Instigator / Pro
Points: 11

Hedonism

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 10
Description
I will be arguing pro hedonism. You will be arguing con hedonism by showing an alternative philosophy to be better.
Round 1
Published:
Hi all, Muffins here! Before we dive into my arguments, I think it’s important to lay some groundwork. Here goes!

DEFINITION
What is Hedonism? Hedonism is often considered the philosophy of pleasure, particularly sensual pleasures. A more strict philosophical definition declares hedonism to be the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good - devotion to pleasure as a way of life. More explicitly, it is often considered the devotion to personal, individual happiness, ultimately distinguishing the hedonist philosophy from the utilitarian philosophy which is a doctrine of maximizing the pleasure of the aggregate as opposed to that of the individual. The devotion to individual happiness will be the philosophical framework and definition that I will be supporting throughout this debate.

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF IT ALL?
So what does it mean to live life as a hedon? It means that your happiness comes first. It means you get to be happy. This cannot be overstated. To be able to choose your own happiness allows a sort of freedom that few have the fortune to experience. I posit that most people’s instinct is to be happy rather than not happy. And you? Would you rather be happy or not happy? If you’d rather be happy, then hedonism is the way to go because it is the philosophy that is all about YOUR happiness! After all, life is too short to not enjoy it to the best of your abilities. To look back on your life with regret for the opportunities and the happinesses that you missed is something I’m sure most human beings would rather not experience. Live your life to the fullest. Enjoy it while you can!

SCIENCE!
What happens when you are happier? The scientific consensus is fairly unanimous on this subject. Happy people live longer(1). In fact, according to this multi-decade study, not only does your happiness expectancy mean higher active life expectancy, happiness expectancy means a better overall (subjective) quality of life; obviously: if you’re happy, then your subjective quality of life is better than if you’re not happy. If you’re happy for more of your life, than your quality of life is proportionally greater. And you get to live longer too! Hurray personal happiness!! Hurray hedonism!!
    The scientific literature on happiness as it correlates with health and well-being is fairly massive, and I highly suggest readers to delve into the literature on their own if interested. Hedonism is the philosophy that is most correlated to your personal happiness. It is the philosophy most intensely tied to your well-being, your longevity and your overall quality of life.

THAT’S SELFISH!!
Opponents of the hedonist philosophy often decry it as selfish and self-interested. I do not deny it. Hedonism is ultimately more self-focused than most other forms of life-philosophy frameworks. Does being a hedonist mean that other human beings are sacrificed for your own selfish ways? It depends. This point is where many potential hedonists turn away from this awesome philosophy, their noses upturned and lips curled with disgust at the selfish, wasteful inhumanity that they perceive. Fear not, my potential hedonists! I bear good news! If the sacrifice of the rest of humanity and errant wastefulness is disgusting to you, then you would make the perfect hedonist! Now you might be scratching your head and thinking, “huh?” which is perfectly valid response. Let me repeat. You would make the perfect hedonist, and the answer as to why lies in the simple fact that the disregard for the rest of humanity and of harmful selfish behavior is abhorrent to you. Do you see? It’s the kind of living that you would not respect in another human being. It’s the kind of living you would not respect in yourself. It makes you unhappy to live like that!!And that’s why you would be the perfect hedonist. To resolve problems of humanity, to care for your fellow human beings, to have concern for upholding a certain standard of living for yourself and others is EXACTLY what makes you happy! Devote yourself to that happiness! Live as a hedonist!
The best part about this caveat? Most human beings are exactly like you. Humans must care about other humans. We wouldn’t have thrived the way we have as a species otherwise. Our ability to communicate and work together, our ability to sacrifice ourselves for a greater good - the fact that we even have a concept of a greater good - is an immense compliment to our species and our humanity.

