Instigator / Pro
7
1592
rating
14
debates
78.57%
won
Topic
#118

Environmental Protection vs. Resource Extraction

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

bsh1
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

--Topic--

Environmental protection ought to be prioritized over resource extraction when the two are in conflict.

--Definitions--

Prioritize: to treat one thing as more important than another
In conflict: implies a situation in which two or more competing interests clash
Ought: indicates moral desirability

--Rules--

1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss

--Structure--

R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary

-->
@RationalMadman

Okay. Someone reported it.

-->
@Tejretics

I didn't even report his vote

-->
@whiteflame

==================================================================
>Reported vote: Whiteflame // Moderator action: NOT removed<

3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: {RFD exceeds 1,000 characters; refer the vote for the RFD}

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter analyzes the clash on most of the main arguments in the debate and weighs them in light of counterarguments made. This is all a voter is required to do as per the voting guidelines. Thus, the vote is more than sufficient.
==================================================================

-->
@RationalMadman

You know a word that never once appeared in your argument? Monism. I can see some points in your argument that do challenge the views presented by bsh1 in that argument, but a large part of what makes an effective response is clearly articulating the points in the argument you are attacking and how your points function against it. To a large degree, you're expecting your voters to do that for you. The arguments, at least as I see them, are generally meandering around a point rather than addressing it straight up. And you take a lot of space to get down to the point you're trying to make, so much so that I often feel like I'm losing the point on the way to getting there. I get that you have your own style and that I'm more into a formalized view of how arguments are displayed, but honestly, I feel like a little structure in your responses could have made your R2 a lot stronger.

-->
@whiteflame

You didn't grasp a single bit of my argument. I absolutely demolished his monism argument because I conceded it and turned it against him in a phenomenal way.

It is okay, I know you voted honestly and spent time to think and the fact I couldn't get my point across is always my greatest flaw as a debater as my brain operates on levels others don't and that is both a blessing and a curse. To me I make perfect sense, to you I make very little.

To say that the evil is doing unto the victim what is inevitably fine to do under monism is indisputable but the thing is I should have better explained why it's indisputable and kritik'd morality itself and gone with the sociopath mentality into this.

-->
@RationalMadman

You've got about a day left to post your final speech, RM.

-->
@RationalMadman

I posted my argument.

-->
@RationalMadman

Did you mean for your round to be so short?

-->
@RationalMadman

You've got about 20 hours left to post.

-->
@RationalMadman

I posted my argument.

-->
@bsh1

I have invaded Round 2 of your environment.

-->
@bsh1

The King of the site's about to appreciate a GOD of debating no doubt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJt1fj_C9BI

-->
@RationalMadman

Just a reminder that you've got like 12 hours left.

-->
@RationalMadman

I posted my argument.

Remind me when this is over to vote on this

"and seek to explain why why the two are in direct conflict"

is wrong. should be 'why when' and 'seeks' instead of 'seek'.

-->
@bsh1

it's up, good luck debating.

The fourth bullet point wasn't meant to be a bullet point in that list.

The three questions are still only three.

-->
@bsh1

Thanks but I knew, it's because I intentionally leave the time for when it gets my blood pumping. I'm a productive procrastinator who times the roller-coaster to help my brain achieve an IQ it can't without the adrenaline rush, this is not a joke.

I am working on the main speech, have the contentions and opening speech already done.

-->
@RationalMadman

You've only got about 5 hours to post.

-->
@RationalMadman

Lol. Cool beans.

-->
@bsh1

Worry not bsh1, the fact you posted has been noted by the supreme intellect of the Sane Madman.

-->
@RationalMadman

I posted my argument.

Following!