Savant

You have to go to profile then badges then do vote quiz to vote then click to earn a vote badge and it will assign you a debate to vote on

<p>>Reported Vote: Savant // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: con</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: other</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Selected wrong bubble</p>

<p>---Savant's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>Forfeiture</p>

Both of you are on the same IP network with a similar browser fingerprint. Do you know each other irl? If you do, voting on each other's debates is probably a conflict of interest.

<p>>Reported Vote: Arvish // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: con</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>Votes must evaluate specific arguments from each side and weigh them against each other.</p>

<p>---Arvish's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>The con has presented the arguments very precisely, explaining each point, whereas the pro has been circling the same questions again and again.

ACCORDING TO ME, FOR THE FOLLOWING ROUND-

1st round- pro won
2nd round- con won
3rd round- con won
4th round-con won</p>

Pro's argument looks like AI

Once you vote on one debate you can request more credits. (Unless it already has 3 assigned voters, in which case you'll just get free credits.)

Vote button shows up once you are assigned to vote.

Hi Lancelot, thanks for the response and Merry Christmas to you as well.

I’m happy to clarify my reasoning on those points.

You argued that errors do not disprove intelligence (the chess master/programmer analogy). I agreed with this logic—it is possible for an intelligent being to make mistakes. Con argued that the nature of the observations (randomness, specific suffering like childhood disease, chaotic evolution) aligns more closely with unintelligence than with a clumsy intelligent designer. In a probability debate ("More likely true"), Con provided a positive argument for why the observable universe looks like the result of unintelligence. Your defense was that it doesn't rule out intelligence. I was left unclear on what you would consider to be an unintelligent being (is every being intelligent just because it can do some things?) Con was more specific about what specific features were "unintelligent." You argued that any being who created the universe must be more advanced than us, but this begs the question of more advanced in what way? Even if I buy some of what you're saying, I end up concluding that the creator is more likely to be unintelligent than intelligent even if they are powerful. I think you had more room to win this if you argued more about specific features of the universe implying intelligence, but Con was just providing more nuance by pointing to specifics—a creator being indirectly responsible for what humans do isn't making a direct case for them being intelligent and planning it out, at least not a direct as the case Con was making.

Seconded

Why I removed my vote: Con's argument was clearly intended as a poem, so nitpicking aside, it doesn't really "violate the spirit" of the debate. At this point I should probably just not vote since I'm not sure enough about what interpretation of the rules is most fair.

<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></p>

<p>---Savant's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: pro</p>
<p>Changed my mind on this upon rereading. Description says "not a rap battle" and so I think Con is violating the spirit/purpose of the debate. Since Pro followed the rules, Pro wins.</p>

Okay, you are matched up

I mean it's randomly assigned so I didn't choose this setup for you specifically. But glad it seems to be an interesting one.

As I said, if you both agree to swap sides then I can't really stop you...like if you each obviously argued the other side I would vote based on the new terms you agreed to. But I disagree that arguing devil's advocate is blasphemy.

"In a situation where we both are DA what exactly is gained by forcing it?"

You learn to consider opposing beliefs and understand them better, which will in turn make you better at defending your actual beliefs.

"All I can do is evade, gaslight and thus be evil to win."

Think of it as representing what atheists believe in good faith. It's not being evil if both sides agree to the terms of debate, framing one side in a way that's useful to your argument is expected. Kind like playing mafia, although I know you may have some issues with that game too.

Hmm...assigning sides is kinda the point. I mean you can always be like "here is an argument I think could be made, but I agree with the resolution and am debating devil's advocate." (I think that's understood anyway, given the format.) So you're not actually advocating for the Con position.

But if you're REALLY strongly opposed to debating the Con side on principle and you both agree to swap...then fine, I guess.

My advice would be accept the definitions here for the sake of argument. Just presume the debate is over whether "An intelligent being or beings who created the universe" exists or not, forget the word "God"

Forgot to put this in my opening arg, but I am excited finally debate against you as well.

Edit: Also should put this in my next arg probably, but I just realized I linked to the wrong source for min salary threshold increase for Skilled Worker visa's salary threshold (the link I gave has info along similar lines, but the details are slightly different). Here's the right link:

https://www.jobbatical.com/blog/uk-goverment-raises-skilled-worker-visa-minimum-salary-by-one-third-and-eliminates-discount-for-shortage-occupation-roles

Ultrarated will probably be the de facto leaderboard for skill level. Won't take long to get to #1 there if you are good, but it won't be easy.

Rap is a type of poetry. It's still not a rap battle because he didn't diss Venera.

Thanks for the detailed vote! I thought about bringing up the NPVIC but decided against it as that would just open up more paths for Pro if he decided to defend it or argue its political feasibility.

To vote on ultrarated, you have to go to your profile then badges, then take the voting quiz, then click to be assigned a debate to vote on. You'll be randomly assigned a debate in the voting stage if it doesn't have enough assigned voters yet. Might be this one, might be another one.

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>

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.

"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.