DEGREES OF HEDONISM?
Of course, there are those who will take the hedonist philosophy and drown themselves in short-term sensual gratification. People who bury themselves in wasteful behavior (e.g. overt, addictive drug usage) are not true hedonists. Hedonism is a devotion to pleasure as a way of LIFE. It means you are devoted to the kind of pleasure that is sustainable for life. If you sacrifice your future pleasure and happiness - if you choose to sacrifice the hedonistic possibilities of your future self, then you are not technically practicing hedonism. There is great contrast between devotion to pleasure and devotion to pleasure as a way of life. True hedonism requires great future vision and a deep understanding of the inbuilt human virtues that you cannot ignore or shed.

CLOSING
Hedonism leads to a happier, healthier you, and a happier, healthier society. Hedonism, when practiced correctly, is what will lead humanity to a better future. If there is a better philosophical framework by which to live, I have not heard of it (or have not been convinced otherwise), and I am curious to hear alternative propositions.

On to you Speedrace!



Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
Um.

Yeah.

Sooo...

Hedonism is bae.

Thank you.
Published:
My philosophy has no real name other than helping both oneself as well as others. I will show how eveything my opponent brings up is solved by this.

Science

Studies show that helping others makes you happier. [1] Other studies show that wronging someone can generate a stronger negative response than righting them will generate a positive response. [2] However, if one takes others' feelings into account, this isn't a problem.

Also, my opponent's claim that hedonism is most correlated to happiness is not backed up and is therefore bare assertion. He gave no evidence for hedonism being correlated to happiness.

That's Selfish

My opponent himself states that hedonism is selfish...and then claims it isn't? It can't be both. The truth is that it is since one is concerned with one's own happiness and joy first over others. My opponent even admits that other people might sometimes be sacrificed! This is clearly ethically wrong since another person shouldn't have to suffer for one's own ambitions.

Besides that, where does someone stop at what "pleasure" means? Maybe someone says that pleasure is owning everyone in the world as slaves, or punching babies every 3 hours, or clogging up toilets. Who knows? This then impedes the rights of others and makes functioning in society hard. On the other hand, when people's feelings are considered, this isn't a problem.

Conclusion

I've shown that my philosophy of caring for yourself and others allows one to be very happy in society, and that my opponent hasn't done the same.

Sources

Round 3
Published:
NOTE: I will call my adversary’s philosophy Help-Both Others-and-Yourself a.k.a HBOY from now on.

***************************************************************************************************************
***************************************COUNTER ARGUMENTS***************************************
***************************************************************************************************************

Not a Valid Framework
The most immediate flaw that makes HBOY difficult to accept is, in my opinion, the fact that it is unfocused and abstract. What do I mean? Telling someone “You should be HBOY!” is similar to telling them “You should be perfect!” This is one of the reasons I cannot accept HBOY as a valid philosophical framework. If I tell you that the philosophical framework you should live by in order to live a perfect life is to be perfect, it’s an absolutely meaningless tautology; first of all, what the heck does it even mean to be perfect? In the same manner, what does it mean to help yourself and help others? Note the Help? and Interpretation 2 Section later

What it means to be HBOY?
Imagine you are a clinical psychologist, and you’ve figured out a way to inspire people to put their lives together and achieve their potential in a way that will immensely better their lives in the immediate and long-term time frame. You’ve even saved some kids from depths of nihilistic despair. Quite an accomplishment. You have one problem. Time. You are somewhat gifted and are capable of contributing to the frontier of technological advance as a mathematician and scientist, both careers that you absolutely love, but your ability to pursue them is severely inhibited by the fourteen hours you spend every day speaking to people (you’re driven.) Here’s the moral dilemma: putting time into others as an acting clinical psychologist helps better the lives of others, but decreases the potential quality of your own life. Time you could have spent contributing to the technological frontier of humanity as a scientist and mathematician is spent on other people who may or may not reach the same level of potential and knowledge that you currently have. On the other hand, if you sacrifice your stint as a super-psychologist to become a super-scientist, people whose lives you could have helped put together fall apart. Many of the kids that you could have helped reach their full potential despite adverse backgrounds degenerate into higher statistical likelihoods of crime, misery and death. Your potential and quality of life against theirs. Your time in the world is finite. So is theirs. What do you do? What does HBOY do? HBOY wants to do both, but you cannot devote fourteen hours every day to clinical psychology and also devote fourteen hours every day to mathematics and science. It’s literally impossible. There is real sacrifices to both. You cannot maximally help others while maximally helping yourself. Which sacrifice do you make and why?

