Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

How To: Unbiased Voting

YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 8:54:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
- This is a continuation of the previous thread: Any Decent Voters Out There > http://www.debate.org... (about the currently quite popular debate: The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good > http://www.debate.org... ) <<< So, be sure to check the above thread before reading this one. :)

- It's no secret that the marriage between Muhammad & Aisha generates a torrent of bias in the West, which is clearly seen in the Votes on the said debate: a most degrading display of voting gone horribly wrong! So I was thinking of a way to help Voters reset their voting alarm, even just a little bit:

First: Preface:

- The debate assumes the account that Aisha was married at 9\10, for there are other accounts that put her age at 12, 15, 16, 18 & 19 at marriage. The most accurate of these accounts suggest that Aisha was either 9\10, or 15, or 19.
=> This assumption is not to say Aisha did really get married at 9\10 , it's just for debating purposes, so as to make the debate more challenging for me, & as to allow Con to exploit that fact.

- My (Pro's) argument in the debate is based on the actual story of Marriage & how it unfolds, & is divided into these approaches:
> The Marriage as a Union.
> The Marriage as a Love Story.
> The Marriage as a Relationship.
> The Marriage as a Function.
> The Marriage as a Legal Precedence.
> The Marriage as a Legacy.
=> & through all these I conclude on the nature of the Marriage.

- Con's argument is based on how modern standards deem the Union, without accounting for the actual story of the Marriage, by exploiting the assumption that Aisha was 9\10 at Marriage ; for instance: by invoking Pedophilia.

Second: an Analogy:

I - For said purposes, in this section we'll be assuming that the Resolution of the debate is the following:

>>> The Marriage Between Queen Victoria & Prince Albert is Good.

=> & thus you should totally forget about the previous Resolution & embrace this new one (which I'll probably be instigating soon).

II - The Rules of the Paradigm of this Resolution are as follow:

1. We'll be assuming that the age of Victoria at marriage was 9\10, & everything that goes with it.
> In reality Victoria married at 20, which is close to Aisha's age upon marriage too according to the account that says she was: 19. Plus, such suggestion is not uncommon in the West, for there are many examples of monarchs taking very young brides & consorts (such as: Alexios the II with Agnes (she was 8), or like Isaac the II with Margaret (she was 9 & he was 30)).
> In this Paradigm, the marriage of 9\10 yo is common & completely accepted legally & socially, analogue to the situation of 7th century Arabia.

2. We'll be assuming that Albert is in fact the King & Victoria is his Queen & that her greatness & success she achieved after his death was due exclusively to her marriage with him.
> Analogue to Aisha's Legacy after her husband's death.

4. We'll be assuming that there was no sexual or physical abuse involved.
> Analogue to Aisha's case.

4. We'll be assuming that everything else is exactly the same, particularly:
> Victoria factually consented to the marriage (as in reality), a legally & socially accepted consent in the said Paradigm (despite her supposed age). Which is an analogue situation to Aisha where she reports that her consent is essential to the Marriage.
> The Union & the Marriage Contract are both valid, legally & socially. Which is also analogue to Aisha's situation.

- The Debate will proceed as follows:

>>> Pro's argument is based on the actual story of Marriage & how it unfolds:
> The Blessed Union.
> The Shared Love.
> The Good Relationship sacrifice.
> The Good & Happiness their Marriage brought to their kinfolks & their community.
> The greatness Victoria achieved thanks to that Marriage.

Eg:
> Pro brings accounts to show the love they share, such as this:
* Victoria wrote in her diary:
"MY DEAREST DEAREST DEAR Albert ... his excessive love & affection gave me feelings of heavenly love & happiness I never could have hoped to have felt before! He clasped me in his arms, & we kissed each other again & again! His beauty, his sweetness & gentleness " really how can I ever be thankful enough to have such a Husband! ... to be called by names of tenderness, I have never yet heard used to me before was bliss beyond belief! Oh! This was the happiest day of my life!"
> & bring a source too: http://en.wikipedia.org... .

>>> Con's argument is based on how Modern Western standards will deem this Union from an age perspective, without accounting for the actual story of Marriage & how it unfolds.

Eg.
> Con brings statists about the "profound, long term negative health effects" of pedophilic sex & child abuse in the Modern West & extrapolate it to the said Paradigm.

=> So, consider seriously this Resolution & Paradigm, & in the debate, just replace - in you mind - Aisha by Victoria, & Muhammad by Albert, so as to help with the pre conceived Bias.

