God owns everything

Psalms 15:1{A Psalm of David.} LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?

4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD.



He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

God bless you for doing this.

God, winning is worse than losing.

Thanks.

All right, I revoted.

<p>>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: too-vague</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>I promised to revote if asked to, so I am removing this initial vote.</p>

<p>---Savant's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>Pro appeals to the debate description making this debate a truism and says that by accepting the debate, Con must accept the definitions in the description. Con never responds to that point directly, which is necessary to argue why I should prefer his definition over Pro's. Hence, I default to the (admittedly very biased) description, and Pro gets my vote.</p>

Yes. Remove your vote.

Whiteflame made me do it, so everyone has to do it.

Also make sure you include the words divine, being, god or maximal ownership so people know you read the debate instead of skimmed it.

Remove kohai vote, his standard of needing to follow a syllogism is not in the rubric, its his own standard.
2: i did challenge the premise of ownership in r1
3: i demonstrated the logic by becoming divine being and having ownership, i didnt have to challenge or deny syllogism as i used the description and definitions therein to prove my point.

He didnt accurately weigh my arguements,

1:"Votes solely based on relative strength of arguments made in the debate, and analysis of these arguments by the debaters, including relevant responses and weighing analysis."

2:Explains why the arguments analyzed are enough to determine the outcome, not ignoring key arguments that could change the outcome."


He didnt analyse the arguement i made about divine being, nor weigh it.

He ignored key arguement about my usage of maximal ownership and divine being.



Also see #28 as no one has sufficiently explained to me by what rules they used to vote against me.

Ok. Either yall are thinking in a way that i dont understand, or yall arent understanding what im saying. So lets break this down.

I used the tactic i used for the sake of proving the description.

In r1 i said ownership WASNT what instigator said, i contested the defintion.

Again, wether its put in a syllogistical or premise form DOES NOT MATTER UNLESS ITS ENFORCED AND AGREED UPON.
I can say a, b,c 1,2,3 till the sun goes down. Wont matter unless its agreed upon. And i did not agree upon it.

In round 1 i clarified the meaning of divine WHICH WAS AGREED UPON. Else he would have disagreed with it, and he did not.

I showed i was divine being/god, therefore I MET THE DESCRIPTION and then i used a different application of ownership. TO APPLY A MEANING OF A WORD DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING. And then as a divine being, I REFUSED OWNERSHIP OF THE APPLICATION AND THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION.

I entered this debate to teach a lesson about divinity and ownership, i was very intentional in my wording.

But all i see are people voting on a concept that has no authority in a debate, the METHOD OF OUTLINING via syllogism.



If you disagree with me, i ask you to just put what you are trying to say in chatgtp or grok.
Cause frankly i think yall forgot how debates work.

I didnt regard the premise form because he said "So if we put it in premise form:"

So i didnt acknowledge the premise form, i considered the non premise form.

Wether he put it in premise form or not, he didnt declare it authoratatively and say "it is therefore" or even "i assume/assert it as"

Edit: there is no rule saying i have to regard syllogism form. I am to weigh the arguement and strength of it, to debate/contest it.

My vote + comments are longer than the debate at this point. If you really want me to, I'll revote, but it will just be copy+pasting all the stuff I said so far. With regard to the voting rubric, it's unclear to me, but I think so some extent Rated debate votes aren't held to the same standard as strictly as ultrarated. Although with everything I have said so far I think I've at least made reference to all the points in this debate.

Savant has been clear on his reasoning. He’s pointed to the definitions as the basis for his reasoning. He’s also detailed his reasons here in the comments for why he didn’t think your tactics worked to modify those definitions. You don’t think that’s enough to meet the standards laid out in the voting rubric. I disagree. If you think that’s unreasonable, fine, but it’s my decision on the matter and I’ve given my reasoning for why.

As for the accusation of bias, it’s not the first time nor will it be the last. Think what you will.

This is why I hate winning.

He didnt say anything in his vote about God or divine. Thats half the description.

You dont get to fuss at me on a debate when i vote against a mod.

Then not take down a vote on a mod when he fails voting rubric.

You are being unreasonable and i suspect bias.

You and I would clearly rate his vote differently, then. Even looking at the specific points you bring up, Savant was very clear about how he saw the scope of the debate and specifically pointed to the definitions and the rules. Just because he didn't agree with your interpretations doesn't mean he failed to contend with them entirely. As for the point about weighing the arguments fairly, I think he's clarified that pretty extensively in his responses to you in the comments. Again, you may not view that as fair because the weighing he did effectively nullified your argument by focusing on the definitions as written in the description, but your view of what's fair isn't the deciding factor here.

You seem to think i over ruled site rules when i defined divine/god.

Which ones? The description was agreed upon.

"but you have to actually address Pro's point imo to satisfy your burden."

I did. I acknowledged his point on both ownership and divine in round 1.