There are only two possible ways to interpret HBOY in such a scenario.

Interpretation 1
If you help yourself and devote more time to being a scientist, you sacrifice others. If you help others and devote more time to clinical psychology, you sacrifice yourself. HBOY breaks itself because it cannot do both at the same time. Interpretation 1 leaves HBOY a broken, contradictory, impossible wreck.

Interpretation 2
This interpretation plays on semantics. Technically, if you spend 5 minutes helping 1 client and 13 hours and 55 minutes doing your beloved science, then you are technically helping yourself and others at the same time, which satisfies HBOY. Or you could reverse the proportions and do 30 minutes of science and 13 hours and 30 minutes of clinical psychology. You could even justify doing 14 hours of clinical psychology one day and 14 hours of science the next day. The one that you do depends on your time frame and while there is sacrifice to both the self and to others, you’re technically still helping both, which satisfies HBOY. A more glaring example would be throwing a penny into a beggar’s cup. Technically, you’re HBOY if you do that. Are you really helping? Probably not. Not in any meaningful way. Maybe even not at all. What does this mean for HBOY? It means any proportion would do. You can do whatever pretty much do whatever the heck you want depending on your time frame. If you donate to a dollar to charity only once in your life and then only devote all resources to yourself for the rest of it? Good. You’re technically HBOY. HBOY literally allows you to do anything at all and can get into ridiculous hijinks if you stretch or diminish the timeframe.

Help?
What does it mean to help yourself anyway? What if you are a sadomasochist who thinks that suffering will help others gain wisdom/become better? Sure, this is a discredit to hedonism too, but in terms of a strict comparison, HBOY offers ZERO attempt at explaining what it means to HELP anything. Basically, HBOY suffers ALL the classic pitfalls of hedonism by allowing for an open interpretation with its naively abstract framework, and it ultimately allows you to do whatever you want. That’s no guidance at all. It’s hedonism at best, a tangled mess at worse. This is, again, why I cannot accept HBOY as a framework because it provides no framework at all.

Interpreting the Interpretations
What does it all mean? It that at best, HBOY is a more abstract variant of hedonism that is difficult to apply because there is no feedback mechanism that HBOY explicitly deploys. The psychologist/scientist scenario is not unique. The number of contradictory scenarios that exist are endless. Unless my worthy adversary wishes to answer with interpretation 2, in which case, he diminishes even the validity of HBOY’s identity as a workable framework. HBOY is irrevocably broken.

What Would Hedonists Do? (WWHD)
Unlike HBOY, Hedonism is not a chaotic puddle of ‘do-anything-you-want’. Hedonism requires an awareness of one’s own life happiness. This is by design, and is an impetus for soul-searching and more definite action. A hedonist tries to imagine what would work best and tries them out, eventually deriving the best path forward based on what feels right in a longer-termed framework. It’s entirely dependent on the individual. Maybe you didn’t really like science that much and only thought you did. Try out different schedule blocs. See what works for you for your life happiness. Hedonism is iterative and testable, and its framework lends itself to these two traits. At best, HBOY can mimic this functionality, but it is not an obvious feature because HBOY can mimic any philosophical framework due to its lazy definition and consequently open interpretations.

***************************************************************************************************************
***************************************DEFENDING HEDONISM****************************************
***************************************************************************************************************


Bare Assertion?
Hedonism depends on life happiness by definition (which answers my opponents claim of the tie between Happiness and Hedonism being a ‘bare assertion’.) Any definition of any word is an assertion, and that my opponent did not contend the definition already meant tacit acceptance. The definition of Hedonism is also common across multiple sources, and my definition follows those sources (but that doesn’t matter at this point.) My opponent has no case here.

