EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Lost feedback on hard work

< Return to subforum
SaxonHammer
By SaxonHammer | Aug 4 2016 2:16 AM
"Religion and Philosophy are entirely separate" - please give judges view on my argument
Crow
By Crow | Aug 4 2016 2:25 AM
SaxonHammer: Your arguments didn't really try and distinguish how different philosophical systems were distinct from religion, despite religion advocating for many of these philosophical systems.

For example, Christianity deals with...

- Asceticism
- Stoicism
- Theology
- Humanism
- Metaphysics
- Ethics
- Ect.

It even opposes philosophies like Epicureanism.

The most important thing to have done in that debate was to explain how just because religion deals a lot with philosophy, how it still remains to be distinguished from philosophy. Which I didn't get much technically speaking through reading.

The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Crow
By Crow | Aug 4 2016 2:33 AM
The other problem is that your arguments were too axiomatic.

Basically you delivered a premise and a conclusion, without explaining the basis for the premise, or how you got from the premise to the conclusion.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
SaxonHammer
By SaxonHammer | Aug 4 2016 3:51 AM
Crow: That is true, I should have made it clear that religious morality is a "subset" of Phil. - I was not trying to confuse the reader by dragging a multitude of "subsets" into play - especially as I knew the fight was not over..............
I have re-read and noticed a typical typo of mine - However my main point about - religion excluding and Phil. including was not clear to you (more work for me)
SaxonHammer
By SaxonHammer | Aug 4 2016 3:53 AM
Crow: axiomatic - I had to look it up - I do not understand the criticism here, I thought it was direct for the opening round?
SaxonHammer
By SaxonHammer | Aug 4 2016 3:55 AM
Crow: Thank you for your response - I was shocked by your response in the debate.
Crow
By Crow | Aug 4 2016 4:04 AM
SaxonHammer: Well I should of been more clear.

You were committing axiomatic fallacies (not arguments). Basically you were starting from opinionated premises.

The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
SaxonHammer
By SaxonHammer | Aug 4 2016 4:08 AM
Crow: Ooooooooo - show me one opinion!
Crow
By Crow | Aug 4 2016 4:12 AM
SaxonHammer: Religion excludes non-members.
Philosophy allows for full inclusion of all entities(people).

Both unsupported premises used to start your arguments. You even admitted it.

While the above statements are unsupported and carefully constructed...

The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
SaxonHammer
By SaxonHammer | Aug 4 2016 4:15 AM
Crow: they contain no criticism/judgement and can be seen from an individual human point of view to show distinct difference.
Not you though?
Crow
By Crow | Aug 4 2016 4:18 AM
SaxonHammer: Are you arguing with those giving you feedback? Okay, well let's do this.

That is also asserted opinion, and patronizing to the audience. A baseless claim that something is true, has no ground to stand on. Evidence and explanation should of been used.

they contain no criticism/judgement and can be seen from an individual human point of view to show distinct difference.

The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
SaxonHammer
By SaxonHammer | Aug 4 2016 4:28 AM
Crow: Thank you very much, you have been very helpful and generous.