Third: Questions:

- Upon discussing the debate with some of the Voters I noticed that certain points of Bias are hard to get rid of, so I prepared some questions you can ask yourselves before Voting:

>>> Consent:
1. Con argues in the debate from Moral Relativism that the Consent of a 10 yo is not a "proper consent" according to Modern standards. So why are you (the Voter) assuming that Consent of 10 yo is objectively improper, which Con did not argue for?
2. Supposing that the Marriage was arranged & there was no consent, Why do you assume the Marriage is thus automatically Bad? Half the marriages in History are probably arranged, & some turned out to be great love stories.

>>> Pedophilia: (as to be expected, just mentioning Pedophilia shuts down the readers' rationality & everybody loses their minds):
1. Con argues in the debate from Consequentialism for the morality of pedophilia (bad health effects). So, why are you assuming that Pedophilia is objectively bad, which Con did not argue for?
2. Con defines Pedophilia as "a paraphilia in which an adult has recurrent, intense sexual urges or sexually arousing fantasies of engaging or repeatedly engages in sexual activity with a prepubertal child". So, why are you not demanding proof for all these conditions? (including the proof for prepubertal child).
3. Why are you stuck with the Stigma of the word 'Pedophilia' at the expense of the degree of validity of Con's arguments?

>>> Abuse:
1. Con argues for abuse from Stockholm Syndrome ("sexual abuse victims are known to carry increased degrees of empathy and sympathy for their attackers"), so Why are you not demanding evidence for all the requirements of such a mental condition to take place? Not because someone is beaten they become sympathetic with their attackers! Generally the opposite is true.
2. Why are you confirming the consequent, by assuming there is abuse, & if there is sympathy, you deduce it's because there is abuse, which is alone not cause for sympathy to begin with (unless associated with all the other causes of Stockholm Syndrome)?

>>> 2 Additional Essential Questions you should consider sincerely:
1. Suppose the primary assumption was eliminated, i.e. Aisha's age is now 15 or 19 upon Marriage (& thus all Con's arguments are void). How would you think about the Marriage (as related by Pro) then? << This is to allow you to evaluate the validity of Pro's arguments with an open mind, not closed off by Bias.
2. In what World does a Marriage based on Love & Caring & Sharing & Forgiveness & Entertainment & Education & Sacrifice & Accomplishments qualify as Not a Good Marriage?
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 9:40:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I could, I would vote poor conduct just for this and the other thread.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 10:09:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 9:40:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
If I could, I would vote poor conduct just for this and the other thread.

+1
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 10:20:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 9:40:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
If I could, I would vote poor conduct just for this and the other thread.

- & why is that?!
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 10:45:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 10:31:47 PM, IceCreamforBreakfast wrote:
How to unbiased voting: vote for me or ur biased.

You should vote for Me, your Creator. I'm the one who made you debate in the first place.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 4:58:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 10:45:40 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/7/2015 10:31:47 PM, IceCreamforBreakfast wrote:
How to unbiased voting: vote for me or ur biased.

You should vote for Me, your Creator. I'm the one who made you debate in the first place.

bornofgod you want to hear impression Americi?
Never fart near dog
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 5:25:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Effing conduct. I decided to exclude myself from voting on this debate due to a possible inherent bias, despite the oppositions's premise that my disagreement is well justified. Look, there is petitioning for voters, and then there is qualifying voters, one of which inherently is dishonest. I admit, I asked some pals to lend opinion, but I am just linking them to my debates. I am not tryiing dis or obj qualify their votes. That shieeeyat is shady, especially if you consider that you had to google doc yours, as opposed to list them to meet character limits.

Conduct.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 6:03:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The two questions you ask at the end:

1) Her age is fundamentally important to the whole thing.
2) When one of the people involved in it is a child.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 8:30:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 8:54:33 PM, YassineB wrote:
- This is a continuation of the previous thread: Any Decent Voters Out There > http://www.debate.org... (about the currently quite popular debate: The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good > http://www.debate.org... ) <<< So, be sure to check the above thread before reading this one. :)

- It's no secret that the marriage between Muhammad & Aisha generates a torrent of bias in the West, which is clearly seen in the Votes on the said debate: a most degrading display of voting gone horribly wrong! So I was thinking of a way to help Voters reset their voting alarm, even just a little bit:

Oh yes, treat the readers like complete morons, that's a sure fire way to get them to vote for you.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 3:03:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So your strategy to rid DDO of biased voting is to present your biased viewpoint on your own debate?

Apparently it's too genius for me to understand.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 5:36:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 6:03:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
The two questions you ask at the end:

1) Her age is fundamentally important to the whole thing.