Selfish - It Can’t Be Both
Can it not be? Can you not be interested in both your own well-being and that of others at the same time? I don’t see why not. Human beings are absolutely capable of holding conflicting, contradictory thoughts and emotions at the same time. There’s no law stating that you can’t hold a set of simultaneous, conflicting emotions (e.g. happy, sad, angry.) Conflicting and contradictory are categories that are not mutually excluding in the realm of thought, emotions and desire.

What does Pleasure Mean?
There’s stark difference between what one says what pleasure means for an individual and what it actually means for an individual. Hedonism is concerned with the latter, and its pitfall, while well-known, only applies to people who would be destructive anyway. No worse than HBOY as demonstrated above.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************
**************************************************************************Summary**************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

HBOY is a mess. It’s lazily and naively defined, and it’s ultimately useless as a guiding philosophical framework. At best, it can be used like Hedonism, and that’s being lenient. None of my adversary’s counters hold, and as far as I’m able to gauge, Hedonism towers over HBOY in pretty much every way I can conceive of.


On to Con!
Published:
Defense

Not a Valid Framework

I've never said you would have to be perfect. You must simply try to help others, while also being able to help yourself. It's not that hard!

What it means to be HBOY?

My opponent presumes that HBOY means that you must help everyone at all times. I never said that. You must simply help others when you can, but also look after yourself. This is essentially what the average person does daily.

Help?

This is non-unique because it applies to both cases. Help is doing actions that benefit others in a positive manner that they will enjoy.

What Would Hedonists Do? (WWHD)

Hedonism is morally wrong because if someone decides that happiness is killing 10 people, that is a clear disadvantage to the world and society.

-- Attacks --

Bare Assertion?

This had nothing to do with the definition. My opponent claimed:

Hedonism is the philosophy that is most correlated to your personal happiness.
I was simply saying that no evidence was given for this point, meaning it is bare assertion. Just because the goal of hedonism is happiness doesn't mean that happiness is actually attained.

Selfish - It Can’t Be Both

If pleasure for an individual entails intruding on another's rights, then hedonism clearly can't be both inclusive and selfish. It's simply selfish.

What does Pleasure Mean?

What pleasure is was not addressed, and if someone disagrees, then what do they do? This policy makes no sense.

Conclusion

I've shown that HBOY helps individuals and others, while hedonism is selfish and intrudes on others rights. Vote Con.
Round 4
Published:
################################
## DEFENDING HEDONISM #########
################################

# WWHD / Bare Assertion
Hedonism is morally wrong because if someone decides that happiness is killing 10 people, that is a clear disadvantage to the world and society. -SpeedRace (CON)
Does it? What if these 10 people were evil? I won't be discussing this point though, but will reiterate a point from my first round: most human beings care about other human beings, and their happiness is tied to the well-being of the aggregate and to doing good (CON and I both agree on this point.)

Hedonism is the philosophy that is most correlated to your personal happiness. -Muffins (PRO)
Think of it this way: Given options (a),(b) and (c), if option (a) is known to make you happiest, then Hedonism would have you choose option (a). If you chose option (a), you would be most happy. So Hedonism is the guide that says for you to take the option that optimizes your happiness. Now CON might say, "people are bad at judging what truly makes them happy." and in some cases, that might be true. People are also really good at predicting the future and making things happen based on vision. If we weren't, we wouldn't have rocketships, computers, advanced technology, etc. Our research into human psychology and development is also very strong. Humans are incredibly intelligent, and a human being's ability to gauge what is good for individual human happiness can be and often is very accurate.

# What does Pleasure Mean?
It doesn't matter. Here's something from round 1:
So what does it mean to live life as a hedon? It means that your happiness comes first. It means you get to be happy - Muffins (PRO)
I say pleasure means happiness, but again, it doesn't matter. If CON is unhappy with this definition, he can refer to the tacitly accepted definition in round 1, where Hedonism means happiness (and happiness means what makes an individual happy based on the individual's ability to properly gauge that parameter.) Since the definition above was uncontended, what pleasure means is almost entirely irrelevant at this juncture.

