I view that as an argument and not a rebuttal. I am talking more so about your round 3.

Oh, you meant the first part of my third round, regarding the train if logic?

Yes, that part seemed like a strawman to me.

I can see what you mean I guess, I didn't think I was getting the point strongly enough across that Pro was not connecting the dots to argue for the intelligently designed conclusion, and was trying to construct it for him spot show where the holes were... I guess it was bad practice, hmm.

Normally it would be good to make those, but it just did not follow what his points of argument were.

Did I not get that point across though? That the conclusion was not logically reached? Because if anything this was the main thing I was digging at, and not the science.

I do agree with you, after looking at the arguments on both sides, that the conclusion is not logically reached, which is why I voted the way I did, but somehow that is biased voting. So much so that I apparently am now being challenged by him to a debate with the topic of "SNP1's ideas or votes have no substance or weight."

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

Really pathetic.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO