That interpretation wins the debate, assuming Con successfully argues that power = authority.
The site is dying. And the same kind of debates are being redone, over and over again.
I figure it's time to break the pattern
No. I was wondering if it was possible to find people to rap battle as those characters
Are these rap battles doable? I have two requests.:
1. Batman vs L
2. Light Yagami vs Johan Liebert
I would like to point out a trope I noticed.
Villains seem to favor their arch-nemesis to the point where their rivalry becomes the thing they live for.
Light enjoyed his rivalry with L to the point of being triggered when Near wore a mask of L's face, seeing Near as just a lesser copycat.
This sort of reminds me of Batman Beyond. When Joker gets triggered about Terry calling himself Batman. Terry was meant to be Bruce's successor. (Just for context)
Your framework relied too much on over-committing to an ideal, and it was incomplete. Reason versus power/authority is a great means for complying with the law.
But there is nothing in it to challenge Kohai's framework, as he uses yours to bolster his side.
Life is sacred, and taking a life is inhumane is a great statement to take at face value especially to oppose the death penalty.
But Kohai uses a model that acknowledges the same ideal but provides a correct way to apply the ideal, as well as rules to ensure that the method is not being abused.
Taking a life is horrific, but when framed by Kohai as ending a life to save more lives, he reframes the topic into a bigger picture objective. This is why he initially has the upper-hand and starts off strong. But you did a lot of damage when you brought up the deterrence and shown how his framework fails in practice.
If I were Pro, I would have doubled down on the arguments about deterrence and focused on the psychological harms the death penalty has on people, as well as the innocent people falsely accused.
You had a lot of missed opportunities and angles you could have used. Especially with the ethnic & racial discrimination, and corruption of the criminal justice system.
You had a lot of great potential here, and you could have won this easily in my opinion. Especially since this was on balance.
But you were holding back a lot, Con fought more powerfully, but your rebuttal lands a successful sneak-attack that costs him the victory.
While I read everyone's final round arguments. I use it more to review and look back for any details I missed, so I can give the sides the credit I didn't give them. But I don't really consider the final round during scoring, as voters are required to declare a winner/loser before the final round.
No problem.
What are your thoughts on the vote? Did it accurately capture yours and whiteflame's sides of the debate?
Great debate, guys.
I shall read through this today and have my vote up by the end of the day.
I appreciate the clarification, guys. Please forgive me if I take too long.
I'll complete the steps later today and will leave the vote right after.
I have my vote written out.
How do I gain the option to submit it for this debate?
Thank you
The minimum rating is set too high for me to accept.
I would like to accept this debate.
Shame, genuinely.
He's scared, so now he's not gonna show up for Round 3.
Theism is an umbrella term, deism is just a subset of theism.
All deists are theists. Not all theists are deist.
All catholics are christian, but not all christians are catholic.
Dude.
Don't even bother
Cool.
So you're still the same thin-skinned toxic narcissist as before.
You insult me first, but I'm not allowed to insult you back.
Glad to see how it is.
I don't give myself that credit. Plus, I'm not obsessed with coups & power dynamics.
That's your own weird thing you've got going on
How are you powerful? All it took was me telling Barney to demote you and then look what happened.
I can clearly see that you're angry, so I won't stoop to your level by attacking you with ridiculous claims.
Just deal with it, whiteflame.
At least you and I can lose with dignity.
Some people are psychologically wired to have meltdowns and take everything personally.
Certain sections were omitted during the creation of the new website.
The RFD no longer has the option to penalize one of the sides for violating the conduct point.
I would, but I wasn't assigned.
Accurate. He's going bonkers
Thanks, Savant. I appreciate the clarification.
Merry Christmas & thanks for the vote, Savant.
Could you clarify three things about the intelligence aspect?
How my use stretches the definition, how were Con's arguments more substantive on this angle, and which part was dropped?
Con's side argues that any non-omniscient creator is unintelligent and presents several obvious errors with the design as proof.
But I refuted this by demonstrating that any being capable of producing the universe requires a level of sophistication and magnitude more advanced than us, and that errors do not diminish this in a way for the deity to be written off as unintelligent.
There is never an argument in the debate for why a creator needs a perfectly flawless design to be intelligent, and I argued that this expectation is an unreasonable one.
But more importantly, how would making the case for a potentially autopilot form of intelligence be stretching the definition?
I presented several observations of this happening including the process of reproduction, homeostasis & heartbeat, as well as computers & AI.
If these mechanisms are capable of functioning automatically and be considered a form of intelligence, how is it be unreasonable to argue that this form of intelligence is capable of happening on a significantly larger scale? That at least allows room for errors in the design but establishes intelligence in a qualifiable way.
There is nothing in the resolution that requires for me to argue for a sentient or conscious creator, and I did back that intelligence is enough of an umbrella term semantically for these considerations to stand on their own.
Would you guys like to vote on this?
Thank you! Appreciate it
I like this setup.
Tbh, I didn't know what to expect. But this is an interesting one.
Good choice. This one is good because it puts us in a subject where we feel comfortable discussing, but having us argue against our beliefs is clever
Can you explain for me? I tried.
“I want you to tell me why the Chosen People denied you as a whole while Goyim spread your truth so loyal and hard!
What is it that's going on, the bigger picture beyond the stars,
Why did you drown 3-year olds in Noah's flood for being future sinners yet allowed Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan?“
Look at how long these sentences drag on for and how many pauses you have to make.
And then compare it to Pro’s.:
“ Every path opens wide
Every gift from the Lady
Lady of the night
Every step of the Lady
Her own right
Show of infinity, her immortal might
Her love, her care, her fight
For me”
Pro’s version is more crisp and clear. There’s no awkward stops, it’s just weird flowing.
With obvious word rhymes.
In what way does yours utilize more flow or rhyme that could be detected by a casual reader?
Rap isn't poetry, but classical songs are.
Poems are that delicious michelin 5-star steak, and the beat that accompanies it is the seasoning.
O Fortuna is a famous classical song, but it is also considered a poem.
"O Fortuna, O Fortune,
like the moon
you are changeable,
ever waxing
and waning;
hateful life
first oppresses
and then soothes
as fancy takes it;
poverty
and power it melts them like ice"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXFSK0ogeg4