# Selfish - It Can’t Be Both
"If pleasure for an individual entails intruding on another's rights. . ."
This point is the same accusation made above where CON states "Hedonism is morally wrong because if someone decides that happiness is killing 10 people, that is a clear disadvantage to the world and society."
More importantly, this statement does not actually address the point that humans can hold conflicting desires, emotions and values; CON simply tries to reassert his point without addressing the counter. Bro. . .

###################################
## GUNNING DOWN HBOY ############
###################################

# Not a Valid Framework
"You must simply try to help others, while also being able to help yourself." -SpeedRace (CON)
This response is soundly refuted by Interpretation 1 of my previous round. There exists a large body of situations where helping both yourself and others is impossible, and if HBOY is a necessary obligation, then it falls apart. CON does not answer Interpretation 1 in the previous round at all - ignores it completely in fact, and chooses to reiterate HBOY. Ignoring Interpretation 1 means that CON concedes the counter.

Again, HBOY is not a valid framework because of its failure to define what it means to help others. This failure of definition was the point of the 'telling someone to be perfect' example (re: what does it mean to be perfect?); my opponent entirely misses that point. CON then attempts to rectify the error by (1) retroactively defining what 'help' means and (2) stating that the lack of definition is non-unique. Unfortunately, CON's retroactive definition cannot be accepted. The redefinition or addition of definitions to terms is one of the major breaches of standard debate. An easy example: Debate topic is "Chairs and oranges are both fruits." In round 3 of the debate, PRO tries to claim that fruit means results (e.g. fruits of labor.) OR he redefines "Chairs" to mean the red things that grow on trees that is sweet (e.g. apples.) Definition shenanigans, something my opponent attempts here with (1), will not serve here.

As for (2), here's a revisitation of my previous round:
"Sure, this is a discredit to hedonism too, but in terms of a strict comparison, HBOY offers ZERO attempt at explaining what it means to HELP anything. Basically, HBOY suffers ALL the classic pitfalls of hedonism." -Muffins (me)
What does this mean? It means that at best, HBOY is just as bad as Hedonism. As said in the description of the debate (uncontended), CON was to present a framework to be strictly better than Hedonism. CON not only doesn't contend this point, he even agrees to it (re: non-uniqu1e.) What does this mean for this debate? It means that CON has already conceded the premise; he agrees that HBOY is at least just as bad as all the bad parts of Hedonism. CON loses the debate on this point alone.

I've shown that HBOY helps individuals and others, while hedonism is selfish and intrudes on others rights. Vote Con.
I don't see where CON manages to show that hedonism 'intrudes on others rights' other than him stating it as a conditional "IF." CON has not shown that HBOY helps individuals and others either outside of definitional or one-liner assertions.

#############################
## CONCLUSION###############
#############################
Unanswered (i.e. conceded):
1. HBOY's contradictory application (re: interpretation 1)
2. HBOY's massive interpretational openness and abstract nature which makes it unimplementable as an actual guiding philosophical framework (re: Interpretation 2, Help?)
3. HBOY is at best as good as Hedonism (re: classic pitfalls, non-unique). This point alone loses CON the debate.

CON's counters have been weak and irrelevant to statements/points made by PRO, which are tacitly conceded.
I extend all points that were unanswered in addition to all points that I've made.

Vote PRO.
Published:
Does it? What if these 10 people were evil? I won't be discussing this point though, but will reiterate a point from my first round: most human beings care about other human beings, and their happiness is tied to the well-being of the aggregate and to doing good (CON and I both agree on this point.)
What if these 10 people were good? That undermines your argument. And as my opponent himself says, MOST human beings care about others; the part that is not included in that most was not addressed.

Humans are incredibly intelligent, and a human being's ability to gauge what is good for individual human happiness can be and often is very accurate.
By what standard is this judged? Again, if someone says killing 10 GOOD people will make them happy, who are you to tell them that they are wrong? Wouldn't you be hindering their happiness by telling them they're wrong?

# What does Pleasure Mean?

I'm not unhappy with the definition at all; I'm just pointing out that it helps my position. If your happiness always comes first, the rights of others are clearly being disregarded.