- The assumption of her age is fundamental to Con's Case, it is not to Pro's Case. Therefore, by eliminating the assumption, the Voter can evaluate the Pro Case independently without needing to worry about the Bias the assumption of age might leave.
- Then, when evaluating Con's case, he should again consider the age & evaluate Con Case independently too.

=> Thus, after evaluating both independently, he can compare which is stronger, Pro's Approach that is inferring a Judgement from the actual story of the Marriage & how it unfolds, or Con's Approach that is inferring a Judgement from extrapolating a modern standard to the said Paradigm without accounting for the actual story.

2) When one of the people involved in it is a child.

- First, nobody said anything about a child.
- Second, your position supposes that a Marriage where one party is a child is objectively bad, which is not what Con argued for, nor is it provable to begin with.
- Third, the whole point of this Thread is to get rid one of this exact Bias. I guess, I was wrong after all: "we can't underestimate bias".
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 6:16:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 10:45:40 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/7/2015 10:31:47 PM, IceCreamforBreakfast wrote:
How to unbiased voting: vote for me or ur biased.

You should vote for Me, your Creator. I'm the one who made you debate in the first place.

I 2nd this.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 7:36:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 5:25:05 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Effing conduct. I decided to exclude myself from voting on this debate due to a possible inherent bias, despite the oppositions's premise that my disagreement is well justified.

- I was going to PM you to ask you to Vote, for I deemed you capable of honest Voting. Still, it's a good thing that you refrained from voting when you felt there might be a possible bias. :)

Look, there is petitioning for voters, and then there is qualifying voters, one of which inherently is dishonest. I admit, I asked some pals to lend opinion, but I am just linking them to my debates. I am not trying dis or obj qualify their votes. That shieeeyat is shady, especially if you consider that you had to google doc yours, as opposed to list them to meet character limits.
Conduct.

- "shieeyat" reminded me of The Wire, LoL.

ONE:

- Firstly, I should make something clear about the google doc:
1. If you checked the source you'll find that it is ENTIRELY sources, not one word of argumentation whatsoever.
2. There are more than 150 links in that document, & thus even I wanted to list them in my debate, an entire Round will not suffice.
3. There are 100 Hadiths (& their links) in that document, probably half of them are translated from Arabic (by me).
4. I've already wasted my first Round on bare sources. So, I was already at a disadvantage, if anything I am still entitled to that space.

- So here are my options:
=> Say everything I said in my Rounds, & link it to a single very Reliable Source, that happens to be a gigantic book in Arabic about the biography of Aisha, which unless you're Arab & willing to read through it, you can't know if I am lying or not. & yet, I would still have sourced my arguments in the debate impeccably, it's not my fault that Voters can't read Arabic, why should I go to the length of providing them with the translation, I am not a translator!
=> Link the 100 accounts I brought up to their original, half of which can be found in English & the other half can only be found in Arabic. & subsequently to this: > Lose 2 Rounds of space in the debate, plus no one will be able to read half of the sources unless they are Arab.
=> Create a google document, where I can both list & translate these Arabic account, so as to allow the non-Arab readers to have access to the Arabic sources, Plus, list all other links as well.

- Finally, if I am going to get penalised in Conduct for creating the most meticulously written source, that demanded an enormous effort I doubt anyone in this website is willing to do, then I must challenge such decision. Not because you think I shouldn't have created a google doc, then you must be Right! This is a debate we are talking about, not a source storage. Creating the document is not just the only possible option, it's the only fair option, I am not a fool as to sacrifice 2/3 of my debate space to mere links favouring thus Con's chances!!! (though, I was a fool for squandering my first Round on sources instead of arguments.

- You said: "Pro/Yassine has not been honest with sources" , by all means tell me what sources I haven't been honest about?!!!
=> I can show you that Con hasn't been honest about most of his sources:
http://www.debate.org...

TWO:

- The purpose of Voting is exactly what Voting requires:
> Who had better conduct?
> Who had better spelling and grammar?
> Who made more convincing arguments?
> Who used the most reliable sources?
=> Thus, the purpose of Voting is not to Vote, it's to decide who did better in these categories. Therefore, qualifying Voters & Votes is essential, otherwise, debates' results will become a popularity contest.

THREE:

- Voters & Debaters, we are all human beings, & bottom line, any Vote is factually a personal opinion, thus subjective. That is why, in real accredited debates, the Voters are gathered in huge numbers (probably in the thousands), & from all sorts of backgrounds & affiliations, so as to eliminate as much as possible subjectivity.

- In this website, Voting is done by very few members, so there is always a subjective element in the mix, especially when Debaters are closely matched. Yet, none of this really achieve the purpose of Voting, & so we have the RFD, a condition that restricts to some degree subjectivity.

