Instigator / Pro
10
1471
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2774

Children are not inferior

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
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2

After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Wagyu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
20
1516
rating
9
debates
55.56%
won
Description

No information

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:

Argument: Pro was disadvantaged during the entire debate by: 1. Creating a too open-ended resolution; in effect, a blank statement of an assumed value judgment, and, 2. A total lack of any definitions of terms. As initiator, it is prudent to offer a measurable resolution, by which both opponents have the means to argue and demonstrate their relative burdens of proof. No such measurable elements are offered. It is also prudent for the initiator to define the key words of the Resolution such that each opponent has that grounding to argue Pro and Con, knowing such words have meaning in order to focus the debate. Lacking both essentials for a substantive debate, Pro effectively tied their own hands, while allowing, and never rebutting, points of argument by Con, such as the repetitive 4 points of rights, which pro totally ignored as necessary to rebut in order to present a valid case. It was left to Con to offer definitions, all of which Pro accepted without rebuttal. As a result, Pro offered very little in argument to prove the Resolution. points to Con.

Sources: Pro's solitary source is the story of one child, whose intellect is superior to most children, and adults. As such, this "proof" is anecdotal, and not descriptive of most children, which the Resolution assumes is the measure of its validity. Con's sources fully support Con's BoP, in particular, in R4, Con's source argues that highly intelligent children, such as Pro's one source describes, have inferior maturity compared to most children. This source thoroughly defends Con's BoP. points to Con.

Legibility: Both opponents' language is fully understood. Tie

Conduct: This could lean to Con due to Pro's lack of content in Description as noted above, but, such lack is merely counter-productive to the initiator's attempted BoP, but is not a necessary feature required by DArt policy, therefore, a tie.

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:

RFD in Comments

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:

Pro left this very open to interpretation, for which con trolls him by contracting animal kingdom vs young humans.

Con has two points of non-comedic merit: "Inferior rights" and "Inferior legal culpability" If it should be so in either case, does not change that it is so.

Pro tries a religious appeal of one noteworthy child, to which con aptly replies: "The presence of one non-inferior being does not mean that entire species is of their status. "

Pro's case was riddled with half-concessions, such as people only finishing developing their brains at 25 (implying that younger than that are mentally inferior, to which children are much younger).

Ultimately pro questions if children should be treated as inferior, but does not seek to prove that they are really equal or better by any standard other than the one argued by assertion that they are human too so possess the same intrinsic value.

Conduct: Leans pro
Had pro engaged more with the debate instead of dropping so many points and still declaring victory, I would probably be awarding this to him due to con's obvious trolling.

Legibility: Leans con
Organization to follow arguments is important.