# Selfish - It Can’t Be Both

More importantly, this statement does not actually address the point that humans can hold conflicting desires, emotions and values;
This is not a counter. What if someone doesn't feel conflicted, but ONLY wants to kill 10 people? This wasn't addressed, so extend.

# Not a Valid Framework

Again, I said you must try. Secondly, the definition of help is common knowledge. I only added it for your benefit.

CON not only doesn't contend this point, he even agrees to it (re: non-uniqu1e.) What does this mean for this debate? It means that CON has already conceded the premise; he agrees that HBOY is at least just as bad as all the bad parts of Hedonism. CON loses the debate on this point alone.
Saying a point is non-unique doesn't mean I'm saying two philosphies are the same. This is one point of a philosophy that has a lot going into it. Had your rebuttal been speaking about ALL of HBYO vs. Hedonism, perhaps this would apply, but this was one a small part of it.

I don't see where CON manages to show that hedonism 'intrudes on others rights' other than him stating it as a conditional "IF."
I'll flip this. I don't see where PRO manages to show that hedonism is good for an individual other than him stating it as a conditional "IF." IF someone wants pleasure, they can have it through hedonism. Likewise, my argument is that IF someone's idea of pleasure intrudes on someone else's rights, hedonism would obviously create a serious societal problem.
CON has not shown that HBOY helps individuals and others either outside of definitional or one-liner assertions.
It's literally in the name. That is what shows that it helps people.

