Bad debate all around.
He just has weird ideas and wants to debate them, then uses weird rules and 3 syllable words to make it sound like its intelligible.
He is a sophist through and through.
God is the origin of all intelligence and material.
God is the concept of size.
God is the concept of infinity.
God is maximally great.
"The idea that there is "no such thing as an atheist" suggests that everyone ultimately believes in something greater, even if they identify as atheists. This perspective argues that all people have a natural impulse to worship or find meaning in something, whether it's a deity or an idea."
If this holds to be true even to the smallest application (regardless of which God, but even in application to Iehovah)
Then there is no true athiest.
Asserting athiestism in this debate is a hasty generalization
In which case there is no true athiest as all believe in themselves or another to have power similar to God by their nature, intellect and capability for morality as God is identified for.
No true scotsman. A person claiming to be an athiest can still believe in a God, but not be an athiest.
Proof that you are hated? Cite posts with links.
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.
Thanks.
Also you are losing track of all your debates, you still havent addressed https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/3r/atheists-will-never-be-convinced-of-the-existence-of-the-gods-of-theism
Doesnt matter what i think. Women thought he was hot and so allowed him to be close.
Also he never raped me, so even if i said yes or no, it a mote point.
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.
Ted bundy.
Next debate.
https://youtu.be/iz19y9a9bsQ?si=IPyTBNrf8c0auYCb
5:26-5:28
Cows are people too arent they?
Back in the day rocks had the honor of killing people, you could argue them and trees had more value than human life (some human life)
No worries. I can pretend yall just did 2 rounds since yall both forfeited.
I understood what you meant. I try to use words instigator and contender, it helps 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.
Bud, you gonna lose the debate and possibly be modded if you stay on the palestine accusation stuff.
Address the pro life pro birth stuff.
We know you have views about palestine, but the debate (which you made) isnt even about that.
If you wanna have a bad rating thats your business, but weaponizing a debate against someone with a different political view is just gonna make people dislike you.
If discussion we have goes well. I can summarize it and accept challenge and put it to debate format, then others can vote on it.
Let me guess... was it chatgtp?
Thanks for vote.
By the way, did you have to use ai to summarize?
I probably should have summarized verses more than quoted them.
Would have made it more readable.
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 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.
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
Probably!
Im more intrested in being understood about something. Which is why i advocate private message or forums.
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.