- Now, in a debate where there is probably one of the most extreme biases, subjectivity WILL be most present, & thus the purpose of Voting is lost. & thus it must be imperative to defend against such Bias as much as possible. Not because a Voter decides to Vote on my debate, he/she have a right to decide who did better, we are all human beings, & if I can combat the Bias the Voters have, I WILL. I don't care if they don't like it, what is Right is Right, & what is Wrong is Wrong. I don't need no favours, my position is firm with Voting done Right, & against Voting done Wrong.

FOUR:

- It is a fact that the Voters ARE biased, & I am gonna prove it.

> MrJosh says: "It is dishonest to link to a document which furthers your argument when you are supposed to be linking to a source."
=> He accuses me falsely of using the document to further my arguments! Whereas, it is a FACT that there are absolutely no arguments in my document.

> Jonbonbon says: "I tied sources because I feel that the misinterpretations of the Hadith were balanced out by pro's refusal to challenge the evidence presented by the con and simply dismiss it as not being adequate without ever explaining why."
=> He accuses me of dismissing the misinterpretation as inadequate without explaining why!! Whereas, it is a FACT that I disproved it & sourced it:
> Round 4 > "The translation of "struck my chest" is inaccurate, for Aisha herself (& others) completely denied such suggestion [2]."
> Source: document ( http://goo.gl... ) > Table of Content > Point [2] >
* http://sunnah.com... >>> Account already existing in English in an independent Reliable Source.
* http://library.islamweb.net...= >>> Account existing only Arabic, which I translated:
[ Narrated al-Qassim: "The Apostle of Allah was the best among us, he never hit his wives" ]

> TBR says: "I have an issue with the self-translation. Pro said ~"there are no others". That seems dubious as Con had a translation. He says "mistranslations" often, but wants assures his are correct without corroboration. Sources go to con."
=> He accuses me of self-translating the account in which Con claims Muhammad struck Aisha by using a falsely translated account. Whereas it's a FACT I wasn't the one who translated the Narration, & I did in fact mention it in the sources:
> Document ( http://goo.gl... ) > Table of Content > Point [7] > Hadith N_3 >
* http://sunnah.com... >>> Account already existing in English, & definitely NOT translated by me, as the Voter claims.

- These are the examples of Bias in the sources alone. It seems to me, the Voters are not even paying attention to Con's sourcing AT ALL, for I know for a fact that he did the most horrible job in sourcing > check for yourself: http://www.debate.org... .
- Plus the questions mentioned in the OP are real questions I discussed with the Voters:
Eg.
- The Voter tells me that a 10 yo can not properly consent, & he was arguing for proper consent as an Objective Morality, whereas Con argued from Moral Relativism! Which shows a CLEAR BIAS.

.

==>> I am not gonna stand here & allow this madness to happen just for the benefit of Con's false favour in Votes. & allow the Voters to exercise their Bias on a debate I worked honestly on, while I know that Con did a horrible job sourcing his stuff, & an even more horrible job refuting my arguments (none whatsoever) with his endless series of bare assertions & misleading characterisations.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 7:44:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 3:03:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
So your strategy to rid DDO of biased voting is to present your biased viewpoint on your own debate?

Apparently it's too genius for me to understand.

ONE:

- The purpose of Voting is exactly what Voting requires:
> Who had better conduct?
> Who had better spelling and grammar?
> Who made more convincing arguments?
> Who used the most reliable sources?
=> Thus, the purpose of Voting is not to Vote, it's to decide who did better in these categories. Therefore, qualifying Voters & Votes is essential, otherwise, debating results will become a popularity contest.

TWO:

- Voters & Debaters, we are all human beings, & bottom line, any Vote is factually a personal opinion, thus subjective. That is why, in real accredited debates, the Voters are gathered in huge numbers (probably in the thousands), & from all sorts of backgrounds & affiliations, so as to eliminate as much as possible subjectivity.

- In this website, Voting is done by very few members, so there is always a subjective element in the mix, especially when Debaters are closely matched. Yet, none of this really achieve the purpose of Voting, & so we have the RFD, a condition that restricts to some degree subjectivity.

- Now, in a debate where there is probably one of the most extreme biases, subjectivity WILL be most present, & thus the purpose of Voting is lost. & thus it must be imperative to defend against such Bias as much as possible. Not because a Voter decides to Vote on my debate, he/she have a right to decide who did better, we are all human beings, & if I can combat the Bias the Voters have, I WILL. I don't care if they don't like it, what is Right is Right, & what is Wrong is Wrong. I don't need no favours, my position is firm with Voting done Right, & against Voting done Wrong.

