fauxlaw

thank you for a very enjoyable debate!

Thank you all for voting

This one deserves to die without votes since both opponents forfeited 2 rounds of a 3-round debate - 66.6%; more than enough to declare an abandoned debate.
However, that said, I find the topic ill-defined, lackoiong definition where it belongs - in tree Description as part of the challenge so both opponents know what their BoP is. I disagree with any debate that assumes the BoP belongs with just one of the participants. "Freedom of speech" deserves better treatment of a challenge by explaining by definition what constitutes violation of free speech in an open forum such as DebateCraft. I think Sidewalker's post #1 set the problem squarely on point: how do we cancel another's post? To request a Mod do it for us is, I think, beyond the scope of a Mod's sense of fairness. Most people recognize when, in a debate, one participant trashes their opponent by nasty accusation, and a fair voter will vote accordingly.

The problem witch arguing comparison to other countries is that Pro defined America as the scope of fhe debate. That should be enough reason not to drift. But, what other country really compares to the US? We're the 3rd largest population in the world, and that comes with problems most other countries just do not have, coupled with the fact that none mentioned are presidentially-led democratic republics, so, again, what comparison is valid?

pls consider voting

pls consider voting

I will vote in this one

Rohith's vote has no debate analysis. pls review

Thank you for your vote

I refuse to engage a debate in which my BoP is driven by opponent questions. What an absurd set-up. No thanks, I can do my own thinking, thanks, but my answer is, no, taxation is not supposed to be theft; it is [to me] personal support for muoniciple, state, and federal infrastructure I cannot realize on my own, and for my defense of tree national borders from invasion, and for management of my personal investment, along with my employers' matching contributions [therefore, no public money involved - so not a socialist program as alleged by ignorance] for social security and medicare on my retirement.

Answer all what "questions directly?" Is this 4 rounds of Q&A between 2 participants, or a debate of 2 participants having opposing BoPs to satisfy their respective side of the Resolve [topic]

nope. first line tells you which debate the post is for. What, a flat earth cannot be rectangular? It could be an octagon, for all it matters. A flat star. Etc.

Sorry, I intended to send my #17 to you, too. Trump foils again! Congrats on the win

Sorry, yes, I absolutely contended that Pro win the debate, and said so, verbally. I blame Trump for injecting covid into the voting machine.
I'll re-vote

I disagree with your #2, just because this debate is more theological does not discount that definitions are necessary. Example: By most "theological evolution" sites I consult give an alternate description, "evolutionary creationism" which may be represented as synonymous, but I disagree, because most of those sites then acknowledge that term [either one] ends up accepting that their root argument is that scripture does not matter in the face of science, denying theological anything as valid, such as Adam & Eve. In other words, both terms end up being just another excuse for religion trying to keep up with science, but failing in the attempt. If that's your approach for why theological evolution is not biblically compatible, I guess that's fine, but I would define the terms as I see them, and argue from that perspective. That, however, cult end up being a debate of definitions, as I suggested in my #1.

Sorry, I try to make it a habit to avoid commentary during a debate once the Challenge has been accepted. You, and readers must wait for my argument rounds. That said, sometimes, I will post sources in Comments related to an argument Round if I approach the character limit in arguments. This has been allowed in DebateArt, and since there are no Conduct Rules posted yet, I presume to continue that allowance, if needed.

I thought this would be a good debate for voting, but, no, after reading the arguments, I am insufferably disappointed. "...more successful" by what measure? Statistically, there are, by population, more theists than atheists. Philosophically, about the same. Scientifically... well, there seems to be an interrupt between participants about what 'science" is. For myself, I find "science" is not any more disciplined than is typical of religion. Example; to study the effects of tsunamis on coastal regions of Earth, "science" uses a flat-bottomed, perpendicular-sided tank. Never saw an ocean shaped like that, and I've been on and in 4 of the 5, and suspect the 5th is like the other 4: not a simple tank. So what "science" discipline? Not to menti0on that, just by observation, we've learned that nature reacts to the observer, and that disrupts natural habit.
Not to mention that arguments are difficult to determine when one is quoting the other participant's arguments, and when it is their own argument, so both end up looking like they both argue for and against their own BoPs.

