Instigator / Pro
7
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#1996

Humans do not need to become a Type I civilization on the Kardashev scale.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
2
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
2
3

After 3 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

Type 1 Civilizations on the Kardashev scale refers to civilizations that had controls of all resources on the planet.

No defined parameters for the debate(any violations to the DArt guidelines will be deducted points without saying).

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

On the first round, Pro waived his argument (essentially forfeiting it). On the second round, Pro merely said "Con didn't prove this" while not rebutting any points in particular. Con was the only one who really made substantive arguments.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Let's face it, this outcome is a foregone conclusion. Pro offered nothing in R1, and R2 basically that con had not disproven the resolution to which pro had Burden of Proof. The setup implies an argument against the status quo assumption, which was never offered. There was however at least an asserted K relating to the definition of NEED.

Con on the other hand offered four lengthy contentions, plus rebuttals. He shows that we need to so as to surpass limitations, but yes, to reach it we must want it.

Sources basically as extra credit for the educational value con offered pro and the readers, in expanding what different levels would mean, and that we are basically on the scale as suggested by his first source, and the need suggested by his fourth.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

As for arguments, the Instigator failed to provide any, only presenting a lacklustre "rebuttal". He also failed to provide reliable sources whatsoever. S&G is unremarkable. Conduct points are self-explanatory, for the Instigator continually waived his rounds on grounds of "not having time".