THREE:

- It is a fact that the Voters ARE biased, & I am gonna prove it.

> MrJosh says: "It is dishonest to link to a document which furthers your argument when you are supposed to be linking to a source."
=> He accuses me falsely of using the document to further my argument. Whereas, it is a FACT that there are absolutely no arguments in my document.

> Jonbonbon says: "I tied sources because I feel that the misinterpretations of the Hadith were balanced out by pro's refusal to challenge the evidence presented by the con and simply dismiss it as not being adequate without ever explaining why."
=> He accuses me of dismissing the misinterpretation as inadequate without explaining why!! Whereas, it is a FACT that I disproved it & sourced it:
> "The translation of "struck my chest" is inaccurate, for Aisha herself (& others) completely denied such suggestion [2]."
> Source: Document ( http://goo.gl... ) > Table of Content > Point [2] >
* http://sunnah.com... >>> Account already existing in English in an independent Reliable Source.
* http://library.islamweb.net...= >>> Account existing only Arabic, which I translated:
[ Narrated al-Qassim:
"The Apostle of Allah was the best among us, he never hit his wives" ]

> TBR says: "Sources: I have an issue with the self-translation. Pro said ~"there are no others". That seems dubious as Con had a translation. He says "mistranslations" often, but wants assures his are correct without corroboration. Sources go to con."
=> He accuses me of self-translating the account in which Con claims Muhammad struck Aisha by using a falsely translated account. Whereas it's a FACT I wasn't the one who translated the Narration, & I did in fact mention it in the sources:
> Document ( http://goo.gl... ) > Table of Content > Point [7] > Hadith N_3 >
* http://sunnah.com... >>> Account already existing in English in an independent reliable source, & definitely NOT translated by me, as the Voter claims.

- These are the examples of Bias in the sources alone. It seems to me, the Voters are not even paying attention to Con's sourcing AT ALL, for I know for a fact that he did the most horrible job in sourcing > check for yourself: http://www.debate.org...... .
- Plus the questions mentioned in the OP are real questions I discussed with the Voters:
Eg.
- The Voter tells me that a 10 yo can not properly consent, & he was arguing for proper consent as an Objective Morality, whereas Con argued from Moral Relativism! Which shows a CLEAR BIAS.

.

==>> I am not gonna stand here & allow this madness to happen just for the benefit of Con's false favour in Votes. & allow the Voters to exercise their Bias on a debate I worked honestly on, while I know that Con did a horrible job sourcing his stuff, & an even more horrible job refuting my arguments (none whatsoever) with his endless series of bare assertions & misleading characterisations. Whereas mine, as far as I can tell, are impeccable.

==>> If you wanna chose a side, chose the Right side. It's not me who 's been biased & dishonest, it's the Voters. & if I had a choice, I would prevent them from voting.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 9:36:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 6:16:54 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/7/2015 10:45:40 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/7/2015 10:31:47 PM, IceCreamforBreakfast wrote:
How to unbiased voting: vote for me or ur biased.

You should vote for Me, your Creator. I'm the one who made you debate in the first place.

I 2nd this.

Nice to hear from you my friend.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2015 4:20:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 5:36:30 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/8/2015 6:03:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
The two questions you ask at the end:

1) Her age is fundamentally important to the whole thing.

- The assumption of her age is fundamental to Con's Case, it is not to Pro's Case. Therefore, by eliminating the assumption, the Voter can evaluate the Pro Case independently without needing to worry about the Bias the assumption of age might leave.

No, it is fundamental to both cases; "is that kind of relationship with a child problematic?" has to be considered by both arguments, if neither is to be starting with an inbuilt bias. It is equally possible from the perspective of both arguments and therefore is equally significant a point to address. You are trying to shift the burden of proof.

=> Thus, after evaluating both independently, he can compare which is stronger, Pro's Approach that is inferring a Judgement from the actual story of the Marriage & how it unfolds, or Con's Approach that is inferring a Judgement from extrapolating a modern standard to the said Paradigm without accounting for the actual story.

Are you capable of writing without bias? The above is absolutely nothing but.

- First, nobody said anything about a child.

Where I"m from " planet Earth, in case you ever feel like visiting " we consider 9-year olds girls to be children.

- Second, your position supposes that a Marriage where one party is a child is objectively bad, which is not what Con argued for, nor is it provable to begin with.

My position does suppose that, yes. I disagree that it is not provable and have had some very extensive discussions on this site exploring the arguments against.

- Third, the whole point of this Thread is to get rid one of this exact Bias. I guess, I was wrong after all: "we can't underestimate bias".

Nor irony, it would seem.