"I'm realizing that this may bias future voters, so I'll leave it at that. Not sure if my thoughts are all coming across clearly, but regardless, I hope there are more votes so it's not all up to me."

Im not worried about votes, i just want you to acknowledge that divine was properly defined, and i was not contested on it.

The standard isnt mine, its in the voting rubric 4 which is minimum to be counted.

1:"Votes solely based on relative strength of arguments made in the debate, and analysis of these arguments by the debaters, including relevant responses and weighing analysis."

2:Explains why the arguments analyzed are enough to determine the outcome, not ignoring key arguments that could change the outcome."

3:Displays neutrality, making clear that any personal opinions mentioned do not affect how arguments are weighed."

4:"Votes based on the scope set by the debate resolution and rules."

5:If disagreeing with the debate's framing, the voter clearly establishes why their interpretation is more faithful and how it influences their vote."

This is a rated debate right? So the minimum is rank 4.



Savant didnt address god/divinity, which is part of the scope of debate (see 4)



And he said this

"Con must accept the definitions in the description. Con never responds to that point directly, which is necessary to argue why I should prefer his definition over Pro's."
I did respond to it directly, i mentioned both divine/god and ownership.

I feel like this debate wasnt weighed fairly.

"Unless you are saying God cant own ownership, in which case you disregarded the debate."

There are paths to victory doing what you did, but you needed to be more explicit about how being a deity overrides site rules. For example, responding to "By site rules, once you accept the debate, you agree to debate's description" with some kind of challenge like "I have the right to decide about that per the description." Claiming divine status gives you access to a lot of arguments, but you have to actually address Pro's point imo to satisfy your burden. You are accepting the description initially but then effectively changing it by expanding ownership.

I'm realizing that this may bias future voters, so I'll leave it at that. Not sure if my thoughts are all coming across clearly, but regardless, I hope there are more votes so it's not all up to me.

I think you're oversimplifying what's required for a voter to agree with you, but even if you're right, again, you're asking for mod intervention. The vote may not meet your standards (like addressing every single point you feel warranted attention and considering it in the specific way you wished him to), but that is not part of the voting standards for the site.

If they agree with description then i won. Its that simple.

I proved i was a divine being, then rejected my own self, i relinqiluished ability.

Now compare the arguement to the description

"Votes based on the scope set by the debate resolution and rules."

What does the scope include? Divine being/God.

In none of savant's votes or update did he address it 1 TIME! Now hold him to the standard you held me when i tried to vote

https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/2j/policy-debate-the-us-should-switch-to-the-metric-system

I get how you think you won this debate. It is not up to the moderation team to require voters to recognize and accept how you did it as valid.

Not at all. Unless you are saying God cant own ownership, in which case you disregarded the debate.

Regardless if you believe i changed it or not. I rejected my own change, therefore its a mote point. As a divine being i had authority to reject my own words.

I think expanding what ownership means is effectively challenging the obvious interpretation of the definition. The premises SatanLucy gave looked straightforwardly like a valid syllogism, so if you wanted to argue that "decide about" meant a different thing in each premise, I think you had to be more explicit about that.

If you are trying to say i changed the defintion of ownership, you literally missed the whole debate.

I as a divine being set the bounds of ownership (not the definition) and then refused it.

Therefore i showed as god that i owned nothing.

Try viewing it as an arguement of authority, and i became the authority, then rejected myself.

I did accept the definition. I showed i was the definition. I didnt put in a new arguement in the final round. I disregarded ownership in the first round as a divine being/god.

I didnt try an intresting tactic, instigator never refuted it.

And he did not challenge my definition of divine or my expansion of ownership.

Not that he could have anyways, unless he disagreed i was a divine being/god. Which he didnt.
So in good faith i took that as acceptance.

I've had a look over this vote from Savant and the addendum in the comments.

The long and short of it is that voters can make decisions on elements of a debate that are, by standard debate convention, treated a certain way. For example, if a voter decides not to accept new arguments presented by the debaters in the final round, they don't need a site rule to apply that view. Similarly, if they say that the definitions in the description are sacrosanct and accepted upon accepting the debate, that is sufficient by itself as a reason to accept those definitions as they are. Melcharaz tried an interesting tactic with this debate and Savant in the comments does engage with why that doesn't work for him. That is sufficient, so the vote stands.

I didnt define ownership, i simply expanded it as a divine being to its affects as maximal.

I then gave the ability to define it back, cause as a divine being i can forsake what i own. Even definitions. And in my r2 i did that.

I didnt disagree with description. I defined it. I then became it. Then i said i forsake ownership as a divine being/god. Therefore i proved him wrong.

Its easy to skip over if you have an expectation.

Its easy to say. "Well this looks like it cant be false"
Reads 2 paragraphs, ignores bit about divine defintion.
Assume i didnt agree to something (cause instigator didnt regard it, as i gave them ownership over it)
And called it a day.