Being single as a human is more similar to being a dog than being a noble
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Dog: a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, nonretractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice.
Noble: belonging to a hereditary class with high social or political status; aristocratic, having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals.
Single: someone who is not involved in any type of serious romantic relationship, including long-term dating, engagement, marriage, or someone who is 'single by choice'
So many misnomers...
So pro makes a case that there are indeed some parallels.
Con counters that the parallels of shared humanity, overshadow those.
There's some back and forth on if the debate implied just social roles, but to me those can obviously be included, but nothing implied other aspects would be excluded.
Sources are a no brainer, as pro seriously put his research in, and con just kinda muddled in (he did use a couple pictures effectively in the last round... well one, the other tried to force a download which I don't do). Of note from pro's, was showing the average living conditions of dogs as living outdoors (which con wrongly said living in a cage in his final round... the house and house of humans was however spot on).
This debate is not difficult to judge. PRO takes some piece of obviously false hyperbole and gives himself an enormous burden of proof which he never comes close to fulfilling. The standard of NOBLE, for example, is archaic and inconsistent. First PRO defines NOBLE as a hereditary class distinct from wealth but then uses American income brackets alone to establish a noble class in a nation constitutionally designed to reject nobility. I don't know any aristocracy that would accept any six figure income as solely qualifying.
Worse, PRO's definition of SINGLE includes all humans. All humans are or were single at some point in their lives. The set of all noble people (by any definition) and the set of all people who were SINGLE at some point is the same. The set of all canines includes no homo sapiens of any status or income. PRO's case was sufficiently flimsy that CON needed no more than to cite a few easy trusims to win this argument.
ARGs to CON
If you wish, I can have the other moderators review the decision
Your inability to understand my comments is your failing, not mine.
You literally pointed out "Single people can be noble, but single people cannot be dogs", which is more straightfoward than my r3 argument. I guess you are the top debater for a reason.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zedvictor4// Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2:4; 4 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: "Another silly debate..... Whereby the underlying intention exceeds the constraints of the proposition, and so the intention is therefore cynical. The content of Pro's debate therefore, though extensive is excessive. Whereas Con simply addresses the issue directly. The cynicism of the intention gives Con the edge in terms conduct, though that is not to imply that Pro is disrespectful towards their opponent."
>Reason for Mod Action: So much is wrong with this one. Assigning sources with no justification... assigning conduct points while explicitly admitting PRO made no conduct errors... assigning argument points on what I would call gibberish...
In essence, this vote was just too murky and unintelligible. This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
Another note: opening with "Another silly debate" is an easy way to imply voter bias.
In I can I BB, the literal translation is more of High Class vs Dog (but high class doesn't necessarily mean human), so in the end "noble" kind of works out too
The wording of the resolution here makes CON's argument valid. I would've suggested PRO amend the resolution to be: "Being single as a human is more similar to being a dog than being a noble in terms of quality of life"
Humans being single or all organisms?
bump
Well both nobles and dogs have relationship, can't say is similar to any.
Define single.
I.. uh.. what is this
I didn't watch this. Who won it in I can I BB?
I have seen this one. Great job defining the terms.