Same question as with your other debater challenge on flat earth by Bible text. Which Bible? And, best to define what you mean by "theistic evolution" pin Description, because it's your debate; you define the term. I refuse to a debate that ends up being an argument of definition. They accomplish nothing. Also, consider expanding your argument limit of 2 days. Some of us lead busy lives.

The Resolve is fine, but the Description appears both participants argue for flat Earth. One of the participants needs to argue for a shape that is not flat to have a debate. Since both will argue with biblical reference, and, since just in English, there are hundreds of versions, it's best to choose which is to be used. They are different, you know, and best identify the language, as well, because I have read it in four [English, French, Italian, Greek], and they are also different, as you might expect. Clean up the description, I'll consider to engage.

Thanks for the questions. Re: the "cats and rats," I'm sorry if that seemed harsh. My point was I don't think the story helped your cause. I am expecting a first argument to be a strong case for your BoP, and I undirstrand it was an attempt to demonstrate that people have differing ideas about theism as an overall concept, and I appreciated that this topic is a unique approach, as I said, rather than the typical existence of God, period. I've not seen the approach of mono- v. polytheism before, so I( app4eciatede the unique approach. But the cat allegory was not a strong argument for polytheism when that is what I expected to start the debate; this argument t touched all sides of the potential debate. Had you started with a strong offensive, such as the Godel's Incompleteness Theorem [missing definitions aside] would have been a strong beginning] and leave that cats business for a later round after making stronger arguments. Cuter, cuddly cats just didn't impress for this powerful debate.

The question regarding my analysis of the literature of the OT God from the Reddit citation seemed both for and against an omnipotent God, leaving me with the impression that the Reddit poster was uncommitted on the whole concept, arguing both for and against theism, mono or poly. It just was not a strong source for your BoP, making me think you were not sure about which side you favor.

Evidence this is an absurd debate that was entirely entertaining to read.

philo: if space is needed for argument, sources in each round can be logged in Comments in order to maximize argument text [but reference in argument rounds the fact so voters don't think there were no sources]. Also, I suggest numbering your sources.

rational: Yeah, Apple Pages [my preferred word processor] counts words and characters, so I ran the whole through my counter, too, including sources.

Potentially, a debate of 120,000 characters; >24,000 words. For a logical argument, that's nonsense, in and of itself, the length of a novella.

Yep, already have it noted. Thanks

love the hat!!! MAFA!

I wish you would be more consistent in quoting, using the provided keyboard symbols for that purpose, because your vote is vague regarding your quotation of
Pro, and what is your own voting commentary, but I will point out that the following, quoted from your vote, is inadequate: " I could fully control people's genes and diseases by my will alone, or willing action alone. But no one can do that, thus it takes more than free will or willing action to create diseases and genes." Yes, Pro's R2 did claim that I mention "genes and diseases," but, reading over my round arguments, I don't sea that cited combination of words in my rounds. But, worse, the claim that man cannot "control people's genes and diseases by... will alone" is dead wrong. We now have the facility of genetic engineering and do it frequently with good success.
I'll take your vote as is, but you chose a poor example of a Pro argument to cite, and I rebutted in R2 and R3 that his choice to blame "God", as you did yourself, rather than the debate subject, "Christian God," which is a different designation, is out of the debate parameters by the Resolutuon.

Thank you very much for voting.

I voted "No" on the question, "Was this a serious debate," because Pro was the only valid contributor to the debate. Pro's was serious debate. Con's debate was a poor choke [joke] with no humor.

I agree, this was a really fun debate. Readers, pls vote.

FLRW, thanks for your commit to vote.

...and all readers and voters
I just realized, now clear-headed, that my posting of my R2 yesterday has a more critical error than my comment #14 related yesterday, and I blame myself, under the influence of oxycodone due to the extreme pain I occasionally suffer as a result of my recent surgery. Oxy is a great pain reliever, but has side effects that affect people differently. I fear its use due to its extreme tendency for people to become addicted to it, so I purposefully spread the dosage-rate I am allowed just to avoid the potential of addiction. That its a successful tactic for me, but the resulting side effect, for me, is stupidity. My entire R2, under the influence of oxy, made me revert to the belief in this debate that I am Con, since usually, initiators take the Pro position in a debate, but you, RationalTheist, have taken the Con position, and I know we discussed it prior to the beginning of the debate, but, my R2, composed under the influence of oxy, made me forget. Therefore, every reference to Pro in my R2 should be to Con. Good God, the is confusing! My apologies!