Unanswered (i.e. conceded):
1. HBOY's contradictory application (re: interpretation 1)
2. HBOY's massive interpretational openness and abstract nature which makes it unimplementable as an actual guiding philosophical framework (re: Interpretation 2, Help?)
3. HBOY is at best as good as Hedonism (re: classic pitfalls, non-unique). This point alone loses CON the debate.
1. I answered that by showing that you must TRY. Not conceded
2. Helping is common knowledge
3. Non-unique on one point, not the entire framework
Added:
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AntonZenz123 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Better arguments to Con; Better sources to Pro; Better spelling and grammar to Pro; Better conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: just garbage...
">Reason for Mod Action: The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Voting from slave accounts is prohibited (be it the same user, or any other which cannot be readily told apart).
"
**************************************************
#23
Added:
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: JacquesBonhomme // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: Better arguments to Con; Better sources to Pro; Better spelling and grammar to Pro; Better conduct to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Voting from slave accounts is prohibited (be it the same user, or any other which cannot be readily told apart).
**************************************************
#22
Added:
JacquesBonhomme
1 day ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Let me just say this the pr hedonism guy seemed to be more assertive in his points, but i'm old dying basically after 6 decades of"hedonism" did hedonism make me happy? no it made me miserable and ruined my health.. i wish i had devoted all the time and money i spent on a good time for myself on others, i do as i come closer to the day i face my maker irealize what a fool i wias what a fool everyone chasing a good time is , hedonism is an easy way to live it requires little effort, you feel good for a while then the hangover the herpes, the brain damaged from 20 years of cocaine abuse.. yu health in ruin you go cap in hand to your insurance company sure its your money but its still defeat.. so you yong people out for a good time i get it, and enjoy yourself just ry to remember how you end up old and sick and alone better to invest your time in your family your kids your wife and your community.. your life will mean more and youll probably die happier than some old sick man with lier cancer emphasema and the gift that keeps on giving hep c
#21
Added:
--> @ethang5
>"Then JacquesBonhomme, an alt of banned user PaulVerliane votes for Pro, though his argument is FOR con. And though he has been proven an alt account and banned, his vote stands. How?"
Largely because no one (not even you) clicked the report button on it.
I'm correcting this now... we moderators are not divine beings, please click report to bring things to our attention.
#20
Added:
people need to know the devil lives in hedonism you wont be happy
#19
Added:
--> @Ragnar
>Also, what annoyed you about the S&G before?
S&G stands for spelling and grammar. Pros grammar was just not as good. Grammar is more than just spelling or typos. It is also about clarity and flow. Pro was better.
Edit: sorry, I've been mixing up pro and con. Speed is better.
#18
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Then JacquesBonhomme, an alt of banned user PaulVerliane votes for Pro, though his argument is FOR con. And though he has been proven an alt account and banned, his vote stands. How?
#17
Added:
Monkey expects me to believe it is coincidence that my reported vote just happened to be on the same debate he intended to vote on. And he then vote's immediately after my vote and puts pro on top. Please.
I have not been on the board for 10 months, so obviously I meant any vote other than this one. Monkey has a debate score of 100%. Shall we take a look see on who voted for him in those 12 debates?
@Ragnar, do you want to now question tied votes? Things happen in life. Speed forfeited a round, but not the debate. I have no reason to believe his missing a round was due to sloth or disinterest. His arguments were better.
#16
Added:
--> @ethang5
Perhaps I should clarify: I don't have enough time in my busy schedule to care about a vote so much to the point that I'd vote out of spite by writing a 5-page RFD. Also, your vote has been reported perhaps a week ago. I asked you to recast the vote and you did with no further repercussions. It has been well within 10 months.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1532/the-problem-of-evil?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=15
#15
Added:
--> @ethang5
Purely out of curiosity, why do you consider conduct to be within the tied range when one side forfeited a round? Also, what annoyed you about the S&G before? ... Not asking you to change your vote or give a thesis.
#14
Added:
a good time lasts a few seconds herpes is forever
#13
Added:
--> @blamonkey
No vote of mine has been reported in 10 months. And yes, you could write all that in a day, though you had longer.
Before my hiatus from Dart, I noticed the came the voting mods were playing. It seems you are still playing. Ram is still voting mod right?
I will track the voting, and this time, maybe with bsh1 gone, the exposure of the behavior will not fall on deaf ears.
#12
Added:
--> @ethang5
I had no intention of nullifying your vote. I planned on voting on the debate regardless. (You thought I could write all of that in one day?) I don't remember voting on any other debate when your vote was reported.
#11
Added:
>Again, none of this is done
I'm going to keep track how often you come after me to a debate you were not going to vote on, and nullify my vote.
2 times now. You couldn't remove my vote, so you voted yourself to make the liberal win. It's amazing how seriously you guys take this petty stuff.
#10
Added:
--> @ethang5
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ethang5 // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points awarded to Speedrace
>Reason for Decision: Speed better tied his arguments to what we find in reality. Most people behave as if altruism is a better philosophy than hedonism as con notes when he says, "This is essentially what the average person does daily."
Pro argued that hedonism was profitable for the individual, but failed to show how it is better for society.
But cpro's greatest failing is when he says, about the contradiction in his argument,
"Can it not be? Can you not be interested in both your own well-being and that of others at the same time? I don’t see why not. Human beings are absolutely capable of holding conflicting, contradictory thoughts and emotions at the same time."
But the debate is not about whether people can hold contradictory beliefs, but whether such beliefs are better/more rational than noncontradictory beliefs.
Pro admits the contradiction, but still insists hedonism is better. Con has demonstrated to my satisfaction that Pro's argument is internally contradictory, and does not as accurately represent reality as altruism.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is borderline (i.e. it does not explicitly violate the CoC.)
************************************************************************
#9
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wD3PpKDVBmoe8otXWddnBjrorY1Lr_u_2as6Wrx_2yI/edit?usp=sharing
My RFD is at the bottom. Before that is a lengthy summary.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Speed better tied his arguments to what we find in reality. Most people behave as if altruism is a better philosophy than hedonism as con notes when he says, "This is essentially what the average person does daily."
Pro argued that hedonism was profitable for the individual, but failed to show how it is better for society.
But cpro's greatest failing is when he says, about the contradiction in his argument,
"Can it not be? Can you not be interested in both your own well-being and that of others at the same time? I don’t see why not. Human beings are absolutely capable of holding conflicting, contradictory thoughts and emotions at the same time."
But the debate is not about whether people can hold contradictory beliefs, but whether such beliefs are better/more rational than noncontradictory beliefs.

Pro admits the contradiction, but still insists hedonism is better. Con has demonstrated to my satisfaction that Pro's argument is internally contradictory, and does not as accurately represent reality as altruism.